Daily Archives: January 22, 2015
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.