Monthly Archives: November 2014
The defence of Catholic teaching in matters of homosexual perversion – heard from many corners since October – is certainly encouraging. Still, one cannot but notice one feature typical of all or almost all the interventions: the extreme reluctance to call homosexuality a “sexual perversion”.
Whilst there are not a few prelates who would use words like “intrinsically disordered” – which amounts to the same but said in a way most people will not fully understand – when it is about really making an impact, most of our prelates balk at the “p” word.
This leaves the public in a strange limbo, as they are told that homosexuality is wrong, but they aren’t really told why. Not, at least, in a way that drives the point home.
I am sure a lot of Catholics begin to think the Church condemns homosexuality for some reason that we will never fully grasp, but register it (for now at least) as fact. Apart from the perversion of healthy thinking such a thinking betrays, it makes dissent not all too difficult; actually, it invites it, because when things are not properly explained trouble can never be far away.
Perversion is a simple concept to understand: the thinking of someone whose sexual desire goes in the wrong (per; as in perjury) direction (versio; as in conversion). This is so, as every simple mind understands, irrespective of the person acting on his perversion, or not. The pedophile is a pedophile because he lusts after children; he does not begin to be a pedophile only when he rapes a child. The perversion is there before the action. The action – or the mindset – is particularly grave because it goes – other than, say, gluttony – against what the natural desire should be. Gluttony is the result of a god-given desire gone out of control. Perversion is a desire that must not be there in the first place.
When you put the issue in these simple words, it becomes easier for the faithful to understand the intrinsic depravity of homosexuality. If you keep talking of something “God does not want” without qualifications you are muddling the waters, because gluttony or fornication do not go frontally against the way we are built, but homosexuality, incest or pedophilia do. We also know that even mortal sins have different degrees of gravity; therefore, to invoke the fact that gluttony can induce a man to mortal sin does not help, either.
Clarity is the only way. Pussyfooting around doesn’t help anyone. Let the church abandon the concept of homosexuality as perversion, and your children will be – when sufficiently perverted in their reasoning – unable to understand what the fuss is all about. Hey, they remember when they stole from the cookie jar. That can be a mortal sin too, no?
We need more prelates and simple priests able and willing to pronounce the “p” word instead of using more or less indirect expressions, lacking in clarity and forcefulness even when they do not lack in meaning. We must not allow political correctness to prevent us from clearly expressing what the Church believes. Our shepherds should be the first to tell the truth whole, lest the real message (it’s a sexual perversion) goes lost in the pussyfooting (“God says he’d really like you not to; why it is so beats me, but hey…”).
Clarity creates clear alternatives and demands clear choices. “The Church says homosexuality is a perversion. No, really. This is what the Church believes. What do you say?”
Ten years of this, and things will change radically.
Nothing of this, and I see persecution coming.
This piece of senseless liberal waffle comes from the notorious 12,000 words interview. I though I would say a couple of very judgmental words about it.
“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”
Let us leave aside all the peripheral waffle and nonsense (“courage to open new areas to God”; a phrase that every heretic could find extremely useful)…
View original post 540 more words
Those who know their Church history know that corruption on a huge scale to gain the vote of Cardinals was certainly not a historically rare event. And if you care to travel to Viterbo during your next stay in Rome you will see, still standing, the palace where in 1271 the Cardinals were first locked and fed only with bread and water, then had even the roof removed so that they felt, ahem, gently encouraged to make a decision. The decision was not considered invalid. Nowadays, we bicker about the number of valid votes in any one day.
If the election of a Pope were to depend on corruption or undue pressure not taking place, the entire history of the Papacy would have to be rewritten, and one wonders by what gymnastics any modern Pope could be claimed to be the Successor of Peter in the proper sense. And if this is true – and it most certainly is – for corruption, just imagine for the – which leads us to today's issue – “canvassing”.
In addition, it must be said that – humans being usually prone to communicating with each other – the one or other preference can be communicated in one thousand and one ways. If Cardinal Murphy O'Connor likes Bergoglio, well clearly
he is an idiot he likes Bergoglio. If we were to consider any expressions of esteem for a colleague to constitute “canvassing”, then no human communications among Cardinals should be allowed at all before the Conclave begins. Yet, we all know that these expressions and communications convey exactly the desired meaning: he who is such a good Cardinal, can certainly be seen as an acceptable Pope.
“But Mundabor!” – you might say – “this was a concerted effort! This isn't just a Cardinal talking to another Cardinal at dinner!”. This may or may not be what has happened. But I cannot see how the terrible sin committed by these Cardinals (a sin which would cause their excommunication) could or should invalidate the election. Not only the present rules for the election of a Pope explicitly say that this is not the case, even if such a behaviour should take place; but reason and common sense shout it altogether, so that even if the rules penned by JP II were not to explicitly include such provision, the same conclusion would have to be reached anyway, out of sheer common sense.
Not for the first time I must warn from getting overexcited. The Papacy is not a fantasy land where everything works in the right way, and at three cardinals canvassing the election is put into doubt. Heavens, how many Pope would have been invalidly elected? Fifty? Eighty? One hundred?
Let us, therefore, not get excited again about the recent “revelations” of “canvassing” Cardinals. Even if true, it would not affect the validity of the election in the least. Common sense says so, Church history shouts so, even JP II's (and current official) rules say so!
For worst or for even worse than worst, Francis is the Pope. He was elected by Cardinals whose average integrity and faith left much to be desired anyway. We already knew that characters like Nichols, Danneels and Kasper were allowed to participate, so it's difficult to see how any recommendation coming from Murphy O'Connor would negatively influence any decent Cardinal, or how any non-decent Cardinal would not be influenced by the above mentioned chaps once the Conclave has begun.
Socci's book, all the Sedevacantist theories, and now even the questions of “validity” linked to the alleged “canvassing” are, if you ask me, a flight from reality. It amounts to an attempt of dreaming oneself out of a situation that is so tragic because it's so real. And this dream has no resemblance whatsoever with the earthly Church as she has lived, breathed, corrupted, and fornicated these two thousand years.
Francis is Pope.
You have read by now that Pope Francis has, obviously not openly but in that typical, Jesuitical way of his, said that the United States and the Western Powers are not better than the ISIS, because what they do is “State Terrorism”.
It is difficult to keep calm at such evil complicity with the enemy. This is Grima Wormtongue through and through. An agent of Satan bent on maximum suffering for Christians as he, himself, looks pious in the comfort of his faggot-run hotel.
We have now sunk at the level of the 17-years-old extreme nutcase, spitting the most unbelievable nonsense to announce to the world his own existence and reputed greatness. This is not even pothead level. This is pure evil.
I truly hope that a strong refutation of the Pope’s words will now be made public. You know, at least the usual “what he meant is…” that will not persuade anyone but will save face as much as it goes.
This man is unhinged. He tries to regain a clearly lost wave of popular enthusiasm with an even more massive dose of anti-western ideology, anti-Christianity, anti-everything bollocks.
Unhinged. Utterly out of control. Purest evil.
God is, in His Goodness, allowing even the most stupid to finally wake up and understand what kind of monster we are dealing with here.
Francis does not believe in God.
But boy, the devil certainly believes in Francis.
Can you imagine the first community of Pilgrims celebrating the harvest feast together with “couples” of sexual perverts? No? Ever wondered why?
It was, if you ask me, because in the mind of a Christian it seems the utter absurdity to thank God for an abundant harvest as one offends Him by openly giving scandal, or being accomplices to this scandal.
God gives graces of all sorts to men, and then expects them to conform to His laws. Whilst we are all sinners, it is certainly absurd to act in a way that says “Thank you, Lord, for this abundant harvest that will assure our survival in these new territories. Thanks! Have a slap in the face!”
If a Christian does not see Thanksgiving as a profoundly Christian moment, and an eminent Christian festivity, then he can celebrate the Day of Mother Earth, The Week of Auntie Rain, as well.
It's a Christian festivity. Don't allow the atheists and the secular people to say it's not so. For a Christian, it must be so.
Which leads us to the topic touched at the beginning: Faggotry must stay out. This is do always, of course; but particularly so on a day in which, of all things, God's bountiful generosity is gratefully remembered.
I am sure none of you, faithful readers, would dream (or have a nightmare) of inviting the faggot friend of the faggot relative for Thanksgiving. This is not charity. This is complicity In the iniquity.
Similarly, I invite all of you who have been invited to such a place to reflect where their allegiance really lies. I know, there are wheels within wheels, and many could say “but in my case it's different”. Perhaps auntie is 109 years old and has so insisted that you accept the invitation. Perhaps wifey has told you her sister might commit suicide if she sees herself “rejected”. Perhaps the “boyfriend” is dying of AIDS and could, oh, uh, no? Be “converted” at seeing the “warm embrace” of the family…
Many of these scenarios are thinkable. No one works.
Auntie will be helped to die in clear danger of damnation. Sister must stop manipulating people, and take responsibility for her (gravely wrong) actions. “Boyfriend” is helped by making very clear to him that he is bound for hell. You get my drift.
I invite each one of you who, perhaps out of a very misplaced sense of charity, should have accepted such an invitation to say “no”, in the way you consider more appropriate. Have a headache if you really have to, but I invite you to be a real witness of charity by saying why you do not participate. And let the wife or husband go alone, if he or she so wishes. And let there be discusdions, if discusdions have to be had.
But you, dear reader, you will not be another brick in the normalisation of sexual perversion.
Not a long time ago, fathers smashed their daughters on the street, doomed to utter poverty and very possibly prostitution, for much less than open, shameless lesbian scandal. They would chase away and disinherit their first born for something as atrocious as proclaimed, openly celebrated sodomy.
You may say they were too harsh, and I – a man of my time after all – agree with you. But you can't deny that It was a Christian world, that would have never thought it fitting to put one's emotions simply before one's duty to uphold Christian thinking. A Christian father of the Victorian era would take his salvation, and the one of his beloved ones, very seriously instead of wallowing in effeminate sentimentalism.
It is astonishing that our times should be so unChristian, and so effeminate, that even refusing an invitation to an open faggot – and declining to accept such an invitation – should be seen as too much, too harsh, or in any way “uncharitable”.
Rorate Caeli has a blog post about not one, but two events which very much give a picture of the times.
1) Francis’ visit to Strasbourg is barely noticed. Empty street where once oceanic masses would, everywhere, be a witness to the event of a papal visit. This, by the by, before and after his visit to the cathedral of Francis’ religion: the dratted European Parliament.
2) The complete un-Catholic character of the visit. Nothing Catholic was on the agenda. Not a meeting with faithful, not the visit of a parish; not even a visit to the wonderful Cathedral in Strasbourg.
As to 1), I can’t avoid thinking that the Argentinian children are going home to roost. The utter banality of this man was entertainng at the beginning, because a Pope making a clown of himself will attract the attention for a while. But at some point the novelty will fade away, and what remains there is simply a clown. People don’t wait for hours in the cold to greet a clown, and say “I was there when the Clown visited, and greeted him as he drove by! How solemn, sovereign, saintly he looked!”.
Pope Clown was good entertainment for a while. Now he will sink into second-row “celebrity” status.
As to 2), this reminds me of the episode in Caserta, where Francis went to meet his Proddie friends without, initially, planning anything concerning those obnoxious Catholics. In Caserta, though, he was persuaded to change his mind in the end. Here, it appears he was determined to have it his own way, and Catholics can get stuffed.
The Pope goes abroad, and doesn’t even visit a Church. The world is his only concern. A stage for his stupid rhetoric, and a place among the Great Statesmen. Forget the Cathedral. Visit the Parliament.
The Pope goes abroad, and the faithful don’t care. If they want to see a clown, a circus visit is more convenient. Forget the Pope. There’s better and more comfortable entertainment everywhere.
As I have recently stated: if you are a Catholic, Francis hates you. You are not even an afterthought. No, you will be openly snubbed instead. Because this is what Francis is.
This man will snub a Cathedral in the same way as he snubs Christ before the altar. But he will visit a Parliament with the same enthusiasm with which he genuflects to wash the feet of women and infidels.
Start seeing reality for what it is and you will see more and more signs of this. You will see that in this perspective, everything Francis does makes perfect sense.
So what do we have? A Pope slowly sinking into irrelevance among the heathenish masses, and slowly but certainly despised by more and more Catholics. A Pope playing Social Warrior, and now slowly noticing the world has had enough of “Pope Che” already. A Pope sinking into ridicule as he tries to profile himself as anything but a Pope, rather he wants to be a sort of Global Advocate For The Poor. Gee, Eugenio Scalfari will be so pleased…
This will go on. Francis’ antics will become more and more trite. Bigger and bigger doses of “novelty” will be required to focus the attention on the Humble Pope. If these doses come, he will be at war with Catholocs the world over. If they don’t, he will be forgotten.
This cannot end well; but whether Francis understands the dynamics currently at play is to be seen. Never underestimate the damage that can be caused by a nincompoop believing he is a great mind.
I never understood the motto “keep your friends close and your enemy closer”, and I always thought that it does not make sense. I always had the impression it is the favourite excuse of those who do not have the guts to keep their enemies away from positions of power and influence, and want to let necessity appear virtue.
Of course it may make sense, in a democracy, for a President or Prime Minister to have people he dislikes in his cabinet. In this way, they are invested in his government, and will find it more difficult to attack him from a position of “allies”. But even in this case, such a policy is born of the necessity of limiting their ability to disrupt the work of the Government, and is invariably linked with a delegation of power and influence to them. All this is, in a word, not the fruit of brilliant thinking, but the unavoidable consequence of the atomisation of power in every modern Democracy.
Not so for a Pope. A Pope does not need to be elected. If he is orthodox, he will always float above every accusation of being “harsh” or “merciless”. His prestige and grasp on power will be, in time, greatly enhanced. Pope Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII are great examples of this strong, but in the end winning attitude.
Francis is in a different boat. He is also Pope, but he has put himself in such a mess that his papacy can now be very seriously damaged; because of this, even as a Pope Francis must pay much attention to thread carefully, lest he should one day lose not only his face, but possibly his very job. In October, Francis got a first glimpse of what trouble might be in store for him if he were to be really stupid. Since October, the criticism has not really abated. He can't completely isolate himself from his enemies, because all of his enemies are Catholic, and none of his friends are. An orthodox Pope can afford to be uncaring of tactics (Pius X was famously undiplomatic), but a Pope like Francis cannot.
Francis would, like everyone else, keep the Sarahs away and surround himself exclusively with the likes of Ricca, Forte, and Baldisseri. If he does not do it it's not because he is a superior mind or a refined strategist, but because at this point the rare Sarah is, to him, the better evil.
Keep your enemies as far as you can, and smile at those you are forced to keep near. This, I think, pretty much sums it up.
Some good news for a change. Cardinal Sarah – the outspoken defender of the Sacrament of Communion and of Catholic teaching about sexual perversion – has been appointed head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (note the last words well). As V II Cardinals go, Sarah is certainly orthodox and conservative, i.e. Catholic.
Thankfully, I have not noticed anyone (up to now) trying to persuade us that this appointments shows that Francis is A Good, Orthodox, Conservative Pope People Do Not Understand. That time has, I think, gone forever.
Personally, I am not ready to give the man the least shred of credibility, whomever he may appoint. The man obviously hasn't changed, so our view of the danger he represents will not change, either. Why has Francis, then, chosen Sarah, of all people, for the position? My spontaneous thoughts:
1) He needs some prestigious African prelate near him to avoid the accusation of ignoring that Continent. Therefore, he puts an African at the top of what Africans do worst: liturgy. It minimises the damage for Francis, at least. How bad Sarah is in liturgical matters is also to be seen. Tornielli seems to trust him in liturgical matters too, which is a good sign. But this here is also an anti-Kasperite in the middle of the Vatican, which can never hurt.
2) Francis wants to show that he can reward outspoken prelates, as long as they do not criticise him personally. Burke out, Sarah in. A conservative in the Curia like before, but a less uncomfortable one for Francis. For now, at least.
3) He wants to divide the anti-Kasperite fraction, sending them partly to the wilderness and partly to Rome. I do not think it will ever work; but he might think so. A genius, he ain't.
4) He has given up on his revolutionary project. He is old, and it has become clear to him he will not be able to attempt any “revolution” without a huge, long conflict; a conflict which would doom his papacy for all centuries to come. He will continue to talk rubbish, of course; but no revolution. This seems to me, for the moment, only a possibility; but I do not consider it such a remote one.
Old, he is. Hypocrite, he is. Vain, he most certainly is. This one isn't the born and bred ideologue, the hero uncaring of the consequences, the Che Guevara of doctrinal demolition. This one is… a Jesuit. He will be strong with the weak and weak with the strong with the same easiness with which you breathe.
Time will tell. Let us not get too enthusiastic. The one in power is still TMAHICH. But he is clearly in the defensive now.
Today, we did get some good news. I cannot imagine any way in which bringing Sarah in can be seen as a sign of Francis' strength. No, it is a sign of Francis' weakness. He must appease the Catholics, lest he ends like the turkey at thanksgiving. He must bring in some African. He must give signals of normality. The bombardment of criticism since the Synod has not ceased, and in the meantime even the readers of the “Huffington Post” know he has put himself in a lot of trouble.
At the Synod, Francis has taken a pump gun and has shot himself in the leg. He is now trying to regain the face he has lost. It won't be easy.
It's too soon to say that Francis has thrown in the towel. But it is certainly enough to say that he is under great pressure, and must now act to avoid that the pressure becomes intolerable.
Mister (or Miss) Terry Bean, one of the most profiled men of the Perverts' Movement in the US, has been arrested with the very credible accusation of sodomising minors.
This… girl is one of the best known, and most celebrated, Fag Icons in the United States, and a founder of the biggest Fag Group in the land. He is also a darling of the Democratic Party: Al Gore allegedly called him “his friend”, and he was the biggest fundraiser for Obama in Oregon. Photos of him and the Fag President are also around. Birds of a feather, as they say…
You can comfortably say this is the equivalent of a US Cardinal, or of a very prestigious archbishop, in the “fag movement”.
His arrest has been, up to now, ignored by the mass media. Can you imagine the mess that would have exploded if a US Cardinal or Archbishop had been arrested with the same accusations? The wave of excited indignation? The mocking and gloating? The tidal wave if insults?
But no. This here is a fag.
Better shut up, then.
Catholic Grandma was born in 1920. Emily was her name. She was Catholic all her life. She married a virgin, and in the fear of the Lord. She married a good Catholic man (not as good as her, of course; they never are; but good as men go, nevertheless…) , and gave birth to children she did her best to grow in the Catholic faith. One of them, Mary.
Mary was born in 1950, as the US were the powerhouse of the planet. She grew up in a society whose wealth her mother could – as a young girl with the fear of the Lord, and dreaming of a husband and children, of a small house with a yard and a good kitchen – not even have imagined. Mary also had the opportunity – thank to the hard work of their parents, and the sacrifices they gladly did for their offspring – to reach a level of education unknown to the generation of her parents, and grandparents.
Mary grew smart, and a tad opinionated. She thought she had all the answers. Whilst she “felt” Catholic, she thought she could “question” Catholicism. She thought she knew more about the world than her parents, so much below her in their level of education and accomplishment. She liked her mother’s “simple faith”, but she considered it just that: simple. Good for the uneducated. Inadequate for a world of new frontiers.
When the “Summer of love” came, it swept the young girl away.
Mary never really planned of marrying intact. She married her fifth lover, and never once regretted giving herself away for “love”. “Fornication” was, to her, an old-fashioned term, but she certainly did not want to be reputed a slut. She slowly stopped going to confession more than once a year. At some point, she stopped taking more and more excuses to stop attending, but she never really gave up. Contraception was a given, because a pregnancy had absolutely to be avoided before marriage, and before her career was established; and two children were more than enough after it. Medical school is very expensive, you see, and she wanted at least one of her sons to be a doctor; plus a good house in a good neighbourhood. For the children. Plus a nice car, and holidays abroad. To open their children’s minds.
Mary’s daughter was born in 1985, the second and last born. She did not receive a traditional Christian name, and was called “Moon” instead. But she was baptised, both because mama was in the church group and because Grandma insisted so much on it. Still, mama told young Moon that this wasn’t important, and that “love is everything”. Moon was encouraged to “follow her heart”, and “live her dreams”. When, at 17, she left home to go away with a biker her parents were disappointed, but they called it a “phase”. No doubt, daughter would come out right in the end, because she “is a good girl” and “has her heart in the right place”. Back came the girl, and to high school again. But the procession of boys was already alarming. Grandma never openly said she is a slut, but Mary knew what her mother thought. When Moon went to college, there was no scarcity of willing Suns; actually, a lot of them; with some other Moons thrown in as “experiment”. Drunkenness became a not-so-rare occurrence, as did marijuana. This is when “slut” became a “sexist” term, though she referred to herself as “sexual”, and “liberated”. Her parents noticed, when she came back during the holidays, that she was talking in a new and strange way: of oppression, and liberation, and change, and hope. But she was following her heart, you see. The parents talked with their friends of “poor choices”, but they weren’t very keen on “judging”. It will all be good in the end. She is “a good girl after all”, they said to themselves.
Lover number 37 (but she was never sure she had counted all those she had gone with whilst drunk; probably not; they don’t count, anyway…) is, then, deemed to be “Mr Right”, and a marriage is hastily organised, then the heart must be followed whilst it throbs, and there is a bun in the oven. A civil one, of course, than her husband – an avowed atheist, but with “his heart int he right place” – hates conventions and moralism. But Las Vegas will do, as you can make a short holiday of it. Her husband, Deshawn, is about to become a sociology major; he is a social justice activist, hoping to become a community organiser. They will, of course, have to rely on the support of Moon’s parents for, oh well… for as long as it takes for the couple to “realise their dreams” and “make a difference”, of course…
The parents have encouraged her to “follow her heart”; so there it is, her heart, demanding to be followed. Silently, they had hoped for a lawyer, banker, doctor, or accountant. Someone, in any event, with a solid income, a solid character, and ready to start a family. A provider, and a man. At the very least someone without tattoos and baggy pants; but Deshawn happens to be Black, so they can’t say anything at all. Deshawn also speaks and moves in a strange way, but Moon finds it so “cute”, and they keep saying to themselves: “who are we to judge?”
Moon talks an awful lot of “White privilege” now, which is the main reason why Deshawn is, basically, never responsible for anything; her parents sometimes remember with some fondness when they complained about the biker. Deshawn is rather dominant, though. A smart guy, no doubt. They see he might have the stuff of a leader, and is probably in a “phase”, too. And then the underprivileged background, you see… So he smokes pot, but who are they to judge him or… their daughter? She seems comfortable with a firm guide. He will be a good guide for her, they think? Uh?
A daughter is born in 2007, when Moon has not yet finished her gender studies in college. The baby does not receive a Christian name. She is called ShoShana, with the double capital letter. Moon is always angry whenever “ShoShana” is not written the proper way, and keeps saying the proper pronounciation of her daughter’s name is with “shana” as in “Ghana”, not “shawna”, or – even worse – with “a” as in “care” or “dare”. Her parents think of the good old days; when you still knew what a name meant, and how it was pronounced.
ShoShana is, of course, not baptised, then this goes against the secular principles in the family. “We believe in love”, Moon says to Mary. Old Emily has, at this point, already gone to her reward, so she cannot say anything. Mary says to Moon: “I would have preferred it if the child had been baptised, you know how much your grandmother would have liked it! But I am sure what you do is for the best, and I will give you my full emotional support whatever you two decide to do!”. She will, of course, take the eyes away of every woman who, in her church groups/committees/charitable thingies, dares to ask anything about it. Stupid, uncharitable effs. Who are they to judge? God loves everyone, anyway…
So we arrive to the present day. Several years have gone by, and Moon is now alarmingly overweight. Mary does not dare to say anything to a daughter now railing against “fatphobia” all the time. Deshawn was found out in a fling with a fellow student, and told her he must “follow his heart” and “make his dreams come true” (and how could she say “no”?), so he was gone before you can say “social justice”. This is when she started piling on the ice cream. She has also moved back to her mother, so that ShoShana can be better taken care of. Which basically means Mary does everything.
Mary has noticed, though, that the newfound “fullness” (she never says “my daughter is obese”, preferring to use terms like “round” or “molly” instead) does not deter Moon from finding men able and willing to dump their semen inside her for a night. But they are different men now. Fat or very fat themselves, slovenly, unambitious, whining, or otherwise slow-witted. None of them interested in more than a semen dump. Mary sees very well that clearly, no quality or at least acceptable man goes near her once witty, attractive daughter now. An observing woman as all mothers, she notices how transparent her daughter is to every halfway decent man on the street, on the train, in the supermarket. She is filled with untold sorrow, as her daughter now constantly rants about the world, and sits on the couch, and hates men who do not love her “for herself”. Selfish bastards.
A cat, “Hillary”, is now a permanent part of the fixture. Hillary is obese, too; and like them, sheis quite the… bitch.
Deshawn wasn’t seen with his daughter in the last eighteen months, but he has now a job as a community organiser. He is very skilled with words, and knows how to manipulate his people. Some predict a brilliant future as a local politician for him, because the party likes his verbal skills, passion, and obedience to his superiors. He is currently being groomed to become a member of the County Council first; then, the state parliament is a possibility. Who knows what can happen after that.
The broken family is a minor bump, but the party is not judging him for that. In fact, it allows him to connect more with his electorate. He is one of them, you know. And leaving your daughter is not frowned upon nowadays. Not at all. Hey, nowadays when you are half-black with an absentee Black father, and raised by Whites all the time, you can become President profiling yourself as “Black” even if you have been raised exclusively by Whites, and your black papa put in the equation little more than his sperm. But this is not what matters. “Black” is the word that matters. Everyone knows it, but no one says it. It would be racist, you know.
Mary is now increasingly more sad. For years she has been a member of local lay committees and action groups at her catholic parish. She has expressed herself for women priests, and against judgmentalism, and in favour of love. She always advocates “outreach” to “gays”, because she knows all the women in the group know her daughter is a first-class, obese slut, and she is a grand failure as a mother. She knows they say as much behind her back, though no one dares to challenge her. But she knows they joke among themselves, and say that her daughter is properly called Moon, because her ass is the size of a planet. She reacts by advocating the recognition of same sex marriage.
She is now 64. Her daughter does not care for anything without “Häagen-Dazs” written on it; her granddaughter is not baptised, and has a name she cannot even pronounce. No one has any ideal, or aspiration anymore. Her husband died with a broken heart two years ago, which made the finances not easier in the least. Her two abortions, had a long time ago without much of a thought, now start to create an uneasiness that becomes stronger every year. Her daughter has admitted to three abortions, but she calls them “reproductive choices”. She does not have any problem with it. “She doesn’t now…“, the mother starts to think…
Still, Mary thinks that she was, as a whole, right. She was right in raising her daughter to be “enlightened”, and “liberated”; she was right to tell her to “follow her heart”, and “chase her dreams”. She and her daughter just weren’t lucky, that’s all. She is growing resentful of all: priests, hierarchy, Church; Government, men, and… men. She now says “patriarchy” almost as often as her obese daughter. She knows, deep inside her, that she is wrong, but she can’t admit to herself she is. Because if she is, she was all her life, big time. If she is, she was instrumental in creating that fat sluttish tub of lard slowly demolishing her couch and herself, and possibly also that little innocent creature now without a father, and possibly on the way to become the new Degree Proletariat, fat and crass and lazy and resentful; all,in short, that her mother would have given her own life to spare from her. If she was wrong, she was wrong all her life, and in all her deeds.
So she can’t be wrong.
And here, my dear reader, it seems that the story must end. But must it?
Little ShoShana, the girl with the absurd, unspeakably stupid, unpronounceable name and a broken family, is now growing a healthy girl. She has an inquisitive mind, a guardian angel, and an immortal soul. She will, very soon, start to be ashamed of her mother.
Perhaps, the day will come when young ShoShana will become more curious about her past, and wants to know more about her grand-grandma. The unknown woman born in 1920 – a time so, so far away to her! -. The one who married intact, and had a life of quiet, industrious activity; of solid contentment, and faith in the Lord.
Perhaps she will realise that neither her mother nor her grandmother managed to live a happy, fulfilled life; but grand-grandma, she did. She did so through poverty and war, through the Depression and Pearl Harbour, through joy and sorrow. Giving birth to all the sons God gave her; never complaining, but always proud of being a good mother and a honest, obedient wife besides. Bearing all the crosses Jesus gave her with a kind, feminine smile; living and dying in her simple faith as the world around her rejected femininity, maternity, religion and, in one word, sanity.
The Holy Ghost is there, watching. Her Guardian Angel is there, helping. One day, ShoShana – the daughter of an absentee father and a whoring, obese, uncaring mother – might well stop in front of a church, and think of her grand-grandmother; she might feel a strange, sweet ache; a desire for contentment, fulfillment, purity. A desire to be what she is truly born to be.
Perhaps, ShoShana will start to investigate her roots, and will start to like them.
The Lord never stops to pave the way. Who knows, the way could be going back to one’s roots, and to the sober understanding that once upon a time, people did make things in the right way, and lived better lives as a result. Particularly those women, who lived and died happily under the “Patriarchy”, and found it the only way to live a honest woman’s life.
Good luck to you, little girl with the absurd, unspeakably stupid, unpronounceable name. It would seem the odds are not in your favour; but you have a Guardian Angel, and the Lord is watching you with great love.
The Lord never stops to pave the way.
I fear that the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ has become the preferred tool of well-meaning eggheads and not so well-meaning heretics, while the rest of us puzzle over what the Church truly teaches these days.
What we need today is clear and unambiguous teaching at all levels of the hierarchy that does not rely on hermeneutics, but rather relies on clarity, and shuns ambiguity. We need clarity with clearly demonstrated continuity in all communications.
Thus Pat Archbold in one of his very good reflections, in which he complains that good, solid, Catholic texts – like all the encyclicals before the dratted Council – do not need any “hermeneutic”, whilst the “hermeneutic” has now in some quarters become an excuse to deny the reality of texts that have little of Catholic in them. I fully agree, though perhaps I use the word in a different context.
I have always been a supporter of the hermeneutic of continuity, in the sense that I consider that every official text of the Church must be taken – whenever possible; Francis is a completely new ballgame – in a sense that is in harmony with what the Church believes.
So, the encyclicals of the darn V II can, largely, be read in an orthodox way; and in what they say that is in line with what has been previously taught, they are certainly fine. If Luther says “two and two is four” this is not less fine because Luther said it. Here, Luther has been truthful. No, really.
This is, I think, the reason why not even the SSPX rejects the VII documents in toto, and why the Great Man himself signed – to my knowledge – all of them, which – to my knowledge – other refused to do. A bad document explaining the Truth in a bad way is still valid in the truth it teaches, because those truths cannot be invalidated just because wrapped in a mediocre or misleading document. Similarly, if a papal encyclical has some good things mixed with stupid or ambiguous or vaguely heretical or openly wrong statements, we might have to ask for the re-writing of the encyclical, but we will have to recognise the truth contained in its truthful parts in the meantime. We as Catholics cannot but read in a Catholic way, provided there is something Catholic to be read.
If Francis were to write an encyclical in which the Trinity is correctly explained, and Muslims are said to believe in the same God as Christians, the second statement should be rejected as heretical, and the part concerning the Trinity should be accepted as truthful. To do anything else means to make truth dependent on who writes about it.
I have proposed some time ago a “hermeneutic of embarrassment”, consisting in taking everything that is valid in the V II encyclicals whilst acknowledging the crap job made by the Council Fathers in mixing the good with the stupid, the comfortable, the bad and the plain evil. I have also proposed, concerning the mentality of V II, a hermeneutic of extermination, which I think is what the times are demanding from us. But in all this, I see no necessity to interpret the V II texts we have in any other way than reading them in a Catholic way, accepting whatever Catholicism they have in them and rejecting whatever is, in the actual words or in their erroneous hermeneutic, heterodox.
Still, I think Mr Archbold makes a very valid point: the “hermeneutic of orthodoxy” has now gone so far that even openly heretical statements are twisted in the most astonishing way to try to give them an orthodox meaning. But you see, this is not an exercise in hermeneutic anymore, but in blindness and Pollyann-ism.
There is no way “who am I to judge” can be interpreted as being anything else than secular crap. There is no way “there is no God!” can be interpreted anything else than a blasphemy. There is no way stating that the Blessed Virgin could have said “Lies!” at the foot of the Cross does not show that the one who makes such a statement does not understands jack of Catholicism, much less has any true devotion for the Blessed Virgin. There is no way stating that Christ misled the apostles can be interpreted in any other way than an offence to Christ. There is no way committing a grave liturgical abuse can be explained away as being anything else than a liturgical abuse. There is no way calling a proddie “brother bishop” can be understood in any way other than nonsense born of drunkenness, sheer stupidity or blank denial of Catholicism. Everyone of you has, I am sure, other examples.
In all these cases, there is simply no object for any hermeneutic. Words have meaning. Un-Catholic or anti-Catholic words just have a meaning deprived of, or contrary to, Catholicism. You just can’t interpret shit into chocolate.
The hermeneutic of embarrassment concerning the documents of V II, and the hermeneutic of extermination concerning the entire “ideology” of V II, must not lead us to close our eyes in front of the fact that heresy is heresy, nonsense is nonsense, and Francis is the enemy number one of Catholicism. These are facts that go beyond any effort of twisting the meaning of what is said. Meaning which, in the case of Francis, is perfectly clear before one begins the twisting.
But by all means: in all we can, let us continue to extract whatever is good from Vatican documents, lest a narrative should emerge according to which what was good before is not good anymore now. So if anyone were to ask me “do you accept or reject the V II documents?” I would answer that I accept everything that must be accepted, and reject everything that must be rejected. How do I know which is which? By comparing with what has been stated in the past. It truly isn’t difficult. Truth has a way of letting alarm bells go off when someone is departing from it. In the case of Francis, the noise is deafening every time he opens that stupid, lewd old mouth of his.
The Modernist mixes truth and error, and I will not reject the truth because it is mixed with error. But I certainly have the right – and, I think, the duty – to ask that those documents which either mix truth with error, or truth with ambiguity, be replaced by documents reflecting truth without ambiguity.
Not going to happen during this papacy, of course. The “hermeneutic of populism and socialism” is Francis’ preferred way of interpretation of pretty much everything.
Very interesting article on The Catholic Thing, revolving about two main issues:
1) the cost of the formation and upkeep of Catholic personnel, with or without holy orders.
2) the fact that some of these people, like the “sister” whose Creed begins and ends with the words “I do not believe in doctrine, I believe in love”, abuse the system and scrounge an entire life at the expense of those who, actually, believe in doctrine, not in what she (erroneously) calls “love”.
I invite you to read the article.
I personally would suggest the following:
a) to Fr Pokorsky, I would suggest a bigger assertiveness in proclaiming Catholic doctrine. “Sister” and her ilk should, if you ask me, have the ground taken from under their feet with an uncompromising, very vocal, very assertive stance on Catholic doctrine. In my experience (and I have an awful lot of these experiences) when truth is said whole, loud, and without regard for sensitivities the subversive either shut up directly (most of them) because they see that it’s not the right weather for their silliness, or they are smashed against the wall of their own faithlessness, thus losing credibility among honest Catholics. I do not know whether Father gave “sister” a good dressing down in front of the others and prefers not to mention it in his post, but I surely hope he did.
We are Catholics. We are counter cultural. We seek conflict, because this is what Jesus did.
b) In general, I can’t avoid thinking “sister” should be deprived of her (not donned) habit and smashed on the street irrespective of age, health condition, and any cat involved.
Let the world care for their own. If Sister has no loyalty to Christ, she should not live at the expense of Christians. No one dies of cold and hunger in the modern United States. The Taxpayer takes care of it. Or the Catholic organisations which give shelter and food to the very poor, to which “sister” would be most heartily invited, and you’re welcome.
The taxpayer is largely secular, and therefore it is the largely secular taxpayer that – the modern social security system being what it is; I am not advocating it, merely registering its existence – should bear the cost of keeping these useless people alive. No one has a right to become, or remain, a religious sister. Particularly a “sister” whose faith is not Christianity, but her own view of “love”, and who openly rejects Christian doctrine.
The queue to the soup kitchen is there, ma’am.
You see: I believe in both doctrine, and fairness.
Stellar blog post from Father Ray Blake concerning the way our very image of God – with the obvious consequences in practically every aspect of life – was subtly but substantially subverted by Bugnini and his band of liturgical terrorists.
The blog post appears to have been removed, or I cannot find it anymore. Perhaps it will reappear. The main message of the post was that the careful selection of the readings in the New Missal gave a different image of Christ: not King anymore, but Buddy Boy. The blog post was truly good.
EDIT: It is here, a blog post of 2013!
I would like to add some additional considerations that might be of some use.
We see once again Satan’s gradual approach to war at work. Bugnini expunges the Rex Tremendae Majestatis from the experience of the common pewsitter, and substitutes it with a harmless kindergarten…
View original post 566 more words
The more I stumble upon Tablet articles, the more I wonder what on earth lets these people think they are Catholics.
Courtesy of the Pewsitter– a Catholic news aggregator run by people actually caring for orthodoxy, and infinitely better than the well-intentioned but irredeemably tame, diabetes-inducing and at times outright Pollyann-ish service of the New Advent – I have now been informed of this latest piece of utter nonsense, in which a woman who was apparently once made a religious sister fully espouses Jimmy Carter’s position in preference to the obviously backward one of… probably the most subversive Pope in history.
To read the article is an unreal experience. I wonder how many Presbyterians would ask that the Only Church “ordains” women – as if such a thing were possible at all -. But no, not only this one here might even…
View original post 341 more words
Glimpses of sanity in the Archdioceses of Detroit, and at the same time a sign that a Pope can’t change the way the Church thinks overnight.
One of the many faggots (real, or honorary) within the Church, wolves in wolves’ clothes, has an “advocacy” group called “New Ways” which, under pretence of “supporting” perverts, actually encourages them in their perversion. I did not like the tone of the article one bit, therefore no link.
ArchbishopVigneron reacted with a sort of: “new ways? No way!”, and prohibited the faggots (real, or honorary) from meeting in one of his parishes.
The dialectic is interesting: the leader of “New Ways” says there should be “outreach” to “gay Catholics”, as Francis says. The Archbishop doesn’t care a straw, whatever Francis may say.
Ironically, “New Ways” wanted to give its support to a local group, apparently called “Fortunate Families”. Whilst I am not interested in gathering more information about this kind of people, it seems rather clear to me these people consider themselves “fortunate” in having a fag or dyke among them. What was always considered a shame for the entire family involved – besides being a tragedy for the soul – is now something, apparently, celebrated.
Boy, they should move along and enter the Presbyterian so-called “church” down the road.
What do we take home from this? That Francis’ evil propaganda will be exploited by all those who want to poison the church with Satan’s ways, but it will not be easy, because there are an awful lot of bishops around, and an awful lot of them will keep being Catholic (in the very imperfect, compromise-prone, weak V II-catholic way; but still, Catholic) whatever Pope Pothead says.
From the recent interview of Cardinal George with a magazine that, for the sake of your children, shall not be linked to.
The question is raised, why doesn’t he himself clarify these things? Why is it necessary that apologists have to bear that burden of trying to put the best possible face on it? Does he not realize the consequences of some of his statements, or even some of his actions? Does he not realize the repercussions? Perhaps he doesn’t. I don’t know whether he’s conscious of all the consequences of some of the things he’s said and done that raise these doubts in people’s minds.
Courtesy of Yours Truly, the English version.
We are all sick and tired of what this man is doing, so we must say that “questions are raised”. We all know the man sows confusion on purpose, which is why he never clarifies anything. But you see, we Cardinals must pretend he isn’t a darn heretic, at least for now. It makes one vomit that everytime this joker opens his mouth we and other must run to the rescue like we are the Fire Frigade fighting a permanent Chicago Fire. He cannot fool us: of course we know he fully realises the consequences of all his statements and his actions: it is why he does all of it! But look, this is all unprintable. So let me put it to you in the form of four very rhetorical questions in rapid succession: this way, even the slower minds will understand that we really are fed up. Then let me fire another salvo by stating that perhaps he is just gaga, so we do not know whether he is conscious of the fact that he is sabotaging catholicism at every turn. We know he isn’t, of course. But truly, at this point we have no other way to try to explain to the faithful the behaviour of this clown.
From Cardinalese to proper English.
You are welcome.
I have recently published a blog post mentioning the fact that the Pontiff Emeritus has changed his mind in regards to the communion for adulterers; a matters on which, in 1972, he had spoken in favour of exploring other avenues in Kasper-style.
I have also said that it makes me shiver that in 1972 a theologian reputed “conservative” could write such astonishing rubbish.
It is certainly a very positive element, and it does the Pontiff Emeritus honour, that he has had the guts to officially change his mind in such a controversial matter; particularly considering that his old, Sixty-Eighter-ish opinion was not in the centre of the public attention, and would not have been considered his position today if it had been. Basically, the Pontiff Emeritus has directed the attention of the planet on an old, very big mistake of him few were even noticing.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking that every grandma, in 1972, could have said to the above mentioned Professor Ratzinger what he can do with all his degrees in theology. Because you see, your average grandma was, in 1972, very evidently far more advanced in Catholicism than Professor Ratzinger with all his degrees; so much so, in fact, that she would have been fully justified in slapping him in the face, like one does with a boy in need of a lesson.
It is not difficult to be on the side of orthodoxy. It is enough to want to think, in everything, like the generations of our sane Catholic past thought, and to inform oneself about the way they did. When doubt arises, one informs himself before he speaks, much less writes, much less publishes. To do anything else, or to be enamored of novelty for the sake of public recognition, or because shamefully influenced by the new times, is to be a heretic.
It is not difficult to be orthodox. Grandmas have managed to do it admirably for many generations. It boggles the mind that in this day and age this should be a feat theologians do not manage to accomplish.
Slapping in the face is vastly underrated. I am sure it paved the way to salvation for many a boy, and would do a lot of good to an awful lot of theologians.
EDIT: Reblogged with exact quote and link to persuade those who do not believe unless they see a link and a direct quote.
“Am I one of these Christians of appearances? Am I alive inside, do I have a spiritual life? Do I hear the Holy Spirit, do I listen to the Holy Spirit, do I move forward, or …? But, if everything looks good, I have nothing to reproach myself about: I have a good family, people do not gossip about me, I have everything I need, I married in church …I am ‘in the grace of God’, I am alright. Appearances! Christians of appearance … they are dead! Instead [we must] seek something alive within ourselves, and with memory and vigilance, reinvigorate this so we can move forward. Convert: from appearances to reality. From being neither hot nor cold to fervour”.
Yes, you. You…
View original post 273 more words
And here is the second part of our “Remnant” voyage into the realm of papal heresies: can the church depose a heretical Pope?
“Yes, she can”, is the answer. Follow the link to learn the why and how. An entire section is dedicated to the obvious mistake of the Sedevacantist perception.
Unfortunately, the absence of a true practical application of the principle (the interesting case of Marcellinius (or Marcellinus) would probably not apply to Francis, and perhaps some will doubt it happened in the first place) makes it very difficult to discern a clear path if Francis were to “go nuclear”.
Say: who would take the initiative of starting the convocation of an ecumenical council? How many bishops would take place? With what money would the entire exercise be financed? How would one know the council is legitimate?
In practice, I think if Francis were to proclaim even formal heresy he would have perhaps one third of the bishop on his side, and probably much more than that in the West. The initiative would probably start from a dozen or two Cardinals, but then there is the problem of what would happen if Francis were to, say, depose every bishops going to a certain ecumenical or even regional council, or all the Cardinals denouncing his heresies. The bishop’s conferences faithful to him (the usual ones, which are the richest ones) would prevent every money from being used and everyone of their bishops from taking part. We would have a situation of chaos out of which only the determination of the right side would, one day, allow to get out. We would, again, have a situation in which we would have to turn to authentic beacons of Catholicism to tell us that the ecumenical council is in fact suitable for its purpose or not, the Pope validly declared heretic or not, and so on.
If push comes to shove, I think what will happen is that a number of Cardinals (a minority, for sure) would (God willing) take the initiative, with a handful of champions like Burke or Pell asking for an abiura from the Pope, and threatening with an ecumenical council to have him deposed if he does not comply. This would carry with him a number (how big?) of bishops, and would then allow to put in motion a mechanism as the one described in the article, though with how many bishops and what kind of controversy (again, if Francis says they are relieved of their office; though obviously he could not relieve them of their sacrament of holy orders) would remain to be seen.
A scenario like the one leading to the abdication of Marcellinius (with an obvious wall of bishops on the right side) is, I think, not realistic. A situation of chaos and prolonged conflict is far more likely. This scenario would, if it were to pass, certainly destroy the reputation of Francis as Pope, and burn to the ground his standing for the following generations; but it does not mean that the Pope would end up being deposed.
Nor can we say that the Holy Ghost would not fail to allow the Church to reach a speedy solution of the controversy, as the example of the Western Schism has already showed to us that the promise of protection does not extend to the absence of a very long uncertainty – at least in the mind of many, even honest Catholics – as to who is the Pope (or whether there is a Pope) in the first place.
I think, though, that the method used against John XXII (an impressive, if local, body of bishops, religious and theologians poses him in front of the choice between backpedaling and open calls of heresy) would already have a great probability of success, because a vain man like Francis would immediately know that his papacy would go down in flames for the only fact of a doctrinal rebellion against him; even if this rebellion were, for whatever reason, not to translate into his deposition.
It is, in any way, consoling to know that whatever we will face has been the subject of very long and serious debate in the past. This allows us to put the dramatic age we are living (and deserving to live) in the proper context, without panic or flights into the unreal, only apparent refuge of “siding with the Pope”.
The Pope sides with atheist journalists, perverted priests and irreligious rock stars.
If we come to a nuclear scenario, think twice before you side with him.
I never tire to repeat that the misguided and deluded “sensitivity” of a world obsessed with “niceness” (“you brood of vipers!” How nice is that?) is what made the advance of the sodomites possible in the first place.
Words are weapons. A powerful barrage of clear, unmistakeable condemnation will always have a devastating effect of the enemy troops. It is only when the defences are down and the enemy is suddenly treated with respect, “sensitivity”, and even reverence that his advance is not only made possible, but helped every step of the way; helped in his march of conquest, in fact, by the very sissified army that should actually shoot at him.
If you want to fight sexual perversion, you must call it with its own name. If you do not dare to call it with its own name, you do not really want to…
View original post 622 more words
In the first of two blog posts dedicated to a series of beautiful articles taken from the “Remnant”, I will copy the link to four articles dedicated to the grave crisis in which Pope John XXII plunged the Church in the first part of the XIV Century.
The second blog post will be dedicated to a very actual issue: how a Pope can be deposed.
In both cases, I will add my short personal consideration.
The articles will, also, be put in a special “page” (this is how WordPress calls the fixed pages you see at the top) on my blog, in the hope that it will attract, in time, the attention of readers surfing the waves of the Internet in the search for some guidance in the present confusion.
I invite, here, to say the prayers you would think adequate for the author of the articles, Mr Chris Jackson (see below), and for those who run this beautiful site, a bastion of Catholic sanity in a world of fake “c”atholics, Pollyannas, prostitutes, and utter potheads.
The series of article you see linked below (make a tea; put on some music; make the time; you will not regret it) teaches, in my eyes, some very important lessons:
1) Under the pretence of meekness, John was a first-class bully of the most dangerous sort. I am reminded of someone here.
2) John called to an open discussion between orthodoxy and heresy. The discussion should, obviously, never have taken place in the first place. The parallel with today’s situation is striking.
3) Pope John feigned a half-hearted “neutrality”, but in the praxis he clearly pushed his own agenda. Francis does exactly the same.
4) Good Catholics who love truth expressed himself against him with such violence, that one of them was even arrested. If your heart cares, your mouth will show it. I can’t tell you what sympathy I have for those who are inflamed in their anger, because they see the Church they love attacked; or how much I despise the “nice guys” who would not be able to say anything “unkind” to the Antichrist if they had him in front of them.
Nicety is the new religion. Give me the old one.
5) Pope John XXII’s propositions were not in the least less heretical because the immediacy of the beatific vision once a soul has entered paradise had not (yet) been proclaimed dogmatically. This had not happened simply because no Pope had been such a bonehead as to put the teaching into question. To say that every Catholic truth that is not dogmatically defined can be questioned without incurring in the sanction of heresy is the sheer madness, and would simply spell the end of Catholicism. Heretical is what goes against the deposit of the faith. The issue at hand might or might not have been defined dogmatically (this will, generally, be dependent on whether controversies arose about it), but if it has been always believed by the church, to go against it is to commit heresy; which is why John XXII is considered – until his final repentance – a heretical Pope. “The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval”. This, of course, irrespective of whether the heresy is formal or material.
6) I wish I could share the enthusiasm of the author of the article for the wonderful repentance of John XXII. Whilst I do not doubt his final repentance was sincere – the imminence of death must focus the mind uncannily – I am too much of a cynical not to believe that the man backpedaled because the situation on the ground made the stake appear his most probable final destination if he had insisted, after due warning, in his heretical position. We must reflect that it is very widely believed that a Pope can be formally deposed as a heretic (there will be another post on this, also based on a beautiful “Remnant” article) and, at that point, loses all the protection accorded to him not only as Pope and bishop, but as priest, too. The stake would, at that point, have been a very probable final destination for our dear John, Humble Theologian, considering the gravity of pertinaciously spreading heresy from one’s position as Pope. Alas, Francis does not have the benefit of gentle reminders of the gravity of being a heretic, like John had. Which, if you ask me, is a great pity.
Enjoy the articles. Again, I strongly suggest that you take time to really read all of them, a task you can easily divide in different times if you so wish. The four links that follow, and the one that will be published in the following one, are among the most important ever published on these pages.
A very special “thank you” goes to reader Chris Jackson, who posted these precious sources on my comment box. He might well be the same Chris Jackson who authored the articles. In which case, my gratitude is the more increased, and I consider it a great honour to have such an erudite writer among the readers of my little, but sincere effort.
EDIT: Reblogged with exact quote and link to persuade those who do not believe unless they see a link and a direct quote.
“Am I one of these Christians of appearances? Am I alive inside, do I have a spiritual life? Do I hear the Holy Spirit, do I listen to the Holy Spirit, do I move forward, or …? But, if everything looks good, I have nothing to reproach myself about: I have a good family, people do not gossip about me, I have everything I need, I married in church …I am ‘in the grace of God’, I am alright. Appearances! Christians of appearance … they are dead! Instead [we must] seek something alive within ourselves, and with memory and vigilance, reinvigorate this so we can move forward. Convert: from appearances to reality. From being neither hot nor cold to fervour”.
Yes, you. You, the good wife, the good husband. You who marry in church, you who pray the rosary. You, Sir, are his enemy.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) continues to sabotage Catholicism. I begin to think his hatred for good Catholics is so strong that he cannot refrain from making snide remarks against them even if he tries to hold his tongue. This, or grappa plays a role.
Now, not even good Catholics with well-ordered lives, no mortal sin on their conscience and married in church are fine. Francis, the man who orders to give sacrilegious communion to 80% of the communicants in the slum, suggests many of those good Catholics must be “dead” inside. The concubines in the slum, the transvestite, the faggot priests – see his buddy – they are all fine.
Dead inside? If he wants to see one, the only thing this man need is a mirror.
Whatever kind of sinner you are – homosexual, concubine, thief – this Pope will like you a lot. But start to live a Catholic life, and his hatred for you will be impossible to contain.
I can’t avoid thinking this Pope has such a visceral hatred for Catholics he lashes out against them even if he knows he should be far more careful. It’s just beyond his control.
He has hated good Catholics all his life. To him, they are hypocrites. He must be so rotten inside, that he has forgotten what a sincere heart is.
But you, you be a dirty soul instead. Possibly a pervert.
He will see his own dirt in you, and will like you immediately.
… I would feel, actually, a blasphemer. This, for the simple reason that I am not God, and God already found His own Church on Christ. So no, I could never even think of something like that.
I know it's obvious. But Cardinal O'Malley did not say it, so I will have to.
Of course one could, in a joking manner, make the absurd argument. “Hey”, he might say, “these are not my rules. They are God's rules. If you don't like them, complain by him!”. Or: “hey, these are not my rules. If it depended on me, I would make chocolate a remedy against cholesterine!” Statements like this only declare, in a joking manner, that we know nothing, and are prone to sin. They are fine in the proper context.
The problem with Cardinal O'Malley, though, is that he created the wrong context, and he gave entirely the wrong perception. Firstly, by choosing to say “I would love to have women priests” he touched a taboo, making a comparison that he knew would be easily misunderstood, and which smacks of political correctness on the cheap. Secondly, he did not add the necessary caveat, adding to his words an expression like “but I would be the biggest idiot on earth only if I thought to do so, because God has already founded His own Church, which is the only one”, or “but only a cretin can think that he knows better than God, and what whatever God states cannot be improved upon, and we accept it instead of discussing it; otherwise we aren't Catholics, but heretics and idiots”.
Instead, the Cardinal chose a different, very arrogant approach. The message he sends is more like “I feel with you rabid feminists, and humanly speaking I cannot avoid thinking that you are right. Embarrassingly enough, Jesus differs. But Jesus cannot be wrong so hey, we'll have to live with this embarrassment; one we can't humanly understand or justify in any other way than by stating that it comes from Him so there must be something right in it”.
Come on, Your Grace. You can't fool us on this one.
I could now, for the edification of the Cardinal, write not one but several blog posts explaining why it is the greatest blessing that women cannot be priests. But as I am pretty sure he knows all already much better than I do – being more than a couple of springs more seasoned than I am – I will let it be for today; safe in the knowledge that the man wanted to pander to the world, hiding behind the finger of “for some reason, Jesus chose that way, so let's bear this burden with Christian resignation”.
This is not one who defends Christ. Rather, he is one who says he does not understand Christ's apparent misogyny, but he deals with it in obedience.
Not much of a Cardinal, this one.
The “Eponymous Flower” blog has not one, but two pieces of news concerning the confusion in the Church and the Pontiff Emeritus.
The first one is the chilling acknowledgment that forty years ago, the positions of then Professor Ratzinger concerning communion for divorced and remarried were very similar to what is, today, promoted by Cardinal Kasper.
“Chilling” is the only way I find to describe the cancer that, in those years, was invading the body of the Church. It is to be noted that in 1972 Ratzinger had long been considered Not a “progressive” theologian anymore, but rather a conservative one – as conservative NO theologians went, of course -. It truly makes one shiver.
The second one is that the same person, now Pontiff Emeritus, distances himself from his theories of four decades ago, and takes squarely position in the… Catholic camp.
The Pontiff Emeritus does this with the usual grace. Not for him, he seems to say, the role of the open critic of the Pope. He will, instead, limit himself to reinstate the truth; an act more to be praised, because it does not happen every day that a theologian revises old and long forgotten material to let – implicitly, but very clearly – the world know he was wrong, and now he must speak in reparation of the offence he himself has caused.
Still, the fact itself and the probably not-so-casual moment for Benedict's self-correction can only have one meaning: a massive warning shot to Francis.
It is, at this point, perfectly useless to pretend not to know on which side Bergoglio is, or what he would do of Catholic doctrine in this and many other issues if he had the possibility to act like an ecclesiastical Chavez. Even the feminists, the dissenters and the utterly retarded know by now that Francis wants to change the way the Church operates, and people from all corners are coming out to tell him “watch out, old man!”.
The Pontiff Emeritus' intervention – the second in just a few weeks, you will remember – also shows what alarm Francis' antics have caused all over the Catholic world. If a gentle soul like Benedict decides himself for an intervention – two, actually – that clearly show to the new Pope the lines being drawn in the sand (and unavoidably translating into a lesson, and a humiliation, given to the arrogant Argentinian), then it is clear that Benedict could not reconcile his conscience with remaining in silence any longer. He had to speak, and he has done it twice. The second one, most notably, as he indicts himself – his old self – as he defends Tradition.
This intervention will, if the world media pick the news, become a formidable blow to Francis' already wobbling reputation among Catholics. But even if the secular media decided to ignore this, many good Catholics who follow the things of the Church would still consider this a rather transparent development, and for many of them this would be an eye-opener.
The former Pontiff is warning the faithful about the present one. May there be thirty clarifications about Benedict's text in the next days, this is exactly what has happened.
As I have written already, the magic is gone. Criticism is now not only common, but daily, even among the highest ranks. There is no week without at least one very high profile defence of Catholicism against – I know it, you know it, everyone knows it – Francis. It is now even getting mainstream, and I can see it explode in Francis' face without much difficulty.
The Pontiff Emeritus has now – for all who have eyes to see; all others may continue to believe in fairies – joined the fray; in his own very gentle way, I agree; but still, in a way that cannot be misunderstood. He is neither the first, nor the last of those who are clearly signalling to Francis that he will not be allowed to mess up with Catholicism. He, nota bene, who was doing pretty much the same forty years ago, and has now the humility to change his position.
Has the old pothead got the message? Loud and clear.
Will he be sane enough to take heed? We can only hope.
Pray that this Pope does not make it to the 2015 Synod, and a good Catholic presides over it instead.
I am asked how I reconcile my refusal of Sedevacantism with my often-repeated statement that I would recognise the See vacant if the SSPX said so. The matter seems pretty obvious to me; but hey, let's have a blog post, as it can be a useful reading to refresh a thing or two.
I do not have a crystal ball. Sedevacantism as it is peddled nowadays seems utterly absurd to me for the reasons explained in many blog posts. Still, it is obvious – and this issue has been also dealt with frequently on this blog – that Sedevacantism per se was never an absurdity, but actually a very real possibility at various times in the history of the Church.
If, for example, John XXII had dared to proclaim a wrong dogma, I cannot imagine any other solution than the See being declared vacant by at least a number of Cardinals (plus theologians, prestigious religious, & Co.) It is also obvious that theologians like St Roberto Bellarmino dealt with the issue because they considered it a possibility, not merely a pastime for rainy winter afternoons.
Unfortunately – and this has, also, been stated often on this blog – we are now in one of those times in which Sedevacantism starts to appear on the horizon as a possibility. Why is that? Because Francis is such a pothead that there is literally no limit to where his arrogance, ignorance and breathtaking faithlessness could lead him.
Can, therefore, Sedevacantism become a reality? Of course it can. This was, in theory, always the case. But this time, the possibility is far less remote than in usual times.
How can we, then, recognise when such a point has come? You, who know better than me, will certainly be able to decide for yourself. But I, who am terrified of dying and being reproached of having wanted to decide who is and is not the Vicar of Christ, will defer the matter to the superior authority of those to whom I would, when in doubt, always entrust my salvation in preference to an idiot like Francis; those I consider the purest sanctuary of Catholic orthodoxy and to whom I can, therefore, entrust a decision, and die in the fear of the Lord but able to say, on that fateful day, “confronted with unprecedented scandal, I chose the side of your most faithful allies”.
Do I need to be a theologian to make such a decision? No. What I need is to realise that now, as in other times in the past, when we seek orthodoxy we must look to Athanasius rather than Liberius; without saying that Liberius is not the Pope, as long as Athanasius thinks Liberius is; but following Athanasius rather than Liberius if the modern Athanasius (the SSPX) were to declare the See vacant, and Liberius an imposter.
The above should be sufficient to make the rather banal point. But as I am by the argument, I will say two words more.
There are many shades of gray between the white of an orthodox Pope and the black of a vacant See. A Pope can position himself at very many points in the Saint-to-Idiot scale without the See being vacant. Pope John XXII was certainly a heretic, albeit a material one. Honorius was officially condemned. Liberius was weak, at the very least, to the point of being an accomplice of the gravest heresy, and vastly below the required standard. But even a materially heretical Pope does not a vacant See make, which is why Bishop Fellay calls Francis a Modernist, but still sees in him the Pope.
The See is not vacant. More prosaically, a total ass is in charge. There is no saying what kind of stupid things this ass may not do. Therefore, Sedevacantism is a possibility. We, who care for our salvation, do not assume that we can decide for ourselves whether there is a Pope; rather, we defer to the best Catholic authority we can pick around to orientate ourselves; then we may not be the finest theologians, but we know enough to choose between Athanasius and Liberius, and know that a bad Pope can be extremely bad and even heretic, and still be the Pope.
That's it, really. It's not complicated. It should not have needed an extra blog post, but I thought it could be a useful reminder anyway.
Sedevacantism can, and in many cases certainly is, the product of an arrogant mentality; the behaviour, so to speak, of the one who goes away with the ball because he doesn't like how the match is going. In other cases, though, Sedevacantism is – unfortunately – espoused by sincere Catholic souls; that is, by people who, because of a warped conception of what the Earthly Jerusalem is, find no other way to keep believing in the Church than by, in short, deciding that this Church has become a huge, worldwide deception, and opening an emergency exit door for themselves in this rather childish belief that the true church be the pure and incorrupted one to which they, and very few others the world over, belong. As if Christ had allowed almost all, bar the very few smarties, to be deceived as to what the Church is.
Still, the fact remains: some of these Sedes are faithful Catholics who, whatever their errors, I believe far more pleasing to God than, say, 97% of Western Bishops. Some of them are, also, very good at explaining Catholic doctrine, and defending the Tridentine Mass. This is no surprise, as in many cases we are talking, whatever Voris & Co. May think, of very orthodox, high quality Catholics.
Should we, therefore, link to their material, may the one or other Catholic blogger
have asked ask?
I would answer that it depends on the actual situation, and of the weighing that we must make of whether the exposure to the good material is outweighed by the exposure to the bad one.
I use a case-by-case approach. I have linked to Sedevacantist sites when I thought it ethically correct to link to the source of the material of the day – a blog article, say – but I have never felt it necessary to go as far as to link to their books, or videos, or any other extensive, systematic exposure to them, even in arguments not pertaining to Sedevacantism. Say: a Sedevacantist can have the best videos about the Tridentine Mass around, but I would still not link to them.
I would, though, do it in the one case, that I thought this material the only reasonably good material available; not, of course, without a warning about the other convictions of the author.
I must say that, up to now, this has never happened, and I very much doubt that it will ever happen. It's not that we have ever needed Sedevacantists to explain to us things we did not know. The world of Traditionalism – including all Catholicism before the Council – is simply immense, and the Internet sources are becoming vaster every day, with more and more old books and other sources being made available. It's not that your reader has to watch a certain video, or read a certain article. Alternative sources are most certainly available.
In one words: if there were no Sedevacantism, there would be no occasion in which a Traditionalist Catholic blogger could not find perfectly acceptable (I do not say perfect, or even best; but perfectly acceptable) sources for the issue at hand.
Others will, of course, have different opinions. I only tell you which approach I personally consider best. In our disgraceful times, Sedevacantism can easily become a temptation for imperfectly formed Catholics, who in their desperation think they have finally found the answer to the events unfolding under their own eyes. I do not think they should be exposed to this temptation, unless there are very valid reasons for that.
Which is why on this blog you don't find link to videos of Sedevacantists – however good this videos might be – but only the occasional link concerning the issue of the day, and Even that only with a word or three of warning.
I have heard many Catholics – priest and laity – speak about spreading the “joy of Christ”, or launching easy slogans like “Jesus is Joy”. Not one of them – priest or lay – ever made to me the impression that he could ever convert anyone truly interested in his own salvation, rather than mere fun. If anyone were to embrace Catholicism based on that, let me tell you he will be bitterly disappointed.
I can't hear anymore how, in a society focused of fun and self-satisfaction, Catholicism is presented as a dispenser of the same stupid surrogates of happiness most people are already actively looking for outside of it. In this “joy” thing there is – there must be, in these stupid times of ours – an implicit promise of something for nothing. This becomes very evident in the words of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH, if you are new to this blog), who always talks of Christ as if He were simply giving to us, and never asking of us; but it is also rather transparent in your typical Novus-Ordo “homily for all the family”, in which sin or punishment are never mentioned lest it should cloud the sunny Sunday morning of the pewsitters, in which everyone drives home to his Sunday lunch feeling so astonishingly good.
Well, I beg to disagree.
I think that in this day and age, every unqualified talk of “joy” smacks so much of Disneyland, that it should be carefully avoided unless it is put in the proper context. A world that does not fear hell will never put joy in the context of Salvation. Rather, it will put it in the context of quality of life. A big, big mistake, because a properly formed Catholic conscience will give one fears, and pangs of remorse, utterly unknown to, say, the rosewater mainstream, “I think I believe in God”-Anglican. This ex-Anglican convert will also discover that many things he thoughts harmless aren't harmless at all, and he is not allowed to skip Mass. Not even then, when he goes around “spreading the joy of Christ” instead.
This “joy” thing is, in the present world, nothing more than deception. It is marketing under false pretences. It encourages a wrong thinking that infects even those who should know better, and who profit from it to willfully ignore their own grave sinfulness because hey, they “spread the joy”.
If you ask me, every discussion about Catholicism, and every attempt at conversion, must begin with hell. Hell, and nothing else, is the reason why we are Catholics, then if there were no hell I would enthusiastically chase skirt for all I'm worth, and every consideration about what Catholicism says of it would be a gentle suggestion – but hey, God is luv, right? – at best.
My reason for being Catholic is hell, not joy. My fear of hell, not this promised Disneyland of the nuCatholics, is why I remain Catholic. The harshest truths on the planet are the very foundation of the only true religion of the planet. Christ died for me on the Cross, so I can go on doing what I please, because Cool Bearded Guy takes care of me anyway. You can't even begin to talk about Catholicism without mentioning those harsh truths; because if the world is the merry-go-round with guaranteed happy ending peddled by Francis and by all those modern apostles of joy, there is no reason whatever to go through life full of “Catholic guilt” (also called sanity, and fear of the Lord) and encumbered with all those prohibitions to do, and obligations to do, that are everywhere in the life of a Catholic.
Forget the talk of the “Joy of Christ”, at least until the planet has forgotten what it really means.
Focus on the Wrath of Christ instead.
It may be less pleasant, but it is far more salutary.