Daily Archives: June 24, 2015

Contra Mundum

Mundabor's Blog

The Traditional Catholic Priests has one (actually, two) posts about St Athanasius.

St Athanasius did not declare the Pope deprived of his office. He did not start any “Athanasian” church. He did not care about precedent, either.

St Athanasius did the Catholic thing, and kept doing what had always been done to the end; irrespective of how mad, or weak, or evil the Pope of the day was.

We look today at those years and see a coherent development: Satan tries to destroy the Church. Faithful Catholics react. Satan loses.

However, in those times things were certainly not so linear. For many years, actually a couple of decades, vast part of Christianity must have looked like a nuclear wasteland, the air full of Arian nuclear fallout. It was, certainly, not so easy in those days to believe in the Indefectibility of the Church as we do now.

We do now…

View original post 266 more words

Advertisements

The Rise Of The Bastard

In times past, the son of an adulterous relationship was called a “bastard”. Unpleasant as this was for the young person in question, the custom had an obvious social control function: very simply, it made it much less than desirable to be born a bastard.

Was the bastard “guilty” of his parent’s sin? No, he wasn’t. They had sinned, not him, if we exclude the original sin which affects us all. But the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons, and the bastard will have to accept this like everyone else. The sin of the parents created a disadvantageous situation for the son. It had to be so, if Christian family had to be protected. 

The bastard was also – in many Countries, like Italy – either excluded or partially excluded from the inheritance. Was this fair? It certainly was it in consideration of the higher interests at stake. It was so, because the need to protect the Christian vision of society was considered more important than the private drama of the poor boy or girl, however unfortunate his own situation.

Now, in this as in the other matters just discussed (the son of the scandalous adulterers) the attitude changed when the priorities changed. When God’s rules were the priority, there was no discussion about these matters. But when the West began to de-Christianise, suddenly the destiny of the illegitimate son was seen as “cruel”.

Lose sight for the priorities, and all the rest will crumble.

As Christianity retreated from First Priority to Great Embarrassment, the rules had to change. The child is illegitimate, but he must be made a legitimately illegitimate child. He will share equally in the inheritance, thus compromising the patrimonial integrity of the family and taking away the idea that it… pays to be born in a proper family. He must also not be called “cruel” names, thus obliterating the sin and placing another huge bomb under the stool of Christian society. The rise of the bastard (around half of the children currently born in the UK as I write this) is largely the result of the decline of Christianity.

All this PC thinking hides a de facto Paganism, in which Christian rules are seen as an impediment. When Christianity is seen as cruel, the rules must be bent to accommodate them to the new religion: inclusiveness; at this point, Christian values can be stuffed. They are the impediment. Popes and other Kasperites will run to invent a new vocabulary of fluffy heresy to persuade us of what no generation of Christians ever believed. 

At some point, is it a surprise that these new Pagans will see it as “cruel” that the adulterers and the open fags do not receive communion?

Lose sight of your priorities, and everything else will crumble.

M

Irreversible… What?

The Satanic Prelates want to introduce the category of “irreversible adultery”. Yes, they say. It’s kinda bad; but it’s “irreversible”, so let’s be “pastoral”.

Let us examine this.

If Joe Bloggs makes a child with her cohabiting sister, Emma Blogs, should he remain with her because their incest is – how was that again – “irreversible”? No. It’s incest. It’s scandal. Therefore it must be reversed.

“But the child? The chiild? Why must the chiiiiild suffer???”

Because it’s a scandal, you simpleton! The scandal must end. It is infinitely better that there be inconveniences for the member of the scandalous union, rather than the scandal to be perpetuated for the sake of mere individuals. The Christian community is more important than individuals. The necessity not to give scandal must prevail over the convenience of members of scandalous arrangements.

When a man is convicted for murder, he goes to jail for a number of years, or even to his execution. He might leave behind a family (even a real one, born of a marriage) destroyed. Does the murderer avoid jail, or execution, because of the “irreversible” situation of having a child? No, he doesn’t. Does the child suffer at being deprived of his father? Yes, he does. Why does he suffer? Because it must be so. Because there is a superior interest at stake than his desire to grow near his father.

Does this apply only for murder? No. One can be jailed for many years for a number of reasons (say: tax evasion). Whenever this happens, a family can be “reversed”, and children deprived of their father. Where’s the cry of the Catholic nation?

When a husband is violent to his wife, she leaves him. This means the children lose almost all contact with a – let us say, in these cases – perfectly adequate, loving father, as being violent to the wife does not mean not being good, or needed, as a father. Does the Catholic world say that the wife should suffer the violence because of the irreversible situation? No. The Catholic world says that the child will have to cope with the new situation, period.

Adulterous scandal is continued attempted perdition of two souls, to which the danger of perdition of other souls through scandal is added. A Christian society understands this. A Christian society has its priority in order. A Christian society considers adulterous scandal much worse than tax evasion, a real murderous attack on many souls.

It is only when the priorities are not in order, that suddenly the child becomes so important. It is only when the greater damage made to society is willingly downplayed or not understood in the first place, that suddenly scandal must be tolerated for the sake of the child. Do we leave murderers free to roam our roads for the sake of their children? Do we really understand the gravity of adulterous scandal as a big bomb put in the middle of Christian communities? Do we really understand the nuke bomb effect of giving “ways” or “paths” for these unions to be “included”? If we care for Christ, we do. If we don’t, we don’t care for Christ.

Make no mistake: most of those who cry so loud about the children of adulterous couple would not hesitate in justifying the wife and mother leaving her husband caught cheating. Suddenly, the children are not so all-important. Suddenly, the situation is not so “irreversible”. 

No. Let me put it straight: the more you care for individual destinies, the less you care for God. When you do not care for God’s laws, individual destinies become all-important, and God becomes the embarrassment that must be outmanoeuvred and mercy-talked away. But then those very interests are readily discarded for civil offences, or for offences to women.

Where do your priorities lie?

Irreversible, my foot. The couple of the murdered is “reversed” all right when he is jailed. The child is separated from his father because it must be so. That’s it.

Get your priorities all right, and your thinking straight.

Show if you care more for God’s laws, or for civil offences.

M

%d bloggers like this: