Sensus Catholicus And Common Sense: On The Proper Way Of Catholic Warfare.


The Whermacht is coming. Wait, let us discuss whether Pell is truly 100% perfect!

The Whermacht is coming. Wait, let us discuss whether Pell is truly 100% perfect!


I wish I could find an old post about the Church teaching in dealing with bad laws. 

The gist of it was that first one tries everything he can to avoid the laws becoming such in the first place; if this fails, then one tries everything he can to have them repealed; if even this fails, then one tries to have them destroyed one piece at a time. But to destroy the law a piece at a time will always, for the sound Catholic, be the better choice than an unreal battle to have the law repealed, when it is just not realistic to obtain the optimal result. 

Example: abortion. Catholic teaching in the matter is simple and clear: First, savage battle to avoid abortion legislation. If this partout fails, savage battle to have it repealed. If this partout fails, “salami tactics” (this is a nice German expression) which means: the targeted result is pursued, and hopefully obtained, one slice at a time. In this case this means proposing and having passed everything from higher medical standards for abortion mills, to the shortening of the periods in which abortion is legal, to the obligation to have a scanned image obtained, to longer waiting times, etc.

The thinking behind this is the solid common sense that is behind sound Catholic minds: if I can’t save – for now – one million aborted babies, I will try to save at least one hundred thousand of them. The first step will then, hopefully, lead to the second, and the third.

In this example, and in many others to which the same principle may be applied, you do not renounce to a positive intermediate result in the name of an end result that cannot, for the moment at least, be achieved at all. You do not renounce to a law shortening the time in which it is legal to abort because “this would mean to be accomplices of abortion”. What you do is: uphold Church teaching in all things (you will always be vociferous against abortion tout court; because what is impossible in this generation may be possible in the next, or the following one, and because the Church’s stance against abortion is the Truth of Christ), and take every slice of the salami you can.

Is it possible to have partial legislation against abortion? Well: go for it, for heaven’s sake! Do not condemn babies to die because the law is not beautiful enough for you!  When babies are dying you save as many as you can, you do not sacrifice them to your beautiful, but unreachable ideals!

This is what the Church has always done in her dealing with secular powers, at least until Vatican II: the entire Catholic Truth, whenever I can; as much of it as I can, always. Therefore, in certain Countries She managed to be State Religion; but in those Country where she could not manage to do so (say: USA, United Kingdom), she tried to obtain as much freedom of religion for Catholics as possible. She did not say “I am not interested in freedom of speech, or of cult, for English Catholics! Either you make of Catholicism the State Religion or I am very happy to retreat in the Catacombs!”

You do not allow a secular State to push Catholics in the catacombs just because you cannot be the Religion of State. You do not allow the Church to be pushed underground just because the ideal of a Catholic state cannot be realised. You may feel more beautiful in the catacombs, but countless souls will be lost – seen from an earthly perspective – because of your quest for purity. There is no doubt that the Church in the catacombs was purer than the Church out of it. But the aim of the Church is to spread all over the world, not to stay beautiful in the catacombs. 

When Constantine allowed freedom of cult to Christians, they did not refuse it because Constantine himself wasn’t even baptised. When Paul went all over the Mediterranean to gain converts to Christianity, he did not demand the demise of the Roman Empire as a precondition. When countless missionaries converted local kings and local warlords to Christianity, you can bet your hat that in many cases the thus converted King kept having a number of concubines around him. Those missionaries certainly knew it very well. They took one slice at a time. In the case of the king’s conversion, they got to pretty much the entire salami, but again if they had asked an exemplary life of him, in many cases not one slice would have been obtained.  

Dreaming is one thing, doing is another. Keep dreaming if you want to. This blog is for those who prefer reality.

Does this mean that the Church must capitulate to (oh, that word) “gradualism”? Certainly not! Not, at least, if it is meant – as it was meant at the synod – compromising with the Truth. 

On one hand, to uphold the Catholic teaching in its entirety is not only advisable, but absolutely mandatory. On the other hand, to have this Catholic teaching reintroduced in phases – as long as it cannot be done in one go – is the only viable way, and it is the way the Church has always chosen. Do you think Cardinal Consalvi would say to Napoleon “either you make of us the State Religion again, or we don’t care if you kill every Catholic in France”? No. Do you think he demanded from Napoleon that he starts living an exemplary Christian life? Come on. What the man instead did was to lead Napoleon to the recognition of the advantages for him in having this Church as the State religion again. I am sure he did not expect a mystical Napoleon after that. But I am rather sure he was pretty pleased with what he had accomplished anyway. By the by: Napoleon ended up dying in his bed, a Catholic, with the comfort of the Sacraments. 

I could go on until tomorrow, but you get the drift. 


Why do I write all this? Because this applies to our age exactly as well as to all ages before, and after it. 

I get positively scared when I read commenters stating that I should not support Pell, because Pell would not pass the SSPX-Test. No he wouldn’t. Nor would Piacenza, or Mueller, or even Burke! They wouldn’t, because they are, all of them, polluted by V II, the one more and the other less. But for heaven’s sake, to discuss the merits of Mueller’s orthodoxy when Satan himself is launching all his armoured divisions against the Church seems criminally negligent to me.

We run the risk of having the Church as we know it – and be it in the largely defective V II version – wiped out of a good part of the West. We run the risk of a confusion of faithful, of a spiritual chaos like the planet has never, ever seen. Forgive me if I do not have any time for your complaints against Cardinal Pell!

The same applies, of course, to other matters, like freedom of speech. As I write this, freedom of speech is the only thing that keeps Christianity, in many Western Countries, away from the catacombs. It leaves me breathless that to defend freedom of speech would be something bad, because it does not correspond to some Catholic dream certainly not realisable in our generation, and probably not even in the next one.  

At times I think that in some Catholics a mentality takes over, that in Italian is called “tanto peggio, tanto meglio” or “the worse, the better”. As if it were a matter of no importance whether in the West Christianity can reach everyone or not, or whether the West keeps as much as it can of Christian mentality and civilisation; as if it were irrelevant whether the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street, bleeding copiously, by a drunken mob, or is as strong and vigorous as can reasonably be hoped in the present, sad, circumstances. 

 “But Mundabor! It is good if the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street bleeding! Don’t you know that she will not die anyway?”

“But Mundabor! It is good if Christianity disappears from all over the West and is reduced to the catacombs: just think of how beautiful the fifteen of us will feel once we are there!”. 

Please let us not joke here. Lives are at stake. Souls are at stake. The Christian West is at stake.

Thank God every day instead,and pray Him every night, for the likes of Mueller, Pell, or Burke. Pray that God send us many more of them, and be they  of the V II garden variety, provided they are willing to fight against the extreme Francis variety. Pray FIRST that they may find the strenght to lead us in battle against the extremely strong army of Satan that is forming its ranks as we speak. And pray SECOND that when the battle at hand is won, a new awareness may be created about the real root and first cause of all this mess: Vatican II.

 We are about to be invaded by the Wehrmacht, and we should discuss about the credentials of the only generals we found – and lucky to get them – ready to lead our army?

Don’t make me laugh.








Posted on October 28, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ until he is no longer the Vicar of Christ; but how Heaven must be saddened by his papacy is beyond mortal words. True Catholics must pray and fight for their faith with urgency and resolve. The eternal disposition of souls depends upon this call to action. The courage of clerics and laity alike must be vocal and shrouded in the truth of centuries as protected by the Holy Ghost. Those with wisdom must understand that the majority of (small c smorgasbord catholics) want, desire and welcome the Pope we have today and his agenda. This has been the legacy of VCII. Objectively speaking we deserve this punishment for not doing the will of God along with rampant sin and immorality.

    Some comfort can be taken from the great St. Catherine of Sienna:

    Not one to mince words, Catherine’s letters moved popes and politicians to action. In urging Gregory XI to leave Avignon and re-establish the Papacy in Rome she wrote:

    “Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” Later in her letter she continued, “Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you and you did not use them!”


    George Brenner

  2. Well said, Mundabor. I only hope that the owners of other blogs who severely criticize the few in the curia who have had the courage to at least DO something will consider what you’ve written here. I especially have a problem with those who mock the Pope or others with whom they disagree. Mocking shows a lack of maturity, and sometimes it can be cruel (such as the Remnant’s piece on Michael Voris). They needn’t have gone that far. They could have voiced their concerns in a grown-up manner, but chose not to. The battle is going to get a lot worse as Pope Francis will no doubt launch repercussions against trads. It will serve no good purpose to respond like a spoiled teenager, as some blogs will likely do. It will instead require prayer, love for our enemies, love of God, and courage to speak truth without resorting to mockery or rancor.

    • Mr Ray, I must disagree.

      This Pope must be mocked, and if you think in this blog he is not mocked you have not been paying attention.

      I find the “Remnant”, if anything, a tad too gentle.

      We need for good Catholics to laugh out loud every time the Head Clown of Circus Bergoglio opens his disquieting mouth.

      Never was a Pope treated this way, I agree. But never did a Pope also do anything to deserve it, either.

      I have the sneaking suspicion you have unwittingly landed on the wrong blog.


  3. I’m thinking this crisis/battle will finally wake up Cardinals Pell, Mueller and Burke (who has already said as much). Just like illness, suffering, battles and betrayals wake us up, Cardinals and Bishops have Pope’s like Francis. They will ask “how did this happen” and hopefully the Holy Spirit will drag them to Michael Davies:+) God loves you Mundy:+)

    • Thanks!

      I do think that the reaction you mention will become, in time, more and more common. Whilst what is happening is absolutely tragic, “how could it happen” will dawn in the mind of more and more people as Bergoglio keeps blathering on.

  4. Thought-provoking, Mundabor. I am not saying that your recommended approach is wrong, but I would ask you to give at least some re-consideration to your overall analysis of the situation.

    A key issue I have with your statement is your fundamental metaphor. You say we are about to be invaded by the Wehrmacht. I do not agree that this is correct.

    We have already been invaded by the Wehrmacht. In 1963 with Pacem in Terris, in 1965 with the council documents. in 1970 with the mass, in 1985 in Togo, in 1986 at Assisi, in 2000 with the repentance of ‘errors’, in 2011 with the Papal New Years statement etc. etc. The Wehrmacht has already attacked us on numerous fronts, decimated the ramparts, overrun the trenches, handing us stinging defeats.

    What we have in 2014 is the latest front to be opened. Yes, it is important. But it cannot mean we overlook the other numerous fronts that we face.

    So along come some people who do not fully agree with us, but recognize the Wehrmacht danger on this new front and will help. Great, let’s rejoice, I agree. But what if they seem to indicate that they will not lift a finger to assist in the fight against the Wehrmacht on the other already-existing fronts? What if even some of them, in some ways, seem to indicate they are perfectly content with and support a permanent Wehrmacht occupation on some of these other earlier, fronts, that still are part of the overall war? And what if, someway, somehow, the way these new-found allies on the new front would conduct this latest battle could hamstring the future efforts that will be needed on these other fronts?

    This, Mundabor, I respectfully submit, is a more accurate metaphor. There are legitimate considerations to be taken into account apart from and beyond this latest battle.

    Again, I am not saying your recommended course of action must be deemed wrong. I am largely sympathetic. But can I ask you to understand why some others can sincerely, properly, and thoughtfully disagree and not be written off as complete fools?

    • I am far less critical than you concerning the period 1963-2014. If I had shared your view, though, I would certainly also share your metaphor.

  5. Perhaps it was not a Wehrmacht-style Blitzkrieg in 1962-2014 period ( even though I’d prefer a comparison with the Red Army). It was more an infiltration by spies, secret agents, people of influence,”teste di ponte”, ” scaramucce”, and founding, maintaining and increasing “isolated terrorist cells”, and then, suddenly, the whole front and country is in flames (since March 13, 2013). Some people recognised the spies, the agents of influence, ” le teste di ponte”, and started to fight and resist, mocked by nearly everyone. Now, when much more people realise there’s a war, and the Red Army is at the gates, or worse still, into the Citadel, the first ” résistants ” are tired and suspicious of the new allies.
    Be patient and sympathetic with them, Mundy

    • Very fine.
      But at times I wonder whether do not wish defeat, so that they be proven, in some strange way, right.

    • In these days, they are proven more and more right. Have you read about Francis’s most recent meetings ? Evo Morales, ” il Leoncavallo”, i ” veterocattolici”… And in the meanwhile Bishop Semeraro of Albano ” excommunicates” the faithful ones who attend FSSPX Masses.

    • Who are “they”? And what does it mean “proven right”? We should agree that everyone posing on the same plane the errors of V II (the fruits of stupidity and ambiguity) and the new theology of Bergoglio (a new and bold frontal attack on the truths themselves) is truly not able to see the reality around him.

    • Sir, I think Bergoglio reaps now what was sowed 50 years ago, first by GXXIII and then by Paul VI. Now things have stariting running on a slippery slope that was entered then. Motus in fine velocior.

    • I agree with that. But we must also agree on the fundamental difference of the attack. A Pneumonia can begin with a common cold, but we cannot ignore the fundamental difference between the two.


  6. I’m thinking Sid Marty (with Rosy’s kind additions) is talking about the people who have been battling the VII world for many years. Up until the past 15-20 years or less, there were no blogs. We read Michael Davies, and waited for our twice monthly copy of the Remnant, while bringing traditional priests to hotel rooms for a monthly Mass. Those were difficult days. However, I’m not worried that people won’t join forces with SSPX, and they might never be interested in a Latin Mass. The Church didn’t get into this mess overnight, and people will not be changed overnight. I’m glad for any reluctant heroes who have the power to prevent some of the damage Francis is trying to carry out. I think we have to trust the rest to God, and know that many of us will not see the end of the tunnel.

    Thanks for another fine post. :-}

%d bloggers like this: