Daily Archives: March 24, 2014
You said another thing, which I also refer to in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium. You spoke of clericalism. It is one of the evils; it is one of the evils of the Church. But it is an “accessory” evil, because priests like the temptation of clericalizing the laity, but so many lay people, kneeling, asked to be clericalized, because it is more convenient, more convenient! And this is a two-way sin. We must overcome this temptation. The layman must be a layman, baptized, he has the strength that comes from his Baptism. Servant, but with his lay vocation, and this is not sold, it is not negotiated, it is not an accessory to the other … No. I am like this! Because it goes with the identity. In my homeland, I have heard this so many times: “You know, in my parish I have a great layman: this man knows how to organize … Eminence, why don’t we make him a deacon?” The immediate proposal of the priest is to clericalize. Let’s make this layman … And why? Because the deacon, the priest is more important than the layman? No! This is the mistake! Is he a good layman? Let him continue to be so and grow so, because it goes with the identity of Christian membership. For me, clericalism hinders the growth of the layman. However, keep present what I have said: it is an “accessory” temptation between the two. Because there wouldn’t be clericalism if there weren’t laymen who want to be clericalized. Is this clear? Therefore, I thank you for what you do. Harmony: this, also, is another harmony, because the function of the layman can’t be done by the priest, and the Holy Spirit is free: sometimes He inspires the priest to do something, at other times He inspires the layman. There is talk in the Pastoral Council. The Pastoral Councils are so important: a parish – and here I quote the Code of Canon Law – a parish that does not have a Pastoral Council and a Council of Economic Affairs, is not a good parish: it lacks life.
Pope Francis, Address to Media Association “Corallo”, 24 March 2014
The Year of The Lord 2014 is very young, and Pope Diana has already found a way to confuse and scandalise Catholics in that typical sly, slimy, Modernist, Jesuitical way of his. This time, the attack is directed at that miracle of Jesus called the “multiplication of the Fish and Loaves”.
For you Jesuit Popes out there: multiplication of loaves of bread, or of fishes, means that through a miracle of Jesus, the bread loaves and the fishes have been multiplied. So much so, in fact, that in the end there was enough to feed thousands, and to spare.
It doesn’t seem very complicated to me: there is a multiplication, and this multiplication is a miracle. You can’t do that. Jesus can. Anytime. Why do you believe that Jesus can multiply breads? Because you believe that Jesus is God. Why do you believe this particular…
View original post 1,196 more words
Sister Cristina Scoccia is now waiting for Pope Francis’ phone call.
This makes for an interesting situation: a Pope with a clear penchant for the stage and a nun with an obvious vocation for it. A great uproar caused in Italy – and elsewhere – by the antics of the latter as well as of the first.
If the Pope makes the call, it will be another sign of decay, as the TV fashions now positively steer the PR activity of the most staged pope ever, and we will be only left to wonder whether a duet with the bishop of Rome is the next big think (for a Tango is, I think, rather too late). Blessedly, the man is told to be tone deaf, which might help us on this.
If he does not call it will be a mild sign Francis has at least no intention of stooping as low as that; which might mean the bottom has been, after months of frantic search, possibly found in the end.
The similarities between the two cannot be denied, but one could also say Sister Cristina is the product of the age of Papa Francesco. The same shallowness, the same absence – or despise for – sacredness, the same abuse of populist slogans to please the crowd, the same addicted desire for popular approval, and most evidently the same osannahs from a world that cannot believe it has won so easily, as its support is sought by both with no regard for truth, sacredness, or dignity.
I do not know much of these TV programmes for the tattooed, jumping masses, but it would appear Sister Cristina might have embarked herself in a TV competition that might go on for months, making all but a caricature of her very job as a nun and making a caricature of nuns for months on end. I can imagine we will have further screaming sisters in front of the cameras, reminding one of young girls circa 1963, upon spotting the Beatles. Very edifying. The tattooed nation will approve unconditionally. Perhaps sister should try a small tattoo, too?
You would expect someone would go on the brakes here, and Sister Cristina’s superior would now order her to, after her moment of “glory”, go back to doing what she has taken a vow to do: be a religious sister. Not a big chance for that, unfortunately, as it appears the mother superior herself encouraged Sister Cristina to take part to the competition; a TV exercise which must be rather known among the sisters.
To think I thought they spent their evenings in meditation and prayer.
I have read a couple of times in the last weeks about the fact that Catholicism is supposed to be made “attractive” for non-Catholics.
I do not think this mentality wil ever work,and I do not think it is right, either.
Firstly, we must consider that Catholicism is fundamentally unattractive. Compared with the fluffy ideologies that are smuggled around and were always peddled in the past, it cannot be said that Catholicism – but for it, crucially, being the Truth – would be the way of choice for many of us. Protestants promise salvation just for believing in Jesus, and new age legends even do away with hell, or basically with anything that you don’t feel like doing. By contrast, Catholicism teaches you to be seriously scared – though in a reasonable way – that you may lose the way even after decades of trying to be the best Christian you can.
Fear and trembling on one side, fluffy conviction of one’s own saintliness on the other: in the marketing race for the most attractive package, Catholicism never stood a chance.
Secondly, I see in this desire of making things attractive the big potential for a watering down of the Truth, and in any way a fundamental dishonesty. If one wants to downplay the harsh news, one will end up attracting a crowd that never really signed for the programme, and he must not be surprised if they turn their back when they are told a couple of inconvenient truths about – say – contraception, divorce, or sodomy. They will also think that they have been lured into Catholicism with false pretences and misrepresentations, and I will not disagree with them. Even those who would accept the harsh truths in the end would have to reflect that they have been lured into them with the promise of candies, like children.
Thirdly, the Church has been stressing for the last 50 years the “joy” of Catholicism, as if those outside of it missed some very special entertainment; but she has never explained to non-Catholics how it is that walking on a busy street on a Sunday afternoon there is no way to immediately spot the Catholics, purely out of their oh so joyous countenance. This cheap marketing has not worked, and the Church trying to shape Herself according to the world has lost Her grip on the world She is supposed to fight against, and shape in the process.
I was five years old when my grandmother first put me in front of a Crucifix and told me unless I ask Jesus for forgiveness for my sins, I will go to hell. You might say it was a bit too much and too soon, and I would personally go at it differently. But you see, I still remember the episode. My grandmother was probably concerned for the religious education I would receive from my parents, but again I do not think confronting a five years old with the truths of life was very uncommon in her young days. Yes, I started to cry, and I am sure many a little child before me had the same reaction; but almost fifty years later, I cannot locate any other episode so decisive in putting into me some sound fear of the Lord.
The Truth must be said whole. Honesty commands that it be so, and reflection confirms that it cannot be any other way. Let the non-Catholic readers of this blog be shocked at first contact. Let them be angry at me if it disturbs their fluffy feelings. But the harsh message will stick, at least for a while, and will hopefully be buried somewhere in the reader’s consciousness; to be fished back, perhaps, in ten or thirty years’ time, when the person in question will finally have the serenity to recognise that what he had read in that strange blog, that seemed so “harsh” and “uncharitable” at the time, was actually the truth said whole.
But there is a last reason, why it is better to say the Truth whole. We really do not accomplish anything; not out of our autonomous will anyway. Grace works in us, and leads us to the Faith. There is no way any marketing of mine, shrewd as it may be, might ever achieve anything, but God’s grace will have caused it to happen. If this is so, and it is so, there can be no course of action more reasonable that to say the Truth whole, and to leave it to Jesus to let His Truth slowly work on those He has, from all eternity, decreed they should be influenced by it.
I have never noticed any “marketing” tendency of Jesus in the Gospels. Actually, it seems to me the contrary is the case. Whilst He revealed the Truth gradually to His Apostles, He was revealing a new religion, we aren’t; nor did he command to the Apostles that they evangelise people in installments. Yes, basic prudence will have to guide our actions, but it is my experience that adult people can bear some unpleasant news remarkably well. In the end, even five years old children cope well, too. And if it is a shock, it is a salutary one.
Say the Truth whole; in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time, but say it whole, trusting that your duty is done when the seed is planted. God’s grace will, if it was so decreed, do the rest in God’s own time.
These two delicate flowers have been just arrested for massively abusing “their” three children.
Yes, these are aren’t sisters, or cousins. I would say it is California, but this reality will become increasingly more common all over the West whilst Pope Francis, ever suspicious of everything looking like orthodoxy or a good living, tells us we must not look like saints in holy cards.
Well, these two dykes certainly don’t.
“The girl, who appeared to have suffered the most extreme abuse, was chained to the floor to prevent her from getting any food, they said”.
“[They had] “hardly eaten for months.”
[The girl looked] like a concentration camp victim.”
What a brave new world.
Dykes are allowed not only to keep their babies, but to adopt new ones. Then we complain such things happen. One truly understands how pedophile priests could be moved from one place to the other after some “training course”, and everyone thought it was all fine. As for the pedophile priests, there will be more and more of these cases in the years to come. Children will be subjected to the worst abuses in the worst cases, and will grow up emotionally maimed and with all sorts of dysfunctions in the less worst.
Political Correctness makes blind and stupid. These children are just three among very many who will pay the price.
It seems to me that here something utterly tragic is brewing. Let us think of the homosexual priests’ child abuse scandal. What has happened on that occasion? It happened that homosexuals were allowed to enter the Seminary and become priests in droves. Now, we must understand that there is a univocal (as opposed to biunivocal) correspondence here: whilst it cannot be said that the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles, it can comfortably be said that the vast majority of pedophiles are homosexual, as are…
View original post 618 more words