Daily Archives: May 31, 2014
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Below, some examples of Francis’ “new evangelisation”.
Don’t insult your intelligence, or mine, thinking this is casual.
A child of seven would understand all this, but a Jesuit of 76? Hhmmm, let’s read from Evangelii Gaudium:
Should talk to the atheists instead. No, wait!…
the mentality that allows Francis to consider his pal, Rabbi Skorka, perfectly fine in all that he does, and even worthy of encouragement to do it even better and in general go on with his own religion.
Which, by 51,000 words, is rather understandable.
Therefore, the public perception of the Pope will continue to be dominated by the interviews. This here is, in the end, merely a sideshow.
The name Michelle Arnold might not tell much to you; but when I was alerted to this article, it rang a bell with me.
Is this not the same woman who suggested to a wife that she disobeys to her husband and puts a third party “counsellor” between them? Yes, she is…
Now, the same woman who has no qualms in putting other people’ s marriages in jeopardy, and in encouraging wives to disobedience to, actually, blessedly Catholic husbands, finds it oh so bad that certain priests – actually, one certain priest – invites donations on his blog and sells articles through it.
Still, this woman doesn’t have the brass balls of the Tablet journalists, who attack that certain priest without any qualm. Rather, she goes around him in circles like an overweight hyena; not saying, but implying; not making the name of any particular priest, but suggesting him; not writing of him, but rather of others.
This is not the first time this particular priest (defined as “the” celebrity priest, so you know that yes, it is he who is meant) is attacked by the “c”atholic press or bloggers, though in this case the attack is meowed rather than roared. Not gently meowed, mind. Meowed, rather, like a very bitchy, overweight cat would meow when she hasn’t eaten.
In the past, I have defended that certain priest (Father Zimmermann, or Zuckerberg; or perhaps Zeckendorf; I forget …) from attacks against him openly, and would do so again if he were to be openly attacked again. But as the fictional bitchy cat hasn’t even dared to openly show her claws, I will do the same like the good bitchy-cat chasing fictional Catholic Dobermann I am.
The, ahem, non-attack moves on two, ahem, non-fronts.
1. Beware of star priests. Look at Father Corapi!
Yes, some priests have qualities Ms Arnold will never have. Such is life. Yes, this will lead to temptations, and those of them who are vulnerable or particularly heavily attacked by Satan (can’t imagine this will ever be the case with Ms Arnold) will be at risk of falling in Satan’s trap. That’s life, too. I notice here that my last information is that Father Corapi has gone back to his monastery and is undergoing a period of punishment and penance. Very frankly, I do not want to “duckduckgo” him to see if this is still the case, because yes, I liked the man, and I like to think that he is on his way to redemption.
But be it as it may, yes: there are dangers in being very, very good that the very, very mediocre will never experience. Actually, anonymity is a very good way to avoid these problems. But then if you are anonymous, some bitchy cat will accuse you of just being anonymous…
2. Look at the warning signs, which I give you because I am smart.
At least one, actually more, of these “criticisms” (some of them very stupid, like “how open is he to criticism”? Go figure…) are directly aimed at Father Zimmermann, or Zuckerberg, or whatever. The message is clear enough: “The “star priest” that shall not be named is a bad one, but I can’t tell you who he is because I will have a bunch of Dobermann chasing me in no time. Forcing me to skip a meal. Which, you must know, I truly hate”.
Tellingly, not one of the warning signs is the only one that people should pay attention to: does the star priest teach anything contrary to Catholic teaching, tradition and common sense? Because you see: if he does, he will do a lot of good to a lot of people even if he ends up (God forbid!) in hell himself; if he doesn’t, he can be “Father Theresa” in his private life and live in a cave, but he will be a rotten priest anyway.
The only measure of orthodoxy is orthodoxy, and this is also the only measure of the goodness of a priest’s preaching, or of a blogger’s blogging. I never enquire about the private life of a priest, and am content with a blogging priest not being openly sinful. I know privately they all are, as we all are, though hopefully in lesser ways than Ms Arnold or I. But you see: it is not sinful at all to sell articles on the internet, or to ask for donations, or to have legions of fans. These perks are generally deserved. What is really bad is when a blogging priest: a) gives scandal, or b) undermines the faith.I have supported Father Corapi as long as he was orthodox, and have censured him when he started to give scandal and talk like an egomaniac on cocaine. But I have not cancelled one single quote of him from my “quotable Catholic” page, and hope the day he dies the good he did to me and many others will be taken into account.
Talking of giving scandal and undermining the faith, the Bishop of Rome does both. Day in and day out.
I sense Ms Arnold isn’t really upset.
Stellar blog post from Father Ray Blake concerning the way our very image of God – with the obvious consequences in practically every aspect of life – was subtly but substantially subverted by Bugnini and his band of liturgical terrorists.
The blog post appears to have been removed, or I cannot find it anymore. Perhaps it will reappear. The main message of the post was that the careful selection of the readings in the New Missal gave a different image of Christ: not King anymore, but Buddy Boy. The blog post was truly good.
EDIT: It is here, a blog post of 2013!
I would like to add some additional considerations that might be of some use.
We see once again Satan’s gradual approach to war at work. Bugnini expunges the Rex Tremendae Majestatis from the experience of the common pewsitter, and substitutes it with a harmless kindergarten Christ who likes everyone and whom no one needs to fear. Given time, a Pope will invite sects from all over the world to Assisi, to take part to an orgy of blasphemous “feel good-ism” inconceivable in the past, but made possible exactly by the harmless kindergarten Jesus with which one generation has now been raised. Given more time, a much more shameless Pope will publicly – if not solemnly and officially – renounce to any requirement of Christian faith, or even to any faith at all, thus spreading a message of universal salvation that represents a new high in blasphemy.
The devil works in grades, advances in small steps. He knows there will be no lack of stupid people accepting the first step and calling “uncharitable” those who refuse to do it; after a while, exactly the same will happen with the second steps; then with the third, and the fourth. At this point, so-called same-sex marriage can’t be far away; after that, it will be outright persecution of Christians. All the while, there will be plenty of stupid people thinking they are Christians, and those who are persecuted are simply backwards homophobic reactionaries.
It must become clear to us that this corruption filters through every aspect of our life. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. The kindergarten Jesus begets a kindergarten theology, which begets a truly stupid kindergarten mentality. Suddenly, the accent is not on the tabooisation of homosexuality, but on making the homosexual feel comfortable with himself. When people write comment in your box stating that people should go around saying to everyone that they are catholic homosexual like others go around saying that they are recovering alcoholics, you understand the perversion of our times has come so far, has polluted the mind of the people so brutally, that to them the concept of taboo and of sexual perversion is not different from excessive drinking. The new lex orandi has perverted the lex credendi to such an extent, that sexual perversion is now accepted part of the lex vivendi.
The same happens in many other aspects of life, but most clearly nowadays in the matter of adultery. We see here the same kind of mainstream madness that has worked so well for the pervs. If Jesus not only loves, but saves everyone unconditionally, this “greatest buddy evah” created in the mind of the people will be incompatible with any kind of sanctions, and the concept of sin – even of very grave and public scandal – will be washed away to the point that a “cruel” Church is now seen as the Oppressor and the public sinner, poor lamb, as the oppressed victim.
What is happening today – from the outright revolt of homosexualism to the more subtle madness of imagined “third ways”, and from the outright dissent concerning communion for adulterers to the satanical deception of “pastoral approach” that perverts Christ’s very message – is the logical continuation of the subversion of sound Catholicism started with V II.
This is why every attempt to justify V II blaming exclusively its after effects is completely wrong. It is like justifying the first line of cocaine, stating that the real trouble was caused only by the addiction that followed.
V II must not be reformed or revisited, or brought back to a supposed original purity.
It must be simply exterminated.
If you surf around for blogs written by Catholic priests, you will not be able to avoid noticing that the tones are becoming more and more critical. Some priests are more open in their criticism and do not shy away from the “F-word” (Francis, that it). Others are more circumspect, but nevertheless very clear in what they say and who is the addressee of their complaint. Other still criticise left and right of the target, Voris-style, but you sense the darts get nearer to the bull’s eye.
One truly wonders how long this will go on.
We must understand two important elements here:
1. Dissent is acted against extremely slowly, if at all, but in the new “time of mercy” there is no mercy for Catholicism. The LCWR continue their antics undisturbed, but the FFI are brutally persecuted after suspicion of “Proto-Lefebvrianism”.
2. If a professor or a theologian dissent from Church teaching no less than an official enquiry of the CDF will, perhaps, persuade them to at least tone down their tone. In contrast, every orthodox blogging priest can be ordered by his bishop to shut down his blog overnight.
It does not take a genius to recognise that if the present “age of m… arijuana” continues, the danger that many of these blogger priests will be requested to either renounce to criticism of the Destroyer or shut down their blogs is very real.Come October, it seems reasonable to think there will be open resistance and condemnation to any Kasperite measures that were to be adopted, or proposed, or offered to “reflection”. At this point, more an dmore bishop will be tempted to “go Campbell”, and order their priest to shut down their “divisive” blogs, that puts heretics against Catholics when everyone knows Jesus wants us to all play cards together.
Many priests will, I am sure, comply in a spirit of obedience; persuaded that no blog is indispensable; that others will carry on the flag; and that the responsibility for the cessation of the blog will be exclusively on the shoulder of the bishop.
But at some point a priest will simply refuse to comply, believing that the bishop is simply not due obedience when he acts in open complicity with evil; this priest will rather invite persecution and legal confrontation than stop caring for the salvation of souls through his blog.
At this point things will become interesting, because the matter will land in front of ecclesiastical courts, and they will have a rather hard time officially sanctioning the right of a bishop to muzzle perfectly Catholic opinions of their own priests because, being Catholic, they are deemed divisive. Then the bishop himself can be asked to stop being a bishop because either he is catholic, and then he is divisive, or he is not divisive, and then he is not being a bishop.
Let this kind of legal confrontation become very frequent and very public, and what we have is a first-class showdown between perfectly Catholic priests and their perfectly anti-Catholic bishops.
It might be, I often think, good for a priest with the intention to resist the muzzling to simply state it – purely hypothetically of course – in his own blog. Something on the line of: the bishop is a wonderful, wonderful shepherd and all that, but wrong orders will not be obeyed, and if the event were to happen (which it will neva! evah!), well then in this utterly hypothetical case, see you in court.
Not that it will ever happen, of course. No. ‘Course not. Perish the thought.
In this case, I think, there would be a kind of United Catholic Front, of people who simply say “I think blogging is integral part of the way I work as a priest, and I will be a priest through my blog as I am a priest otherwise, unless I am told in court I am wrong”.
Just a thought.
Bishop Campbell has reacted to the media echo of his treatment of the blog “Protect the Pope”.
There are some huge news. And some observations worthy of the one or other comment. I see the bishop’s main points as follows:
1. The Deacon writes that the blog reflects his personal opinions, but he does say that he is a deacon of the diocese, and this could lead the readers to think that the deacon reports the views of the diocese.
Well: if they are stupid, yes. But stupidity has no rights, nor would civilisation exist if everything that can be misconstrued by the stupid would not be written or told. Still, it seems to me the bishop has another point here, that I have made in another post: if one says he is a deacon, he has spent the…
View original post 1,058 more words
You might have wondered why I have not written about the content of the Bishop of Rome’s recent trip to the Holy Land.
Mainly, it was because there was nothing much to write about.
Francis limited himself to the usual fluff, adding some fluff for flavour. “Be good, children” was the message in three words.
This makes more evident what this trip was not: an evangelisation exercise. At no point did I have the impression Francis was interested in converting even only one Jew, or Muslim. In fact, this man seems to always do the contrary, namely: to send messages of implicit reassurance that it is perfectly fine for them to remain Jews, or Muslims. Nor is this my personal interpretation, as this is the very Pope who expresses himself publicly against proselytism.
Let us note a repeated occurrence here. The Pope says something outlandish or outright heretical; the Pollyannas run to explain that this is not exactly what he meant; but then Francis proceed to do exactly that, insistently and repeatedly. Proselytism, salvation for atheists, attitude towards sodomy, and the socialist ideology are all points in case.
Which leads me nicely to a point I insistently make, and of which this man provides continuous evidence: Francis lives in a perfectly Catholicism-free world where the supernatural, the eternal destiny of man and the fundamental choice between God’s commandments and the world’s lures and devil’s lies do not play any role whatsoever. He managed, in fact, to expunge religion from his life to the point of not bowing in front of Tabernacles, though he can do it perfectly well to wash the feet of infidels.
He does mention Christ, true enough. But his is always an earthly Christ, a social worker and fighter of inequality, an absurd apostle of income redistribution and – if possible, even more absurdly – a promoter of religious freedom as human right. This, when his Christ is not an outright liar, of course (scour this blog for more).
In short, this man gives the impression of being one of the two:
A) an atheist who has lost his faith a long time ago, or never had it in the first place, and now uses Christ because of the obvious reasons of convenience that led him to choose the ecclesiastical career in the first place; or
B) a man who in the course of decades of moral and theological lapsation has simply forgotten – or has deliberately ignored until he forgot – what Catholicism is, and has substituted it with a strange new age belief in universal or almost universal salvation which, ipso facto, eliminates the issue of the afterlife and allows him to focus his energy on earthly issues; with, nota bene, the added advantage of not having to be unpopular with almost anyone, apart from the serious Catholics he then proceeds to declare the enemy.
Remember this reading of Bergoglio’s mind everytime he says something outlandish, and you will soon notice how everything falls in the proper place, and the apparent madness of his man reveals itself as the unavoidable product of his rather peculiar, and utterly un-priestly mind.
This is a former night club bouncer who thinks Christ was able and willing to deceive, and to deceive His very Apostles. Truly, Innocence has not inhabited that mind for a very, very long time.
I doubt he is more spiritual now than when he worked for the night club, as he reportedly did, or danced the Tango.
If he is, he disguises it with great skill.