Monthly Archives: December 2014
As every year, there is a longish Christmas pause in Italian football. This pause is, like every year, used by South American footballers to go back to countries like Chile, Uruguay, Brazil or, well, Argentina.
They stay there more or less quiet for a couple of weeks; try not to eat too much; greet all parents and relatives; and in January, when the time has come, reluctantly or very reluctantly board the plane to Italy. Some take every excuse to come back later, in fact, causing some Lío behind the very heavy desks of their employers.
It seems to me that another Argentinian could have done the same. Let the vescovo vicario, or whoever it is the protocol calls for, celebrate all the masses for you.
Stun the world.
Fly to Argentina.
Spend Christmas in the slum, among the dirt and the rats. Sleep in a barrack. Dance the tango with the local prostitutes. Call all the TV stations to immortalise the Great Event.
Come on. Beats a wheelchair every day. So populist-christmasy. Unto us a hero is born. The First Castroite. Deck the Halls With Bags Of Dope….
Personally, I would not want anyone to think it's easy to get accustomed to the humble luxury of … an entire hotel floor. L'albergo e' grande, la gente mormora…. (you should learn Italian… no: you really should…).
Again, just my humble opinion. A lost occasion, I think, for first-class, ground-breaking, media-shattering Attention Whoring. Albeit, it must be said, at the cost of substituting the Humble Hotel Floor for the rats and the dirt for a couple of weeks, day and night.
Which, perhaps, it's all there is to say about the matter.
I have touched upon this briefly yesterday, but I would like to say a word or two more today.
Could it be that Francis’ newly announced environ-mental offensive heralds his (unofficial, of course) surrender on communion for adulterers? Let me expand…
I do not know whether Francis has a shred of common sense remaining to him; but if he has, he must have noticed that he has mistreated the patience of the Catholic world for long enough as to cause what can now be only seen as a serious backlash. A man with a modest dose of wits about him would understand that there are limits to what he can do without becoming, himself, the victim of his own folly.
I would, therefore, think it improbable that a rationally thinking man – a man, that is, not drunk on his own power and popularity – would decide to engage in two huge battles that must provide him with an awful lot of criticism: sacrilege concerning the Sacraments, and an highly ideologised, secular anti-Catholicism concerning the environment.
Rather, this newly announced secular jihad could tell us that he has decided to deflect the attention from a theme that has seen him losing, and direct it towards an issue that, he thinks, will see him winning; if not in actual fact – the world will continue to care pretty much zero for environmentalism, net of big words and proclaims – at least in the enduring popularity he thinks it will procure to him.
Let us reflect what will this 2015 become if Francis decides an all-out confrontation on both issues: on the matter of communion for adulterers he has already had his Jesuit nose punched all right, and all those who have eyes could see it bleed for many weeks. On the environ-mentalist jihad, ferocious criticism has now been falling on him from all corners, for several days. Heck, when even Vittorio Messori thinks he must timidly distance himself from the worst of Francis’ antics, you know the man is rapidly becoming toxic.
Francis may have a long pontificate (God forbid!), but chances are it won’t be so long. The risk of a massive backlash after his death or resignation – say: because he has health problems; or it turns out he sniffs cocaine; or he was found in a gay sauna together with his favourite nancy boy, Ricca – are rather high, and will remain so for a while. Therefore, every public supporter of him must ask himself what will become of his job once Francis is gone and sanity has, at least in part, come back on the shores of the Blond Tiber. Messori’s article is, if you ask me, a professional insurance policy as much as it is a (mild) criticism. Others will follow his example. Francis will soon become the Pope even his supporters consider fashionable, and highly advisable, “not to understand”.
Then there is the matter of worldliness. Whilst the Pope has always had a right to respectful silence when he avoids talking bollocks in religious matters, he has no such rights when he gets in the middle of the public fray concerning political debate. If he thinks he can choose side on a purely worldly – and stupidly so – matter without being criticised by everyone pretty much in the same way as they would criticise everyone else, he is even more deluded than we thought.
He must, surely, understand that if he gets in the middle of the saloon fight, he will punched just like everyone else. He must know that there is a limit to the amount of criticism he can be subjected to without his reputation as Pope being completely shattered. He must, or he truly has lost his mind in an utterly drunken, megalomaniac drive.
All these elements lead me to at least hope that Francis will dedicate 2015 to social justice warrior issues in order to deflect attention from his caving in in the matter of communion for adulterers. To hope it, that is, in the measure in which I hope this man has a dose of common sense remained in him.
This last hope isn’t very strong, but it is there. Francis shows sign both of getting the lesson (for now) when he gets punched in the nose and of looking with the lantern for said punching, so it’s difficult to say if he is a sane man with a partial loss of the sense of reality, or a completely delusional madman with short periods of sanity thrown in here and there.
It will be an interesting 2015, for sure.
Let us spend it punching for the right cause.
I was a child in the late Sixties/early Seventies, and the world was already nearing a global catastrophe. Or so the Leftists said.
Oil was about to be depleted. The global cooling (you have read correctly) was a very big issue. We were too wasteful, too superficial, too self-centred. We were destroying the Amazonian Forest. We weren’t as wise as the Chinese and Russians, who refused “consumerism”. We were too many, all four billion of us. Soon there would be no place anymore for all of us. Not enough to eat, see. Terrible wars would ensue.
As I grew up, it went on. Nuclear power plants would soon kill us all. The German forests were clearly dying. The Polar Bear was almost no more. The oil reserves were still about to be depleted. It was, clearly, all our fault. Particularly because Ronald Reagan wanted to kill everyone is a nuclear holocaust.
AIDS came, and soon it was phantasised as a global threat, when those who were threatened were, largely, perverts. Doesn’t mind. The scaremongering soon attracted more money for fag research than for cancer research. AIDS became the New Deal of an entire generation of bogus scientists looking for research money, tenures, fame, and women. We were still very bad.
The Nineties came, and with them new global, or regional, scares: “Mad Cow” would, obviously, cause millions to die prematurely, and if you had eaten liver sausage for the past two decades a will was a very sensible idea. Polar bears were, inexplicably, still almost-but-not-quite extinct, but the Amazonian forest was now dying really fast, exciting tree huggers to a paroxysm. The Amazonian forest produces, they say, 20% of the world’s oxygen, so you can prepare so say farewell to jogging, swimming, bicycling. Sorry, mate. This is where Capitalism has led you. The ozone layer was also about to be destroyed, and the Australians were all in a frenzy. No dying in your own bed for you. Skin cancer will take care of that. Ah, we must be paying for our sins…
In Germany, the frenzy was followed with typical German, reckless abandon. Two extremely cold winters ensued. Germany and Europe forgot all about it. Waiting for the next scare.
The second wave of anti-Capitalist global warming mania exploded between 2006 and 2008, and has suffered a massive setback since 2009; but everyone who hates the West cannot be persuaded to let it go. They think they are still in with a chance.
Because a world that has forgotten God has become so unspeakably stupid that it believes that God’s creation is as fragile as an antique vase, and it is ready to be shattered in thousand pieces unless you do what Francis – and other revolutionaries subversives – tell you to do, all the time.
And no, yours is not to reason why. Ipse dixit. Shut up.
They do not believe in God, Francis and the other revolutionary subversives. But one thing they do: they hate the West. All of them. They will use every excuse to tell you how bad you are, how wrong your way of living is, how selfish and materialistic your “mode of production” (commie speak at its best, peddled to us at school as if it were something wise) always will be.
Look at the prostitutes in the slums of Buenos Aires instead. Look at the children born out-of-wedlock; look at the corruption, the misery, the brutish godless world always engendered by abject poverty unwilling to improve, or to seriously pray, much less afraid of damnation. There is the virtue, my boy.
Smell like a sheep. It will do you good. Look at our Pope, the stinkiest of them all.
This revolutionary, subversive mentality changes global scare like you change a car, every so and so many years. Whenever one scare is exposed, a new one is invented. But the war is always the same, and it is fought always by the same revolutionary prophets of doom. These prophets of dooms hate the West, they hate Christianity, and they hate you. Francis is now making a bid to become their worldwide leader.
To the anti-Capitalist rhetoric of “inequality”, Francis is about to add the other anti-Capitalist rhetoric of Environ-Mentalism. As always, he will go into this head on, like a stupid child, either too arrogant and stupid to understand his own immense arrogance and stupidity or, more likely, confident that his role as Pope will allow him to get away with pretty much everything that does not imply denying dogmas or the Sacraments.
Perhaps he has decided that the war for the communion for adulterers is not to be won, and his all-important image must therefore be polished in another way. Perhaps he is just so drunk on himself that he doesn’t think of anything until he smashes his nose against a wall, as in October. Perhaps he is just hugely stupid in that arrogant, Castroite, atheist way of his.
And where is Christianity in all this? Where are sin, repentance, salvation, damnation? What does this man do to further one aspect of Catholicism? In what is every word he says different from what every idiot – or the Dalai Lama, which is the same – could say?
Francis is shoving down your throat a new religion in which a fantasy Christ is but a prop to his socialist and environ-mentalist madness. He does not believe in the message of the Gospel, and he does not want you to believe in it. He is the bearer of a new gospel, that he is smuggling into your own house and family under a bad disguise of the old one; a fake like a cheap Chinese knockoff pretending to be the real thing and peddled by illegal immigrants on the sidewalks of Rome, for those stupid enough to think that buying the lie will give them a whiff of the truth.
Francis is the illegal immigrant selling you the fake Gospel. He hates you, your morals and your prayers, your fear of the Lord and your faith. He hates your respectability more than anything else. He also hates the doers, the risk-takers, the hard workers, the pioneers, the tough men and women who, all together in their own way, built the wonderful Christian, Western Civilisation of ours. He hates the Capitalism that produces amazing wealth, because it is intolerable to his petty, envious mind that some may have – much less inherit – more than others. He cannot stomach that some are smart and some dumb, some industrious and some lazy, some tenacious and some quitters; he hates that some are huge gamblers, and at time their gamble pays huge dividends; and that some are just fortunate, and may God bless them too. If Francis can stomach it, he can’t stomach that their good fortune – or the fruit of their labour – is not taken away from them; because in his petty, envious world everyone must be a loser so that there are no winners. Francis is the kind of person who would complain of “inequality” in Connecticut – one of the richest States in the US and, therefore, one of the richest corners of the planet – because of the many billionaires who live there, making in many ways life easier for all the others.
This is the source – beside a boundless personal vanity – of Francis social and environ-mental concerns; concerns that are typical of those who do not believe, and most evident in him who does not believe at all.
There is nothing that Francis would not sell you to further his anti-Western, anti-Catholic, anti-morality agenda. In 2015 it will be poverty and global warming; but it could be AIDS and global cooling, Mad Cow disease, the end of oil extraction, the extinction of the baby seal or the Polar Bear, or the cutting down of the Amazonian forest: every rubbish would be equally good to sell you his agenda.
As always, there will be many takers: the losers, the envious, the lazy asses, the Pollyannas, the alternatives of all sorts, the perverts, and the outright stupid. Francis’ audience from day one.
I smile already at seeing how much this enviro-moron in white will cover himself in ridicule if he dares to, as reported, dedicate no less than an encyclical letter to Environ-Mentalism; thus childishly trying to play Leo XIII as he consigns himself to public mockery for all centuries to come. He will be made into little pieces, ridiculed by everyone with a brain in front of everyone with a brain; not very many, perhaps, but enough to destroy this other dream of greatness of this petty, old, vain man. If the Synod has shown anything is that the world is, as I write, not quite as rotten yet as Francis believes. With his encyclical Francis would, very probably, explode a hand grenade in his own Ford Focus.
He should try with the encyclical if he feels like it. Let’s see what good it does to him. I am reminded – as, probably, many of you – of “dirty Harry’s” words in the movie:
Make my day.
Pope Francis has made his own Christmas Banality Festival Address. An article reporting about it is here. Let us see the main features of the man’s performance.
1) Sin, Fall, Hell, Judgment, in one word: the Catholic stuff is completely absent. Francis’ speech could have been made by Obama, Mrs Merkel, or anyone else you care to mention. Clearly, Francis sees himself at the head of a Good Deeds Society in which the fundamental drama of the human condition – our sinfulness, and whether each and everyone of us will go to hell – does not play a role, and worldly concerns are not a corollary of the main message, but the message itself.
2) Poppycock galore: “there are so many tears this Christmas”. It’s a vast place, Frankie boy. It would be good if you spent a word or three about Islamist fanaticism, rather than generically whine about the “tears”, though.
3) Propaganda orgy: even Christian refugees are not safe from the dratted phone calls of this clown. Again: he is ready to spend some well-publicised words i favour of ISIS-refugees. Why they are in the situation, he does not stress at all. Hey, he implies it’s the Americans who practice state terrorism instead.
4) Populism festival: the Western world is immersed in indifference. The Pope who can’t speak about the four last things isn’t.
5) More banalities: What does the world need? “Tenderness?” Eh? 90% of Christians couldn’t recite the Ten Commandments to save their own life, and the world needs… tenderness? This is so gay, even Ricca will be disgusted.
I have not touched about the Enviro-Pope yet.
It’s difficult to keep up with the madness.
Antonio Socci sounds the alarm concerning the Cardinals being rapidly appointed by Francis.
Now, the number of Cardinals who can be elected Pope will be still roughly limited to 120 (a number Francis has to power to modify, but has not done up to now). One could, therefore, not say Francis is being overzealous. On the other hand, he is being certainly attentive to appoint as many Cardinals as he can within the framework set up by his predecessors since Paul VI.
There is no doubt in my mind Francis does it in order to subvert the Church and make of it a dependency of his own Castroite ideology. There is also no doubt he will use the occasion a) to send signals about what must be done to advance one’s career, b) to reward some of his own minions, and c) to create a wall – as robust as possible – in case he feels like giving open battle in October. I also think he wants to help the homo lobby, with which he is now very evidently linked, in a sort of evil symbiosis, after their obvious help in having him elected Pope.
Socci, and others who fantasise an invalid election of Pope Francis -blithely forgetting papal elections aren’t nullified by administrative irregularities or even worse events like, say, open corruption (search this blog for more; the matter has been discussed ad abundantiam) – obviously poses the question of what will be of these red hats when Francis either kicks the bucket, or resigns.
The problem is, neither Socci nor his companions have an answer to this, because there is no way their appointments could be nullified, bar something huge – say: an ecumenical council declaring Francis heretic either during of after his pontificate -, in which case the nullification of the appointments would have to be traced back to the decision of such a council, not to the technicalities of the election.
We will see what the new names are. I trust the Lord that He will keep His promise of Church indefectibility. I am under the impression that Francis will not appoint exclusively utter bastards in the new position, because this would cause a massive backfiring and a compact wall of bishops against him at every possible occasion; rather, I think he will appoint a mixture of utter bastards, half bastards, garden variety yes-men, and a couple of orthodox ones to save the appearances and, of course, allow the Pollyannas to once again thank the Holy Ghost for the precious gift of this oh so wonderful Pope. The problem with this, from his perspective, is that many a yes-man and a number of half bastards might not hesitate one second to switch allegiance if, at the death of TMAHICH, the demand for a Catholic Pope should become a lion’s roar.
I do not believe these rumours and comments about a dying Pope, though he is the person I wish to see “six feet under” the most in the entire planet (nothing personal, of course; just trying to be a good Catholic who loves the Church infinitely more than this disgraceful clown). Francis’ references to him not being around in ten or so years’ time seem to me nothing but the coquette remarks of an old man fishing for compliments and wishes of good health, rather than the revelation of serious health problems.
The Lord works in mysterious ways and He can strike Bergoglio dead anytime; therefore, there’s no reason to examine at lenght every pound or three he gains or loses, or how strained his Jesuit face appears.
Francis is trying to queer the Church, and to make of it a more than vaguely Castroite social justice warriors’ machine. He will succeed to an extent. He might succeed to a great extent.But he is a fool if he thinks that he will succeed in the end.
He will, ultimately, fail; but not without great loss and devastation, and loss of souls.
The rumour is alive that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) might be about to abolish the Swiss Guards altogether.
I am not sure this rumour has any basis. What I know is that this would be, if executed, very much like Francis: with one stroke, he would do a great favour to the army of sodomites walking around the Vatican – and able to go in and out without too many questions asked by inflexible Swiss soldiers – whilst at the same time looking as the simple, humble pope so allergic to pomp and circumstance.
In addition, you must know that the Swiss Guards are chosen among Swiss families of unquestionable Catholic tradition, and remain in charge only for a limited amount of time. It’s not that they are sent on the sidewalk, or consigned to destitution. The end of the institution would simply deprive them of a great honour and of a wonderful addition to their CV.
Of course, the Gendarmeria would remain. But these are professional policemen, with a family and a mortgage. They aren’t likely to pose too many questions about who goes in or out and, being Italian, they would most rapidly understand where the wind is blowing.
No, the problems of the fags are really the Swiss Guards, as we have seen already in the past (search this blog). In this perspective, it makes sense that the homos ask Francis what kind of useless pomp this one of the Guards is.
The problem is, though, that the Swiss Guards are a rather beloved Roman (in the broader sense) institution, the darlings of Romans and tourists alike. It is not only that they are only a part of the landscape; they are a part of the Roman heart; a bit like like the Corazzieri, the tall soldiers of a Carabinieri elite unit working as Presidential Guard. If, therefore, Francis were to just get rid of them, very many among the people would start to question what kind of mentality, and what kind of man, this is.
You see, when you make the calligraphers redundant (spare a prayer for the poor devils and their families if it really comes to that: unemployment in Rome is always a tragedy, but unemployment as a calligrapher must truly be a nightmare. I have not read any news about that, so I fear the worse) the general public does not really notice it. But when there are no Swiss Guards at the entrance, they notice it immediately.
Perhaps Francis will try some other solution that keeps both the people and the fags happy; like, say, suspending the Swiss Guard service at night so that they are “allowed to sleep”. Insert here some sugary story about how devastated Francis was at knowing about their long night watches in the cold and damp Roman nights, and Bob’s your uncle…
We shall see. There is no feat of which this Pope would be incapable of, if he were to think he has something to gain from it; and his behaviour suppressing the Vatican report on the homos abundantly shows he has protected them from day one in exchange for their help in his election.
Francis is, if not an old homo himself, certainly a man of the homo lobby in the Vatican. He has already removed a commander guilty of being too “Swiss” with his own fags. It remains to see how far he will go.
A dark, dirty, lewd old man, this one. I am pretty sure his ideal of the Swiss Guards is like in the video below. So un-threatening, un-Swiss, and judgment-free…
O dear Pope Benedict, why have you been so gullible…
The man is now at an important crossroads, as his boss is going to retire in 2015 and he would much like to become Archbishop. And this is a Belgian prelate, so the probability that he is a pervert is high anyway.
What does, then, Bishop
Bonny Nancy do? He sniffs the air, feels that heresy is a very good tool to career advancement in 2015, and vomits an interview in which he not only approves of “civil partnerships” (enough to send him, if not repentant, to hell for sure when he dies), but he even demands a “formal recognition” for them. His words:
“We have to look inside the church for a formal recognition of the relationality which is also present in many gay couples. As a variety of legal frameworks in society exist for partners, he wants to instate a diversity of recognition forms in the church.”
(the quotations are a bit of a mess, but the context is clear).
You will now ask: how can such a perverted mind, and very possibly a sodomite, be allowed to advance in such a way in the Catholic hierarchy?
Well, my friend, this is Belgium: the land of endemic child-screwing and legalised euthanasia! Is this not a man fitting for the hour? I have experienced something of this latrine very personally in Bruges.
More from Bishop Bonny:
EDIT: THE QUOTE BELOW WAS MISTAKENLY ATTRIBUTED TO BISHOP LEONARD. I CORRECT THE MISTAKE WITH APOLOGIES TO THE BISHOP. THE REST OF THE BLOG POST WAS EDITED ACCORDINGLY.
Bonny […] believes that gay couples should be able to get a church blessing. Moreover, he argues that a homosexual relationship can also satify the criteria of a religious marriage. “The intrinsic values are more important to me than the institutional demand. The Christian ethic is based on lasting relationships where exclusivity, loyalty and care are central to each other.
There you have it: a perverted mind promoting the perverts. Most Protestants would not go as far as this gay bishop. Truly, Belgium is a pit of vice.
I wonder which generations, before ours, would have read such public declarations of a bishop without publicly questioning his heterosexuality. No, wait, I know the answer: not one.
We live in times of institutionalised perversion, very much at the heart of the Church. Times in which prelates are selected and promoted either in “virtue” of their being homosexual, or of catering to their needs and agenda.
If anyone can read what this gays bishop publicly states and not smell the pungent stink of hell I question his own heart, and wonder how much he has been perverted himself, in his own mind and outlook on life if not in his own sexual behaviour, by the mainstream cesspit that the Church has become in too many places; Belgium, most certainly, one of the stinkiest among them.
This is the Church in the times of Francis: an important appointment is up, let’s give an interview to help the leading lobby in the Vatican, and the sponsors of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH).
May bishop Bony and those like him repent as long as they have time, or go to hell as they richly deserve.
My experience in Bruges is one of the most appalling Catholic events I have ever witnessed ( I assume here the Mass had sacramental validity, though I can’t be certain) and if you read that blog post (or this other one) you will certainly understand the Church in Belgium is in deep… trouble, and a local Church in deep trouble is almost certain to have very bad bishops.
We have now further confirmation of this, from an interview given from Bishop Bonny (you will remember him, perhaps, from this post).
Bonny seems to have two fixed ideas: 1) ordination of married man, and 2) letting you know he likes to flirt with the idea of priestesses.In the old post, he insisted on letting us know the idea of “priestesses” is “difficult” (You don’t say? Are you really sure?) . Today, he insists in letting us know Catholics in…
View original post 91 more words
In this festive day, I know many of you will be having the same concerns that I have; the same ominous thoughts and dark premonitions as we see the Barque of Peter in the hands of the pirates.
It is not, it cannot be a truly serene Christmas when abortionist Proto-lesbian post-Christian nuns are declared fine specimens of Catholicism even as perfectly orthodox, thriving, vibrant orders are persecuted, and when the very Pope spits heresies every second day, and stupidities every single day.
It can never be a truly serene Christmas. If the Church is so afflicted, it cannot but have an effect on us. But on this day, I invite you to remember the Blessed Virgin of Quito.
The phase we are going through was the object of that particular apparition. In the same way as the Blessed Virgin warned us, she also gave us the priceless serenity of knowing that all this must not lead us to despair, or to doubt the Church's Indefectibility. This crisis comes announced from the highest places. It appeared exactly when it was announced, and it is unfolding before us exactly as it was predicted. If you believe in this apparition – as I do – then you must unavoidably believe all of it, including the fact that a moment will come when all seems lost; and who knows how long we will have to suffer before that moment comes! Motus in fine velocior, they say. It seems that this is happening, too.
We do not know when the madness will reach its zenith, and it would be very optimistic to think that it will be with Francis. We might have decades of suffering before us. But at some point, sanity will be restored. At that particular point, and not before. Our prayers can certainly help in mitigating the punishment, but the God-given, amply deserved just punishment will come anyway. Let us pray for a discount, but let us not expect a remission.
I love the Church. I hope I would be able, if tested, to die for Her. For this reason, the reassuring knowledge that all this is part of a plan allowed by God – certainly to punish us for our sins, but with the day of the restoration of sanity already written in heaven – is very consoling to me, a bit in the same way as the Blessed Virgin whispering to my ears that all this will have an end would be infinitely more consoling than simply knowing in abstract that it will be so.
Remember Quito. Never falter in your faith. Never doubt the Indefectibility of the Church. The Barque is in the hand of pirates, but she herself is unsinkable. The Pirates will damage her in every possible way, and many will be those who will throw themselves overboard. But we will stand fast, and wait for the end of the pirates' rule. Francis and his would be trembling now, if they were wise. But they aren't, so they don't. Still, to them will the phrase also apply: nil inultum remanebit.
Do not be afraid, then. Chase away your dark thoughts and your disquieting premonitions, and sink your teeth in the panettone with renewed zeal. Raise the glass with those you love and try as you can, for a few short days, to avoid being sad for this, well, persecution of Catholics by their own shepherds. Celebrate these days with the confidence of a proud Catholic, who knows that the war will be long and messy, but it is won already.
A very merry Christmas to you all and to those you love from your very sinful, but always affectionate war zone correspondent.
As 2014 draws to a close, I cannot avoid reflecting on a fact very simple in its shocking reality: 2015 is the year that will see a conflict between the Church on one side and the Pope on the other not seen since the time of John XXII, pretty much 680 years ago.
But then I reflect on this: that 680 years ago there was no scarcity of Cardinals supporting the Pope, and the lure of office (power and honours and, let us not kid ourselves, riches and women, at least for some of them…) moved many without shame or fear of the Lord to side with the Pope, and against sanity.
The Church is still there and, with all her problems, she is still very powerful, largely due to the excellent work made in the 100 years before V II. John XXII is barely remembered, and he is actually completely forgotten outside of the world of the historians and history fans; whatever surge in popularity he may get now, it will be because of Francis, that is: for all the wrong reasons.
But the Church is still there, and if I were to tell your Catholic down the road that there was a time of such grave crisis in the Church as to make it very realistic that the Pope be declared heretic, deposed and probably burnt at the stake, your Catholic down the road would look at me in amused disbelief.
John XXII is dust, the Church is Granite.
May the average Catholic, in 680 years, look at the episode of Francis, The Dope Pope, with the same amused disbelief.
I have always mocked the modern “non-judgmentalism”; something completely extraneous to the Catholic world in which I grew in and, certainly, the poisonous fruit of Protestant faithlessness and accommodation to the times.
Christianity has, though, always not only allowed us to judge, but positively demanded that we do so. Not, of course, concerning the last destiny of a soul – because this is known to God alone, and would be a sin of presumption – but concerning what we can see in our daily life, and involving the choices we have to make for ourselves and those entrusted to our care.
A criminal rapes your daughter, and leaves her bleeding and unconscious in the parking lot. Shall you say “who am I to judge?” and “only God knows a person’s mind” concerning the rapist’s action?
A man blasphemes the name of the Lord: not in a moment of confusion – say: because he has just hammered his finger very hard by mistake – but with a lucid, deliberate, hostile intent. Shall you say that this is not for you to condemn, the Lord only knowing whether the man really, really, really wanted to blaspheme?
A woman proclaims loudly her atheism, and encourages all the present not to believe in what she calls “fairy tales”. Your son, ten years old, is listening. Will you tell him that her is an “opinion” that “must be respected”, although you personally “disagree”; and invite him to “not judge” her?
Non-judgmentalism is something for heathens, and the favourite food of reprobates. In many cases, it is the rancid fare of those who, rolling in mud themselves, think they are fine because they allow others to do the same.
Do not be deceived. If you are a Christian, you will have to judge all the time. Not only for yourself, as you compare Christian rules of behaviour with the facts happening around you; but for those entrusted to your care, to whom you are called to give a solid guidance – by example, yes; but also by instruction, exhortation and admonition; and yes, certainly by condemnation – as they themselves are confronted with the many challenges to a Christian soul.
To refuse to judge means to discard responsibility not only for one’s own spiritual wellbeing, but for the souls of those entrusted to one. Very soon, this refusal to judge according to known rules will become the discarding of those same rules, and their substitution for fluffy feelings and the acceptance of everything and everyone. In the meantime, the sons and daughters raised without guidance will start to go astray; and at this point, few parents will admit they have done all wrong. Most will talk of “bad choices”, of “phases”, or “heart in the right place”, and prefer to look the other side as their offspring march toward hell. But hey, who are they to judge?
Judge with right judgment, but judge all right.
The one who is most comfortable with you “not judging” is the Devil.
It is with great pleasure that I announce you that blogger Quia Viderunt Oculi has posted on a blog called All Along The Watchtower a recantation of his Sedevacantist position.
Whenever something is deeply felt (like, say, our love for the Church), a great emotional investment is made; which, at times, leads to the wrong kind of investment. It is, then, as always in life, difficult to admit that a mistake was made, and it is better to cut the losses and ditch said investment.
Quia Viderunt Oculi has had the courage to recognise that this particular investment is untenable. Kudos to him for this, and I wish many bloggers of the “isn’t Francis wonderful?”-type had the same intellectual honestly and courage.
Search this blog for more information on why Sedevacantism is wrong, at least as I write this (in fact, Francis is so bad that he might, one day, precipitate a situation of vacant Sea; but not because I, or Quia Viderunt Oculi, say so).
Again, congratulations to Quia Viderunt Oculi, both for the right discernment and the honest confession of his mistake.
Francis is a dreadful, evil Pope. But he is the Pope nevertheless.
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has made a personal donation of $8.5m to a faggot organisation parading as defenders of “human rights”.
For one who says he does not shout his faggotry, the man is certainly vocal enough. But what makes him most ridiculous is the fact that he blasphemes the Lord by saying that God, not himself with the help of Satan, made himself a pervert.
Never swallow the “made this way” lie, whether God is blasphemed or not. Sexual perversion is evil, and God does not want evil, He merely tolerates it.
God, in this case, tolerates the existence of this activist fag (who says he isn’t one; activist, I mean, not fag) in order for Christians to shine defending the Truth.
God allows the evil so that good may come out of it; sometimes in a more evident and immediate, sometimes in a less obviously evident, and sometimes in a mysterious manner.
Unfortunately, the problem is more serious than just Mrs Cook personal donation preferences. Apple actively opposes Christianity. In particular, they oppose Christianity at its best: traditional Catholicism. An organisation that does not allow the app of the Traditional Latin Missal, or even of the Manhattan Declaration, on its phones is clearly run by the bitchiest fags and dykes around. Gift from God, my foot.
My suggestion is to stay away from Apple. Whilst we live in a corrupt world, other platform like Android do allow you to have the apps you want, and their open platform structure means that an app does not need to be sold by the Google Store in order for you to have it on your phone. On the contrary, Apple’s proprietary system allows them to decide, literally, what is installed on their phones, and they have abused this feature for ideological and perverted purposes for a long time now.
When the CEO of this company is such a queen, you know it can’t go well.
Next time the purchase of a device is on the shop list, I hope you will listen to my suggestion:
Ditch IFag. Choose Christ.
I have received an interesting, personal comment, that moves me to some reflections I would like to share with you.
The comment basically stated that some of the Catholic sites linked by me are not up to the required standard of orthodoxy when the matter of TMAHICH is concerned, censoring critical comments against Francis and at times accusing those who make them of the usual crimes (“schism”, “sedevacantism”, you know the drill…).
I will give some thoughts to the matter in the weeks to come, and the one or other link might well disappear from my side bar. At the same time, some loud reflections could be useful to explain the way this blog ticks, for the warning of its readers.
Up to now, my policy has been to give space to unapologetic Catholic sites I consider counter-cultural enough and of high enough quality to deserve a space in my little, ahem, link Walhalla. At the same time, I have never demanded that these links be, so to speak, Mundaborian in their approach to the disgrace currently sitting on the throne of Peter. In other words, I always realised that whilst my approach is the one I prefer and think best for the salvation of mine and my readers’ soul, other people may have a different outlook on life and, consequently, a different approach. In fact, almost none of the sites I link to is even remotely as critical towards TMAHICH as this blog is. This is the reason, for example, why the former “reading Francis through Benedict” blog was, wisely I think, left on my link page even when the proposed narrative was way past sell by date. This, without considering the spiritual benefits coming from beautifully orthodox content.
I draw a line, however, when I see a programmatic “pro Francis” approach; the approach that says “he is right because he is Pope”, “he might be wrong but you can’t criticise him because you aren’t Pope”, and the like. When this attitude is proclaimed I see complicity, wanted or not, and I draw the consequences; which is why the link to Michael Voris’ site has been taken down.
On the other hand, the perceptive blog readers will have noticed that many good, orthodox sites linked from this blog simply avoid addressing certain issues. Is this complicity, or prudence? Shall I demand that my endorsement be connected to a militant approach to the Francis problem? If this were to be the case, all clerical blogs would have to fly out this day; which I refuse to do, being more than content with the more or less veiled approach they all use.
Then there is the problem of the comment censorship. I censor comments myself like it’s the Spanish Inquisition. Every whiff of Sedevacantism, true or simply suspected, will have your comment thrashed. Several episodes of the sort will have you banned. I simply insist on content I consider highly inconvenient to remain out, and on people subtly trying to smuggle such content on my site to spend their time in other ways. Therefore, I tend to give far more importance to the posts an external site publishes as its own content (posts which explicitly reveal their editorial line: see Voris) than to the comments a site does not publish, because I am sure the critical messages about Francis we do not get to read on many of the most reputed Catholic blogs are very numerous.
In addition, I do not follow closely all of my links. I read here and there, but follow regularly only a handful of them. It can, therefore, happen that something changes for the worse without my noticing.
Feel free to send your reflections about any link you do not like and why. I will not publish them, but will take note of them. In case, action might be taken.
At the same time, do not have too high expectations about the pages I link to. This blog is, if not one of a kind, certainly one of very few espousing a line of unmitigated frankness and uncommon linguistic bluntness. I advocate the use of words like “faggot”, “dyke”, “trannie” because I think that the all-pervasive politeness of modern Western culture has created the ideal humus for the spreading of homosexual “culture”, but I cannot demand that everyone thinks the way I do. Similarly, I publish very critical comments about Francis, but I do not notice such bluntness on other, excellent blogs (hint: they got deleted). You will simply have to accept the fact that not all blogs are as good as this one…
Feel free to let me have your confidential reflections. Point out to concrete episodes if you can, or link to them. Do not expect me to take away a site before I see a concrete, and in my eyes not acceptable pattern and editorial line emerge. Be particularly lenient with the non-religious links, which are not even supposed to be on par with the “M Standard”.
Thank you for your time. Normal service will resume shortly.
Whether out of incompetence, corruption, or sheer stupidity, the Order of the Franciscans find itself in a grave, “and I underscore grave” financial difficulty.
Yours truly’s comment, charitably on time for the festive season:
Where I come from people say: la farina del diavolo va in crusca, or “the flour of the devil ends up becoming all bran” (this was, of course, before bran was discovered as magically alternative and so very healthy).
A lot of flour has, apparently, just become bran, as another order is threatened with financial woes in addition to their slow disappearance.
I hope the Franciscans do not get one penny from sound Catholics. There will always be exceptions of course; but as an order, they are utterly rotten.
Let them rot, then. Life is cheap in the Argentinian slums.
Send them all there. Let them do some real begging.
Francis will, no doubt, approve.
There will always be time to reconstruct the order from a sound basis, after these guerrilleros have died without vocations.
The FFI comes to mind.
I'll make this short, and not entirely sweet.
The apostolic visitation has concluded that, in essentials, there's nothing wrong with being, inter alia, in favour of abortion, priestesses, sexual perversion, and going “beyond Christ”.
This is clear evidence that TMAHICH thinks That, in essentials, there's nothing wrong with being, inter alia, in favour of abortion, priestesses, sexual perversion, and going “beyond Christ”.
Everyone who is an active supporter of Francis is an accomplice of all this, and much more, which the man promotes tirelessly every day.
I dread for those who will die today, on the side of this man.
Ah, the religion of peace! Once again, the cult has kept faithful to its name, sending 141 people to their eternal, more or less peaceful rest. And you will notice that on the BBC it is difficult to find a separate count, so after reading several contributions on the Buggers' site I still don't know whether the final count of 141 includes the seven butchers, or not.
Wait… what am I saying?! How can I be so insensitive?! These continuous massacres, this climate of inhuman violence in several Muslim Countries should not let us believe that there be anything wrong with Islam! Perish the thought! You naughty Taliban boys, you! You will not manage to damage the image of Islam for us liberals, because we will always, always want to believe in your innate goodness! But we will certainly not allow any Christian to go after you, because we are sure that they are out there, in all the major cities of Europe, yearning to see your blood! May I accompany you home, Adbullah? You never know what kind of people you may encounter, with all these fanatical Christians around…
There. I have said it. I had a bad start, and I apologise for that. But now, I feel again a full member of the Liberal Idiot Society.
It feels so good, I will never stop.
Beautiful, beautiful blog post from Father Z concerning testem benevolentiae.
Not only Father Z quotes from this document with uncanny accuracy and timeliness; he even notices the document is not up in the Vatican website….
A number of blogging priests I follow seem to communicate in different ways that the majority of the bloggers. I can't say the message is hidden. Let's say it isn't shouted. It seems, in any way, reserved for those who can read among the lines; for the discerning minds to whom the motto intelligenti pauca always applied.
Enjoy the blog post and the beautiful words of Leo XIII, the Pharisee Pope.
Today, the joke known as the “church” of England has proceeded to the demolition of another taboo, and appointed the first joke bishopette.
It was a long march: in the Seventies, the joke “church” first stated priestesses were, in principle, a joke, and therefore not unfit for them. In the Eighties, the first joke deaconettes made their appearance. In the Nineties it was the turn of the joke priestesses, a concession obtained against the promise that there would never be joke bishopettes. In the Tens of the new century, we are there at last.
The next stops on the road to equality: the first transgender bishop, the first dog mounting bishop, and the first incestuous bishop. At which point cats and dogs owner will, no doubt, become very loud, defending the rights of their own good creatures against the lack of inclusiveness of the “church” of England. And why not, in the end. If you want to be inclusive, be inclusive all right. There were no cats and dogs among the Apostles, but no women either, so it's not clear why the discrimination.
Why do I tell you all this?
Because otherwise you wouldn't even notice, that's why.
The remaining Anglicans will also be relieved: now that their new bishops will soon be, to possibly 50%, wonderfully conversational, tea-drinking ladies completely allergic to any form of Christian orthodoxy, they will feel even more good as they go around completely ignoring Christianity as they do already.
In all this, the Country barely notices. The so-called c of E isn't even able to elicit any kind of mass approval when she does something so evidently anti-Christian. The masses merely notice (If they get the news) that the Anglicans are now even further away from Christianity and immersed in the world. No need to waste time on them, then: the world is around all the time anyway.
An irrelevant organisation wants to become “relevant” by being changed by the world it states it want to change. The irony does not escape the Country. A country which is barely noticing what those bunch of nincompoops are doing.
Say hello to the first joke bishopette.
I am sure she is good at light conversation.