Monthly Archives: March 2015
On Rorate have appeared some reflections from the usual Scalfari, the journo-buddy of the Unholy Father (he also has a Rabbi-buddy and a Faggo-buddy; but this is the journo-buddy).
Scalfari report a “very clear” answer of Francis, indicating that God simply annihilated the Damned, instead of condemning them to everlasting fire.
First things first: Scalfari is many things, but he is not a liar, and he would not misrepresent the words of Francis. We have already seen it with the famous interview, now officially published in book form after the Pollyanna had accused Scalfari of being, in a word, gaga.
No. Scalfari would not misrepresent Francis. If he writes that “Francis' answer is very clear”, you can believe it. The idea is nonsense, of course.
As far as I know, the idea was born in Protestant circles a long time ago. As the Proddies became more and more unable to cope with God's Infinite Justice, the concept of hell became more and more embarrassing to them. If you define God as “Lurv”, hell isn't easy to swallow. They were obviously also unable to cope with the simple fact that an infinite offence deserves an infinite punishment, probably out of lack of faith in an infinite God Himself.
Francis has the same problem. Devoid of Catholic thinking, unable to cope with God's Justice, very probably not believing in God at all, he does not hesitate to make his theology as he goes along for the enjoyment of some atheist journalist.
The annihilation of the damned as opposed to their eternal punishment is in blatant contrast with the words of Our Lord himself, and is therefore taboo for every intelligent Christian. Francis is neither, and Scalfari isn't Christian; this is why they concoct such “tea-time” absurdities.
The annihilation of the damned is, also, a hell as the atheists would have it: non-existent, and a punishment that is in nothing worse that what they are expecting anyway. It is more “pleasing an atheist”, than “punishing him”. It is something that, in a way, allows the atheist to say on this earth that he would be right even if he were wrong; it is, of course, something allowing him to make a mockery of Christianity itself, in which he will most certainly not start to believe because some idiot – Pope, or not – tells him he has no hell to fear.
The idea does not make sense. But Francis does not make sense, either. So I am not surprised he would float it around with the arrogant chutzpah of the boor made powerful.
This man is embarrassed of his Catholic job. Everytime he comes in contact with atheists he needs to let them know that he is on their side of the barricade, and against those insufferable rosary-counters stinking of holy water.
This is what he does all the time, in public and – it becomes increasingly clear – in private.
On Friday, Francis will abuse of the Stations of the Cross to attack the Capital Punishment. More enmity with Catholicism, more heresy, confusion, sheer ignorance, stupidity or, most probably, lack of faith and evil intent.
There is no need to doubt the truthfulness of Dr Scalfari's assertion. There is no reason to doubt Francis' war on Catholicism, either.
As we approach the third Easter with The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History in charge, here's hoping there will not be a fourth one.
Every now and then, you hear or read around about people claiming to be “good without God”.
I think the expression does not make sense. Let us see why.
In order to be considered objectively good, a man would have to comply with standards of goodness that are both objective and immutable. They must be objective, because otherwise this alleged “goodness” degenerates into mere self-appreciation. They must be immutable, because if good and bad change with the time goodness becomes mere conformism to accepted rules. This, at least, in what concerns the basics and the fundamentals; not, of course, the particular mores of this or that age, or region.
God is Goodness, and Goodness is based upon God. Take God away from the equation and you will not find any instance of objective Goodness anywhere, merely senseless emoting.
Christians, and particularly Catholics, have a set of fundamental rules they cannot dispose of or manipulate in any way, at least if they want to be truthful and refuse to lie to themselves. These fundamental rules are objective, because fixed once and for all in Church doctrine; and they are immutable because coming from God, Who cannot change. God, Who is Goodness, tell us what Good is. Neither God nor Good can ever change. Therefore, Goodness is – in its fundamentals – immutable and eternal. This is the only way it can work.
I am unable to find anything of the sort among atheists of every colour and shade. They define their goodness upon the fact that they have decided, for themselves, that they are good according to their own private metre of goodness. It's like saying that you are intelligent because a jury formed by you, you and you has unanimously decided that you are.
What is, then, this “goodness” they claim? Merely the fact that they like themselves. Which isn't difficult, I dare say, and something most people who aren't self-hating perverts manage without any problem whatsoever every day of the week.
Three abortions? What a heroine of reproductive rights! Anarcho-bully? Ah, a shining example of “fighter” for “change”! Enviro-terrorist? Look, look how he heroically fights for our future!
This is a game in which you get to decide if you are a winner. An emotionally-driven nonsense with no base in logic. The triumph of smugness and self-adoration.
But then again atheism has no logic, and makes no sense. It does not surprise that it should attract those who are unable to think logically.
And now please excuse me. I am not one of those “good without God”, but one of those “wretched sinners with Him”.
Therefore, my time is now better employed with prayer.
The Gateway pundit has reported German sources who say the Co-pilot of Germanwings who flew himself and 149 others to death had converted to Islam. The German prosecutors let us know that there is no religious motive, and the girlfriend dumping him or a more generic depression were at play.
I want to believe the German prosecutors would not go as far as to willingly suppress a possible motive as too dangerous for their career and too explosive in general, but I cannot persuade myself that this is not possible, either. Germany is PC central, and the German prosecution service is attached (other than the Italian one, which is why in Italy not even Prime Ministers are immune from prosecution) to the Government, which means that incurring the ire of the Justice Minister and the Chancellor is not going to be good for your career, at all.
In any way, I have not read any official confirmation that the man had not converted. Which makes it probable, if eye witnesses say he was frequenting the mosque, that he had, and the prosecutors simply consider this a non-event as far as the investigation is concerned.
I beg to differ.
Girlfriend dumping or no girlfriend dumping, it is clear that Islam (the “religion of peace”, remember?) is just one of those thing which might transform a depressed whino into a mass murderer. Add the hate for the West to the already explosive cocktail of depression and romantic disappointment, and there you have it: Satan’s party trick.
I wonder now: how can any aeroplane with a Muslim pilot – particularly a convert, but not necessarily – be a safe aeroplane? Granted, most Muslim pilots are certainly peaceful people with no intention of trying to fly into some skyscraper or simply on the ground, but you can never know when the next “sleeper” (convert or no convert) will strike. Shall captains, therefore, never go to the bathroom anymore? How can we make the cabins accessible in case of emergency without making them accessible to terrorists in 9/11 style? We can’t escape this fact, that this kind of behaviour is compatible with orthodox Islam, and would be praised by those who take it seriously. The fact that most muslim actually don’t does not change a iota in this elementary fact.
I would at least have the option of choosing a “certified non-Muslim operated aeroplane”, as this would do much for my ease of mind. But I suppose this goes against the oh so sensitive PC legislation in the EU, so I guess that other aeroplanes will have to go down before sanity takes charge.
The irony of this is that, if the motivation was a religious one, not even the Islamists will profit of it. There isn’t much glory in killing 150 people in a mass murder you can’t put your label on, and whilst it will make some bastard in some mosque very happy the first element of terrorism act (spreading fear) would not be reached anyway.
But in the end – and to close – it could be that the Islam component was simply that: was moved a suicidal man to fly another 149 “infidels” to death with him.
May I have a non-Muslim equipage, pretty please?
I am afraid not. At least until sanity comes back.
Every day God sends on this vale of tears I must read something about the Pope… scolding Catholics.
This would be enough infuriating in any Pope. But it drives one mad when the person doing the scolding is the “who am I to judge”, “you are fine if you follow your conscience” Pope.
I cannot imagine a worse example of Phariseism than this. At least, Stalin did not try to present himself as the “who am I to purge” dictator. This one here bitches around with every second breath, but has the nerve to play tolerant and non-judgmental.
I am, today, not talking about the sabotage of Catholicism that these rants – all of them, no exception – have as their only aim. I am talking about the sheer shamelessness of being the world champion of what he ceaselessly reproach to others: a cold-hearted enemy of Christ; a first-class Pharisee; and the bitchiest prelate on earth.
“But Mundabor! You are being guilty of the same crime of which you accuse him! You criticise him all the time!”
Of course I do. I do, because he deserves that I do so. I am very far from being non-judgemental. I try to judge with right judgment, and know that when my time comes I will be judged according to how soundly I have followed this command. Non-judgmentalism isn't a value. It is the end of all values. It is a world made for homos and trannies. It's the world to which Francis wants you to acquiesce.
It is high time that at least authentically conservative newspapers (a couple of those in Italy, some other very few abroad) start to say to Francis “shut up already!” when he keeps ranting. It would be another reality check and a welcome reminder, in the months approaching October, of the forces he has against them.
I am sick and tired of this cretin spitting everyday the same hate for Catholicism in a slightly different way. If God has decreed, out of all eternity, that hell is his final destination, I hope he goes there soon. If God has decreed, out of all eternity, that even a piece of work like this one is allowed to save his sorry ass (what a consolation for us all, who do not go around insulting the Bride of Christ every day, with the excuse of Christ!), I hope he goes to Purgatory soon, too, and felicitations to him.
But please, Lord, let this plague go to an end.
The details of the Germanwings tragedy have now emerged, and they make for a chilling reading. The 28-years old co-pilot profited of a bladder-pause of the captain, locked him out of the anti-assault cabin and slowly, coldly flew the aeroplane to his and everyone else's death during eight minute of lucid evil.
Was he mad? Of course not. Madmen aren't allowed to fly aeroplanes of Lufthansa companies. Was he depressed? No sign of that, and depressed people tend not to kill 149 other people, either. Did he have one of those strange things like Asperger's syndrome, which apparently make some people insensitive to other people's suffering? Can't imagine this wouldn't be noticed in a pilot.
The newspapers, unable to find answers to the simplest question, will obviously say “lucid madness”, and that's that.
I call BS on that, and have another answer: Satan.
The modern world, so PC and inclusive of every bastard, avoids and even ridicules the mention of Satan. Things must have a perfectly clear medical reason, and this medical reason must exculpate the perpetrator as thoroughly as possible. Unless he is a right-wing one, like Breivik.
Satan was at play? Come on, Mundabor: you don't believe that, surely?
I do, I do!
It is utter senseless wordliness to think that the devil does not try to find a way in a man's consciousness – and conscience – and move him to commit horrible acts: child abuse, murder, rape, sodomy, and the like. He must find a way first, and then he will do with his victim what he can.
At times, Satan will manage to instill in such men – or women – a great desire to do harm, preying on their hate, or envy, or vanity. Charles Manson's, Waco's, Breivik's and other tragedies of the sort can be only explained in this way.
It is very reasonable to suppose that we are here in front of another of such satanic “bingo” experience, as for what I know pilots are regularly tested as to their psychological fitness. And please notice the cold-blooded system of slowly losing altitude, and the obvious result that only in the very last seconds the passengers realised – or rather, started to realise – what was happening.
Two days ago I posed the question of whether the flight gave the people the time to die prepared. It would appear the window was very, very limited, and who knows how many were taken in Satan's net. Looks like a chilling, satanic bingo to me.
We can reason away the presence of Satan in the world at our heart's content, but we do so at our own risk. We can attribute atrocious acts invariably to momentary loss of reason, but we show with this attitude that we are the ones who refute to reason. Satan is there, working in the shadow, and throwing his nets.
Let us profit from events like this tragedy to be reminded of Satan's workings. Let us not hide the reality of satanic influence behind worldly considerations. Souls are at stake.
As abundantly seen the day before yesterday.
I am informed that Utah might reintroduce execution of capital punishment via firing squad, as the extremely sophisticated poisons needed to execute people in a way halfway satisfying your typical faggo-liberal Latte-sipping whino become scarce.
Obviously, the pansy army has reacted calling a firing squad “barbaric”.
Please look at the implications. If a firing squad is barbaric, then every foreign military operation of the US is “barbaric”, the “American Sniper” was a top Barbarian, and everyone who carries a firearm is basically a savage. See where they are going?
There is nothing wrong with a firing squad. Honest, truthful, manful way of executing someone. Is it painful? Rarely for long, I would say, and in many cases only for an instant. But a propos pain: how many murderers take special care that their victims die an absolutely painless death? How many can say to the judge: “look, Your Honour: I went to extraordinary expenses to buy the best poison that money can buy; the one that would give my victim an absolutely non-barbaric death! Could I please receive the same courtesy from the taxpayer? I know it's expensive but cut me some slack, I am dying here…”
My hunch is that they aren't very numerous, and your garden variety death row inhabitant is not very averse to inflicting pain, either. But I digress…
Execution is meant to have the convicted killed. Get over it. You do not want to get executed? I do not think is a very difficult thing to do.
In Mundabor's Utah, things would run like in the good old times: civilians (men and women) get hanged, whilst soldiers and people executed by the army get the firing squad. Easy peasy.
Is, then, execution by hanging “barbaric”? Were the Papal States barbaric? Were they unable to find anything more “civilised”, like giving people some poisoned herbs in Socrates style (no great fun, that, I bet), or giving them a warm bath with complimentary wrist-cutting in Seneca fashion? Did they want to save the expense of the bullet? Or did those wise men of the past not think, instead, that hanging is just a perfectly adequate and functional way of execution, and perfectly fitting for the purpose?
“But Mundabor! Mundabor! Some of them do not die instantly! They will slowly suffocate for thirty or more seconds!”
Get a grip, and grow a pair. When you or I die (of a stroke, or heart attack) our farewell from this vale of tears might be not a bit less painful. It might,min fact, be a lot more painful, and for a much, much longer time! Is God, then, barbaric? Should we all, then, receive an injection to avoid the danger of pain, before a cruel God inflicts us some pain far worse than any hanging, let alone firing squad?
As far as I am concerned tell me where to sign for thirty or forty second of pain (or whatever it is God in His wisdom decides to send me) if they allow me the grace of final repentance. Who knows how many, who had mocked the priest offering them the crucifix, saved their soul in the gasps of death? Who is better off, that man or the one who got his neck bone snapped instantly, and died unrepented?
It is nothing less than astonishing that wussydom is so prevalent nowadays that hanging, or even the firing squad, are considered “barbaric”. What a bunch of limp-wristed pansies.
Ask Pope Blessed Pius IX how a criminal should be executed.
He will have no hesitation.
We do not know much, as I write this, about the tragedy in the French Alps, where a Germanwings Airbus crashed killing all the 148 (it seems) on board. We do not know whether a distress signal was launched or at least attempted. We do not know whether any of the victims knew they were about to die, at all.
Here is hoping they knew. I always wondered how many atheists there were in WWI trenches during a massive attack, and I always thought they must have been rather scarce. The same must, I think, happen in an aeroplane about to crash. Actually, the latter even must concentrate the mind even more wonderfully.
Here is hoping they knew; and that they had the time to recommend their souls to their Creator, to Whom their life belongs, before having to give said life back to Him.
What a tragedy in the tragedy to think that many of those onboard (what is the atheist percentage in a European aeroplane these days? How many public adulterers, on average, in the seats of an aeroplane in the Age of Mercy, without the slightest hint of repentance? How many women with an abortion on their conscience, pushed away in the remotest region of their consciousness without ever dealing with the harsh truth of the matter?) could have simply smashed to their death without the slightest warning of what was about to happen. Chilling. Far more chilling, in fact, than the tragedy itself, then the loss of life is a very trivial matter when compared with the loss of soul.
Which leads me to another, far more chilling consideration. Every day is Germanwings Tragedy Day. In the fat, sated, spoiled Old Continent very many must die every day simply surprised by death: in their sleep, in sudden car or street accidents, of aneurism, of a sudden stroke, or in the many other ways in which we can be suddenly summoned to our judgment completely unprepared. And now let us reflect how many must, in your average European city bustling of people going about their business, live in mortal sin without even the slightest hint of preoccupation. This, my friends, is another big, big Germanwing tragedy happening every day.
Pray for your dear ones. Pray for your not-quite-so-dear ones. Pray for those you don't know. Pray for criminals, drug addicts, child rapists, killers, communist, and sodomites. Pray that they may receive the grace of all graces: the grace of final repentance.
As for us, I have taken the habit of reciting the Act of Contrition (the old one) every day. It helps one to realise one's caducity and keeps the mind gently, but frequently, on what really counts in life. What really counts in life is that we and those we love avoid damnation. In comparison, nothing else really counts.
Every day is Germanwings Tragedy Day. It is only that the BBC prefers to ignore the fact.
An obscene initiative was taken in Bologna, in which, among other things, “ceremonies” of “de-baptising” were held. But not only that. Desecrations and blasphemies beyond imagination. Satanical. Utterly satanical.
I cannot find anymore a blog post I read this morning about the – thankfully – vigorous reaction of Cardinal Archbishop Caffarra. But I have found this, in Italian. I do not go into details. Again: things have happened which I do not even want to repeat. I will leave it at that before I get angry. If you read Italian, be prepared for stuff that will test your coronaries.
Here, I would like to make some consideration about those who have chosen to commit such an impious act as the attempt to completely separate themselves from a most vital sacrament as the baptism. I say attempts, of course, because the idea of debaptising oneself is as smart as the idea of proclaiming oneself an elephant.
Many of them – who knows how many – have performed the “ceremony” in utter spite of Christ who gave them the sacrament of Baptism. Others – hopefully, many – may have done it in utter ignorance of what the Sacrament is, and thinking that they are doing nothing more than giving back, so to speak, the party card. Oblivious, as many in Italy are, that the Church is vastly more than a shop meant to promote Jesus, and that when you separate yourself from the Church you are refusing Jesus.
Still, still… ignorant or not ignorant, I cannot imagine anyone, irrespective of his degree of ignorance and confusion, who would have an inner shudder, a deep uneasiness, a sense of sacrilege in doing something like that. And I do not mean merely in a day in which the most satanical things have happened. I mean always (this de-baptising thing has been going on for many years now in Italy).
I feel pity, I feel sadness and compassion for the stupid wretches. Even if they do this only out of ignorance and stupidity, this ignorance still has a rebellious arrogance in itself that may well, alone, seal their fate.
The militant faggot has chosen Satan already, and at the moment of death will, on discovering his fate, probably react with anger and acrimony at the “homophobic” and “repressive” God. But the idiot who just wasn’t idiot enough that he would escape hell must be very surprised on discovering, with sudden and devastating terror, that such an inclusive, tolerant, open chap like himself is now doomed forever.
Unicuique suum. To each his own. Those who – with different degrees of evil and stupidity – have decided to proclaim themselves elephants (or not baptised anymore, which is possibly even more stupid) will, bar an always welcome repentance, receive each his own.
I doubt there will be great fun in it.
For the umpteenth times, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, known among friends as TMAHICH, exhibits himself in another senseless, anti-Catholic rant against Capital Punishment. I would call him stupid, but Francis isn't stupid, though he certainly is not a genius. He is an evil enemy of the Church, and a man of average or less than average intelligence believing himself a messiah of the poor.
I read around heavy cannon fire to this latest act of sabotage. I found this one particularly beautiful.
But this is not the object of this post. The object of this post is whether I should go on writing the same things, which all my readers (or almost all of them) already know.
The answer to this is: yes, I will. I will if it bores you to death. I will if you feel the sudden impulse to throw your tablet from the window of your train. I will if you feel the urge, on the same train, to cry: “Aaaarrrgghhhh! Not AGAIN!” on reading the last post about TMAHICH's one thousand times repeated stupid or evil statement.
I have to do it, because he does. I have to keep talking of the same old issues, because he keeps doing the same. I will not start a series of blog posts about, say, the works of mercy and us and pretend Francis can simply be ignored. Francis can't be ignored, because he is the Pope who keeps being Satan's most valuable ally day in and day out. I know you are fed up. You do not even imagine how much I am. But if the man keeps sending his bombers, we Catholic bloggers will have to keep giving them some good Flak.
As long as Francis keeps sending down bombs, we must fire our cannons. He does not tire, nor should we.
Let us see who is more stubborn. This thing might backfire when the flak becomes too much to bear (remember the planned carpet bombing of the Sacrament of Communion in October? He aborted the mission all right when the flak caused too much losses), but in any way he should never take us by exhaustion.
If I die before Francis, at least I will have the consolation of departing this wasteland and vale of tears knowing that I remained at the cannon to the last. If, as it is far more probable, he dies before me, this is one gunmen who will see the big, fat, humble white bomber going down in smoke with no little satisfaction, and waving his helmet in the air.
Let's see, then, who is more stubborn.
Please don't throw your tablet out of the train's window.
It damages the environment. Pretty much the only thing which, if you listen to TMAHICH, will send you to hell, in the company of all those rosary prayers and doctors of the law.
Every now and then, the Unholy Father says a word or two about abortion. It never is a real frontal attack, because apparently we all know he is a son of the Church so why talk like a Pope; but at least it is something.
The problem with that is that the radical Neopagan ideology of the man makes his words sound hollow – or rather, appear hypocritical and no more than a fig leaf – even when he happens to say something which, in itself, is right.
Francis has been aggressively promoting the new “religion of mercy” for months now, and more aggressively so since the slap he got in October. This new, continuously promoted alternative religion has no place for God's justice, at least for the almost totality of people of whatever faith and none. If God cannot be imagined as doing more than slapping us on the wrist, every kind of crime will ultimately be unpunished. If atheists are saved if they follow their conscience, faith as a necessary ordinary requirement – together with work – for salvation is completely forgotten. If God is “in love with us”, the relationship between the Creator and His creatures that is so emotionally evoked is not the one of a loving, but when necessary severe father, but the one of a sixteen years old girl upon beholding the young man of her dreams.
Besides being profoundly heathenish, this thinking kills babies.
In this kind of New Age, “We Are All So Wonderful And Unconditionaly Loved” pretend religion there is no sanction whatever for being Stalin, much less for the murder of an unborn child. Everything is wonderfully aimed at a wonderful final destination upon reaching which we will know in what wonderful ways God wonderfully provided for all the people we have aborted, or gassed, whilst following our conscience or, more simply, whilst being a tad naughty and getting a slap on the wrist. God, who is so madly in love with us, will always forgive us everything, so why worry? And actually, who is everyone to judge?
This is what kills unborn babies. This refusal to put a woman in front of the atrocity of what she is about to commit, and to the terrible pain of hell that following one's “conscience” can easily lead to, is all Satan needs in order to whisper to the mother that there is nothing to be worried about, her murdered baby “will be fine” because “God is Lurv”, and she will obviously be fine because she follows her wonderful conscience where the Spirit leads her.
In the age of mercy, an holocaust of unborn children produces nothing but… mercy. If Hitler had been a woman he could have imagined all those millions Jews happily basking in the grace of God, and would have died believing himself a saint. On a smaller scale, many feminist and dissenting nuns do exactly the same; only, they do not dispose of their own Vernichtungsmaschine and must be content with accompanying – morally or physically – young mothers to the slaughterhouse of their own babies.
Francis does, in a slightly subtler way, exactly the same. His blabbering about a mercy deprived of justice is an open invitation to every kind of selfish cruelty, an “all you can sin” buffet without even the digestion problems, a new religion that makes a mockery not only of God, but of the very concept of religion.
Next time Francis says a line or two about abortion, use it to be reminded which side's work he is making.
I stumbled upon a rather good article about the obscene celebration of sexual perversion to which St. Patrick's Day Parade has been, well, perverted by, oh well, perverts and those who are accomplices in their sin crying to heaven for vengeance.
However, it seems to me that in this way no battle will be ever won. The way I see it, this article and the many contributions like this have one serious shortcoming, that should be addressed.
You will notice that the “P” word is never spoken. Sexual perversion is a serious matter, which, by its own very nature, cannot be reduced to simple “immorality” as the one caused by the weakness of human nature. I wonder how many would write that child abuse is immoral and, well, premarital sex is also immoral. Some sins cry to heaven for vengeance, and some not. Some sins go with our nature, some sins go against it. We must make this distinction, or we will give the impression that sexual perversion is just on the same level as common human weakness, or that all grave sins are much of a muchness. They aren't. Hell isn't a common room, either.
Words convey messages. If the message is to be strong, the words used to convey it must be strong, too. I do not expect a priest to write “faggot” in his article, but if words like “gay” and “LGBT” are used in in implicit acceptance that they are the proper way to describe perverted people, then I do not see how we can persuade anyone that is not already persuaded.
The garden variety homo (or dyke, trannie, and all the circus tools of the sort; perverts all of them) never hesitates in employing a very emotionally charged, inflammatory language against you; and if you answer to his accusations of “homophobia” without telling him that he is just a pervert who would, in better times, have gone to jail for his perverted scandal*, then we are going to go absolutely nowhere; because we will be perceived, and rightly so, as people afraid of their own argument, and therefore unable to oppose more than a meowing to the roaring of Satan's lions.
They insult us. We answer by adopting their own language, and being oh so attentive not to hurt their feelings. No battle was ever won sounding the trumpet of the enemy.
The “P” word must come back in the debate about… perversion. There is no other way of tackling the issue than by saying loud and clear what the issue is. Similarly, the word “gay” and expressions like “LGBT” must be refused legitimacy and be used only in an ironic or mocking way (yes, mocking; mockery wins wars), never calling perverts the way the want to be called, but always calling them what they are.
Refuse to do so, out of a misguided sense of “charity” or politeness, and it will not be long until the very use of the word “pervert” will make you persecuted. A persecution which you will have called on yourself out of your own desire to be polite with people with no desire at all to be polite to you.
The Italian says: “chi agnello si fa, il lupo se lo mangia”, or “he who makes himself a lamb, the wolf eats him”.
Perverts are wolves. Be a lamb with them, and you will be eaten.
*In some European Countries the homosexual scandal, not sodomy in itself, was a criminal offence.
Make no mistake: the just announced Extraordinary Holy Year of Mercy will be a feast of heresy and sabotage of everything Catholic. A disgraceful Pope who is probably realising that he will not manage to get his lewd ways in October is preparing, in case he loses at the Synod, a typically Bergoglian petty revenge: the ceaseless trumpeting of an effeminate, wimpy God crying all the time that we do not realise how much he loves us, and from which every thought of justice and punishment for men's sin has been surgically removed. Unless you are a Catholic, of course; in which case you are dead inside, have no mercy, refuse God, & Co. All this, of course, ad maiorem Francisci gloriam.
This is a holy year created for an extremely unholy purpose: sabotage. Nothing good will come of it, at least in the intentions of his promoter.
I will dedicate the year to an insisted trumpeting of the Justice of God, and to an increased reminding of my readers of the realities of death and judgment, and of the hell that could follow them. A hell in complete contrast to this kind of wimpy teenager boy continuously sending flowers and love letters to the girl of his heart and basking for days in a little smile of his beloved; which is, in short, how Francis wants us to think of God.
Someone should explain to Francis the meaning of words like dies Irae, dies illa, or Rex tremendae majestatis; and then ask him whether he thinks they find any application outside of Mafiosi, child rapists, and observant Catholics.
This Unholy Year is another major campaign in Francis' war on Catholicism. It will be a simple counteroffensive if his army is defeated in October, and the total war if things go nuclear at the Synod.
One day, this man will get to know that God is both mercy and justice.
As things look now, I don't think he will like that day.
Both Dolce & Gabbana (the two fags who created the brand of the same name) expressed themselves against so-called “gay marriage” and other modern ills, calling in vitro children “synthetic” and in general defending the only family that can be called such.
Invariably, Eltonia Joan (whom the world knows as Elton John) got a tantrum, and I can picture him whilst shredding all his – certainly numerous – Dolce & Gabbana clothes whilst insulting the two with a very high pitched voice, wowing never again to look like a fag clown in Dolce & Gabbana's, but only in other people's clothes.
What do we learn from this queenfight? That there are degrees of evil exactly as there will be degrees of punishment in hell. The ones, if they die in sodomitical mortal sin, will be damned. The others, if they die not only in the same mortal sin, but having vocally furthered even a mock sacrament and the adoption of the little ones by their own ilk, will truly desire that they were never born.
As Eltonia Joan abandons herself to her latest tantrum, the reality of hell is as concrete and inescapable as it always was. May the one or the other repent and go back to sanity one day, there should be no illusion that the modern inhabitants of Sodom will be punished as harshly as the biblical ones. Perhaps more so, then Eltonia & her oh so “gay” partner can't even claim they do not know what God's position on the matter is.
Fags call for the boycott of fags. This is not going to be pretty. Perhaps Dolce & Gabbana will backpedal like the Barilla family (another set of prime candidates for hell, if you ask me) already did. Perhaps they won't, and who knows, this controversy may spark in some fag some serious reflexion about right and wrong.
I will stop short of praising two open promoters of a perverted lifestyle like Dolce and Gabbana, because it would seem to me the same as praising Hitler for not gassing Italians qua Italians. Still, I can't avoid noticing that Italy is, as we write the year of the Lord 2015, a country where even scandalous fags have a higher probability of having a modicum of common sense within them, whilst the likes of Eltonia are treated by heroes by an entire Country, desirous to send itself to hell with the express train.
Satan is having a big party. But I doubt he dresses as badly as Eltonia Joan.
You know those old people who keep talking of their own impending demise merely in order to hear others assuring them they still have long years in front of them? Well, one of them is Pope.
It is now rather “officially unofficial” that TMAHICH does not think of resigning. Not in the least. The “my pontificate will not be long” blabber had only one aim: to play the old man with his thoughts now oh so directed to heaven, whilst – if you ask me – a more worldly Pope may never have darkened the magnificent doors of the Vatican City.
Resigning? The Humble Pope likes the perks of the job all right. His ego has expanded more than his circumference. Who knows, perhaps the expansion of the second will put an end to the expansion of the first?
I am a tad disappointed as I would have preferred further hints at a possible future resignation. Just to make my day a bit better, you see. But honestly, I would not have believed them in that case, either. An excuse to feel forced – in all humbleness – to keep wreaking damage would be easy to find anyway.
No, the Unholy Father was just being coquettish. Look at me, the humble old man. Look at me, the one who is not about career at all. Look at me, the Great Mercy Reformer. But most of all: look at me.
I do not wish him a long pontificate, and therefore cannot wish him – now that it is clear he wants to die in office – a long life. I am reminded of Schopenhauer rather dry mot d’esprit when the old woman to whom he was forced to pay a pension died: obit anus, abit onus. “The old (woman) dies, the burden goes away”.
Those same words I hope I will write, on this blog, rather sooner than later; because if you love the Church for tea and not only as an empty slogan you cannot, you most certainly cannot wish for this pontificate to go on for another day; nay, for another hour. Not, of course, out of hate for the man; but out of love for the Church.
Still, it is consoling to think that the Lord has Francis on an “at will” employment contract. He can fire Francis anytime, and without any notice period at all. Bam. Gone. Next.
I will submit to His wisdom in this, and will do my best to live with the punishment God has sent us every day.
But I think it’s clear what I desire for the Church: that the old man dies, and the burden goes away.
Pray that the Lord, in His own good time, frees us from this scourge.
It’s hard enough to have to endure such a Pope to also have to deal with the coquettish remarks, and shattered hopes.
Please take the comparison below only as drink comparison. That wine is used in the Consecration is not relevant here.
With V II the Church gave us, together with many other mistakes, a second-class Mass. Second-class, not sinful. Second-class, not something that would be even a grave matter to attend.
Speaking of drinks (and letting aside the sacramental aspect at the Mass) we were accustomed to wine. One day, the Church told us wine is a drink for stuffy old people, and Coca Cola is the new drink the Church gives to you: bubbly, fizzly, young, dynamic, in tune with the new times, good for young and old, and apt to have many more people get at the table.
Coca-Cola is sugary, superficial, vastly inferior to wine in everything, pretty much of a child’s drink compared to it. But it can never be a sin to drink Coca-Cola; particularly so, when the Church gives it to you as the standard drink.
Now, I wish for the disappearance of Coca-Cola as Church drink, and to the return of wine – in its good time – as the only drink at the table. But I can never consider the drink the Church gives me a poison, though I will always say that as a drink it is vastly less, for lack of a better word, thirst-quenching or nourishing than the wine.
I have never made a secret of my position. I have stated very often on this blog that I attend the NO mass regularly. I even tour the land attending at Masses here and there to get the temperature of average Catholic parishes out in the V II wasteland.
Why, then, do I support the SSPX without any criticism? Because the SSPX deserves my support without any criticism. What they do is too important for all of us for me to start nitpicking on something in which, I am absolutely sure, many within the SSPX also disagree. In the matter of mass, the SSPX – or at least some of their members – do show some siege-mentality. Frankly, I do not care. It’s not that there is a precedent, because the situation of the true Church offering you Coca-Cola instead of wine, and prescribing that as the standard drink, is new.
I can fully understand those priests who refuse to celebrate the Novus Ordo because they consider the drink an offering that they feel they should not be forced to offer. They are, to keep the simile, like the waiter who thinks that for him to serve coca-cola instead of wine is unworthy of the tradition of the great restaurant he has the pleasure to serve. But this is very different from the very same waiter picketing the restaurant and saying to the would-be clients that the coca-cola is poisoned. I like a lot that there are waiters not wanting to serve the cola, because their understanding of the role of a waiter does not allow them to do so. But I will never call for the boycott of the restaurant.
Padre Pio prayed he would be allowed to die before being forced to celebrate the New Mass (he never was, before you ask, as he obtained an exemption like many other old priests), which gives you the idea of how seriously he saw both his obligations as a priest and duty of obedience on one side, and the Mass of the Ages on the other. I would, however, never countenance the attitude of those who think that Holy Mother Church gives them a poisoned drink. This is very dangerous thinking which easily leads into Sedevacantism.
Cure yourselves of Sedevacantism. Learn to respect the Church as the Church that God has given us, with all Her troubles; and if this Church gives you cola to drink, then by all means do not consider it sinful to drink it: it is the drink the Church gives you.
Very strong must be the man who can propose a pure “Radical Traditionalist” (“Rad Trad”) position without colouring this position with the perception of the NO mass as poisoned, or sinful. This is a very slippery slope. When you start sliding down that slope, Sedevacantism is what you’ll find at the bottom of it; and believe me, you don’t want to have your ass down there when you die.
This blog has always represented a line of Traditionalism (the advocating of the abolition of the New Mass, and the return to the TLM as the only Mass) as opposed to Radical Traditionalism; you have never read here that it is sinful for you to attend the NO, let alone gravely sinful. I utterly disagree with all those who say (and I do not care who says it) that if you cannot have a TLM to attend to you are free from Mass obligation, because… the Mass the Church that Christ founded on Peter gave you is just not good enough, or even sinful, or even gravely sinful. Sheesh!
I do not refuse the food that Holy Mother Church dishes on my table.
Do you? Do you?
If you have a valid Mass you can attend to, you have a Mass obligation. If you only have clowns dancing on the sanctuary and earthen vessels and strange “consecration” formulae and all that, well the doubt is more than justified, and I gather there were not a few of these masses in the worst phase of the “Springtime”. But do not come on this blog and tell me that you know Christ is there in the miracle of Transubstantiation, but you are too fine a Catholic palate to drink of His blood.
This issue cannot be escaped. If the Church is the Church, and the Consecration is valid, and the Transubstantiation takes place we do not refuse – or condemn – what is given to us. If we do, this means that we say that the Church is not the Church, or the Transubstantiation does not take place, or it takes place but it’s not good enough for us; because we want miracles made our own way, thank you very much.
Let others argue about this as much as they please. Let other pewsitters allow their pride to have the better of themselves, and their desire for purity to lead them to the rejection of what their Mother gives them. I live in a very simple world, a world in which my sensus catholicus not only rebels, but recoils shivering from the very idea that a layman would know that the Body and Blood of Our Saviour are dished to him, and answers: “no thanks, I think something very wrong is going on here. Actually, my mother is trying to poison me”.
Radical Traditionalism can be dangerous, and is not for many. Those strongly rooted in the Church will cope with it all right (and they will have to travel as far as they need to to have a TLM, obviously). Still, all too easily a well-meaning grievance can be turned – by the devil, who is always looking for ways to turn you away from the Church – to an outright refusal of what the Church offers worldwide; and it is then only a matter of time before the Church herself is, coherently with these premises, refused Herself. Once again: not every Rad Trad reasons in this way. But it can’t be denied that the emotional and the passionate can be easily swayed against the Church, and flipped around by the devil like pieces of a domino play, or like those old spring-laden toy soldiers you could make to keep marching the other way undeterred. You don’t want to be that toy soldier.
This blog is very, very critical of what goes on within the Church nowadays. But this criticism is always due to the fact that she is the Church. It can never be that the criticism leads one to refuse the very premise of his criticism.
The waiter has good reasons to refuse to serve the Coca-Cola in the restaurant. But we, the children at the table, will drink it whenever it is necessary or fitting that we do so.
The comment box is closed. You can call me “intolerant”, and thanks.
The Persecution Reblog
… there appears to me to be a paradigm growing regarding Summorum Pontificum/Universae Ecclesiae and the TLM, that while it may be permitted by bishops/powers that be/Pope for a priest “raised,” if you will, in the Novus Ordo environment, to offer the TLM on occasion, it most certainly will not be permitted for such priests to offer the TLM exclusively.
This interesting reflections appeared on the always interesting “Blog for Dallas Area Catholics”.
On personal reflection, it seems to me that this cannot be a uniform key of reading the events. I say this because of the following reflections:
1. To my knowledge, the FFI offered many Masses in the Novus Ordo before the Great Persecution started. They were, though, becoming increasingly more critical of V II. There is also, from what I have read around, an interesting episode of the FFI allowing the…
View original post 422 more words
Two years ago, the name of the new Pope was announced, and the now famous mozzetta-less, “good evening” speech with the “what am I doing here”-face took place.
If you use the calendar function of this blog on the right hand column and go back to March 2013, you will notice that whilst yours truly had an immediate allergic reaction to the rhetoric of poverty and humbleness, I tried to give the new man the benefit of the doubt, and kept doing it until the doubts dispelled and showed me – because I wanted to see the good in a Pope, but not at the price of blindness – what kind of shipwreck of a Pope we had been given by the Cardinals.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) was, on that evening, just starting his own work of destruction. Just a couple of weeks later, a huge liturgical abuse showed what kind of man we were dealing with, but even that was just a small appetizer compared to what was about to happen. In these two years, it is fair to say that this Pope has left nothing unattempted to show his hatred for sound Catholicism.
As we mark the second anniversary of the day of infamy, we must remind ourselves that this little, vain clown is but a fleck of dust on the sleeve of the Church. The Church that withstood the Arian heresy will be able to deal with a bunch of homos, commies, Kirchensteuer prostitutes and assorted heretics, led by a tango-lover, lewd, faithless old man who should have smoked less marijuana when he was young.
In this day of infamy, let us renew our prayers to the Lord that he may soon put an end to this disgraceful pontificate and, if it pleases Him, grant us a return to sanity in His own time.
The text below is part of a comment I have received, from the faithful reader Akita:
What of all the children who would suffer because the Church, who should be their protectress, enables divorce and remarrying, saying their remarried parent is A-Okay–nothing to see here folks! All the poor, faithful abandoned spouses! It’s utter insanity and chaos looming.
If all the above comes to pass, (and I’m not kidding myself that homosexuals in drag and the divorced and remarried have not already received Holy Communion by renegade priests) and doctrine does change, because praxis changes, how is the deposit of faith maintained?
Okay, it has not happened yet, and I am praying mightily against modernism, but it’s as if all of Catholicism is holding their breath, waiting for the results of the next Synod.
I found this very interesting, and would like to make an observation or two as to how we should react in the unfortunate, but not inconceivable case that the SHTF.
A) The Church cannot say that it is fine to divorce and remarry. Individual priests, bishops and even Popes may say that, but they would be heretical and sacrilegious. If many of them say so, many of them are heretical and sacrilegious.
Mind: no matter how many priests, bishops or Popes are heretical and sacrilegious, the Church teaching does not change. The teaching of the Church cannot change more than 2+2 can make 5. Bad teachers do not get to rewrite the rules and facts of their subject matter,
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)
Amen quippe dico vobis, donec transeat cælum et terra, iota unum, aut unus apex non præteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant.
The iota (i) was the smallest letter in Greek and Hebrew. “Not one iota” means “not the smallest thing”.
This, my friends, we must keep in mind every day and every moment. Not.One.Iota.
B) I am under no illusion in many countries (Germany, says) sacrilege happens every Sunday, en masse. Does this change anything in the Eucharist? No. Not one iota. Will God punish the priest and (un)faithful insulting Him in this way? Bar repentance, most certainly. Has the doctrine changed? No. Not one iota. Has the doctrine changed if thousands of priests do the same? No. Not one iota. Has the doctrine changed if, every Sunday, every single faggot and dyke breathing in Germany stands in line to “receive” Communion? No. Not one iota. Will the faggots and dykes, and the priests abetting them, and all those accessory to their sins with their own “inclusiveness” be punished for that according to God’s justice? Bar repentance, most certainly.
C) The concept of “doctrinal change” is non-existent. It is an oxymoron. When orthodox priests and cardinals say to the press that to change the discipline means to change the doctrine means simply this: that you cannot claim that you are following the doctrine if your praxis gives the lie to your claim. The rules of mathematics cannot change. Neither can Church doctrine.
D) The Deposit of Faith is maintained as it was always maintained: by transmitting to those who will come after us the truths we ourselves have received from those who came before us. Tradidi quod et accepi, “I have transmitted what I (myself) have received”.
In concrete, the one or other will notice that his priest is not interested in avoiding sacrilege as much as he reasonably can, and subscribes to the “radical Neo=Paganism” (bishop Athanasius Schneider) of the new Religion of Mercy. Means allowing, time for another parish, I would say. If you are 104 years old, have stopped driving during the Reagan administration and have no means to drive or be driven to a sound parish, offer it up to the Lord but do not stop attending Mass if you reasonable think the consecration is valid.
Many others will notice that their priest remains steadfast. The beauty of the Deposit of Faith is this, that it can’t be tampered with. You can’t twist it to let it say what you want it to say, like political slogans and tenets. No one who is vigilant can ever be deceived; actually, only those can be deceived who want to.
The doctrine can never be changed. There can never be an issue of “the Church has changed her doctrine”; this talking is BBC hogwash. What can happen, is that even inside the Church heresy and desecration are ripe, and clergy abandon Doctrine to follow heresy.
Let those who feel inclined to do so reap what they sowed. But we, dear readers, we will transmit what we ourselves have received.
It may be our lot to die in the middle of a paganised world, and with the daily sight of a raped Bride in front of us. If this is so, then let us die in the faith of the Lord, and in the sure knowledge that the rape will not remain unpunished.
The Baldrick Reblog
I have already written that, if you browse around, Pollyanna has become rather silent. The number of those now wondering at the cruelty of the wolves, keeping the Most Holy Father away from the Internet, has decreased sharply.
Still, there are some hard-liners who do not really want to get it. As we say in Italy, the mother of the idiot is always pregnant. This here is, though, extreme Pollyann-ing, because almost twenty months of papal Subversion make the job harder and harder. To still believe in the “good Holy Father who has a cunning plan” you need, actually, Baldrick levels of stupidity.
The two most Baldrick-like readings of the events are the following:
1. The Pope has put the wrong people in charge of the Synod; he has allowed them to run everything; he has allowed them to publish a document without…
View original post 351 more words
The Smelly Reblog
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…
View original post 287 more words
A deeply troubling questions, and some deeply troubling answers, transpire from a blog post written by Father Blake.
Father Blake quotes the message of an anonymous priest who is on record with the following statement. Emphasis in the original text.
One of my priest friends asked me during a conversation what I would do if the Church does formally approve what it previously formally condemned. I had to confess in all honesty that I’d probably have to leave priestly ministry. He admitted that he’d probably have no choice but to do the same.
I am deeply, deeply troubled by such statements.
Firstly, they sound to me as smart as to say that one would throw away his passport if his country were to engage in a war he does not approve. “I don’t like this, so I am out”. Erm, no. It is your Country, so you stay in. You have Holy Orders, so you stay in, too.
Secondly, it can only show a lack of faith in the Church that Christ found on Peter. To say “I will leave my priestly ministry if this or that happens” is tantamount as to say “if this and that happens the Church is, and always has been, a fraud; and I refuse to be one of the professional fraudsters”.
Now, the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic or it isn’t. We know it is, because it is dogma. Therefore, we can never ever act as if the Church were an organisation like any other. Not can we consider the Sacraments as if they were in any way, shape or form disposable.
Heretical Popes have been inflicted on us already, but I have never heard that St Athanasius left the priesthood when the Pope forbade the recitation of the Creed at Mass. I am absolutely sure the thought never entered his mind. The Church is the Church, a Catholic can’t get out of it more than he could jump away from his own shadow. A priest is a priest, a Catholic can’t “de-priest” himself because he doesn’t like the work of the Pope. Is the Pope heretic? Say so, then!
Athanasius did not leave the priesthood. He fought against the enemies of the Church, but remained in it at all times. He disobeyed to the Pope to the point of appointing his own bishops, but this he did because the Pope was not to be obeyed, and that was that. He did not make of himself an alternative Pope, or found an alternative Church, or said he wasn’t a bishop, or was a different type of bishop.
The Church is the Church. We stay in the Temple. If the Pope is the enemy, so be it. If the Bishops and Cardinals are the enemies, so be it. There will be plenty of Athanasiuses, and plenty of priests and faithful proudly demanding that the merchants be chased away from the Temple, rather than leaving the Temple because there are merchants in it.
But it would be very grave, extremely grave if a priest were to declare the Church a fraud; because in doing so, he would declare Christ a fraud; and may God save his soul afterwards, but I honestly do not think He will.
The Church is the Church is the Church. A priest is a priest is a priest. Whatever dirt the Lord allows to accumulate inside the Church, as lay faithful and priests we stay in and fight to our last breath to clean it up, but we do not even think of leaving the Church; because if we leave the Church, or as priests leave the priesthood, we declare Christ Himself a fraud.
Pigs have entered the temple, and are routing around at ease. The Temple is on its way to looking like a regular pigstall. Our duty is to fight for the Temple and to get it to be clean again, not to leave it to the pigs. If we leave it to the pigs we are saying that it was never a temple. If it is the Temple we will forever fight to have it clean, and free from pigs.
Concretely: if the Church issue a wannabe formal statement in which what was formally condemned is now formally approved, this statement is heretical and is to be rejected by every Catholic, and that’s that. But how do we know, then, which one is the right statement? The right statement is the one that is in line with the Depositum Fidei. The wrong statement is the one that isn’t. It’s not complicated.
There is no need to leave the priesthood for that. It is, in fact, merely a case of “the pigs are routing in the Temple. Let’s get them out”.
Let me tell you once again: it is a dogmatic statement that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic. No priest, no theologian (there is a troubling statement of Ronald Knox in the comments, hopefully taken out of context and making clear it is not possible to leave the Church, but still flirting with such an absurd idea) is ever authorised to leave it, not in hypothesis and not in practice, not as a joke and not as a fact. In fact, to me the very mention of “leaving” indicates the residues of a Protestant mind form.
I was born a Catholic in a (then) deeply Catholic country. To those Catholics, “leaving the Church” because this Church is not… the Church anymore sounded as absurd as “selling one’s own skin on ebay”, “getting a third arm” or “becoming a citizen of Mars”.
Never, not for one second, do we doubt the Church as Institution. Whatever the amount of dirt, we love the Church more than our life, and fight to our last breath to have it cleaned up. Not for one moment we think of ever disassociating ourselves from Her in any way, shape or form. Take a deep breath and shout it with me out loud:
Credo la Chiesa una, santa, cattolica e apostolica.
There you have it. Dutifully shouted. Straight from the Creed, a dogmatic statement. Straight as an arrow. In beautifully sounding Italian. What do you want more…? Now, can anyone explain to me how a priest could ever say “I believe in the Church, but I just did not think that I could continue my priestly ministry in it”?
You never ever doubt a dogmatic statement. To do so is grave matter, and to deliberately do so knowing that this is a dogmatic statement is to commit a mortal sin.
The anonymous priest quoted in Father Blake’s blog post may have good intentions, but I smell the devil in his words. It can only be diabolical deception that persuades a priest to state that he would be contemplating leaving his ministry, ipso facto indicting the Church. If the likes of Athanasius had thought in this way, we would be sacrificing goats to the Green Elephant In The Sky by now.
Do not be deceived. Pigs rout and shit around for a while. At some point they die. The Temple stays.
Whatever happens, we will stay in the church Christ founded. Stench and all.
We were never promised a pig-free Temple.
Harvesting The Fruit has an excellent post about the heretical thinking that must underlie the post V II opposition to Capital Punishment, which the people call Death Penalty. As we live in pernicious times of creeping heresy in pretty much every aspect of Catholic thinking, the appeal to correct, traditional understanding can never be too insistent.
I would like to add to the considerations linked to some words of mine about what is the most important argument in favour of the Capital Punishment you should make at your next Thanksgiving Lunch, and what reflections you might add to it. In order to make the argument, we must start from the error, that is: from the Catechism of JP II. Paragraph 2267 recites thus:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
You see here a typical example of V II creeping heresy: the teaching of the church is reaffirmed in principle, but immediately afterwards it is pickaxed in practice. We aren’t against, you see. But todaay, aahhh, todaaay it’s different…
No, it’s not different at all.
Firstly, paragraph 2267 refuses to address the matter of deterrence. The instinct to live being very strong, it follows that the threat of removing the good of life must, reasonably, have an effect on a number of potential situations which would, otherwise, possibly lead to a murder. To ignore the simple reality of deterrence is to ignore reality, nor can the usual excuse of “he who wants to kill kills anyway” work; because the last argument is exactly a strong argument for the justice of depriving him of his own life, once not even the threat of taking his life was inducement to not take the life of another.
This paragraph (but see below) also does not address the matter of justice, instead analysing the institute of the death penalty from the point of view of its usefulness. What is just and what is useful are not necessarily correlated. If you have any sense of justice at all, you must recognise that practical considerations may have a place, but they must most certainly not be what shapes whether justice is administered. The Church has always said that the capital punishment satisfied a need for human justice, not merely for practicality. The implied argument that the Church accepts the death penalty inasmuch as the execution of an offender is an absolute necessity is pure hogwash. It is a deification of life to think that just punishment should not extend to taking one’s life. It is also a thinking that has always been foreign to the generations before V II.
As so often, V II gives you the truth before taking the pickaxe. Look at the preceding paragraph, 2266. Emphases mine.
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
See? It’s all there! 1) “Punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense”. 2) Punishment as re-establishment of justice, not practical remedy. 3) Punishment as a help to the criminal to change his ways. It’s so simple, really.
Thirdly, and most importantly today, those creepy, utterly disquieting creatures of V II, the “new man” and the “new world”, rear their ugly heads.
Jails have always been very safe. Chain a murderer to the wall and you will see he will find his ability to murder again somewhat limited. Leave him in a dark cell and with a priest at hand and you will see there isn’t much more that can be done to move him to repentance. Let him see his own scaffold and you will, in fact, help him to final repentance like he never was in his life. What a blessing, such a scaffold, compared to the destiny of countless atheists of today’s stupid world, surprised by death without a second thought about their own immortal soul!
All this is happily ignored in JP II’s catechism. The argument is defended for the sake of orthodoxy, but it is immediately thereafter undermined with the usual excuse: “today it is different”. This argument can be used to go against capital punishment, ban on communion for adulterers, opposition to sodomy, literally everything.
If today is different, Jesus is obsolete. If the motives and passions, the impulses and the desires, the entire sphere of human emotions is different today than it was yesterday there is no saying to what extent Jesus’ teaching still applies, and at that point you will soon find yourself blabbering nonsense about the “god of surprises” (small “g”. The God of the Christians has, obviously, no surprises).
There is no new man. There is no new reality. Redemption is open to every criminal now as it always was, as it will always be. Sinfulness and concupiscence lead men to horrible deeds now as they always did in the past and always will in the future. Faced with the reality of sin, man must recognise that he is as naked as Adam was, just as sinful, and thinking in exactly the same way. Nothing has changed in the dynamic of sin and offence, and as a result nothing must change in the dynamic of the reaction to them.
It is madness, and an arrogant madness at that, to think that any presumed “advancement” in, say, social worker’s rehabilitation techniques may add a iota to what the Church has always prescribed: prayer and repentance, fast and penance, contrition and expiation. On the contrary, it is typical of the madness of our times to think that the social worker, not the priest, may be the spark that ignites in the criminal the desire for a better life (if not condemned to death) or the desire to die at peace with God and his fellow men (if condemned to death). In both cases, the underlying thinking is either that a man today is different than the man of yesterday, or that we have… improved on Jesus in the way of dealing with his “wrong choices”.
This is the thinking of a Communist, or of a Communard. It is not the thinking of a Christian. A Christian knows that there is no new man, and as a result there can be no new recipes.
Why, then, all this modern excitement about the oh so inhuman “cruelty” of the death penalty, so cruelly endorsed by the Church these past sixty generations?
Because of fear of death, and lack of faith.
To those who do not believe in a life after death, life must truly be the most precious thing of all. Many of them would, for sure, gladly live in slavery than die free, because if they die free they have lost everything anyway. If, therefore, life is the highest good, there can be no crime that justifies the taking of it (unless it is the one of the aborted child, of course; but that doesn’t count for the atheist, because it’s convenient not to count it; and the poor baby has not even committed a crime…).
Something not very dissimilar goes on, I am sure, in the mind of the very many “I hope there is a God” rosewater faithful, whose faith is very “joyful” in words but very shaky in practice. They will say to you that they believe in eternal life, but their speaking of this earthly existence as something so incomparable and priceless will belie their very assertion. You see that mainly in their argument: “oh yes, in principle I am in favour; but what if there is a mistake?“. Again, you see here V II at work, with the pickaxe never far away.
What is truly unique and infinitely worthy in man is not his life, but his soul. God disposes of the life as he wishes, and everyone of us can be dispatched away from this vale of tears in no time when He has decreed that the time has come; but our soul, our soul will never die. It is, therefore, ultimately, nothing earth-shattering if yours truly were to be, one day, executed because of a judicial mistake. He gladly accepts the risk as the most irrelevant of the life risks. Just tell me where to sign.
The probability of yours truly to die because of a judicial mistake is so unbelievably tiny that it never ceases to amaze me that those who want to abolish the death penalty never ask for the abolition of trains, aeroplanes, cars and, most importantly, domestic stairs; all of them infinitely more dangerous than even an inefficient justice system. It just does not make sense. The figures are just not there. But no, let us obsess about the judicial mistake. It lets us feel good, and it assuages our lingering fear of death.
It’s the fear of your own death that makes you so attached to life. It is no other. In times of stronger faith this attachment was non existent. In times of little faith, life is promoted to Most Sacred Thing On Earth.
Think of your soul instead; and if you really want to focus on life, reflect that you could die the next time you go downstairs.
It puts things in perspective. Far more useful than obsessing about the tiny probability of a judicial mistake.
We must live in very strange times indeed if every hour can bring further, disquieting news from the very top of the Church.
At Rorate Caeli there is a blog post and video (which is copyrighted, so I will not re-post it here) shedding further light on what has happened yesterday besides what I have already reported about.
Please note the following:
1. the official announcement of the fact that the Pontiff washed the feet of people of
different nationalities and faiths, including at least two Muslims and two women,
I have never read in the Gospel Jesus washed the feet of heathens, but again Jesus would obviously not be taken as an example of “inclusiveness” and “dialogue” by Pope Francis (Jesus came bringing a sword, Pope Francis came bringing peace) so He doesn’t count. Perhaps Pope Francis has a different Bible than I, though. I am told in Argentina…
View original post 129 more words
And so the Pope did it and, as he regularly did during his time as an Archbishop (he seems obsessed with continuing to do everything as he did before becoming Pope; another sign of humility, or pride as the case may be) has washed the feet of at least one woman during his Maundy Thursday Mass.
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but last time I looked the rules mandated (not suggested) the use of chosen men, viri selecti.
When I was (blessedly) scourged with Latin, there was no way Vir could be translated as “human”, and if I had done it the dreaded blue pencil of my severe teacher would not have been far away. But it was a very long time ago, or we must have been both wrong; or perhaps, who knows, Latin…
View original post 483 more words
Follow the link to the blog “Call Me Jorge” and read an interesting page from an interesting book about the Middle Ages. if you click the page the click will lead you to the internet version of the book.
Then try to explain the differences between the approach of a King of the past, and the approach of a Pope of the present. A Pope who would not only invite the Jew to his discussion, but would insist that he eats kosher as he assures him that the Old Covenant still applies to him and wonders why men must bicker because of matters that only interest theologians.
Finally, you may want to wonder what the Saint of the past would have thought of a Pope like the present one, and how would he have gauged the latter’s chances of salvation unless repentance intervenes before death.
Whenever I read these stories from the past I feel a sense of vertigo at the thought of how the most elementary sense of Christianity has deteriorated in our time. At the same time, it is consoling to know that even in places like Cluny mistakes of the sort were made; not that the Cluny monks would have been in the least interested in “dialogue” as it is understood today (the “I am OK, you are OK” sort; they certainly had the conversion of the infidels in mind at all times), but that they too were able to lack in prudence at times.
Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is evangelisation material. Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is in danger of damnation if he dies in the denial of Christ. This being the case, one can only imagine what will might happen to a Pope that encourages infidels in their own error, and scolds the Catholics who want to convert them.
Francis must be an atheist. There is no other way how he could, otherwise, be able to sleep at night.
There is an article on Catholic.org that well exemplifies both the confusion reigning in the head of many, and the fact that sanity is slowly becoming mainstream.
The author of this article calls himself a conservative, but he ignores what conservatism is all about: Conservation. Permanence. Tradition. Doing things now as they were made before; because permanence is good, and goodness must be conserved.
The attempt to minimise the Unholy Father’s continued scandal becomes the condemnation of those who condemn the scandal. The desperate attempt to ask a Christian to please bend over backward and give Francis’ words an orthodox meaning simply ignores that vast part of the planet – as Francis all too well knows – will simply use his words for what they mean. The assumption that Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted but almost never defends them with a word is witness of a state of pure denial. The condemnation of the scandal of a Pope saying “who am I to judge” completely ignores the enormous subversive impact of such a statement, and becomes an excuse to even accuse of hypocrisy those who are so scandalised; which, unavoidably, extends to sixty generations of Christians.
This man is simply refusing to look at a reality staring him in the face, and twists himself in the most intricate ways in order to avoid to see the brutal truth in front of him.
Not so his wife. Her argument is brutally simple. Look around you, man.
The Unholy Father has now thrown such a vast quantity of rubbish on sound Catholicism, that even the wives of the Pollyannas (this one isn’t an extreme Pollyanna, but he is one all right) do not need to give them any more than the simplest of answers:
“How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?”
This one is a smart woman and, I am sure, a very good wife; the good tree, and all that.
We need more people like her.
Particularly if they write on Catholic outlets.
During the recent and now officially more or less closed “Rosicagate” scandal, three posters unknown to me wrote comments full of slanderous accusations against Mr Domet, aka Vox Cantoris.
I did not publish any of them.
It seems to me that all too often the concept of “openness” degenerates into plain stupidity, as if freedom of speech meant that everyone has the right to write anything about anyone Else anywhere, with an expectation of his writing being published.
This is not so. Common sense must apply at all times, and common sense dictates that public personages can meet with not only criticism, but – if sufficiently founded and in the proper context – allegations that do not deserve any public hearing in other cases.
I do not allow anyone – and particularly one who never wrote on this blog; but anyone anyway – to come here and write rubbish expecting publication because hey, “it's a free country”. This is not only common sense, but actually a legal fact.
Mr Domet now rightly complains about a big outlet who thought it not below them to publish unverified rubbish about himself and his family, and I truly wonder what friends Rosica has inside that particular organisation.
I thought it right to give Mr Domet's righteous indignation an outlet; but the more general point is that I think that too many bloggers indulge in a kind of “freedom snobism“, which leads them to publish comments that should never be read by decent people as a burnt offering to the gods of freedom of speech.
There should be no need to say this. But I assure I see a lot of this around, and think it should change.
Freedom must always be seen in context. Every right impinges on other rights. We must apply prudence and common sense instead of indulging in a misguided sense of “openness”.
This space will remain heavily moderated. I wish many others were.
The Unholy Father has not lost an occasion to make another snide remark at orthodox Catholic.
Commemorating the anniversary of the first Novus Ordo Mass in Italy, TMAHICH abandoned himself to the usual sugary rhetoric, saying that “[he] who goes back is wrong”.
What a stupid, stupid thing to say.
If he who goes back is wrong no error is ever corrected, and no wrong is ever put right. This is another example of kindergarten rhetoric for the little children, the Pollyannas, the retarded and the enemies of Christ.
Fifty years later, how little people know of Catholicism is outright frightening. They understand the language of a Mass… they do not want to attend. They are the first generation (and a half) of Catholics who think the Church “wrong” when they do not agree with Her. They are being poisoned by the first generation (and a half) of priests telling them their input is very valuable.
The Novus Ordo must die. It has made enough damage already. Yes, it is valid. Yes, it can be celebrated reverently. Yes, you still have the duty to attend to it. But there is no denying that in the great scheme of things the deterioration of the liturgy has accompanied, and contributed to cause, the deterioration of Catholicism.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Novus Ordo, Moral Relativism, Abortion.
The Novus Ordo must die. He who wants to go on on this path of destruction makes the work of the devil.
There is on the NCR a disquieting interview to the disquieting Austin Ivereigh.
In it, Mr Ivereigh tries to absolve Francis from the accusation of actively promoting the Kasperian heresy, but in doing so depicts a papacy that is every bit as heretical and subversive as he denies it is.
Take this phrase:
What do you think is the Pope’s general view of the synod?
It’s a misreading to see Pope Francis as seeking to impose a concrete solution to anything. He sees himself as initiating and overseeing a process, which is basically of the Holy Spirit. His own criteria for discernment are: If you get people together who are faithful to the magisterium, who speak boldly from their own experience and listen humbly to each other, and you give the process sufficient time for a proper discernment, then, if there is a convergence at the end of it, you can be confident that is of the Holy Spirit.
If this is what the Pope thinks, I ask for the privilege of being the one who sets fire to the stake. This would be a Pope who thinks: “let us call together who are orthodox today and, if they wake up heretics tomorrow hey, it's the Holy Spirit”.
In the same vein, the entire interview is made as if discussions about fundamentals of the Faith were something permissible, or even good. Read the rest on the interview there and you will see what the drift is.
If Francis is as bad as that, whether he is in favour of this or that particular heresy or sacrilege or abomination is merely an incidental problem, the byproduct of a general issue. If Francis is as bad as that, we simply have a Pope who considers Truth disposable, provided it is disposed of by people whom he considers “sound” before agreeing on some new heresy.
This is insane.
But mind, this is what a journalist says who is defending him from the accusation of promoting a heretical agenda!
Seriously, what has become of us? Is anyone still sober around Catholic magazines?
The Catholic discourse has decayed so much, it has fallen to such an abject level of ignorance that one cannot even recognise any element of Catholicism in it. This is like reading the magazine of the Chinese Communist Party, articles written by people who pretend to be communist for the benefit of people who pretend to read them.
There can be no debate about heresy, desecration, abuse of Sacraments, whatever goes clearly against the Depositum Fidei. There can be no good in a Pope thinking, even for a second, of proposing such a debate. There can be no way or mechanism or triple salto by which Truth can be changed. There can be no way a Pope thinks a madness like that and is not the enemy number one of the Church, and Satan's most helpful chess piece on the chessboard.
What has become of us.