Monthly Archives: February 2016
This little effort has, from a very early time, insisted on one point: Bergoglio has no Catholicism in himself. He has chosen the ecclesiastical career in order to have financial security and (in those times) a social prestige his birth would otherwise have made very difficult for him to achieve. This is all his vocation.
Bergoglio has no time for Catholicism. Never had. Never will have. But he can scrounge an existence from the Church all right. The likes of him are not likely to have a problem with it.
I have, also, written very often how Francis’ secularism is so pronounced, and his hate of Catholicism so obvious, that he keeps betraying it in his words and in his general demeanour, and seems unable to be even worried that good Catholics notice. Whether it’s the “breeding like rabbits” or the Blessed Virgin who might have been angry with God, whether it’s the God that can only slap you on the wrist or the building walls that isn’t “Christian”, you can have no doubts that this man understands absolutely nothing of Catholicism, but his arrogance and stupidity is too big to allow him to even see the way he is damaging his own carefully built image of humbleness.
Also notable is that normally, Francis doesn’t need anyone shooting at him. He will shoot himself in the foot first, and in public. Then he will do it again. And again. In the meantime (that is, all the time) the Pollyannas scratch their heads, and wonder what meaning can be given to the Pope’s words that does not make their little heads explode.
Now, Francis has done it again. Rorate Caeli has the text; coming, mind you, from the Evil Clown himself.
Do you understand, now, why this man puts beach balls and football shirts on the altar of Santa Maria Maggiore? Do you get why he forcibly separated the hands of the poor, devoted altar boy? Do you realise why the man never genuflects in front of the Blessed sacrament, but says we should kneel in front of the poor? Do you understand why he thinks an atheist can save himself by following his atheist conscience, but the planet God made is too fragile to survive without the humble help of Francis himself?
The man is secular through and through. He grew up mocking the Church. Mocking the Church is, to him, so natural, that he remembers the “fun” many decades later, when he is Pope and should really know better. But he is a boorish idiot, and therefore he doesn’t.
This man is a joke. But being the Pope, the joke really isn’t funny at all.
When will our Bishops awake to the almost daily scandal given buy this unspeakable man and take measures to have him silenced or tried for heresy? For how long will we have to endure the love child of Che Guevara and Elton John as Pope? Has he not caused enough damage?
This comes straight from another century. It makes one’s heart rejoice. It certainly made my day.
Bishop Schneider does not shoot directly at the Pope. However, the Gatling Gun is aimed so near to the Papal entourage, that LifeSite news found it appropriate to ask Father Lombardi about Pope Francis’ position concerning the abuse of children as “agent of change” in the climate hoax.
Predictably, no answer.
In Italy we say that this is talking to the wife so that the mother-in-law may understand. The man does not point the Gatling Gun at the Pope, but the bullets are directed at all that the Pope says.
The other notable fact is the explicit attack to other bishops as “so-called Catholics”. At the moment I cannot recall any such explicit attack from a non-SSPX bishop, though I am sure there have been. But the fact that these attacks are accompanied by (literally) Old Testamentary warnings makes Archbidhop Schneider’s intervention extraordinary.
Battle lines are being drawn. I wish our good bishops (the few remained) were more open in their criticism of all the rubbish coming out of the Vatican these days (largely from Francis), but I can only salute any intervention like this one.
Still: very grave errors were promoted by Pope Francis only days ago. I recall scandalised interventions from countless bloggers and commenters, from some good journalists, from theologians lay and religious, and from some Catholic institution. At the moment, I cannot recall any rebuke from any bishop or Cardinal. We shall see, they tend to be slow.
For today, let us salute what we get: a glimpse of heroic XIX Century Church in the midst of the rubble of the XXI Century one.
Colleague S (for “secular”) comes out with a statement that is entirely wrong; say, about abortion. Colleague R (for “reader”; one of mine, that is) immediately counters.
R has, very broadly stated, two options.
The first is to politely point out that the Church has consistently been against abortion. It might work, though I doubt it. The problem with that is that whenever you present what the Church says as just an opinion, the natural reaction of the secular person is to reflect that he knows that, just as he knows (or so he thinks) that the Church is wrong.
The other option is the strong one. You tell your interlocutor that there can never be any justification for murdering a baby in the womb; which is why the Church always and consistently opposed it, and states that hell awaits those who commit such a heinous crime and die unrepentant. Bam.
S will not be pleased at the reaction. He will be angry at you. He might stop saying “good morning” when you arrive in the office (something, this, which seems strangely difficult to many office Brits anyway). But you can be sure of this: that whilst the polite disagreement, which does not add anything new or different to what he already knows, will immediately be deleted from his “internal hard drive”, the strong reaction will not be easily forgotten; perhaps it will, in fact, never be forgotten.
The fact is, the double whammy of strong statement and threat of hell is very rarely heard nowadays. This is why it will stick. It may be rejected. It will – initially – be rejected. But a seed will have been planted, that will stay there. This, my friends, is old evangelisation. A strong message, delivered strongly. The speciality of our great-grandmas and great-grandpas. The daily bread of our ancestors. The attitude commonly expected from every pulpit. Nowadays, even having a pulpit seems not nice enough.
With God's grace, this seed will start to sprout when conditions allow, which can be many, many years later. The statement having made an impression, the brain will recall it from the recesses of the memory also many years later. This is, literally, what “impression” means: the printing, the permanent mark of a statement or a situation in one's consciousness.
A mid-life crisis might happen one day. A bereavement. A grave disease. Any other kind of situation that knocks Secular Guy (or Secular Gal) out of his accustomed way of thinking. There is no saying what kind of seeds can begin to sprout in such situations, if they have been planted there in the first place.
Our duty is not to be liked. Our duty is to be truthful. I prefer to plant my seed at the price of hatred, but being sure the seed is there.
It is generally not true that gentle persuasion and suave words work. If this were the case, our softly-softly Catholic priests would have a huge following, and our churches would be full of zealous faithful so irresistibly won by their oh so soft, polite, whispered encouragements. It is beyond belief that after 50 years of failure there should still be those who never tire of telling us how honey attracts etc. Reality has spoken, and its verdict is resounding all over the Catholic world. Suave words only work, if at all, with those who already agree. And they could work, if seldom, only in a world already immersed in the very harsh truths of Catholicism. The Church of yesteryear could afford some honey, because it was made of iron. A church made of honey will go simply nowhere.
Read your Gospel, and see for yourself if Jesus refrained from very harsh words whenever the situation required it.
In many situations in life, the achievement of a given result demands that a price of sort be paid. You can't learn to play guitar just by wishing it. If you want to plant this particular seed, I am afraid you will have to pay that particular price. This is a mechanism inbuilt in Christianity, which functions in such a way that zeal attracts enmity or persecution. Methinks, Christ wanted it in this way so that by experiencing on an infinitely small scale what He endured on an infinitely vaster one, we may find another little way to unite our suffering to His; then this life isn't supposed to be a walk in the park.
If you are ready to pay the price of enmity for Christ you will receive a hundredfold what you have paid, with persecutions. That's the way it is, it's just how Christianity works.
Colleague S will not be pleased with you. You might notice he starts, perhaps, mocking or isolating you behind your back. He might well make you appear a jerk and a bigot with those – very many – who are like minded; but your deed will not go unnoticed in heaven, and your seed will hopefully sprout one day.
Make your point in a strong way. Impress it on your interlocutor.
Suave encouragements only persuade those already persuaded.
Pope Francis has praised Emma Bonino as a “great Italian” and has, once more, showed what a died-in-the-wool godless, secular minded person he is. Astonishingly (if we did not know him), he praised her not for any kind of, say, repentance and reform, but for her deeds.
You couldn’t make it up.
In Italy you don’t need to be “right wing” in any particular way to deeply despise the woman. A rabid feminist, who has procured countless abortions and has boasted of it, the woman was also famous for other kinds of stunts, like smoking weed in the face of policemen in order to be arrested, with the press obviously in attendance. Short of being lesbian, there is no way you could find a higher degree of aggressive bitchiness than the one that made Emma Bonino a famous character in Italy. And I ain’t sure she hasn’t tried that, too.
As she became old, the witch became more “institutional”, and a tad less insufferable. This allowed her to climb the ladders or power, to the point of becoming, inter alia, Foreign Affairs Minister. But there is no sign she has become any wiser, apart from the occasional whining about not having become a mother. In this regard I must add that the hypothetical father would have been the subject of wild speculation, then this one here is one of those feminist, “free lurv” bitches whose bitchiness did not prevent, by her own admission, a ready and very public extra marital opening of legs, even in times when such things were considered extremely shameful by your average citizen. But it’s all for the cause, you know. No doubt this queen of sluts is now the darling of a slutty generation.
Bitchy, witchy, with countless lives on her conscience, promoting the use of drugs and all sort of sexual license; and a notorious slut to boot. Is it a surprise Francis likes her so much?
No, it isn’t. Francis likes her because the two are carved out of the same wood. Francis sides, and has always sided, with the Emma Boninos of this world. He has merely chosen a more convenient way to do so as he has scrounged an entire existence out of the very institution he has always hated.
Francis is being, as so often, heretical, because it is Catholicism 101 that works without faith do not save. But Francis is also being, so to speak, heretical twice, because no sane person would associate Emma Bonino with anything else (even if now with more salon-like manners) than refusal of Catholic values and way of life.
What is all boils down to, then, is that this Royal Ass suggests to the world that evil works save. Satanic. Or, I should say, Bergoglian.
Time to depose the man.
He can’t be allowed to go on like this without creating more damage for the Church he so obviously hates.
The Pope is referred to as, inter alia, servus servorum Dei. Literally, this means “the servant of the servants of God”. However, it would be wrong to translate this expression literally.
The expression means, in Latin, “the first of God’s servants”, or “the most eminent of God’s servants”. The Pope is the most exalted figure among those who serve Christ.
This typical Latin usage is known to Christians also from other expressions. For example, the Blessed Virgin is called Virgo Virginum (“Virgin of Virgins”) to express her absolute preeminence among all virgins.
Another example that comes to my mind now is the way Latin described the chamber of the Temple of Jerusalem where the Ark was located: Sancta Sanctorum, “the most sacred (plural) of the sacred” places, again to express the idea that that chamber was the very embodiment of the “sacred spaces”. Some Catholic churches also have the most important chapel called in that way, and in Italian this Latin expression is of common use among the better educated to express this idea of “holy of holies”.
The Pope is, therefore, not our servant. He is not in a more humble position than we are. He is the most preeminent figure among even the successors of the Apostles.
Why do I say this? Because I find it wrong, if perhaps well-intentioned, to try to downplay Francis’ heresies by downplaying the entire institution of the Papacy. The contrary should be the case: the more you consider the Papacy important, the more you will be irate at this Pope’s antics. The more you love the Papacy, the most you will hate the way Francis is raping it. If you love the Church, you cannot but loathe this evil clown.
I think this should be said, and I think you should explain this in your circle of friends. When you criticise Francis – and you should do it very harshly, with the Gatling gun – your interlocutor must leave you with a higher estimation of the Papacy, and with a better understanding of the Pope’s unique, Divinely ordained role. This, in turn, will make it easier for him to understand where your criticism is coming from, and why the love for the office demands that you utterly demolish the man who is, let us say it once again, raping it.
Servus servorum Dei. Think of the honour. Think of the responsibility.
Think of the way Francis is making a pig’s breakfast of the prestige of the Papacy, besides everything else Catholic.
The Pope is the Successor of Peter, the Sovereign of a State, and at least to Catholics the most important person on Earth. Therefore, a Pope should travel in his own plane (owned, leased, or chartered). This is the only option compatible with the highest and most sacred office on Earth. Unless we want to play the demagogue, and demand that the Pope travels business before going out of the plane, frantically embracing as many wheelchairs as he can to show his proximity to Aunt Rosie.
When Catholicism was Italy’s State Religion, ir was a no-brainer. The state-owned Alitalia would put a machine at the disposal of the Holy Father, and that was that.
In 1983, with the complicity of the wussified V II hierarchy, Italy ceased to have a State Religion. Therefore, the question arose why the Vatican shouldn’t pay for the transport themselves. A fair question, and a well-deserved one once you have just finished to demand that Catholicism has the only proper standing in a properly Catholic Country.
The solution was, then, fairly obvious. The Vatican would charter a machine at a more or less friendly price from Alitalia, and the expenses would be covered, totally or in part, by selling “tickets” to journalists. The journalists had a great interest (logistical, and image-related) in staying near the Pope. No serious newspaper would have preferred to have its correspondent travel with a separate machine for the sake of the money saved. The Pope also popped in among the journalists to say “good afternoon”, have a small chat, probably give a benediction, and then go back to his section of the aeroplane. It worked, and it served dignity, PR interests, and security at the same time.
There was no expectation of interviews, much less impromptu Q & A sessions. As always, a Pope was guarded in what he said. If anything meant for public ears was said on the plane it would, therefore, be as carefully worded and prepared as the rest of a pope’s public utterings.
There is no need to have the Pope travel in Business Class. Actually, this would positively damage the image of the Pope as Successor of Peter, and have him confused with far less important people like, say, sovereigns of other States or clowns pretending to be Archbishops of Canterbury.
But there is, certainly, the need to recover sanity in and outside of papal planes.
If the next Pope marks the return to sanity, I truly hope he will not give in to temptations of populism. I do not care if he buys a Gulfstream for himself and his own entourage, or charters a bigger machine and allows (proper) journalists to fly with him.
But that he travels in a way fitting to his role, and without making an ass of himself, should go without saying.
Incidentally, I notice that the wheelchair Pope, who is so friendly with his cobbler and such a great buddy of the newspaper agent; the Ford Focus-chauffeured, black-shoes-shod, let-me-pay-my-hotel-room “man of the people”, seems to like travelling in his own aeroplane all right.
I wouldn’t dislike living such a modest life as his.
The recent discussions about the fact that the danger of being raped would justify a nun in taking contraceptives forces me to state a couple of things which, though certainly already shared by my readers, one does not read often.
I do not know in which planet Francis lives. But for a Catholic, the child conceived by the rape of a 45 years old Mother Superior perpetrated by three dozen of angry Muslims is still exactly as worthy, and exactly as worthy of protection as any other child.
This is a self-evident truth. The Unborn does not admit of conditioned support. You support the unborn life, or you don’t. Every child who has been conceived is God’s gift to the world. It is an immense grace. The grace is there, and the gift is there, no matter how bad the circumstances that gave rise to it. The child born of rape does not make the rape acceptable, but this does not mean that the child is less acceptable. The same goes, obviously, for children who are retarded, or malformed, or have whatever other problem.
It chills one’s blood that one has to write these things. Only two generations ago, only a handful of fanatical madmen would have thought otherwise. Nowadays, a journalist poses the question to the Pope whether “As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”, thus assuming that it might be expedient to try to avoid a pregnancy, and the Pope clearly shows that he shares the view of the journalist.
The value of human life has been already fundamentally misunderstood, has been already confused with the birth of a pure breed dog or horse, when the worth of this human life is measured according to the circumstances of his birth, or of the physical characteristics of the newborn. The very idea that it be allowed, yet even charitable, to abort a baby that would be born with malformations or diseases of any sort is deeply, profoundly Nazi. But then again, the concept that the nun should contracept, lest she should be made pregnant via rape is exactly this: the admission that there are lives that on no account, on no account must be allowed to be born. From these examples one understands how abortion flows from contraception: if the idea is that the birth has to be avoided, at some point avoided will it be. The thinking that justifies the legitimacy of contraception in certain circumstances will perforce lead to the justifying of abortion in other limited circumstances; at this point, the floodgates are long open.
Thus, the idea of the “contraceptive nuns” is bonkers in itself. However, the idea is bonkers even from a practical point of view.
Every woman is, theoretically, at risk to be made pregnant by rape. If the principle were accepted that the nuns in the dangerous zone can contracept, where would it end? How long before our enlightened CINOs tell us that the girls in the “inner cities” run the same risk, perhaps mentioning all kind of doctored statistics based on “regret rape”? And if those girls should be helped “like the nuns”, why not any other woman in a poor neighbourhood? Or any woman?
Catholicism is logical. It’s a coherent edifice. When one starts to remove bricks from the wall, the entire wall will end up crumbling down.
Pope Francis has no idea of the edifice. He only sees bricks, and he only sees those bricks his profoundly secular mind trains him to see. This is why he opens his mouth and says things that contradict the very basis of his own (supposed) religion.
Plus, the man has no fear of the Lord at all, and is unable to think in Christian terms. This is why he thinks that an epidemic (heavens, how many much more terrible epidemics has Christianity witnessed? Does the year 1348 says anything to the man?) can lead a Pope to change what the Church has always done, and this is also why he thinks that God makes the earth and his creatures can destroy it in a matter of decades, unless Francis intervenes. The man is secular through and through, and his ignorance and absence of any historical knowledge and perspective will become the stuff of legends.
Zikagate is possibly the worst demonstration of utter ignorance of Catholicism this Pope has given in his already utterly disgraceful career.
The question was as follows:
Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”
The journalist was possibly a feminist looking for a scoop, but in fact she gave the answer to the Unholy father herself: every boy who is preparing for confirmation is supposed to know – even today – that the Church does not condone “lesser evils” of any kind. The church tolerates the double effect (one effect is good, the other bad; under certain circumstances, I will have to accept the bad effect, that I do not want, because it’s the only way to obtain the good one, which I want. Example: Hamas shoot from the roof of a hospital, you shoot on the hospital; Wehrmacht snipers shoot from bell towers, you take down the bell tower, etc), but never, ever does the Church say “I accept that you do something less evil (when your intention is to do something evil) in order to avoid something more evil”.
This is very simple. Still, the press always does what they can to misinterpret it. Some years ago, with the notorious “condomgate”, Pope Benedict used a very unfortunate example that, whilst not trying to endorse the lesser evil, was interpreted (wrongly, but you understood where they came from) from a lot of people. I wrote about this here and here.
The press will misinterpret. The press will try to let a Pope say what he does not want to say. Whenever unguarded, a Pope, even one in good faith like Benedict, can unwillingly say things that will be misconstrued. It is extremely important that a Pope, of all people, avoids this. Benedict made the mistake once or twice, and in perfect good faith. Francis did it perhaps three hundred time, and I very much doubt the good faith.
So, let us see what a bad Pope answers to the question above. A question, let me repeat it once again, which offered the answer in a silver plate, then a Pope must know that the Church does not accept the lesser evil or has no business being Pope.
Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.
Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.
On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.
The man gets the first two short sentences right. From there, he talks like a person who does not understand jack of Catholicism. Like a Dalai Lama, say, or a Barack Obama on a good day. He accepts the position of the “lesser evil”, and even explicitly says that it is not a “religious” evil, but a “human” evil, in some confused and un-theological way creating a way to even discuss the way this “lesser evil” might be accepted. Then he calls Paul VI “a great man” (keep the man away from the grappa, says I). Then he mentions the non-existent case of Paul VI having “permitted the use of contraceptives” (which, it appears clear, never took place; but which, being contrary to Church teaching in matter of “lesser evil”, would have never been justifiable if it had taken place). Then he crowns everything with that truly drunken, delirious, ab.so.lu.te.ly bonkers statement about the “conflict between the fifth and the sixth commandment”. Conflict between Commandments? What does the man smoke in the morning? Even in my young age, any boy who would have said something as enormously stupid as that would have been surrounded by astonished gasps, and stares of incredulity. The man is just plain ignorant of the first three things of Catholicism. He has no idea. He does not know where Catholicism begins. You could make your agnostic janitor Pope, and he would talk less nonsense than this nincompoop. Really, it’s as bad as that.
Bloggers and newspapers concentrate on the scandal of the Pope clearly admitting that he thinks in terms of “lesser evil”, and believes such a logic is perfectly acceptable and practiced by people he, unsurprisingly, considers “great men”. But already the other enormity about the “conflict between the fifth and the sixth commandment” would have been enough, in saner times, to cause a never ending uproar of condemnation and scandal.
The man is just Catholicism-free. There is no Catholicism in him. Not one bit.
Not, mind, because he is senile. Because he is an arrogant godless socialist sold to the world, that’s why.
Can’t wait for this pontificate to end. Join me in my prayers for it.
Enough with this clown.
Trump has won in South Carolina, too; and he has won big. So big, in fact, that he has swept the entirety of the northern counties voting for Huckabee in 2008, and which I for once would have considered legitimate Cruz-land in 2016.
Trump is now more than a media phenomenon: it is, as he says, a true revolution. If you ask me, this revolution is working because of the following ingredients.
- Great political incorrectness. Refusal to play the game of apologies and assorted niceties. Where others think a floret works, Trump uses the Gatling gun. Turns out the Gatling gun works better than the floret.
- Refusal to think in term of Washington politicking. Say: it is possible to build a wall. The Romans did it. The Chinese did it. The Israelis did it in a matter of few weeks. It is most certainly feasible, and feasible at a reasonable cost. But what is reasonable and sensible isn’t contemplated anymore among mainstream politicians, if it sounds unkind. Trump is done with the fear of being unkind. Hats off.
- Concern for the fears of those without a college degree; those who lose their jobs because of Mexican or Chinese competition; those most professional politicians in Washington would be afraid of even mentioning among their voters; those most professional politicians consider so much below their intellectual level, as they see their very concrete fears as irrelevant.
- Ability to throw back all the balls thrown at him, and with interests. Completely unknown behaviour in the last 30 years.
- Ability to be a cunning bastard, hit below the belt line, and get away with it with sheer chuzpa. Not saying that I approve. Just saying that I am seeing it work.
- Manliness. The man is manly. How refreshing. You look at Jeb Bush and think he has just come out of a finishing school for girls (when he doesn’t call Trump a “jerk”, of course; but then he sounds whiny, not manly). You see Trump, you wonder if in the morning he eats bread and spreadable testosterone.
Last night I stayed up following the SC results. Jeb Bush announces his withdrawal (and good riddance) and does not congratulate the big winner of the evening, Trump. Everyone says how noble he is. Trump goes on the podium for his own speech and does not mention Jeb Bush. Everyone says what a boor Trump is. Jeb Bush goes on TV saying “Trump is a jerk”, and this is very fine. Unless Trump uses the same (or such like) expressions, then the world is about to end. Methinks, someone must readjust his perception of reality. The fact is, Jeb was a failure even at being a Trump.
Why do I tell you this? To make one point: mass brutal communication works very well, and in order to work very well mass communication must be brutal.
Look at how competently Trump raises an issue to national attention. He does not say that he will “dedicate himself with great energy to the tackling of the grave phenomenon of illegal immigration”. No. He gives you a physical thing, a fact to which anyone can relate, and at the same time a political bomb: a huge wall. Shocking. Solid. True. This, my friends, is how you do it.
In the art of communication, Ted Cruz (in my eyes head and shoulder superior to any other candidate as far as the content is concerned) could learn a lot from Trump. We Catholic bloggers (and readers) should learn a lot from Trump, too. Most blogs I read are of the Jeb Bush sort: polite disagreement with Francis, veiled disapprobation, at the most you find light sarcasm. To use a now famous expression: “low energy” defence of Truth. It is just a handful of blogs and Catholic sites who shoot with the Gatling gun, either using strong verbal expressions or even calling for the Pope’s resignation openly and publicly.
The Gatling gun works. Jeb Bush doesn’t.
When you are confronted with a serious issue like, say, immigration, the strong imagery and even stronger defence of that strong imagery used by Trump will always work better than the subtles distinguos of the people who are afraid others might see them as not sufficiently polite, or not sufficiently educated.
When you are confronted with the infinitely more important issue of a wayward Pope making the work of the devil every day, the use of the Gatling gun is one thousand times more justified, and one thousand times more imperative.
You know it works. You know Francis deserves it. It’s just that you don’t want to be seen as the one who uses it.
I invite everyone of you who cares for Truth more than politeness to embrace the Gatling gun, and to make good use of it in his own private life. “What do you think of Pope Francis?” must be answered in the proper, truthful way: “he’s an idiot; he’s an heretic; he is a clown; he makes the work of the devil; he is an unspeakable ass”, and the like. Everyone who knows you as sincere Catholic will immediately stop and register this; and if you double down, “Trump style”, when he perhaps tries to counter that you are being unkind to a Pope, your decided, renewed, doubly as determined defence of Truth will be immediately, and forever, etched in his consciousness. Never again will the man hear of Francis without thinking of you. The aura is gone. Francis’ ability to influence him will be greatly reduced. “This” – will the chap think – “is the man deeply despised by his own devout Catholics”.
I dare to think this is the impression this little effort makes on many readers. If not, it’s not for want of trying. If Francis confuses you and you visit this blog, you will be cured very fast, and there will be no apologies for strong words that have to be said.
This, I think, is the way. Brutal truth, brutally told. Nothing less will cause the scale to fall from the eyes of too many people, and a polite message will not impress itself in the reader’s consciousness nearly as efficiently as the strong one.
Learn from Trump.
Say hello to the Gatling gun.
Pope Francis does not intervene in the Italian controversy about “civil partnerships”, because he does not want to interfere in the political matters of another Country.
Weeks later he celebrates Mass at the very boundary between Mexico and USA, and calls “not a Christian” someone (= Trump) who builds walls instead of bridges. A more blatant intervention in the affairs of another foreign Country is unthinkable; and this, even without considering the obvious attack against Trump.
This one is the Prince of Hypocrites.
The CNN is embarrassing itself by echoing the comments of the always embarrassing Father James Martin (yes, this chap here), who is on record with the astonishing novelty that everyone can walk in St Peter’s Square and, therefore, “the door is always open”.
What a load of tosh.
Firstly, St Peter’s is half Italian Republic and half Vatican Square. Everyone can walk there because this is what the agreement between the two Countries foresee. But I cannot enter any other parts of the Vatican state without due authorisation. I cannot have a stroll in the (heavenly) Vatican Gardens just because I feel like it.
Secondly, walking in St Peter’s Square does not mean that I can permanently introduce myself into the place, claim the state of “refugee” at my liking, enjoy the many benefits of the around 1,000 citizen of the Vatican (among many others: no income taxes). No, this is not being “open”; and no, the walls are exactly what keeps the people out even today, from beggars to car thieves to prostitutes.
Thirdly, the Vatican city is around 1 square km, and around 1,000 inhabitants, with many services provided by the Italian Republic. Only a tool like Martin can think there can be any valid comparison with an immense Country plagued by massive illegal immigration for decades.
Fourthly, there can be no doubt whatsoever that when Pope Leo IV built the wall he did it exactly for the explicit reason build a defense against the enemy as opposed to a bridge to them.
Wall here. Bridge there. Pope Leo IV chose the wall. Full stop.
One doe not know who is more stupid: the Pope with his moronic observations purely motivated by his desire to take revenge on Trump who had criticised him, those like Father Martin who try to defend him in a way that makes him appear even more stupid, or the libtards at CNN that echo his comment as if it were something intelligent or at least worth pondering.
We are surrounded by idiots. Which is the main reasons why we might soon be surrounded by Muslims.
Dear Republican Primary Voters of South Carolina and Nevada: I address this open letter to you in great shame for the latest socialist, one-world-ist, possibly drunken words of Pope Francis, the most embarrassing idiot to ever unworthily occupy the Sea of Peter. In fact, possibly the most embarrassing idiot ever, full stop.
I am as outraged as you are that a Pope living inside walls built by another Pope should say the senseless, drunken words this ass in white has pronounced on (just another) aeroplane. As a Catholic, allow me to tell you that this man’s incoherent, retarded, socialist rants do not represent the teaching of the Church in any way whatsoever. If you aren’t Catholic, please click around this blog a bit to see whether on this site Catholicism is taken seriously or not.
Of course walls are built as a protection from an actual, or potential, enemy coming from outside. Of course this is what has always been done. Of course only an uneducated ass like Francis could mean anything different. Of course the very Leonine Walls were built exactly to protect the Roman population from the Muslim menace of the Saracens! Again, only an uneducated peasant like Francis can dare to open his mouth and spout his ignorance in everyone’s face.
Do not heed his senseless rants. Ignore the old cretin. Believe me: this man is an embarrassment to all us Catholics; and the more Catholic you are, the more the man is an embarrassment to you. You will, in fact, notice that those soi-disant “Catholics” who still support him tend to be either terminal Pollyannas, or senseless CINOs just like the man himself.
Dear Republican Primary Voters of South Carolina and Nevada: I am writing this open letter to implore you not to do what you might be thinking of doing: renounce to a Cruz vote and vote Trump instead, just to give Francis a well-deserved (symbolic) slap in the face. Please, please, stay cool about this and resist the temptation to cast an emotional vote in the ballot. At least, that is, if your vote would have otherwise gone to Cruz.
Dear Republican Primary Voter: this humble (if somewhat loud) Catholic blogger implores you to support Ted Cruz with your vote, for all the reasons you can easily imagine. He humbly asks you to – catholic or not – not let one single Cruz vote disappear just because of an emotional reaction to Francis’ words.
However, the very same Catholic blogger invites you to vote Trump in preference to Bush, Rubio, Carson, or Kasich if any one of them would have been your choice. In this way, you will not only winnow the chaff from the wheat (Kasich? Seriously?), but you will also obtain the very desirable side effect of telling Francis where to go with his one-world, anti-Western rhetoric.
Dear Republican Primary Voters of South Carolina and Nevada: I do not know whether you are Catholic or not. I do not even know whether you are moved, in your daily life, by anti-Catholic sentiments, or whether you are afraid of giving such a harsh message to the Pope. But I tell you this: that in so slapping (metaphorically, of course) the man in the face, you would promote the cause of Catholicism, because we Catholics have the pockets full of this joker going around making (stupid) politics instead of doing what he is supposed to do: his job as Pope.
Therefore, please, my dear Primary Voter: consider Ted Cruz as your best vote, and the best chance not only for America but for all the Western civilisation, always echoing what happens in your Country. But if for some reason Bush, Rubio, Carson or Kasich would have been your choice, please consider voting Trump instead, and show Francis what you think of his third world propaganda.
Dear Primary Voter: this is what I felt I had to tell you. I hope you will give my suggestions some thoughts. I will leave you with a thought shared by many Conservatives the other side of the Pond:
God bless America.
The Country chosen by God to save Europe’s backside from Nazism and Communism.
And the Country, alas, who now seems all too willing to bring destruction on itself.
Human stupidity often causes some sort of involuntary paradox, or irony. In this case we find that two of the biggest mantras of Swedish society clashed violently: protections of homos like they’re the Panda, and protection of Muslims because they are violent.
In this case, the assertion of the boys, that the fags wanted to somewhat rape him, do not really hold water if you film them before the murder and do strange thing on the man you’ve killed thereafter. But hey, some judge found it more convenient to believe whatever had to be believed in order to give the murderers the mildest sentence, and have them out of the Country thereafter (don’t worry, though; many others will come).
One cannot avoid seeing the irony: the Swedish are being punished by their own stupidity, and the homos will be the first to have to hide.
I wonder how much they will complain about the “homophobic” church when they are running, with angry Muslims armed with knives in hot pursuit.
It is reassuring that the bill is being presented now rather than, say, in five or ten years’ time. Libtards are rather slow of understanding and they will need a long trail of blood, a vast number of murders and rapes before their little brains start to get it.
A further irony is that the murdered homo had, apparently, first “approached” his murderers when bringing them “help”; possibly aiming at pulling, possibly simply being stupid, as these people generally are.
He’s six feet under now.
That’s some thankfulness.
And it came to pass an ISIS “decapitation instructor” had his stupid head cleaned off alright by an SAS bullet shot from more than 1 km away, just as he was, so to speak, teaching his pupils.
The operative words are the following ones:
‘One minute he was standing there and the next his head had exploded.
‘The commander remained standing upright for a couple of seconds before collapsing and that’s when panic set in.
I don’t know you, but I can vividly depict the scene. ISIS ass is there “explaining” when, suddenly, his head is no more. His body remains there, to all intents and purposes beheaded, as the not very big brains of the presents try to work out what is happening in the reaction time God has allotted them. As the body of the decapitated ass falls to the ground like a sack of potatoes, reality has finally made its way in the little brains of the beheading apprentices, and they realise not only that the man’s head has been wiped out clean by a sniper, but they are all in grave danger of the same treatment.
Panic follows, a strange behaviour for people who shouldn’t desire anything more ardently than to have their knuckleheads wiped off clean in the name of their so-called prophet. Decidedly, Jihadis aren’t what they used to be.
I wouldn’t bet my pint on the survival of the ISIS as a territorial army in, say, 5 years’ time. When a coordinated military action comes – including, inevitably, Western boots on the ground – they will be wiped out all right, and the numbers of Arabs swearing to us how they always hated them will be immense. I do not know a single Arab army that wasn’t torn to piece, in the last 150 years or so, by the Western powers when they decided to act. Even the Afghans were invaded four times (three if you exclude the Russians); and boy, they are a tad tougher than the Syrians.
However, I very much fear that the loss of a territorial army will lead to the development of a different war: the asymmetrical warfare in Europe, courtesy of the stupidity of the European voters. I see many signals of this coming. I also see many signals that the stupidity of the Western masses will cause this to happen.
What goes around comes around.
It goes for ISIS “beheading teachers”, and for PC Europeans.
Let me say first that where I come from, we love emotional people. Padre Pio was very emotional, and would not hesitate to slap adults in the face, for the right reasons.
I do not know any Italian who does not consider an open show of emotions endearing. Foreigners love it when they see an emotional Southerner. It reminds them of all the fire and passion they do not have.
I should, therefore, not cast any stone on Pope Stupid.
Why, then, do I do it?
Because once again, this man appears to be a first-class hypocrite.
Why starting to discuss with the man in that manner, when he knows he has a camera just inches from him? And why this astonishing judgmentalism of calling a man “selfish”? How does he know? Does he know his heart? Has he measured the man’s conscience?
The gentle, un-judgmental Pope should have amiably rebuked the man with a friendly tut-tut and a smile, and shrugged the episode from his holy self with a suave gesture of loving forgiveness. He should have shown to the entire planet that he is a kind, old, clearly overweight uncle unable to do anything so out of line as… being angry at a faithful Catholic for a small excess of zeal.
Shall I remind you that poor Padre Pio risked to be literally torn apart by the adoring masses who absolutely wanted to touch him, and put in danger by all the idiots who approached him with knives and scissors to manage to take a way a piece of his habit? If Francis gets so angry for one episode, what should the old (and truly saintly) man have done, nuke the mob?
The truth of the matter is this: Francis is a first-class hypocrite extremely able to criticise everything and everyone as he proposes himself as the idol of non-judgmentalism.
Live by populist crap, die by populist crap.
He will have his reward.
P.S. Can’t imagine Benedict behaving in this way.
The sudden, and very sad, death of Justice Antonin Scalia also had a strange tail in the equally strange fact, amply publicised, that the apparently cold body received the “sacrament” of the “last rites” by a priest when he arrived on the scene.
I wasn’t on the scene, but when I read the piece I thought the same as most of you did: that the servants of the farm/mansion found Scalia, basically, dead as a doornail; or, as you might also put it, too cold to have any illusion that he might still be alive. I will assume, in the following, that this was the case. If this was not the case, well, the facts have not been reported accurately.
It is a mystery to me how a priest might consider that a man who is already evidently dead might not be dead; as if life were something that might be lying hidden, somewhere, in a cold, hard corpse. My first impression is rather that the priest either only performed a generic blessing over the corpse, or else that this was another example of abuse of a sacrament because of political correctness, in order to not exclude anyone from anything on any circumstance whatsoever. I wonder how pleased Justice Scalia is in knowing that strange, macabre rites supposed to be a sacrament have been performed on his corpse what appears to be hours after his death.
Now let us assume here that the priest was right, and political correctness is right, and even old theologians who, in past times, advocated for strange distinctions about when one is really dead after he has died are right. The result of this is that…the sacrament loses every meaning.
No more necessity to provide for ourselves before we die, lest we die unprepared; no necessity anymore, because our family will provide for it until we putrefy, which means anywhere between 12/24 hours and four weeks if we are, as pretty common today, deep frozen in salmon-style until a convenient day for the funeral is available. More importantly, we can, with this reasoning, be died-in-the-wool atheists and die unrepentant, but then our ass should be saved because our relatives will provide for those last rites we have always refused to be provided unless, literally, on our cold, dead body, and everyone is happy.
All this seems madness to me, and I must question the sanity of any theologian who thinks that the “last rites” could have been performed, in case of sudden death, on a corpse until the moment putrefaction begins, because you never know. It may well be that in those old and unscientific time the rites were conditional. But nowadays we don’t do “conditional” much. Nowadays, we try to find ways to get around the sacraments.
The way I always understood it is that the main element of the sacrament of the last rites is that the person who receive the sacrament wants to do so. We know of Schubert, Beethoven, and many others that they died with the Sacraments, because they chose to receive them in their last hour. This has great value, gives a solid intent to the confession related to the rites, and gives us a great deal of security that, in these example, these two great men died at peace with the Lord. But when a macabre rite is performed over someone everyone knows dead, who did not take any decision as to whether to take the sacrament, cannot repent of anything, cannot confess anything, and is just a corpse, and which is due to merely the decision of those around him, then I frankly wonder what’s happening.
Of course, the priest will be able to perform as many prayers and benedictions over the corpse as he wants; of course, it is reasonable to assume that the man asking for a priest and then dying before the priest arrives has not waited for the arrival of the priest for his perfect contrition; of course, we do not presume that one is in deep trouble just because he could not have the Last Rites; but hey, this cannot come to the point of administering the sacrament on a corpse and then delude ourselves he has received a sacrament, and inform the press of the fact. This is, if you ask me, as stupid as the mother asking that the dead baby be now baptised, because she realises now that this might have been a wise thing to do when he was alive.
Mors omnia solvit. Death puts an end to everything. This is not only valid for legal matters (death puts an end to a marriage, say), but it also applies to our life in general. At death, like at the roulette, les jeux sont faits, rien ne va plus.
I read these Scalia episode and can’t avoid imagining a Country in which it either has become common practice – or will soon become common practice – to call a priest to give the “last rite” to nominal Christians, but heathen in everything else, who lived and died in complete disregard of the Lord, and of which the relatives think that “they will be fine” because, four and a half hours after their car accident, a priest came and performed a “sacrament” over their dead bodies.
I must disagree, and I must encourage the mother, or father, or brother in question to warn the loved relative before the accident happens. Because once one is dead the game is over already, and the matter will not change if an entire Conclave performs serial “last rites” over him.
Memento Mori. There will be no extra time.
Gloria TV has a rather eloquent photo about the attendance at the hoped mega mass for Francis in Mexico City.
Mexico City is a huge city, with a vast Catholic presence. A Pope doesn’t pop in every Friday afternoon for a lemon sorbet and a chat. A Pope is also – in these disgraceful times of ours – a pop icon, and you would imagine he makes people, at least, curious.
Nope. Twenty thousand people at the most. If you consider the huge amount of priests and religious (both male and female) in this vast city who were most certainly there, the numbers are even worse than that.
It is truly refreshingly embarrassing to see how Francis’ papacy implodes. A man who has thrown Catholicism out of the window for the sake of popularity and adoration of the masses discovers that the masses have less and less time for a tool only able to spit nonsense, heresy or blasphemy out of his Socialist mouth. Mind, I do not think that the masses care much for heresy or blasphemy. I also doubt that they are able to detect nonsense. But if they want to hear the kind of nonsense Francis speaks, they certainly do not need a Pope for it. Every third rate politician, kindergarten teacher, social worker or homosexual activist will say pretty much the same things on demand. No need to undergo the inconvenience of actually moving one’s backside to visit a Pope.
I will go out on a limb here and dare to say that, even in formally still very Catholic Mexico City, even the Dalai Lama would have attracted a greater crowd; at least, that is, if the visit had been trumpeted with the same energy as this, alas, extremely political Papal ingerence in other Countries’ immigration matters. Because, dear friends, when all is said and done this is what it’s all about.
As I have said, this is refreshingly embarrassing. Embarrassing, because to watch this Pope reminds me of watching the English version of The Office, with Francis in the role of Brent minus the modicum of good will the poor chap at least had. Refreshing, because it is good to see the Pope demolishing himself even faster than we had wished.
Francis is yesterday’s hero. The novelty effect is gone, no one is interested in the idiot who has remained. The masses have chewed him and spit him out like a chewing gum. This is what happens when you make of yourself the chewing gum of the masses.
Thanks, Mexico City, for this strong vote of no confidence (or, at the very least, bored disinterest) in this disgraceful papacy.
And it came to pass a church which will rank among the most beautiful in Christianity was consecrated in December 2015. It is a work of stunning beauty. And it is an Orthodox Church, the Church of the protection of the Mother of God in Yasenevo, a district of Moscow.
Father Z picked up the story. The original post is here. The virtual tour will take your breath away (I suggest you, cough, switch off the audio). It is simply astonishing. I have been in Monreale, and I was blown away. This here seems to want to be a credible junior.
Note the contrast. Russia is still a Country enough corrupt that it needs seven years to buy the land and obtain a building permission for a church, or at least so says the blog post. But Russia is also the country where such a miracle can happen out of the effort of simple faithful: the very many who have donated for the work, and the many volunteers who have worked on it.
I become more and more persuaded that Putin’s Russia (as long as there is one; I truly hope the man survives the predictable mess caused by the low oil prices) is now becoming, schismatics as she is, the real bulwark of Christianity in the West. A great shame but, I think, the sad reality in this morning of the XXI Century, when the Vatican seems more preoccupied with the Islamisation of the West than with the message of Christ.
These Orthodox put us to shame. Wrong as they are, there is much more Christianity flowing in their blood than there is in our old, tired, stupid, effeminate Western Countries.
I hope this wonderful church will be, one day, Catholic.
But I find it wonderful that it is there in the first place.
Long live Putin’s Russia.
With all its faults, and with all the work there is to do, still: long live Putin’s Russia.
Very bad news this morning as I discovered Justice Scalia is dead.
Please pray for his soul.
Besides quoting the abused quip, that it’s always the wrong judge who dies, this puts Christianity in the US in front of a serious problem.
Scalia was a staunch defender of Christian values. He will now have to be replaced, and it is difficult to imagine Obama, even confronted with a hopefully broadly hostile Senate, not trying to get some other bad apple in the mix.
This shows how important it is to contribute to the election of a President which gives guarantees of solid (social) Conservatism. The refusal to support a solidly conservative candidate because he is not everything that a Catholic would wish (I have read shocking comments on this very blog; I am very much afraid I will be confronted with others) will end up in tears and is tantamount to a refusal to accept reality, and a willingness to accept the destruction of Christianity in the United Stated and, probably, in the entire West as a result.
I find the system of “life” appointment of Supreme Court Justices atrocious; but hey, that’s how it is and it will not change in our lifetime. One of the most important long-term powers of a President is the one to steer the election of the Supreme Court Justices. Whilst he still needs the Senate, boy, you don’t want to have that kind of confrontation particularly in a Senate well stocked with RINOs only wondering what they will get from the Dems in exchange for their approval of the presidential candidate.
I do not know whether Obama will be in a position to put another one of his own before his mandate end. I hope he will fail. In both cases, this sad event once again highlights the importance of the right person at the White House.
Do not help Hillary to win because Cruz isn’t all he would be if he were Catholic, or perfect. There is a difference between refusing to elect a RINO and preventing anyone but the Ideal And Perfect One to be elected.
We in the West (even those who do not live in the US), need for the Conservatives in the US to do their job.
Three years ago yesterday, Pope Benedict stunned the world announcing his abdication.
I have written often that I do not believe in any conspiracy theory, and that this fabrication of abstruse hypotheses is always the ideal way for the very grumpy to create a bespoke reality for themselves. I am, also, fully persuaded that Benedict would not lie, and did what he did exactly for the reasons he said: the desire to have a strong Pope rather than a frail one in times in which a strong man – which he, alas, knew he wasn’t – was necessary.
The intention was, if you ask me, perfectly fine. The man had seen JP II in his last years, and I agree with him the Papacy does not deserve that. You can talk as much as you want about the sacredness of the papal office, but if the sacred office ends up exercised by other people who have not been elected Pope I have a problem with that, too. I still commend the courage, and approve of the intention. It is my personal forecast that as medicine advances and the number of Popes living, but unable to exercise their office properly, increases, so will the abdications. And let us remind ourselves that an abdication is not sinful at all, if done with the right intention, for the good of the Church.
However, it seems to me that Benedict was very naive, and was duped by his own people. His abdication can only have been the fruit of a gross misreading of the intentions and general quality of the cardinals he entrusted with the task of choosing his successor. I cannot imagine the man would have abdicated unless reasonably sure that his successor would have continued his work. And if his successor had continued his work, no one would spend great quantities of ink about his resignation now.
No, what I think has happened is something very simple: the man thinks he has the “right” conclave, and the conclave will pick a man he sees as ideal continuation of his work. Someone like Scola, say. He does not expect a man of almost eighty, and already defeated once, to be in any way papabile. He probably thinks a sufficient number of Cardinals think and feel like him, and will do what is natural to them.
Here we see a constant of Benedict XVI as well as of JP II. They were rather too innocent – in the wrong way – and easily duped by cunning schemers. Some of the most disastrous episcopal appointments of the modern Church are Benedict’s appointments or Benedict’s promotions. Clearly, as we now know, the same applied to Cardinals.
Benedict always seemed to me, to use the English expression, “too clever by half”. He thought he had achieved the right balance between senseless “liberalism” and a conservatism he felt could damage the Church. He thought he and his successors would slowly, but surely lead the Church on the right path, without great strife and controversy (let us remind ourselves: the years of Benedict were already seeing a clear rise in vocations). He thought himself smart enough for a dangerous balancing act, and a balancing act which – from the perspective of us Traditionalists – is sinful, because heavily compromising with Truth in the first place. Still, he thought he could pull this rabbit out of his hat, and resigned confidently believing his work would have been continued.
Otherwise, he would not have resigned, and I think it very offensive to the old man to state he would simply think “I have had enough now, just let me have a quiet retirement”.
Benedict was duped, big time. He failed to read both the evil intent and the incompetence of too many Cardinals. He thought he was maneuvering brilliantly, and he was leading the barque of Peter towards very dangerous rocks. He just did not see it coming. Again: too clever by half.
Benedict is now punished by a just Lord, and forced to see his work raped every single day. A fitting punishment, if you ask me, for believing that a balancing act can be achieved between the right and the wrong Church.
Sanity is achieved by expunging insanity. There can be no compromises. Try to walk this (evil) tightrope, and you may end up with Bergoglio.
Depending on how long the Evil Clown remains Pope, and barring the intervention of the Holy Ghost, Benedict’s massive misjudgment of the conclave he would leave behind may have consequences for many decades to come. Already a libtard like Tagle is advertised around as probable successor. God forbid such a disgrace is inflicted on the Church!
Benedict’s intentions were certainly good. Good, I mean, as far as a V II Pope’s intention can be good. But you see, V II is bad, and there can be no good way of going around doing bad things.
I wonder if he realises it now. But I am afraid he will die a V II Pope.
Pray for Benedict. The Pope who was duped.
Courtesy of reader Akita, I received a link to a short Remnant article based on the cartoon you see above. The title means “Padre Pio arrives in Rome”.
Very funny, and very true!
Enjoy, and try not to spill the coffee….
And it came to pass yours truly directed his unworthy person toward the local church at lunchtime, in order to attend the Ash Wednesday Mass.
A huge queue (up to the end of the block) had formed itself outside of the building. As I went in, I noticed another huge queue had formed the other side of the entrance.
The Church had not one, but three masses at lunchtime, plus morning and evening. Obviously all packed.
At the end of my mass, we were made to go out from the fire exit to facilitate the entrance of the “huge crowd waiting outside” for the next one (so the priest, verbatim).
If it had not been for the Mass (which was reverent, but strictly NO) I would have fancied myself in 1957.
Those attending – working in a busy business district – were exactly the kind of people Francis bashes all the time: the well employed, going about their busy lives, almost all in suit and tie. They had nothing of “periphery” in them, nor was any sheep stink to be detected. They are the one supposed to be tepid, bashing in their own securities, and all that Francis rubbish we all know.
The interesting thing is that I attended the same Ash Wednesday mass in the same church some years ago, and there was absolutely nothing of the sort. Absolutely.Nothing.Of.The.Sort.
Now, let us make a little analysis here: is this the Francis Effect?
Clearly not. If Francis had such an effect on the crowds p, they would flock to Rome in droves before, during and after any Holy Year you can or cannot imagine. But they don't, and they actually seem to carefully avoid the place (the smoke of Satan stinks a lot after all).
What might, then, be happening? If you ask me, and unless this is an isolated episode, what is happening might be simply Providence. More and more people, of the more educated – and therefore informed – class, receive an echo of the controversies surrounding Francis; and this gives them a warm feeling of persistence of good values, a consoling, cosy sensation of “good things that won't go away”; and in time, this teanlates – with God's grace – in curiosity, and then interest, and then trial, and then regular practice.
Your humble correspondent could not hide a triumphant feeling, a total exhilaration at being out in the cold, queueing, and reminded of the packed churches of his early, blessed childhood in a Country where the Only Church was the State Religion. One tear, or three, of the purest joy might have escaped his old and tired, far too emotional eyes.
Today I was so proud of being a Catholic. So proud, that for forty minutes I almost forgot the Evil Clown and his band of thieves. It was exhilarating.
Bad Popes may come and go. They can inflict much damage.
But boy: the Church is – without a shadow of a doubt, and in a very visible way – the toughest shop on Earth.
It is difficult not to be impress by the numbers, or pleased at what they mean.
It is not only that the Traditionalist plant is strong. It is, more tellingly, that these young seminarians know that they are choosing to be priests in a much different environment that it was thinkable only one decade ago. To them, persecution is more than a vague possibility. It is, if things continue to go on this way, a factual certainty.
And yet, God inspires them to give their lives to Him, uncaring of consequences, and very probably the more motivated because of them.
The good tree gives good fruits. What is Francis' tree producing besides a fluffy new world religion, environ-mentalism, socialist kindergarten talk and illegal Muslim immigration?
As the corrupted mainstream V II withers and dies, the remnant grows strong and ready to give battle.
In your charity, consider saying your rosary of today for these brave souls.
And so the remains of Padre Pio came to Rome, and attracted the kind of crowd Francis alone could only dream of. Rorate has the photo; which, as they say, is more worth than thousand words.
Still, I feel I should say a word or two anyway.
What is more Anti-Francis, more old-style Catholicism, more – ahem – rosary-counting than a mass of faithful gathering to see the mortal remains of a Saint? Isn't this exactly that kind of activity the progressivists a la Francis should slam as “ossified”?
How desperate is the man, if he must try to save himself from total loss of face with the help of the Catholicism he hates?
I have written a couple of days ago that a big affluence was likely, though it could have been that people stay home in order not to allow Francis to shine out of the reflex of Padre Pio's light. Possibly both things are happening at the same time, but there is no denying the energy that has been mobilised is exactly the one that Francis tries to quench all the time. The faithful seem not to care whether Francis can get some golden dust out of all this glory. They might well be right.
There is no way this success can be attributed to FrancisChurch.
Actually, it might well be a reaction to it. Veiled for now, but who knows how much more vocal in future.
Francis can't hide his failure behind the love for Padre Pio. Not even at Patheos would they believe such nonsense (what they tell you is a different matter altogether).
The Emperor has no clothes, no brains, no face, and no manners. The contrast between the bankruptcy of this Unholy Year and this eruption of traditional Catholic devotion is brutal.
Thank you, Padre Pio, for exposing the man so well.
And it came to pass the body of Padre Pio is going to be transported to Rome in a 500km travel also stopping at Pietrelcina, his birthplace.
Clearly, there is some hope among the people at the Vatican that the strong devotion of the Italian people for this greatest of modern Saints will revive the affluence of pilgrims, thus saving – as far as it goes – Francis' face.
Alas, I see a little problem with this.
Padre Pio was the very embodiment of everything Francis hates. Whenever Francis criticises the old, rigid, legalists, strictly “by the rule” Catholics, you know they all have Padre Pio as their champions, and Padre Pio would have been proud, not ashamed, of them. Padre Pio is the perfect anti-Francis.
I also note that Padre Pio was very known to – in Francis' words – “obsess” about homosexuality and communism. There is no doubt Padre Pio loathed the fake priest in the style of Bergoglio, and was horrified by Vatican II. He famously said he hoped to die before being put in front of the choice whether to celebrate the Novus Ordo or disobey (he was later exempted, like many other old priests). In short, Padre Pio is all that Francis hates, and Padre Pio would have loathed all that Francis is and does.
I do not know whether the pilgrims will run to see Padre Pio, though I think it probable. I can well imagine many will stay home in order to avoid their devotion for the holy man being abused by Francis as his own success. However, the love for Padre Pio is very strong in Italy, and San Giovanni Rotondo is still a fairly isolated place in the middle of the mountains in Southern Italy.
Be it as it may, this is not Francis having any traction.
This is Francis trying to shine out of Padre Pio's light.
And it came to pass the Evil Clown launched this beautiful initiative, the Year of False Mercy, with only months of notice. After that, he proceeded to complain that the city was not ready for the event – never mind the short notice – and much more would have to be done to prepare the city for the predictable onslaught of the Adoring Crowds.
The crowds never came. They are simply nowhere to be seen. The city now chooses to retract the emergency that should never have been and lifts the ban on snacks vendors’ vans in the strategic points of the Vatican on most days. Not exempted remain only those days in which the Commissario (Rome is under a Commissioner at the moment; long story…) is obliged – both for a problem of etiquette and to avoid the accusation of being rash if the unforeseen should happen on a couple of occasions – to believe that there might be some sort of crowd, at some point, after all.
It truly is funny. The man has made such a noise about the necessity of being ready. He has warned about the pilgrims flocking to see the Freak Wonder of Circus Bergoglio, the Heretical Pope Surrounded By Homos.
Alas, nowadays the real Catholics are asking St Michael to be protected from the man, and the fake Catholics have decided that there is no point in flying to Rome to hear the same fluff they can hear pretty much everywhere, from pretty much everyone, but with a loss less rambling.
Better go to Vegas, no?
The snack van owners can now rejoice (so to speak) for their ability to not sell their snacks to vast, totally absent crowds. The flop is more or less officially declared. Pope Francis looks like an idiot.
Eh, wait. I know why…
You never, ever hear such statements in European politics. To the vast majority of them God is an embarrassment, and those few who think the other way refrain from such open statements of allegiance. Ted Cruz does not refrain, and he seems not to care in the least that he will be soon be portrayed as the devil (a devil they don’t like; the real one they do like) by the libtard dominated media.
It is worth mentioning that the incipit of Cruz’ speech was edited in other mainstream US media, and I had to watch the proto-communist “Guardian” to find it unedited. I don’t buy the editorial necessity of cutting God away from the victory speech of a very Christian candidate. It goes to show how bad it is when you are afraid of having God mentioned.
This is a great start for Cruz, who went on to get a record victory in a state in which the polls had given him consistently trailing Trump. Here’s hoping that he will limit the damage in secular New Hampshire, and then go on to sweep the delegate-rich South in March and April.
I want to mention (though you might have forgotten altogether) that Jeb Bush still hasn’t retired from the race, and is now defending a solid 3% in the polls. Wasted money. Rick “Bruce Jenner is a woman” Santorum is not even on the radar screen, and at this point he might well even renounce to the announcement that he is suspending the campaign as no one would take notice anyway. Learn the lesson, Ricky boy: Christians want a leader who puts his mouth where his faith is. Start politicking and courting the other side, and you will discover there’s a price to pay. The freshest Republican candidate of 2012 is the biggest idiot of 2016, blinded by ambition the very moment he thought he had a real chance and doomed since.
On the Evil Side, things are happening I (and, I am sure, many others) did not consider possible just a month ago. As I write this we do not even know who has won on the side of the Libtards. A 74 years old, clearly socialist, entirely “protest” candidate is almost robbing Hillary of the victory. The man seems to be a catalyst for the adolescent rage of the stupid, the young, and the professional angry. An old man for the pimple-plagued; but also, it seems, another result of the refusal of the Democratic grassroots to have a candidate imposed on them from above, and who had his path cleared for her so that no electable alternative was available. It turns out the voters chose, in great numbers, the unelectable one. What a dream scenario (albeit a still unrealistic one) if the race were to be Cruz against Sanders, a bit a remake (though Reagan was an incumbent) of the Reagan vs Mondale massacre in 1984.
Talking about the past, let me say that I felt 35 years younger this morning. This reminds me of the winter and summer of 1980, when I was a teenager watching from the other side of the ocean a candidate that, for European standards, seemed just landed from Mars aggressively take on the defeatism, cowardice, and outright incompetence of a stupid libtard elite and go on to a glorious victory in November.
It seems that whenever the United States plunge into a spiral of stupidity, the good Lord helps them (we shall see whether directly in 2016) to get back on their feet and recover sanity after paying the price of their own reckless idiocy. Let’s hope this will be the story of 2016.
To God be the glory, indeed.