Daily Archives: October 7, 2014
I have just reblogged my very long post, meet the Kasperites.
That long blog post dealt, in a way I think every man or woman of 100 years ago would have found in nothing special, and actually rather banal, of the concept of scandal, and of the ways – certainly not present 100 years ago, but a very popular sport today – in which modern clergymen try to, to put it bluntly, find emergency exits for their own poor, confused, and actually very stupid sheep.
The Synod has now begun and, as I have written on several occasions, the tide of dissent from purple, red or white places is mounting. I make an easy prediction here: the tide of modernism will sweep away many blogs you thought orthodox, and many a priest will show himself all too ready to find an accommodation. I very much doubt it will be a great excuse for the sheep when they die. I doubt even more for the priests who encourage them in their stupidity. No, I am not thinking of Father Ray Blake now. I have, at least after his questionable blog post which originated the post blog I have linked to, not read anything of the sort on his site.
But I see, from various signs, a great tsunami coming. For the moment, I prefer to wait and see. He who has eyes to read, let him read.
As a preliminary observation, let me say this: wretched sinner as I am, unworthy of the smallest of graces and utterly ashamed of my inability to live the life Christ wants me to live, I hereby solemnly vow to remain, as long as I blog, rather the most isolated, hated, mocked, insulted Catholic blogger of the entire Blogosphere, than to write on this blog one single word that in my judgment a pious old woman of 1914, or of 1954, would have considered scandalous, and confusing the Catholics. The day I die, I am sure that many sins will go back to haunt me; but my fidelity to what the Church teaches, and what my grandmothers died believing, that will stay with me always, and will hopefully be counted for me on that fateful day that will decide of my eternal destiny. I do not care, I truly do not care a straw how many bloggers around me, priests and not, will follow the thinking of the time. You will continue to hear from me what I, to the best of my ability, think the old pious women would have told to you, and to see the matters of the Church as I know that they saw them.
Let us imagine, then, that two “great friends”, who “happen” to be homosexual, decide to, oh, share expenses, and take care of each other. They do have an “attraction” for each other, but this obviously has no bearing on their decision to live together, has it now? Amazingly (and we truly wonder how this could be: they are only two homos living together in the same apartment after all; electricity is so expensive nowadays; and Sky Sports! Sky Sports!!…) they “slip once in a while”, which is a way of saying that they commit a horrible abomination, crying to heaven for vengeance. This surprises us, of course; because the two have “determined to live chastely”, which makes their “slip” obvious unplanned.
But no worries! They go to confession, and the priest does not say to them “get the heck out of that place, son. And only then, suitably contrite, present yourself here for absolution!“. No. being “pastoral”, he absolves them. They will “slip” (sleep) again; and again; but hey, here comes the confessor to the rescue. They do live chastely, though. That much is clear. Isn’t it?
If you ask the Kasperites – and who knows how many people, in six or twelve months, will be Kasperites; how many priests, bishops, bloggers, priest bloggers, and bishops bloggers; almost certainly, Popes non-bloggers, too – this is like the situation of the “divorced and remarried”. They should, both, be allowed to communion, if
1. they “want to live chastely”, and
2. their sin has been absolved.
Now: ask yourselves what your devout female ancestor would have done to you if you had said something like that in one of the two above mentioned years.
Yep. She would have slapped you in the face, and told you to go to confession. Blessed slap!
This is, alas, not the way the world nowadays works. Nowadays, the world:
1. does not know the concept of scandal
2. is constantly on the look for a loophole, or an easy way to have its way, and
3. thinks just because something happens frequently, then it must be accepted.
Let me expand on this.
1. It astonishes one how people who call themselves Catholics can say that we must review our concept of scandal, because what was scandalous 100 years ago is not scandalous now.
Sorry to burst the Kasperian bubble, but this fact only means one thing: that we live in very scandalous times. Yes, in Sodom no one was scandalised at all the same-sex relationships around. But you see, this is why God destroyed it, killing all of them! He did not say “oh well, I will have to readjust my concept of scandal, abandoning the habits of more platonic times”.
2. I am so old that I remember the time when sin was sin, and that was that. Nowadays, sin is not the problem: how to go around it is. Cue all the bishops and cardinals, and simple priests, making everyone feels so good. No surprise when they die they want to go to paradise, first class.
3. We live in a world where scandal is so much part of everyday life, that the scandalous behaviour is supposed to have rights now which it did not have then! Of course it did not have any right then! Of course it does not have any right now! The idea that scandalous behaviour should be accepted because one lives in scandalous times is utterly satanic! Then we wonder why Humanae Vitae is ignored! This is Modernism 1-0-1! This is simply the absurd concept according to which if atrocious shepherds allow the sheep to be scattered, the shepherding should be abandoned because… the sheep are scattered!
Note, here, that I am not making any difference, as far as scandal is concerned, between the two homos who feign chastity, and the two concubines who play the same Spiel in the blog post linked at the beginning of this article. In both cases, there is obvious scandal. In both cases, the is nowhere to hide. In both cases, there is a very obvious, because very public, grave sin. In both cases, there is exclusion from communion. In both cases, those who dare to approach the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist eat and drink their own damnation.
Nor is it of any use to use that obvious tool of the modernists and idiots the world over, the “who are we to judge?”-mantra. Scandal is, by its very nature, public. Scandal obliges us, by its very nature, to take a stance. We can’t shut up in front of obvious scandal and say “perhaps they spend their evenings playing monopoly”. To do so shows either total imbecility, or a very culpable will not to see, or else a grievous ignorance of what giving scandal means.
The difference between the two situations – which is undoubtedly there: the sins of the straight couple is a sin that goes with nature, the sin of the two faggots is a sin against it – does not change anything in the fundamental decision whether any of these “couples” should – in this, or in any other planet – allowed to receive communion.
Now, let me make a step backwards. Let us look at what our ancestors did; or, if you prefer, at how the Church dealt with human sinfulness before the age of madness.
Were there no faggots in centuries past? No prostitutes? No illegitimate children? No fornication, adultery, you name it? You wish!
Men and women have always been sinners. Nothing that is supposedly normal today was unknown to generations past. Nor did the Church stone countless sinners on the street, for the edification of the very, very few saintly people.
No. The Church did what she has been entrusted to do: to ferry the repentant sinner safely on the other shore, whilst fiercely fighting against his sinfulness all the way to it. Therefore, scandal was not tolerated; because whilst individual failings are individual failings, every open scandal is a bomb thrown in the middle of Christian societies.
Nor were our ancestors so astonishingly hypocritical as our modern Kaspers. They did not pretend to believe that two faggots were OK to live together because they can “share expenses” and “take care of each other” (and poverty was a much bigger issue then than today!). They did not have the gall to say “who am I to judge?” when they saw scandal given. They did not have the stunning hypocrisy to say that “provided one seeks the Lord” everything is more or less fine; and hey, they don’t want to have sex, do you now? It’s just a problem of high rents! They live like St. Joseph and Mary, I tell you! Like St. Joseph and Mary!
In reality, the difference between then and now is not in the men, nor in their sinfulness. The difference is that the sane Church of the past did all she could to keep the sheep out of sin, and the insane Church of the present does all she can to justify them in it; teaching them, by the way, to train themselves in a hypocrisy (“we live chastely! I promise! Most of the times at least!”) so astonishing, that it justifies the worst insults hurled at us from Jews, Atheists and the like; and makes them well deserved, and not chastised enough.
Please reflect: how is it that in centuries past monks and nuns have not divided the same dormitories, perhaps even the same bed? Would the Kasperites not say that there is no problem, because everyone wants to remain chaste? And if they should “slip” (“if”? You don’t say?) well then, they will go to confession and thence straight to communion? How would such a community have been seen? Who would have considered it not only allowed, but conceivable? What has become of the sense of sin, if the only sin remained seems to be not to find any impossible excuse to allow it to happen?
I conclude with a short autobiographic, but still anonymous note.
I am one of the dozens million lapsed Catholics in my Country. Through the grace of God, I have found my way back to the Sacraments. I stand now in amazement at how I – a person interested in faith since the earliest childhood – could stop attending Mass, when I remember very well being told as a child that it is a grave sin not to attend to it. The answer to this is simple: firstly, I never found in the church people whom I could respect, and in whom I could see guides of my spiritual life. They were, basically, somewhere between the social worker, the clown, the coward, and the abject loser. Secondly, none of these people ever insisted on me going to Mass. Actually, they did not even insist on the existence of hell.
But I did not know it, did I not? Yes, I did. But I, at some level, chose to ignore what I knew to be taught. Mea culpa? Mea culpa, yes, I did. I chose to believe that those admonishment given to me as a little child were not really relevant, seen that no one of the several priests in my school and community made anything of it. My fault? Yes. Maxima culpa. But was I, as the stupid sheep I am, also allowed to go astray by the drunken stupidity of that bunch of social workers, clowns, cowards, and abject losers? You bet.
And still… still… still…
even as a lapsed Catholic I would have been terrified, and I mean terrified, to live more uxorio with a woman, under the same roof, knowing that Jesus is watching. And I wasn’t a saint, mind. But it was very clear to me, and it was very clear to everyone in my city and in my generation, that a huge, huge line is crossed when one’s weakness becomes one’s way of life, for the world to see, in utter disregard of very obvious rules.
Let me state this again.
1. Even I, a lapsed Catholic
2. and a straight one
3. would have been terrified
4. of concubinage.
Allow me, therefore, to look with some surprise at people who go to church every Sunday (I hope), and have Church doctrine in front of their eyes with a lucidity and awareness an ill-instructed boy of thirteen could never have had, living in sin with a concubine, perhaps of the same sex, perhaps with a legitimate spouse and children somewhere else and in public adultery, and say that they want to receive communion, and they are the victims if they don’t. A situation that becomes even more of a tragic parody of Christianity if this very scandal is given by perverts.
As I write this a synod is ongoing, in which Church prelates discuss how all these groups – the scandalous fornicators, the scandalous adulterers and the scandalous perverts – may be “smuggled in” and receive the public acceptance that is their very obvious motives.
This is the hour of the Modernists. Prepare yourself for many betrayals. Look at two thousand years before you, not at the idiots in front of you. Do not believe any blogger, starting from this one, who tells you anything different from what the old pious lady (and man) would have said to you if they had never heard of Vatican II.
Pray. Pray more. Do penance.
This is the hour of the Kasperites. But in the end it is just this: one short hour of stupidity, in which purple, red, and white fools trying to defy eternity.
This, that to us is a huge tragedy, is but a short moment in the history of the Church. A moment of shame she will overcome one day.
I am under no illusion that I will live to see that blessed day. A reason more to write posts like this.
Wretched sinner that I am, it shall not be said one day that I saw a scandal on a planetary scale, and did nothing.
From Father Ray Blake’s blog.
I don’t know if this is the type of situation Pope Francis was trying to deal with in his recent telephone call, but this kind of situation is not unusual – this is a made up.
Mary has been living Sam for 14 years, he is divorced, they have three children. Mary has been assiduous in the formation of her children in the faith, she tells her priest that she desperately wants to receive Holy Communion. the priest reminds her what Jesus says about someone married to a divorcee is committing adultery.
Mary says she accepts Jesus’ teaching and that Sam, despite only being a nominal Christian, because of his love for her respects her and has agreed to try and live as brother and sister.
Mary despite her love for Sam is well aware…
View original post 2,494 more words
Rorate Caeli alerts us to the forma mentis of the Archbishop Elect of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This forma mentis is, alas, not Christian at all. But this is an appointment of TMAHICH, so I can't say I am surprised.
What the Archbishop is saying is, in fact, this: “I say that I am a Christian; but please, dear heathens of whatever strange religion, do not think that I take it seriously. Pick your flavour. As long as you are a friend of peace, love and fluffy nonsense, we do follow the same religion!”.
One is reminded, once again, of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History's statement along the lines that that the one who does not choose Christ ends up choosing the devil.
TMAHICH is, I think, right.
He looks for those who choose the devil, and makes them Archbishops.
We are informed that the content of the interventions of the participants of the Synod will not be revealed. Not as record of their speech, and not even as excerpt.
This tells me that what is wanted is a “no taboos” discussion, in which every participant can say whatever he pleases without fear of losing face with the world's Catholics, particularly if he discovers he has leant too far out of the window sill and he is left isolated, and looking stupid.
In this way, Francis and his minions will be able to gauge the level of heresy on a worldwide scale, that is: they will be able to test what can be swallowed without open calls of heresy, and what not.
This “phase 1” of the Synod might already come up with something truly troubling; but in the end, it can also be seen as stage 1 of a great mess, and in this scenario it makes sense to break taboos now, go back to one's diocese, and prepare the ground for another year – at the end of which what is taboo now will not be taboo anymore – before the great historical events in which the Holy Ghost will, according to them, more or less speak very personally to every damn heretical bastard wearing a red, or purple, habit.
Taboos are broken by degrees. First the breaking is discussed among bishops and cardinals; then a dozen of them or so give interviews airing “possible ways”. Other bishops and cardinals react angrily. Suddenly you have a “debate”. Pope Francis summons the next synod to discuss the breaking of taboos.
Yep. It's what is happening already with communion for public adulterers.