Daily Archives: September 18, 2015
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.