Daily Archives: January 29, 2015
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.