Monthly Archives: September 2015
Francis is on record with a public, very harsh dressing down of Mr Marino, the Mayor of Rome. No link, because I don't want to induce you into temptation.
As always, journalists try to explain the sudden outburst with rational arguments. Some say it's because Marino is a vocal promoter of sexual perversion and even euthanasia; other say it's because the Mayor refuses to make infrastructure and other investments in the wake of the Year Of False Mercy. I say: poppycock.
Francis has just finished rubbing his soutane to the trousers of the First Gay President and receives, protects and promotes perverts in any way he can, so it can't be the first reason. The second argument might be more credible – his wish isn't your command, so he is very crossed – but this does not seem the cause of the quarrel either, as in this case Francis should insult by name all politicians who don't follow his “extreme socialism” agenda day in and day out.
No, if you ask me, the reason for Francis' outburst is very simple:
1) He doesn't like the man. The chemistry does not work. That's it, then. This is why the same pope who lives under the roof of an homosexual refuses the accreditation of a homosexual ambassador. Sorry, mate: the man just doesn't like your mug.
2) Marino is about as popular as genital cancer. Francis can kick him whilst he is on the ground without danger, and actually ride the wave of symphathy this will cause among the frustrated citizen. Obama is the hero, Marino the villain. Quite the Jesuit, I know.
The reality of this man's brain is very simple. There is no need to imagine any complicated strategy. It's just an old, very vain, and rather stupid man doing what is, by all rational standard, another stupid thing and looking once again the coward and bully that he is.
Congratulation, Frankie. Let the mob applaud your bullying as much as you like. At the end of this you will stay there as the petty, dumb tyrant you are, and more people will have opened their eyes about your real character.
I read around about the dismay of good, sincere Catholics at the Synod being “non conclusive” and the heretics continuing their evil work after it.
The Pope is an obvious heretic (material, for now) and a blatant enemy of Catholicism. As long as a commie heretic is in power there is no human hope that heretics will be silenced. If you desire the silencing of the heretics, you must desire the end of this Extremely Shitty Pontificate. I am sorry to have to break it to you, but it's time to smell the air around you and draw the consequences.
Personally, I would be extremely happy for every outcome that avoids any kind of formal pronouncement, motu proprio or other official heretical papal nonsense. Were it to be so, the entire synod would be unmasked as a very expensive exercise which failed in its obvious aim of gravely undermining Catholic doctrine.
Would there be, after that, an army of heretics among bishops and cardinals? Of course there would be, their head is still there! It is unrealistic to think that Francis could be any part of the solution, because Francis is 100% part of the problem!
Let us hope and pray that this shameless synod goes by without major earthquakes, and it's soon as forgotten as Francis' camera-driven love for wheelchairs, or Ford cars.
One step at a time. One madness at a time. One day, sanity will triumph.
How the clowns have fallen! The Mass in Philadelphia might have “attracted” (read: not repulsed) less than 80,000.
The mind boggles. A Pope visits, and a well-attended football match will attract more people. The Mayor, very appropriately called Nutter, says it's not about the numbers. He would have been happy with a half dozen in his living room, I suppose, but I am sorry to say the excuse does not work.
Let us call this with his name, shall we? This was a big flop.
Francis made everything he could to please the godless – that's what he does all the time, any way -, but being the Pope he had to say, in a way, and en passant, a thing or two that sounded vaguely Catholic. This is enough to deprive him of the status of Most Favourite Idiot by the liberals, whilst the despise and horror of the Catholics continues unabated.
Too weak for the wrong crowd. Utterly heretical for the right one. Already boring for all the others.
That's it. That was it for Frankie The Clown. He is now just another “has been”, ready to be thrown in the rubbish bin of former reality show starlets.
This is what happens to you if you make yourself the whore of popularity. He had to know he had it coming.
Unless he dies or resigns (let me be clear on this: both extremely desirable outcomes) he will live to see his ignominious descent into churchofengland (one word) nothingness, as the serious Catholics refuse to go to hell with him and the others just refuse to have anything to do with him.
What a sad clown this evil clown is.
“To raise doubts about the working of the Spirit, to give the impression that it cannot take place in those who are not ‘part of the group’, who are not ‘like us’, is a dangerous temptation,” the Holy Father said Sept. 27.
“Not only does it block conversion to the faith; it is a perversion of the faith!”
Thus the Evil Clown at the final mass in Philadelphia.
It would be difficult to find, in this endlessly talking pope, other examples of heresy and blasphemy described in such a concise way.
Let us see the ways in which Satan works through this man.
- Catholics do not doubt the work of the Holy Spirit. So much so, that they think that the Holy Spirit guards the Church from the ultimate damage those like Francis would like to inflict on Her. The contrary is the case: those who, literally, doubt the working of the Holy Spirit are exactly those who think that the Church has got it wrong up to now. And please, can’t this man just say “Holy Spirit” as generations of Catholics before him have done? He seems to have an instinctive aversion for all that is holy. I wonder why.
- This is pure “Francispeak”: in an absurd argumentative jump with no logic or explanation, to “doubt the Spirit” equates to “giving the impression that it cannot take place in those who are not part of the group”. The logical jump is unexplained and unacceptable, and the reasoning is wrong in itself. No, you Evil Clown, the Holy Ghost can work in all those who are “out of the group”, prompting them to want to get in abandoning their errors and evil ways. This clothed ass wants us to believe that when the Holy Ghost works in a murderer, he can then become part of the group as an unrepentant murderer.
- In the crowning of this purely, purely satanic progression Francis then proceeds to tell us that if you do not embrace this kind of “free for all”, you (not him, mind: you) are perverting the faith! Er, well, no. You can only pervert the faith by letting it become something different from what it has always been. This is most certainly exactly what Francis is doing. He is the blasphemer and the pervert, not us.
This man truly exceeds every boundary of decency. He does so profiting from the prestige and authority given to him in virtue of his being the Pope; authority and prestige that is rapidly sinking anyway; particularly among Catholics, a fact of which we receive new confirmations with now increased frequency (try here for the latest example).
The man talks like a drunken idiot, or a man willingly choosing Satan. There’s nothing Catholic in him. Nothing whatever. His religion is social envy, his outlook a purely socialist one, his mission the destruction of the Church he hates so much.
Please, God, in your own time, free us from this evil man.
One of the very many beauties of the Only Church is that it is always so logical. One of the effects of this beautifully logical edifice is that Catholic thinking does not bring anyone to go against sound common sense in matter pertaining the way she is run and functions. of course, Christianity itself seems to fly in the face of reality in certain things – and only at first sight, whereas a deeper and well-instructed look actually discloses a world of deeper wisdom -; but as to everyday decisions and the way the Church runs her course, one can say that robust common sense is always the best way to recognise how the Church thinks.
Common sense tells us that Francis is the Pope, because if it looks like a pope, swims like a pope, and quacks like a pope, then it probably is a pope. You know Francis is Pope. You know it with the same immediacy with which you know that that thing up in the sky is the Moon. It’s there. That’s it.
Unfortunately, whilst the existence of the moon is not particularly obnoxious to everyone, the existence of this particular pope is a tragedy to every sincere and well-instructed Catholic. True as this certainly is, it does not mean that we can cancel this Papacy out of existence more than we could the Moon. He’s there. That’s it.
Every now and then, this or that ground is advanced to explain why the Pope would not be the Pope, which to me always seems like being told that the Moon is actually a squirrel. The last wave of delusion took its course when cardinal Danneels, succumbing to an obvious attack of “I am the Queen of England”-itis, decided to come out of the closet as the self-appointed Great Manipulator of the 2013 conclave which gave us the Evil Clown.
Predictably, the Emergency Exit fans were all excited. Alas, they must not know much of Church history, or else believe the popes of the past were elected by way of the Holy Ghost spreading some kind of Sanctity Dust over the head of the electors. If they knew the truth, they would know that intrigues and conspiracies of the one now adduced as ground for the lack of validity of the Evil Clown’s election were simply there all the time. Apart from the obvious corruption of the clergy during long centuries of the Church’s history, the widespread custom of electing very old and frail popes – called “transition popes” – was meant to do nothing else than allow the decision about the “durable” pope to go on in a softer way behind the scene. Basically, it was permanent negotiation, and the real conclave was only the way the choice was formally sanctioned; pretty much in the same way as a law is voted in the legislative chamber after months of patient negotiations, and the necessary weighing of the interests of several parties have gone through the various phases of drafting and discussion at committee level.
Nor can anyone say that hey, in the past there were other rules, but since JP II everything has changed. Who would seriously believe – even without being a Canon Law expert – that a Pope would make the legitimacy of each and every one of his successors uncertain?
No. Common sense says that it cannot be so.
It common sense is not good enough for you, this here is the canon law argument.
The part you are looking for is this one:
Thus, it is hard to see what canonical consequences a cardinal would have to fear if he were to admit to a canonical crime punishable by latae sententiae excommunication. If it turns out that one or more cardinals violated, say, Universi 81, they might (and I stress, might) be “automatically” excommunicated, but “automatic” excommunication impacts—I hate to put it this way—only the liceity of ecclesiastical acts, not their validity. So, while it might be distressing to see appointed to synodal service some cardinals who could be “automatically excommunicated”, whatever acts such men might place at a synod would be, by the plain text of canon law, valid.
It is perfectly clear. It makes perfect sense. It’s the only way things can go.
The Church is run by logical, not emotional rules. Her divine edifice is, at the same time, beautifully sound when seen with a simple, logical common sense approach. There would be no certain papacy, and in the end no Church, if the legitimacy of a Pope could be called into question for reasons like Danneels’ and others’ behaviour.
Those who seem to like such outlandish propositions should stop looking for the emergency exit and delve into church history a bit more instead. It will disabuse them of this idea of the “invariably good pope elected by holy men under the guidance of the Holy Ghost”.
The Church is not indefectible because of the popes she had. On the contrary, the popes she had are the best practical evidence that she is indefectible.
Stop looking for the emergency exit.
“self-righteous: having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior”.
The expression “self-righteous” (in Italian, rather, the expression “sanctimonious”was used) is generally referred to those people who think themselves superior, or morally better, than the average folk out there.
In the past, the expression was normally referred to people who were, in fact, pious, though certainly imperfect at least in the appreciation of those criticising them.
Why was it so? Very obviously, because there were universally accepted rules of right and wrong, and an all-dominating Christian ethics, which made it easy for everyone to have the same moral coordinates and the same rules of conduct, though people might have varied in the way they managed to keep to them.
This has changed in the last two or three generations but, interestingly, the vocabulary has not kept pace with the changed thinking.
In modern times, you will find an awful lot of people – and the more superficial they are, the more easily they will have this trait) who are “characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior”.
No, they aren’t the old rosary-counters Francis despises so much. On the contrary, they are their enemies. people, that is, who have made an entire system of cosmic right and wrong for themselves, and think this home-made potpourri of banality and stupidity the non plus ultra of human wisdom.
What is this, if not the very embodiment of self-righteousness in its stupidest, most arrogant form?
Clealry, the idiots continuously spitting such epithets cannot think straight – or cannot think at all -; because if they did, they would clearly see that the shortcoming they reproach in the others is present in them in a vastly bigger scale.
We live in an age of self-righteousness like no age before ours has ever seen; an age in which countless people think, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, that they actually can decide what is right and what is wrong. But they don’t call this self-righteousness. They call, absurdly, “self-righteousness” the submission of others to a system of rules these others have not made, and humbly accept as vastly superior to themselves. A system of rules that is not easy for anyone – not for those who propose it, either – and requires from its supporters the same sacrifices as from all others.
It is nonsensical, and paradoxical. It is as if Stalin would accuse his enemies of being “totalitarian”, or Hitler his of being “antisemitic”.
There can be, by definition, no more self-righteous person than the one who claims a god-like ability to decide about the right and wrong of absolutely everything and anything for himself. But do they see it? Oh no.
When they say “self-righteous”, they always mean you.
May God always guide and protect this, His loyal servant.
Not for the first time, the honesty and courage of this man take my breath away.
It is because the Church of Christ produces priests like Father Dickson that she will never be defeated.
Observing the press around Francis' movements and speeches one common theme is apparent: Francis is seen as someone who wants to make the Church different from what she is. There is Francis here, and the Church there, and the two are undoubtedly different. Even those who have an interest in supporting Francis in order to sabotage the Church are forced to do so by stressing how different he is; and, by reflex, how he is sabotaging the Church.
This is a self-defeating narrative. Once it is clear that Francis is different, it must follow for every Catholic that he is wrong, as even my cat understands that the differences here are substantial and not merely cosmetic.
Francis was not able to attack Catholicism on the sly, like a smarter man than he would have done. His lack of basic prudence and sufficient intelligent – coupled with a great theological ignorance, making him unable to detect his huge blunders before they are tweeted worldwide – make this attack obvious, and impossible to be explained away with any sort of Catholic continuity. But at this point, he has lost already. Who will believe him? Those who have an interest in following him even knowing he is wrong. But this is no surprise, and no news. If the Pope declared his allegiance to Satan he would become the darling of Satanists. It is, therefore, no surprise that he should be popular among perverts, communists, enviro-nuts and public, unrepentant adulterers.
This may be all good for a headline or three. Only it isn't Catholicism, and everyone understands it. It is clear by now that no matter how many headlines are written about Francis, they are always about the difference from, not the adherence to, Cathoicism.
This is why Francis has lost the battle. He will always have the wrong crowd on his side, but he will never have the Catholics! They will be, they already are horrified from him! These Catholics may well be a minority, but they will always be those who get to define what Catholicism is even for all the others, exactly in the same way every outsider knows the orthodox Jew is the “real” Jew, and the “progressive” Jew is merely a secular chap using religion as a social tool.
You can't demand that two and two be five and present yourself as a Math teacher. You can't demand that alcohol be freely available to everyone and candidate as head of the League of Temperance. You can't demand that communion be available to adulterers and present yourself as a true Catholic.
Francis has lost the battle. He could not get Catholics on his side, and they will be his doom in life and after death. He is now irredeemably branded – and rightly so – as a subversive and enemy of the Church. He may rape the Church, but he will never win her.
He will always be remembered as the rapist, not the protector. He may carry with him the abortionists, the perverts, the nutcases of all sorts. But the battle for Catholic hearts and minds, that is now lost forever.
Once strongly Christian Country imposes sexual perversion on its largely already perverted population. President of said Contry lets his office and residence be lighted in the colours of the perverts, and celebrates their depravity.
Pope visits the Congress of this Country, and his President. No mention of sanity in matters of sexual morality that I can detect up to now. I do not expect anything going beyond the vaguest of allusions, made to appease the stupid, who will see in his words what he knows only they will see.
Today, though, we are treated to an invitation to avoid “harsh language”. What Christ would thinks of this, I do not even ask.
Who is worse: the perverted judges of the Supreme Court of such Country, its President, or the Pope who clearly supports them as much as he can?
The first two are certainly satanical.
But the third one, he is the one that truly chills your blood.
The Volkswagen emissions scandal is now everywhere and I am pretty sure we have not heard the last about it, as the digging into what has happened (perhaps not only at Volkswagen?) is, methinks, just beginning.
It occurred to me that there is another chap, well-known to all of us, whose toxic emissions are 40 or 50 times the maximum allowed. How I wish a tweaking of some software, a re-engineering of his internal working could rapidly bring his level of toxicity within the norm!
Alas, we do not have such a system. But the Church does have its own EPA, and this body should actually do its work with much more zeal than the EPA itself. I am talking of our Bishops and Cardinals, who have seen the Evil Clown spewing pure anti-Catholic venom for too long now, and should slowly but surely start to act and put an end to this Anti Catholic Emissions festival.
Many signals indicate that the Catholic EPA may be working, behind the scene, to achieve such an objective. May their work be crowned with success. Prayer and penance. Penance and prayer.
We have had enough of this toxic papacy.
This excellent* article about Pope Francis is now several days old, but I think it is well worth an extra blog post.
In my eyes, it marks the definitive end of not only the “Francis Effect” (which has never existed beyond a predictable “novelty effect”), but of the tolerant attitude of the mainstream media concerning the continuous blunders and obvious incompetence and lack of basic intelligence of the man. The fact is, if a man thinks like an ass, talks like an ass and behaves like an ass, at some point the press will have to acknowledge that he is an ass or lose every credibility with the readers.
You read in this article phrases that I never thought (before 2013) I would read on the Washington Post about any Pope, ever. I do not even post examples, because in Mr Will’s article they are an incessant cannonade.
Is the man angry at the Church? Maybe, but he makes a solid argument for the absolute incompetence and vacuity of the man. His criticism is linked not to the Church’s ideology, but to those huge shortcomings of the man that everyone with a functioning brain can see without any difficulty.
Mr Will also, and very fittingly, tells us the man is just a plain cretin. This, an outlet like the Washington Post would never write openly. Therefore, the author uses kind euphemisms, like when he slams “his woolly sentiments that have the intellectual tone of fortune cookies” or that veritable pearl, “[Francis] neglects the duty to be as intelligent as one can be”.
Note here that even one who writes that the Church thought that is was “settled science that Galileo was heretic” (ruler on Mr Will’s fingers for that, and he should document himself better before writing such nonsense) still he gets very well that “Secular people with anti-Catholic agendas drain his prestige, a dwindling asset, into promotion of policies inimical to the most vulnerable people and unrelated to what once was the papacy’s very different salvific mission”. (emphasis mine).
Francis enjoyed a “Pope bonus”. That bonus is now gone. You can’t tell the world that in the man in white we have in front of us an 1A, ISO-certifiable, incompetent ass. But at some point, you’ll have to hint at it, and all but say it for your intelligent readers. Because at some point, your very credibility will be on the line.
*No. I do not approve of everything he writes, nor will you. Still: excellent.
Pope mocks devout Catholics believing he is the Anti-Christ (of course not, the Anti-Christ will be smarter). He states he is no Anti-Pope (of course not, there is no Pope whose throne he would illicitly claim). He even states he can recite the Creed in order for us to be persuaded. (Of course he can, in fifty years of forced recitation p even the tickest head would manage to learn words in which he does not believe).
The doubts about whether this man has anything Catholic in him have now officially made it to the papal aeroplane. The man must give embarrassed, stupid and more than vaguely arrogant answers to questions that only three years ago would have seemed pure lunacy.
This is beyond parody. At the same time, it is the very real pontificate of Jorge Bergoglio, the Evil Clown.
Whoopi Goldberg, always the princess, is on record with the expression – addressed to pro-life people – “get out of my vagina”.
I think I can reassure her.
I cannot think of any sane man who would want to get in there in the first place.
Why is Francis flying to another Continent?
In order to preach to others not to cause CO2 emissions with things like, erm, flying. He also wants to promote his favourite political agenda: Peronism.
Flying over an ocean with his entire entourage. Isn't this hypocritical?
Yes, it is. But Francis lives in a shame-free zone in which reason, coherence, or even basic sense of decency are not allowed to enter. And he also is, let us say it, rather stupid.
Why did Francis also visit Cuba?
Officially, because it's a Catholic Country. Unofficially, in order to boost the local Communist regime, which persecuted Catholics and destroyed everything than could be destroyed for more than half a century. But they hate Capitalism, like him.
But is a Pope not supposed to be critical of Communism?
A normal Pope, yes. A faithless Peronist who chose religious life in order to scrounge a comfortable and privileged existence, no.
What else did Pope Francis do in Cuba?
He talked, as always, a lot of nonsense. He went so far as to say that it is good that there is dissent and division within the Church. The usual rubbish, on steroids.
Why would he say that?
Because he is evil and, as already stated, stupid to boot. He wants to undermine Church teaching with his Modernist or outright secular rubbish, but being the ass he is he can't go at it with any subtlety. This is why nowadays even big traditional outlets mock him.
What will Francis do in the United States?
Officially, he will take part in some World Catholic gathering or other, of the kind which makes stupid girls of stupid parents pregnant. Unofficially, he clearly wants to boost Obama's socialist, environ-mentalist and homosexualist agenda. It is his agenda, too, so it makes sense.
Why do you say that?
Because of the rubbish the man has been producing from his Peronist mouth since records began. There is truly no reason to believe he will change his tune now. Mind, he will hint at a Catholic thing or two. This will appease the Pollyannas and delight the assorted groupies.
What else do I need to know?
He will attend a reception at which Obama has invited all sorts of perverts, dissenters, and outright enemies of the Church. Of course he could have prevented this, but he clearly didn't. He wants to spread his own anti-Gospel.
Will it work?
No, it will not work. He couldn't even fill the hotel rooms, no matter how cheap. People are starting to see through him. The novelty effect has disappeared, and he now looks like yesteryear's reality show hero.
I have written only yesterday one post in praise of “Pewsitter”. The reason for that is that a Catholic blogger had started a rather snarky attack on him (and I know why: because he has been criticised on the site), and this attack was promptly echoed by the Snarky Attack Supremo of “c”atholic blogdom himself. No names here, because this is a Catholic blog and we should not engage in public attacks if we can avoid it, lest the atheists laugh.
The first site pulled its blog post. I notice now that the second site pulled its blog post, too.
My suggestion is that these people – who are supposed to be reputable bloggers – think twice about what they post; and when they post it, let it stay there. If they did so, they would obviously avoid posting such rubbish. And if they really did, they would at least have the dignity and balls to state to the entire blogging world: “this is what I think”.
This blog isn’t for the faint-hearted. But I never pull a blog post because of the reasons that moved the two above mentioned guys to pull theirs. What I write, I write in front of the Blessed Virgin, to the best of my knowledge and conscience, and hoping to be of service to Truth. Then it stays on the blog, too.
Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay.
Otherwise you will look like a child playing with dangerous toys.
I was thinking…
Perhaps I should seize a middle-sized Country with violence.
Have tens of thousand executed.
Persecute the Church.
Deprive everyone of everything they have.
Destroy the economy to the ground.
Then, Francis would like me, and praise me as much as he can.
Courtesy of Mahounds’ Paradise, an undiluted insight into that rubbish bin that is Francis’ mind.
Havana, 20 September 2015.
You are standing up and I am sitting. How unmannerly. But you know why I sit down? It’s because I took some notes of some things that our companion here said, and what I want to say is based on these.
One word that struck a chord is “dream.” A Latin American writer has said that people have two eyes: one of flesh and another of glass. With the eye of flesh, we see what is before us and with the eye of glass, we see what we dream of. It’s nice, no? In the objectivity of life, the capacity of dreaming has to enter in. A young person who is not capable of dreaming is cloistered in himself, he’s closed in on himself. Sure, a person sometimes dreams of things that are never going to happen. But dream them. Desire them. Seek the horizon. Open yourselves to great things.
I’m not sure if in Cuba they use this word, but in Argentina, we say, Don’t be wimpy. Open yourselves and dream. Dream that the world with you can be different. Dream that if you give the best of yourself, you are going to help this world be different. Don’t forget. Dream. If you get carried away and dream too much and life cuts you off, don’t worry. Dream and share your dreams. Speak about the great things that you want, because inasmuch as your capacity to dream is greater, when life leaves you only half way, you will have gone farther. So, first dream.
You said a phrase that I underlined and took note of: “that we might know how to welcome and accept the one who thinks differently than us.” Truly, sometimes we are closed in. We shut ourselves in our little world: “This is either the way that I want it or we’re not doing it.” And you went even further, “that we don’t close ourselves into the ‘little convents’ of ideologies or in the ‘little convents’ of religions. That we might grow in the face of individualism.”
When a religion becomes a “little convent” it loses the best that it has, it loses its reality of adoring God, of believing in God. It’s a little convent of words, of prayers, of “I’m good and you’re bad,’ of moral regulations. I have my ideology, my way of thinking and you have yours; I close myself in this “little convent” of ideology.
Open hearts. Open minds. If you are different than me, why don’t we talk? Why do we always throw rocks at that which separates us? At that in which we are differing? Why don’t we hold hands in that which we have in common? Motivate ourselves to speak about what we have in common, and then we can talk about the differences we have. But I said, talk, I didn’t say fight. I didn’t say close ourselves in. I don’t say “shut ourselves into our little convent,” to use the word you used. But this is possible only when I have the capacity to speak of that which I have in common with the other, of that by which we are able to work together.
In Buenos Aires, in a new parish, in a very, very poor region, a group of university students was building some rooms for the parish. And the parish priest told me, “Why don’t you come some Sunday and I’ll introduce them to you.” They worked on Saturdays and Sundays on this construction. They were young men and women of the university. So I arrived, I saw them and they were introduced to me. “This is the architect. He’s Jewish. This one is Communist. This one is a practicing Catholic.” All of them were different, but they were all working together for the common good.
This is called social friendship: to seek the common good. Social enmity destroys. A family is destroyed by enmity. A country is destroyed by enmity. The world is destroyed by enmity. And the biggest enmity is war. And today we see that the world is destroying itself with war because people are incapable of sitting down and talking. OK, let’s negotiate. What can we do in common? In what things are we not going to give in? But let’s not kill more people. When there is division, there is death, death in the soul because we are killing the capacity to unite. We are killing social friendship. And that’s what I ask of you today: be capable of creating social friendship.
There was another word that you said, the word hope. Youth are the hope of a people; we hear this everywhere. But what is hope? Is it to be optimistic? No. Optimism is a mood. Tomorrow, you wake up with an upset stomach and you’re not optimistic, you see everything in a negative light. Hope is something more. Hope is something that endures through suffering. Hope knows how to suffer to bring forward a project. It knows how to make sacrifices. Are you capable of making sacrifices for a future or do you only want to live today and leave what comes to those who come after? Hope is fruitful. Hope gives life. Are you capable of giving life? Or are you going to be a spiritually sterile young man or young woman, without the capacity to create life in others, without the capacity to create social friendship, without the capacity to create a homeland, without the capacity to create greatness?
Hope is fruitful. Hope is given in work, and here I want to mention a very grave problem that is being experienced in Europe: the number of youth who don’t have work. There are countries in Europe where as many as 40% of youth 25 years old and younger live unemployed. I am thinking of one country. In another country, it’s 47% and in another 50%.
Evidently, when a people is not concerned with giving work to youth — and when I say “people,” I don’t mean government, I mean the entire people — it doesn’t have a future.
The youth become part of the throwaway culture and all of us know that today, in this empire of the god money, things are thrown away and people are thrown away, children are thrown away, because they are unwanted, because they kill them before they are born, the elderly are thrown away — I’m speaking of the world in general — because they don’t produce anymore. In some countries, there is legal euthanasia, but in so many others there is a hidden, covered up euthanasia. Youth are thrown away because they are not given work. So then? What is left for a young person who doesn’t have work? A country that doesn’t invent, a people that doesn’t invent employment opportunities for its youth, what’s left for this youth are addictions, or suicide, or to go around looking for armies of destruction to create wars.
This throwaway culture is doing damage to all of us; it takes away hope, and this is what you asked for the youth: “We want hope.” Hope endures suffering, it’s hardworking, it’s fruitful, it gives us work and it saves us from the throwaway culture. Hope that brings together, brings everyone together, because a people that knows how to bring itself together to look toward the future and build social friendship, as I said, despite thinking differently, this people has hope.
And if I find a young person without hope, I’ve said this before, “a young retired person.” There are young people who seem to have retired at 22 years old. They are young people with existential sadness, they are young people who have committed their lives to a basic defeatism. They are young people who lament. They are young people who flee from life. The journey of hope is not easy. And it can’t be made alone. There is an African proverb that says, “If you want to go quickly, walk alone, but if you want to go far, walk together.”
And I, Cuban young people, though you think differently from each other, though you have your own points of view, I want you to go along accompanying each other, together, seeking hope, seeking the future and the nobility of your homeland. We began with the word hope and I want to conclude with another word that you said and that I tend to use a lot: the culture of encounter. Please, let us not have “un-encounter” among us. Let us go accompanying each other, in encounter, even though we think differently, even though we feel differently, but there is something bigger than us, which is the greatness of our people, which is the greatness of our homeland, which is this beauty, this sweet hope for the homeland to which we have to arrive.
I take leave wishing you the best, wishing you all of this that I have said, this I wish for you. I am going to pray for you. And I ask you to pray for me. And if one of you is a non-believer and cannot pray because he doesn’t believe, may he at least wish the best for me. May God bless you and bring you to walk along this path of hope, toward the culture of encounter, avoiding these “little convents” that our companion spoke about. May God bless all of you.
The “Pewsitter” is for me, and for many others, the go-to site for Catholic orthodoxy. Not only it provides me – and many others – with useful sources of information. Far more importantly, it is a very fast and convenient way to understand that we are not alone, to see how many quality bloggers and devout Catholics have the pockets full of the horrid spectacle we are being forced to witness.
I tend to avoid personal polemics if I can, and I will try to avoid it now. But let me say that “Pewsitter” has been excellent not only at connecting orthodox Catholics, but also at exposing the lukewarm, the opportunists, and the outright fake.
Yes, I am honoured to write that “Pewsitter” has linked to my posts on many occasions. But you see, I do not make any money from my blog, and pageviews are, therefore, ultimately irrelevant to me. To me, but perhaps not so much to others who deride it.
I invite all my readers to give a try to the “Pewsitter”. If they do it already, I invite them to do so more often.
And yes, in the middle of the battle we need to hear the sound of the trumpet, and value those who give us this ewxtremely valuable help. But this does not mean that we do not pray, or fast, or do penance anyway. Actually, I suspect that the average reader of the “Pewsitter” prays, fasts and does penance far more than the average blogger criticising them.
And no, I will not cancel this post because I am ashamed of its content (I have read the cached page). I will keep it online, because I am proud of it.
Long live Pewsitter. The Truth it so well defends will still be there when all sorts of fake, or wrong Catholics with their little snarky posts have become dust.
There are many things that anger me in a typical Novus Ordo church: the sanctuary resembling the village's main square, the holy water in minimal quantities and at times well-hidden, or the (rare in England, in my experience) tabernacle away from the main altar.
But one thing that angers me especially is… when there is no place for kneeling in front of the Blessed Virgin. I do not mean that you have to kneel on the stone pavement (a very small but very welcome penance, this one). No, I mean when there is literally no place, and you would be kneeling in the middle of a corridor.
Whenever this happens I detect the pungent smell of the faithless, half-protestantised, Sixty-Eighter “innovator”. You know the type, because one of them is Pope.
The message is clear: firstly, kneeling is very much passé. You can sit comfortably in the pew instead of undergoing this minimal motion indicating a mere modicum of humility, and God who loves you so much because you are so cool would never want you to do something like that. Secondly, it is clear FrancisPriest not only does not want you to kneel in general, but he does not want you to kneel in front of the Blessed Virgin in particular. Hey, some passing Proddie might be offended! We don't want to perpetuate these old customs, do we now? No, you are probably supposed to have a chat with the Blessed Virgin on a “You are very ok, I am ok too” basis. God forbid, you should feel that you are a wretched sinner unworthy of even kneeling. We don't do that anymore in the age of mercy.
One of the signs that sanity is coming back will be the reappearance of proper kneeling facilities in front of the statues of the Blessed Virgin. Alas, we will have of get rid of a lot of insane priests first.
I have often stated that when the planet starts to laugh at the inane blubbering of the Evil Clown, things will begin to change.
With some pleasure, I take notice that slowly, but surely, some non-Catholic outlets are getting more vocal in regards to the obvious fact that we have a chap talking incessantly without having the faintest idea of what he is talking about.
These people here got the facts right, and the facts ain’t pretty. The man just does not know what he is talking about, but he insists in opening his mouth at every occasion; hoping it will bring him new popularity, settling old account with the Catholics and the well-situated, or more simply because he loves so much the sound of his voice.
Ridicule is coming. When the non-Catholics press starts mocking Francis as that half-stupid, half-drunken ass that he is we will make great progress in getting rid of at least some of the pernicious effect of the man.
Because remember: being evil doesn’t exclude being stupid.
The coup de main of the Destroyer concerning marriage is now more than ten days old, and the polemics are raging unabated. The more and more commenters and good Catholics examine the changes, the more it becomes clear that the “streamlining” idea is merely meant to be a Trojan Horse for the demolition of the sacrament of marriage as God intended. When there is the will to damage a sacrament, there is no need of open heresy to achieve the aim.
In my eyes – and, I am sure, in the opinion of every orthodox Catholic who really cares for Christ, His Church and Her Sacraments – the Synod's days must be used for a relentless barrage against the measure, with bishops – both those invited and those not invited to the Synod – vocally asking for the measure to be put on ice until the professionals have had the time to make something sensible out of it.
The motu proprio called Mitis (there are two of them, but it's the same soup in the end) must be relentlessly opposed by the Bishops not only during the Synod, but afterwards, and until things are changed. The more alarm is raised and opposition is voiced now, the easier it will be to get Mitis reversed when the annulments start to rain on the Church like satanic hail.
Therefore, the Bishops who love the Church should, in this, follow Francis' exhortation:
The list of people Barack Hussein Obama has invited to meet the Pope reads like the cast of a veritable freak show. From the abortionist nun to the sodomite Proddie who thinks he is a bishop, and from wannabe Catholic perverts to outright trannies in drags, there is everything the Christianophobic heart can desire. Satan’s party, one would be tempted to say, if one had not reason to think Satan himself would not want to be in such disgusting company.
You might say that Body Odour is trying to slap Francis in the face, but this is highly unlikely. Events like this one are carefully planned in advance, and basic diplomacy says that Francis would not be forced to meet anyone he does not want to meet, or does not in the very least accept to meet as, erm, acceptable.
And please reflect: why would Francis not want to meet those people at the White House? Has he not received dissenters and perverts of all sorts himself?
No, the truth is far, far simpler. Obama and Francis want to slap Catholicism in the face together, in a sort of liberal embrace meant to show the world how “mean” and “nasty” those Catholics out there are.
This is what Francis does day in and day out. He does not need Obama for that.
But he will certainly not waste the occasion.
I grew up in years of civil unrest, which then became outright terrorism. I never knew another society, I did not think I would ever see my Country free from terrorism.
I grew up in years of high inflation. It was part of daily life. Inflation caused, as always, high social conflictuality for the sharing of a permanently changing cake. Strikes were the order of the day.
I grew up in years of high pollution. The wonderful city in which I had the privilege to be born was uniformly grey, or shall I say almost black.
I grew up in years of high criminality. It was not only the car thefts, or the mass breaking of car windows. It changed the landscape. In the evening, cities resembled war zones, the shops covered with heavy iron blinds. Most were solid iron, only some allowed you to see an empty shop window behind. One evening, my mother told me about the Fifties and Sixties, when people went out for a walk after dinner, and the shops were all lit, and the shop windows carefully kept, with all the ware neatly presented. I never forgot it. To me, it sounded like a dream. I had never known this world.
I grew up in an age of rampant Communism. The Soviet influence was slowly expanding in Africa and South America after having taken half Europe as a hostage. The Vietnam War was a disaster. There was an atmosphere of defeat, of twilight of a civilisation. The American Government spoke of “containment” of Communism, not of crushing it to the ground.
Slowly, in the Eighties, everything started to change.
Terrorism in Italy was – not a day too soon – brutally suppressed. If you lived in Italy, you remember the “climate change” when the Communists' external support was not needed to govern. Suddenly, the matter became very simple, the “root causes” of terrorism weren't much bandied about, and the police started making no prisoners. Couple of years. Some legislative measures to encourage “repentance”. Problem solved.
The end of the Italian quasi-communist era brought also the end of mad money printing. Gradually and softly, but consistently, inflation was brought under control.
Technology had advanced, and the air began to change. Catalitic converters began to appear on cars. More importantly, the old coal boilers providing much of the heating in the homes were substituted for gas boilers. Then the Government began giving tax breaks for the cleaning of the facade of historic buildings. It truly changed them. They were so beautiful I wanted to cry. Cry of joy for newly discovered beauty, and of sadness for having missed so much of it.
The mentality began to change. The old war-zone mentality began to make way for a new optimism. Shopkeepers started to leave the shop windows lit again. This encouraged people to go out. Pubs popped out all over the place. If you knew how dreary Rome could be at 10:30 in the evening in 1977, you could only be stunned only eight or nine years later.
Globally, a great President completely changed the paradigm of global relations and in time, the entire planet. A new willingness to fight and to win arose. Communism was called with its name: Evil Empire. The solution was now very clear: crush it to the ground, destroy it under the weight of superior economic, military and technological might. In ten years only, a great man and the nations which followed him achieved what blubbering and defeatism could have never dreamt of achieving in a millennium.
When I was a child, I did not think any of this could happen. I did not even dream it could happen. I just saw the reality around me, and took it for both normal and unchangeable. I was wrong. It was highly abnormal, therefore it had to change at some point.
The same is valid today, and always. Dark periods come, stay for one or more decades, then go when sanity comes back to an extent. Granted, no problem is solved forever, and old problems will tend to pop out again in milder or less obnoxious forms. But in general, one can say that time often causes the pendulum to swing the other side, when a certain pain threshold has been reached.
Therefore, let us not lose hope that we may see sanity come back in our own lifetime. In His Goodness, God may grant us to look back at our life on our death bed, and reflect that homosexualism, modernism, third-worldism and environ-mentalism have gone the same way as the Italian Communist Party, the Brigate Rosse, the big inflation, the Soviet Union, and the coal powered boilers. The greatest consolation for me would be to know that the Church is run again by a truly Catholic Pope instead of an Evil Clown; by a man committed to make the Church fully Catholic again.
Will God grant us such a grace? I don't know, though I know we do not deserve it. But looking back to a now fairly long life I can say that a lot, an awful lot changes that was once believed immutable.
When I was a child, there was something called the Soviet Union.
I suggest a small exercise. Let us look back at the history of the Church, and reflect on annulments now and then.
It may have been that annulment procedures were simpler than before Francis' “reform” in, say, A.D. 822. But how many people asked for annulments, and for which reasons? My take would be: very, very few, and for very valid reasons, like non consummation and strong cohercion. It does not need a genius (actually, it only needs a Catholic) to understand that flimsy and bendable, internal circumstances like the faith or lack thereof of the other spouse, or the “intention” not to have children, played absolutely no role in any way, shape or form; not in the procedure, certainly not in the decision.
Notabene: in those years civil divorce was unknown.
It appears in the XVIII Century there was an increase in annulment proceedings, and with it the necessity to better regulate the matter in order to avoid abuses. Again, you see how the Church works: it is the sacrament that must be protected. The plight of the man who has freely chosen to marry a slut is his private cross, but it is certainly nowhere to be found as a reason to “find him a way out”, much less call this sacrilege “mercy”.
Then divorce came into the West. The heretical dams broke in the United States, then in England and in the rest of the Empire. By the Sixties divorce was so common film comedies were made around it.
Notabene again: as divorce in civil society became common, a perception of “unjust suffering” of the by now fully secularised “c”atholic masses became common. In the Seventies, Francis-like “provisional” reforms battered the Sacrament incessantly, with hundreds of thousands of annulments. The Catholics of A.D. 822 would have already refused to call this world “Catholicism”. To them, it would have been a kind of heretical Mars.
Francis is the fully secularised continuation of this fully secularised thinking. In the mind of Francis the convenience (called “mercy”) comes first, and the Sacrament second. Why? I don't know exactly. Because it's convenient. Because it makes him popular. Because he does not believe in God. Because he hates Him, perhaps. Most certainly, he hates the Church. He has just no intention of defending the sacrament. Heck, he believes a very vast number of them are not valid anyway! There is nothing in his way of thinking that would have indicated a catholic approach to his progenitors. They would just not have recognised his thinking, or him, as Catholic. There is no past age of the Church in which one like Francis would not have been seen as a dangerous heretic and enemy of the Church in his thinking, speaking and acting.
For centuries, one made his bed and then had to lie in it. Personal responsibilities were taken seriously. Catholicism was taken even more seriously. Sacraments were taken extremely seriously.
In Francis' NuChurch, no one has to bear responsibility for any decision. Everyone has the right to the emergency exit. Catholicism is a problem. Francis is the solution.
You will look in vain, in the history of the Church, for any Catholic thinking of the Sacrament as Francis does, much less legislating about it as he has just done.
This may be something “positive” for a Libtard.
For a Catholic, it's all he needs to know about this Pope.