Daily Archives: March 3, 2014

Uganda: Gaystapo In The West.

US Secretary of State Kerry is so stupid that he compares the recent Ugandan measures against sexual perversions to Nazi Germany.

Some facts for Mr Kerry:

1. There was only one Country in Europe or North America that allowed Abortion in the Thirties. It was Nazi Germany. Abortion in its most extreme forms is a flag of the Obama Administration.

2. Sodomy laws were in place all over the West until a few decades ago. Including all the Western countries that defeated Nazism.

Who is the Nazi, then?

On another note, and as you read in the same article, the World Bank has frozen aid money for Uganda after the adoption of the law. Unfortunately for them with no results, at least for now. But make no mistake, the bullying will continue.

Leading the charge are countries like Norway, Danemark and the Netherlands; all of them heavy sponsors of sexual perversion, or euthanasia, or both.

Let us pray countries like Uganda – last time I look, a success story for African standards in the last decades – find the economic and spiritual strength to go on without the bribes of an increasingly nazified West.



The Cardinal, The Tax And The Brothel.

Cardinal Kasper's idea of the Holy Mother Church: Joachim Beuckelaer, "Brothel".

Cardinal Kasper’s idea of the Holy Mother Church: Joachim Beuckelaer, “Brothel”.


Concerning Cardinal Kasper’s fifth column work, more or less asking that we “tolerate” what we cannot “accept”, the rather baffled Father Z asks: “what else do we tolerate though not accept?”

I have an answer there.


In Italy, brothels were called case di tolleranza. I was always told, and have always taken for granted, that this is because the Church could not allow or in any way consent to the existence of brothels, but considered not fitting to crack down on them. This is the reason why in the Roma papalina prostitution was rife; be it because of the presence of an army of priest, not all of them very chaste, be it because of the position of Rome as an extremely important destination for pilgrimages, then largely the preserve of men, with the consequences anyone who is not a finishing school girl can easily imagine.

Therefore, in order to avoid the huge pressure to which girls would have been subjected in case of crackdown on brothels, the Papal States chose to tolerate brothels. Not “authorise”, mind; simply renouncing to a massive crackdown on a factual situation out there; a situation to which the Church lent no assistance or support whatever, forbidding the visit of brothels and constantly reminding of the consequences of sin on one’s soul.

This is the only example of “toleration” I know. I notice here that when brothels were outlawed in Italy in 1957, this was out of the initiative of a feminist Socialist female senator, enthusiastically followed by her own party and the Communists. Neither during Fascism nor during the dominance of the Democrazia Cristiana in the De Gasperi era did the governments of the day move to crack down on brothels: tolleranza was considered the best choice, and actually since Fascism also a strict regulation (for medical reasons, mainly) followed. 

Now, what Cardinal Kasper suggests is that the Church does the same with the public adulterers. This is tantamount as to suggest that the Church should bring prostitutes in the houses of men, in order to offer a “pastoral solution” to men’s testosterone problems, and reacting to the million of men vociferously asking for p***y as a matter of elementary justice.


The Church tolerates, instead, that there are concubines today, just as she tolerated that there were prostitutes yesterday. The Church tolerates concubines in that she does not move towards the crackdown of the deplorable phenomenon, and does not demand for legislation making of it a criminal offence. But this is completely different from actively proceeding to sacrilege, and asking the priest to commit himself a sacrilege. If you can do that, you can as well make of the priest a pimp, and ask him to run a “pastoral” brothel for his flock. 

Cardinal Kaspar, whose mind frame is rather the one of the prostitute than of the priest, doesn’t get the difference. To him, a client is a client, and as long as the client pays the Kirchensteuer, he will do whatever it takes to please him.

He will then call it “pastoral concern”; a “concern”, mind, very strong in those countries where the Kirchensteuer provides an enormous income, as can be seen from the illustration on this blog post.  

Pastoral concern? I call it prostitution. Whenever a German prelate talks of being “pastoral”, follow the money. 






“Did You Ever Notice…”

With kudos to the Traditional Catholic Priest.



“For Your Own Soul”: The War Against The Traditional Latin Mass

You will soon hear him talking words of appeasement.

If you have not done it already, please click on Rorate, who are following on this mess with admirable energy.

The facts are there, and I will not repeat the facts. I will, though, add some questions and answers of my own.

Why is bishop Olson doing this?

Because he can, is the simple answer. The man is certainly conscious of the fact that he has no right to stop the Tridentine. But why should he care? He knows he is acting on the “spirit” of this wonderful Pontificate. By putting himself at the head of the movement, bishop Olson earns brownie points by His Humbleness. However this matter ends, he will be one of the winners.

Lio is hip. Francis will be grateful.

What does this mean?

It means that it is open season on Summorum Pontificum. One year on, it is time to aim higher. At the latest after Benedict's death, the oppression might well become serious. This is just the second skirmish, following the example of the Humble Leader with the FFI. Francis does not need to intervene. He will look as SP is trampled. Sending videos to “brother bishops”, probably.

What will happen now?

Traditionalists will be in an uproar. Neo-cons will suggest, as always, silence and cowardice. “Do not test the Pontiff's patience!” – they will say – “Remember: Summorum Pontificum could be abrogated! Do not be divisive and allow the TLM to be massacred one church at a time! Otherwise, it will be your fault if you lose everything!”.

At that point, it will be for Francis to act. I doubt he will act as long as Benedict is alive. I even doubt he will abrogate SP as long as the SSPX is alive. But he might test the water, and see how this piece of lio goes. He will probably allow a diffused mobbing of the friends of the TLM. He might, though, gently invite the bishop to relent on this occasion, but noting how horribly divisive the TLM is. He looks god. Traditionalists look bad. Idiots praise his moderation. Then, the next round follows.

How shall we react?

We shall not listen to the Grima Wormtongues demanding that we accept to be crushed, in order not to be crushed. We must be vocal, and angry. We must cry to Heaven the scandal not only of this bishop, but of this pontificate.

Do not be cowed into silence. If you have a blog, please link to Rorate and follow the matter. Write to whomever you will be invited to write, sign the petitions that will undoubtedly come. Do not for one second believe that silence or acquiescence is an acceptable answer. The wolves will ask you to be a lamb. Be a tiger instead.

What happened to Poland?

Poland was invaded. It would have been invaded anyway, even if it had not sought the protection of Britain and – for what was worth, and if memory serves – France. If you believe that acquiescence would have saved Poland, you are just the man Grima is targeting.

This is the situation we are in. The demolition troops are in charge.

It's Pinocchio time.



Sedevacantism In Waiting.

I know it seems absurd, but apparently there are people around who think they aren't Sedevacantists because they think Benedict is the Pope. What they are, is Sedevacantists In Waiting.

Let us leave aside the absurdity of saying that Benedict is Pope when he himself says it is absurd to think so. Let us imagine Benedict has been, say, hypnotised to say so. Or they have threatened to kill his cat. Or something like that.

If Benedict is Pope and Francis isn't, the latter's appointment are invalid. Not only those of the bishops, but those of the Cardinals, too. Therefore, the next conclave will take place with a number of invalidly appointed Cardinals, and I am unable to see how from such a conclave a legitimate Pope might be elected.

Then, at some point Benedict will die, and the Benedictsedists will have to recognise that the Sea is vacant. Then, at some point, Francis will die or resign too, and the now Benedictsedevacantist will have to recognise that his successor is a bogus Pope elected by bogus Cardinals in an invalid conclave. Then at some point – actually rather fast now – all the Cardinals appointed by JP II and Benedict XVI would be above eighty and as such, according to the rule of those same Popes, would lose the right to elect a Pope. Therefore, there would be no Cardinals who can elect a Pope, no mechanism to elect new ones, and no authority that could give validity to whatever new method to elect a Pope.

We would, therefore, be in a situation of utter impasse, for which no solution can be found within Church rules that would allow to get out of it.

Mind, Popes were not always elected by Cardinals. But they were always elected in recognisable harmony with the will of their predecessors. Who could, now, say with any authority what this will is, and therefore which rules shall apply? Shall those Bishops elect the Pope, who have accepted to serve under illegitimate Popes? Who will decide Francis' bishops are to be excluded? How many pre-Francis bishops will remain in a decade or two? Shall we make a poll among pre-Francis priests, instead? Those who have deemed Francis and his successor Popes, you mean? How long until they are gone, too? Shall we elect the new Pope in a worldwide election, then? Paper poll? Internet? Who will organise it? Shall women be allowed to vote? How about those baptised by Francis' non-priests?

No, this is all absurd. So absurd in fact, that one wonders how the Benedictsedists can utter such outlandish ideas without looking three inches beyond their own nose.

Benedict has resigned. He is not the reigning Pope anymore. Volens nolens, Francis is Pope. An atrocious one, I'll give you that; but the Pope elected from largely atrocious Cardinals, selected among largely atrocious Bishops, selected among largely atrocious clergy, produced from largely atrocious seminars, ruined from a largely atrocious Council.

You can turn it and twist it as much as you like, but in the end Francis is the undeniable product of the visible Church. His legitimacy is universally recognised through all the layers of that organisation we and all our ancestors have called “the Church”. There is no way we can call a fantasy parallel reality into existence, that would declare the real reality a scam and bogus organisation. There is no way any of us can decide, whilst in a sober state, that a fake Church now commands the loyalty of all those seen the world over as Catholic Bishops, Priests, Cardinals, Popes, Deacons, and Seminarians; an entire planet showing the Cross on top of fake churches, with no Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle, and no valid Masses being celebrated. All this, in favour of a fantasy Church whose last Pope, Benedict, died saying he has validly resigned, and Francis is Pope.

Stop dreaming. Start thinking.

Benedictsedism is sedevacantism in waiting, and in the present situation it is just as absurd as the mainstream Sedevacantism.



When Love… What?


This post is going to be harsh.

I mean, not pussycat harsh. Mundabor harsh. Keep reading at your peril. Complaints will not be published.


Where I grew up, divorce was a heavy social stain. It was already so in bigger cities; but far more so in littler ones.

The reasoning was, and is, very simple because in the end, life is a simple thing: marriage is a cooperation for life, for which two people decide to stake the only card they have. It is also the most important decision of their lives. Therefore, if the marriage fails they have – irrespective of the individual circumstances – both failed in the most important thing of their lives. It’s as simple as that.

I can’t tell you the times I have heard this music in my family, and I can tell you my family was not dominated by churchgoing Catholics – though cultural Catholics, yes.

The man, or woman, you choose, is the man or woman you have deemed good enough to get the only card you have. If the cooperation fails, there’s no way one of the two can call himself innocent. Yes, the wife is a slut. But a real man does not marry a slut, only a child does. Yes, the husband has a wandering eye. But a woman – like the man just mentioned – should have known beforehand what deal she was getting, instead of drowning in a sea of emotionalism and marry just because of “luv”, and then refuse the delivery of the parcel she ordered.

This is why in case of divorce – or separation, which was always the case before 1970 – the stigma remained attached to both. To one side generally more, if there was an obvious culprit. But to the other too, because it had managed to screw up the only thing he or she was required to get right in life. Because again, in that kind of society how much money you make, what a career you have, what house you live in and what car you drive was always far, far less important than whether you have an intact family. I can’t tell you the times I heard the phrase “se divorzi, sei un fallito”; “if you divorce, you are a failure”. Yes, this was so more clearly among the socially conservative minded. But boy, there was an awful lot of them.

Of course, this worked in that way because this was the way society worked. You can’t export this situation to work in countries, like all the Anglo-saxon ones, where such deadly seriousness in matters of marriage was probably dead after the First World War. But Italy was different, being blessedly free from divorce until 1970. When laws change, you will have to wait an entire generation until the morality of the common man follows the legal situation; but then the entire society is screwed, as a generation of children grow up knowing every marriage has a huge door with “emergency exit” written over it. Take away the door, and see how people’s perception of marriage change. Divorce is pure poison.

The results of this brutal social pressure were, though, beautiful. Low divorce rate even decades after the introduction of divorce, and a pervasive social control that worked rather well particularly in smaller centres, and not badly at all even in the big cities.

Note, though, that few people, twenty or thirty years ago, would have bought the thing with “luv”. Once you have married, they would have said, you have lost any right to look for “luv” elsewhere, until and unless your spouse does you the favour and kicks the bucket. If there were children, this search for “luv” was seen – and rightly so – as the madness of middle-aged adolescents, unable to take their responsibility and understand that when you have children, your own “happiness” must give way to a superior interest. Yes, it must give way to a superior interest. There are things bigger than oneself, and one’s happiness. Things like God, Fatherland, and Family; requiring you not to play with sacrament, to give your life on the battlefield if necessary, and put to put your family before your individual quest for emotional satisfaction. Millions of my generation grew up like this. We saw it work. We now see the new generations growing up with a different set of values: divorce, concubinage, even “same sex unions”, and one’s own selfish interests as the metre of what is good and worthy of legal and social protection. What a load of rubbish.

The old system worked. Was it harsh? You bet it was. Is it harsh to mock the young woman who looks like the White Whale at 28, and give her nicknames like “Forrestal”, “Nimitz” or the more generic “aircraft carrier”? Is it harsh to mock the boy who behaves like a girl at 15? Not many of those in the Italy I grew up in. Social control works a treat, but only if it’s harsh.

This has all gone now. Largely in Italy, and completely in more northern latitudes. If you ask me, divorce destroyed it more than anything else.

Nowadays, individual happiness is a human right. Your husband sleeps around, so you have the right to scar your children forever. Your wife is a nagging champ, so you have the right to be tempted by the younger colleague. A family is destroyed; but who cares, because there is simply no social price to pay: not in front of God, about Whom very few care; and not with the neighbours, about whom many more do.

Nowadays, everyone is so full of understanding. “It didn’t work. How sad”. “I am sure you’ll find a better man/woman soon”. “Today is the first day of the rest of your life”. Crap like that. Emotions galore. Families destroyed.

No. The violent drunkard is still your husband. The whore is still your wife. Even in those cases where you cannot live with them, you can still pray for them. That’s the lot you chose. That’s the card you played. It’s yours now. Yes, it’s harsh. Life is. The German poet Friedrich Schiller said it wonderfully:

“Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet /Ob sich das Herz zum Herzen findet!”

“Let him check, he who binds himself forever, whether the heart matches the heart!”. 

The same poet lets this follow by a short, but ominous warning: “Der Wahn ist kurz, die Reu ist lang”. The madness is short, the repentance long. Nowadays the madness is short; then up to the next madness. “Marry in haste, repent at leisure” has become “marry in haste, complain about the Church”. 

As always, the destruction of family values has far-reaching consequences. In the last two or three generations in most Anglo-Saxon countries, divorce has been an obvious possibility for everyone. So obvious, that people are born with it. Therefore, all my readers from the US, Canada, Australia, the UK have been born and grew up in a society that accepted divorce. How can such a society breed and instil that concept of sacredness of a marriage that is so vital for the marriage to stand the inevitable tempests? If happiness is the new religion, why would a man not go away with the pretty young thing? Who will tell him “no, you must stay on the side of the mother of your children”? Why? He only wants to be happy! Who are you to judge? Has Francis not told you you should not condemn him? I could make similar reasoning for the other sex, but you get my drift.


If Argentina is anywhere similar to Italy – and I am pretty sure it is – I think this is the situation mentioned by the Bishop of Rome when he complains about those who condemn those who “experience failure” in their “luv”.

Being post-Catholic, Francis is obviously unconcerned with the social consequences of such “failed luv”. We were told at University – where people were also far more Catholic than Francis on his most Catholic day – that “every divorce is a bomb put under the chair of society”. Everyone understood it, and understood why. I doubt Francis does, or cares. It was fairly common thinking then; certainly it was among practising Catholics, and very often among conservative cultural Catholics. When one married, “luv” was just not part of the equation anymore, marriage was. The bed you made, and all that.

This is not Francis’ world, of course. He isn’t one to “judge”. It is not told, but implied “luv” is his sacrament. It is not told, but implied marriage must, if “necessary”, give way in some way the Synod will care to elaborate upon.

Implied, mind. Others, like Cardinal Kasper, will dig the marriage’s grave. Francis merely prepares the ground.

But I grew up in times when average people were far more Catholic than today’s Pope; when the social rules were fairly well-known; and when people were expected to decide like adults, and to live with the consequences. They knew – all of them knew, because those were the times – that there was only one go, and they were expected to use it well, and to know what they were doing. Marriage was, as people jokingly used to say, “the prison you chose”. It gives you the idea people were expected to live with the consequences of their actions, like adults; not run away like adolescents. It worked. It worked very well, and most people were smart enough to understand that the second chance wasn’t really likely to be better than the first; then when one has been able to screw the only important decision of his life, the probability he will make it all right the second time is – sacrament aside – slim.


This, as far as the “luv” thingy is concerned.

One suspects, though, that Bergoglio has another target in his sights: the communion for public adulterers. He does not say so, of course. But again, he creates perceptions; he builds a climate; he creates a “do not judge” narrative that can be exported ad libitum to any other situation. Don’t be a pharisee. We don’t do casuistry. You are a bad, bad Christian.

Comments are allowed, but only if they do not touch personal matters. I understand this touches some of you from rather near. I wasn’t there. I do not know you, whom you married, your circumstances, your social system. I understand you did not grow up in Italy. I am talking of the society I know, which I think is the society Bergoglio knows.

But please understand I have no desire to hear personal stories of recrimination. Where I grew up, no one was.

Blessed times.


How A Country Commits Suicide

Mundabor's Blog

Once they managed to keep together a huge empire. Nowadays, not even families. Once they managed to keep together a huge empire. Nowadays, not even families.

Lifesitenews.com informs us that half of all children in the born in the UK are being raised by one parent.

What apparently happens is not that half of the children are born of girls who have been stupid, but rather that an awful lot of couple who consider themselves “stable” do not marry and end up splitting when there are little children around, or divorce at the same time.

This reflects the utter madness of the modern British society. Divorce is not banned and hasn’t been for a long time now, so every kind of stigma is gone. The same -the British society being so “inclusive” – happens for those couple who don’t even think it a good idea to marry, such old and stuffy social conventions being too primitive for their own elevated selves. The…

View original post 330 more words

%d bloggers like this: