Monthly Archives: May 2015
Many thanks to “Rex”, who comments on the Creative Minority Report post about the extremely strong smell of formal heresy with the following quotes:
Pope Pius IX: None [of the heretical and schismatic ‘communities], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity. (Jam Vos Omnes, 1868)
Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits — but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible — since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: “I believe in one…Church.” (Satis Cognitum)
Pope Pius XI: It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members…It is to depart from divine truth to imagine that a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond, even though they are divided in faith. (Mortalium Animos)
It is always breathtaking how concise, accessible and nevertheless always extremely clear were the Papal documents of the past, compared with the diabolical disorientation we see today.
Still, you should not think that Francis is simply an idiot. There is no way he has never learned, or has forgotten, all this; there is also no chance he never understood what he meant, of never knew that this is what the Church teaches.
The point is, as I have already stated, extremely clear: the Pope states he does not know whether something is heresy, and then proceeds to expound and defend his opinion anyway.
This is John XXII all over again. Like John XXII, Francis knows (his ridiculous and rather rhetorical “I don’t know” notwithstanding) he is proposing a heretical doctrine, but he does not care. He does not care because he does go on expounding it, and he does not care for the very reason that he says what he thinks whilst admitting what he thinks might be a heresy.
St Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!
And here is the second part of our “Remnant” voyage into the realm of papal heresies: can the church depose a heretical Pope?
“Yes, she can”, is the answer. Follow the link to learn the why and how. An entire section is dedicated to the obvious mistake of the Sedevacantist perception.
Unfortunately, the absence of a true practical application of the principle (the interesting case of Marcellinius (or Marcellinus) would probably not apply to Francis, and perhaps some will doubt it happened in the first place) makes it very difficult to discern a clear path if Francis were to “go nuclear”.
Say: who would take the initiative of starting the convocation of an ecumenical council? How many bishops would take place? With what money would the entire exercise be financed? How would one know the council is legitimate?
View original post 626 more words
In the first of two blog posts dedicated to a series of beautiful articles taken from the “Remnant”, I will copy the link to four articles dedicated to the grave crisis in which Pope John XXII plunged the Church in the first part of the XIV Century.
The second blog post will be dedicated to a very actual issue: how a Pope can be deposed.
In both cases, I will add my short personal consideration.
The articles will, also, be put in a special “page” (this is how WordPress calls the fixed pages you see at the top) on my blog, in the hope that it will attract, in time, the attention of readers surfing the waves of the Internet in the search for some guidance in the present confusion.
I invite, here, to say the prayers…
View original post 787 more words
The “concubinegate” Reblog
Telephone calls ” do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activity”.
The “media amplifications” “cannot be confirmed as reliable”
… And are “source of misunderstanding and confusion”
“Consequences relating to the teaching of the church are not to be inferred from these occurrences”
Christianity is deeply imprinted In Western culture. This means that its demise as a mass religion, or as the defining cultural identity – a demise now clear in many Western Countries – will not happen through an official renounciation, but through a profound perversion made in the name of the very values that are being perverted.
We are now informed that the Anglicans are thinking of a new “protobaptism” of sort to welcome a pervert who has made a monster of himself – or herself; whatever he or she was born – into their sect.
The very fact that such an abomination is even contemplated tells you how far away from basic Christianity these people have gone. There is nothing of Christianity remaining in such a thinking. This is a new “religion of acceptance” that demands its own rituals and ceremonies as it claims to still be the Christian religion. They do not even see – or prefer to ignore – that their betrayal of Christianity is what makes these new rituals necessary in the first place, as their absence from Christian tradition was most certainly no coincidence.
You know how this will end. The first proposal will be rejected in order not to upset those who still think they belong to a Christian outfit. In time, a “compromise” will be reached, and then everyone will be so happy Anglicanism has once again showed how “adaptable” it can be. After a while, the full-fledged ceremony will be adopted whilst the next proposal – say: a blessing of the union between a woman and her dog – is presented as the next stage of Anglican inclusiveness.
Christianity will be dismantled in instalments. But the name will remain, and a lip allegiance will continue to be given to something whose meaning has been long lost.
We Catholics are not, at first sight, exempt from danger. We hear now talk of a “theology of love”, which would be – once again – a complete denial of Christianity and is to all intents and purposes a new religion, but under the cloak of the Church.
We are different from the Anglicans, though, because we have the Holy Ghost watching over our (and only) Church, whilst the Anglicans are left alone and free to destroy their sect.
Still, this is the future I can now clearly see. Christianity will die as a mass religion not only in the Attendance to its liturgy or the observance of its precepts, but in the very definition of its values and constituting elements, whilst still keeping the name. People will emphatically assure you that they are Christians, whilst not bearing any resemblance to a Christian in the eyes of every generation before ours. They will, in fact, question your Vhristian credentials, and they will do so exactly because you adhere to what every generation of Christians before ours adhered to. But the names will still be there, parts of the ceremonies, and a grotesquely distorted echo of the original message.
This is what the Anglicans are doing now with their own sect, and the Kasperites are trying to do with Holy Mother Church.
The first will succeed, the second will fail.
Bar repentance, the most terrible punishment awaits both.
This little effort is read by a couple of thousand people every day, which is, I think, the number of people that the parish priest of a normal, or biggish, parish, will reach. Obviously I am not a priest, nor a theologian come to that, and I am sure those who read me take this into account when evaluating what I read. Still, this is one of those days when I feel particularly keenly that one day I will have to answer for what I have written, and must therefore pay much attention not to stray from the straight and narrow. Do not, therefore, expect from me any statement that goes beyond what I have the right to say, because that would be the way to Sedevacantism.
Visit Louie Verrecchio's site, and watch the two videos about the latest papal speech on Christian Unity and Mr Verrecchio's comment on the same. Notice, also, how the bad seeds already planted by the mentality of V II are now undergoing a sort of genetic mutation under Francis, and the wrong perspective is becoming a wrong ideology openly defended as such.
This was not an off-the-cuff comment. This is a video message Francis decided to record in Spanish exactly because it is the language of which he has full control.
This was also, with all certainty, proofread by other people, as not only the nature of the document but the obvious remarks of the man abundantly prove.
Francis' attempt to hide behind his finger, saying that he “might” be saying something nonsensical or even heretical, shows in fact all the arrogance of this allegedly so humble man: he knows – because he has been warned, of course; but he knows in any case – that what he is about to say might be heretical, but he says it anyway, defends it as the truth, says it is the way God thinks. He feels like saying it, therefore he does. What he feels trumps Catholic Truth, because he knows how God thinks.
This seems, to me, formal heresy all right. Granted, he has not said he knows that what he is about to say is heretical, but he professes it anyway; but he has said something which I cannot consider any less grave: he knows what God thinks and therefore he says it, and he does not care whether this homemade truth is heretical or not.
The blood chills. A Pope goes public worldwide and says he just does not care whether what he says is heretical or not. He will say it anyway, and will present it to you as God's opinion, compared to which the matter whether this opinion is heretical or not sinks into utter irrelevance because hey, God and Francis can't be wrong so Catholicism must be.
In my eyes there is no difference with Luther's famous – real or attributed – statement “here I stand, I can do no other”. Francis is very clearly saying that he is aware of the possible consequences, and just does not care. This is the very definition of heretical rebellion, and would be rebellion even in the case – that does not apply here – that what Francis says happens not to be heretical. But in this case what Francis says is heretical, so we have not only the open intention of putting oneself above the truth of the Church, but the acting upon it.
I fully agree with Mr Verrecchio that this must be challenged by those members of the hierarchy who care for orthodoxy. Cardinals first, probably, but certainly every bishop should feel challenged to admonish the Pope to “clarify” (polite for “retract”) his statement, or declare himself a heretic.
Mind, though, that it is not for me to declare that the Pope is a formal heretic and therefore – say I, out of my own authority given to me by the Mundabor Mini Me Sedevacantist Quasi Church Of Catholic Truth – not the Pope anymore. But it certainly for me to say that declarations have been made that have a very strong smell of formal heresy, and the Bishop and Cardinals should feel the duty to publicly challenge the Pope on this and call him to change his ways or face the consequences, which would then be trial and possible deposition as abundantly discussed on this blog (see also the bar above).
This challenge to the Pope is something that, it seems to me, every Cardinal and bishop should feel as a duty at this point, because the challenge to Catholicism is, this time, openly proclaimed in full defiance of it.
Unavoidably – and Mr Verrecchio very fittingly points out to this – this will cause in many prelates and priests unpleasant reflections concerning the bad seeds planted by V II. But there can be no doubt that this here is an incursion into fully new territory, the territory of heresy publicly proclaimed in open opposition to Catholic teaching; this is a completely different animal from badly formulated encyclicals which have heretical elements in them whilst claiming to upheld Catholic truth in toto.
At least, this time we will not be plagued by the usual “he does not know” comments. He knows very well. He says so himself.
He just does not care.
If one thing should become clear to our inept hierarchy in the dramatic times we are living, it is that “cultural Catholicism” has a limited shelf life of one generation, one and a half at most.
Grandma, born in 1920, was deeply rooted in Catholicism. Catholicism shaped her entire life. Daughter, born in 1950, was much different, but you might not seen very much of it in daily life. There were big differences on several issues, but even Grandma would have called Daughter a Christian, albeit a bad one.
Granddaughter was born in 1980. The values her mother shared never meant much to her. Her mother had a vague feeling that they were good, but she could never really articulate why. She was, herself, not entirely in agreement with her mother on a number of issues; therefore, the granddaughter thought it perfectly legitimate that she also does the same.
Daughter's “cultural Catholicism” consisted in receiving what is comfortable and understood and rejecting what is seriously inconvenient; but granddaughter does not understand why she should accept positions her mother cannot defend herself, and to her everything that causes the slightest riff with her girlfriends is highly inconvenient. The mini m common denomitor is her religion, a vague “goodness” that murders children, but feels very holy.
Grandmothher managed to get to Purgatory. Daughter's fate is far more uncertain. Granddaughter's cards are frankly – unless there is radical change – horrible.
Cultural Catholicism survives for some decades as a fallout of saner times. For one generation or so you will have an army of people who still share much of the building of Catholic values, but do not understand why the building stands in the first place. The following generation will find it more practical, or even moral, to tear the whole building down. It can be as fast as that.
Old people die, young people reach voting age. Your bishop may think the fundamental fabric of Catholicism will remain, but he is a fool. As the old people die, the “why” of things get lost, because the priest prefers to speak like a politician or a social worker, rather than a priest. One generation will do a lot of what was traditionally done without really knowing why; the following one will refuse the doing altogether.
An astonishingly inept (or worse!) clergy thought, all over Southern Europe, that cultural traditions would do for them the work they never had the guts to do. But cultural traditions die in the end, if no one can articulate why they are cherished. The funerals of the old people bury them too, slowly but irresistibly. Unless things change radically, it is only a matter of time before Italy goes to way of Ireland.
In this utter squalor, and in this climate of bankruptcy in many European Countries, we are waiting for the next encyclical of the Evil Clown.
Dedicated to… the environment.
Once upon a time there were, and there still are in our present day, the Nice Catholics. The Nice Catholics considered it rude, or otherwise inappropriate, to condemn sodomy. Whenever confronted with the issue, they preferred to just change the subject or mumbling fluffy words about the fact that the Church “accepts everyone”. More recently that huge deception was put on the table, that “homosexuality is not a sin”. Pedophilia isn't a sin either, of course; but that wasn't said, and the distinction between the perversion (pedophilia, homosexuality) and the sin of acting upon the perversion (the act of sodomy, or of child abuse or child rape) was very conveniently ignored.
It was so nice to get along, you see.
When some people (among whom a somewhat cantankerous chap of your acquaintance) pointed out to the huge danger for our Christian societies represented by the creeping acceptance of sexual perversion, it was fashionable to call them (and him) “obsessed”, and dismiss the problem as secondary and not relevant.
Fast forward five or six years later, and a wholly new vocabulary has entered the political arena. “Marriage equality”, a word unknown before – outside perhaps of the lunatic asylum – is now all the rage.
It's all about “equality”, you see. Therefore, if you disagree with the perversion of pretty much everyone (bar pedophiles; for now) you are just “oppressing” others, and limiting their “human rights”. You are no better than a racist. You are the Ku Klux Klan.
The stupid will obviously laugh at this; but they would have laughed, ten years ago, at the concept of “marriage equality”, too. They will now find other ways to be “nice”, and will begin to say that the perverts down the road are not sinning, merely making a somewhat uninformed choice; whilst of course never forgetting the many “blessings” they have: because isn't having a son always a blessing?
One is tempted to say that one hopes the stupid surrender monkeys of niceness will be persecuted first; but the truth is, they will never be persecuted. They will simply adapt to the PC mantra of the day, and after marriage equality they will celebrate “love equality”, and welcome the threesome down the road, or the “nice” lady married to her Alsatian. Hey, aren't we all sinners after all?
We, the Catholics who still deserve the name – sinner as we all are, of course – will be treated as pariah, face discriminations of all sorts in our lifetime, and perhaps open persecution – as in: jail, or reeducation camp – in one generation or two. We are on our way to become the Ku Katolik Klan, and there's no saying we did not have it coming.
Is there a lifeline here? The Catholic hierarchy is now studying new ways to avoid saying what must be said whilst falling short of openly denying it. There is, in the natural sphere, nothing to expect from them, and the worthy minority of good priests and prelates will see their message drowned in the ocean of politically correct clerical inclusiveness. It will not work.
A more solid defence than our own clergy might well be the Muslims, of which there are far too many in Europe already. The Muslims – not the Catholics – were a major concern in 2006, when a proposed new project of “hate law” would have made not only the Bible (Blair & Co. didn't care for it, of course) but, very obviously, the Koran itself illegal. Therefore, the whole thing was killed in the cradle, or I shall say late term aborted.
Then there is the love for individual freedoms very developed in most – not all – Western Countries, and which will let many understand that what is about to happen to Catholics today may happen to that tomorrow. But this is a weak line of defence, because the tactics of the Gaystapo do not go through the official denial of freedoms, but through the KKK-isation of Christian morality. I am not illiberal. They are monsters.
The ultimate, and in the end only line of defence is Our Lord, and the loving assistance of Our Blessed Lady, and the commander in chief of the heavenly army, St Michael the Archangel. Persecution may come, but destruction won't. Even if Christianity is eradicated in our own countries – never officially, possibly; but it is obvious that a rite of reception of a Trannie in the Anglican community in his new “identity” is to all intents and purposes a new, pagan religion – we know that the Church will never die.
We must get the habit of praying St Michael more often. We must get into the habit of thinking that we must never cease our fights with words and acts, but we must at the same time conduct “parallel warfare” with our prayers. We must understand and interiorise that the heavenly army is aligned in heaven and ready for battle, and when the trumpet sounds there will be no chance and no hope for Satan and his minions.
Still, as we write the Year of Our Lord 2015, I think it's fair to say the Muslims in Europe are a far better guarantee for persecution than our clergy.
Which really says it all.
After the very predictable results in Ireland, the first culprits of the mess that has been created go to the press (they love doing this, clearly) and give a show of incompetence that I cannot believe can be the result of stupidity (and a great amount of that would be necessary, anyway), but rather of an evil desire to avoid at all costs having to do their job and to betray Christ every day of their miserable life; provided, that is, that they get a comfortable existence before a judgment in which they very probably have stopped believing a long time ago.
For example, one reads the words of Bishop Martin and wonders why the man was ever considered fit for anything but work on a potato field; an infinitely worthier activity, by the way, than being Bishop Martin.
The words of the man are sheer unbelievable. Reality doesn’t live in the mind of this man; or, rather, not a shred of fear of the Lord.
Following, the bishop’s words accompanied by yours truly’s certainly very obvious observations.
“The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people,”
No. The Church has to speak the language of the Church. That language has always been understood well enough. It is the wishy-washy, “let us not offend anyone”, “why can’t we be all friends”, “we are so embarrassed by the pedophile scandal so we will shut up and hope we are forgiven”-language that leads nowhere, because the people understand that they have to do with a bunch a good-for-nothing eunuchs in black (when they dress in black).
The first generation will despise them and still believe. The second, who has not been properly taught the faith, will despise them and not believe. And the in the first part, they are most certainly right.
“We have to see how is it that the Church’s teaching on marriage and family is not being received even within its own flock.”
It’s because you never explained and defended it. It’s because you never told people what happens if they refuse to follow it. It’s because you never had the guts to tell things as they are. It’s because you tried to keep the very unpleasant but absolutely indispensable bits out of the recipe, and now wonder why the cake is a failure the flock does not understand, and does not want to eat.
“There’s a growing gap between Irish young people and the Church and there’s a growing gap between the culture of Ireland that’s developing and the Church.”
The man is such an ass that he does not understand (or pretends not to; which makes him evil; which is worse) that his words are his own indictment. It is exactly his job to care that there is no gap. It is exactly his job to tell his flock what happens when there is one. It his job. He is there just for that. If he is so thick that he does not get it, he should steer the next potato field.
And look at the language, even here! The bishop clearly hints (but does not say) that in all this the problem is not Ireland which develops, but the Church which doesn’t. The man can’t avoid bending over backwards to please the heathens, not even on this day! God forbid, he sends a Catholic message!
Obviously, abortion is now the next target.
How could it not be? With such idiots at the helm, what hopes there are?
Bishop Martin will have a quiet life all right. A life of privilege and authority, albeit swindling. A life of comfort, far away from the potato fields of his infinitely worthier ancestors. But when he dies, I doubt he will consider it a good investment.
I know (because, by the grace of God my faith is strong enough), I have no doubt that the Angels look down on Bishop Martin and on the army of professional Grima Wormtongues like him and ask the Lord to exact a terrible vengeance for their betrayal of Christ and His Church.
A betrayal so obvious, so blatant, so shameless, that it has now become a matter of normality, as a bishop looks at his fully de-christianised flock after he has looked at them going away from religion every step of the way and says somethign between “there must be some slight communication problem here” and “we should modernise or thinking already”.
I know the angels look down on him, and ask for vengeance. Wretched sinner as I am, I would dread to face death today with the same chances this man will have if he dies today, unrepentant. Many will end up like him. The very probably gravest crisis in the history of the Church is the result of the possibly gravest betrayal from Her shepherds.
They are a bunch of fools if they think they are going to escape the direst punishment, because they were “nice” and gave interviews about a “new language”.
The Ireland Reblog
In a world that seems now completely taken over by evil, it might be useful to make a small reflection that some might find encouraging, or at least consoling. If you have the impression – as I do – that a huge cesspool of perversion has now become the standard of morality, please reflect on this: the cesspool has a leak.
Granted, it is a very small leak, and the cesspool does not even notice its existence. Still, it is there, and from this leak many little drops slowly, but unceasingly, drip down; mainly to hell, where they deserve to be.
We live in the presence of the cesspool, and the mighty stink coming out of it distracts us from the tiny leak at the bottom; it seems to us the stink will go on irresistibly, and dominate the world; but we know…
View original post 1,014 more words
I already knew Enda Kenny makes it in the 0.1% of the most despicable men on earth. But even so, it is surprising to see a man reach such a low.
Where has the man lived all the time? Has he (ill) spent an entire life in politics thinking marriage was “inequal”, the entire Country was “inequal”, the irish were “not inclusive”, “sad”, and all the rest?
How can he admit that all his years in politics – until the day before yesterday – he was not “compassionate”, and still demand that he be seen as a worthy representative of the people? How can he not realise he insults the 40% of Irish who have voted against this abomination, and brand them – as their prime minister – as deprived of very basic human trait, as cruel and discriminating?
Does this man not say that he is a Catholic? Does he have no shame at all?
Most politicians are prostitutes; particularly in these times, when strong ideologies die and the satisfaction of the day is all that counts. But even with the extremely low standard now reigning among politicians one would expect a shred of decency from those politicians with an institutional role, and who are called to represent their entire Country.
The Irish certainly deserve Enda Kenny. Which is the worst insult one can throw at them.
The “I can’t believe he isn’t bent” reblog…
Rorate Caeli has an interesting compilation of sayings of Dominicans of all ages.
You might notice, how should I say it, a certain discrepancy between the traditional lines of Dominican preaching and a more, erm, progressive attitude present in the modern days.
Like the Church in France (I have written about it today) the Dominicans are apparently marching toward extinction; and like the Church in France, they appear to have a nucleus of duri e puri intentioned to do things properly and ensuring the survival of their organisation.
By the grace of God, Radcliffe is not the Master anymore. Still, he appears to be in good standing, continuing to give scandal wherever he goes.
I think it is important the Dominicans free themselves from the cancer represented by Radcliffe and those like him. If you want your renewal to be credible, you must show it by enforcing inside that…
View original post 84 more words
The “pissing on one’s knees” reblog…
More Lio coming.
Rather predictably, I would say; then whilst there is no Kirchensteuer here our bishops, priests and faithful aren’t, on average, so much better than in Germany.
This is what the Tablet has to report:
Two bishops of England and Wales have broken ranks with their confreres with one calling for developments in church teaching on human sexuality and the other criticising the collective decision not to publish the findings of a Vatican survey.
The Bishop of Middlesbrough, Terence Drainey, called for a “radical re-examination of human sexuality” that could lead to a development in church teaching in areas such as contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage and cohabitation and the role of women in the Church.
Bishop Tom Burns of Menevia says that in the interests of transparency the bishops should publish the findings of a Vatican survey which asked questions on cohabitation, contraception and same-sex marriage. In…
View original post 288 more words
Only 22 years after sodomy acts were decriminalised, Ireland has today rather overwhelmingly (“yes, show perversion to my children” has taken 62% of the vote) in favour of the legalisation of that oxymoron called “gay marriage”.
Ireland had it coming, and now their children will have to live with the mess that the fathers have created.
The first culprit is, obviously, the Irish clergy. I do not know whether there is another Country where the demolition of Catholicism has been pursued so aggressively as there. A collective cupio dissolvi that must please the likes of Francis and, of course, Timothy Radcliffe.
The Buggers Broadcasting Communism are not getting tired of showing to children and families the photos of fags and dykes kissing. They truly want perversion to become mainstream. They enjoy a day in which Christ is crucified again so publicly, and so blatantly. They spit on Christianity and are proud of it.
Serves you right, you lukewarm “nice” Irish Catholics. Serves you right, you “let us not obsess about homosexuality” crowd. Serves you right, you “there are bigger fishes to fry” types. You will now have to live in a society in which not only perversion has full legal societal approval, but in which you and your children run the risk of being persecuted *merely for saying you do not approve of sexual perversion*, as the Gaystapo insists in their satanic practices being considered a “human right”.
You will now have your children exposed to sexual perversion, and will have to fight – if you want to, which I doubt – against a tide of popular opinion that for your children will be a matter of course, and the societal received truth. Some of your children will become pervert, and go to hell through it. Many others will go to hell without being perverts, but just for making their satanic work.
God knows I do not wish any soul to go to hell. But this here is not about what we are wishing, it is about what we are observing. It’s happening under our eyes, and it is clear Satan’s nets are all out, and the catch will be so plentiful it makes one’s blood chill.
No, you stupid men and women of Ireland. You go to hell without me. I will die in the religion of my forefathers and, wretched sinner as I am, hope to find some mercy in my weak, but sincere efforts to live a Christian life, and in my adherence to what I know to be Revealed Truth.
You, stupid men and women of Ireland, have no excuses. You know very well what the Church teaches. You chose to ignore Christ’s religion to create your own.
I do not wish for anyone of you to go to hell. I will keep praying for your final repentance as it is my duty of Catholic. But I do not feel the slightest shred of compassion for those among you who will be sent to their eternal damnation after such an open rebellion to Christ.
Be your own God, pay the price.
One day, Satan will show you an entirely new meaning of “same sex loving”.
The story in short: a powerful “Catholic” lay organisation claims Church teaching in matter of adultery and sodomy must changed, because… they prefer it that way, and the Evil Clown agrees with them.
The young bishop of Passau, Oster, makes something very Un-German: he speaks out, all alone, against the evil. The usual attacks ensue. But this time, five other Bishops (all of them, apparently, fairly young) speak out very clearly, thank the Bishop of Passau for his words and firmly take place beside him.
Results? The front has broken. Actually, it's clear now that there has never been one, and only the German desire to appear “unite” and not be seen as fomenting “division” could lead to the explosion being delayed until now. The German heretics, claiming a situation of “emergency” and opening threatening with schism, have now completely, completely lost face if a couple of days were enough to have six of the twenty-seven German bishops very officially opposed to the Kasperites.
Mind: that six have spoken does not mean that twenty-one side with heresy. It simply means that one letter was enough to give the lie on the heretical claim of a German “special need”, and to show to the entire world that even in the hotbed of European Heresy there is no compact front against Catholic teaching, at all.
It's a complete loss of face. I am very confident other bishops will speak out for Christ in the next weeks; but even if this were not the case, the six bishops have caused utter and complete devastation in the camp (as in-camp) of Kasper, Marx, & Co. What they can now claim is, at most, that heretics are a majority among German bishops. Fat chance to win with that.
The dream of a compact wall demanding a different “pastoral” treatment for the German sheep is all but gone. Kasper & Co. stand now openly refuted, and possibly in the next weeks openly humiliated, by their own bishops. What a sad end. What an inglorious way to go to hell.
I start to think that October might go down in history as a very clear reaffirmation of Catholic truth; because if you know Germany, you know that group thinking is very strong there, and the marching out of line fully against the Country's grain. That exactly in Germany one bishop's initiative should be enough to let the supposed hive mind collapse in a matter of days tells you a thing or two about what must be brewing elsewhere.
Marx and Kasper should get the stake, and the stake is what they would have had in times which value truth more than niceness. I doubt my suggestion will be adopted – there would be the need for the one or other legal change too, you see… – but it certainly is the punishment these two, and their main helpers, have deserved.
Which leads us to the Evil Clown: the man who started the entire mess by openly praising Kasper's “theology on his knees”, and will now prudently distance himself from the position he has done the most to further.
Francis is obviously on the side of heresy. He has pushed it, and continues to push it, every way he can short of an ufficial declaration of allegiance. Every Catholic with some discernment knows he is on their side. But as a Jesuit, Francis will find a way to throw his allies under the bus, and deny he ever wanted anything else than… socialism, enviro-mentalism, and cheap publicity for himself.
For the German heretics, it's now 1944. It's not sure they will lose, but the situation looks clear enough.
In another stunning example of how stupid we have become, one of the auxiliary bishops of Westminster has joined the choir of those reacting with dismay at the findings of the recent report of the UK health Ombudsman.
Let us leave aside the specifics (an organisation titling their report “dying without dignity” is obviously affected by compulsive busybodying, political interests, pathological attention whoring or desire to safeguard its own existence), and let us delve into the real news.
An entire Country sinks into the deepest pit of atheism, and a chap who apparently has the title of bishop finds he must go to the press to express a purely secular grievance: that this army of atheists runs some risk of not going to hell in sufficient comfort.
The article – published in a Catholic weekly, and therefore not suspect of having kept out the spiritual part – has only the vaguest mention of “spiritual care”, but the fact that the vast majority of people doesn't ever think of dying with any sort of sacrament – real, or Protestant – or even the slightest sort of preparation (as in “forgive me, Father, because I have sinned”) does not register at all with the bishop. Does he have idea of how many people die in utter atheism? Of course he has! He just doesn't care! But look, that chap there died suffering! How horrible!
It all makes sense, of course. If the bishop believes in God, it is obvious he has no thought of hell. If you are not worried about hell the immense drama of all those people dying in their atheism is just nowhere to be found; but let an ombudsman whose existence many of us did not even know make some noise with some extreme and isolated cases, and there you have the man on the barricades.
The bishop complains people can't die well anymore. What he does not say is that in order to die well you need to think well; which is something he is unable to do in the first place, but demands from other that they get it out of he does not say what; because hey, damnation and hell are taboos in modern Catholic publications.
But hell is exactly the matter: once upon a time people knew how to die because they accepted the brutal reality not only of life after death, but of an irrevocable judgment to be passed immediately after death. This obvious knowledge coloured their entire existence, and obviously greatly influenced their way of dying.
The bishop asks people to die better, but does not even mention what radical re-thinking is necessary in order to be able to do so. Worse still, he sinks himself into the same pit of wordliness by making of a purely wordly concern the main reason of his intervention.
Hell is not mentioned with a word, as the complaint is uttered that an already extremely pampering health system (one that would have been beyond the dreams of comfort of countless generations before us) does not pamper well enough.
This is the reality of the Catholic Church in this beginning of the XXI Century; as the West dechristianises, led by its own shepherds.
Think back when you were at (high) school. Hormones were everywhere, girls blossomed like a rose garden in May, boys could only look at breasts' height. I can't imagine it was easy for everyone to – as they say – “hide” his sexual – as they say – “orientation”.
How many were the fags? How many were the dykes? I can answer for my environment: one and one, perhaps one and a half in the second case. Over several hundred of school and neighbourhood friends, acquaintances, and people known through other people.
The moral of the story? Sexual perversion is very rare. It is certainly very, very rare in the sane social environment I grew in (men were men; women were women; families had two parents of opposite sex; perverts were universally despised and met with unanimous disgust), which encouraged boys to be boys and girls to be girls; but it is also certainly rare in the more effeminate, dysfunctional context of modern Anglo-Saxon societies, where a male guide is often missing and women have too often never been told they are supposed to be sweet and feminine, which qualities actually attracts men.
The gay Mafia will, obviously, for you to believe otherwise. If sexual perversion is to be seen as normal, logic demands that it be seen as frequent. Hence, all those completely unreal figures you read around: two, three, four, even six percent!
Give me a break. Six percent means every class of thirty would have around two, two classes of twenty-five would be expected to have three. Really? Is this the reality you grew in? What was that, Sodom High?
No. This is all a huge fraud. Sexual perversion is very, very rare. If sexual perverts are so frequent, how is it that no one ever noticed these last many thousands of years? “Oh, but they were in the closet!” They will say. Poppycock again. You can't say being a fag or a dyke is what makes one person's real nature, but this nature can be hidden for a lifetime. It just doesn't make sense, unless we want to believe every closeted fag is born a wonderful actor. I couldn't fake being a woman for one second (I am sure even those who hate and despise me will have to admit that), so it's not clear to me how a massive, lifelong deception would have been possible in the same way.
No, the answer is very simple: the numbers of perverts is always very low, but it can be somewhat higher when Sodom is around one, just because there will be more people targeted for perversion, and more people without a clear role to follow. The poor boy who grew up in a single mother household might never know what it is to naturally learn to grow up and become a man, naturally following the example of the men in his environment. He will be a prime target for perverts. Whilst this does not make of him a pervert, it makes him more vulnerable if a bad tendency could develop in the meantime.
Still, we are talking very, very low numbers.
Have a walk in Central London on a typical Saturday afternoon. Count the people who are certainly perverts. Then add all the people who just look like they might be, and are more probably just metrosexual losers (you know the type: the faggoty trousers, the faggoty shirt, the general unmanly demeanour). Then compare all of them to all the perfectly normal, straight people you have crossed on the pavement that day. You will discover that even the number of clear + possible pervert is extremely slow in comparison to the general population, and I mean really low, clear-fraction-of-one-percent low. And I have included all the metrosexual losers, so please do not come to me with the “but you can't recognised them” argument.
No. Biased “statistics” clear do not match reality.
Reality speaks another language, and it tells you that perverts are very rare.
A person commits suicide; that is, he commits pretty much the worst sin available to mankind. Let us say that the suicide in question was a loving husband and father, very active in his church group, and otherwise admired by neighbours, pets and trees.
Let us also said that said suicide had troubles of his own: disease, bereavement, financial difficulties, you name it.
Find all the extenuating circumstances you want. Then add some more.
The question still remains: why should a suicide have a Catholic funeral?
Let us look at this as our forefathers did. Suicide is the worst sin. The scandal it gives is immense. Sadly, the suicide might act on other people tempted in the same way and suggest to them that yes, it can be done. You do not need a stellar IQ to understand how a Catholic funeral would amplify this effect in the eyes of the believer.
Whenever a suicide receives a Catholic funeral, scandal is added to scandal. It is as if Satan would receive this boost, that if he has not just obtained a victory he will be soon allowed to get other chances; courtesy of a nice Catholic community, led by a nice priest. Boy, how Satan must like this kind of niceness…
Let us look at it, then, from the point of view of the suicide. If he is in hell (which, unless you are blind and stupid, is still the most probable outcome in the majority of cases) then the Catholic funeral is a further gift made to Satan. But if the poor soul is not in hell, why on earth would he want something that might well lead to hell others? Is the soul in purgatory so concerned about being seen as “good” after he has committed suicide? No. He certainly would not want. Extremely grateful for having escaped hell, he would most certainly not want anything be done, remotely connected to his act, that might lead others to perdition.
Does this mean, then, that the absence of a funeral and the burying in not consecrated ground mean that the suicide is in hell? No, of course it doesn't. It never did, it never will. But certainly, it should mean that a terror and dread of hell should cause a shiver to run down the spine of the entire community, then a very concrete possibility of damnation is there, in front of everyone, plain to see. In Christian times, Satan's move was countered by a very powerful response. For one who was very possibly in hell, hundreds were terrified of going there.
Nowadays, Satan's move is accompanied by the nice community, who help him score a second time. After having very possibly taken one soul, Satan will take the funeral in his stride; and who knows, the atmosphere of understanding and near-certain salvation – many will be offended even at the hint salvation might not have been achieved – might well help him to get to further prey.
Were, then, our ancestors cruel? No. Very simply, they took heaven and hell seriously. If one had shot himself in the head, they did not go around saying “but he was so nice! Surely, whilst the bullet was on its way from the barrel to his head he had ample time to ask the Blessed Virgin for forgiveness?”
Look. The final word is, of course, God's. But God has given us a brain, and this brain is supposed to be used. Whilst we can only reason in terms of probabilities, there are probabilities that must make our blood chill. If they don't, it simply means that we have no fear of the Lord; because God can do everything, so He will save us whatever we do. Or because as we ultimately don't know, we are exempted from being utterly scared at what has very probably happened. This is another big door open to Satan, and every such funeral opens it a big wider.
Why, then, are such funerals, nowadays, universally celebrated? Because the fear of the Lord has given place to this fluffy feeling that we are all oh so nice, and therefore oh so evidently saved. It does not matter how bad the odds are, we are going to continue to believe in the most improbable of happy endings; because you see, how can there be any other? He was so… nice!
If I were so impious as to commit suicide, and if I were so lucky as to escape hell notwithstanding my terrible feat – temporal insanity, say; or even complete and conclamate madness – the last thing I would want is that an occasion be offered for others to go the same way. And no, the unconsecrated ground would not be bitter to me; on the contrary, having escaped hell after such a feat would be the sweetest thing, no matter how strong my suffering in Purgatory.
The funeral of the suicide does nothing for the suicide; but it does a lot for Satan, helping to spread an aura of general forgiveness around him, and contributing massively to the general loss of the fear of the Lord. It is, in the end, just another self-celebration of the community of the suicide, which is conveniently reassured that Satan cannot – I mean, we don't know exactly… but… really? How… cruel for you to even mention! – have struck just in their middle. Which, actually, he has, though we cannot be sure he succeeded.
Hell is real. The danger of ending there is very real for everyone of us. The right attitude is to keep this in mind, and go through life with a good dose of fear of what can happen to us. Funerals for suicides are not compatible with this view of life.
Our forefathers knew it. We don't.
But we understand niceness so well.
The Evil Clown has now promoted the notorious Tymothy Radcliffe to Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
It seems justice and peace are always the first preoccupation of perverts. Methinks, they need to feel “good” because they know very well how rotten they are.
This is a Papal appointment. It comes from the man himself. Radcliffe is too well-known, and far too outspoken in favour of sodomy, for anyone entertaining the silly idea that Francis might appoint him to such a position without fully knowing that in so doing he will promote the agenda of the sodomites.
It angers one enough that Francis should be so openly, how should I put it, gay. What angers one even more are those Catholics who keep writing nonsense like “I want to think he was not informed”. I do not doubt the very same people, on knowing Francis has been surprised in the midst of a sodomitical act, would comment “I want to think he did not know that was a man's backside”.
Open your big, blue eyes and realise that Francis is the enemy of Christ, the enemy of the Church, and your own personal enemy. He hates the Church and all it represents. He will wreak as much havoc as he can without risking being kicked out, or having his pontificate sink in a sea of accusations of heresy.
He hates us. He hates all of us. He hates all that we are.
He is on the side of the sodomites, the communists, the environ-mentalists. If you are an enemy of the West, Francis is your friend. If you hate Christian morality, Francis will do whatever he can to help you. It can be that Francis is not homosexual – something I personally find more and more difficult to believe -, but if this is the case, it goes to simply prove the point that he supports sodomites exactly because the Church condemns it.
Acts speak. Appointments count. It is utterly senseless to think these appointments have no meaning and no relevance. Even if Radcliffe were never to act once in his new position, not even ever to utter another word in public, his appointment to the Pontifical Council would still validate his perverted opinions – and, I bet my pint, mind and life – and further sabotage Catholicism.
Please do not say with this appointment Francis “confuses the Catholics”. He is not confusing in the least. He is very, very clear! Francis is at war with the Church, and his campaign will only stop where he fears destruction for himself or for his pontificate.
It pains me to say so, but at this point I think he got his calculations pretty right. Those who still did not get it after more than two years will probably – short of extreme acts like the proclamation of a false dogma, or the like – never get it. Francis will, therefore, continue to sabotage Catholicism through appointments, off-the-cuff speeches and any other way reasonably at his disposal, knowing that provided he avoids the very worst there will never be shortage of nincompoops ready to swallow all the excrements he dishes to them, and say they want to believe the Holy Father thinks it's chocolate.
They can eat Francis' excrements all they want. They will, one day, have to explain why they did so, and why they swallowed all of it so eagerly with nothing more than the most polite reservations.
We must call a spade a spade.
And I tell you: Francis is on the side of the Sodomites, and He wants to pervert your mind just as he has perverted his own.
I never cease to be amazed at how many people write on this and many other blogs and simply put their name there. Some of them may be pensioners or housewives, but for many others it may really not be the prudent thing to do.
Go back only ten or fifteen years and reflect whether you thought, then, that today people could be publicly lynched merely for donating money to a cause that fifteen years ago was simply seen as understood, and shared by every decent person. It is happening today, and it is happening on a massive scale, with the accusation of “homophobia” levelled at everyone who does not comply with the demands of the Gaystapo.
Now follow the timeline, and imagine what might easily happen ten or fifteen years down the line. The screening company working on behalf of your potential employer will fish (the Internet is an awfully open space) all the comments and statements you have left in the public space. If you run a blog, they will find it. But even if you simply write comments on blogs and fora, they will locate them without difficulty.
Their report to your perspective employer will then express “concerns” about the “hate” nature of your statement, and forecast “difficulties” of “integration” in a “diverse” environment. You will, then, easily be rejected.
Now, you can be an armchair general and proudly state that you don't care about all this. But if you have a mortgage, and perhaps wife and children, you are well advised to adopt a more prudent approach.
No one is required to invite persecution, and the Catacombs – which you should visit, if you can – are an impressive reminder of that. One of the most important traits of modern freedom is the ability to express your opinion anonymously, because not even modern Western societies can protect you from persecution. In fact, it appears evident that the end of the Cold War has now allowed the First World to dedicate an hysterical attention to matter that would have been considered secondary or irrelevant in the past, whilst the decay of proper logical thinking and Christian mores gradually gives way to childish emotionalism and heathenish thinking.
In ten years' time, you could be a reject of society. A man with dangerous ideas perhaps not shunned by his own neighbours, but considered of problematic employment. Granted: the pendulum will swing the other side at some point, and sanity will return. But you never know when, and you never know what level of madness will be reached before sanity comes back, given the army of grown children now shaping almost every Western democracy.
Be Catholic, but be prudent. Prepare for a world whose signs are manifesting with increasingly worrying frequency. Do not put too much trust in the self-healing ability of modern societies, because this self-healing often manifests only after things have become way too crazy. Think of what damage a short phenomenon like environ-mentalism has created in just a few years before being pushed back from the front line of the political agenda. Reflect that a secular society will always be in search of a secular religion: the “climate” yesterday, “gender issues” today, the persecution of “hateful” Christians tomorrow.
Like the Christians of yore, be as effective as you can, whilst avoiding imprudent exposure to harm. If persecution has to be, let it not be because of your rashness. Start working today on your cyber catacomb; you may have need for it before you think, and unless you start working on it today it will never be ready when the time comes to use it.
If the past is any indication of the future, we must be prepared for a very rough time; courtesy of people like Francis, who don't care about all this because it's not their problem, or wouldn't dislike persecuting Catholics themselves.
Vox Cantoris has a chilling post about a bishop of the Evil Clown's Satanical Club, who – I do not post the link here, but it is there – “floats” the idea that one of the Apostles might have been homosexual, and Mary Magdalene a Lesbian.
Apparently, The Gospels “don't say”, so “we don't know”.
I allow myself here to follow this brilliant logic and apply it to the bishop. The article doesn't say whether Bishop Córdoba is a child rapist, so we don't know. I am sure Bidhop Cordoba fully agrees with this thinking.
To say it with the words of the blog post's author, “It defies logic that someone would take the position that this man does and not be one”. I fully agree. Unless – and I am making a great effort here – the degree of faithless rottenness of Bishop Córdoba is such that he sees his satanical assertions as a smart political positioning in light of the new course under the Evil Clown. But no, I think the man is most probably a queen.
In case you should think the Evil Clown isn't wreaking havoc within the Church just because he will, if he hasn't smoked his communist brain completely, renounce to a nuclear explosion,
The argument used by this despicable piece of FrancisChurch are also enough to make the blood boil: besides being explicitly mentioned by Our Lord himself as the epitome of evil, godless behaviour – which should be argument enough for a Protestant – sodomy has been uniformly condemned by the Magisterium since the very beginning. That a Catholic bishop, of all people, should ignore path is fact and try to fabricate an extremely stupid biblical argument tells you what kind of evil men we have as bishops.
I will now try to bring my blood temperature to normal, reflecting that the satanical affirmations of this piece of work have certainly not escaped the attention of not only the Angels as a body, but the Apostles and Mary Magdalene in heaven. This, on reflection, is enough to conclude that things will take its course in due time, and I can sip my camomile tea in relative serenity.
Note, however, that Wikipedia seems to state that the man was made a bishop by Ratzinger, giving another example of the atrocious appointments of that nice but far too accommodating man, who was probably even blissfully unaware of what kind of venomous plants he was planting in the middle of Our Lord's garden.
The Church has never said that reprobates would not become bishops. This here stinks of reprobation like Francis' faggot priests stink of sheep.
As a (hopefully) good Catholic, I follow Church teaching on what the Church calls capital punishment, and pretty much the rest of the world calls death penalty.
It seems the twelve jurors at the trial of the Boston Marathon Bombers agree with me at least in extreme cases, because they have condemned young Tsarnaev to the death penalty through lethal injection. Now, let us add some cynical reflection to the news, because cynical reflections are exactly what you have grown to expect from this little effort.
1. Young Tsarnaev will, very possibly, never be executed. Far more probably, he will remain on death row for an indefinite, but very long number of years as a very long, very costly appeal and, in case, post-trial legal confrontation takes its course. It is nothing less than astonishing that there should be Countries where the decision about the execution of a sentence goes on for many times what it took to reach that sentence in the first place. It goes to show the immense stupidity of the modern, hypersensitive, so-called “human-rights” infested legal systems. If you asked me, Mr Tsarnaev would now be entitled to an appeal, to be conducted swiftly and accurately. If the sentence is confirmed, the only rights Mr Tsarnaev would then have would be limited to a priest (Catholic, of course; which is the only type anyway), a good last meal and a cigarette before facing the gallows at dawn the following day. But hey, it's just me.
2. The bleeding hearts in Massachusetts and elsewhere will soon find a new hero. Tales of the poor “child” misled by his evil brother will start circulating. Oh, the cruelty of the West! But the child didn't mean to harm! He only wanted to play! He is such a nice guy!
A country that allows a young girl to kill her baby in the womb discusses whether a grown man really wanted to make a massacre. Idiots.
3. Francis The Evil Clown will very probably jump on the bandwagon, as this would give him another wonderful opportunity to undermine Catholic teaching and confuse Catholics the world over, whilst making himself oh so beautiful in the eyes of the liberal crowds.
4. Whilst I approve of the sentence, it seems clear to me it only came about because of the big media impact and the resulting huge pressure on the jurors. The fact that twelve out of twelve jurors had to agree to the death penalty goes to show how high the hurdle was. If Young Tsarnaev had been Black, and had killed three White policemen, I wonder if the outcome would have been the same.
5. One is disappointed – as so often – at the softness of these supposed Jihad warriors. Young Tsarnaev should have welcomed his martyrdom, no doubt savouring the seventy-two girls with recyclable hymen he thinks are awaiting him.
Oh ye bastards of little infidel faith! It is always like that, you know: these Arabs always threat with the explosion of the entire Arab world, and three weeks later they are there taking down monuments, swearing peaceful intent and throwing shoes at their heroes of yesterday; as seen in 1990 in Kuwait, 2001 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Iraq.
Islam is a paper tiger. The West is so superior to them in absolutely everything, that they could be forced to silent submission in no time; they would even embrace the punishment, because Muslims reacts extremely well to violence from their masters (as seen in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, everywhere). Unfortunately, the West is dominated by a Country run by a cultural Muslim, limp-wristed, liberal atheist moron, so we are making no use at all of our staggering superiority.
Still: Mr Tsarnaev is going to get old in jail. Catholic teaching on Capital punishment is still very far from being implemented.
A group of loonies belonging to that loony factory called Berkeley University has staged a demonstration against the exploitation of cows. If you do not believe me, try here.
This is comedy gold. Absolutely hilarious.
I do not know what statement is the looniest, the stealing of the milk, or the “forcefully impregnate a cow” or the “mother” or “separate her from her baby” statement, or any of the others. Pigs are given funerals, because they are so smart. Goats … oh, well…
I wonder how many of the protesters are against abortion. My bet is “zero”.
Modern secular society demands that cattle are treated like humans, and humans like cattle.
This is what liberalism and drugs do to people. Show this to your children as a cautionary tale.
Sandro Magister reports that the announced Clown Encyclical in favour of Environ-mentalist has been postponed because, in its present form, it has no chance of being approved by the CDF.
This is both good and bad news. The good news is that there are still enough people in the Vatican asking Francis not to make an ass of himself at least when writing encyclical letters. Another good news is that Cardinal Müller is once again on the side of common sense, and is willing to stop the worst nonsense at the cost of incurring the ire of Heresy Supremo.
The bad news is that such a reaction could mean that Francis was really such an evil idiot that he wanted to present his own anti-Westerner, protocommie enviro-ranting as a teaching conforming to Church tradition and binding for all Catholics. Whilst this would not have made the madness less mad and the ranting binding in any way, this would have further increased confusion among Catholics.
We are also informed that a delegation of scientist visited Rome in the last days, and put an end to the “science” rubbish. I am sure my readers are far too intelligent to believe Francis can be swayed by logical arguments. Rather, it is clear the delegation was one of the ways used by the CDF to put an end to the worst excesses, sparing us from an encyclical letter influenced by the likes of Raul Castro and Cardinal Maradiaga.
Talking of the latter, it seems to me he is losing some clout in the splendid corridors of the Vatican. It seems to me that whilst Francis does not care a straw about everyday, off-the-cuff heresy and assorted madness, he has decided to draw a line when his pontificate can be seriously and permanently damaged. An encyclical has a character of permanence that an off-the-cuff half drunken video cannot have, and will shape his perception after his death in a far more significant way. Add to this that to set his protocommie rants in stone with an encyclical would ensure constant flak from people with a brain for as long as he lives, and would cause severe embarrassment even among those with half a brain still functioning. If Magister is right, this seems a price he is not ready to pay.
We shall see how this develops. Magister could be badly informed, though I think he seldom is. At the very, very least there is resistance brewing. Still, it seems reasonable to me to take the rumours seriously, because they make a lot of sense seen the circumstances.
Let us take every good news gladly, and savour it for very long. We aren't left completely at the mercy of an atheist commie loony. The machine seems not to like the man very much, both in some top positions and – I am absolutely sure of that, because I know my people – at the level of administration, where one thousands little obstacles will be put in his way in that subtle, but effective way Italians manage so well.
Still: please, please free us from this scourge, o Lord.
Those who, like me, aren’t the youngest anymore must have noticed how different modern Western societies are from the ones in which they grew up. In my case, the difference is even more noticeable, because coming from Italy I have experienced a bigger “jump” to the modern British society than one born here would experience.
It seems to me that Heatenism has now become mainstream, and that heathenish behaviour is considered normal by many of those who consider themselves, otherwise, Christian. The examples are too many to mention, from open and public premarital sex without even a hint of shame, to cohabitation, to open “celebration” of perversion, to open approval of abortion.
The young woman carelessly impregnated by a careless man is not ashamed anymore. She expects your support and approval as “single mother”. Actually, she will often expect money, too. The young colleague will tell you that he is “moving in” with his “girlfriend”, and the fact that the very thought would have horrified his grandmother does not enter his mind. Acquaintances will talk to you of their “gay friend” as if this were something vaguely amusing, very modern, and showing a great degree of “openness” and “tolerance”, XXI Century’s cheapest fare. Add to this the less public, but very real, massacre of children.
I could go on. You get the drift.
Now, this is exactly the behaviour that you would expect in, and used to read about, heathen societies. No shame, superstition as faith or no faith at all, cruelty to the weak, everyone as he likes it.
One must wonder, then. How were those heathenish societies of old treated by Our Lord? How many managed, do you think, to be saved? And why would a society that chose to forget Christianity be treated less harshly than a society who did not know it?
Can we really lull ourselves in the fluffy thinking that God, in the end, will be the Awfully Nice Guy In The Sky and save pretty much everyone, from Raul Castro to the activist feminist with three abortions her own? If this is so, what does “mortal sin” mean anymore? Why two thousand years of Christianity? Why evangelisation, proselytism, missionary work? Either all that was entirely wrong, or what is wrong is the Awfully Nice Guy In The Sky stuff.
No. If Christianity makes sense, there must be a big difference between a Christian and a Heathenish society. It cannot be simply a matter of nuances, and it cannot be that “nice types” are saved merely… because we like to think so. If Christianity makes sense, great will be – bar epochal changes – the number of the damned around you: those whom you are just observing now in the bus, the train, the office, or the cinema.
If most of those living in a shockingly heathenish, but oh so nice (not to aborted children, of course) society are saved, Christianity does not make any sense and we can relax thinking that The Great Guy has lied to us for some awfully smart reason of his own, and he will take care that we are all fine in the end. But then we cannot relax even in this case, because in this case God has lied to us, and I would find the idea, beside blasphemous, terrifying.
Again, no. Christianity makes sense, and there is no way you can imagine a world where it doesn’t, and you aren’t in big trouble. Therefore, one must conclude that – bar an epochal change – we live surrounded by a great number of reprobates. A terrifying, but a very logical thought.
How do we react to this? In the only way we can. Praying for everyone, even those in most need of God’s mercy, and caring everyday for our soul and for the soul of those we love; so that, in the great shipwreck I seem to observe if I look back to my youth and compare that world with my present one, we can at least help ourselves to reach a rescue boat, and manage to heave on it other poor souls, and as many as we can of those we love most.
I look at the people around me and cannot escape the thought: if Christianity makes sense, very many of these – hopefully excluding yours truly – will be damned. If most of them are saved anyway, and there are no real consequences for living a heathenish life, then Francis is right, Christianity has been pretty useless these two thousand years, is certainly almost irrelevant for salvation and only good, at most, to improve one’s quality of life in the “joy” of a salvation that will come anyway, for pretty much everyone.
If Christianity makes sense, the reality around us is simply terrifying: a multiple nuclear explosion in instalments waiting to happen, and making more victims among souls than all wars in the history of humanity caused in loss of lives.
We, my dear reader, register this obvious consequence of Christian thinking with a renewed effort to save our own soul, and to do what we can to heave our beloved ones – and those we do not know, too – in the rescue boat with us. Terrifying as the thought of mass punishment is, we know the Lord does everything right, nor can we say we have not been warned.
Let us pray more, and better. Let us stay near to the Sacraments. Let us not relent in our effort. Let us not become complacent in the thinking that “we will be fine”.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Its absence must, therefore, be the height of stupidity.
After their brutal defeat, the British Labour Party are now in search of a new leader, a new direction and, hopefully, some sense.
Listening to TV and radio programmes here and there one gets one thing: many supporters of the Party just do not get, do not want to accept that Labour is doomed whenever they go down the Socialist way. The decision to elect Ed Milliband as leader was a clear bet against England’ future, as such a party would never have a chance if the economy would recover. But then again, Labour activists were not the kind of people who thought the economy would ever recover. To them, Capitalism – even the very mild British version – was not only evil, but broken beyond repair. To them, Chavez – or a slightly milder version of him – was the way.
The economy recovered. Many British voters understood that this is not the time to put their destiny in the hands of English and Scottish social loonies. Labour lost bad.
Now let us examine Pope Francis near Ed Milliband. The mindset is exactly the same: social envy as a way of life and statism as the cure for every real or imaginary disease. Not only both have their eyes firmly fixed on earthly problems, but both see in Capitalism the origin of them.
Milliband is an Atheist Jew. Now ask yourself: if Francis were to be Jew and Atheist himself, would you notice any difference in the way he thinks and speaks? I wouldn’t. He would be the very Milliband, without the abuse of Catholicism to push his socialist agenda. Which lets me wonder: how can a man believe in God and be so obsessed with a Socialist agenda? Is it not far more reasonable to assume that Francis is a Christian Atheist, and a Socialist, in the same way as Milliband is a Jewish Atheist, and a Socialist?
Ed Milliband is now gone, but Francis is still there. When you get a Socialist at the head of the Church there is no General Election to care for his removal, and Francis cannot be removed as easily as Ed Milliband.
But he is not one bit less Socialist – and very probably, less Atheist – than the other one.
Sandro Magister has an interesting article (in Italian) about Francis and the Synod. In his usual way, Magister says in a polite way what many already know: Francis did all he could to support Kasper, but the October fiasco showed the task is beyond his strength. He also understands – says Magister – that next October the resistance will be much stronger, because people are prepared. Therefore, quite the Jesuit – a word used in Italy with a strong derogatory meaning, though Magister seems to pretend not to be aware of it – he has decided to distance himself from the Kasperites, avoiding the support he had previously given them. Magister follows with a long list of Francis interventions which seems, since October, to strike a more traditionalist tone in matter of family, children etc.
In part, I disagree with Magister. It seems to me that Francis' continuous stress on “mercy” is Kasperite to the very bone marrow. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that Francis avoids leaning out of the balcony in a very explicit way in this matter, limiting himself to the covert support he can give with his “symbolic” gestures like receiving Trannies.
It seems to me that Francis will – and I quite agree with Magister on this – be his usual self Jesuit and avoid a confrontation that would crush his pontificate to the ground. Rather than trying to officially change your religion, he will try to direct you towards his own one: the mix of social hatred, third-rate pacifism, third-world rhetoric and environmental madness with which he bores us pretty much every day.
If you must have such an Evil Clown as a Pope, it's better to have a Jesuit one. He will run for cover whenever he sees dark clouds approaching.
Or, as Magister puts it – implying, by the way, that the man is a heretic – he will be a “realist”.