“Religiosorum Institutio” And The Catholic Approach To Sexual Perversion

Francis desperately needs some good reading. And thinking. And acting.

 

 

 

Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.

This come from an important document issues in 1961, “Religiosorum Institutio”, a document written when the Great Mess had been already announced, but the Church still abounded in good, orthodox men not afraid of facts.

Many are the sound points made by this document, and certainly there is no trace of the modern desire to please. This is a document written to be approved by Jesus, not the adulterers in (or rather, outside of) the pews.

Please read carefully the expression above, and take note as follows:

1. Pederasty and homosexuality are put in the same ballpark. This is a point on which this blog continuously insist, and could never insist for long enough.

2. The tendency to homosexuality is called evil, because it is. And it is because homosexuality is evil, exactly as pederasty is evil. It is a madness of the modern, V Ii church, fueled by a mighty homosexual mafia, that the two are now often kept strictly separated, and homosexuality is only mentioned to remind one that the Church “loves the sinner”, at least implying she is fine with his homosexuality. She is not. She cannot be.

Homosexuality cannot be a sin, in the same way as pedophilia cannot be a sin, because only an action can be a sin. But this does not make them less wrong in the least. It is because the tendency is so evil, that the sin is so sharply condemned. And again, this is the first generation that is so stupid that it cannot even make these elementary distinctions, and waxes lyrical saying that fornication is also a sin, therefore the church considers sodomy in the same way as fornication. My foot.

The sin of sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance, ladies and gentlemen. There is a fundamental difference  between sins going with nature, and sins going against nature.  That our generation is so blinded from political correctness that it refuses to see such evident facts – therefore normalising perversion – is another testimony of the way the V II generation is trying to annihilate common sense, and with it every sensus catholicus, in a desperate fight against sanity shared with the secular world, and applauded by it.

It is a great consolation to know what wherever one looks in the Church of the past one finds all the Truth, all the reassurance, all the sound doctrine the present hierarchy is utterly unwilling and, I suspect, even unable to give us. 

Mundabor

 

Orthodoxy In Heterodoxy.

A good non-Truth to you…

 

Already a couple of times I had comments on my blog – and many more I have read on other blogs – on the lines of “do you realise that what you write goes against the teaching of V II?”, or the variant “what you write has been superseded by the Vatican II documents”.

The writer of such comments has often the obvious aim to instruct the writer of this blog – or, say, some other commenter on another blog – about his mistake; a mistake due to him not knowing that things have, in the meantime, changed.

Religious freedom, ecumenism & interreligious “dialogue”, and the “pastoral” attitude after V II are, from what I could observe, the issues about which such comments are most likely to be made.

A strange inversion of reality has taken place here. What was right, the commenter says, has now been declared wrong. Therefore, people must be informed about the “new right”, in order for them to comply with V II.

This is far, far more absurd than if anyone were to say that 2+2 is now actually 5, white in fact black, and the sun – as thought by V II documents – a satellite of the Earth.

The idea that the Truths of Faith belong to a supernatural order that, by its own nature, refuses the very idea of change escapes such commenters. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council states – in a more or less confused and contradictory manner – principles that are, or appear to be, or are understood to be in conflict with 2,000 years of Church teaching, such commenters do not conclude that the Council Fathers were wrong, or confused, or misleading, but that what is right has now changed. And these people are, when you ask me, very often the same who worry about the “traumatic change” demanded of “old people” to say “and with your spirit” rather than “and with you too”, or whatever childish nonsense it was that was said until a couple of years ago (blessedly, I have forgotten already. Please don’t remind me).

There is here a defence of the orthodoxy of heterodoxy, a method in illogical thinking that leaves one quite speechless. Something strangely between “1984” and Lewis-Carroll’s Mad Hatter.

Truth is Truth. If it can change, then no Truth has ever existed, because if Truth can change it is evidently… not true.

Mind, we are not talking here about matters of discipline. Truth does not change if Friday penance can be done in ways different from abstaining from meat (which did not work, btw), or if it is decided that the fast before communion should be reduced to, say, three and a half minutes (I am sure Francis is thinking of that). The rules can be questionable, unfitting, even disgraceful; but they are nevertheless expression of the same Truth.

Quite different is the matter if we look at what pertains directly to the Truths of the faith: say, in the matter of the communion for adulterers and public concubines. Here, there are principles at stake that are at the very core of how Christianity understands itself, or better said how the Church defends the Truth of Christ. These Truths are the reality of Christianity exactly as 2+2 represents the reality of mathematical addition. On a logical plane it is not possible to tamper with the ones more than with the others.

To play with such Truths is, however prudently made – not talking of the Kasperites here, rather of Cardinal Ratzinger – always a very dangerous exercise. It is dangerous, because whilst the one or other exception might even make half sense in a way – or not, as the case may be – every exception will unavoidably cause the call for more exceptions; general confusion, and watering down of the way the Truth is presented and, in time, defended, will be the result.

The modern representatives of “V II orthodoxy” are the embodiment of this confusion as it breathes and types. They notice that in most countries there is no obligation of Friday abstinence anymore, and in their ignorance and confusion they conclude from this that, “evidently”, Truth changes. The same reasoning they apply to the Conciliar documents, which leads them to conclude what the Church has said now must be, well, “the Truth for our times”, or some sort of “even newer Testament”. The consequence of this is, again, the dogmatisation and unofficial proclamation of the infallibility of V II, because if Truth has changed, then the Holy Ghost must have backed it. As this man-made edifice shows huge cracks, its walls must be supported with… the beatification or canonisation of past Popes. A rather North Korean approach to an obvious failure, if you ask me.

This “new Truth” approach has the same logic as if a Math teacher were to come in class one fine morning and say “after three years of discussion with 300 other pious fellow teachers, we now think that in the new “age of merciful math” two and two should be, in some exceptional cases and after due introspection, five”, and the class to a man should get up and say “what inspired teachers you are! Indeed, a New Springtime of Mathematics has erupted! Praise the Lord! Santo Subito!”

Obviously, Truths of mathematics are better protected from Kasperite manipulation than Catholic Truth; if anything, because every child can tell you that 5 minus 2 is not 2 and there must, therefore, be a mistake there. But again, this is nothing to do with the intrinsic immutability of Truth, which is and remains in nothing more mutable than mathematics.

It is a sign of the times that we should have these “orthodox heterodox commenters” infesting the blogs, perhaps (and this is a biggish “perhaps”) even thinking they are actually helping someone.

Perhaps, I was saying.

Or perhaps not.

My opinion is that, more often than not, there is some skeleton in the cellar. I remember the “Homo Smoke” types, where I had to aggressively question some of these “merciful” people without rest, before they finally admitted they were homosexual; a circumstance they had thought fitting not to disclose to their audience as they expounded their apparently disinterested view of “mercy” and “tolerance” towards “gays”. **

The same is true today. What are the sexual tendencies of the Jesuit priests so noted for their “merciful” approach to sodomites? An approach which brings them in constant, near contact with a multitude of people clearly looking for, well, male ass, and almost always behaving and dressing in a way that would cause repulsion and disgust in every sane person? Why has the one or other bishop or archbishop suddenly discovered “pastoral” duties that, in his own time in the seminary, might have had them kicked out without even the benefit of a “good day”? And what about the many “charitable” commenters infesting the co boxes of Catholic Blogs like Patheos, of Catholic Answers, or of newspapers? Who is the man or woman (or both; at least genetically) that is writing for the “Daily Homograph” about Francis’ new and “modern” approach? Do they live in sin? Are they straight? Are their loved ones straight? Or have they “gone native” in one way or the other, and are now invested in some heterodox or even perverted agenda we know nothing about, and now tell you how good it is that Francis is, so to speak, so “native-friendly?”.

Beware of the orthodoxy in heterodoxy. And beware of the heterodox, whenever they talk about “charitee”.

Mundabor

** nota bene: the fag has great problems in saying “I am straight”, so big is the ego investment in his perversion. Once put constantly under pressure many will, in time, crack, throwing away the mask and showing their true face. It won’t be a pretty sight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Sobering Thoughts

Not much “consolation” here.

 

 

 

At times I can’t avoid thinking, in the spur of the moment or, better said, as the thought jumps to my mind, “if I were to go to hell, at least I would have the consolation to know that my blog posts have helped other people to avoid my destiny”. 

Wrong.

There is no consolation in hell. No idea of “helping”. No shred of charity.

On this earth, even evil people have good feelings for others, are capable of love, and at times can die for an ideal. But when the same people go to hell, whatever “good” they had goes away from them in the same way as when one enters Paradise all evil has been purged from him. In hell there will, certainly, be degrees of evil. But there will be no degree of good.

If, therefore, I were to send myself to hell (and as I write this, a shudder goes down my spine: Ingemisco, tamquam reus. Culpa rubet vultus meus. Supplicanti parce, Deus!) there would be, down there, no consolation whatever. I would hate myself, and I would hate those who are saved as well as those who are damned. I would not have a shred of compassion or sympathy for anyone. I would hate God for sending me there. I would hate myself for having in fact, sent myself there. I would hate the punishment I know I deserve. I would hate the saints for the mercy they have, for their part, collaborated in obtaining if, of course, not strictly “deserved”.

I would, simply, hate. 

This also answers the second thought I have at times: if God were to send me to hell, I hope I would at least accept his decision in obedience and for love of God, knowing that I have deserved it.

No I wouldn’t. I would rebel to it. I would hate it, and I would hate God for it. I would hate God as I know He is right and I am wrong. I would hate God because I know He is right and I am wrong. 

– 

The third thought that sometimes pops in my mind is “If I were to go to hell, the compassion for me of those I have loved, and are in heaven, would still be assured”.  

Wrong.

Those who are in heaven do not have compassion for those who are in hell. They do not suffer for their suffering. No sadness at their destiny clouds their spotless, supernatural, perfect joy. They know that everything is according to God’s will, and therefore everything is perfectly arranged. They are perfectly – as far as their nature allows –  aligned with God’s will. What God wants, they want. What God has decreed, is perfectly merciful and perfectly just. More so, the souls in heaven are given insights of the torture of hell so that the Mercy of the Lord who saved them may be more thoroughly appreciated, and the Justice of the Lord may be seen in all his power.  They see God’s triumph in its fullness.

Therefore, those who love me on this earth will, if the very worst were to happen (shuddering again…) be aware of my shame, but not suffer for that. Not in the least. Actually, it may be said the sight of my sufferance will be an element of their perfect joy. What a sobering thought; and what a shudder, again, down my spine. Preces meæ non sunt dignæ: Sed tu bonus fac benigne, Ne perenni cremer igne.

—————

Whenever I reflect on these two aspects, I cannot but conclude how finely tuned God’s system is.

We are denied any and every consideration concerning hell beginning with the words “at least…”.

Hell is the total failure, the utter disgrace; a failure and a disgrace out of which no consolation whatever arises, a suffering that will never have a positive side to it. Yes, God may concede to the souls in hell, out of sheer Mercy, to have their suffering lessened, and in this lessening of suffering the damned soul may find a comparative relief, that he might, perhaps, call happiness in the only way he can now conceive it. But the lessening of an evil does not transform it in its contrary. In hell there is no love, there is no joy, and there is no consolation. It’s as brutal as that.

We. Must.Avoid.Hell.

Compared to this, nothing else counts.

We must pray, stay near to the Sacraments, pray every day for those we love, pray that the Lord’s Mercy may spare us. We must have a sensible, solid Hope, but never stop being scared Obamaless at the though of where complacency may easily lead us.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Kasperite madness is the beginning of hell.

Whenever I have the aforementioned thoughts, I can’t avoid thinking:

Confutatis maledictis,
Flammis acribus addictis:
Voca me cum benedictis.

And so I wish of you too, my dear readers, that we all may be called where there is only spotless joy, supernatural happiness beyond comprehension.

It’s not easy to be a Catholic, and we do not have the easy, complacent assurance of most Proddies and, alas, so many cafeteria Catholics.

But how more salutary is our fear. 

Mundabor

 

 

Orthodoxy By Hearsay

The Orthodoxy Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

Not easily shocked, Bishop Francis…

Some days ago, Bishop Scicluna of Malta said something very normal about adoption and sexual perversion; better said, he said something that would have been normal, even banal, in usual times, but attracted predictable criticism in times of pope-sponsored “religion of mercy”.

The Bishop replied that he had spoken in the same terms with the Pontiff himself, and the latter had been so gracious as to express dismay at children being adopted by faggots, or dykes, and encouraged him so speak about it.

Predictably, the neo-con Pollyanna fraction was uncorking the bubbly, utterly in ecstasy at the prospect that the Pope might, this once, in private, allegedly, have spoken like a Catholic. Perhaps it would be useful to explain here a couple of concepts:

1. The Pope’s statements related by third parties do not make lasting headlines. Very probably, they aren’t even noticed by any…

View original post 487 more words