TMAHICH And The Blog Links

 

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.

Mundabor