Monthly Archives: June 2014
‘From the beginning and before all ages God selected and prepared for His only Son the Mother from whom, having taken flesh, He would be born in the blessed fullness of time; He loved her by herself more than all creatures, and with such a love as to find His delight in a singular way in her. That is why, drawing from the treasures of His divinity, He endowed her, more than all the angels and saints, with such an abundance of heavenly gifts that she was always completely free from sin, and that, all beautiful and perfect, she appeared in such a plenitude of innocence and holiness that, except God’s, no greater than hers can be conceived, and that no mind but the mind of God can measure it.’
Pope Pius IX, Bull Ineffabilis Deus, December 1854.
View original post 97 more words
The ongoing revelations concerning the astonishing abuses and disgusting perversion of Jimmy Savile are most notable in this, that there is of the horizon no form of generalised condemnation of the very institutions that covered him.
It must be clear to the most stupid and ideologically blinded BCC journalist that Savile could remain unpunished only through a decade-long collective blindness within both the BBC and the NHS. Still, I do not detect any call to brand each of these unworthy institutions in any way even remotely comparable to what has been done with the Church.
This is the most absurd, as the NHS is the greatest Nazi mass-murdering organisation in the country (I think we are still north of 150,000 babies murdered a year), and the BBC is the one who has treated the Church with the B2 bomber for decades, as in their very corridors abuses of all kind very simply ignored.
Jimmy Savile should be worth one thousand Cardinal Laws, because no one can say the Church has protected any one priest for decades in an even remotely similar way to how countless BBC employees and managers have chosen to turn a blind eye to what, as it now emerged, was abundantly clear for a very long time.
Still, the BBC, always oh so ready to take the moral high ground, does not proceed to indict itself; nor do the libtards proceed to question their role and their very legitimacy. The same goes for the Mass-Murderers, who will no doubt downplay decades of known and covered abuse as an unfortunate series of single episodes.
The BBC and the NHS represent two of the worst realities in this country; they are two satanical strongholds fully sold to a murderous and/or perverted ideology. No, it does not mean everyone working for them is bad, and heroic battles have been fought by brave doctors and nurses inside the NHS. But again, these heroic battles have become necessary exactly to counter the way the NHS understands itself; a circumstance, this, which today is conveniently forgotten.
Jimmy Savile exposes, with his undoubted evil, the evil of the organisations which allowed him and his perversions to thrive.
But no: the enemy number one, particularly of the BBC, will remain Christian morality and the Church Christ founded.
I never liked Berlusconi for the many reasons you all know, but I still had the hope for many years that if not personal conviction, at least a sense of elementary decency would prevent him from supporting the homo agenda.
Berlusconi has lived, politically speaking, for many years on the many who knew he is a pig, but chose to vote for him because this pig would defend, and be it only for political opportunity, the values they cherished.
In these two decades, many of these voters have died, and a new generation of value-free voters has been moving the social centre of gravity of the Country. A shocking demonstration of this was during the last electoral campaign, when Barlusconi's camp announced a massive offensive on traditional values, which was then immediately forgotten. No doubt, the extensively used poll institutes had told Berlusconi this was not a winning horse anymore, and perhaps a clearly losing one.
I knew Berlusconi is an opportunistic bastard. I was, though, not prepared for this morning's newspaper headlines, announcing his words of strong support for the homosexualist agenda, and his concubine's membership of “ARCI Gay” (a formerly Communist perverts' organisation), with the declaration made even more offensive from the concubine's statement that she is, being the concubine of a married man, also not new to victimisation.
This being Italy, the newspapers gravitating in Berlusconi's area today suddenly discover the importance of “battles” to give “justice” to perverts. It truly, truly, truly makes one vomit.
Whilst resistance remains, it is now clear civil partnerships are a done deal, and this will be only the start. Make no mistake, homo marriage and adoptions for perverts will follow shortly thereafter. The country demands a great jump backwards, or better said a great jump in an ocean of shit. It will get what it deserves. May it enjoy every mouthful of it.
I read these news in shock – a shock only partially mitigated by the fact I knew it would happen at some point; but in fact caused by the sudden, shameless, French-style abandonment of the front from Berlusconi and his people – and think of the shock of millions of faithful Catholics in the Seventies, when the then ruling Democrazia Cristiana allowed his MPs and voters to vote “according to conscience” in matter of divorce and abortion; a cowardly subterfuge which, no doubt, will be used this time, too.
The mask has been thrown away, and the chosen occasion was the “pervert pride day” of yesterday.
Now let me think, what has the Pope spoken about yesterday? When the local clergy is the first to work against Christianity, how can the Christian front win?
The only thing that helps me to keep sanity in the now fast sinking of my Country into a pit of perversion is the thought that Up There everything is seen, and accurately recorded. Liber scriptum proferetur, in quo totum continetur. I know that the Angels will give witness of Berlusconi's and his men shameless behaviour, and of the clergy's betrayal; starting, of course, from the Unholy Father himself.
They may think that He Who has made the eye has no eyes to see, and He Who has made the ear has no ears to hear. Fools.
I wish hell to no one, and even today I will have to find the strength to pray for Berlusconi's, his lackeys' and his concubine's salvation.
But on days like this one one gets to understand, to feel on his very skin, why hell exists and why it is so profoundly, majestically just that it be so.
May a merciful God keep me and them away from it.
But it is a just God, and a Rex tremendae majestatis. I at least have not forgotten it, wretched sinner as I undoubtedly am. They (Francis, Berlusconi, and their lackeys and concubines) have, and trample the Truth for their own shameless, coldly calculated advantage. Openly, arrogantly, under the sun. Celebrated by the world, supported by an army of stupid cows and oxes oblivious of God, of Truth, of Punishment.
I know countless angels see, and cry to Heaven. On this day, allow me to say that the words of the Requiem give one a great consolation:
nil inultum remanebit.
Nothing will remain unpunished.
The “Daily Homograph” (or, if you prefer, “Homo Telegraph”) informs us without a hint of reproach or disapproval that, after the “successful” introduction of around 70 “gender choices” in the US (one wonders how difficult it must have been; but again, for a “Homo Telegraph” journalist an awful lot must be difficult), Facebook has now introduced the same nonsensical “options” in the UK.
The same? Well, not really. As for these people “gender” is something they can shape as they please, the UK “gender choices” will be “limited” to 50, to take account of the different ways in which perversion and idiocy express themselves in the country. This will leave idiots and perverts with only 48 ways to let the world know they are perverts, or idiots. I find it limiting compared to the 70 or more ways available to their counterparts the other side of the Pond; but hey: if they “feel” that way who am I to, erm, judge?
You must think yours truly is utterly and completely opposed to the idea, but on second thoughts it has its advantages. I do not remember exactly how Facebook works, and when I forgot the password I let the thing go the way of the Dodo. I had only used it to post my blog posts, so it was no great loss. Still, I remember and have read around you can “befriend” or “unfriend” people. This means every Facebook member can immediately spot the perverts and idiots simply by looking at which kind of people they choose as “friends”, or at how they define their “gender” themselves.
Very practical, I would say.
Still, if Facebook belonged to me I would make the system even more practical, and reduce the “gender choices” to four; undoubtedly encompassing all the US choices, let alone the “limited” UK ones. They would be:
All the “genders”, in four simple choices.
From Call me Jorge, an interesting insight about what kind of utterly deluded, or more likely perverted tools nowadays go undisturbed under the name of Franciscans, whilst the perfectly orthodox Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate continue to suffer persecution and slander from the “who am I to judge”-Bishop of Rome.
The complicity of these people with sodomites does not stop at shutting up towards sexual perversion, or at playing it down with the usual “oh but we all all called to chastity anyway, so what’s new” rubbish.
No. The intrepid friars positively encourage sodomitical behaviour under the banner of the “gay Pope”: the infamous and never retracted “who am I to judge?”. They absolutely want the sodomites to know that they are on their side (or, in alternative, that they are like them). They put themselves at the end of the scandalous “parade” (during which they must have seen no end of obscenities) and positively must let the perverts know they have nothing against their sodomitical perversion.
In case, then, the support on the day would not be enough, they even sell T-Shirts and other articles from a “St. Anthony shrine”, an organisation staffed by them and clearly fine with all kinds of “lgbt” perversion. You see, perverts of all sorts must know about them even after the parade has ended. Hhmmm… food for thoughts, for sure…
Am I the only one who thinks that among these friars there are those very desirous of encounters with sodomites going beyond the, shall we say, spiritual? Or shall I make an extreme, heroic, effort of Pollyann-ing and think that all of these pro-fag Friars aren’t, at least some of them, fags? How blind can political correctness require that one becomes?
Faggot is who faggot does. Let us stop being blind and stupid, shall we?
I note, though, that there is no trace of “Crypto-Lefebvrianism” in this bunch of cretins (or worse; or much worse; or much, much worse).
Which is why Francis does not persecute and slander them.
No, for that it will have to be the FFI and Father Manelli instead.
The press release that appears below has been published two days ago on the site of the SSPX Press Agency, DICI.
Even by the always elevated standards of the SSPX, the beauty of this declaration is such that I want to put it on my site in its entirety, for everyone to come back to it time and again in difficult hours. I am afraid we will have very many of those in the years to come.
When I compare the text below to the tofu-tasting, politically correct drivel coming from the Vatican – a tofu-tasting drivel which used to be confined to archbishops and cardinals, but of which the Pontiff himself is now the main driving force – I get the entire measure of the wasteland the earthly Jerusalem has been…
View original post 1,631 more words
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
From the Disgrace-in-Chief’s interview to Il Messaggero (another left-leaning newspaper, if you want to know): the first Q&A is reported only to give the context. Please focus on the second Q&A. Emphasis mine.
M: You speak, perhaps, little about women, and when you speak about them you take on on issue only from the point of view of motherhood, woman as spouse, woman as mother, etc. But women by now are heads of state, multinationals, armies. What posts can women hold in the Church, according to you?
Francis: Women are the most beautiful things that God created. The Church is woman. Church is a feminine word [in Italian]. One cannot do theology without this femininity. You are right that we don’t talk about this enough. I agree that there must be more work on the theology of women. I have said that we are working in this sense.
M: Isn’t there a certain misogyny at the base of this?
Francis: The fact is that woman was taken from a rib … (he laughs strongly). I’m kidding, that’s a joke. I agree that the question of women must be explored more deeply, otherwise one cannot understand the Church herself.
What on earth is this?
1) What is the joke? Is he joking about his provocative (but truthful) answer to the woman, or is he saying that the word of the Lord is a joke?
If it’s the first, it smells of great cowardice not to explain things to the end, and make clear a couple of things about the God-given order of the Universe, and the equality of dignity in the diversity of the roles (look, I am quoting a V II Pope here).
The problem is, Francis says it in a way that will induce many to believe that he thinks the Genesis account is a joke . This is so like Francis, I am not surprised.
2) So, the Church has not understood itself for 2000 years? And will not be able to do it unless and until she “explores more deeply” the “question of women”? Why does this man think that there be any “unexplored question” concerning women? Did the Blessed Virgin feel she did not know enough? What about the great female saints, and the countless saintly women who have lived a life fully deprived of “deeper exploration” these 2000 years?
Can’t you see that Francis is once again selling the Church to the enemy with honeyed and suggestive words implying that the Church of Christ has some homework to do to satisfy some, well, unsatisfied feminist?
Let me stop here. I feel the adrenaline level rising already.
The news some days ago had the story of the married history teacher who “seduced” a boy of thirteen. “disgusting” was a recurring adjective. I had no intention of reading the details, but I am inclined to believe the boy was grown to rather a man, as to my knowledge ephebophilia is rather the preserve of homosexuals than of married female history teachers.
Be it as it may, one wonders how a Country that finds this behaviour disgusting largely tolerates, or even “celebrates”, sodomy.
One of this weekends, an open air festival will take place in London, dedicated to the open celebration of sexual perversion. I have not heard any meow from Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols yet, or from his colleague in Southwark who might also be responsible, or from any other prelate who should also feel responsible. If any meowing took place, it was made in such a way that it was not heard where it's uncomfortable.
And so we go on, with heathen immorality being pushed down the throat of the stupid masses, whilst our bishops and cardinals talk of social issues, or of the “joy of being a Christian”, and the Pope gives the example by being the most cowardly, and the most subversive accomplice of perversion of them all.
One can't escape the impression after Francis, “Quisling” Nichols, & Co. all die they will have more company with sodomites than they bargained for. But wait! Francis said I shouldn't say this! It's so “judgmental!.
So let me repeat it:
One can't escape the impression after Francis, “Quisling” Nichols & Co. all die they will have more company with sodomites than they bargained for.
I seldom take part in bloggers’ controversies. When I do, I tend not to write the name of the culprits, unless there are very valid reasons to do so.
Today, the reasons are there.
I desire to express here my solidarity with New Catholic, concerning the way a Fr. Geiger – who has his own blog and is one of the handful of rebels of the FFI who gave Francis the pretext for the disgraceful persecution, subversion and probable liquidation now ongoing – obsessively, and I mean by that obsessively attacks him and the whole team of Rorate Caeli, but particularly him.
Far more powerful voices than mine have already intervened in favour of New Catholic and Rorate Caeli. Roberto De Mattei has a beautiful article mainly dealing with this. I will not add much on what De Mattei has brilliantly exposed, nor do I have any doubt the vast majority of my readers are on the right side on the FFI persecution and can distinguish a true man from a false one, a John from a Judas.
Still, I would like to point out a couple of things:
1. Father Geiger shows a personal fury against Rorate Caeli (and, in particular, against New Catholic) which, if worthy of reproach in a lay blogger, is outright disgraceful in a religious. But again, this is one able to mount a palace revolt against a saintly man like Father Manelli, and of being an accomplice at every step of the subversion of a succesful, and 100% orthodox order like the FFI; so he is acquainted with disgraceful behaviour.
2. Father Geiger continuously uses his blog to attack other Catholic bloggers of perfectly orthodox attitude.
When Bishop Campbell ordered Deacon Nick to suspend the blog “Protect the Pope”, the official motivation was his request to Deacon Nick to “enter a period of ‘reflection and prayer … on the duties involved for ordained bloggers/website administrators to truth, charity and unity in the Church.”’
I wonder whether these words, so unjustly applied to Deacon Nick, would not find a much more suitable application in the case of Father Geiger, a man whose obsession with New Catholic would put into question the soundness of his arguments against him even if they had any.
Allow me to express through my blog the appreciation, which I am sure many, many thousands have, for the sterling work of New Catholic, whose blog is a constant, precious source of accurate and orthodox information in the mad times we are living.
In my native Country, below high voltage electricity poles a simple writing explained the situation: “chi tocca i fili muore”, “he who touches the cables dies”.
No money was spent to explain on TV to stupid teenagers that stupidity can cost one's life; with good reason, because a stupid teenager will be, in case, more excited than dissuaded by such nannying exercises.
Instead, the message was told very cheaply, and very efficiently, in very dry words. I have no knowledge of mass deaths of stupid teenagers willing to show to their friends how brave they are. It's fair to say simple words, and letting people free to pay for their own mistakes if they really want to, worked rather well. You “feel” that you are entitled to touch the cables? Your choice. But you will die.
Not so in XXI Century England, where a man can trespass just outside of Waterloo station, and the rail managers immediately proceed to interrupt electricity along the rails, and to completely paralyse one of the biggest stations of a big Western Country for more than half an hour, and cause delays of above forty minutes in total to every single train. You “feel” you are entitled to trespass on the rails? Fine…
Nor can it be said that, once it is decided that stopping the electrification of the line is the thing to do (with which even I might agree, on a good day) prompt action was taken to remove the trespasser. There is in this country either no rail police, or if there is it has no power, because if you need more than thirty minutes to arrest a trespasser outside of a huge station it is clear these people are completely powerless. Summa summarum: this country is run like a kindergarten in the hands of old aunts, only worried that the worst rascals do not catch a cold.
Let us think it further: if youth are seen climbing the pillars of the high tension cables, are tens, or hundreds of thousands, of people left without electricity so that the idiots may not harm themselves? Why are not all bridges built in a way that prevents people from throwing themselves from them? Should we suspend underground service in London, until all the lines are provided with security barriers preventing idiots from dancing on the rails whilst drunk? Why are the white cliffs of Dover deprived of barriers? Why are motorways not closed everytime some drunkard wants to cross them (yes, it happens…)? “There was a man walking on the M4 in the direction of Heathrow. The entire motorway will now be shut for 40 minutes whilst the police arrests the trespasser. We “feel” with all those who will miss their flight because of this trespass”. Not bloody likely….
This could go on forever, but you understand what I am aiming at: a society that negates personal responsibility to the most absurd extremes – albeit these extremes are not universally applied or, better said, are only applied where the populace can still swallow the consequences – is a society heading toward self-castration, and producing a huge mass of dumb oxes paying the price for the antics of a bunch of idiots.
People aren't expected to pay the price of their actions anymore. “He who touches the cables, dies” isn't good enough. On the contrary: everyone must be protected from the price of his own stupidity, no matter the cost.
This extreme nannyism goes hand in hand with the deification of human life that has followed the loss of faith. Once, in Christian time, it was very simple: by killing that man, you have renounced to your own right to live; therefore, you will swing at the lower end of a noose.
By touching the cables, you have met the destiny of those who do so. By trespassing and walking on a train line, you have accepted the risk involved and about which you had been warned. By taking part in an armed robbery, you answer for homicide even if not you, but your accomplice has committed the murder, and even if you were absolutely contrary to killing anyone. You answer for murder because, by deciding to take part to the bank robbery, you have accepted all the consequences of your action, even those you would not have brought about.
Why do I tell you all this? Because, as the Earl of Cavour used to say, tutto is tiene: everything is linked to everything else.
In a world in which Waterloo Station is paralysed for 40 minutes by what probably was a drunkard, a madman, or both, it seems perfectly normal that someone else should change Church rules to please the adulterers. No one is responsible for anything, you see. When the madman trespasses, you block the station. When the adulterer trespasses, you block the Church.
I am not sure (lawfully) refusing to switch the electricity off would be wrong; no one stopps rivers from flowing under bridges, either, and if – say – a drunkard throws himself from a bridge he knows that the impact it's going to be hard; but I personally would prefer to stop the electricity, have the idiot arrested in six minutes net (abundant time; it was near the station; near enough to block every train), let his teeth get acquainted with the police stick, prosecute him, have him convicted, frock him so hard the news goes around, and have all the trains running again in eight and a half minutes; ten, tops.
Similarly, I am not sure adulterers in this country should be told every week that they must refrain from communion, are giving grave scandal, and will probably go to hell unless they reform themselves. But boy, there should be enough common sense around to let them know what they are risking, the position in which they are, and what God has said it happens to public adulterers:
He who touches those cables to the end, his soul dies.
There is an interesting blog post of the Traditional Catholic Priest in which, among other things, he informs us that the efforts of hackers are often directed at sites like his.
I must say I am not surprised. It has been my conviction for a long time that nowadays to declare oneself “tolerant” means to think that one has every right to be as intolerant as he pleases, anytime he likes. By particularly “tolerant” minds this extends to the point of committing criminal offences, but I can't say the average “tolerant” person out there is very much better, and many of them are probably merely not proficient enough to become criminals.
If this were a problem of a tiny minority of cranks, the problem would be easily manageable. But the phenomenon has now become mainstream, to the point that episodes like the recent one with Firefox are hailed as great victories rather than extremely dangerous signs of the erosion of the most elementary freedoms.
I can compare this situation – I mean the legal, mainstream intolerance, of which the criminal activity is but the inevitable fallout – to pockets of Nazi thinking in the middle of free democracies. It this is not stopped it will end up in tears, then it is in the very nature of this mentality that the pockets will become increasingly larger, until the reaction to them will have to take place in the same way as every struggle for freedom has taken place in the past: with arms.
The Nazis are creeping in the middle of our society, and this increasing Nazification expresses itself in many ways, like the one mentioned by the good Father. Put them together with Firefox, with Apple censorship of Christian content, with the increasingly more aggressive intolerance of Christians in their own activity – a baker here, B & B owners there – and you get the picture.
The Nazis of “tolerance” are growing stronger; it isn't an hyperbole, but a very real danger.
One of the most alarming signs of the decay of Christianity in the West is the inability to put things in the proper context. In particular, this finds expression in the unquestioned acceptance of snippets and quotes used in a completely different way than the one meant by their original authors. The most dramatic example is certainly the “do not judge” quote, but one can see this mentality at work everywhere.
Say, a Pope of the past has criticised the abuse of riches: this is used to advocate a Socialist society that would have horrified that very Pope. Or, Padre Pio has stressed the virtue of obedience: this is used to demand that we be accomplices in every clerical abuse. I could go on.
The reason why this at the same time ignorant and subversive tactic “works” is that in the past the uneducated masses knew they were uneducated, and realised they had to rely on the guidance of people with a better understanding of things; besides, they were in fact guided by people who really had a sound understanding. In dramatic contrast, millions of barely literate people nowadays think themselves “educated”, and are persuaded that they are the ultimate metre of right and wrong; and are helped in this by a cowardly clergy intent in telling them all day what bright minds they are. It is, in such circumstances, certainly no surprise that every word of the past can be raped by contemporaries, amidst the applauses of the crowd.
The last example of this has been given, in the most shocking of ways, by Our Own Very Humble Jesuit-In-Chief. He has, during the crisis meeting with some FFI representatives about which Rorate and others have reported, apparently said two old things in new, and very scandalous ways:
1. The quip of St. Ignatius who said that if the superior says White is black, they must believe it, and
2. The assertion that the Pope is, tout court, the guarantor of orthodoxy, so whatever he says is orthodox.
The first phrase is most certainly a grievous abuse of a sincere call to obedience, made in times in which the spread of heresy within the Church in the measure we see today was unthinkable. The Unholy Father, the Humble Bishop, abuses of this to demand blind obedience no matter what, in the most shameless and most un-Catholic expression of Führerprinzip he has had the insolence of using up to now.
The second phrase is, if possible, even worse: it is an open invitation to shameless clericalism to the point of Papolatry, the arrogant demand that he be obeyed whatever he may say or order, because whatever he may say or order must, in virtue of his being the… Bishop, orthodox.
This isn’t Catholicism anymore. This is the talk of an Oriental Satrap, or of a Roman Emperor demanding to be deified.
Surely, Francis must accept that there is a Truth according to which his every action can be weighted and, if necessary, criticised? If he accepts this, every talk along the lines of 1. and 2. above must be balderdash. If he doesn’t, he thinks he is God, or at least wants you to treat him in the same way.
Francis is quite the Jesuit. The oh so humble Embracer Of Wheelchairs is the first one to abuse of his office with an arrogance that would beggar belief, if we would not know the man very well by now. The prophet of “do not judge” reveals his agenda, that can be summed up in: “do not judge me, whatever I do”. His demand that he be considered the true embodiment of Orthodoxy whatever he may say would be a scandal in any Pope, but it is the most so by one so evidently ignorant, so appallingly inadequate, so tragically incompetent, so shamelessly Jesuitical like this one.
Pope Uriah becomes more and more disquieting. And what disturbs more is his total lack of shame and self-control.
Read on the usual Rorate the extremely strong article written by Antonio Socci, with a no-holds-barred criticism of the disgraceful Bishop Galantino, Francis’ own new Secretary of the Italian Bishop’s conference.
Whilst – as Rorate points out – Socci is not a Master of Orthodoxy, nor a Paladin of Tradition, I find the article very interesting not only because it is well-written and factually accurate, but most notably because the bunch of idiots now running the Church begins to be treated with at least one part of the contempt and ridicule they have richly deserved for betraying Christ’s Church.
The bishop in question, Galantino, has now after the atrocious sniping of the “expressionless face” of those praying in front of abortion clinics, forgotten all decency again, and I quote:
“We want to apologize to the non-believers because many times the way we live our religious experience completely ignores the sensibilities of unbelievers, and we say and do things that very often don’t reach them, but rather vex them.”
I will not offend your intelligence telling you all that is wrong in the words of this heathen. I will point out, though, that Galantino has, no doubt, wanted to make himself beautiful in the eyes of Francis. Strong reactions like Socci’s one not only signal the growing impatience of sound thinking Catholics with the continuous barrage of outrageous nonsense now administered to us, but they also show with great clarity that if the head of the Bishops’ Conference and clear protégé of the Pope can be criticised in such a way, the Pope himself cannot lull himself in the impious hope that whenever he says “black is white”*, the press will swallow it whole.
Everytime that the confrontation goes a notch higher – and the confrontation has just gone two, or three notches higher – the Unholy Father gets nearer to the same criticism. It is as if he could hear the shells from the cannons of sound Catholicism now falling increasingly nearer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
There will, of course, always be those who contract the Voris Disease and decide to become selectively blind; but in the same way as Voris’ criticism of everyone but the Pope merely exposes his own selective blindness in not criticising the Pope, the harsh – deservedly harsh; less harsh than he deserved – treatment of Bishop Galantino will train many to think in the right Catholic way; and when they start doing so, the army of those who see all the irreligious incompetence, boundless vanity and shameless populism of the Bishop of Rome will grow. At some point, the scandal will, Deo volente, explode fully in the Pope’s face, and will put an end to his dreams of boundless popularity at the cost of Catholicism. If you ask me, this will be the end of this phase of extreme enmity with Truth, because in my opinion Francis has no investment whatever either in Christ or the Devil, but merely in himself.
Kudos to Socci, then, who paves the way to a new tone in the way the press deals with Judas like Galantino.
Mundabor is slowly, but clearly, on his way to becoming mainstream among the sound thinking Catholics.
* post scheduled.
I have read several articles in the past weeks about two related events in the Archdiocese of New York. The first is the threatened closure of a TLM parish, prospering and perfectly viable. The second is the removal of a good Catholic priest who had dared to speak openly against such closure. Behind both moves is, no doubt, the vast belly of Cardinal Dolan.
My reaction to such news is always the same: it is all because of Francis.
It is not that I want to exonerate Cardinal Dolan, but rather that I have no doubt – and neither should you – that Dolan is a very heavy weathervane, and moves his rather vast corporeal mass in whatever direction he finds more appropriate at the moment. It is, therefore, no surprise at all he would now move to get some brownie points with the Unholy Father and his men in red.
Dolan is, very clearly, looking at the future, and positioning his considerable backside in a strategic position for the next conclave; so that he may, when the time comes, present himself as the right balance between the continuation of Francis' circus activity – for which he is, when his mouth is not full, eminently suited – and a more traditional approach. He might have better cards than, say, Maradiaga, whom even his friends in red might see as too risky a choice.
What is happening in New York is the obvious consequence of what is happening in Rome. The Michael Voris of the world, who limit their criticism to Dolan and forget to mention why he does what he does, are like the old critics of Beria who forgot to mention Stalin in their criticism.
A strong wind of heresy, chaos, stupidity, ignorance, incompetence and perhaps outright evil intent is blowing. The weathervane register the fact and position themselves accordingly.
We should look at the causes, rather than focusing exclusively on the effects.
The Second Dolan Reblog
The de facto Commander-in-Chief of the American Catholics today openly apostatised, officially declaring his abandonment of Christian dogma. Now allegedly moved by Mohammed, he went to visit a local Mosque.
Great was the joy of the still cardinal at being finally able to enter a place considered sacred by the followers of a child rapist. “I thank God that this day has arrived”, said the future Muslim cleric, overwhelmed by emotions after so many years of clearly outdated Tabernacles, Blessed Virgin statues, and worship of Christ and the Holy Ghost as God.
Mr Dolan, now slated for a position of high responsibility among New York Muslims, officially announced his abandonment of Christianity, explicitly saying that Muslims and Christians believe in the same God.
After the future Imam’s official betrayal of Christ, commenters are divided among those who think he is a retard and those who think he is simply…
View original post 148 more words
Amnesty International is begging for money on British public transport, informing us that “a teenager faces a death sentence for being gay”.
The ad continues: “will you send a text?”
Oh, Aaahh, uhhh, who would not send a text in solidarity to the poor teenager?
In littler fonts, we are then informed that in ten countries, people can be put to death for “loving someone of the same sex”.
Oh well, it's not about “being gay”, then. It's about Sodomy! A criminal offence in all civilised Christian countries, when they still were both!
Now, we can disagree about whether the death penalty might not be a tad too harsh. I personally think it is far too harsh; but by all means, feel free to disagree. It's a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, anyway.
The point is, though, another one: being homosexual does not force anyone to commit acts of sodomy, exactly as being a pedophile does not force anyone to rape children.
All this is, though, conveniently forgotten by our atheist, Morality-free friends. They suggest, instead, that you text a certain number, after which Amnesty will have another plug possibility everytime they think, or suspect, that someone, somewhere, may, or might, be at risk of being executed for “being gay”. I'd love to have the statistics about real executions, by the way.
Hardly a genocide, I am sure.
If you know any Christian friend or relative of yours who is inclined to give money to these people, you may want to educate them to Faggotry International's agenda: the shameless promotion of heathenism and sexual perversion as a way to get to your wallet.
No, it's not for “being gay”. It's for being a sodomite. A very free choice, that requires overcoming a very strong and very natural sense of disgust, and which is very painful anyway.
I won't send my text. My phone will stay faggotry-free. Fag chappy will have to keep his perversion under control.
There’s too much anti-Muslim bias in Europe, says Amnesty International. BBC obviously reports in very sympathetic tones.
All those good and hard-working Muslims treated as if they were as many criminals. Tsk,tsk…
I must distance myself from such prejudices. I am sure many Muslims are rather westernised, and don’t give a Mohammed for their religion. Alas, many others aren’t, and they do give a Mohammed.
To prove that there are no problems with Muslims (in Europe, or elsewhere) I will post here a famous cartoon. You will remember this cartoon did not originate violent riots in several Muslim countries, did not cause the assassination of several religious and civilians, did not expose Islam as a dangerous religion all too likely to raise suicidal-homicidal hotheads, and did not cause any call for boycott of Danish products.
Therefore, Amnesty International must be right.
Whilst it is very sad to have to comment again and again on the Pope’s words, I think it is worth doing, because the careless words of the Holy Father have become such a common occurrence that without any reaction we will drown in a tidal wave of novel thinking without even noticing.
in the times of the young Roman republic, marriages were made with the two family clans meeting very publicly in two groups standing in front of each other, and the pater familias (the head of the clan)of the bridegroom’s family again very publicly physically seizing the girl from her side and bringing her to his family’s side. The lack of reaction of the bride’s side was meant to show to the community the seizing happened with their consent. This “taking with the hand”, in Latin manu capere, became…
View original post 877 more words
You got to love Father Ray Blake's innocence; a man who, in his candor, thinks the video of the Pope documents a “spontaneous act of kindness”.
I have looked at the video, and have tried to overlook the policeman strategically put just where the Humblemobile stops, and perfectly in place as soon as the car stops. Or the fact that the relatives of that unfortunate creature were so ready to roll, all together, in the car's direction, showing no surprise or indecision whatever; or the fact that one of the present women clearly reminds another to take a photograph; not with the excited tone of the one who says: “quick! quick! A photo!”, but with the somewhat piqued tone of the one who reminds another of something that had been decided and the other is forgetting: “Gise', the photo!”
But most of all, the presence of a camera, already perfectly positioned, tells all the tale about the “spontaneity” of Francis, a true Prince of the Clowns.
Francis gets out of the car, kisses the poor disabled woman, behaves in all like a JFK in white; he does not give any blessing, nor is he requested to give any. He could have been a pale Obama in a strange suit, but for the fact that no she-gorilla with aggressive man-jaws was at his side.
What this family has experienced was not a spontaneous act of love of a Prince of the Church, but a staged – by them too – encounter with a celebrity. A small theatre for the use of the masses. A calculated deception to spread feel-good feelings, and promote a man who is now a brand, a brand in full opposition to even the post-conciliar Church until 2013.
A calculated deception, as we all know, quite in line with this Pontificate. In this sense, the video is quite like Francis: a fake that looks well.
Pray for the Pope. For this one, and for the next one.
If we want to follow the way of Jesus, the Pope concluded, “more than accusers, we have to be defenders of others before the Father. I see a bad thing in someone – do I go defend him? No! But keep quiet! Go pray and defend him before the Father as Jesus does. Pray for him, but do not judge! Because if you do, when you do something bad, you will be judged. Let us remember this well; it will do us good in everyday life when we get the urge to judge others, to speak ill of others, which is a form of judging. “
It is difficult, by this kind of article, to understand whether the Unholy Father really wanted to put it that way, or whether the journalist (who might be, say, an adulterer, or one who has some skeleton in his family's closet) is “embellishing” what the Pope has said in order to push his own “do not judge me, mom”-agenda.
Certainly, though, the phrase above, if there was no corrective or explanation or delimitation, is not only worthy of a child of five, but the most cruel indictment of one's own Papacy ever pronounced by any Pope.
The only attempt I can make at trying to let this man not appear a total child is in the phrase:
“The person who judges,” the Pope said, “is wrong, is mistaken and is defeated” because he assumes God’s place: He who is the one and only judge.”
Here it would appear – if we seek with the lantern – that what Francis condemns is the judgment that “assumes God's place” (that is: wants to decide about ultimate judgment). But there is no going around the fact that Francis must perfectly well know how his words will be interpreted worldwide; which, even if he were a total retard, the reaction to his infamous “do not judge” remark would have taught him very well indeed.
Note also another example of Francispeak, when the Unholy Father says “to judge others, to speak ill of others”. here, the major subject is “to judge others”, and the minor subject is “to speak ill of others”. The Pollyannas will run to explain to you that when Francis says “those who judge”, he means “those who speak ill” in an obvious malevolent way. The entire planet will get, as desired by Francis, only the “do not judge” part in the only meaning they know.
We are here, therefore, in front of the usual Modernist, and utterly Jesuitical, exercise of proclaiming the gospel of the heathen to the heathen, but then hiding here and there vague traces of soundness, knowing that properly instructed Catholic may – if they are of the Pollyanna kind – clutching at the two or three straws they will find as if their life depended on it. The result? Millions of people living in grave sin will suddenly decide no one has the right to tell them anything, and will continue to live in sin to their grave.
There can be no doubt for sound thinking people that Francis is, once again, espousing – at least for the benefit of the clapping crowd – the modern ideology of ” do not judge” that has given us all the decline and all the abomination we see around us every day, whilst the hypocrite clergy betrays Christ whilst feigning a very good heart. This would be a scandal in the mouth of any prelate, but is a very special scandal in the mouth of a Bishop of Rome.
This is the Pope who, more than any other before him and probably after him, launches himself in wholesale condemnations anytime his teeth feel the need for some fresh air. This is, also, the Pope who is persecuting the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate with a ferocity that you can only expect from these “do not judge”-people. Thirdly, this is the Pope who, not later than some days ago, brought the level of his own public judgment to a non-existent declaration of “collective excommunication”. Isn't he supposed, according to… himself, to “go and defend them in front of the Father?” The stupidity, or hypocrisy, or outright carelessness and arrogance is breathtaking.
This is, undoubtedly, either the first infant intellect that has become Pope, or one of the most evil ones, or one who simply has lost the faith and doesn't care a fig for anything else than himself; and is therefore not even bothered with being evil, merely with doing what is convenient to him on the day.
Note here that the phrase reported above makes clear that Francis is not considering the word “judging” in the sense traditionally employed by Catholic (where “judging” means to erect oneself to judge by deciding of the salvation or damnation of a person, or to speak of someone rashly or with malevolence), but he is openly and frontally criticising the work of mercy of admonishing the sinner, and the meritorious work of those who, confronted with scandal, react to it so that the faithful may not be confused, and the unfaithful may not be led even more into sin.
If Satan were to appear on earth and start preaching, he would probably start in a way similar to Francis: no one can criticise anyone, and when you see everyone around you giving scandal, keep quiet!
That out of this the destruction of every Christian morality must follow in time – because humans are frail, and prone to sin, and need rebuking, and correcting, and reminding of hell, and all that jazz – Francis either doesn't see, or he sees and pursues it, or he just doesn't care because he does not believe in any form of judgment after death himself.
I will continue to look on the internet to see whether Francis has given some correction to the statement. But again, the statement reported above is long and elaborate enough that, whatever correction Francis may have built in the course of his sermon, it will be used by the usual crowd of the enemies of Truth.
What keeps astonishing every thinking and sane person is the utter carelessness with which this man contradicts every day what he has said the day before, without being in the least concerned with appearing I do not say wise, but at least not an utter clown.
He might, though, know the masses better than we do; because whilst a minority of sane people does understand what nincompoop – or worse – this man is, it appears the vast majority can live very well with his senseless waffle; be it because they are too thick to know better, or because Francis tells them what they desperately want to hear, and they end the conscience's debate by saying to themselves “if even the Pope thinks that way, who am I to judge myself?”
We live in very stupid times.
There is no doubt that we have a Pope to match.
If we want to follow the way of Jesus, the Pope concluded, “more than accusers, we have to be defenders of others before the Father. I see a bad thing in someone – do I go defend him? No! But keep quiet! Go pray and defend him before the Father as Jesus does. Pray for him, but do not judge! Because if you do, when you do something bad, you will be judged. Let us remember this well; it will do us good in everyday life when we get the urge to judge others, to speak ill of others, which is a form of judging. “
“Concerning those things, then, which are known to God, unknown to us, we judge our neighbors at our peril. Of these the Lord hath said, ‘Judge not, that you may not be judged.’ But concerning things which are open and public evils, we may and must judge and rebuke, but still with charity and love, hating not the man, but the sin, detesting not the vicious man but the vice, the disease more than the sick man.
For unless the open adulterer, thief, habitual drunkard, traitor, or proud man were judged and punished, in them would be fulfilled what the blessed martyr Cyprian hath said, ‘He who soothes a sinner with flattering words provides fuel for his sin”.
May the Lord have mercy of the wolves in Popes’ clothes.
I am livid for Italy’s elimination, and the way in which it has happened.
For the sake of my liver, kindly refrain from making comments on the football.
Back to normal Catholic service.
I received this on my postbox from Pollyanna. I publish without comment.
As we all know, our Holy Father has been unjustly slandered in the matter of the FFI. It has now emerged that on 10 June there was a big meeting between Francis, the evil Father Volpi, and several dozen Friars. I would like here to defend our wonderful Holy Father from the unjust accusations that will be moved against him. My position is proved by the following points.
1. Pope Francis has received the Friars. How won-der-ful this is! He is full of caring solicitude for his sheep!
2. Father Volpi, the evil friar who keeps Francis in the dark about the persecution of the FFI, was also there. This I found a bit strange, but I think it was because our wonderful Holy Father is so nice to everyone!
3. It is reported that the Holy Father was well informed about everything, and discussed the situation with the Friars during one and a half hours. This is wrong! Slanderous! Evil! The Holy Father cannot be informed about the persecution! It just can’t be! He would nevah evah be an accomplice in their persecution! Don’t you know that the Holy Spirit picked him up very personally, and whispered straight in the ear of every Cardinal: “yep, Bergoglio it is”?
No. It is obvious that Father Volpi has deceived our humble and good-natured Holy Father into believing that he knows everything, whilst persecuting the Friars all the time behind his back!
4. It is very obvious that many are leaving or about to leave the Order, and particularly the news of the 20 seminarians who have decided to leave “before it’s too late” is distressing. I am sure Father Volpi was distracting the Holy Father whilst the Friars spoke about this and their persecution.
You know how it is done, don’t you? A “Beautiful day, Holy Father” here and an “Excuse me, Holy Father: what time is it?” there, together with many “How do you feel, Holy Father? ( are you tired, angry, thirsty, sleepy, cold, warm…)”. It’s so easy to distract the poor, trusting soul! And he has only one lung! Only one lung! I wonder how he breathes at all! It must be the Holy Ghost’s assistance helping him, for sure!…still, who knows how much he coughs!? Are we surprised he has not heard of the Friars’ persecution? Oh, Father Volpi, what an evil man you are! To profit in such way of the a Holy Father’s ailment! Disgraceful!
No. We must understand here that there is a conspiracy to keep the Holy Father, He Whom The Holy Ghost Picked With His Own Hand, in the dark about all this. If he knew, if he only knew, how would he run to restore justice and put an end to Father Volpi’s persecution! We must do all he can to inform him, because he is surrounded by wolves…!
5. The media report that Francis reassured the Friars they can celebrate the Traditional Mass for now. Oh, foolish men! Don’t they understand Francis said “they can celebrate the Traditional Mass” and Father Volpi, imitating his voice, added “for now”? Seriously: this is sooo obvious!
Also, it was clearly Volpi who, imitating Francis’ voice, said to the Friars they need the “discernment” of their superior or of the bishop in order to celebrate the TLM. This is patently against Summorum Pontificum, and therefore our good and humble Holy Father simply cannot have said it! Sheesh!
I could go on a long time, dear Mundabor, but I know you don’t like long messages in your comment box. I know you are, with me, in the first row of those defending the Holy Father from the bad, bad wolves surrounding him, and erecting around him a wall of lie and deception. The poor, humble man lives in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, fully isolated from what happens around him! He never sees anyone, he never visits anyone, he never goes out! How can he keep abreast of what happens around him if the wolves keep him isolated from the news, imitate his voice with journalists, and even interrupt him all the time so he can never be properly informed?
And he has only one lung! Only one lung! I am reliably informed the other lung is also almost gone! How can a person in this condition, and even with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, pay attention to what the Friars said to him? Don’t you understand he must breathe all the time?
Mundabor, I implore you and your readers to join me in our struggle. We are with Pope Francis and against Father Volpi and his unjust, unjust persecution of the Friars! The Pope knows nothing about it! ¡Nada!
Thank you for your time, Mundabor.
With Pope Francis, against the wolves!
It was not Nancy Pelosi (a well-known evil individual, intent of sabotaging Catholicism for her own purposes) that was “excommunicated”.
It was the usual anonymous crowd so easy to criticise.
After an observation or two in the comment box, it is perhaps fitting to say one or two words about this little effort, so that any uncertainty that there might have been in less attentive – or less assiduous – readers is definitively dispelled.
1. Read the statement from Robert De Piante on the right hand column of this blog:
What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now.
This is probably the most famous statement expressing in just a few words the essence of traditional Catholicism. It is there for a reason. I do not exclusively employ the term “traditionalist” because I think that…
View original post 1,329 more words
I tend not to intervene in other bloggers’ controversies, or at least I do so only when it is necessary to make a general point.
In this case, I will limit myself to the general points, and avoid names, facts, and circumstances. Please keep them away from your comments, too.
My two cents on the matter of controversy are as follows:
1. Every soul has infinite value. Every soul is, in fact, more important than the entire universe. But this does not mean that I have to like everyone. Some people I won’t like, either because I am human or because they are not very likeable. What I will know, is that to God the soul of every bastard (dead or alike) is more important than the whole universe. But a bastard is, after all this, still a bastard. I generally put it this way: when a pig dies he does not become a lamb, he merely becomes pork. It is important that we keep the facts in mind if we are to judge the world around us in a way that allows us to make good choices and work in a sensible way towards our salvation. Therefore, it behooves each and everyone of us to decide who are the lambs, and the pigs. We can’t make the pigs to lambs just because we love luv fantasies. But yes, we must always have in mind the infinite value every soul has for God, and strive to wish for everyone the same graces and blessing we wish for ourselves. I wish salvation even to Stalin, the ueber-bastard, but do not even think of not calling him “bastard” for that.
2. Righteous anger is good. Very good, even. This blog is fully in favour of righteous anger. If something makes you angry because you see the Church you love wounded, strike very hard, my lad (or: my gal). We are not the Church Pussyfooting. We are the Church Militant.
I seldom have any problem in seeing whether the person who has just used the flamethrower on the net has done so out of personal vanity or out of sincere love for the Church. I trust most of my readers can make the same judgment, because otherwise they would not be reading this blog.
3. beware of the “charitable” troops. In my experience, those who make appeals to charity are, very often (but not always; again, in time one learns to assess the person) only looking for their own satisfaction: the petty pleasure of playing nanny, and kindergarten teacher, and installing themselves on the moral high ground.
The attitude is self-defeating. To accuse another blogger of being “uncharitable” (or “intolerant”) fails to pass the very text of charitable behaviour (or of tolerance) that it pretends to impose. Besides, it is also my experience that those easily calling for “chariteee” in others seldom practice what they preach. The sane attitude here lies, if you ask me, in considering that good Catholic hearts comes in many versions, and some of these are more easily inflamed than others. Good for them, I add. Therefore, if one is not a good Catholic heart, the issue is the latter, not the anger; but if one has a good Catholic heart, God bless his anger, and may He reward him richly for it.
Having said that, I think a blogger, of all people, can be asked to reflect a moment or three before he writes, because he writes with a view to influencing others. If he were to see that what he has written was too coloured with anger, he should amend or cancel without further ado. If the episodes happen often, he should consider the way he blogs, because his credibility could be seriously affected. Personally, I never cancelled one angry blog post, nor did I ever ask others to cancel a message I have posted by them. I think twice before I write. After that, it is quod scripsi, scripsi. It is better not to write until one can do it in a reasonably angry way (as I have done on more than one occasion) than to write and send the message “never mind what I blog…”.
4. “Charity” is misunderstood. To slap a person you love because he has just blasphemed is charitable, and may the slap impress itself in his soul far longer than on his cheek. Conversely, to allow him to remain in error or to go on with his behaviour is uncharitable, though perfectly accepted in nicety-obsessed England. An angry blog is more likely to be authentically charitable to his own reader than the nanny’s one. By the by, “charitable” bloggers always remind me of Pride and Prejudice’s Mary Bennet; who, poor girl, is not very smart, but has a great need to take the moral high ground, because her sisters are beautiful. Yes, I know, an “uncharitable” remark. But one fitting the fictional reality of the novel.
So, that’s that.
I thought it had to be said. “Uncharitable” as it may seem to Mary Bennet.
Another day, another embarrassment coming from the Unholy Father.
The intention was, apparently, good: to send a strong message of disapproval to organised criminality in Southern Italy, and to make clear in this day and age you can’t be a member of the ‘ndrangheta and try to disguise as a good Catholic (it might have different in the past; but I do not want to digress).
The problem is that we have a Pope that does not know what an excommunication is. Which goes together with the very many other concepts of which he has no idea whatsoever, starting from the very idea of sin (I have written about this very recently) and continuing with his understanding of Salvation, Evangelisation, and a lot of other things.
This time, and not for the first time, Francis just said what came to his mind; probably because it sounded well, and he could already see the headlines. A child of six in first grade pays more attention before he opens his mouth. But again, a child of six has to pay attention to what he says in class lest the teacher punishes him, Francis hasn’t.
The impression is once again reinforced that to Francis, Francis comes first, second and third, and possibly also sixth and seventh. He could have condemned mafia-like activities in the strongest terms without the need for any “novelty”, or unusual word; but no, Francis must always be in the limelight. Whatever he talks about, it is always about him, it is always his person and attitude that are supposed to be taking centre stage; hence the continuous search for the “effect phrase”, the headline-producing statement making clear how different he is from his predecessors.
Francis simply can’t open his mouth without promoting Francis. I have no doubt in my mind millions of non-instructed Catholics will read the headline and think: “How good Francis is: no predecessor of his ever excommunicated the Mafiosi!”. Vatican officials have, of course, run to the rescue of sanity once again; but this is going to stay and, like the notorious “who am I to judge” catchphrase (strangely, not applied to mafiosi; who could well “seek the Lord and have good will” as much as every sodomite) is going to become a defining moment of Francis’ papacy, “the Pope who dared to condemn the mafia like no other Pope ever did” for the media, and “the Pope who excommunicated the mafiosi” for the uninstructed, hearsay Catholics out there, which is simply almost all of them.
Poppycock, of course; but what do facts count?
It may seem a detail, and some of you will think that this Mundabor is always picking at Francis’ faults. But the fact is that the faults are simply huge, and the fact that he has so many and exhibits them so often does not mean that we have to consider a first-grader Pope madly in love with himself as something normal.
Plus, there is another disquieting element: today it was the Mafiosi: an easy target, and a universally despised one. But tomorrow it could be something far graver, and causing a far bigger damage: in two words, us.
A Pope so careless that he can proceed to this kind of non-existent “collective excommunication” of baptised Catholics just because he likes the sounds of his words can easily use the same word to condemn Traditionalism, or Catholic orthodoxy, accused of not having charity and, basically, killing everyone (you have noticed already how easily Francis uses the word). It is simply so, that for this man the audience he has in front of himself and the echo his words will have in the media, not sound catholic knowledge – of which he is fully deprived, and perfectly happy with it – dictate what he is going to say. The day he thinks it will please the audience to excommunicate sound Catholics who don’t want to stink of manure, he will simply do it.
We are here far beyond Amerio’s circiterism. We are here full in the Kindergarten. We have regressed to six-year old children in first grade saying to each other “you are excommunicated”. Communication has become purely emotion-driven, and has no connection to facts whatsoever. This is pontifical fantasy land. The (secular) world is delighted.
How can a Pope who hasn’t the faintest idea of what he is talking about have any credibility at all? How can a Pope so obsessed with the echo of his own words, and so in love with his own popularity that he does not pay the least attention to what he says, command any respect as a man of intellect? I can detect no intellect at all here; unless it be calculated manipulation and deception; which, to be clear, would indicate quite the evil mind.
No, this is not yours truly harping on Francis’ little, innocent idiosyncrasies. Not having any idea of what one is talking about does not denote any idiosyncrasy; it denotes incompetence, imbecility, evil intent, or a mixture of them.
There. I have said it.
He can excommunicate me and all of you now.
Can’t wait for July.