Monthly Archives: January 2015
Pope Francis had, with usual hypocrisy (I do not call him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, or TMAHICH, for nothing) pretended he was on the sidelines during the synod, allowing the “debate” (including perversion, and sacrilegious undermining of Sacraments) and then intervening at the end like the good uncle who cares for orthodoxy.
Well, that was another blatant lie, as we all knew but is now officially official.
You must notice a couple of revealing elements here. Emphases mine:
1) Cardinal Baldisseri’s bomb: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”
2) The reason Cardinal Baldisseri gives for dropping the bomb: “This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease,”
I can see a clear pattern here. Baldisseri is feeling the heat for his scandalous behaviour at the Synod. He is more or less fed up of being identified with it by all the mainstream Catholics (the informed Catholics know Francis was behind everything, because they think). He then separates his responsibility from the one of the Unholy Father, and lets the bomb drop: “don’t blame me”, he says, “this is Francis’ work”.
Baldisseri is obviously the little lapdog of Francis, but it is true that in this case the responsibility for the text lies entirely by Francis. Francis is in charge, Francis read, Francis green lighted the text, Francis answers for it.
Another difficult day for the Pollyannas, then.
But don’t worry. They are stupid enough. They will swallow new excuses.
The text of the relatio, and the scandalous events happened before and after, do demand that we pose the question: is this Pope homosexual?
The relatio post disceptationem was a piece of clearly homoerotic rubbish. It cannot have come from the mind of a normal, healthy, straight man because normal, healthy, straight men are disgusted by homosexuality.
Therefore, even Francis has such a dirty mind that he has some sort of lewd sexual excitement by mixing with sexual perverts (as the latest example of the Trannie has proved once again), or he is homosexual himself, and promotes the homo agenda at every step.
Either very lewd, or outright pervert. Tertium non datur.
I continue to pray for both his immortal soul, and the end of this pontificate.
The extent of the events yesterday cannot be underestimated. It is obvious that a deep malcontent was already there. It is also obvious Francis, Kasper and Baldisseri thought they could keep treating the bishops like the pussycats they have been in the last nineteen months (and for a long time before then). What has happened afterwards could, one day, be remembered as the turning of the tide.
Notice the dynamic. As rather often in life, it needs for only a few strong men to stand up, and others will find the courage to follow. On this occasion, Cardinal Pell has the honour, though there is no doubt the strong cannon fire from others (I put above all Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Mueller; more worthy of praise because more…
View original post 1,201 more words
The always attentive reader Rhizotomos directs my attention to a blog called Public Vigil; from what I can see a soundly conservative blog, well worth the reading but exempt from, say, Sedevacantist error.
The author of the blog is kind enough to mention my little effort, and has some less than very kind, but rather intelligent, words for Pope Ratzinger and his cohort.
I will profit of these intelligent considerations to spend a couple of words on Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger, and Vatican II in general. By the by, the blog author also spends some words on the “not fooling anyone” matter; his are perfectly understandable objections, but see here and here for my thinking in the matter.
I have, in the past, compared Ratzinger to Gorbachev: a last attempt, made in good faith, to take the best out of something that is intrinsically wrong. I do not doubt in the least…
View original post 837 more words
The usual Rorate Caeli has a beautiful contribution about a document published by the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, which is an organisation (a sort of club, seems to me) including some 600 priests and deacons, presumably not necessarily of the Rad Trad sort.
This document is beautiful in many ways. It is as clear-cut as you never read in typical V II priestly documents, and it is short and pithy so that it can be easily spread around; but most importantly, it contains what can only be seen as an open warning to Francis and his subversive cabal.
This is one of those moments that make it a consolation to run a Catholic blog. As I was reading the text I had the very clear impression that Francis has zero chances of wreaking havoc with the Sacraments without the sort of civil war that will, with all probability, destroy his papacy in life and after death. It was like listening to Aida’s war song: “Guerra! Guerra! Guerra, guerra, guerra!!”
He may well be intentioned to stage another big attack on Catholicism in October. But the real question is whether he will do so in the full knowledge of the consequences for his own Papacy. My impression continues to be that Francis is a paper tiger, and a first-class opportunist. He was tested last October, and put in front of the choice between nuclear conflict and caving in, he chose to cave in and bitch around about how we have one year to grow, or mature, or whatever it was. He may have thought that one year would give him more opportunity to organise himself, but this applies to the Catholic side too.
Francis is cunning, but he is not smart. Hey, he isn’t even able to control himself in front of a microphone. But some of those around him are probably smarter. They know that if Francis attacks, following him may well mean the loss of power, office or even habit when Francis dies. This is a calculation Francis does not really need to make, but they do. They will, when the moment of truth comes, have to make decisions impacting what they hope will still be a long career. I wonder how many will be ready to jump on Francis’ pirate vessel, or rapidly abandon ship when the enemy cannons are in sight.
Francis, on the other hand, is almost eighty. He is as vain as a fifteen-year old girl at her worst. Like her, he is ready to bitch about everyone but is not really willing to have his popular nose smashed hard. He wants to enjoy his years as Pope to the full. His vanity asks to be fed more insistently than the plant in the “little shop of horrors”, and grows possibly even faster. This is not a recipe for an ideological battle.
Che Guevara, bastard as he was, was ready to die every day for his cause, and did not care a straw of what people thought of him. Had he done so, he would have remained in Cuba, basking in his popularity and trying not to rock the boat. But he wasn’t that kind of man, you see. His uncompromising revolutionary stance is what gave him a following of armed desperadoes equally ready to die.
Where is Francis uncompromising revolutionary stance? Where are the desperadoes ready to follow him with no thought of consequences? A head clown running a manège of ambitious circus tools does not seem to me great material for the battle he would have to fight.
If you ask me, Francis will not have his wish. At least, I mean, if the opposition to heresy organises itself and makes its voice heard, as I think it is clearly happening both overtly and covertly. There will be no “growth” in stupidity. The stupid and opportunist would follow him until the going gets tough, but the tough guys (and gals) will bury his papacy.
When the time of having his nose smashed comes, he will prefer to limit himself to some whining and bitching.
The Blogging Weathervane is a very sensitive guy, or gal. He or she goes with the time. He or she is flexible, caring, appreciative. He (henceforward, “he”) is such a good contortionist that he could work in a circus. He is never angry, but devout Catholics truly drive him to distraction. He assaults them. Then he apologises. Then he does it again. And again. And again.
The Blogging Weathervane never said, during Benedict’s pontificate, that faggots have special “faggot gifts” that they can give to the Church. He never criticised Benedict as insensitive for not supporting communion for adulterers. He never wondered why JP II never received a Trannie in a “private” audience. He never thought out loud whether God would, when seriously displeased or offended, do more than slap a sinner on the wrist. He thought it normal to try to convert people to Catholicism. He was always in tune with the official Vatican song of the week.
Turns out, he still is. He always is.
The Weathervane will explain to you that the black of today is the same as yesterday’s white, only a bit different. A more personal white, perhaps. A tad off-white at times. But still the same colour. Does this shock you? Oh, you have some work to do, buddy boy…
The Weathervane can be told to his face the Blessed Virgin might have thought she was deceived and will blame the translation, the lunar phase, the locusts, and the evil in bad Catholics, but never the Pope.
The Weathervane is morally mobile. He (or she, remember?) adapts. When the Pope slaps the Catholics, he blames them for reacting to the slap. Don’t they understand
he makes money out of his writing, ahem, they must read more deeply and understand what the Pope really said?
The Wearhervane will adapt to anything and everything. When the scandalous first draft of the Relatio post disceptationem comes out, he will complain the language is not sensitive enough to “the gays”; then will shut up about, ahem, her blunder as a huge scandal unfolds.
The weathervane (not only blogging weathervane; commenting weathervane, too) is electively deaf, blind, and stupid. If the Bishop of Rome receives a Trannie and his “lover”, whom the Teannie about to “marry”, he says to you that there is no evidence the Pope has not taught doctrine to them. Applying the same logic, if Francis were to be found in a “gay” sauna surrounded by twelve homos there’s no doubt the Weathervane would tell you he was having a catechism class there, there’s no evidence to the contrary, and it is shocking for you to even entertain malicious thoughts.
You got to give the Weathervane credit for one thing: his inability to see anything wrong in the Pope is matched by a great talent for finding fault in those who criticise him. Unchristian, he will call them. Uncharitable. Rigid. Obsessed. Unable to understand the “language” of the Bishop of Rome. How bad they are! Didn’t Jesus always express himself in the most gentle and sensitive of ways? (Uh? No, wait… I’ll come back to you on that…).
Still: pity the weathervane. He may well be paving his (or her) way to hell. He is certainly preparing for himself a very harsh punishment even if he escapes the ultimate one. He will not be allowed to make Truth comfortable for himself and remain, bar repentance and penance, unpunished.
Being a weathervane is a very bad investment with mediocre immediate return and the certainty of eventual bankruptcy. Reading certain blogs around (“Patheticeos” first; there are others) one wonders whether they ever think of it. I honestly don’t think they do. The stats are still fine, and many still are those who flock to them in such of another fix of Catholic opium.
It’s hard not to be weathervane. The wind puts a constant, cold pressure on you.
But it’s the only way.
In Italy we say: si dice il peccato, ma non il peccatore (“one says the sin, but not the sinner”).
In this case, the sin is, in essentials, not one of lack of orthodoxy, or betrayal of Catholicism – something the blogger in question has often done, and will do more in future; and which would prompt me to be rather open about it – but of mere, or you might say human, vanity.
Therefore, I allow myself to, ahem, rework a recently appeared blog post of this particular blogger without shaming the person as such.
Those who were to find the original post are kindly asked to do the same.
For the moment, allow this to be my “Happy Easter” to you.
And please, in your charity, consider saying a prayer for the blogger, even if you don’t know who he or she is.
View original post 1,312 more words
They say one should always speak well of the dead. Strangely, you never see the rule applied to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or Hitler.
Personally, I follow the rest of the planet and interpret the precept as a guideline asking us to be charitable in our assessment of the human – and generally rather private – weaknesses of the quisque de populo. But there is no doubt in my mind that the rule does not apply to public heresy or public scandal when the person in question was a clearly public figure, because in that case the scandal he gave in life will continue to work its evil after the man’s death.
I have heard it said in my native Country that when a pig is slaughtered he does not become a lamb, he becomes pork. Death in itself is no cause of any improvement. A heretic who dies is but a dead heretic. If he was dangerous in life, he will continue to be dangerous in death. He might even become more dangerous, because once he has kicked the bucket his writings and ideas might acquire a vague aura of prestige, making of him a sort of brave precursor, a sorely missed member of a supposedly glorious avantgarde of oh so beautiful, progressive minds. Rahner, Tyrrell, Martini, and pretty soon Küng are all points in case. But this also applies to non-religious, like public militant atheists, terrorists, and the like. The small list at the top is a point in case.
And yes, of course we pray for the dead. I have said my “eternal rests” even for Bin Laden, and do not regret doing so. But this does not change the quality of the man one bit, nor does it make any difference in the danger he still represents.
The ugly truth is that a bastard who dies is a dead bastard, and many are those considered bastards to such an extent as to merit hell. There’s no escaping the cold logic of the fact. The bastard may now be six feet under, but his ideas will continue to float around like extremely stubborn germs. There is, therefore, no reason whatsoever to not keep calling the dead bastard in the appropriate way, at least until the dangerous germs he left behind are dead and “buried” in exactly the same way.
Furthermore, it is particularly in the case of these public bastards that the public must be alerted to their very probable final destination, and warned about the equally probable consequences of following them. There is no world in which the death of a heretic makes following him less heretical. Rebellion has such a nature, that it does not stop with the death of the rebel. Therefore, the rebel must be exposed as such and publicly vilified not only in life, but also in death. If anyone thinks he does not deserve such a harsh treatment, he may want to consider not rebelling in the first place.
Truth is no respecter of enemies. Shame in life and after death must be the lot of those who willingly choose to defy Truth.
Let your gentle words apply to the poor devil, with his human miseries and his sinful weaknesses.
The public friends of the devil, and their open scandal, have no right to such dangerous regards.
And it came to pass that your humble correspondent, afflicted by cough and catarrh, walked to what is for most the standard purveyor of medicinal products in the land: Boot’s.
Randomly searching for my chosen product, I see a big section called “Sexual Wellbeing”. It’s not in a corner, or where it will only be noticed by those who already know what they want. No, it’s truly, as they say, “in your face”.
A small selection of vibrators is on display.
I don’t think I am particularly innocent, but frankly it was a shock. It was the same as if I had discovered that Waitrose sells porn in the DVD section. Please understand Boot’s in this country is the standard choice, where every mother would go with her little daughter without thinking twice. As I write, I can’t even tell you the name of one competitor…
View original post 127 more words
Short pre-bed reflection: could it be that Francis felt the need to “rebuke”, “reprimand”, or “scold” (“rimproverare”) the woman expecting her eight child because… she is well-off?
Look: if the woman had been poor, how are the odds Francis would not have told her that children are a treasure to poor people, and she is a living saint of the borgata, and is oppressed by the baddy baddy Capitalist system?
Conversely: is it not more probable that, on seeing a model of Catholic virtue (the people he hates most) but from a moneyed background (the people he hates most next, unless they are buddies of his) he would have an immediate hostile reaction and take the first occasion dictated to him by his stupid secular mind to rebuke, reprimand or scold her?
Just saying. We do not know the identity of the woman. But Francis’ reaction seems to indicate he felt a spontaneous hostility for her.
Which points out to these two: devout, and well-off.
Today, Kindergarten Pope has given us another little sermon about how bad we are when we insist on being Catholics. Not only conversion (we knew that already), but even honest to God Catholic apologetics is now clearly a no-no. Shut up already, will you? Your Catholicism is “self-enclosed”, “exclusive”. It creates “competition”. It is divisive. It does not do anything for the unity of the Christians. You are bad. Don’t ya know that “all of us are at the service of the one Gospel!”?
Whenever you hear some off-the-cuff comment ask yourself: what would Satan do? You will notice he would probably do just like TMAHICH.
Religions are made of differences. Religions are differences. What defines us as Catholics is not what we have in common with other religions or with other Christians. What makes us Catholics as opposed to everyone else is exactly that in which we are different from all the others.
When we stand up in Church and recite the Creed, we do nothing else than stand up and state our difference, solemnly proclaiming what divides us from others. Actually, and if we really want to be authentically Catholic, we are stating what divides the others from us, from the One True Church of Christ. If we did not do so, we would simply not deserve to be called Catholics.
What Francis’ true stance is concerning the Creed, the Dogmas specific to Catholicism, and the entire patrimony of unique Catholic Truth is very easy to grasp: to him, they are obstacles in that they “divide” Christians; and we are “bent on imposing a uniformity based on merely human calculations”. Therefore, in so far as they lead to Catholic apologetics (which, by their very nature, they must necessarily do) these Truths of the Church must be, according to Francis, an enemy to “peace” among the Christians, to this famed “union” of people just meeting and discussing of … what is utterly obvious to all of them.
A union, this, which – like the rest of Francis’ thinking, talking and acting – is clearly perverted. The “union” that Francis has in mind does not consist in others becoming Catholics (and how could they, if the attitude to conversion is “no, no, no!”? How can this happen even by a happy, subtle, gradual process, if even apologetics is not desired?), rather this “union” seems to consist in Catholics and all the others “meeting” somewhere “out there”, in a vague and utterly undefined region where Truth just does not count and which can, therefore, only be in hell.
To “focus on what unites us” is just a hypocritical, subtle, satanic way of saying that we should “forget the truths for which we stand”. There can be no other meaning, then we have to deal with Truth here, not with the pitiful decision to avoid football talk in the home of the fresh Champions League Final losers.
Did Jesus focus on what “united” him to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Did he say to us that He is the Son of Man but hey, chill out dude, whatever, the most important thing is to get along? Did He ask Peter to focus on what unites him to, say, the Essenes? What does Francis think, that Jesus’ Cross is the product of ecu-maniacal thinking and “meeting the other half way”?
This man is subversive every day. Every thought of his is profoundly anti-Catholic. He appears so festered, so rotten in his hate for the Church that – as “Rabbitgate” clearly showed – he is even unable to realise how easily and naturally he goes against Her all the time. The man truly has no clue even when he is faking it. He is an amateur even at being a Jesuit.
Forget what unites us. Focus on what divides us instead. “Unity” away from Truth means being disunited from God, and united with the world and his false promises of cheap mutual delusion. The only thing that stays between us and Francis’ “unity” is… Christ. We stand by Christ’s Truth, we stand by His Cross. This is what counts. But hey: the moment you are ready to forget Christ everything falls into place, becomes so easy, and becomes so… Francis. I love vanilla, you love chocolate, let’s not quarrel about that…
We are different. And we are, by the by, the only shop in town. We proudly proclaim what separates us from every other religion or “denomination”. We proudly proclaim the Truth of this difference, make of it our banner, and move to the conquest – that is: the conversion – of those who are wrong. Which is: all others.
When I am so old and gone in the head that I am unable to eat anything else than semolina, the stupid kindergarten “wisdom” of Francis might – just might, and according to brain function decay – make an impression on me. But certainly not before. This rhetoric is at the cheapest level of stupidity imaginable in a Pope. It is the negation of what a Pope is. It is good for the little children and those who have returned to that state. It should deeply offend everyone else.
Francis should consider resigning and wheelchairing off to Venezuela as a defrocked layman. His being Pope is, ipso facto, a huge statement of the Catholic difference, as the Petrine Office is possibly the most immediate, planetary known symbol of what divides us from everyone else. There is nothing else that screams “self-enclosed” and “exclusive” like it. And being a Cardinal, a Bishop or simply a priest means also shouting an entire world of thinking, living and believing in utter contrast to the secular mentality out there.
If Francis were, therefore, coherent, he would resign and abandon the habit, practising what he preaches to his kindergarten audience and becoming just another preacher of good-ism.
But he will not, because by all rhetoric of union he bloody well likes to be the Pope, and savours every minute. TMAHICH.
We are different. We are different from non-Catholics, and we are very different from Francis.
Pray for him that he may discover it before he dies, and acts accordingly. Nothing is impossible to God. But the odds are that he will spend eternity in the company of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Martini. He will have plenty of time to play the “what unites us” game with them, then.
Though I doubt he would like it.
What is happening in the Vatican reminds one, in a way, of the events in Chile leading to the 1973 Pinochet coup.
A goddamn populist went to power on a socialist agenda and, among the (initial) cheers of the people, began remaking the world – or, at least, Chile – new.
It went well for a short while. Then, the problems began to emerge. The savage spending let the inflation skyrocket, the inflation let the real GDP contract sharply, the usual stupid socialist house of card tumbled down in less than two years. And when the economy began to fold, the malcontent started to rise. One of the main tragedies of the proto-commie is that he can’t count.
When the end came, the once oh so beloved Allende was, very probably, the most hated…
View original post 1,225 more words
If laws do not lead people to Christ then they are obsolete,
Pope Francis, homily of the 13 October 2014, the day of the Relatio post disceptationem.
[We must avoid] The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei”, not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it];
Pope Francis, address to the Synod Fathers, five days later.
I keep calling him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, and I hope by now most of my readers understand why.
Five days after triumphantly announcing – on the same day of the Relatio which clearly bears his heretical stamp – a new post-Christian era, this man dares to warn us from the temptation of becoming… exactly like him.
There is a reason why I keep calling the Bishop of Rome TMAHICH, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History. The reason is that the double-tongued falseness of this man simply defies imagination. We see evidence of this all the time.
“Rabbitgate” is just a few days old, and it now turns out Francis has reached a new depth in his constant encouragement and promotion of sexual perversion. The events unfolded as follows:
1) A Trannie writes to the Pope and complains about his “discrimination” because hey, his fellow Catholics and (the horror!) his own priest just do not want to “accept” he is a shameless perverts publicly espousing his abomination to the point of surgical and/ or hormonal manipulation. You would think the entire planet is on drugs, but hey…
2) Pope Francis, of whom the kindest thing that can be said is that he might, actually, be on drugs, calls the man on the phone and expresses him his sympathy, or solidarity, or support, however you want to call being accomplice in another man’s sin. He does so twice. The second time he does it on Christmas Eve, and it is OK to cross yourself at this point.
Disturbing. If this is not the mark of a man deep in the lies of Satan, I do not know what is.
3) The two phone calls are not enough. Francis feels he has truly not done all he could to encourage every sort of sexual perversion. Whilst most of us, endowed with basic decency and a normal degree of innocence, would be horrified at sitting in the same room with a Frankenstein-like joke of Satan, Francis has such a need for them that he needs to have both the trannie and his “partner” flown from Spain (at whose cost, I’d love to know) in order to get an official peep into Tranniedom; something for which, evidently, his own house bitch Ricca is not enough. This happened in the last few days, after TMAHICH’s return from Manila, the sacrilegious mega-mass, and The Rabbit Show. The Trannie is about to “marry” (of sort) his own “lover”, but do not think this further encouragement of scandal deters Francis is any way. Whatever goes against Catholicism and basic decency is clearly good for him.
Satan, my dear readers, is looking at you, and laughing out loud.
At this point the news was clearly leaked, and the Vatican does not comment up to now. I take it this means at least that someone within the Vatican cares for his own soul and wants to expose Francis for the satanical tool he is. But considering the antics, the hypothesis that Francis might be on cocaine should be taken seriously and investigated accordingly, because this kind of loss of the sense of reality is a typical, well-known manifestation of cocaine addiction.
At this point, words fail. New ones at least. So it is fitting to repeat the old ones:
This Pope is an old, lewd man either attracted to every form of sexual lewdness, or a pervert himself. He is set to sabotage Catholicism, a religion he obviously loathes. If he believes in any god (which I doubt), it is some home-made Peronist deity obsessed with the “environment” and with a penchant for sexual perversion (basically: himself). He will do whatever he can to insult Catholics as he drives them away from Catholicism and into his own religion of social envy, environ-mentalist terror, economic chaos and sexual depravity. He is not recognisable as Catholic in any way, shape or form, as it becomes absolutely evident every time he does not read from a script but says what he really thinks and does what he likes. His lack of elementary prudence and decency justifies the suspicion of drug use. He makes the work of Satan day in and day out. He might be, let us say it again, a sexual pervert himself.
This is the current Bishop of Rome: a shame too big, too brash, too blatant, too much in-your-face to even claim any title to subtlety. A poor intelligence with a low degree of education, he isn’t even able to put some nuance in his subversive work so that more people than the plain dumb may be deceived. But he is testing the dumb too, or at least the less stupid among them.
Possibly a pervert. Possibly on cocaine. Evidently slow-witted. Most certainly not Catholic. Full of himself. Full of shit. A first-class hypocrite. A tool of Satan.
There. The Bishop of Rome described in just a few short sentences.
Still: pray for the poor sod, that he may see the light one day before he goes to hell.
He is a tool of Satan, a heathen, a saboteur, a danger for souls, the scourge of the Church.
But you, you be a Christian.
As an encore, enjoy “Loretta” again.
Just imagine the young woman is Francis.
It seems that “Rabbitgate” has caused the eruption of pent-up clerical frustration concerning this Pontificate. You see it not only in the blogs run by Catholic priests, but also in the homilies one hears (and I hear) around. In short, the healthy clergy are busy warning their sheep about the Pope.
A rather striking example of this is in the blog “Triregnum”, which has the translation of an open letter sent to the Pope. The author, a Parisian priest whom I suppose anonymous (but not so much, from the details he gives) expresses in a pithy way not only the confusion among his sheep but, more relevantly, the fact that even for a priest it is becoming more and more difficult to believe in the good faith of the man. A man believed by more and more of his colleagues more than just an embarrassment, rather an agent of evil.
This is how far we have gone. It is important that we do not run to the help of the Pope Peron by asking that he be left alone once he has backpedaled on his statements. In this case, the statements reveal the man, and the backpedaling reveals his hypocrisy.
Unless one distances himself from this Pontificate, one distances himself from the Church; because the first is the enemy of the second.
Many a priest, bishop, and Cardinal will go all the way in their desire to help Francis to destroy a church in which they do not believe. They might well become the majority one day. But it is consoling to know that there are still good priests – and be they polluted by V II ideology to some extent – who can still recognise what they have to deal with during this Pontificate.
May Francis’ reign be of short duration, and covered in shame afterwards. It seems to me there are many priests sharing this wish.
The Trannie Reblog
Sad, but truthful article about the pitfalls of political correctness.
A Trannie (that is: a faggot who wants you to believe he is a dyke; or such like; I always get so confused…) is now suing CrossFit, a fitness organisation which organises its own CrossFit Games. In her modesty, she would be happy with $2.5m.
The reason for Mr (note) Jonsson to become rich is that he had a “gender reassignment” some years ago, but the organisation does not want to allow him to compete among the women.
In case you are thinking this is an April joke, no. It’s simply California.
My spontaneous thoughts on the matter:
1. If CrossFit is the “gender equality” organisation, as they might well be, I sincerely hope that they lose the suit, or have to pay the Trannie a lot of money. It is only fitting that the owners pay the price of…
View original post 294 more words
The Bishop of Rome let it be known how so awfully sorry he was that “Rabbitgate” upset the Catholic world.
It wasn’t his fault, you see.
It was the Press. The missing “context”. The weather. The moon phase. The locusts.
Never mind that a video tells the lie on his hypocrisy. Never mind that his words are perfectly in tune with his UN, climate-change-scare agenda. The Most Astonishing Hypocrite in Church History (TMAHICH) does not care for such minutiae. It is so, because he says so. He never cares about what he says, but you must believe every word anyway.
Liar. Hypocrite. Whitened sepulchre.
If this man had a shred of dignity or decency left in him, he would do what every decent person would do in his position and put an end altogether to off-the-cuff comments and spontaneous interviews – which he doesn’t like giving, TMAHICH said… -, strictly limiting himself to reading from a carefully worded script, written by a Catholic.
Even if he believed in his own good faith, he would have to recognise that he has neither the intellect nor the knowledge nor the linguistic ability to say three intelligible phrases in a row, or to talk for more than one minute without revealing a deep disagreement with Church teaching and tradition. A man in good faith would draw the consequences and do what wise Popes – far superior to him in every respect – did, and limit himself to clear, concise, Catholic teaching instead of vomiting around his own brand of Peronism.
Do you think he will do it? Do you think the man so “saddened” by the scandal he causes will cease to cause scandal? Don’t hold your breath. After the crocodile tears will come another scandal.
Circus Bergoglio is in full swing. The show must go on. The next blunder is just around the corner.
Can a Pope be incapacitated for manifest lack of brain function? Probably not.
Today the BBC has televised the joke ordination of a joke “priestess” to joke “bishopette” of the joke called “Church of England”. Can’t remember the name of the female, but don’t worry: tomorrow the entire Country will not be able to do any better.
This is a vicious circle or, this being the CoE, I would say a perverted one. First, you become irrelevant by being stupid and prostituted to the people. Then you become even more stupid hoping to be noticed, but you become more irrelevant instead. Thinking you have not been “progressive” and “relevant” enough, you become more stupid still. More irrelevance follow.
Today, the Circus of Effeminacy tried to attract your attention with “women bishop”; tomorrow it will be trannie bishops; the day after tomorrow, dog and cat bishops. As the circus becomes more and more effeminate (half of the “priests” females, and half of the male “priests” wishing they were females) we will witness a tsunami of kindergarten sentimentality in which not only the last remnants of sin are thrown out of the window, but sin and perversion are celebrated everywhere in an orgy of sugary inclusiveness.
There is no reason whatever why a modern “Circus of Effeminacy” fake priest of either sex would feel any kind of discomfort at being assigned a parish in Sodom or Gomorrah. He or she would make a lot of jokes for the benefit of the few old fags and dykes who attend the “mass”, whilst encouraging them to be “open to each other”, “accept the other into oneself” (oh but they do! They do!) and other tofu talk meaning perfectly nothing. The, the “priests”, would not find in Sodom a better audience than in London. But not for lack of accommodation and outright sycophancy, for sure.
And so there we are. A day awaited for decades by the worst elements finds even the worst elements not interested in the event.
Will the unavoidable trannie “bishop” improve things for the CoE? I very much doubt.
There is only one Church. With all Her troubles, it is the one that Christ founded on Peter.
O you Anglican reader, recover some dignity and use this day to open your eyes, and accept the Truth of the Only Church. Save your soul, and your face with it. Still it is not too late.
One day, it will probably be.
(I know… I know… Chaff is seen as “good” today… Still…)
Everytime the Pope says something enormous, you see a predictable and at times rather funny phenomenon: the Pollyannas reckless abandoning themselves to loud praise of the Bishop of Rome, and then being caught in off-side by the dismay of the Catholic world at the very event they had so highly praised. It goes to show how Catholic some “c”atholics think.
Sadly, I notice that every now and then someone we thought on our side slowly, or not so slowly, proves to be on the fence at the very least. I also notice that at times Pollyannas who had, in the past, uttered a mild criticism tend to revert to full Ray Charles Mode, as they are conflicted between the fear that their readers will go away if they criticise the Pope and the fear that their readers will go away if they don’t.
There were two recent examples of this; one predictable, the other less so. Names will not be made, and I ask you not to make them, or hint to them, on the comment box. Where it can be avoided, I think that this blog should not be a window for inter-Catholic (however intended) strife, but rather for education and warning to the reader. I will endeavour to tell you how to recognise a good apple. When you go to the Saturday market, I trust you will be able to recognise the bad apples yourself.
The first example was the blogger who tried to explain to us how wonderfully enriching the papal interviews are. The article itself is, unwittingly, rather hilarious; but even more so are the comments, with an army of true blue Catholics asking him if he is joking and making other more or less salacious, and always correct observations on the matter. Apparently, a lot of punters recognise the bad apples all right, and do not hesitate in politely telling the stand owner that his ware is inedible and good for the pigs.
The second example is the other blogger who tried to downplay and normalise away the scandal and shock caused by The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH), in a Pollyann-ish effort that belies both his knowledge and his intelligence. Basically, it is an implicit invitation to wear some very robust blinkers in order to avoid having to see what this papacy is doing. Add to this the downplaying of the scandals themselves, and the attempt to attribute them largely to differences in communication style with his predecessors, rather than to differences in thinking, teaching, acting, I would say almost breathing, with them. This is clearly offensive to the intelligence of his… intelligent readers.
Whenever the Bishop of Rome says or does something enormous, take the time to search the blogosphere and read what Titius, Caius or Sempronius have written on the matter. Give particular importance to what they have written before the scandal erupted (it always take some time). Look at the difference between those who are concerned with the desecrations happening at that joke of a Jumbotron Mass, and those who see in it such a wonderful experience. This is the best way to see what kind of apples you are being sold everyday.
Caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware”. The quality of the merchandise will decrease dramatically in the next months, and who knows what kind of market will remain after October if TSHTF.
Now, more than ever, it pays to be an attentive customer.
Some people worry around whether Muslims will one day overtake Italy, and force the Pope to flee.
Do you want to know why?
There was a time when, in Rome, Trannies went about their “business” at night in certain parts of the city. Typically, they would choose the most affluent neighbourhoods, where people wouldn’t come out with baseball bats to suggest that they remove themselves. These were also the years where it was normal to see prostitutes along many of the big urban roads, in broad daylight. Now you must understand that in Italy prostitution is not forbidden, but what is forbidden is: a) the exploitation and b) the enticement. Therefore, the constant moaning of the population was countered by the police with the simple statement that… it is not illegal to stand at the margin of the road. In fact, what they were saying is: “there is no political support for a turning of screws; which we would actually very much love to do”.
That was the theory. Let me tell you how it went in practice.
In practice, it happened that one rather well-remembered night a big number of Trannies “walking” in the wealthy “Flaminio” neighbourhood were accosted by what probably was one hundred or more utterly insensitive, gender-unaware boys with the above mentioned baseball bats. What followed was around fifteen minutes of very frank and constructive dialogue.
The Police intervened with unusual slowness. No arrests were made. To my knowledge, never were any of the suspects officially indicted (but I was living abroad). Everyone knew you can only pull out of your sleeve something like that if you have an organised troop at your command. Not many of those people. Actually, only one. Yep: that one. The one every Roman knew.
This man was never touched. He obviously denied any involvement. How can you only! I say! Well, I never…!
He died several years later, the rumour still lingering around him, and fondly remembered by many. I will not make the name. Not a saint, that one. R.I.P. May he laugh, pray and play with the Angels one day.
The Italian Home Office took the ball offered to it and (to stay with the baseball analogy) hit a home run. This is the Italian way. Out of illegality, make legality. Out of disorder, make order. The people have spoken. The truth is out. Order is needed.
Result? No more tolerance towards street prostitution. Free to stand at the side of the street, my foot. Police harassment, my cat. That time has gone. No more hookers or trannies on our roads, per favore. We now have to. It’s too dangerous for the public order, you see…
A brutal policy of harassment of every “woman” at the margin of the street ensued. Next time I came back from abroad, there were no prostitutes around anymore. Not one. It was unbelievable. I was also told that the newspapers reported the Trannies had disappeared from the Quartiere Flaminio. Disappeared. Spariti. Verschwunden. The “hope and change” was more apparent to me, because coming from abroad I could see the “before and after” in the most striking way. I couldn’t believe this was Italy. It worked.The right-wing people had big smiles. The left-wing people had to live with it.
This, my friends, is the Italian Way. You won’t like it because you don’t get the Italian Mind, or the Italian Problems. But I do, because I do. Some were scandalised, of course, and all of them leftists. But it was a “meh” scandal. A velvety-soft scandal. A scandal ex officio. Some complained about “right-wing violence”, but never too loud. They knew on whose side the Country was. The Country had had enough of that. Common sense had broken the dams of leftist hypocrisy.
I could make other examples (the Gipsies! The Albanians!), but this was the most brutal application of a well-known Italian principle: that theory is grey, and life is green. No Italian politician will admit this, and no one would ever go anywhere without knowing it; but this is Italy, too.
Life will find a way. Theory will have to adapt to it. When the rules try to rape reality and common sense, at some point the rules will have to yield; not immediately, and not before things have gone very far. But at some point, the rules will have to yield. And then it will not be the rules that run the game anymore. Think rather of the baseball bat. Or the anti-terror laws. Or the task force sent to Sicily.
As seen on an Italian screen near you in 1864-1865 (the astonishing brutality that put an end to the Brigands; not justifying, merely observing); in 1921 (the end of the biennio rosso); in 1922-1925 (the Fascist cleanup of socialists and communists); in 1925-1929 (the eradication of the Mafia in Sicily; the Mafia was then re-imported by the occupying Americans to counter the Communist menace among the daily labourers); in 1945-1948 (the liberal use of the police baton against the Commies), and in 1979-1982 (the no-holds-barred offensive against terrorism) and after 1992 (the massive turning of screws against the Mafia in Sicily following the murder of Falcone and Borsellino). The emergency laws after Aldo Moro’s kidnapping in 1978 are a particularly striking example of, well, baseball bat, and green life.
Make no mistake, you’ll see it again. Because it’s the Italian way.
Therefore, my friends, I am not afraid that the Mohammedans will ever overtake my Country. It’s just not in the cards. If they think that, they’re more dreamers than the Brigate Rosse terrorists. When the tipping point is reached you’ll see the baseball bats appear, and not a baseball ball in sight. No, really. In Italy you are considered a weirdo if you are a Vegetarian. When the dance begins, don’t think Muslims will have any form of mass support. Rather, velvety-soft scandal at its best.
I am, though, more afraid for other Countries. Countries who have far more Muslims for once, and far less “green thinking” population for second. The UK, where niceness is the only religion with a mass following, is a point in case. I am far more optimistic for the Frenchies, who do mass violence rather well. I am fairly confident for the Germans, who will start voting more on the right, ganz brav, until their own representative get the music.
But England? Scotland? Wales?
Meh. Could be. Possibly. You don’t really know. If they wake up, they will wake up rather late. The UKIP will be our thermometer to understand how far they are in their awakening process. Expect a lot of resistance. Expect that they awake only enough late in the game, that baseball bats will not be enough.
This here ain’t Italy.
Louie Verrecchio has a very interesting post about “Rabbitgate” and whilst the subsequent statements of the Pope do have to be considered a backpedaling on the aeroplane statements themselves, the matter of the sincerity of the man is another pair of (presumably, black) shoes altogether.
I suggest you watch all the video, which is well worth your time. I am Italian and, following Mr Verrecchio’s invitation, I will focus on the part starting at 3:25 and ending at 3:47, that is: on the video witness of the words of the Pope.
1) “rimproverare” means “rebuke, scold, reprimand”. It is the verb typically used to express the scolding of the teacher to his elementary school pupil, or of the parent to his child. As such, it most often implies a kind of educational superiority (perfectly OK in this context, as a Pope can certainly “rebuke” a faithful, if there is a valid reason for it). A friend does not “rimprovera” a friend. In no way can the verb be made to mean “encounter, express”, & Co. It’s not even the offering of an opinion, or a suggestion. It’s the statement of a wrong attitude or behaviour, coming from the one who has the task of correcting any such wrong attitude or behaviour.
2) I am a bit picky here, but I thought I should give some colour: a properly educated and properly speaking Italian would invariably say, in this context, “Signora” instead of “donna”, “lady” instead of “woman”. He would do it naturally, without looking for the word, because donna is nowadays automatically used in a more familiar context (“che bella donna!”) or in a less complimentary one (“stai attento a quella donna!”), whereas “Signora” is automatically used when a more proper or formal context is involved (“di’ “grazie” alla Signora!” “Mi scusi, Signora…”). Again, “Lady” and “woman” very much give the context. Francis probably does not have the linguistic finesse necessary to make such a distinction, nor do I know how this is properly expressed in Spanish. But if a Pope does not get the fine things, he should only read texts that have them already on paper instead of blabbering around. When one speaks with journalists one flirts with disaster even if one has his thoughts and language perfectly under control. Francis has neither.
3) 3:34 to 3:35 show a typical, rather endearing trait of the Italian communicator: the use of the body to support what the mouth is saying. In this case, Francis bobs his body as obvious result of a largish (large, for his age) arm movement. This is a typical Italian trait, always seen when a certain excitement is making itself noticeable, and invariably meant to convey the conviction of the speaker. Francis could have said the same words in a careless, half-humurous, casual manner not implying emotional involvement (“oh, I remember that time…”) and there would have been no arm movement and no body bobbing. Here, though, there can be no doubt: this is the body language of one who is saying: “She did so and so! Really?! What kind of behavior is THAT!?” (note: the eyes wide open during the phrase: another typical reinforcement).
What does this tell me?
1) Francis was rather excitedly persuaded of what he was saying.
2) He thought he was making an obvious point. He had no suspicion whatsoever of an ensuing controversy. Therefor,
3) What he said reflects his true feelings, his convictions concerning that particular pregnancy. He can’t even imagine others would disagree. This, my friends, is what Peron and Tango do to you…
He has backpedaled, I know. He has backpedaled in pretty much as much of a clear and unmistakeable way as can be normally expected by a Pope. But there is no doubt in my mind that this backpedaling is not the fruit of him realising that he has inadvertently expressed himself in, say, an unlucky way. On the contrary: he says very clearly what he means, and his body language makes the point all the way. The backpedaling is therefore, without the shadow of a doubt, an exercise in damage control meant to distract the faithful from what the Bishop of Rome really thinks.
The text taken in isolation could make someone think of an impropriety of expression, or of a slip of the tongue, or of a very tired man. But the video shows the man in its authentic behaviour, and to this Italian he shows the full man as he gesticulates and bobs back and forth, calling (in conformity of what age allows) his whole body to agree with his tongue, as we Italians so beautifully do. IN two words, the video tells the lie about the story of the misunderstanding.
The backpedaling was a correction all right.We accept it as a correction of a wrong statement.
But do not think for a second that it reflects what the Bishop of Rome thinks. To him, the woman is clearly as worthy of rebuke as water is wet.
P.s. As for Mr Verrecchio’s observation about neighbours.
Of course I would not want him as a neighbour.
Who would want to listen to the anti-Capitalist rant of a frustrated Commie with a big mouth, but who knows jack about pretty much everything?
Put the setting on HD for the best experience.
A number of illegally disruptive, very angry fembitches in dire need of correction are arrested live and under the eye of many pro-life marchers at the March For Life.
One commenter says it wonderfully: “If one would kill a baby, why not act lawless at a rally?”
My generation or the next generation are going to win this, big time.
The always stellar Gloria.TV have in their latest news the mention that the Osservatore Romano has published further evidence of the Pastor Angelicus’ untiring (and dangerous) work to protect Jews from Nazi persecution. Affectionate readers of this blog have read about this several times, but it is never enough.
I particularly liked the bold introduction of the news as “Saint Pius XII”. And in fact, there is no reason why any sound Catholic should not have great confidence that this great, great man is now in Heaven, and can be asked to intercede for us by the One of Whom Francis thinks He deceived his disciples.
As a reminder: whilst Catholics cannot canonise deceased Catholics, they can be persuaded of the probability of them being in heaven with such a conviction and energy that they ask them for intercession in their daily troubles; nay, that thay ask them for help even at death’s door. Most canonisations happen because of miracles due to the request for intercession of faithful who, in fact, strongly believed the saint was in paradise in the first place.
I have no doubt that, in the case of the Pastor Angelicus, this is the case. Not only Catholic common sense tells me so, but I remember reading in one book about Padre Pio (I have read some of them; I think it was this one, but no guarantee) that Padre Pio himself had an hours-long mystical vision of Pius XII in heaven on the day he died, and said afterwards he did not have any doubt himself.
We would do well to seek, in these troubling times, strenght and inspiration from great Popes of the past; which is particularly easy in the case of Popes who have lived in times recent enough for us to naturally relate to them. Pope Pius XII lived in a world, and dealt with problems, not very dissimilar from our own. Our elders still remember him. He lived in times of cars and automobiles; aeroplanes, Radio and Television; mass horror, mass contraception, eugenics, and euthanasia. We truly can relate to his times, because they are still so similar to ours.
Intercede for us, beloved Pope Pius XII. We need your help in these disgraceful times.
You are so, so sorely missed.
I do not remember having ever posted this. I think the only thing I had found up to now was a 10-minutes excerpt.
But now we have the full movie, 75 minutes of intense Catholic beauty.
Besides being so useful to better know this great man, the documentary also gives interesting insights into the inner workings of the Vatican, and the daily life of a Pope when Popes did not choose to live under the roof of their perverted protégées.
The film is in Italian, and with no subtitles. Those among my readers who are Spanish speakers should be able to cope rather well; the others will have to know Italian, or enjoy the images… 😉
The presence of the man is sheer unbelievable. It is as if he filled the screen, but not with himself. Look at him on 40:15 to 40:20 and tell me whether those five seconds aren’t more powerful than the entire Pontificate of Francis The Destroyer. Look at the car ride starting from 51:19 to know how things are made in the proper way, or from 1:12:23 for a comparison with the Red Nose Pope. I think it’s OK to weep.
An immense patrimony of Catholicism has been squandered by Vatican II, and this madness has in turn generated an open hostility to Catholicism now raging from the very top, from the Sea of Peter.
A Sea where we have no Pastor Angelicus anymore.
Rather, a Lupus Diabolicus
Another authentically Catholic Bishop is – if common sense is to be applied – made to resign. Rorate informs us that this time, this was in France. The bishop was a Benedict appointment, not eight years ago.
After Livieres Plano in Paraguay and the coming defenestration of Bishop Oliveri in Italy, this is a third episcopal head made to roll. The three have in common a clear sense of what it is to be a Catholic shepherd.
The man who rebukes women for having children and trusting the Lord clearly hasn’t.
It will be interesting to see whether Bishop le Vert will whisper one thing or two to his friends.
O Lord, please free us from this scourge.
This is from the usually misleading or outright stupid Wikipedia, which I trust to be right at least on this basic fact. The emphasis is mine.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Flores, a barrio of Buenos Aires. He was the eldest of five children of Mario José Bergoglio, an Italian immigrant accountant born in Portacomaro (Province of Asti) in Italy’s Piedmont region, and his wife Regina María Sívori, a housewife born in Buenos Aires to a family of northern Italian (Piedmontese-Genoese) origin.[40
So, if this is true, there were five children running along the corridors of Casa Bergoglio.
This means one or more of the following might have happened:
1) Francis’ mother did have a certain predilection for “tempting God”, because we know that God id “tempted” to (cough..) dispose of you if you have many children. Francis must imagine God saying: “Seventh child? After several Cesarean Sections? Good Me! You got to be kidding Me! But I’ll show you! Yes, I will! To the grave! To the grave!!”. Therefore, one can suppose in Bergoglio’s mind the fourth and particularly the fifth child, and without the technology of today, would make the Lord rather nervous.
“OK, it’s only five. But you’re pushing your luck, young woman…”
2) On being informed of the fifth pregnancy, young Jorge asked his mother: “Do you want to leave four orphans?”. He remembered that long-gone dialogue on the plane and, in that debonair way of his, thought it wise to share this wisdom with the planet without further delay. Then he realised the planet would have considered young Jorge, child or no child, pretty much of an… oh well.
3) Francis is afraid that the phantoms of his deceased fourth and fifth born siblings will visit him, Jakob-Marley-style, and rebuke him for his impious words. Now, this would certainly cause him to lose his appetite. He does not want that. Eh? No?
4) Francis was told by one of his possibly vaguely suicidal assistants: “Do you realise you will be unavoidably asked whether two of your siblings should not have been born in the first place?” This, my friends, is a question no Pope wants to answer. Worse than asking Bill Clinton about interns, I tell you…
Now, each of these four scenarios would, alone, be sufficient for Francis to furiously backpedal. Scenario 1) is very Bergoglian but alas, not at all Christian. Scenario 2) doesn’t work after primary school at the very latest. Scenario 3) is a threat to the asparagus consomme’ and flambe’ mango. Scenario 4) can’t be patched up; not even by the indefatigable Spinning Master, Father Lombardi.
Therefore, the furious backpedaling is explained.
No more unpleasant questions.
Back to embracing wheelchairs.
And pass the tiramisu’, por favor.
From Rorate Caeli, I am informed the President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in the Philippines, Archbishop Socrates Villegas, is defending the sacrilege of the Manila Mass.
With an absence of shame that reminds one of the worst Kasper on a very bad day, the Archbishop goes on record with the following:
“Under normal circumstances, this should not have happened, but the situation in the Luneta was extraordinary, six million people.” He added: “On this occasion, it was necessary (“kailangan”) to help each other receive communion.”
A PR priest (boy, how many PR people we have these days…), a Fr. Francis Lucas, is on record with we following, equally inconceivable statement:
“For pastoral reasons since people can’t move during communion, mass passing of the host is okay.”
Is it possible that we live in an age of such stupidity and ignorance, of such brainless arrogance that prelates can utter such rubbish and get away with it? Do they have any idea of what “sacrilege” means? Have they ever heard of “Transubstantiation”?
This is basically like saying “normally you shouldn’t relieve yourself on the Tabernacle; but hey, if there are no portapotties available…”, or “normally we don’t throw consecrated wine by the bucket on the Mass attendants; but on this occasion, it was necessary to help each other to receive communion”.
A sacrilege is a sacrilege. There is no possible universe in which the desecration of the Most Holy Host can be justified by any reason whatsoever. And in this case, the “reason” is something completely accessory, and not necessary in any Mass! There can be no excuse for sacrilege! There can be no “circumstances” which make the desecration of the Most Holy Host “A-OK”!
Is this so difficult? I am sure even a retarded Lutheran who does not even believe in Transubstantiation believes this without any hesitation, agrees with this without even thinking!
We have come to such a point of heathenish adoration of… the churchgoers that an Archbishop and a PR man tell us to calm down: there are priorities, and they do not lie by Christ. The priority is the mantra of the new religion, that everyone has to receive communion at Mass.
This is a completely absurd and disquieting world. This is Kafka on steroids. And it comes from Catholic prelates, from very official sources!
If they had said: “we had not thought of the implications of such a large Mass; we did not expect such a situation; we are awfully sorry, appalled at what has happened; there will be Masses of Reparation all over the Philippines for this sacrilege; we invite other Bishops’ Conference to announce and put in place similar initiatives in other Countries; we will learn for the future and never again, never again allow for anything like that to happen!”, at least they would have looked like incompetent amateurs, but not unmasked themselves as openly, coldly, willingly sacrilegious priests!
But no, they fully acknowledge what has happened. They do not even try to deny that with such a mess countless hosts must have been trampled and destroyed, taken home as a souvenir (I am sure; no, I am!), given to curious bystanders, to Atheists, perhaps to Satanists, to children to play with, and who knows what else! Millions of Hosts! From hand to hand!
They do not deny it. They simply say: “look: we believe in The People, The Crowd Almighty. It was between Crowd Almighty and this awesome chap, whom we call Christ. Or some bread. Whatever. Anyway, we had to make a choice. Hey, something’s gotta give…”.
Archbishop Socrates Villegas is obviously not recognisable as a priest, much less an Archbishop. He sounds like an Episcopalian explaining why “the bread” was thrown around and was eaten by the dog. His priorities are clear. Christ is nowhere to be found.
The Archbishop should be deposed immediately, and sent to a doctor post-haste.
I doubt the Archbishop will be punished. He is, clearly, not one of the Catholic sort, so he should be fine.
I am alarmed at reading around that our first enemy would be Western Atheism, or Secularism.
The first enemy is Islam. And the second. And the third.
Secularism might try to silence you. Islam will cut your head.
Secularism aborts its children. Islam produces a lot of them, and uses them as a way to power. Therefore, Secularism sits on its own time bomb, but helping Islam means importing a huge bomb within our shores,; and make no mistake, this bomb will be used against us.
Secularism still has, in the West, basic concepts of piety and respect. Islam will cut your throat and make a video of it, and make seven year old children execute you.
Secular democracies tend to revert or correct their wrong position after a while. Abortion is under attack after only one generation and a half. Islam becomes a nightmare that only… a Western power can take down, and it needs an awful lot of ass-kicking.
You can always try to reason with an Atheist. You can never reason with an Islamist. The first one’s attitude is one of wrong reasoning; the second one’s is refusal to reason.
Islam is a self-detonating bomb. Given enough traction, Islam leads to militant Islamism like twilight leads to dusk.
It is madness to think we may have more in common with a Muslim than with an Atheist. The Atheist is, when all is said and done, us minus the faith. The Muslim is the contrary of us. Even the most hardened Atheist can easily convert, when he start thinking with lucidity. He will find his place in the Western World without any problem. But the Islamist will be prevented by his very religion to do so. To him, the Western World will never be an option. to him, the West itself is the enemy.
In all this, niceness (or: the “good Muslims”) is neither here nor there. Islam tends to self-radicalisation. At some point, the “nice Muslims” are made to shut up, or die. You can bet your last shirt that their children won’t be so nice. It will need a Western Power to frighten them (Iran), keep them under control (Western Colonisation), or kick their ass altogether (Afghanistan, Iraq).
Compared to Islam, Secularism is a walk in the park. The French Revolution destroyed the Church in France, but after around a decade she was there again, tall and strong. The African Mediterranean coast conquered by the Mohammedans in the VII Century is largely Mohammedan to this very day.
There is no similarity whatever between Islam and Christianity. Islam is to Christianity what sodomy is to marital intercourse.
Similarly, there can be no identification between modern democracies and French Revolution. The American Colonies and the British Institutions were beautiful modern examples of the first, when no one even knew what the second is.
The first, second, and third enemy is Islam. Secularism is a problem, and it can be a threat to our freedom. But Islamists will cut your very throat, and let their many children watch.
We will deal with Secularism all right, as we always did. They are aborting themselves fast anyway. To defeat Secularism we only need sensible shepherds and functioning freedoms. To defeat the Muslims among us we might, at some point and if the blind attitude does not change, need a bloodbath of biblical proportions.
No Pope of the sane past has ever considered Mohammedans allied against Secularism.
The first, the second, and the third enemy is Islam.
We have just witnessed a clear backpedaling on “Rabbitgate”. This shows that TMAHICH reads around, or at least listens to two or three people who do, and when he thinks something is out there on the planet which does not correspond to his (if you believe him) or Catholic teaching he can, actually, react very fast.
Then one is tempted to ask: what does this mean for all the cases in which there was no correction?
What about the Argentinian woman going around saying that Francis told her to go and receive communion, scandal and adultery and all? Has he corrected this perception?
What about the many blasphemous or heretical statements (from the Blessed Virgin who might have thought “Lies!” on the foot of the Cross; to God that limits Himself to a slap on the wrist; to Jesus who deceived His disciples, & Co, & Co.) uttered by his own very mouth? Has he ever issued a clear backpedaling on them?
What about the “who am I to judge?” slogan, possibly the most obviously subversive statement ever uttered by a reigning Pontiff? Has he issued a clarification about the evil of homosexuality, and the grave sin of sodomy, just so everyone knows what the obvious teaching of the Church is?
Er… ummm… let me think…
No. He never did anything of the sort. And when you look at my Francis Papers page, you see that the list is very long.
Actually, he had the gut to call Cardinal Kasper’s sacrilegious heresies about giving Communion to adulterers “theology on one’s knees”, and “profound and serene theology”. No retraction on that, either. Rather, we had the delirious relatio post disceptationem, of which even my cat knows Francis was the perpetrator and driving force.
So, Francis can retract when he sees that the planet got his words – said, or said to have been said – in a sense not compatible with Catholicism.
He did it in this case. He never did it in the other cases.
What does this tell us?