Viva Las Vegas! The Impious Dreams Of Annulment On Demand

From some sides (and not only from the usual suspects, like Kasper) comes the idea to “delegate” the issue of annulment to the bishop. This is a frontal attack on marriage, and one is surprised that even a cardinal like Scola, whom one would have said more sound than to express such ideas, would even be an accomplice in launching these ballons d’essai.

I am not a canonist, but I am a sincere and devout Catholic. Qualities which, it is clearer every day, most of our Cardinals simply lack, and in the most grievous way. Let us see, then, what a devout Catholic (one who fears the Lord because he believes in his existence, loves Christ and His Church, and is aware of the importance of the Sacraments) must think of these ideas.

1. One does not need to be a genius to know that many dioceses in the West are the Catholic equivalent of Dresden after the carpet bombings. Whatever is entrusted to the bishop is going to become a pig’s breakfast, period. If one does not understand this simple concept, I question his intelligence.

2. But the proposal is much worse: it is a “streamlined”, in the sense of “non juridical”, in the sense of “no tribunal and process”- exercise. It is annulment for the “asking” and the “feeling”, with the fig leave of the bishop’s “quality guarantee”. This is simply atrocious. This would have devastating consequence not only on the Sacrament itself, which must be our first worry; but on the perception of both the institution and sacrament of marriage, and the rule concerning marriage annulment.

Titius lives in Diocese A. Diocese A is run by a fairly strict bishop, and annulments are fairly rare. His wife ran away with Sam, the Harley-Davidson driver with a penchant for alcohol and fights, but whom his wife found so excitingly wild. Titius bears his cross with patience, and Christian resignation. I do not know if he lives like a monk (I never ask such details; I am not his confessor, after all…), but a public scandal like an open mistress, or a concubine – and yes: Titius knows even a civilly remarried woman is still a concubine – is not in the cards.

His colleague, Gaius (yes, yes! That one! The one who left his wife, bought a sports car and sleeps with Vanessa, the buxom PA of the HR Department!) has now moved together with Vanessa in a sleek apartment in the city centre. He has a very liberal bishop. Annulments are, in his diocese, pretty much given for the asking. Gaius doesn’t really care for an annulment in the first place (hey, “Gad is luv!”), but Vanessa is a cafeteria Catholic of the “who am I to judge” sort and with a stricter mother. As such, she does not want to “feel judged”. A Catholic marriage will it, therefore, have to be. So romantic. Forevah and evah! Her girlfriends will envy her so much!

Give it ten years, and the sacrament of marriage will be made a mockery fit for kindergarten jokes. .

And we know that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHIC) would not be stingy with appointment a’ la Cupich, and his new little wolves would eat the Sacrament for breakfast. How can people who go around saying “who am I to judge” be given the task to judge of the validity of a marriage, be it the bishop concerning the marriage of the sheep, of the sheep concerning their own marriage? Who are they to judge? And therefore, who are they to decide?

The cancer would spread. One praxis here, another ten miles away; but most of them, very bad. Worlds apart, divided by diocese boundaries, but with very frequent abuses. Sacraments that are taken or not taken seriously – and generally aren’t – according to where a parish happens to be situated. Countless like Gaius and Vanessa queuing every Sunday to receive communion, in line together with countless like Titius above.

If this does not destroy at the very root the public perception of marriage as a sacred vow and lifelong commitment made in front of Christ, I do not know what could.

Yes, the Remnant would continue to be faithful. But  a vast number of Catholics would still, whatever lie they have told to themselves, eat and drink their own damnation, with the bishop’s smiling approval. Thinking, perhaps, that if Christ allows the wolves to take over the Sacrament they should not be punished for eating of the wolves’ prey. Fools.

It is madness to think that Jesus said:  “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, unless the bishop is ‘merciful’ “.

Marriage is marriage. Things are things. Truths are truths.  Jesus won’t be fooled by Kasper or Scola, and Kasper and Scola are first-class fools if they think they can exempt the faithful from the observance of Jesus’ rules. This is the reason why the canonical process is often long and tedious, or costly; and the reason why easy annulments are, already today, seen as a great danger for both the sacrament and the social institution. But today, the complexity of the process is in place to defend the sacredness of the sacrament. Tomorrow, the banality of the non-juridical process could utter destroy the perception of its sacredness.

I am, also, angry whenever I hear that people complain that the actual canonical process is long.

*You are married, for Pete’s sake*. It’s not that you have the right to already “feel” that you are free from your marital bond, and think you have the right to be impatient for the slowness with which the tribunal fedexes the papers to you.

*Until the annulment comes You are married, period*. You are not “perhaps” married; you are not married “but I do not think I am really married, you know”; you are not married “only when the tribunal refuses the annulment”; you are not “really married to my new wife”.

What you “feel” counts zero. Your “new life” counts zero. Your “new family” isn’t one.

On the contrary: you are married to that other woman (oh yes! The one who isn’t as attractive as Vanessa! and if must be, even the one who ran away with the Harley-Davidson driver!). Your new life is a sacrilege and an open defiance to God. Your children are *born out of wedlock*. Your assumed wife is a concubine. Your family is formed by you and the wife you married.

This is harsh, you say. Life itself is very harsh. It’s a vale of tears. A training camp for heaven. No one ever promised a paradise on earth. Angry? Complain with Adam and Eve! And yourself!

Life is harsh, by the way, for everyone: married and single, rich and poor, ugly and beautiful, intelligent and stupid. Each one has his own cross to bear, and many bear crosses that are not of their choosing. The woman who left you, at least is the one you decided to marry. The husband who drinks, at least he is the one you chose to spend your life with. Cross as it undoubtedly is, it is a cross of one’s own choosing. The marital bed is always a bed of one’s own making, and this is another simple fact of life that simply does not enter the mind of the Kasper of this world, and is never mentioned in the newspapers. But our mothers and grandmothers knew it very well, our fathers and grandfathers had no doubts about it.

I think this proposal is purest madness. The equivalent of making a lottery for annulments, or a self-check counter. It will cause countless desecrations, and it will completely demolish the very idea of lifelong commitment among all but the most solidly instructed, or unusually pious.

I am not a canonist, but I can’t imagine Jesus’ rules are at any Cardinal’s disposal. if you ask me, no Cardinal can dispose of them, and therefore no Gaius or Vanessa can think they can with impunity avail themselves of the special “Kasper” or “Scola rule”. If it were so, then nothing in Catholicism would have any right to existence. Confessions could be made via smartphone app via pastoral decision of the bishop. Communion could be extended to cats and dogs, if their owner say “amen” for them with the right disposition.  Communion could, in fact, be extended to people just coming from a drunken orgy; because hey, if one seeks the lord and has good will, who are we to judge? The perversion of Catholicism via pastoral decision of an extraordinary synod would have no limits.

 What is happening is authentically diabolical. And even if it were not to become reality this year or next year, taboos are being broken every day, and an atmosphere of lio spread all over the West.

Let’s hope that the Lord rids us of TMAHICH soon, one way of the other.  Let’s pray for it.

This Pope is a Catholic nightmare.

Mundabor

 

 

 

The Satanic Jesuit

One of the unlinkable dissenting sites report of an openly homosexual Jesuit Seminarian who has now, after ten years trying to become a priest, decided to leave the Seminary because of the firing of several perverts from Catholic schools and institutions in the last months. “I can't be a Catholic right now”, or words to that effect, is the comment of the little fag.

Let us observe all that is wrong here; because, as so often in the case of Jesuits, the mistakes here pile up like as many strata of Satan's shit cake.

1. Ten years of attempts. Seriously? Are Jesuits of the opinion unless one is old one can't receive orders? Or did the man not even manage to become a friar in all this time? What happens with the money of the faithful? I am, here, hoping this is not the normal case, and the extremely costly exercise was due to the perverted nature of the little faggot. Which leads us to the next point…

2. How can it be that a man who openly proclaims his own perversion is allowed to remain in the seminary? Officially? For how many… ten years? What part of “deeply rooted homosexual tendency” was unclear here?

3. What does this say not only of this pathetic nutcases but of the deciders in that seminary? What does it say of the rector? Is he homosexual, too? Why on earth would anyone, upon being told one is a pervert, persist in trying to make of him a friar, or even a priest? I smell faggotry from a mile here. Diffused faggotry. Faggotry unashamedly practiced, defended and promoted under the thinnest of veils. These chaps (or girls) have allowed an open faggot to stay in the seminary for many years: how many closet faggots walk along the corridors of that seminary? What positions they have? How can it be that the rot has not set at the top of the institution?

4. The unlinkable site reports, with more than a hint of sympathy, an astonishing affirmation of the little Jesuit fag: he can't be a Catholic right now, because of the treatment of the above mentioned perverts.

This beggars belief: a man able to put his own faggotry before his very own Catholic identity was allowed to stay in a Jesuit seminary all these years! What does this tell us about the quality and sexual orientation of the average friar – or priest – going out of that particular seminary?

——-

Jesuits are a plague. Not 100% of them of course. But in general, Jesuits are a plague. An order fully in the thrall of Satan, spreading error and sexual perversion from schools, universities and seminaries; letting out in the world, without a doubt, a number – limited, thankfully, because they are dying – of either open perverts, or closet perverts, or people so accustomed to perversion and malformed in a perverted sexual climate that they are a real danger for the souls of those around them.

The little faggot has written a letter to Francis: TMAHICH, “who am I to judge”-Supremo, and Great Merciful Protector Of Worldwide Faggotry.

Now: TMAHIC is notoriously affect by logorrhoea, a phone addict, and a first-class double-tongued Jesuit. It will be interesting to see whether Francis does respond to the letter in writing, ignores the little fag altogether, or prefers one of those ominous phone calls at the end of which the little faggot will tell the world that Francis told him what a hero he is, and Francis does not deny or confirm any of the content. Scandal is spread, plausible deniability is attempted, the Pollyannas are happy the oh so holy Father did nothing wrong, the perverts exult, the Catholics are confused.

Just another Jesuit's day.

M

 

 

Long Live Vladimir Putin

This article gives you, together with some Orthodox triumphalism probably exaggerated, some interesting snippets about the reality of our times: as in Russia 25,000 churches are restored or newly built in 25 years, the US Government is investigating whether the participation of US pro-lifers in their private capacity to a pro-life, pro-family event is in violation of the sanctions against Russia.

And truly, it seems difficult to deny that Russia is the only Western Country where Christianity is still officially written large, and most certainly the only Western Country whose leader actively promotes it rather than trying to destroy it.

This is the more notable, as Putin is still dealing with a deeply secularised country – hence the exaggerated enthusiasm of the Orthodox -; a country that seems to accept, more than approve, Putin's more and more obvious Christian stance. Another leader would acquiesce to the opinion of the vast majority, and promote abortion and godlessness as in Soviet times. Not Putin. Putin actively goes against the grain of his own people, and tries to help the rebirth of a real Christian nation as much as he can and, very clearly, as fast as he thinks prudent. I go as far as to say that I have the feeling if he felt his grasp on the country is strong enough, he would move decisively and ban abortion altogether. Not something he would survive today, I think; not in 2014, and probably not in 2024, either.

This leads us to another paradox: pro-life movements gain traction in North America and Western Europe, but are still systematically opposed by the ruling political classes; at the same time they seem to me very feeble in Russia (I say this based on anecdotical evidence only), but over there they have a rather strong champion at the top.

Armchair generals and Sunday afternoon geopolitical experts will now, no doubt, lament the fact that Putin has not (yet) banned abortion. But again, he has not come to be the leader of his Country – and a boon for Christianity with that – by being an armchair general and Sunday afternoon geopolitical expert.

I have little doubt that his Christian feelings are sincere: firstly because they are clearly countercultural among his own people, and secondly because the phenomenon that seems at play here (the death of a beloved, devout Christian as trigger of a Christian conversion) is well-known and not at all infrequent. Mussolini (apologies: Il Duce) followed the same path.

As we pray for the conversion of Russia, we should pray that this intelligent, perceptive man may embrace his Christian values more and more as he gets older, and slowly guide his Country, almost mortally wounded by Communism, to a recovery of, at least, its old Christian tradition.

Long live Vladimir Putin. May he grow in wisdom and power *, and show to the West the error of its ways.

Mundabor

* No, democracy is not my religion. Christianity is.

Vintage Mundabor: Religious Anglicans And The Problem With The Truth

Religious Anglicans And The Problem With The Truth

Vintage Mundabor: The Pope, The President, And The War

The Pope, The President, And The War