Monthly Archives: March 2016
The translation of the eponymous Flower is correct, and it is as follows:
So that faith can exist, it needs the evidence of the empty tomb.
It is necessary, like Peter and John, to lose one’s own artificial certainties:
then you will have the courage to enter into the void.
It is necessary that we find the courage to enter into the “grave of God,” which we built as the alleged possession of the truth.
The faith in the resurrection in and with Christ is the basis for the emptiness of ourselves.
This is somewhere between creepy and drunk. It is, also, vaguely menacing, and this is probably the right reading of the situation.
Peter and John did not have any artificial certainty. You can’t live in contact with Jesus and get out of this nothing more than “artificial certainties”. Their faith might not have been perfectly strong, but they did have true faith rather than an artificial one, and true certainties rather than alleged ones. One cannot avoid to think that the “artificial certainties” here is the belief that the Church does not change her Truths, and that exactly this is the message the poor members of the FFI, males and females, must take home from the Creepy Commissioner and his two Creepy Helpers.
Then there are the reference to the “void”, and the “emptiness”. This does not mean much, and sounds more than vaguely a-religious, as if it were atheism in code. Nor can you confuse this as the “emptiness” of which saints have spoken.
This is an emptiness that does not lead to God, but to a void. A void to enter which certainties now seen as “artificial” must be abandoned. It is as if an atheist would invite you to lose your faith and embrace the nothingness and absurdity of it all, because it is the brave thing to do.
Another reading is possible: “dear FFI friars and sisters, forget your old world and get ready for a brain washing. But please let me say this in a veiled and very confused way, because I am told one can make a wonderful career by just sounding stupid”.
I notice in the wording a kind of tribute to the nuChurch: the childish wannabe intellectualism, the desire to be innovative and forward thinking, the half-baked theology of nothing. If it sounds like the words of a drunken man, it is because it sounds like Francis.
It’s the way nuChurch speaks. They have no faith in them, and this is why they speak words without faith.
Creepy. Smelling of alcohol. Vaguely menacing. And, frankly, rather stupid.
A long, long rant from Mother Angelica, courtesy of reader Olga Abounader, has certainly deserved a place here.
You notice that what she says is undoubtedly Catholic (she also says “you have the right to etc.”. I assume she is peaking from the merely legal point of view). You also notice that she has lost her patience.
Mother Angelica speaks about liberal clergy (particularly nuns) and she is clearly sick of them. “Your religious orders are going down. You don’t have vocations. And you don’t even care. Your whole purpose is to destroy”.
Mother is really angry, and rightly so. She has every right to be angry. Her anger is a righteous one. Her anger is also – and openly so – politically incorrect, and openly non-inclusive. She laments – interestingly – that they (even good Catholics) have been “obedient to a destructive force”. She makes a statement, and does not care whether we like it or not. Beautiful.
Yes, I know, there is a whiff of V II here. But one could still rely on a JP II much more strongly than he can rely on a Francis, a man who has all the shortcomings, bar none, that Mother laments. To call JP II “wondrous” is certainly more than a tad overrated; but in those times, and with all his mistakes, the Pope was still Catholic.
“We have swallowed this now for thirty years”, says the saintly nun. One wonders. It is sad that she, like many others, did not see that the problem lies in V II itself, rather than in something running, in a way, parallel to it. Even saintly nuns make mistakes.
It is interesting that you can listen again to all the rebukes she addressed to the liberal church and notice that all of them, bar none, obviously apply to Francis.
Mother Angelica has died on Easter Day. I am sure I am not alone in thinking that, with extreme probability, she does not need our prayers now; but I am also sure my readers will pray for her anyway.
I did not “live” (in a way) Mother Angelica’s years. There was no EWTN where I lived, and what I know of her is largely the youtube videos. What I have seen of her was impressive, and stayed with me, because it was… Catholic. Catholic as in “heaven and hell” Catholic, not Catholic in the way most of our clergy seem to understand the word today.
From this short tribute I understood the following:
- The patriarchal Catholic Church is the first organisation which allowed one woman to create and run a television network for twenty years.
- Mother Angelica created her first television network in a garage. In those same years, or just up to a little before, it was very difficult to get a licence to broadcast in many European Countries, and private TV stations were unheard of pretty much everywhere when I was a child. We Europeans are so allowed to be nannied, in this and in many other matters (for example: the “right to keep and bear arms”), that we do not even notice it; until we see what happens in other Countries, and we suddenly realise how we have allowed our elected representatives to become our, as they say in Italy, Swiss Governess.
- The Evil Clown apparently spoke to the saintly woman a while before she died. No doubt, the satanical FrancisChurch will now try to take ownership of Mother Angelica’s work. Do not be deceived. The obvious mark of Mother Angelica’s work at EWTN is exactly the rejection of that faux Catholicism of which Francis is the most dangerous proponent. The likes of Francis are the reason EWTN grew so strong during Mother Angelica’s tenure: because they are liars, and she was truthful.
Before anyone intervenes on the matter: I am not concerned with how much V II was in the woman. Whilst I got an impression of unwavering orthodoxy, I cannot exclude that here and there some of the wrong ingredients were mixed into her excellent cake. Alas, such are the times in which we live, and this is how much we must be on guard. But I will never die with such good cards in my hands as her. Kindly refrain from any criticism of Mother’s work in this hour.
Mother Angelica’s work was so successful, because the treason of the clergy was so evident. Much in the same way we are now seeing with blogs and internet fora, Catholics listened to her because they heard those harsh truths their own clergy did not say to them anymore, or even tried to undermine. As success is not a merit for the Church hierarchy, but is rather its indictment. And the way this network was created and prospered is another example of how God providentially uses freedoms to make His work.
Let us pray for Mother Angelica, even if we think that she does not need our prayers. Prayers never go to waste.
The “Apostolic Excrementation” is upon us, and I dread what might happen in the next weeks.
At the same time, I cannot avoid reflecting that the widespread comments about the October final Relatio opening the way to heresy did exactly what they wanted to avoid: they made it easier for the Evil Clown to attempt just that.
This little effort has always proposed a different reading of the document: starting from its weakly formulated, but clear refusal of heresy the document should have been read, and proposed, and proclaimed everywhere as shutting the door on any papal attempt to introduce novelty in our religious laws and practice.
I must say that my voice has remained rather in the minority. More spread was the other reading, “Francis will use the weak formulations to introduce heresy”. The reading facilitated just that, and in these horrible days we are living the consequences of this climate of heretical expectations the very enemies of heresy have – in perfect good faith, no doubt – contributed to create.
How different would the climate be today, if in October and November the only possible interpretation of the document – then every document must be read in accordance with what the Church teaches first, instead of anticipating and announcing a heretical interpretation of it – had been vigorously defended. “The door to heretical practice is shut. Shut up you too, Francis, and forget every heretical undertaking if you have your job dear”. This narrative would have put a formidable obstacle on Francis’ plans, particularly considering how fast the man always retreats when the opposition gets vocal. Instead, the cries of impending heresy have paved the way for at least the possibility of an officially heretical papal document.
I am worried. Cardinal Kasper has already trumpeted a great victory for his heresy; but the man was already once exposed as an obvious, and rather stupid, liar, and he has all the interest to read every shut door as open. Kasper would now, even faced with defeat, have to claim victory anyway, like a MiniMe Goebbels claiming victories on the field as the Wehrmacht retreats. 200 pages of waffle should give him a corner or three for that, even if the document is orthodox (see below: CDF). Therefore, Kasper’s statements must be taken, for now, with three pinches of salt.
I have read around that the first draft of the document came back from the CDF with some 30 or 40 pages of observations, which means that at least the first draft – and most certainly the entire thinking behind the document – was shockingly heretical. Have things been amended? What happened when the CDF basically asked for the document to be rewritten? How can 40 pages of observations on a 200 pages document be seen as anything else than “this here is 100% toilet paper”?
We shall know in the next days. We must pray that this also passes without earthquakes, and the mountain gives birth – like in October 2014, and in October 2015 – to another mouse. But we must be ready to call very vocally for the deposition of this Pope if he dared to do what Kasper says he did.
We cannot depose the Pope ourselves. But we can destroy his papacy, and cause the man to lose face in front of every Catholic who has his salvation dear. How many of those are still around is ultimately irrelevant. Truth does not go by numbers.
A battle without precedent since the Arian crisis might be staring us in the face. We must be ready to fight this battle in every way given to us: within our families, with our friends, with our colleagues; accepting mockery, isolation, and the enmity that might result, but also helping God’s work in those whom His Providence has decreed that they be helped by our effort.
Pray, hope, and load your gun.
You might soon have need for it.
A group of bigoted animal rights activists has invaded St Patrick’s Cathedral, desecrating the Mass with their obscene ideology.
Will any of them go to jail? I doubt. They will probably only get a fine, if any. I wonder even whether any charges will be pressed. We are in the age of effeminacy, you know.
Were there bigoted fanatics around 50 years ago? You bet. Did they invade churches? Not quite. The sanctions would have been much harsher. Charges would have been pressed. The public condemnation would have been stronger. There was no cause you could benefit by insulting God. Madmen have always been around, but public desecration required a higher degree of madness rather than a cynical calculation about costs and benefits.
We have seen this happening with increasing frequency: in France, in Russia, in the United States, some of the most symbolic places of worship are attacked by evil cretins. Only in Russia the reaction has been (somewhat) proportionate to the offence. Everywhere else to invade a church is fair game, and a good way to obtain publicity.
Yes, it’s the fault of the perpetrators first of all. But it is also the fault of an effeminate culture of non-assertiveness, which demands that Christians never show any gut whatsoever.
Muslims bomb us, and our bishops ask us to welcome more of them. Media keep attacking the Church because of faults common in every section of society (in the UK, Anglicans priests are statistically as likely to be indicted for pedophilia as Catholic priests; teachers are more likely; the BBC covers TV stars for decades; the authorities look the other side as a huge ring of prevalently Muslim criminals rape prevalently white children. No movies about any of that), and our clergy is only able to whine and add their condemnation to the world’s. The gutlessness and effeminacy of our own clergy is inviting deprecation, desecration, and persecution.
I see signs of decay everywhere around us. It is happening on a massive scale. Countless in the Country I live in do not even know what Easter is, and I am not talking of the Mohammedans. They have no idea of what Christianity is, and they are not helped by inane clergy who seems more interested in letting them know how important it is to switch the light off when you leave the room.
This is why our Cathedrals are invaded. We do not care for our religion ourselves, we do not respect our liturgy ourselves. Our clergy is embarrassed by what our religion says. Our Pope boasts that he used to make fun of the liturgy as a child, and he makes fun of the liturgy even as a Pope, raping it to promote his own secular agenda. There is no sense of sacredness, as most NO masses will show you in a shocking way (for you; not for most of those attending them).
We are in the twilight of Christianity. Our Cathedrals are still there, and you can still enter them without fear, but a clear trend is now showing. In one generation, perhaps faster than that, invasions and desecrations may become widespread. In two, the cathedral might be closed. In three, there might not even be groups of underground Catholics in Europe or North America.
Yes, I blame the fanatics first. But I blame our emasculated clergy second. They are the enablers of the coming persecution, and are even helping the enemies of our religion to come to us and bury it for good.
The “religion of peace” has, it being so peaceful and all, claimed another 30+ victims.
The Evil Clown has nothing better to do than to (and I quote) ask the Lord
“to convert the hearts of those people taken in by cruel fundamentalism.”
In normal times this would be breathtakingly unChristian. But we don’t live in normal times, we live in the times of Francis. Therefore, I can’t say I am surprised.
Francis manages to be an enemy of Christianity, and an accomplice in Muslim atrocities, twice with a single statement.
Firstly, there is no word in Francis that may indicate even the desire of a conversion of the infidel. Islam isn’t really the problem here, is it now?
Secondly, Francis does what he always loves to do: attack Christianity as he avoids to say a word about Islam. The carefully chosen, unqualified word “fundamentalism” is blatantly aimed at directing your attention towards the alleged faults of… Christians. The message here is clear: there are bad guys in every religion, and who am I to judge?
You can make, as always, the Litmus test of the unChristian statement: what would an atheist politician need to change in these words to align it with his ideology? Nothing. What would he say to deflect attention on Islam and direct it against Christianity? The exactly same words.
The time has passed when such statements could simply be interpreted away with an appeal to the obviously limited intelligence, and even more limited education, of this boor in white.
We must accept the reality – and we must say it out loud – that as Muslims (notice the word here? The one beginning with “M”) try to plunge Europe into fear and chaos Francis does everything in his power to deflect the attention from the real problem as he attacks the Church he hates with every breath.
On this Maundy Thursday, I hope my readers will renew their prayer to free Catholicism from the scourge – well deserved, but terrible nevertheless – of a Pope who hates his own religion.
A reader of a famous blog asks whether it is hypocrisy from a so-called “extraordinary minister of holy communion” (I insist in not wanting to memorise the term) to be active in such a function herself, but then always change the line in order for her to be able to receive from the priest.
Yes. Of course she is. There can be no doubt about that.
The woman has (I would say) instinctively recognised that something is off when she receives the Host from a layman. However, it appears the woman doe snot extend this inadequacy to herself. As if it were right to receive from a priest, or from herself, but not from anyone else.
You would think that such a woman would add 2+2 and ask the priest to be exempted from the embarrassment. But she doesn’t.
Now, in the normal world out there there are alot of people who keeps doing something they were asked to do out of a feeling of niceness. Surely, though, this “acting out of niceness” can never extend to something the same person knows to be wrong.
It is wrong that a person receives Holy Communion from the unconsecrated hands of a layman. There is no law saying the distribution of communion must be over in five, or seven, or ten minutes.
I invite once again my readers to always, always insist on receiving from consecrated hands.
Move lines. It’s good if you get noticed.
If you are one of those “extraordinary whatever it is”, stop now. Say to the priest what has to be said. Don’t be a V II nice guy (or nice girl).
The hypocritical woman clearly sees in others what she does not want to see on herself, or else find excuses to avoid act in accordance with what she sees. We can’t condone that.
No doctor ever ordered to be an “extraordinary whatever”. Let us not play with what is most sacred.
Avoid the “extraordinary etc”. Don’t even look at them. Ignore them. They are just not there. They should not be there.
To some it seems right to admit all men, without distinction, to the laver of regeneration in Christ Jesus our Lord, even though they refuse to change their evil and shameful life,noteworthy by wickedness and evidently dishonorable actions, and even declare openly that they wish to persevere in these. If someone, for instance, is linked to a harlot, he should not be first ordered to leave her and only then permitted to approach baptism, but he should be admitted and baptized even, as he professes publicly, he continues to be with her and means to so continue; that he be not hindered in becoming a member of Christ, even though he persist in being a member of the harlot (1Cor 6). Only afterwards should he be taught how great this evil, and, already baptized, he be instructed on the way to change his customs for the better. For they think it a strange and contrary to good order, that the Christian should live and then be baptized: in their opinion the Sacrament of Baptism should precede, so that the teaching on good conduct may follow. And if the baptizedbe willing to accept this and to observe it, it will be for his interest; but if he be unwilling, as long as still retaining the Christian Faith, without which he would perish forever, in no matter what sin or impurity he may continue, he will be saved equally, as if through fire, in the same way as one who, upon the foundation which is Christ, had built not with gold, silver and precious stones, but wood, hay and straw; that is, not with righteous and pure ways of life, but unrighteous and opposed to shame. (Saint Augustine. On Faith and Works, no. 1)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Bishop Egan has just another article of encouragement to good Catholics to be good Catholics.
There are much worse bishops than Egan, and the man is trying to at least send out a Catholic message. However, there are a couple of considerations that I think I should add to his.
Our forefathers knew (but we are too stupid to realise) that you can’t defend the family without shaming those who, with their behaviour, undermine it.
You can’t be “sensitive” to “single mothers”, wonder how you should “better integrate” public concubines in the life of the Church, and call to “awareness” for the “difficult situation” of every sort of public sinner and then be surprised that the family as an institution goes to the dogs. It is, in fact, your very sensitive attitudes that causes this.
I am old enough to remember how family was defended, when its defence was more than a lip service. Shaming of sluttishness, utter contempt for those men who dared to leave their families, and general call to act like adults in everything concerning family matters, this is how it was done.
No more. Today, the “pursuit of happiness” (intended, often, as “romantic love” in an age in which adolescence seems to extend well into the Sixties) is the new religion, and it would be considered impious to counter to it something so old and stuffed like Christian values, and expectations of decent behaviour. We don’t do “judgment” anymore.
Who knows, perhaps Mrs X was so atrociously tortured with a rusty knife by Mr X every day, that she had to leave him and marry Mr Y, who is oh so nice? How can anyone even imply that for both of them it’s either repentance or hell, and nothing else?
Who knows, perhaps Mr Z was having a strange kind of depression, which made him do a very strange thing like leaving wife and children; and now he has another wife, and little Shaoean with her; and he is sooo cute, how could you say their union is wrong? How could you call little Shaoean son of sin? Isn’t this cruel?
Who knows, perhaps young Shoshaena did not know how children are made, or thought pregnancy only happens after 18? And how can you condemn lurv? Can’t you see how beautiful the little girl, Full Moon, is? She’s all her father, DeShawn, though obviously officially there is no father; because of the council flat, you know…
Well, I know.
Mrs X is a bloody adulterous cow, and even her female friend will refuse to have anything to do with her. Mr Z is a shame to his sex and an irresponsible cretin, and no decent man will honour him with his friendship. Young Shosheana is a slut, and no decent girl will have anything to do with her. Shaoean is a bastard at least for the Church (not his fault, but hey…). Full Moon is a bastard for both the Church and everyone else (see above). DeShawn is a bastard at least figuratively. Probably literally, too.
In case you wonder, I have seen all these cases at work. If it seems unbelievable to you, this gives you the measure of how far we have sunk.
Those above were the words that made the round when family was important in actual fact. And when this happened, the social shame helped preserve the family, big time. The preservation of the institution was more important than individual destinies. You don’t want to suffer the consequences? Avoid the behaviour. The only way out of the social pariah-dom was the Christian one: sincere repentance and change of life. I have seen such cases, too.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. If you want to protect anything you must, you must condemn what goes contrary to it. There’s no other way. It’s the only way it can work.
This is elementary common sense. But we don’t live in an age in which elementary common sense is held in any respect. Rather, the continuous desire of almost everyone to a) feel good with themselves, and b) be seen as “nice” is what counts.
This is why the family is imploding, and almost 50% of the newborn in the United Kingdom are – you guessed it – bastards.
One element that never ceases to astonish me in this 2016 Presidential cycle is the great increase in voters’ participation.
A simple reading can be made of what has happened up to now in the Republican camp: whilst a part of the traditional Republican electorate is certainly angry, disillusioned and in open revolt (largely and loosely: the “Tea Party” component of it), the revolt keeps being fueled by a seemingly vast number of people who used not to vote, and are now going back to the ballot box en masse.
This would also explain why the polls (even those in good faith) used to pretty consistently underestimate Trump: it is difficult to know who is going to vote again after a long time, and the “likely voters” forecast models of the polling agencies must struggle to adjust to a new reality for which there are no recent comparisons.
What I think is happening is this: an entire section of the electorate, those who had been marginalised by the policies of the last twenty years or more and had therefore become disaffected and unrepresented – and therefore did not vote, not believing in the willingness of the traditional parties to represent them – has now awoken, and is coming back to the polling booth with a vengeance.
They are the forgotten Country. Those so despised by the educated political class, disparagingly branded in various way as “rednecks”, “low education workforce”, and the like. Those who feel the sting of the Chinese and Mexican competition in the manufacturing industry on one side; and the nannies, the gardeners, the cleaning ladies in some Southern states, who feel the direct competition of a low-wage, low-rights, easily exploited workforce on the other.
It is easy to be for free trade if you are an IT consultant, a teacher, a banker, a qualified employee of any sort. But you are forgetting how many all the others are. Everyone in Washington did the same for many years.
These voters are mainly Whites, and surely many of them used to be Democrats. But they are – the reds as well as the blues – impervious to the liberal mantra of the White Guilt, and not interested at all in Hillary’s “Black lives count” rhetoric. They are many millions. They are not at ease about their future. Hillary has nothing to offer to them. Trump, an awful lot. They don’t follow the rules of Political Correctness. You call them “racists”, it does not even register. They will vote Trump with more gusto.
It is like a seaquake. This big mass has suddenly emerged from the depth in which it had confined itself, and is now creating a wave that might well destroy the GOP as we know it. The Forgotten Country has found a hero, and – it pains me to say it – this hero is not Cruz, whose classical free trade ideology alienates them to him.
If you ask me, the difference is the “forgotten Country”. Plus, you have to add a possibly big number of “Trump Democrats”, who will now switch their allegiance to Trump because… he truly speaks to them, addresses their fears, gives them a message they want to see implemented. If memory serves, Whites (excluding Hispanics) are still around 65%-70% of the Country. Already in this demographic there is enough potential to bury Hillary under a landslide of oh-so-despised “low education” votes. It seems to me the “educated” journalists’ class still hasn’t got the memo.
Put the two together – the former non-voters, and the former Dem voters – and the figures we read around (primaries turnout increased by 100%, 200%, 300%!) start to make more sense.
We see this happening in other ways, too. Cruz performs better in closed primaries, because his grip is stronger among those who already voted. But Trump can regularly tap (and this is only the beginning!) into a massive reservoir of votes that were just not there, at least not for every Republican candidate since, probably, Reagan.
Plus, ask yourself: how many of the Sanders voters feel more ideologically near to Trump than to Clinton? 10%? 15%? It does not need to be a huge number. Flip two million the other side and Hillary is cooked. Sanders may not work for Cruz, but he works for Trump, stirring a discontent that will bring more water to Trump’s mill.
It is a mystery to me how the scale of what is happening is not noticed from the MSM. They keep repeating the same old mantras of the same old world: Hillary will win, because she is more “mainstream” than Trump. They say so (even if they are in good faith) because they think that the voters are a given number, a known entity, a closed circuit. It is not so. Trump a) is literally creating a new electorate out of nothing, and b) he will steal a lot of White, “low education” Democratic votes from Hillary in addition to that. Plus, notwithstanding all the “black lives matter” rhetoric, I very much doubt Hillary will manage to mobilise the Black electorate – the prime “votes against handouts” electoral reservoir of the Democrats – the same way The First Melanin President did.
A Forgotten Country is emerging in this 2016 context. It is angry, and it is saying it out loud.
If you ask me, it has the potential to swamp and utterly wipe out the old logic of Washington politics.
The Pontiff Emeritus has broken his silence, and his words are both revealing and ominous. Revealing, because they are clearly targeted (though the recipient of the criticism is, obviously, not mentioned) at the entire obscene edifice of FrancisMercy. Ominous, because I am very much afraid the good man has decided to speak now, only days before the announced publication of the Apostolic Excrementation (© Mundabor 2016), because he has got word of something obscene therein contained. I might be wrong, of course; let’s hope so.
Anyhow, let us come to the content of the interview itself. It has brought me back to a time when the Pope was – albeit of the V II sort – still Catholic. How the times have changed…
First salvo: loss of the fear of hell destroys the Faith.
The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.
There is no way whatsoever, not even in a desperate effort of Pollyann-ing, that this can be interpreted otherwise than an indictment of the MercyCrap (© Mundabor 2016) the Evil Clown has been spouting around for a very long time now. let us quote:
This is very V II, of course (he does not say he is convinced, too, unless other conditions occurred). Still, the message is clear enough: MercyCrap © destroys the very foundations of Catholicism.
Second salvo: loss of extra ecclesiam nulla salus destroys proselytism.
[Benedict] also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”
One is reminded of the one who said that proselytism is “solemn nonsense”. Who might that have been? Oh well..
Again, there is no way you can possibly misunderstand it. Benedict goes squarely against what Francis preaches day in and day out. Seriously, there is nowhere to hide.
Benedict is, obviously, the Emeritus. Therefore, he does not speak in any official role as the Pope. However, he speaks with the authority of one who once was the Pope in charge. It is the most authoritative voice choosing to be heard in such a clear manner on matter that go at the very heart of Catholicism.
I lament the imprecision of the language, that might be due to the translation: dogmas don’t evolve, and for a religious to even imply (he later says “purported”) that any dogma may be “evolved” is not good at all. However, the well-formed catholic will understand what the man means without any difficulties.
Similarly, Catholic convictions can never be “definitively abandoned”. Rather, some bad Catholics can abandon them. Again, the impression might be engendered that Catholic convictions may change. They don’t. What can change is the quality of the believer, never the quality of the belief. Again, it might have been the translation, or a certain lack of attention.
Be it as it may, these are welcome words as the Holy Week is about to begin, and Francis is about to embark in another orgy of “Muslims saved by holding to their Korans”.
But honestly, I fear that something worse might be in the making.
P.s. before I get 30 messages about this: I know, Benedict is still part of the problem. But I am sure everyone will see the difference with the Evil Clown. In any way, this blog post is not about Benedict’s pontificate.
News are now making the round that Cruz would have been “saved” from demise.
Don’t be so fast.
First of all, the “Globe” project is dead. Dead as a door nail. The secular newspaper’s project of setting up a sort of Catholic observatory from the perspective of secular Catholics has failed, miserably.
What remains? The name. The name was apparently left to Mr Allen for free (meaning: it isn’t worth much), so Mr Allen set himself to look for someone who might have some use for it, possibly because it has an outlet with an even less known name.
Enter the Knights of Columbus, with their own not-so-well-known organ, “The Catholic pulse”. A name which, in 5 and a half years of Catholic blogging, I do not remember having ever read, or having said anything notable.
What did, then, the Knights of Columbus buy? The editorial project? Nope. The anti-Catholic stance? The Knights of Columbus aren’t what they used to be, for sure, but the “Globe” they are not.
What they buy is a name, a logo, and 2 employees (yes, from what it has transpired up to now, this is all. “Crux” never had a massive head count anyway), to which they will entrust the shop
“trusting it to present news and commentary in a way that serves the good of the Church”.
(Read here: “recreation time has ended. Go back to your class now”).
It appears to me that the Knights will, as is the case in any re-branding, use the better known name (in Latin, which is still mighty fine; and benefiting from the goodwill the Globe has thrown down the drain on it up to now) to carry on their own project, with a different and better known name, and an editor which will tow the line. Allen isn’t so bad that he cannot tow the line. And the line will obviously be, whilst not as orthodox as it would have been only a decade ago, certainly much different from the direction things had taken in the old, failed, secular project.
Read the press release, because it says it all. I trust that you will be able – if you have some experience of such exercises; I have lived several of them – to clearly understand what’s going on here.
So let us recap. “Crux” has died. The remains have been left to Allen as part of his severance package. Allen has used the name to get a new job, with the same title but with clearly a different editorial policy; an editorial policy which he, like every editor, will have to follow. A win-win for all parties concerned, if it means Crux will now start writing about Catholicism in a Catholic way.
I trust Allen to do it. I always thought the profession of journalist an extremely, extremely old one.
I am curious to see how this will pan out. I do not see in the Knights of Columbus the champions of Catholics orthodoxy; but compared to the “Globe”, boy, it’s an improvement. I am pretty sure Allen has learned his lesson. He might even enjoy being free to be more Catholic than the Globe would allow (see above: extremely old profession). But it’s not a matter of worry for us. If, which I think extremely improbable, the new Crux should be as bad as the old one, it will tank just as fast and at some point the Knights will be tired of paying for another loss-producing venture.
The old Crux is dead. The name will survive.
Why not. It’s a beautiful name after all.
Remember the Six Things I Know And Share?
Let us see where we are now, and let us add some more things.
Rubio was eventually woken up (by his donors).
I had predicted for Rubio a defeat of Grand Canyon proportions. I think it was even worse. The man managed to remain 19% behind Trump, in his own State, where he had staked all his cards. He was basically nowhere anywhere else yesterday. In Florida, he only won his own county. Pathetic. Embarrassing. A waste of money. And this is the man who prevented Cruz from trying to catch up with Trump? Where have his chances ever been? He has never been in the race. He merely said he was, and the press pretended to believe him because it suited them. One good thing of the so-called “low education voters” is that they do not care a straw for what the press says. They are, in this, far smarter than their “better educated” counterparts.
I have the insisting, disturbing suspicion that Rubio really was so deluded that he thought he could lose Florida (even if by a lesser margin than the earth-shattering 19% Trump gave him) and keep getting the money to stay in the race at pleasure. Someone must give the man tuition in reality.
Trump still has no ceiling
Keep looking at Trump’s figures, because they are the key to the next months. Florida was considered a safe Rubio state by most observers only a month ago. Trump got 46% there. Forty. Six. 41% in Missouri. 40% in North Carolina. Even in Ohio, Trump got 36%!
Forget the ceiling. Trump has no “ceiling”; no more than Evil Hillary at least. Polls give Trump losing against XY until the point comes where they give Trump winning. We have seen this many times this year.
Horror scenarios are still not credible.
Cruz has vowed several times to support Trump if the latter is the clear winner. He made even an extremely strong rhetorical point, and said that in order for him not to support Trump, Trump would have to shoot someone on the Fifth Avenue (you remember the joke). Unsurprisingly, some stupid journos have commented that Cruz is qualifying his support for Trump. Morons with a laptop.
Trump and Cruz will absolutely dominate this race among them. There is no way Cruz will start such a civil war within the party. The others will be, at this point, fully irrelevant. Newt Gingrich said it very well:
“There are two potential presidential nominees. One is named Donald. One is named Ted. The idea that some clever Washington intellectual or power broker — put quote marks around ‘power broker’— can step into an election in which millions have voted and magically change the trajectory of history? It’s goofy. There’s two players standing.”
Cruz still has a chance. Time is running out.
Rubio is now out, and only Cruz can stop Trump. But it would be a mistake to simply add the votes. Trump will, most likely, get votes from Rubio supporters as he got some of the Christie and Bush ones. But at least now we have a clear alternative, and it’s the one or the other. I don’t think Kasich will damage Cruz much, either. Kasich has no chance. Those who vote him now do it as alternative to not voting, not to voting Cruz.
Kasich may puff his chest today, but he will soon discover he is, after Ohio, as irrelevant as he was before. Winning one vote among exactly thirty to date isn’t exactly encouraging. He only has 138 delegates as I write this (Missouri has not been called yet), against even Rubio’s 164. He will now take the “protest” votes among the Republicans, and he will not stay for long as his irrelevance is very apparent to my cat. Even the only absurd, hypothetical argument for pumping money into a loser’s campaign (trying to get to a brokered convention which then goes for.. whom exactly?) is now impossible to pursue.
Cruz and Trump will divide among them pretty much all the electors from now on. Kasich will be nowhere. He is a Zombie Candidate.
The GOP Softies have some hard choice to make.
I am thrilled at thinking of all those rosewater Republicans, all those RINOs now in complete, full desperation. They are now officially between a rock (Trump) and a hard place (Cruz). They might be tempted to vote Hillary, and some will do; but hate for the witch runs deep in the nation’s veins. It’s like eating cr@p because you don’t like beetroot.
I think the establishment will leave Cruz or Trump alone: no money, no open support, but no open enmity. They know this would mean they would lose whatever control over the party they still have. The GOP as a brand has lost almost all value. As a Republican candidate you perform much better if you are against it. If I were a RINO grandee I would prefer to shut up and wait for better times, rather than shatter the toy (and myself) in one thousand fragments.
My take is that there will be isolated screeches of professional whinos, but the majority will come to term with the new reality: it’s going to be Cruz or Trump, baby.
The Karl Rove Mentality is over.
After ruining two cycles, the Karl Rove mentality (“let us pick a candidate who can pretend to be a conservative whilst screwing Conservatism at every step”) is now gone. From 2010 on, the people have started to find a voice, and to say they have enough of this. Trump and Cruz are the result of the inability of the party apparatus to get simple things for now six years, and of their will to fight the message from the country at every step.
Try to repair this now. This is a full-blown revolution. It’s unstoppable. If I am right, in November we will see a Congress even more hostile to Rove-ism. The revolution is going on full steam even among those who don’t like Trump.
There. Six more things I know and share.
It still helps me not to think about Francis.
And it came to pass yours truly was woken up by a nasty case of cough; and as he was there getting breath he thought: “perhaps we have news about the impact?“
I managed to get to the online version of Fox News as Little Marco, now blown in thousand little pieces, was giving a concession speech that did not want to be one. After a dozen references to his immigrant parents, and a handful of warning that he was told to wait (he will… have to wait instead) Rubio, who was saying this morning that the polls were embarrassingly wrong, insisted that he has the right message and is the right man, but conservatism is wrong because it does not get him; and the establishment is wrong because they supported him all the time.. oh no, wait…
The best part was when he implied that he could have won if he had run a campaign based on… Trump, but he lost because he is such a regular chap, who would not stoop so low that he makes jokes about Trump’s… hands. A fairly confused speech, with the words “I quit” (or the like) that seemed to never come. It was like seeing him making a painful contact with reality, live.
Little Marco is very young, and we might see him again. But honestly, I found the man embarrassingly bad almost every time I saw it. He spent the entire campaign claiming third places as victories, and investing himself with some sort of divine right to the electors’ votes because papa was a barber. He criticised Trump for his inelegant style, and then became more vulgar than Trump ever was; and lost that battle, too. Chris Christie demolished him outright, and he realised the extend of the debacle when… he was told by his own collaborators. He pledged to go on even after losing in Florida, and was exposed as a big balloon full of hot air on that, too.
In (hopefully) eight years’ time we will have other actors, and I truly hope we will still have Cruz with us if Cruz does not make it this year (which I very much doubt he will, but you never know…).
I truly hope that the age of the phony, constructed, “this but also that”, “Gang of Eight-style” Republican candidates ends with Marco Rubio. We need true conservatives, not inexperienced men without spine, without real achievements, and without shame who want to become President merely because they are sons of immigrants.
Rubio’s collapse is total. Not only in Florida, but also in Illinois (fourth with 10% as I write this), Missouri (fourth with 7%), North Carolina (fourth with 8%) and Ohio (fourth with… 3%). What a waste of money and – if you don’t like Trump – of time.
Planet Rubio is atomised.
Well done, Republican primary voters.
I understand the disappointment. I fully share the feeling.
But it seems to me that there should not be an excessive focus on what happens in one day, or on one occasion.
Cruz has made a big mistake. I also will very frankly concede to you that I prefer Trump’s stance on NAFTA and globalisation in general. Trump is, by far, the better communicator, and the better man at political incorrectness. I will even admit that Cruz has a bit of a professorial, headmaster stance about him that does not make him likable in the way the Gipper or Dubya were likable. He is a harder sell than the ebullient, spontaneous, pleasantly shameless Trump. I get that.
But I think you should honestly look at the person as a whole, and decide whether one mistake – bad as it is – really makes Cruz a worse candidate than Trump.
Trump has already signaled he will not fight for the overturning of Obergefell. This already tells you a lot about the spirit with which he would go seeking for the next Supreme Court judge. Trump has flipped so many times that when he starts to flop no one will be able to say, in conscience, that he would never have thought it would happen.
I trust Trump will act very decidedly concerning the two or three mainstays of his promises to the electorate: the fight against illegal immigration, the push for the revision of trade agreements, very probably the killing of Obamacare. But will he be a crusader? No. When Obergefell came Trump immediately threw in the towel, Cruz did not.
In my eyes, this counts for more than the blunder about the events in Chicago.
You can say that Cruz’ stance shows a fundamental lack of integrity. One wonders what you must think of Trump, then. There is no going around the matter that candidates will disappoint us at some point. Even Reagan. Even Thatcher. Everyone. I am a great admirer of Alcide De Gasperi (the Italian post-war Primo Ministro) but find a couple of things he made, or allowed others to make, unconscionable and without justification. I still like him a lot, mind. I do not throw an entire man away for that. But yes, even the greatest will disappoint you.
Cruz did not resist the temptation to attack Trump in any way he could. A very stupid thing to do. But I put this in the context of a difficult – and contingent – situation, and do not see in this a reflection of a fundamental lack of integrity. People can’t fake integrity so consistently for so long. If you ask me, Cruz saw a tactical move where others, including myself, see far more general principles at stake.
No, I do not think Cruz would kowtow to leftist violence once President. Not in the least. It is not consistent with his past to think that he would do so. This (irresponsible) move was, I think, motivated by the simple desire to gain points against Trump, a stupid tactical move in the heat of the battle, and a battle now becoming more difficult every day.
Bad, I know. There should be other ways. He should have reflected about what happens to him after Tuesday, how such statements reflect on him as a person. He probably focused exclusively on the fact that there is an “after Tuesday” in the first place. Again, a mistake. But don’t put him on the cross. If you do it with him, how many reasons more should you find for Trump?
Trump was (heck: still is!) against the Iraq war. He is a former supporter of Hillary, Kerry and Romney. He has no intention of fighting for the overturning of Obergefell. He is pro-life since the Presidency first appeared on his mind. Does this not count more than a stupid statement, a few days after a very important vote, that could factually decide the race?
Let me tell you once again: Cruz made a big mistake. I am still angry. But I refuse to be taken in the “tunnel vision” of only focusing on one episode, or a couple of days, without looking further down the road. This is, in fact, the very mistake Cruz made.
I am very much afraid Cruz will be punished today (it is already Tuesday here) for his appalling lack of judgment. In a way, he deserves the slap. But then if the slap means not being able to fight for Christian values, probably we don’t deserve to punish ourselves by punishing him in this way. Write an email to his campaign and say that you are appalled and expect better from him; but that he still has enough capital to deserve your vote this time. Send the message. Don’t kill the recipient.
Those among my readers who will vote on this day for the primaries in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere are kindly invited to soar above the disappointment of one stupid statement and vote for the candidate who, as a whole, promises to be the consistently better fighter for Christian values. (“Consistently” does not mean “always”. It means “during the four or eight years of his mandate”). Think of the Cross and think who would, over four or eight years, serve it better: Cruz or Trump?
Please also consider that once Trump wins the nomination he will get all “presidential”, and will start distributing reassurances right and left that this particular devil isn’t as bad as he is painted. Then I will ask you a question or two about integrity.
If it is so easy to ditch Cruz, think how many times Trump will disappoint you.
Mitt Romney is now, all but officially, campaigning for Kasich in Ohio.
I am mildly amused at the news. Romney, a clear loser against one of the easiest adversaries imaginable, has spent some time in the last days savagely attacking Trump and officially/unofficially letting it know that his candidate is Rubio (no, he didn’t say that. But he recorded a robocall for him, so there…).
Rubio’s chances kept sinking faster than the Titanic. In the last days it has become clear that Florida is more likely to be a humiliation for the two of them than anything else.
Well done, Mitt.
Not happy, Romney now looks for another candidate to whom he may give the kiss of death. This time, he is campaigning in Ohio together with , or on the side of, but not officially endorsing Kasich. You can begin to see the style here, and understand even more why one like him would lose even against Obama.
If I were Kasich, I would be terrified. For every establishment RINO who might decide to vote Kasich because of Romney’s endorsement you might well have two or three others who decide to cut it short and just vote Trump, to get rid of these clowns once and for all.
You would think Romney understand he is helping Trump. He doesn’t. The man really thinks he is important, and an asset to his dying bunch of losers.
Months of humiliations, and they still don’t get it.
Go on, Romney. Endorse (without saying it) Kasich after Rubio, and Hillary after Kasich. It can’t be bad for us.
You are the losers’ loser.
Crux Magazine, an enterprise of the Boston Globe, will soon kick the bucket.
I am sure all those who have participated in this obscene venture will find new occupations at some point. Not saying they deserve it, though.
Crux had a huge problem from the start. It was the attempt to create a Catholic publication made by people who don’t believe in Catholicism. It’s not that easy.
My impression is that, with the usual stupidity of the liberal, those responsible for this waste of money thoughts something along the lines of: “most Catholics do not believe in what the Catholic Church believes. Let’s make a magazine aimed at them“.
It does not work that way. people who do not believe what the Church believes may tell you they are “Catholic” whenever it suits them, buy them will not really care. They will not buy a magazine helping them to believe what is wrong, because they never needed any help to do it in the first place. In a world in which vast part of what they see on TV, hear on the radio, and read in printed publications helps them to go to hell, they do not need to spend extra time on just another outlet doing just the same.
I also found the explanation given by the money-wasting idiots for the closure to be just as funny. They never got access to the big Catholic advertisers, they say. You don’t say? A publication promoting dissent at all times does not find big ticket Catholic advertisers? I can barely believe that…
Crux is the perfect example of what happens when people who do not understand jack of Catholicism decide they want to write about it: a flop born of the purest arrogance.
In the meantime the vastly heterogeneous, by highly motivated troop of Catholic bloggers (the real ones) gets more and more traction; is read by those who care; is mentioned by Cardinals in Synods; and – last but not least – is putting a bad papacy to shame.
The foundation of anything Catholic must always be Catholic Truth. If a publication is not based on this foundation, at some point it will crumble. Lapsed and dissenting Catholics are not interested in Catholicism. They are not even interested in publications helping them to remain lapsed Catholics; which is why these publications only reach a tiny fractions of their potentially immense audience.
Ditch Crux. Choose Cruz…
Bye bye, Crux.
You will not be missed.
In a Galaxy Far, Far Away there is a very, very small planet scientists have called Planet Rubio.
On Planet Rubio logic does not count. Defeats are victories. Every delusion makes you excited about the great time to come. The more you lose, the more excited you become.
On Planet Rubio winning does not count. Winning is for losers. What count is that you lose for long enough that every other planet decide that it is Planet Rubio, which loses so well, which must lead the Galaxy Far Far Away to luminous destinies. Why is that? Because the inhabitants of Planet Rubio say so. We are the best. Look at how well we always lose!
On Planet Rubio, common sense is an insult. Those who carry the masses will never win general elections, and they will lead everyone to unavoidable defeat. Those who always lose are the best guarantors of final victory. Don’t ask. This is Planet Rubio.
Planet Rubio has a problem. A huge asteroids is said to be on collision course with the small planet. Strangely enough, the Asteroid is many, many times bigger than the small planet. And it is angry, too. But the inhabitants of Planet Rubio, for whom logic is something that must be despised and facts are just hindrances to be set aside, refuse to see the asteroid rapidly approaching. The huge Asteroid is called Donald, and there is a widespread feeling that the impact will completely destroy the small planet inhabited by deluded dreamers with too much time and too much money to waste. The TV says the impact will happen on the 15th. Yep, that would be Tuesday.
On Planet Rubio no one is fazed. “The Asteroid is clearly already disintegrating”, they say with an almost admirable effort of reality avoidance. “And even if the asteroid were to impact”, they go on, “our small planet will surely destroy the much bigger asteroid”. Thus, the inhabitants of Planet Rubio go on living their logic-free lives and do not care about the impact; or, at least, this is what they say.
The voice of logic would demand that the small planet Rubio should, very simply, give way to the Asteroid and avoid an impact that will destroy many of his inhabitants. This would, so the reasonable people think, also avoid the utter humiliation of the local ruler, whom they call (though they never say so officially, because he would get angry) Little Marco.
If Little Marco had some logic in himself he would see the wisdom of that. He would also realise that, in this way, his little planet might keep some influence within the Galaxy, rather than being simply pulverised and remembered for the ashes scattered all over the ether. But Little Marco does not “do” logic. On his planet you just don’t do such things. Which is why Little Marco steers his little planet straight against Asteroid Donald.
Good luck to you, little unthinking planet. Good luck to you, Little Marco. Only some extremely rare concatenation of events may now prevent the impact, unless you decide to steer your little planet away from the Asteroid at the very last minute. But you will not do it.
You will lead your little, unthinking planet against the Asteroid with a smile, and proclaim victory until the very moment of the terrifying impact.
On Planet Rubio everyone appears so relaxed. Everywhere else the comment is always the same:
Boy, this will hurt!
We are encouraged, from more than our corner, to keep calm.
Don’t get excited. This is just a very, very evil Pope. Nothing to see here. And please let us not say that this one is a very, very evil man. We must always be nice to Daddy, you see…
No. I won’t keep calm.
The Pope is the principal figure in all Christianity. Even Protestants (most of them, at least) easily recognise that. Besides the relevance to us Catholics as the Pope, the Pontiff has relevance to the rest of the planet (people we want to see converted; and converted to Catholicism, not to Islam) as the figurehead of Christianity.
If, therefore, the Pope betrays elementary principles of his Catholic religion – and does it not once and by mistake, but dozens and soon hundreds of times; insistingly, deliberately so – this is not a minor inconvenience; this is the biggest threat to Christianity in our times.
It can be said – as those who insisted in telling us how good Pope Francis was supposed to be now tell us with shocking frequency – that Popes have always been, at times, bad or very bad, or heretics, or skirt-chasers, or perhaps even fags. The difference lies, we are told, merely in this: that once upon a time only two dozen people heard the blasphemy, and nowadays everyone’s on Twitter.
But you see, this is exactly what makes the problem bigger. This is one evil Pope whose evil is propagated all over the world in a matter of hours, every time! Which generation before ours has been exposed to such diabolic confusion?
And I am supposed to keep calm?
Do you love your mother? Could you see her insulted all the time without reacting? Could you see her ravaged and think that this is all, more or less, without importance? Could you see her trampled at least once a week, and keep calm? Thought not…
Do you love the Church?
Since when an old, lewd man; one who goes around even writing in children’s books how he mocked the Traditional Mass as an altar boy; one who separates the hands of young, devout boys joint in prayer; one who puts beach balls and footballs jerseys on altars; one who insults the Blessed Virgin wondering if she was angry at God at the foot of the Cross; one who did so many other things I would write until tomorrow if I were to report them all; since when is such a man owed any respect?
Respect is due to the office. Respect is, to an extent, due to a man because he has a certain office. But the man who betrays the office has no right to respect. The man who insults the Church must be stopped with every (Christian) means. The man who sabotages the Church must cause your very righteous, and very vocal indignation, if you love the Church.
Do you love the Church?
What is more important to you: that you are not seen as being “unkind”, and perhaps considered unworthy of the polite society of those who are burying Christianity under our very eyes; or that you may, one day, go to your judgment knowing that, when the Pope became the Enemy, you did not hesitate in treating him (pretty much) like you would any other enemy?
This, my dear reader, is exactly what is happening. As I write this the Pope is, without the shadow of a doubt, the biggest enemy of Christianity alive. He is more dangerous than Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Castro; because neither of those ever became Pope.
No. I will not keep calm.
Do you care for the salvation of souls? Are you so indifferent to all those so tragically confused by Francis, that to you the keeping up of polite appearances is more important than sounding the clarion call for the utter demolition of this utterly evil papacy? I know what it is to be a hearsay Catholic, because I was one for decades. I know what it is to be confused and easily led astray, because the devil had such an easy game with me. By God’s grace, not anymore. And by God’s grace, I will never forget those years of blindness and confusion – and poor catechesis, and stupid priests, and no solid guidance – and will do whatever it is in this wretched sinner to wake other people up, big time. People who are asleep in such a way don’t wake up because of gentle whispers. They wake up when the alarm clocks makes them jump from the bed. Well, make them jump from the bed!
Other people say that we should limit ourselves to our station in life; that we should, as it were, counter the immense scale of evil we see in front of us every day by being, I don’t know… good friends, good postmen, good cooks, and good neighbours.
Really? Really?? If the clergy is silent, how can the laity not shout?
God knows I would prefer not to have a blog, and spend my time with other interests, safe in the knowledge that my pastors fight the battles for us. But this is simply not the case. This blog, like countless others, exists because the clergy is silent. And if the clergy is silent, the laity will have to shout.
No. I will not keep calm.
I am completely anonymous. No one, absolutely no one alive, knows that I am writing this. Not even the closest friends or relatives. No one. Do you think I, and countless like me, spend our time at the keyboard for fun, or boredom? No. We do it because we love the Church. Why do you think we get so angry? Do you think I would get angry concerning the fate of some species of termites? And why is that? Because I don’t care a straw for termites, you see… Very easy to keep calm!
I, and many others, have long realised what more and more people discover every day: this man is pure poison, it’s walking evil, it’s the greatest spiritual threat on the earth today.
His Pontificate must not be criticised. It must be incinerated. It is the love for God’s Church that demands so. God cannot demand us to make compromises with evil merely because the evil is masquerading as virtue. The moment you see the evil is the moment you have lost the right to compromise. We love the Church in preference to every mask, and we defend Her against any attack. The attacks from inside are always the most dangerous. This attack to the Church comes from Her very top, and strikes at Her very core. So let me ask again:
Do you love the Church?
The Mexican Bishops are angry at the Pope.
They are angry because the Pope rebuked them fairly openly during his recent propaganda-trip (they are, I am told, not so angry when the Pope spits heresies, which is fairly often; sed de hoc satis). They are, interestingly, willing to see in the (apparently) reasonable work done by them against Secularism and Protestantism (that is: something more than most of their South American colleague, which tends to zero) the ultimate reason for the Pope’s not-so-veiled rebuke. Now, the analysis comes from the Archbishop of Mexico City, Cardinal Carrera. But it is reasonable to suppose the man shared thoughts with his colleagues before giving vent to his justified anger.
From this we learn one very important message: whenever the Pope attacks some Bishops, the first thing the Bishops think is that the Pope attacks them because they are being Catholics.
Absurd in normal times. Perfectly reasonable in Francis’ times.
With the usual half-baked effort in diplomacy, the Cardinal asks “who advised the Pope so badly”. The question is wrongly posed. Francis is not a good man badly advised. He is an evil man, a profoundly dirty mind, a person corrupted in his bone marrow. Whatever bad advisers he has (I am sure he has a number of them, though I am sure others try at least limit the damage), they are merely the result of his own badness.
You also read in the article that El Mundo not only confirms great tensions between the Evil Clown and his Mexican Bishops, but also forecast a “renewal of the top of the Mexican Church”. It seems to me that what is in the cards is something akin to what has already happened in Paraguay . But you see, Bishop Livieres Plano was isolated among his modernist colleagues; in Mexico, it could be very different.
The problem with Francis aren’t his advisers. They are, bad as they are, just the consequence of the root problem. The problem with Francis is Francis himself.
The Mexican bishops got it. And, besides the half-bakes diplomacy, they want you to know it, too.