Daily Archives: January 20, 2015
I have always thought that a child was a blessing, and a gift from the Lord. Always.
I thought that every time that a new child was announced, the Christian* parents welcomed him in their life as a special gift of God.
I also thought that in general, the Lord would provide for the challenges that a large family unavoidably creates; bestowing at the same time rich blessings (not necessarily of financial nature) on the family that accepts them in gratitude, and lives in fear of the Lord and in serene confidence in the work of Providence.
I have also – and I will stop here – always thought that in those cases where a child could partout not be nourished by his family, Christian Charity would take care of the little creature; either with public orphanages – of which all Catholic countries have been rich for a long time – or with the even more ancient religious structures created for the purpose; structures which, traditionally, have never refused to accept a baby; unconditionally, and no question asked, as the beautiful institution of the Wheel abundantly demonstrates.
Why did the former generations do this? Because every child is a very special gift of God. An immortal soul, put on earth so that he may, with God’s grace, merit heaven. A soul more valuable than all the planets together because, other than them, made to live forever.
This is what I thought. I might, of course, have been wrong all the time. But I do not really think I am. I know many, many examples of numerous families whose members lived in simple circumstances, but surrounded with blessings no Mercedes and no luxury holiday will ever give. I know even more cases of fathers thinking, on first hearing the news, “what will we do?”, and never looking back after a life of rich blessings.
Therefore, it does sound strange to me when a Bishop of Rome, of all people, refers to the obvious blessing of many children as “breeding like rabbits”; an expression which, literally, was uttered with the words “be like rabbits” because of linguistic peculiarities, but which undoubtedly means and conveys the sense of “breeding like rabbits” in proper English. And yes, Francis might have tried to downplay the brutality of his mouth afterwards; but this is the kind of bomb that will stick, and he knows it very well. This is one who will never miss an occasion to let you know how secular he is.
There is, I would have thought, something extremely disquieting in a Pope which, whilst he laments the disappearance of the big families of yore – I am sure I have read statements of the sort – at the same time expresses himself in such a stupid, demeaning way concerning the very miracle of human birth.
I am sure the Bishop of Rome did not want to say, with his unintelligent words, that it is per se wrong to have many children; what I think he wanted to do is to lament the birth of children who then cause the family to live in poverty; which is extremely strange in a Pope otherwise so fond of poverty, and considering it (not the children, evidently) the well of so many blessings.
The Clown Pope has made at least two very big mistakes here:
1) He has devalued the miracle of human birth, which he sees under a pure sociological perspective. That every birth is a gift from God and a great miracle, he is just unable to see. When he thinks of children, he is reminded of rabbits. I do not hesitate in calling this the same mentality that gave us abortion.
2) He has lost a wonderful occasion to push for a beautiful – when properly implemented – institution of the past: orphanages. The answer for a child that cannot be maintained by his parents – or by his single parent – lies in Christian Charity, not in seeing the baby in any way, shape or form as surplus to requirement. No baby is ever surplus to requirement. Every baby is God’s requirement.
Besides the point already made of the value of every human life, entire continents are depopulating, and it is no less than astonishing that the very Head of Catholicism would think that there can be – and I cannot find any other way of saying this – only one birth too much.
But then again, this is the Environ-Mentalist. The man who thinks man is about to destroy Creation. It is obvious to him there is a need for less babies to be born; because hey, God has gifted some with too many children; or rather, some have made more children than it is fitting, and pleasing to God.
More in general, it is surprising to me how Francis seems not to get that every single child is there because God wanted him just there; providentially born in exactly those circumstances, age, family, and Country in which God wanted him. Born to be happy with Him forever one day, and to be His gift in the meantime. Does Francis believe that even one illegitimate child was born, so to speak, cheating God into his existence? Does he think that mere humans, not God, create the providential circumstances in which God, not men, decide that a child will be born? A child can be born out of sinfulness, but a blessing and God’s gift he still is. A child can be born from an extremely poor family, but a blessing and God’s gift he still is. A child can be, in extreme circumstances, even be beyond his family’s ability to feed and raise him, but he is still God gift, still a miracle of God’s grace, never, never one one child too much!
The comparison with a litter of rabbits is, therefore, more than stupid. It is secular. It is the way Lenin would see such things.
Bob Cratchit got all this all right. He got all this because he was a Christian, and did not even need to reflect on these things.
Francis The Castroite doesn’t get it at all.
* to the heathens and libtards, Obama’s “punished with a baby” rather applies…
No, Louisa May Alcott is nothing to do with this*. Rather, I am talking of the expansion of the Humble Papal Circumference, which since his Humble Accession has been growing faster than Islamic violence.
Not for the first time, we read of elaborate meals, of no small caloric content, carefully prepared by the best cooks. We are also informed – and again, we have photographic proof – of a certain predilection for desserts, ahem, not based on fruits.
It is, obviously, fine in principle for the Pope to eat, well, like a Pope. But this only, I allow myself to add, if the Pope in question does not insist in making a show of humbleness and vicinity to the poor; then the poor have no star cooks to provide to their culinary needs, have never seen a “flambe’ mango”, are probably unaware that “asparagus consomme’ with herbs” even exists, and in general do not lead such a life of pampered luxury.
Nor is this Pope the kind of person who, whilst eating well, gives any sign of an ascetic, or at least controlled intake “for the sake of the poor”. We have seen him already rather half drunk in the famous “Palmer video”, in which the astonishing thing is not that he might have drunk a glass or two too much – which can happen to anyone, particularly when eating much – but that he thought he was, then, in a state fit for a video; which, unavoidably, turned out a video of rather half-drunk heresies and assorted stupidities.
What I notice, though, is that all this Humble Drinking and Humble Eating is leaving clear traces in the humble silhouette of the Bishop of Rome; who, at his age and with respiratory problems, should have better to do that stuffing himself with food, and very refined food to boot.
Where the humbleness in all that is, it frankly escapes me. Very good wine, refined food and clearly visible, ample waist enlargement speak louder than the occasional Ford Focus Ride, or reckless embrace of a wheelchair, or ostentatious use of black shoes; which shoes are, by the by, still made to measure by his fave cobbler.
Should not the Pope, who has asked for a humble Kia to be moved around, also ask for a meal from the nearest McDonald’s, or spontaneously stop for lunch in the house of some humble couple, who would be delighted to share with him their humble meal? Why the humbleness must only be applied where it costs very little, and is televised worldwide?
“Ah, but there are the duties of the protocol!”
Uh? If the Pope asked to eat a BigMac and salad (not fries!) , would the others deny him the privilege? Can the protocol be discarded concerning cars, but not food? What’s wrong with you, Humble Francis?
And by the way: do Mercedes 600 Landaulet make people fat? You look at Paul VI in the photo above and you have to disagree.
In short: the Humble Bishop is getting fat on extremely refined food and drink, whilst the poor hunger.
Fidel would be disappointed.
*in Europe, “Little Women” is generally published as two separate books: “Little Women” and “Little Women Grow”. Therefore, some American readers might have lost the joke.
The car below is the Mercedes donated by Mercedes to Pope Pius XI. Custom built for His Holiness.
Far from considering the gift a horror for Renaissance Princes, Pope Pius XI received the car personally.
After the historic Concordate with Italy in 1929, Graham Paige, a now-forgotten US car producer, donated this splendid example to, again, Pope Pius XI. The gift was, I suppose, gracefully and gratefully accepted. The car was also clearly not sold to give the money to the poor.
Not yet anything concerning Pope Pius XII.
If you have links to photos of the Pope in a Vatican car (not the guest car he used in Germany, say) please post in the comment section.
Pope John XXIII used…
View original post 509 more words
On occasion of the unspeakable sacrilege in Manila, the well-known Psalm 93 (94) came to my mind. I thought I would print it here, in the Douay-Rheims version. It is by far not as lyrical as the King James one, but it’s 100% Catholic.All those who, in Manila, have taken part in the abomination could do worse than pondering over these words.
The “senseless among the people” are a true army.
They need to start coming to their senses, fast.
93 The Lord is the God to whom revenge belongeth: the God of revenge hath acted freely.
2 Lift up thyself, thou that judgest the earth: render a reward to the proud.
3 How long shall sinners, O Lord: how long shall sinners glory?
4 Shall they utter, and speak iniquity: shall all speak who work injustice?
5 Thy people, O Lord, they have brought low: and they have afflicted thy inheritance.
6 They have slain the widow and the stranger: and they have murdered the fatherless.
7 And they have said: The Lord shall not see: neither shall the God of Jacob understand.
8 Understand, ye senseless among the people: and, you fools, be wise at last.
9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? or he that formed the eye, doth he not consider?
10 He that chastiseth nations, shall he not rebuke: he that teacheth man knowledge?
11 The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain.
12 Blessed is the man whom thou shalt instruct, O Lord: and shalt teach him out of thy law.
13 That thou mayst give him rest from the evil days: till a pit be dug for the wicked.
14 For the Lord will not cast off his people: neither will he forsake his own inheritance.
15 Until justice be turned into judgment: and they that are near it are all the upright in heart.
16 Who shall rise up for me against the evildoers? or who shall stand with me against the workers of iniquity?
17 Unless the Lord had been my helper, my soul had almost dwelt in hell.
18 If I said: My foot is moved: thy mercy, O Lord, assisted me.
19 According to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, thy comforts have given joy to my soul.
20 Doth the seat of iniquity stick to thee, who framest labour in commandment?
21 They will hunt after the soul of the just, and will condemn innocent blood.
22 But the Lord is my refuge: and my God the help of my hope.
23 And he will render them their iniquity: and in their malice he will destroy them: the Lord our God will destroy them.
Follow the link to Chris Gillibrand’s blog and try not to cry, if you can. This is no stuff for the Catholic faint-hearted.
This is at the same on par and even worse (I mean, it is in the same ballpark, with more stupidity added) than the mass sacrilege in Rio.
This is, basically, a hand-to-hand “distribution” of wafers, or M&Ms, or Ritz biscuits.
Only, it is Our Lord.
How the Catholic world can witness such abominations without calling for an end of these extremely stupid mega-masses is beyond me. I mean, we know we have a stupid/evil/both Pope, but what the heck are all these people thinking? Is it really so bad, has mainstream Catholicism come to such a level of decay, that such events can not only be planned, but executed in front of cameras without a cry of sufferance and dismay raising to the sky?
Luther himself would be horrified at such a spectacle. Luther himself!
Once again, it seems to me that the Lord is sending a clear message: He is giving us ample way to understand how these people are perverting Catholicism. He is not giving us any way to hide behind one’s finger. It is too obvious, too blatant, too shameless for everyone thinking he can ignore what is happening.
The Pollyannas are accomplices of this man and of all the heresies, blasphemies and desecrations of this Papacy. They are the first enablers of this mess. With their sycophancy to Francis, now degenerated to mere Papolatry, they invent ever new excuses to tolerate the intolerable, and pretend not to see the open climate of heresy and devastation of everything Catholic because hey, Francis has said three words that sounded Catholic.
Heresy, blasphemy, and sacrilege are the true marks of this disgraceful Pontificate.
The man who started his Pontificate washing the feet of women and infidels has kept true to the promises implied in such gestures. He has, in fact, exceeded every expectation of revolutionary and subversive behaviour, even the worst ones.
Usque quo, Domine?