Daily Archives: March 6, 2014
After the recent experiences, I will wait that I have the time to read, re-read and read again the papal interview to the Corriere. It will not be today, and possibly not tomorrow. Saturday at the latest.
This time the interview was recorded; it possibly seeming strange that Francis is ready to record his spontaneous post-lunch ecumaniacal rubbish on the first smartphone around, but does not want his interviews with professional journalists to be recorded.
Some preliminary considerations of a general nature can be done now.
Legal sanctions are not there because our forefathers were stupid. They are there because our forefathers had values, and ordered their legal system in accordance to them.
Illegitimate children used to have no legal rights to a part of the inheritance, because it was considered obvious that the defence of family values demanded that the legitimate children be afforded a protection that could not be automatically extended to illegitimate ones. Of course they could still inherit a large portion of the estate. But they had no right to an automatic entitlement, and no right to the part of the estate to which the wife and legitimate children were automatically entitled.
The same principles applied, and in part still apply in countries like Italy, to other aspects of everyday life. Of course the concubine has no rights to the estate. She is the concubine, not the wife. There's a huge difference, and this difference cannot be downplayed without downplaying marriage.
I trust a boy of twelve understands this after a moment of reflection. I trust everyone understands that you can't protect certain values, any values, without giving whenever appropriate a different legal treatment to those situations that are outside of the protected ones.
To say “I support marriage” and to advocate that the concubine have the same rights than the wife is, very obviously, undermining marriage. To say “I support the family” and to give illegitimate children the same inheritance rights of the legitimate ones is, very obviously, undermining the family, and so on.
Some people think as if the past generations had been stupid. They weren't stupid. Not only they were smart, but they were also coherent with the values they professed.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say the family must be protected, and undermine it for the sake of inclusiveness; or say you are in favour of marriage, and demand that the concubine get the same privileges and legal status of the wife.
Again, I do not know to what extent this applies to what Francis said, but I have an inkling it might be relevant. This just as a heads up and general reflection. More of it when I have read about the latest utterances of our Not-So-Holy Father.
Aaaahhhh, this is good for the heart.
The European Elections are coming. An excellent way to send a message.
My vote goes to the UKIP. Not that they are exempt from faggotry infiltrations, but it’s better to let them know what pays electorally and what not, and at the same time show the Tories where the votes go when they behave like Eltons.
And punish that faggot.
Punish that faggot.
Like many slow people, Maria Miller must think herself inordinately smart. The so-called same sex “marriage” legislation, now undergoing the final stages of a pretty undisturbed legislative procedure, will be hailed as a great victory, and a measure possibly fitting to catapult her to the real positions of power, instead of simply being the token woman of a token ministry.
I do not know, and I do not care to know, whether the female professes to believe in God. Her actions speak very loudly, and surely show that she doesn’t. She must think – whatever she will say in public – that there is no God and when she’s gone, she’s gone, no fear of hell coming in the way of her self-sale. Alternatively, – and only if she is vastly thicker than expected – she might be one of those very deluded beings who think that there…
View original post 604 more words
I have written a blog post about – to put it politely – casogate.
The post contained the following:
I can only imagine two situations here: 1. There is in Spanish a word that sounds like the “c” word Francis has employed, but with an innocuous meaning. In this case, it may well be that someone has a momentary confusion, and says the wrong word utterly unintentionally, and innocently. This would explain the extremely natural way in which the Pope has pronounced the word, as if it were a word he uses commonly.
2. Francis speaks like a builder in those rare times out of the reach of a camera or microphone, and has – like the typical working class male – sexual imagery constantly on his head; which translates in constant foul language; which translates in the absence of fuses of any kind; which causes the event in the video above.
I receive this from an extremely reliable source, who asked for anonymity.
I’m pretty sure your n. 2 is correct. Every single one of [many people] in Argentina always told us that Bergoglio’s language in private used to be the “construction workers” kind… You know, hijodep…, mie…., cara…., maric…., cul…, etc. I bet within Vatican walls that hasn’t changed much in Italian, one of his three native languages (along with the Piedmontese dialect of his father and grandparents, considered here as a language by itself, and the Spanish of his environment.)
This frankly matches with what I immediately thought; because let me tell you again, there are words in Italian you never say by accident. It matches, therefore, with what every Italian would think in a similar situation, if not the Pope but a quisque de populo was involved.
The source is anonymous. It’s up to you what to make of it. I believe it without hesitation, and think we should have our eyes opened as to what is happening here.
I do not know Spanish. I thought perhaps the same word means something else in Spanish (say: “burro” is “butter” in Italian, and I think it’s “donkey” in Spanish). No one posted to say what the c-word means in Spanish.