Monthly Archives: April 2014
After the announcement of the blog’s closure, some fast brainstorming:
Mrs Donnelly can certainly create a new blog, if she so wishes; and tell the bishop to mind his own business if he object to this, too.
A similar name, and news around to friendly blogs would be enough: in a few weeks, the old readership would be at the new destination.
Not for me to decide, though. Just an idea. To close the present blog is obedient enough. But no bishop has the right to go around with corks for deacons’ wives.
We (the other blogger) could take the blog posts about ACTA and reblog all of them. A deluge of ACTA posts. Exactly the contrary of what the Bishop wants to achieve. Oh, the irony! Then we could sit with a tea and scone, and wait for th eemail of the bishop ordering us to close our blog, or to wash our car, or to pray in the direction of the mecca.
The blog could be given to a good soul, who is known as orthodox and reliable and can profit of the bigger audience of the “PTP” blog. Something similar is happening in Austria, with “Kreuz-net.info” as the successor of sorts of the lamented “Kreuz.net”. Not the same name, but in a way the same audience.
Just some ideas.
Very late now.
“It is with sorrow that I am writing to let you know that Bishop Campbell, the Bishop of Lancaster, has refused Nick’s request to resume news posting on Protect the Pope. Bishop Campbell has also stated that he does not want anyone posting on Protect the Pope on Nick’s behalf.
Although I have been news posting on my own behalf on the site, I now feel unable to continue.
Protect the Pope will close as a news service on Sunday 4th May, the Feast of the English Martyrs to allow a short period for readers of Protect the Pope to say goodbye to each other.
Thank you (on my own behalf) for all the prayers, support and help we have received.
Please continue to pray for our Bishop.”
With these words, Deacon Nick’s wife announced the closure of the blog on the 4th May, and left no doubt as to who is responsible for it.
Deacon Nick is a deacon and he would obey. Deacon Nick’s wife is not a deacon but she has chosen – wisely, I think – to obey, too.
“Protect the Pope” has been an orthodox, courageous voice for Catholicism. Bishop Campbell will have to answer to heaven for his decision.It is truly indicative of the time that as Catholicism in Britain sinks in a pool of common places and is headed toward irrelevance, the Bishops are busy with shutting down the sincere Catholic voices out there. The ways of Satan are also very numerous.
Deacon Nick can be proud. He and his wife have done a sterling job. He can stop blogging in the serene knowledge that he is obedient, and the responsibility of the closure of the blog rest on the shoulder of the man to whom he owes obedience. Pray for him and his wife today if you can. And pray for the bishop, poor soul.
The closure of this blog could be only the first of many.
From today, every priestly or deacon’s blog – particularly in England, where there is a precedent – can be closed par ordre du mufti whenever leftist bitches say it is “divisive”.
Bishop Campbell’s religion is clearly harmony, not Catholicism, and I wonder how many are like him, and how many more will follow in this “age of mercy” that has no mercy only for orthodoxy.
This will happen, I think, quietly and slowly, one blog at a time, and waiting for the usual,useful controversy. If, in fact, the blogger or deacon priest is good, controversies will not be awaited for long, and if the blogger priest neuters his blog to prevent closure the effect will be the same as if it had been closed.
What happened with “Protect the Pope” is very grave. It is another demonstration that Catholics are now the only legitimate enemy of Catholic bishops. The same bishop who shut down this blog will, no doubt, be engaged in various kind of ecumenical dialogue with people whose blog – mutatis mutandis – he would have shut down after three hours. But you see, they aren’t Catholics, so all is fine.
In the coming years, I was saying, we might well see the closure of many priestly blogs. But I can imagine a good number of anonymous blogs run by priests being written. Anonymous blogging is not difficult, and if done with some intelligence it is rather safe; not from the police of course; but from a nosy bishop, most certainly.
As an aside, I have written just hours ago about Father John X. It appears the man goes around threatening various blogger priests, and writing to their bishop asking that they be silenced. Now, people like him are the perfect pretext (as in: pretext; or you might say: pretext) for a bishop to silence a blog. The blog can, after the bitching, be safely described as “uncharitable, and fomenting division”. Father John X might, in fact, have been the pretext – or one of them – used by Bishop Campbell to shut down “Protect the Pope”.
The bishop should be ashamed of himself, but I doubt there are many bishops in England who still know what shame means, or how it feels. Worse, his action offers a dangerous precedent for other equally shameless bishops, and let us hope there are not too many of them around.
I repeat here what I have already written: the more moderate priestly blogs are closed, the more Catholics will read less moderate blogs like this one. And if a bishop thinks lay bloggers cannot be very effective in exposing the shame of the modern church, a smart bishop he ain’t. This, beside the fact that many lay bloggers might be, in fact, priests.
Catholics do not browse the Internet for Catholic blogs because they do not know what to do with their time. They do it because they are fed up with the Bishop Campbells of the world, and have decided to seek some sound Catholicism on the net. And yes, Catholicism is divisive.
Christ came with a sword.
Bishop Campbell came with a tomato soup can.
Enriched with hemlock.
Sarah Palin has said some words to the extent that if she were in charge she would put some “fear of the Lord” into terrorists and show them that waterboarding is how we baptise them. Shock and horror ensued. I think they are both vastly exaggerated.
The use of the word “baptism” outside of the sacramental context is very old, and certainly perfectly well liked even in times more Christian than ours. The Italian expression battesimo del fuoco (“baptism of fire”) indicates the first time a soldier faces a combat situation, and I have never heard of anyone, Catholic or Protestant, Christian or Heathen, ever complaining for its use. The word “battesimo” is also used, without any evil meaning, by “first time” situations, often unpleasant ones. A fall from the bicycle, say, would have people say to you “oh well, you have been baptised”, meaning sooner or later you would have to fall from the bicycle, and now you are a better cyclist for it. No disrespect to the Baptism is meant. On the contrary, you would rather find these expressions in Countries where pretty much everyone is baptised. I am rather sure many other languages of Christian countries have the same expressions, or similar ones. To complain about such expressions would in my eyes be, ahem, very Protestant.
Sarah Palin is, alas, a Heretic, but I think no reasonable person can have doubts about her Christian faith. I always write that words and phrases must be understood in the context, because isolating single words is often a misleading exercise. For example, we understand Francis’ questionable or heretical statements in the light of his countless other questionableor heretical statements; we do this, because they give the context for what he wants to say.
The same should, I think, apply to Mrs Palin. It is obvious she had no intention of belittling or banalising Baptism; rather, her was a robust way of saying that Christians can show Muslims terrorists they aren’t all daisy pickers, and can be as tough as it is needed. Which is good. Very good.
As to the waterboarding, I will not insult my readers’ intelligence telling them where I am on the matter. But this post is not about waterboarding, either.
Was Palin’s expression robust? Yes, it was. Could it have been avoided? Yes, pretty much everything apart from “good morning” could probably be avoided, but I honestly do not think she should have done it. Unless, that is, I should suddenly decide that “baptism of fire” is impious, too. Certainly, though, no reasonable person can say Palin wanted to belittle or disrespect Baptism, more than the Italian man using the words battesimo del fuoco would.
Look at the person, and understand the person as she speaks. If she’s a sincere Christian, do her the courtesy of recognising it. If you recognise it there can be no outrage, because we worship God, not words. There are discusdions at times that remind me of the stoning scene in “Life of Brian”.
But note this: in the same phrase, Palin mentioned the “fear of the Lord”. This is an expression I think I have never, ever heard from a high-rank politician in the UK, lest they offend the sensibilities of some heathen. Therefore, my deal is this: let Palin show Christian faith in her speeches and actions, and she can use the word “baptism” in whatever comparison she wants.
Some closing observations:
1. This kind of outrage is used often by neocons to isolate real conservatives. Conservatives are more robust in their expression, and it is easy to take – or fake – outrage at them. If Palin is damaged, cui prodest? The critics of Obama should think hard about this.
2. This “sensitive” mentality is what has allowed the Republicans to be screwed with McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and, no doubt, will allow them to be screwed with some other PC daisy in 2016. No divisive people, no divisive messages, only neutral words. The daisies would never use such phrases, you see, so you can happily lose the next election, safe in the knowledge that your losing candidate will only express himself in the appropriate way, will always say “gay” instead of “faggot”, and will allow you to see Hillary at the White House with the serene conscience that no Christian word has been used in less than the perfectly appropriate way.
I am not a US citizen, though obviously what happens in the US impacts us all too. But an awful lot of Americans will soon have to decide if their Country should continue to go down the drain because they can never pick anyone with a functioning brain and a robust spine, or whether they should rather decide that you pick a candidate because of his message and outlook on life, not his score in the PC electoral contest.
Never one to let a potential headline go to waste, the Destroyer has tweeted a new world philosophy. We are now informed that the cause of “social evil” evil is… inequality.
The implications of this applause-seeking, inane thinking are huge; and they are, as is to be slowly expected from the character, nothing to do with Christianity.
Christianity teaches us that evil – and, with an inevitable consequence, any kind of social evil, like poverty or social hatred – is the result of the imperfection of this world, which in turn is the result of the Fall. The rebellion to God's law of our first Ancestors – a rebellion we all carry within ourselves, and which is at the very root of man's sinfulness – has caused the world to be afflicted by war, famine, pestilence, poverty, perverts, communists, V II priests, and Jorge Bergoglios. The Christian message has always been clear.
Inequality has, in all this, never played any role. On the contrary, it is evident to the dumbest tambourine player around that inequality is in the very fabric of Creation, as people are born with hugely different gifts and qualities and graces, which are all extremely multiform in their appearance, but also extremely inequal in their quality and quantity.
A girl is born beautiful but poor; another beautiful but rich too; a third both poor and ugly; a fourth gentle and smart. A boy is born strong, another weak; a third brave, a fourth stupid; some are deformed, some are handsome, some witty and some dull, & Co.
It goes on. Some are born in Catholic families, some in Proddie, some in heathenish, some in atheist ones. How is this “equal”? (at least if Catholicism, or at least Christianity, is of any importance to you?).
Some, God loves more; some, God loves less. Some are predestined to be saved and will profit from God's efficacious grace; some will only get sufficient grace and, being rebellious, will end up in hell. Does this sound like “equality” to you?
It goes on still. Were Christians, then, sleeping the past two thousand years, when huge inequality in wealth – and I mean here wealth born in, not acquired – and talents were considered as a god-given state of affairs? Why has Jesus not demanded that, say, Zacchaeus be not wealthier than his average follower, or even countryman? Or did he not do so, because he did not have the privilege of a smartphone, with which to access Francis' astonishingly senseless statements and new-age-cum-communism philosophy?
All this seems obvious enough. Obvious, I mean, if you believe in the Fall, in sin, in judgment, in evil, in the devil, and in all that stuff.
But you see, the problem with the Destroyer is that he seems not to believe in any of those; or at least he seems to be so intellectually lazy, or else so brutally dumb, that he does not even understand that he is denying pretty much all of them.
If you don't believe in the Fall, then you will look for your answers outside of human nature: in social end economic systems, changing which “social evil” will be magically overcome. If you don't believe in sin, people will not be really responsible or culpable for anything; rather, they will merely react to an unfavourable environment. If you don't believe in judgment – which you must do, if you don't believe in sin – there will be no personal reproach linked to human behaviour: if everyone is saved, the problem must lie outside of this huge mass of saints. If you don't believe in evil, you will never think that the devil actually tempts, and men actually yield to it, and will have to answer for their actions.
Blaming inequality for “social evil” is at the same time a universal justification, an abolition of sin, and a denial of Christian thinking. But it sounds good, and it will go down very well among the leftist smoke sellers of this world, of whom Francis is now the undisputed leader. It condones the theft of the thief, the prostitution of the tranny, the envy of the envious. They all derive fron inequality, you see.
Once again, Francis reveals how worldly his thinking is. There is in his (simple) mind no space for supernatural factors in the human journey, much less for individual responsibility. Francis' examination of the world's problems begins and ends with the way the world is structured; so much so, that he sees in the structure – not in the Fall – the cause of all its problems. He would, if asked, probably answer that he believes we can “make poverty history”. Purest, unadulterated secular thinking.
Now, let us be clear about a fundamental concept: if a Pope or a Saint of the past had warned, say, about poverty as a fuel for corruption and sinfulness, this would have been not only acceptable, but obvious. The world is imperfect, and the devil will use whatever tool he can find. But in the Popes, or the saints, of the past the fundamental Christian truths of sin and individual responsibility for it would have been extremely evident even if, perhaps, implicit.
Not so, not so for this disgraceful, scandalous man, who employs every second at his disposal to eradicate from his sheep the very idea that they could – unless they are, perhaps, mafia bosses – actually send themselves to hell.
This thinking is so evident in Francis, so obviously and insistently repeated, that the simple tweet perfectly matches the messages, and allows no other interpretation than the one Francis is shoving down the faithful's throat all the time. It is no less than astonishing that Francis looks like he has been making dots all the time since that evening on the balcony, but still only very few connect the dots and looks at the picture that emerges by doing it; perhaps, in part because the picture is a frightful sight, and in part because Francis also makes dots around the real picture, so that those who are not alert will not see what he has been doing all the time.
And so the game of destruction goes on. Like all false prophets, Francis claims solutions he cannot have, because he cannot change the way God has decreed that the world would look after the Fall. His simple slogan of social structures at the root of “social evil” is pure communist tosh. He is a wordly man, a revolutionary man, and possibly a man dumb and confused enough that he believes in the rubbish he goes around saying, writing, and tweeting.
This man would be astonishingly bad even as a so-called Archbishop of Canterbury. His forma mentis is, when you look at it without the pink “but he is the Pope”-glasses, so Christianity-free, so soaked in secular thinking, that I doubt every half-believing Anglican – not many left of them, admittedly – would swallow half of the drivel with which the man has been regaling us for now thirteen months.
We are being punished so spectacularly, so obviously, so much under the sun that it is not clear to me how can there still be a honest soul around that does not get this: God is chastising us with the same means with which we have offended Him, giving us an overdose of that unspeakable stupidity the V II generation thought so good for us, so convenient, and to be had for free.
It is very bad that anyone should ever get drunk. Drunkenness is, as people in Anglo-Saxon countries should be reminded far more often, a grave matter and can, given the circumstances, lead a soul to perdition. Notice that no traditional Catholic country has a culture of drunkenness (no, not even Bavaria; merriment yes, drunkenness for the sake of drunkenness, certainly not). This seems to be – together with his opposite, the alcohol Puritanism – rather a speciality of prevalently Protestant countries.
It is, I was saying, bad enough that anyone should get drunk. It is even worse if a priest does it. But it is truly the worst when a drunken priest goes to his keyboard and types a long list of insults to a blogging priest, whom he knows personally for being (the blogger priest) an ex pupil of his (the drunken typist).
Visit the blog and read for yourself. Savour the pleasant sound of the tambourines; the joy of Vatican II; the tolerance, the love of “dialogue”, and the “charitable”, “non-judgmental” attitude of Father John X, a true son of the Church Spring; a man now on his way – and a Spring now on its way – to a hateful autumn before winter, and a sad and sorry death, and (for the priest) judgment.
Pray for Father John X, that he may stay away from the bottle.
Pray that his soul may come out from such spiritual darkness that the reading of a decent blog causes in him drunken rants filled with a hatred that leaves one breathless. A hatred, mind, directed at a former pupil of him; at one for whom Father John X should have been an example. Pray, as you are there, that Father's rant may not have been written whilst drunk, but in a sober state; which seems not credible to me but, if confirmed, could open an horrifying view into a truly dark pit of hatred.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Spring has given us. A generation of angry, bitchy, self-righteous old Sixty-Eighters unable to recognise the failure of their entire life, and the danger for their soul.
To them, God was always wrong and they were always right. They now see with dismay the contempt with which the young generations look at their pathetic, wasted lives. Therefore, they get angry. This chap here says it explicitly only because he is very drunk, or uncommonly evil. But many others think in exactly the same way when they are sober, though they are smarter than to write such emails; which, among other things, could bring the police in their homes and cost them a nice sum to boot.
Father John X reminds me of the angry communists of old, who grew more resentful as Communism was looking, even to them, more and more like the losing side, and a stupid one at that.
In the end, Communism went down so spectacularly that even the resentful old Commies were silenced. We must hope, for the sake of this man, that the same happens to V II before he dies.
And it came to pass on the Day Of Infamy Eugenio Scalfari was among the invited; and, being now a close buddy with the Destroyer, had another substantial chat with him.
We aren't told whether recorders were there this time. They probably weren't, as a recorder would be extremely embarrassing not only for the Bishop of Rome, but for the Church. What transpires, though, is that Scalfari went away from his buddy persuaded he had material for another article; which means that he was authorised by Buddy to put the content of their own friendly chat in print.
Thankfully, the Fire Brigade – or if you prefer, the Dry Nurses – got wind or were informed about the matter, and promptly acted.
Yes, it's the Vatican Press Office here. Yes, it's about the conversation with the Holy Father. No, the printing of any article is not authorised. Yes, this is the last word. Yes, instruction from His Holiness. You're welcome. Good day.
(And it's sad a foreigner can't get the subtle, but very fine irony of the Italian article. But hey, someone must be a foreigner…).
We have come to the point that the nurses must run after Francis as if he were an unruly child making mischief everywhere. They must pay attention whom he talks to, because you never know what may come out of it. They must constantly entreat the child to please behave and stop making such a mess around him. They obviously know – from long-suffering experience – that the man cannot be relied upon one single interview, or even an “informal chat”, that does not give scandal. Therefore, when they can see beforehand what's happening – which is not the case when the man is alone with a telephone – they can at least implore and insist until Francis, always the Jesuit, yields for this time.
It is astonishing to think that only a few days after concubinegate, the man was already planning another urine pool, and it appears – I wasn't there, you know; I am not an abortionist atheist, so Francis' friendship with me is improbable – that only the prompt and decisive intervention of the Dry Nurses have avoided another huge mess.
Pray for the Dry Nurses. They truly need our help.
And pray Francis doesn't call Scalfari on the phone.
Dear readers: at some point I will, like everyone of us, kick the bucket and, hopefully, be sent straight in the direction of Purgatory.
During that time of suffering and atonement, it would be a great consolation to me to know that, on earth, I have been beatified. Beatifications are not infallible, so I do not need to worry, from purgatory, that things aren't exactly like Pope Francis V thinks. I am, also, sure many of you would want to see me beatified; though you don't know anything of my sinfulness; an ignorance that is, in these cases, very convenient.
The way I propose you go about after my departure from this vale of tears is the following: any time something bad might happen, ask for my intercession that it may not happen.
For example, if I were now dead – sorry, but not right now – you could ask for my intercession for any or all of the following:
1. That there is no war over Crimea.
2. That there is no war over Eastern Ucraine.
3. That the conflict in Syria ends.
4. That Chelsea does not lose (half of you; the other half, that it may lose) against Atletico Madrid.
5. Put here three or five of your dangers you ask me to see averted.
6. Repeat the following day.
You will, then, soon notice a lot of these dangers have not transformed into the feared tragedy. You have asked me for intercession, and what was feared has not happened. If this is not a valid cause for beatification, I don't know what is, do I?
At this point, you will have tons of material to push my cause.
I am confident that, as similar causes are swiftly advancing, with your help I will reach the coveted prize still in the very first phase of my permanence in Purgatory.
“Blessed Mundabor Of Blogdom”.
Yep. Sounds good.
You don't need to start now. Wait that this blog has suddenly stopped publications for some months first. Then start with everything you can:
“That road crossing is dangerous; oh Mundabor, pray for me that I may not have a car accident in it!”
I see myself in the company of soon-to-be Blessed Paul VI already.
The pattern is always the same.
The Bishop of Rome inadvertently – or not, as the case may be – piddles outside of the urinal, and leaves a huge pool of stinking liquid material. The world get very excited at the urine pool, and praises the modern pope whose style of piddling is so different from his predecessors'.
The cleaning squad (generally Fr Lombardi and/or Fr Rosica) then intervenes, has the urine pool cleaned, and issues a press release along the following lines: “The Pontiff is supposed to piddle in the urinal. We confirm this is what the urinal has always been for. We aren't there when the Pope piddles, and can therefore not say exactly what has happened. It is not true that the Pope plans to abolish urinals, but we cannot comment as to the Pope's piddling style.”
Then they go to Francis and implore him to do things properly, in order to show the world he is not as atrociously bad as he continuously proves he is.
Francis, who is a Jesuit, is happy to oblige.
“What do you need then, Father?” , he will ask the poor martyr of the day.
“An intervention in favour of the indissolubility of marriage would certainly be fitting, Holy Father. We cannot give doctrinal advice via press release, and when you have just made a huge pool of urine for everyone to see we would not be credible anyway. It should really come from you, Your Holiness”.
“Well, then, my dear lad. I will do as you say. We must not confuse Catholics, must we now?”
“No, Santita'. We cannot”.
And so it always comes to pass that some time after the latest scandal, Francis pisses in the urinal once. He may say to a pro-life audience that abortion is murder, or to a pro-marriage audience that marriage is sacred. This doesn't upset the liberals much, because they understand the implications and the duties of the office; but it has the Pollyannas screaming in girly excitement, and complaining that once more the wolves within the Vatican have moved the urinals overnight, in order to let Francis look bad. “I can't believe the urinal was at his place”, some of them will say. “It must be so, that it has been removed without warning the Holy Father, who has a certain age and no time to go looking around for missing urinals. They are working against him, poor innocent lamb”.
Still, after Francis has piddled in the right direction once, they will all be satisfied.
“See? Francis surely knows how to take aim! What did you think?” They will hasten to write everywhere. Aaahh, normality again. How beautiful…
Three weeks later, the next huge urine pool is there, the cleaning squad intervenes, and the procedure begins anew.
And now, my dear reader, some words of warning: if you think that the comparison between Francis' antics and the pool of urine is inappropriate, you really need to give a hard look at yourself, and candidly assess whether you care for Catholicism. Because if you do, you will instantly realise that what this man has been doing, and continues to do without caring in the least for the ceaseless scandals, is infinitely worse than any urine pool you could imagine if Francis had the bladder of an elephant.
It is astonishing that we live in times where saying that people living in very public sin endanger their soul causes scandal; but a Pope literally urinating over Catholicism any time he feels like it, or thinks his interlocutor will be pleased at the exercise, is cause, for most, of nothing more than some very mild, and very pious discomfort.
What a black day, the day this man was made a priest.
Cardinal Maradiaga has just finished complaining that there is a “resistance” mounting among the high ranks of the Church, with the one or other murmuring that they have made a mistake on that fateful day.
Some people will be encouraged by these words, but in my eyes they can be easily overstated, and the importance of the critical stance towards the Bishop of Rome' s antics exaggerated.
We already know that among Cardinals there has been sharp criticism to Cardinal Kasper's impious, sacrilegious proposals to open ways to allow public adulterers and concubines to receive Communion, as if this were useful to anything else than sending them (the concubines) to hell more safely. But this was only the opinion of a bunch of Cardinals. The Synod in October will see a massive participation of bishops, and you can be sure there will be no shortage of Western European ones – I mean not only from the German-speaking area – ready and willing to sow their satanical confusion.
Of course, the bishops of other continents will fiercely oppose the proposal; but you see, the beauty of the “pastoral” approach is that one can always say he is adapting to particular cases, and regional specifics.
“You can keep your ban on communion for adulterers, my dear African Bishops” – the German ones will say – “but by us a more nuanced, truly pastoral approach is needed”. This way – and with the massive support of the Bishop of Rome, who thinks so much of Kasper – it will be fairly easy to overcome resistance. “Hey, the doctrine isn't changing”, will they say to their colleagues, “there's no need to be overly excited. We are merely doing our job as caring shepherds”.
Why, then, Maradiaga's utterances? Because every revolution needs accusations of counter-revolutionary activity to be pushed forward. Maradiaga is certainly as bad as his interviews, but I can well imagine the last initiative is the fruit of the Pope's encouragement to stir things a bit and warn the reluctant souls about the Great Changes about To Pass. Resistance will be met, as Cardinal Maradiaga has made very clear, with charges of counter-revolutionary activity.
No, I do not think Maradiaga has released this interview because he feels weak; rather, I think he feels strong enough to start with his revolutionary, preparatory cannon fire.
Let us renew our prayer effort.
October will be atrocious.
Saints Pope John XXIII and John Paul II: pray that we may be given far better Popes than you both were.
Comments with tales of bogus Popes will be culled.
Those who keep posting them will be banned.
Grow up, for heaven’s sake.
It is Sunday morning and as far as I know Francis is still alive and kicking. Every man of faith knows the Holy Ghost can take him down in an instant.
The Church has traditionally thought canonisations are infallible, and I remain – until a valid argument to the contrary – of the opinion that where 2000 years of Christian convictions lead, Mundabor should bloody well follow. I have still not found any argument explaining to me why God would have allowed the formation of such a strong and diffused belief concerning things that cannot be verified, unless it be to teach us to trust God’s work in those things that cannot be verified.
This does not mean that these canonisations are not a disgrace. Of course they are.A canonisation often has a political element in it. It was always so. Kings were made saints, and founders of religious orders. The economic and political implications were immense. But we have never thought, because of that, that King Louis IX (canonised very meager 27 years after his death) or St Francis (less than two years) were not in heaven.
Look at it this way: St Dismas and countless other sinners managed to get to paradise not because of, but notwithstanding their shortcomings. We are not required to believe in heroic virtue as infallible corollary of canonisations, though it is very obvious the faithful should have the right to expect that heroic virtue be considered a requirement so that devotion to the saint be made more natural, and the canonisation better understood. In both today’s cases, it is very difficult to say that this was the case if we consider the public work of both Popes. I agree with that. But you see, pontificates are not canonised. People are.
At the end of all discussions, Francis is still breathing as I write this. I am absolutely sure the Holy Ghost is never late. Therefore, if he wants to have Francis taken out of circulation I am sure he will not, so to speak, arrive to the station when the train has already left.
No. The Holy Ghost is in control. If he allows Francis to say to the planet what the Christian has generally believed infallible these two thousand years, then in my humble mind it means he has not waited until 2014 in order to suddenly teach us to properly understand infallibility; on the contrary, he is asking us to continue to believe what has been generally believed in these two thousand years. Oh what a man of little faith, the one who doubts what the Church has encouraged the faithful to believe, has implicitly given for granted for these 2000 years, merely because the seal of formal infallibility has not been given. What sixty of generations of Christians have believed is good enough for me. I trust God would not allow a mistake of such magnitude.
Still, this is a day of infamy, in which not only V II is factually extolled as the way to go, but Francis himself is actively pushing toward his own beatification, because it is clear by now no V II pope should be considered below at least that.
Of course, these canonisations will be used to push all kind of nonsense. Of course, none of the nonsense will make sense, after the canonisations as well as before. Yes, there can be no doubt a tambourine offensive is upon us, and it will be fueled – among many other things – by these canonisations. But in my eyes the most important thing now is that we do not lose faith in the minimum meaning of canonisation, and my greatest fear is not that thinking people may be swayed toward acceptance of V II because of the canonisations (thinking and properly instructed people would find the thought hilarious), but that they may be tempted by Sedevacantism.
As to the attempt to “canonise V II”, I will fight this battle with relish, and I am sure you will do the same. The battle would be upon us anyway, seeing the kind of man we have as Pope.
The day of infamy has come. The Church still stands. The Holy Ghost sees everything.
The right way to react to this is to intensify criticism of V II. And of the two new Saints. because it’s not that saints are ipso facto infallible, and if you make someone who has made huge mistakes a saint you will have to be reminded of the mistakes every time you mention he is a canonised Saint.
A lot of people go to paradise. Only very few are canonised. There was no need to add these two disastrous pontiffs to the list.
Francis has called an Argentinian slum priest.
He appears to have said nothing scandalous or challenging doctrine.
I thought I would report this as worthy of notice.
Have you ever worked with a cretin? I have.
The cretin does not know he is a cretin. He thinks he is smart. And the more the cretin is in a position of authority – which, the world being what it is, does not need to have anything to do with merit, or real qualities – the more he will think himself a genius, and continue to wreak havoc around him. Wise people in his entourage will suggest to him that he considers doing things slightly differently; but they will have a very difficult task, because Cretin will wonder how they can have such outmoded ideas, and be persuaded he knows best. He will, more likely, be somewhat peeved at the environment's reluctance to recognise his own, the Great Innovator's, stature.
Cretin's careers is generally owed to the bed – if a woman -, to some pleasant trait that was overrated, or to the protection of some Chief Cretin, who sees in him one of his kind and thinks Cretin is just the ticket.
Under normal circumstances, Chief Cretin will at some point be removed or quietly promoted where he cannot cause any damage, and Cretin's career will experience a sudden turn of fortune as the forces of, ahem, reaction finally take control again; but once one or more cretins have nested, the process will be a long, painful and uncertain one.
We are now in a rather unique situation, as Top Cretin is, in fact, Pope. As you see, I am here charitably assuming that the man is not outright evil; if anything, because the evil would be great indeed, and stupidity is much more common. But if he is not evil, then he is most certainly a cretin. Each and every one of you would reach the same conclusion if the person behaving in such manner were every one of the seven billion humans populating the earth, but the Pope.
At some point, facts speaks for themselves. In this case, they shout.
I am, therefore, very surprised at the criticism moved to the Vatican press release concerning concubinegate.
Of course they did not deny the conversation took place. How could they? Francis calls around everytime he feels like it, and there's no stopping him from doing that. Once you ask the man and he tells you “yes, I did”, what can you do? Deny the evidence? Lie and have your lie called out by Francis?
Similarly, of course they could not deny that “doctrinal” conversations took place. It's not that people talk to Popes exclusively about the various types of wheelchair, or the practical advantages of black shoes. It is very probable, and very reasonable, to assume that the content of the woman's letter to Francis (along the lines of: “Dear Abby: I am a concubine living in mortal sin and giving scandal for all the world to see, but I am worried: is it OK for me to receive Communion?”) will have been touched upon. There's no way to deny the undeniable.
What could, then, Lombardi and Rosica do, other than make indirectly clear that the Pope talks too much and doesn't know what he talks about, but this is just the way it is and it has obviously no bearing on the Truth? They certainly can't start giving catechism lessons by way of press release.
A first-class cretin has been made Pope. This is a crude fact, it's as clear as the sun, and it's in front of our eyes every day. But Lombardi and Rosica cannot simply say it so. They must save Francis' face as much as it can be done, and insist that Truth comes before any telephone rambling when it cannot be done. They will never, ever be able to assure you the Pope spoke soundly, or even knew what he was saying. if this is what you want, you are asking them to deny reality.
This Pope is, in the best of cases, a cretin; a cretin of gigantic proportions who, like all of his ilk, thinks himself very smart, and very special. Come on: you know it is so; you just recoil from admitting it because the very thought is disquieting. But the Holy Ghost never promised us that the Pope would be intelligent, or that one would need to be intelligent to become Bishop or Cardinal.
It is what it is. The Gates of Hell will not prevail anyway; so relax and pray more, because we are being punished.
For how long this will go on, it's anyone guess. As Cicero was stating his immortal quo usque tandem, his men were already going around arresting all the conjurors, and he knew Catilina would not abuse of his patience for very long – if memory serves, in fact, Catilina was killing himself practically as Cicero was speaking -. But Francis might be about to abuse our patience for a very, very long time; because this time Cretin cannot be removed, under normal circumstances, by human force.
We must pray that this man comes to his senses – improbable: you can't teach an old Jesuit new tricks; but for God everything is possible, even making of Francis a wise Pope and a genius – or the Lord has mercy on us and frees us from this Papacy in His own way, and in His own good time. But I think it's very fine to pray that the time of punishment comes to an end sooner rather than later.
What can we, in the meantime, do? I suggest the following:
1. Accept the reality of a stupid, or evil man. There's no escaping this simple reality. Don't insult your intelligence taking refuge in Pollyann-ism. Look at facts for what they are. Admit you would never allow Bergoglio to run a Catholic kindergarten, or teach catechism to your children, and would be horrified at having him as a parish priest, wondering how on earth such a tool could be allowed to keep his habit.
2. Make the above clear to those around you, thus giving your contribution to the awful, diffused Papolatry that allows the man to get away with his foolishness. It will be shocking for them at first, but on mature reflection they will see it makes sense.
3. Ridicule him every time that he deserves it, that is: almost all the time. A clown Pope deserves to be called a clown; a Pope who makes a mockery of his office deserves to be made a mockery of; a Pope doing half of what he does because of his boundless love for himself deserves to be hit in his vanity; a Pope making light of Church teaching as if he were talking of football deserves to be dismissed as a senile nincompoop. Francis' ability to damage the Church is directly related to his credibility as Pope. If you want to avoid damage to the latter, you must make clear the lack of credibility of the former. Jesus and Francis cannot both be right, or wise. One must be an idiot. It isn't Christ.
It is what it is. I did not make him Pope. Incompetent or outright stupid Cardinals did.
But you, dear reader, you stand firm in the faith of our fathers, knowing that the Church who has buried many unworthy Popes will bury Francis, too. It takes a bit more than an old cretin rambling on the phone to take down the Church.
Do not lose faith. Open your eyes instead.
In an interview with Catholic News Service, Mr Eberle said “many points” in the Pope’s apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”) suggested the German Church was “moving in the right way” in its attitude toward remarried Catholics.Uwe Renz, spokesman in the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, also defended the bishops’ stance. He said he believed the bishops were acting “in the spirit of the Pope’s teaching.”“Our own dialogue process has shown this is a major issue for both lay Catholics and priests,” Mr Renz said.“Pope Francis has called on bishops to exercise a wise and realistic pastoral discernment on such problems, and our bishops want divorced and remarried Catholics to be a full part of the church community, with full rights.”
I do not entirely blame Mr Eberle. I mean, of course I do. But he is not the first responsible for the impending schism in…
View original post 200 more words
You know which song is Francis humming these days?
If you ask me, he goes around humming this one…
“Ah… Ah… Ah… Ah…
Staying alive… Staying alive…. “
I get it.
Back to serious blogging now…
From today's Vatican press release.
Text in black. Meaning in red.
Telephone calls ” do not in any way form part of the Pope's public activity”.
The man is a maverick even when he speaks in public. Stop giving any importance to what he would have said in private. Whether true or not. No, really.
The “media amplifications” “cannot be confirmed as reliable”
Stop behaving like excited girlies everytime someone with an agenda says the Pope has now changed the rules to please her. Professional journalists who ride this every time chasing exciting news are particularly despicable.
… And are “source of misunderstanding and confusion”
We are fed up with this novelty frenzy everytime the old man has a chat on the phone. You are using the man to attack Catholicism. We know he is too vain or thick to understand it, but we are truly fed up with both him and the press.
“Consequences relating to the teaching of the church are not to be inferred from these occurrences”
Note for the “Daily Homograph”: Church teaching isn't changed via private phone calls. Not even if the one making the phone call is a raving Modernist.
And it came to pass the Bishop of Rome made another humble intercontinental call to give some hope and change to a landswoman of him, obviously feeling the need for a good old chat in Spanish.
This is a man even journalists have problems in reporting in a way that makes halfway sense, and generally try to isolate the snippets in which Francis might actually, have conveyed some kind of real information. But journalists generally do not have any direct and personal interests in what Francissays; besides, there are other journalists there, so one cannot understand what he pleases.
Not so for the woman on the other side of Francis' chatty phone. She lives in sin with her concubine; which, I am told, is rather a problem in her religion. Tellingly, though, she does not seem worried, or perhaps even aware, of her sinful condition. Therefore, she writes to the Bishop and say she would like to receive communion, but.. will she not contravene the rules of the Church?
My unworthy reflections:
1. Argentina has a lot of priests. Bad as many of them certainly are, I dare to say they would all have the right answer here. Perhaps they already did, and the woman thought “if catholic priests think I am in sin, I should ask the Pope, because he is clearly different from them”.
2. The situation of the lady seems to me akin of the one of the murderer who wonders whether it is against the rules of the Church not to give Christian burying to the man he has just killed. I mean, she lives in an adulterous concubinage and she is worried that she might transgress Church rules by making communion?
3. The woman clearly has an agenda. She wants to hear that she is fine. Fine – implicitly – in her concubinage, and fine in her taking communion. Look at her, everybody. What a nice gal.
4. Again: even journalists have problem in understanding what on earth Bergoglio means whenever he opens her mouth. Imagine what the woman will understand. I tell you what she will understand: what she had decided she would hear.
5. It is a sign of the stupidity of our times that fourth hand gossip lands on a newspaper. Imagine the Bishop speaking to a prostitute, who then posts a message to her lesbian lover, which is read by others, who alert a third-rate journalist, who writes a third-class article. Don't you think it will turn out Francis has said if she needs money for her and her “loved one” she may sell her body? I thought this Bishop had compared gossip to murder?
6. Good Lord almighty: we have to do with a Bishop of Rome so deprived of any sense of decency that when he wants to commit liturgical abuses, insult Our Lord or the Blessed Virgin or promise salvation to atheists “following their conscience” he does so for all the world to see without the slightest embarrassment. If he wanted to send the message it is fine for public adulterers to receive, don't you think he would just go on and do it in front of the cameras? He has already baptised the child of concubines, but never given communion to known concubines themselves. Even Francis sees the difference. So much so, that he has concocted an extraordinary synod to try to get around it without being damned by his successors for all eternity as heretic. The idea of the woman, and of the journalists, Francis has suddenly both become very shy and forgotten he cannot be seen as authorising sacrilege tout court is simply nonsense.
7. In cauda venenum. All this happens because we have a disgraceful Pope in love with his own popularity, with no idea of sound Catholicism, prone to stunts of all sorts, with a sovereign contempt for decency, and not very intelligent. A halfway decent Pope would never make such calls in the first place; even if he were able to put three phrases in a row that make some sense.
The trash press (like the Homograph) has gone on this immediately, with the usual girly excitement of the local queens.
The intellectual standards of his country are falling toward shanty town level.
Thanks to the stupidity of our not-so-beloved V II clergy, Catholics the world over are going to be put to a hard test in four days' time.
I have already written on the matter, and have since not found any evidence to the contrary that the infallibility of the canonisations concerns merely the fact that the canonised person is in Heaven. In other words, neither the heroic virtues nor being, say, a halfway acceptable Pope are infallible requirements for the purpose.
Which makes a lot of sense. If Joan of Arc is canonised, must the English become supporters of France? Does the canonisation make of Celestine V a good Pope? And where exactly would the heroic virtue to be seen in St. Dismas for pretty much the entire duration of his life, and his chosen, ahem, profession, bar those hours on the Golgotha? Did Christ ask him to pass a decade-long trial, and prove a life of heroic virtue? No, he made Dismas santo subito instead.
Or let us look at the other side and let us say canonisations are not, and have never been, infallible. What are they then: pious suggestions? Strong hints that someone might be in heaven? “Oh dear Padre Pio, unless the Pope was wrong, please intercede for me!” Hhmmm, doesn't sound like much to me…
“Oh, but you must pick one about whom you are persuaded! Then it will be all fine!” some of you might say. But come on, if it comes to that then it is our personal opinion that really counts, and the entire concept of canonisations crumbles. Say: I do not need any Pope to be practically persuaded that Pius XII is in heaven. Padre Pio had a mystical vision of him in heaven, and Padre Pio's conviction is good enough for me every day of the week. But there is no need for canonisation for that. Barring the obvious concept that in the end only God decides, people didn't need to wait for St Francis' canonisation in order to have an extremely strong degree of confidence that he was in heaven, either.
No. If you ask me, Canonisations can only reasonably mean, if we want to give them the sense most Catholics have always given to them, that in this matter God will not allow mistakes. Because if He did, then there would never be any additional security given by the canonisation, and we would all go back to the “servant of God” scenario: the dearly departed was a very saintly man because of abundant and widely proved examples, and it is therefore very probable that he is in heaven. Unless we are mistaken. Which we could be. Always. Even if he is canonised. Does this make sense? Is this reasonable? Are we of such little faith that we start to doubt God's work whenever things happen we do not like?
Or look at it from the other side: if JP II is not in heaven, why would God allow a canonisation that is, has always been and will always be considered by most Catholics a most solemn, infallible assurance of beatific vision, and company with God? Would God not protect this pious belief, or prevent it from taking such solid roots in the Christian thinking? How can it be that the belief in the infallibility of canonisation – though not, properly speaking, dogmatically declared – could spread in such a way and be so strong after 2000 years? Why would, for example, God have allowed that the canonisation be extended beyond, so to speak, historically safe, “certified” martyrs?
It does not make sense to me. It is like stating that God has allowed the Church to believe what is wrong for 2,000 years. At this point, everything that has not been dogmatically and infallibly declared could be questioned, too, because hey: if it's not officially infallible, then it's everyone's guess.
I rather think this: that if either John or John Paul are not in heaven, the Holy Ghost has inspired Francis not to proceed with the canonisations, but Francis has, with typical stubborn rebellion, decided it was all merely a chimaera of his fantasy, a bad mood of an impressionable old man. And then in the next very few days he will have to die, or will be put in the impossibility of proceeding to the canonisations; because God allows Francis to fool men; but He Himself, He will not be fooled.
Rejoice, therefore. If these disgraceful – because of the message they send, and the V II propaganda they are meant to encourage – canonisations are a lie, the lie will not come to pass, and we might get rid of a disastrous Pope to boot. If they come to pass, they aren't a lie, and we will do what we as Catholics do: believe, obey, and be glad for other people's blessings.
Which does not mean you have to approve this or that Pontificate.
No one ever asked you to approve of highway robbery because of St. Dismas, either.
These people are truly ready for the madhouse.
They would need medical attention, but I am sure they refuse Western medicine anyway.
It’s truly scary.
These people vote. I mean, unless they are incapacitated they at least have the right to.
Scary. No, really.
Many thanks to reader Jewel, who alerted me to the existence of such articles.
Now that you have been brave, recover and relax with Ali-G’s take on tree-huggers and the two first-class gayboys teaching him non-violent resistance …
I remember very well my sadness at the rapid disappearance – and most people said: inevitable extinction – of the traditional mechanical wristwatch in favour of the new quartz one. It seemed to me an entire world was dying, and an entire planet was embracing a soulless technology and killing the beauty, the magic and, yes, the poetry of craftsmanship. Small firms – then – like Blancpain and Chronoswiss decided this was too stupid, and the surrender to the power of quartz by no means unavoidable. They started producing watches for people who love beauty, and do not live by the second. This was the turning of the tide. A few years later, the mechanical wristwatch was already established as the timepiece at the wrist of the discerning – if, back then, pretty solvent – man of taste. Today, mass production of perfectly affordable, excellent mechanical wristwatches is all but…
View original post 704 more words
There are interesting reflections around concerning what to do to have more vocations. Certainly, we must pray. Certainly, we can support the idea of vocations among the young in our environment. But if you ask me, the best way to more vocations is to have better priests.
I still remember very well my formative years, and looking back it is clear to me the office of priest was not considered by anyone as in the least desirable, not even by mistake. The reason for this is that most of the priests we had around us – and in the Italy of those times you had many priests around you, both in your place of residence and at school – had a common and distinctive trait: they looked, sounded, and even smelled, ashamed to be priests.
There was a kind of hierarchy of un-priestliness. There were those who were silently but obviously embarrassed, those who were more ostentatiously “modern” and those who were outright dissenters – the priest who whispered at school that the devil does not exist, in an heroic effort of blasphemy meant to let us understand how very courageous he was, I will never forget -. But all of them seemed to have the same slogan, a kind of “unglorious” one: the least Catholic, the better.
If the priest is ashamed himself of being a priest, who will want to become like him? If the priest is the very epitome of the uncool, pathetic loser, who will want to follow in his steps? And this is, in fact, what they pretty much all were: pathetic losers, ashamed to be priests; lives to be pitied, and an example not to be followed. The priest of those times was a cautionary tale.
This phenomenon created another one: the attempt to gain credibility not by being a true priest, but – in a suicidal, and not very manly move – by being something else: the “modern priest”, the “good friend”, the “nice chap”, the “favourite uncle”. The automatic self-divesting of any form of authority made of them, for all the world to see, unquestioned beta males deprived of true manliness, because manliness is always linked with assertiveness, self-assuredness, and a quiet but still very public show of testosterone.
Every man, but particularly adolescents, smell authority and manliness like the hound smells the fox. Not everyone has the natural assertiveness to be a natural leader, to be one to whom others look up to; but absolutely no one has the desire to be, for all the world to see, the last wolf in the pack. Such a one is not very manly at all, and could actually have problems of graver nature. Which is, I think, the origin and motive of many “vocations” in those years.
And so we have, I think, a faithful picture of perhaps 80% of the Western priesthood up to this day: no manliness, no authority, no “coolness” around them. Boys look at them, and pity them. As they well should, and as I do myself. They are embarrassed to be priests, and try to be as little of a priest as they can. As a consequence, they are embarrassing to be around.
Away goes sin; hell follows soon thereafter; “joy” is everywhere. Some time ago, I listened to a homily of a Cardinal. He sounded like a girl making a motivational talk for old aunts in a holiday resort. By all the authority given by the office, the red robe, and the choreography, he still smelled of girly loser. Who would want to be such a tool? Mind, this here was a Cardinal, helped by the trappings of the office. The girly parish priest truly has no chance with the boys.
A priest must be assertive, manly, unashamedly Catholic, outspoken, and with no hint of sissidom in him. He must be a shepherd, not a dry nurse. The shepherd has a rod, and he uses it. The shepherd leads his flock towards green pastures, he does not ask the sheep “where they want to go today”. The priest must be a natural leader, because a priest has to be a leader if he is to be successful. The priest has to be uncomfortable, harsh when needed, and quietly manly when he is gentle.
These are the priests who produce priests. These are the men who will cause boys to say “I want to become one like him”. These are men whose very demeanour will say to those around them that they are willing to die for their cause; which is as manly as it gets, and will be smelled by the boys around them like the above mentioned hounds smell the above mentioned fox. Not many will follow in his steps. But the admiration will – with God's grace – cause some of them to fo it. You must impress dozen to get one vocation to blossom, because this vocation will be nurtured from the respect or outright admiration surrounding the priest.
Boys will be boys, and their vocation must go with their nature, not against them. They must feel encouraged to use their own faith to channel the natural assertiveness, even aggressiveness, of the male of the species towards the higher goal of saving souls, of being shepherds of souls. This is one of the 1,374 reasons why women are not fit to be priest. Women are nurturers, not shepherds. God save us from a manly woman. There are two sexes for a reason, and this is the same reason why only those of one sex can be priests.
If you ask me, it's as simple as that. In the Seventies the priests were at their most stupid (the “worker priest”, the “social priest”; the Jorge Bergoglio types) and the vocations were at their lowest. As the worst excesses went away, the vocations slowly increased. Strong religious orders continue to create strong vocations to this day – so much so, that the Jorge Bergoglio types must crush them to deflect from their own bitchy incompetence – and the situation slowly, but gradually, improves. In the meantime, the Jorge Bergoglio types cause their seminaries to close. May their ruins be visible from afar, and be a monument to human stupidity.
But we need more of these good priests. The Brompton Oratory is always packed. You listen to them, and you know how a true vocation sounds, and how a real man speaks.
The boys listen, and learn.
Vocations are aplenty. No closures to be feared there.
Hope you have been good on Earth Day and have cut a tree in front of a tree-hugger, just to show the followers of the new religion that no, trees have no human rights; babies in the womb have.
You haven't, you say?
Neither have I.
Too much sweat for a quiet writing nature like myself.
But it would have been worth a video, for sure.
“Il Mio Papa” (“My Pope”) has hit the newsstands on the 5th of March. The second number is already available by your favourite newsagent, and this being a creature of Mondadori, the biggest publisher in Italy (yes, Berlusconi-owned if you need to know) you can be sure they will wait a while before pulling the plug, even if the venture were not to work as hoped.
It will be great fun. I am sure at the “Eye of the Tiber” they are preparing themselves already.
I am eagerly waiting for the internet presence to go live, but the already announced http://www.miopapa.it is not live yet.
From what I have known by googling around on Italian websites, the magazine has the following features:
1. Lots of photos. Big ones. They have to fill 68 pages every week, you know. Ok, half will probably be advs for condoms and the like…
View original post 342 more words
And it came to pass Francis did it again, regaling us with another full-blown liturgical abuse for all the world to see.
This year is, though, even worse than last year. Because if last year one could have said – making a big effort in optimism – that Francis did not have the time to change the liturgical rules, this year we know that he really doesn't give a straw for rules, at all.
The message here is twice subversive because the deliberation and subversive attitude are twice as evident. One year of time to avoid a new liturgical abuse, and the same outcome as last year.
What is Francis saying with his attitude? He is saying that rules don't count; they don't really much count for anyone (¡vaya lío!), but they particularly don't count for him, because he smells of the sheep and is therefore above such minutiae as adhering to rules meant to protect the sacredness and reverence of the liturgy.
Nothing, for Francis, is made for Christ. His gaze is intently fixed here below; as a consequence, whatever pushes his secular agenda – like the new gospel of inclusiveness and new non-evangelisation – must perforce take precedence over any rule concerning something so ultimately irrelevant as Heaven; where everyone is forgiven, and everyone is going to go anyway in the end.
But Francis' main message is probably not the invitation to disobedience, but rather the renewed stressing of his own Very Specially Humble status. It is obvious by now that in his world there is no space for basic humility, or obedience. He arrogantly proclaims himself above the law, and above the law in a way that goes beyond the mere exercise of power – he could have done so by changing the liturgical rules concerning the viri probati – and clearly becomes the banner of his own alleged uniqueness as the Truly Wonderful New Type Of Humble Pontiff. This is not a Pope saying to us he will use his papal prerogatives. This is a Pope saying to us he is so special, so different and so much better than his predecessors, that he does not even need to care about exercising them.
Ipse fecit. Therefore, it must be fine.
This attitude is not only arrogant, but also convenient. If Francis had changed the liturgical rules concerning the washing of the feet such a choir of protests would have ensued, that he would have been shamed by the community of sound theologians and canonists the world over. His obvious betrayal of the real meaning of the ceremony would have been denied not only in the behaviour, but in the very law. He clearly did not want it, at least for now. He prefers the easy worldwide publicity, but without having to officially take a stance, and defend it against the opinion of his predecessors.
Finally, I allow myself to add a last observation: this man is, fundamentally, what in Italy we call cafone: a boor. Boors do not waste much time thinking of rules. They are wired differently, or better said they lack that kind of wiring that causes one to appreciate the proper way of doing things. Francis shows all the symptoms of the type. Remember the empty chair at the Beethoven concert? That was Francis at his most authentic. Francis does not care for rules of proper behaviour – liturgical, or otherwise – because he is, literally, below caring.
Francis cares for his own image first, second and third, and only after that for his own particular way of social revanchism with the excuse of Christ. He is above the rules, above any of his predecessors, above Doctrine, and very often above basic decency. He calls himself “bishop”, but shows an arrogance unknown to his predecessors of the recent centuries. He is the metre of everything, hovers about every rule – even his own – and does not care a straw about the scandal he gives.
Francis über alles. As seen, for the second time, on Maundy Thursday.
In Italy we say: si dice il peccato, ma non il peccatore (“one says the sin, but not the sinner”).
In this case, the sin is, in essentials, not one of lack of orthodoxy, or betrayal of Catholicism – something the blogger in question has often done, and will do more in future; and which would prompt me to be rather open about it – but of mere, or you might say human, vanity.
Therefore, I allow myself to, ahem, rework a recently appeared blog post of this particular blogger without shaming the person as such.
Those who were to find the original post are kindly asked to do the same.
For the moment, allow this to be my “Happy Easter” to you.
And please, in your charity, consider saying a prayer for the blogger, even if you don’t know who he or she is.
Chicken Transfiguration At Charing Cross Station: An Edible Quasi-Mystical Experience.
I had an epiphany some days ago. I need to tell you this so that you may understand what an awfully fine chap I am. I know too many of you think I am just an obese glutton shamelessly riding his family name, but this is not the case. I assure you: I truly am as good as I think I am.
And so it happened this way. I wanted to meet some new Catholic friends, but when they showed up it turned out they were Hindus and Muslims. I should have understood it on the spot, but I admit I took a while to understand why some sported those turbans, and those long beards. One never ceases to learn.
I never talk about Catholic issues when I am with non-Catholics, because I love inclusiveness as much as I love piling on the pasta; so I had to re-adjust my little conversation with them. No Catholicism, please. God-is-luv fluff. You know the stuff.
Yes, I was good. You know I always am, because I always hint at it. Anyway. Where was I? Yes. I was good, I was saying (where was I?… oh… erm… well) but I left the company feeling somewhat dissatisfied. Being so good, I always want to do better, you know. That’s how you create excellence.
I was, then, wondering: was I banal enough? Were my platitudes sufficiently inclusive? Did I avoid Catholic issues with enough zeal, or did perhaps something slip in my words that hurt my audience, and let them feel not welcome?
I was reflecting about all this with half my brains, whilst the other half was doing what it always does: think about food.
Therefore I steered, as if remote-controlled, the next eatery. There, with a pint of Guinness in my hand (I never tell my readers about the twelve donuts; it does not read well, you see; but then again it’s unhealthy to drink alcohol without some little tapas…) , I just stopped and looked at people.
I love looking at people, you must know. I think: what will that chap over there eat for dinner tonight? And the woman coming out of Platform Seven, isn’t she even fatter than I am? What about that boy: will he prefer ketchup or mayonnaise with his fries? And speaking of mayo: what will I eat for dinner? Since my last nightmare, which included celery and carrots, I must eat at least a pound of beef every day, you know. Carrots are not good with a pint of Guinness, anyway. Most crucially: will another half dozen donuts help bridging the time?
Now, my affectionate readers know that besides being the most obscenely blind of Pollyannas, and sabotaging Catholic teaching whenever it lets me looks inclusive, good and charitable, I am always mindful of letting my readers know, in subtle and oblique ways, about my own astonishing goodness. This is because everyone knows I am a first-class glutton, so I must balance that out; and as I have noticed that people never tell me of me how saintly or at least very special I am, I will have to do it myself.
And so I had an epiphany. Whilst I was there, holding the pint in my hand I told you about – and diving into the donuts I did not tell you about – something happened. Cynical bastards like that blogger chap with the Pius XII photo would think it was an excess of sugar in my blood, or a moment of confusion caused by the blood going away from my brain and flooding where it was, at that moment, most urgently needed: my stomach. But hey, whatever the cause, the fact is that for one moment the world stopped.
Now, please follow me closely here. I am not as stupid as to tell you I had a mystical experience, or such like. Everyone knows people don’t have mystical experiences and write about them in blogs. I know my readership isn’t made of eagles (we do extreme Pollyann-ing in my blog; so yes, quite), but they aren’t sooo dumb, either. I don’t like eagles, by the way. I prefer hens. Or chicken. KFC ones, for example.
Sorry, it’s that when I talk of food… where was I again?
Oh. Yes. I mean: no.
No. I had something. Something, you see, profound (because I am profound; and I’ll let you acknowledge it, if I have to bang on it until I have digested a whale), and very very special; but something that I – as in every mystical mini-experience worthy of the name; though I can’t call it that way, see… – cannot really define.
But I will try. For you. And because I am so good.
It was as if the world had stopped, and Colonel Sanders had been looking at me.
He was there. Huge. Smiling at me like it’s going out of fashion. Full of reassuringly white hair.
He was not in flesh and blood, though. He was printed on the side of a gigantic bucket full of delightful, “finger lickin’ good” chicken pieces. Two huge chicken (or hens) were standing besides him.
It was like Chicken Transfiguration, or Nugget Nirvana. I’ll never forget that.
He was saying to me: ” “O000h, Mundaaabor! How oooften I have wanted to gather your readers together, and tell them of the deliiiiicious taste of my chicken wings! But you wouldn’t let meeeee!”
It was the shortest of moments. A flash in the pan, as I say. A mere glimpse. Less, I think, than I need to gobble down a creme-filled donut. And believe me, I am good at that.
It was beautiful. Profound. It was so beautifully cooked, tender, succulent; the breadcrumbs just crispy enough, but not too much. A potentially life-changing experience.
Stop here please, and admire me. What is this all about, if not me?
Since then, nothing has been all right.
I cannot go on as I used to. That face, that particularly delicious, huge bucket, and the two Giant Hens simply persecute me.
It was, as I have already said, redolent of the Transfiguration, though it was even more vividly redolent of fried chicken. But in my case it was rather different. It was as if the Two Great Hens In The Sky had appeared and had said to me “We are the archetype of all KFC mega buckets. Come to us, oh you who hunger, and we will give you the barbecue sauce, too”.
All it’s different now. So please notice, I am halfway talking this down, but you must know by now this is life-changing.
Serious stuff. Spiritual. Profound.
I am, as I have already told you, so very sensitive. Therefore, I do not know what this experience will make of me.Will I leave chocolate donuts and give my full allegiance to cinnamon? Is cream orthodox enough? Should I become a donuts traditionalist?
Already I feel that I cannot blog about political issues anymore; not because it’s becoming uncomfortable to say things even remotely contrary to what the angry mob of liberals and sodomites thinks, and I need to retreat into the ethereal and extremely controversy-free regions of pure do-goodism and pious reflections about myself.
No. Not because of that.
No. I mean, really! Oh come on, how often do I have to tell you?
No! No! No!
It’s because I had this “Big Hens” Chicken Transfiguration vision, you know!
Now, nothing will be the same. Perhaps. I mean. You are getting how sensitive I am, right? OK then…
What will become of this blog?
I do not know.
But when I have eaten too much I do strange things, so you never know.
Please pray for me.
And pass the mayo.
The satanical and sodomitical Puffington Post has an article about the percentage of Catholics over all of Latin America having sunk to 67%; which is, we are told, the worst result ever.
I will not link to the article for various reason (no revenue for the PuffPo, and partially indecent and certainly stupid side images), but this appears to be the fact.
Being perverts and their friends, the PuffPo people think the flock… flocks to the Evangelicals because of the pedophile priest scandal (if you are a pervert or his friend, it is absolutely taboo to mention the Church without the scandal) and because of the “solemn” Catholic masses as opposed to the “emotional, vibrant sermons” of the Evangelicals. If they had respectively said “vapid, childish, and stupid” and “with a recognisable Christian content” they would have gone nearer to reality; but this is the PuffPo, and reality isn’t much high in their list of priorities. They also imply that religion is something for the uneducated poor, as they point out that in Chile and Uruguay – the wealthiest Countries of the region – atheism apparently advances, or so they say, without mentioning data.
Still: the number is there. The Francis effect is… causing losses for Catholicism. Losses in a traditionally extremely catholic continent, and losses even after the hugely expensive and media-hyped exercise of last year’s World Youth Day.
Francis stinks of secularism from the black shoes up. He is a betrayal and a parody of what a Pope is supposed to be. More and more people throw away the baby together with the – admittedly: very dirty – bathwater and start going to Protestant services. I can well imagine many of them have no easy access to even a half decent mass, and have not heard a decent homily from a Catholic pulpit for a long time. No, wait: pulpit? Not many of those are used anymore, either.
And so the Church continues to shrink, and souls are put at risk of damnation, whilst Francis and his friends – some of them heterosexual; some of them Catholic; some of them actually not Marxist – keep having the time of their life.
Even the magazine cover effect is wearing down. When you drug the simple with such massive doses of stupidity and populism, the doses must become bigger and bigger, as the pressure to behave halfway as a Pope grows bigger too.
It will be interesting to know how Francis tackles this problem. He has already stretched the tolerance of Catholics beyond breaking point, and beyond every sense of shame. I can’t think he will start dancing the Tango in St Peter Square.
Perhaps he should just resign whilst he is ahead in the estimation of the simple, and provide a golden retirement for himself.
The cry of “santo subito dopo morto” would be deafening.
The “Gang of Eight” is going to meet again after the disgraceful canonisations of John XXIII and John Paul II.
They want to (trendy word alarm!) “streamline” the Vatican machinery, in order to better manage the continuous decline of Christianity all over the West and to be faster in issuing press releases whenever a Church is desecrated by graffiti, or naked nymphomaniacs.
In order to do so, they want to… create a new layer of administration, in the form of a “coordinator” or “moderator” (no, let's say it in Latin: moderator curiae), whose job will clearly be to add a layer of busybodying into the machinery; thus, ahem, “streamlining” it.
I have already made the comparison between the Vatican machinery and General Motors in the Fifties: a rather monstrous administrative apparatus which felt no desire to “streamline” because it just did not need to. The Vatican is no different. The expenses caused by the couple of thousand priests and prelates there are but a very small exercise compared to the immense apparatus of the Church, an organisation employing around a million only of priests and religious people of both sexes, to which the vast number millions employed by affiliated organisations like Catholic charities worldwide must be added.
If we look at reality in a cynical way, we will see that there is no need for painful cuts, merely a wish that things be cheaper and better organised. Against this, we have the fallen nature of humans, the vanity, at times even the good intentions; creating one day o new office, one day a moderator, one day a new congregation (this might be about to happen, too…).
The necessity to reduce expenses is – rhetoric aside – just not there. The Church is brutally rich and she might not have been so well off – relatively speaking – since the Renaissance. She will not be put out of any “market” if she isn't very lean. To her, efficiency is a thing that looks good in theory, and very difficult in everyday life.
Look at how effortlessly even a circus article like Cardinal Dolan can gather the huge amount necessary to restore St Patrick Cathedral – or an utter disgrace like Mahony could gather more than needed for the edification of the “Taj Mahony” – and realise that the Church has at her disposal virtually unlimited means, that she must only tap when needed in order to satisfy her every material need. By all the rhetoric of poverty, Francis knows it perfectly well.
No, there is no need to streamline anything. The human vanity, though, is still there, and her needs are strong. Francis is, by all his talk, giving the example by promoting people belonging to his circle of friends, thus showing once again that vicinity to the power is better than competence or honesty – or basic decency – every day of the week.
Be one of Francis' buddies and he will put you at the head of a bank even if you are a scandalous sodomite. Be an orthodox religious order and he will crush you no matter how successful you are.
It doesn't look like a recipe for administrative efficiency and honesty to me.
Rather, say hello to the “moderator”.