Monthly Archives: April 2016
The 1 May is a festivity pretty much all over Europe. Even the UK, which does not have the official “Labour Day”, has a public holiday on the first Monday in May.
This is another example of how we have slowly de-Christianised ourselves.
In Christian times, the year was marked, and flew at the rhythm of its religious festivities. We see numerous examples of this in old literature, when Candlemas, St Crispin or the like where days known to all.
The 1 Mai was the feast of St Walpurga, in Germany Walpurgisnacht. It was traditionally celebrated with dances starting on the vigil (in those times dances were chaste affairs, and important social lubricants), hence the German expression of calling it Der Tanz in den Mai, “the dance into May”. The Christian tradition has gone. The social dimension has remained, but it is now linked to a purely secular feast: the self-celebration of the working man. The Social Democrat Party thanks heartily, and the others try to get as big a piece of the cake as they can.
I can see the day when Christmas and Easter will be abolished as public festivities, and will be replaced by festivities of secular character on the same day. The Pollyannas will not protest at all, because they are still allowed to celebraaaate their sweeeet festiviteee. But the blow will be massive, because it will gravely impact the public awareness of Christ's Birth and Resurrection exactly as it has impacted the awareness of St Walpurga or Saint Crispin.
The West de-Christianises itself by accepting to push Christianity in the private dimension, as an option which the Pollyannas ask that it be treated in the same way as other options. At the end of which, it is really not clear why exactly Christmas should be a public holiday, and Yom Kippur shouldn't.
When sanity comes back, one of the ways it will happen will be through the ditching of the secular mentality which has been poisoning Europe since the very dark days of the French Revolution and which, through several populist iterations, has given us the extremely populist feasts of “labour”, in whatever secular way it is called.
Screw “Labour Day”.
I will celebrate the feast of St Walpurga instead.
I have not written about the US primaries for a while, because the heresies and blasphemies of the Evil Clown logically had to come first. However, today it might be a good time for some additional reflections.
1) Trump is clearly going to make it, and the moment is rapidly approaching when any result other than his nomination would clearly be a theft and a slap in the face of the Republican voters. When Trump had 700+ delegates and an advantage of less than 200 over Cruz it was one thing; but when he is at 900+ and with an advantage of almost 400 delegates things start to look vastly differently.
2) Trump will give Christians a lot of grief. He has come out in the last days in favour of having trannie dongs (actually: every dong) dangling around in women's bathrooms. If this man is a conservative I am a Maoist. Now we are informed a horribly mutilated, hormone-devastated monstrum called Bruce Jenner (yes, he will always be a Bruce. Born that way, you see…) went into one of his buildings, piddled in the women's bathroom and praised the man loudly. The Lord Of The Trannies is running for President. How much better would Cruz have been! A man who has been sharply criticised for occasional PC mistakes, but never even thoughts of monstrosities like Trump's assertions even as he keeps asking for Conservative votes. I smile at all those comments (on my blog and elsewhere) lamenting the man's mistakes around 1066, or saying he is unsuitable because they don't like his father. I am sure they prefer the Lord Of The Trannies….
3) Still, I think on the one side there is a lot of good in Trump's ideas on immigration, tariffs and foreign policy; and on the other I reflect that if the November elections return Republican majorities in both the Senate and the Congress there will be much scope to force the man, volens nolens, on conservative positions on many issues, first of all the crucial appointment of the Supreme Court judge meant to substitute the great Antonino Scalia.
4) Do not believe those who tell you the man is going to lose big against Hillary. Actually, I think the only way he can lose is if his Lord Of The Trannies attitudes causes the Evangelicals to stay home. Unlikely, considering what is at stake in the Supreme Court. Trump will make big inroads among the disaffected (read: unemployed) white voters (many millions), and it appears he is cleaning up even among (largely employed, and not all White) union members. When the Country has come to grips with the fact that it's him or Hillary, it will be the end of the whining and the beginning of the reasoning. The way I see it, Trump is his own biggest enemy, and the only one who can still screw his victory.
I did not wish this solution. If you ask me, Cruz was and his the better candidate by far. But not even I would want Cruz as the nominee at the price of sordid schemes, and headed for a certain and brutal defeat.
The time is rapidly approaching when the party (and all Catholics) will have to choose between the Lord Of The Trannies and the Witch Of The West. I think Trump will still be the by far better choice. And I think it will be far easier to bend him to the will of the Republican majority than to force Hillary to appoint the right judge at the Supreme Court.
Who knows, one day trannies might, even with Trump as President, have to bring their dongs elsewhere.
“We Shall Fight On The Beaches”: “Veri Catholici” Organises An International Conference To Condemn “Amoris Laetitia”!
The news is here. “Veri Catholici” means, of course, “True Catholics”.
My congratulations to these brave men and (one supposes) women.
It goes to show that if our comfortably silent Bishops think they can continue unpunished to hide behind their fingers, the coming years will show them that silence isn't so comfortable after all. They would have gone away with it (more or less) before the Internet. They will certainly not go away with it now.
As to the discomfort after they die, I do not even want to imagine what fate awaits all those who will not repent. Memento mori! Dies irae, dies illa!
One fact is clear: left alone by a disgraceful clergy, the remnant of faithful Catholics will fight alone, but we shall fight.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender
This is what will happen, this is what is beginning to happen already. Go wherever you please in the (real) Catholic blogosphere and you will find anger no end. Smart people (always a minority) understand that the destiny of their souls depends on how they react to Francis' pontificate (and, very possibly, those who will come after the Evil Clown).
We shall fight, and we shall fight with growing confidence. Because if a lewd old Argentinian Commie fond of pacifism and fags thinks he can convert us to his satanical creed, he is very gravely mistaken.
The battle is already won. We are asked to fight so that, one day, we may proudly say we fought on the right side.
The controversy about the “Trannie in the Bathroom” shows once again how adept Conservatives are at losing battles out of fear of appearing “insensitive”. And there can be no doubt that when fundamental issues are avoided in the name of peripheral considerations defeat is already assured.
The problem with the Trannie in the female bathroom is, certainly, also a problem of security. But this is merely an accessory of the main problem. The main problem is the progressive transgenderisation, and therefore deep perversion, of Western civilisation.
Do you think that the Trannie really cares where he piddles? To him – and those who help him – the issue is one of homologation of his perversion within mainstream society.
Therefore, when the opposers avoid to touch the main issue and hide under the issue of “safety” they have already lost, because they have already accepted the perverted frame of their opponents.
And by the way, after this battle is lost I will be very glad for all the wannabe conservative idiots who now have to endure a Trannie in their bathroom, or in their daughters' bathrooms. I am talking of those who weren't opposed to civil partnerships provided it's not marriage, those who must always let you know how much they love perverts (but hey, they hate their sins!), those who cannot talk of perverts in other terms than “gays”, and so on.
It serves you right, you nincompoops. You did not want to appear “insensitive”. How do you like them…Trannies?
We reap what we sowed. We accept the frame of reference of the perverts' lobby, of course we end up in a corner.
A Trannie must not be allowed in the female bathroom because he is a damn male, no matter how much he has amputated or disfigured himself. This, and no other, is the argument.
If a male thinks that he is a female the appropriate place for him is the madhouse, not the female bathroom. Safety is nowhere as important as recovering sanity.
But no: reading around about the controversy, it seems it's already a problem of “safety”.
Let's lose this one, too.
God forbid, we are called “haters”!
I continue today the analysis of Bishop Schneider’s intervention on the Apostolic Excrementation ™
The first part is here. My emphases (and the segment titles) in bold. My comments in red.
The Dangers of the Church’s collaboration in the spread of the “plague of divorce”
In professing Our Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching for all times, the Church teaches us: « Faithful to the Lord, the Church cannot recognize as Matrimony the union of the divorced who have remarried civilly. « He who repudiates his wife to marry another commits adultery against her. If a woman repudiates her husband to marry another, she commits adultery » (Mark 10:11-12). [ the Bishop is here showing that the entire Apostolic Excrementation ™ is meant to do one thing and one thing only: to go against the very words of Christ in the Gospel]. In their regard, the Church undertakes an attentive solicitude [the Church never “excludes” anyone who does not choose to exclude himself from Her], by inviting them to a life of Faith, to prayer, to the works of charity and to the christian education of their children. [But] these cannot receive sacramental absolution, nor approach Eucharistic Communion, nor exercise certain ecclesial functions, so long as there endures a situation among them which contracts objectively with the law of God.” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 349).
To live in an invalid marital union, contradicting constantly the Commandment of God and the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony, does not signify that one lives in the truth [ pace Francis, you can’t live in public scandal and pretend that you live in the truth]. To declare that the deliberate, free and habitual practice of sexual acts in an invalid marital union could be, in a concrete case, no longer a grace sins, is not the truth, but a grave lie, [means “mortal sin”, as both the subjective and objective elements must perforce be there] and, therefore, can never be an authentic joy in love. To permit, therefore, these persons to receive Holy Communion signifies fakery, hypocrisy and mendacity. [Pope Francis is a fakes, a hypocrite, and a liar. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud]. Indeed, the Word of God in Sacred Scripture remains valid: “He who says, « I understand », and does not observe His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.” [ this is Francis](1 John 2:4).
The Magisterium of the Church teaches us that the validity of God’s Ten Commandments is universal: “Since these enunciate the fundamental obligations of man towards God and his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, some grave obligations. These are fundamentally immutable and their obligation prevails always and at all times. No one can dispense from them ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2072). Those who have affirmed that the commandments of God and the particular Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, can have exceptions, in such cases that there is no imputable fault for a divorce, were the Pharisees and then the Gnostic christians (sic) in the second and third centuries (after Christ). [ Francis is a heretic. He is promoting exactly the same heresies that were promoted in the II and III centuries. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].
The following affirmations of the Magisterium remain always valid because they are part of the infallible Magisterium as part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium: “The negative precepts of the Natural Law are universally valid: these oblige all and each one, always and in every circumstance. In fact, one treats here with prohibitions which forbid a determinate action semper et pro semper (i.e. always and at all times), without exceptions, … there are behaviors which can never be, in any situation, the adequate response…The Church has always taught that one can never choose the behaviors prohibited by the moral Commandments, expressed in the negative form, in the Old and New Testaments. [ Francis is openly going against 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian civilisation. He is simply beyond the pale]. Has has been see [sic], Jesus, Himself, reaffirms the inderogability of these prohibitions: « If you want to enter into life, observe the Commandments …: do not kill, do not commit adultery, not do not steal, do not give false testimony » (Mt. 19:17:18). (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor).
The Magisterium of the Church still teaches us, more clearly: “A good and pure conscience is illuminated by sincere faith [ Dear faithful, please realise that Francis has no faith, and a dirty conscience]. In fact, charity wells us, in its pace, “from a pure heart, from a good conscience and from a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5) [Cf. 1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3; 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 24:16] (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1794).
In the case in which a person commits moral acts objectively grave in full knowledge, with a sane mind, with deliberate decision, with the intent to repeat this act in the future, it is impossible to apply the principle of non-imputability of the fault by reason of attenuating circumstances. [Francis attempts an impossible subversion of the basics of moral law]. The application of the principle of non-imputability to these divorced and remarried couples would represent a hypocrisy and a Gnostic [sophism] [Francis is a heretic, a Gnostic wannabe sophist]. If the Church would admit these persons, even in only one case, to Holy Communion, She would contradict what She professes in doctrine, offering Herself a public contra-testimony to the indissolubility of Matrimony and contributing in this wise to the growth of “the plague of divorce” (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n 47).
So as to avoid such an intolerable and scandalous contradiction, the Church, infallibly interpreting the Divine truth of the moral law and of the indissolubility of Matrimony, has immutably observed throughout 2000 years the practice of admitting to Holy Communion only those divorced who live in perfect continence and “removed from scandal”, without any exception or particular privilege. [I’d love to see example of such lax praxis of “brother and sister”. I do not know a single one. I think the Bishop might be extending the praxis of the last 50 years 2000 years back].
The first pastoral duty which the Lord entrusted to His Church is teaching, doctrine (cf. Mt. 28:20). The observance of God’s commandments is intrinsically connected to doctrine. For this reason the Church has always rebuffed the contradiction of doctrine and life, qualifying such a contradiction as Gnostic or as the heretical Lutheran theory of “simul iustus et peccator”. [dear faith, please realise Francis is a proto-Lutheran wannabe Gnostic sophist, too clever by half. Not buyin’ it]. Between the faith and life of the children of the Church there ought to be no contradictions.
When one treats of the observance of an expressed commandment of God and of the indissolubility of Matrimony, one cannot speak of opposed theological interpretations. If God has said: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, no human authority could say: “in some exceptional cases or for a good purpose, you can commit adultery”. [again! Francis goes explicitly, frontally, against God’s word! Blasphemy! But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].
The following affirmations of Pope Francis are very important [,]where the Supreme Pontiff speaks to the proposal of integrating divorced and remarried persons into the life of the Church: “this discernment will never be able to prescind from the requirements of truth and charity proposed in the Gospel by the Church … The necessary conditions of humility, modesty, love for the Church and Her teaching are to be guaranteed, … One avoids the risk that a determinate discernment leads one to think that the Church supports a double morality” (AL, 300). These praiseworthy affirmations in «Amoris Laetitia », however, remain without concrete specification in regard to the question of the obligation of the divorced who have remarried to separate from one another or at least live in perfect continence. [Francis is all orthodox in vague theories, and all heretic in the concrete praxis. This is what Modernists do]
When one treats of the life or of the death of the body, no doctor would leave anything in ambiguity. A doctor cannot say to his patient: “You should decide on the application of this medicine according to your own conscience and respecting the laws of medicine”. Such a comportment on the part of a doctor would, without a doubt, be considered irresponsible. And, yet, the life of an immortal soul is more important, since upon the health of the soul depends its destiny for all eternity. [If you follow him, Francis will lead you to eternal death. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].
The liberating truth of Penance and of the mystery of the Cross.
To affirm that the divorced who have remarried are not public sinners signifies the simulation of a falsehood. Moreover, being sinners is the true condition of all the members of the Church militant on earth. If the divorced who have remarried say that their voluntary and deliberate acts against the Sixth Commandment of God are not in fact sins or grave sins, they fool themselves and the truth is not in them, as St. John says: “If we say that we are without sin, we fool ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He who is Faithful and Just will forgive our sins and purify us from all iniquity. If we say, “We have not sinned”, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8-10).
The acceptance on the part of the divorced who have remarried that they are sinners and even public sinners takes nothing from christian hope. Only the acceptance of reality and truth makes them capable of undertaking the path of fruitful penitence according to the words of Jesus Christ.
It would be very salvific to renew the spirit of the first Christians and of the age of the Fathers of the Church, when there existed a living solidarity of the Faithful with public sinners, and, moreover, a solidarity according to truth. A solidarity which has nothing to do with discrimination; on the contrary, there was in that age a participation of the whole Church in the penitential path of public sinners by means of the prayer of intercession, of tears, and of acts of expiation and charity on their behalf.
The Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, teaches: “Even those who have wandered away from the Commandment of the Lord and continue to live in this condition (divorced and remarried) can obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, if they persevere in prayer, in penitence and in (acts of) charity” (n. 84).
During the first ages, public sinners were integrated into the praying community of the Faithful and had to implore the intercession of the Faithful, on bended knee and with arms raised up. Tertullian gives us a touching testimony: “The body cannot rejoice when one of its members suffers. It is necessary that its whole entire self grieve and work for its healing. When you extend your hands to the knees of your brothers, it is Christ whom you touch. Equally, when they pour out their tears for you, it is Christ who suffers with you” (De paenitentia, bk. 10, ch. 5-6). In the same manner, St. Ambrose of Milan says: “The whole Church has taken upon Herself the yoke of the public sinner, suffering with him by means of Her tears, prayers and sorrows” (De paenitentia, bk. 1, ch. 81). [They weren’t “rigid doctors of the law”. They had true charity].
It is true, that the Church’s forms of penitential disciple have changed, but the spirit of this discipline should remain in the Church for all times. Today, some priests and bishops, basing themselves on some affirmations of AL, are beginning to make the divorced and remarried understand that their condition is not equivalent to the state of an objective public sinner. These tranquilize them by saying that their sexual acts do not constitute a grave sin. Such a mindset does not correspond to the truth. These deprive the divorced and remarried of the possibility of a radical conversion to obedience to the Will of God, by leaving these souls in a deceit. Such a pastoral mindset is very easy, in the open market, it costs nothing. It does not cost tears, prayers and works of intercession and fraternal expiation on behalf of the divorced who have remarried.
In admitting, even in only exceptional cases, the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion without asking them to cease to practice the acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment of God, by declaring presumptuously, moreover, that their acts are not grave sin, one chooses the easy road, one avoids the scandal of the Cross. Such a pastoral practice for the ‘divorced and remarried’ is an ephemeral and deceitful pastoral practice. To all who pedal such an easy path at a cheep price to the ‘divorced and remarried’, Jesus turns, even today, with these words: “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a scandal to me, because you think not according to God, but according to men! Then Jesus said to His disciples: « If any wills to follow Me, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow Me. » (Mt. 16:23-25), [this here is against Kasper & Co].
In regard to the pastoral care of the ‘divorced and remarried’, today there is also a need to revive the spirit of following Christ in the truth of the Cross and of penitence, which alone brings a permanent joy, by avoiding the ephemeral joys which serve deceitful reasons. The following words of Pope St. Gregory the Great show themselves to be truly timely and illuminating: “We ought not habituate ourselves to much to our earthly exile, the conveniences of this life ought not make us forget our true Fatherland let our spirit become sleepy in midst of conveniences. For this reason, God unites to His gifts His own visitations or punishments, so that all which is enchanting in this world, becomes bitter for us and there be enkindled in the soul that fire which spurs us always a new towards the desire of heavenly things and makes us progress towards them. That fire wounds us in a pleasant way, it crucifies us sweetly and it saddens us joyously” (In Hex, bk. 2, ch. 4, n. 3).
The Church’s spirit of authentic penitential discipline in the first centuries has perdured in the Church through all ages even unto today. We have the moving example of Bl. Laura del Carmen Vicuna, born in Chile in 1891. Sr. Azocar, who took care of her, narrates: “I remember that when I first explained the Sacrament of Matrimony, Laura fainted, having understood without a doubt my words that her own mother was in a state of mortal sin so long as she remained with that man. At that time, in (the town of) Junin, only 1 family lived in conformity to the will of God”. [and still, God’s laws were exactly the same!] From then on, Laura multiplies her prayers and penances for her mother. On June 2, 1901, she was to make her first Communion, with great fervor; she wrote these following resolutions: “1) I desire, o my Jesus, to love Thee and serve Thee for my entire life; for this, I offer Thee all of my souls, my heart, my entire being. — 2) I prefer to die rather than offend Thee with sin; therefore, I want to distance myself from all which could separate me from Thee. — 3) I promise to do everything possible so that Thou may be always more known and loved, and to repair the offenses which the men who do not love Thee inflict upon Thee every day, especially those who receive (Communion) among those who are near to me. — O my God, grant me a life of love, of mortification and of sacrifice!” But her great joy was overshadowed in seeing her own mother, present at the ceremony, not take communion (on account of having not repented of her sin). In 1902, Laura offered her own life for her mother who was living with a man in an irregular union in Argentina. Laura multiplied her prayers and self-denials to obtain the true conversion of her mother. A few hours before dying, she called her to her self. Understanding that she was at the last moment of live, she exclaimed: “Mommie, I am about to die. I asked Jesus and I have offered my life to Him for the grace of your return. Mommie, will I have the joy to see your repentance before dying? Overcome, her mother promised: “Tomorrow morning I will go to church and I will confess.” Laura, already blind, turned to the priest and said: “Father, my mother in this moment promises to abandon that man; you be witness to this promise!” and she added, “Now I die content!” With these words she breathed her last, on January 22, 1904, at Junin, in the Andes (Argentina), at the age of 13, in the arms of her mother who then refound her faith by putting and end to that irregular union in which she was living.
The admirable life of the young Blessed Laura is a demonstration of how much a True Catholic seriously considers the Sixth Commandment of God and the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony [if you are Catholic, you’ll have none of that “social circumstances” rubbish]. Our Lord Jesus Christ recommends to avoid even the appearance of approbation of an irregular union or adultery. [my personal note: which is why the “brother and sister” thingie isn’t a good idea, at all!] That Divine command, the Church has always faithful conserved and transmitted without ambiguity [see above] in Her doctrine and practice. By offering her own young life, Bl. Laura was certainly not representing one of many diverse doctrinal or pastoral interpretations. She did not give her life for a possible doctrinal or pastoral interpretation, but for a divine immutable and universally valid truth. A truth demonstrated with the offer of their life by a great number of Saints, from St. John the Baptist even to the simple faithful of our days, whose names are known to God alone.
The Necessity of a true “veritatis laetitia” (Joy from Truth”) [brilliant irony]
« Amoris Laetitia » contains, surely and fortunately [ I had feared the contrary would be the case!], some theological affirmations and spiritual and pastoral indications of great value. Nevertheless, it is realistically insufficient to affirm that AL should be interpreted according to the doctrine and traditional practice of the Church. When in an ecclesiastical document, which in our case is deprived of a definitive and infallible character, there are found elements of interpretation and application which might have dangerous spiritual consequences, all the members of the Church, and in the first place, the Bishops, as brotherly co-workers with the Sovereign Pontiff in an effective collegiality, have the duty to point out respectfully this fact and to ask for an authentic interpretation.
[Bam! You are betraying your flock, you silent Bishops and Cardinals! All of you!]
When one treats of Divine faith, of the Divine commandments of the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony, all the members of the Church, from the simple faithful to the highest representatives of the Magisterium, ought to make a common effort to conserve intact the treasure of the Faith and his practical application. The Second Vatican Council has in effect taught: “The totality of the Faithful, having the anointing which comes from the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2:20,27), cannot error in believing, and manifests this property by means of the supernatural sense of the faith of the whole People (of God), when « from the bishops even unto the last faithful laymen » (St. Augustine, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum, bk. 14, ch. 27) shows a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. And, in truth, through this sense of the faith, which is suscitated and guided by the Spirit of truth, and under the guide of the sacred magisterium, Who enables, if He is obeyed faithfully, one to receive no longer the words of men, but truly the word of God. (cf. 1 Titus 2:13), the People of God adheres indefectibly to the Faith transmitted to the Saints once and for all (cf. Judges 3), with right judgement It penetrates into it more deeply and applies it to life more fully.” (Lumen Gentium, 12). The Magisterium, for its own part, ” is not above the Word of God, but is at its service, since it teaches only what has been transmitted (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 10).
It was the Second Vatican Council itself which encouraged all the Faithful and the bishops above all to manifest without fear their worries and observations for the sake of the good of the whole Church. The servile and politically correct are causing a pernicious evil in the life of the Church. The famous bishop and theologian of the Council of Trent, Melchior Cano, O.P., pronounced this memorable phrase: “Peter has not need of our lies and adulations. Those who, with closed eyes and in an indiscriminate manner defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff, are those who compromise most of all the authority of the Holy See. These are destroying Her foundations rather than strengthening them.”
Our Lord taught us, without ambiguity, by explaining in what consists true love and the true joy of love: “He who keeps My commandments and observes them, he is the one who loves Me” (John 14:21). [Francis does not love Christ] In giving men the Sixth Commandment and the observance of the indissolubility of Matrimony, God has given them to all without exception and not only to an elite. Already in the Old Testament, God declared: This commandment which I prescribe to thee today is surely not above your strengths, nor beyond your doing” (Deuteronomy 30:11) and “If you want to, you will observe the Commandments; being faithful will depend upon your goodwill (Sirach 15:15). And Jesus said to all: “If you want to enter into life, observe the Commandments. Which ones? And Jesus replied: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery” (Mt. 19:17-18). The teaching of the Apostles has transmitted the same doctrine to us: “Since the love of God consists in the observance of His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). [so let’s cut it off with the idea that marriage fidelity is merely an “ideal”, shall we?]
There is no true, supernatural and eternal life, without the observance of God’s commandments: “I precept you to observe His commandments: I place before you life and death. Choose life!” (Dt. 30:16-19). There is, therefore, no true life nor true joy of authentic love without the truth. “Love consists in living according to His commandments” (2 John 6). The joy of love consists in the joy of truth. The authentic Christian life consists in the life and joy in the truth: “For me there is no greater joy than that which I find in knowing that my sons live obeying the truth” (3 John 4).
St. Augustine explains for us the intimate bond between joy and truth: “I ask all of them if they do prefer the joy of truth to that of the lie. And they do not hesitate here more than for the reply to the question regarding happiness. Because the happy life consists in the joy of truth, all of us want the joy of truth” (Confessions, bk. X, ch. 23).
The danger of widespread confusion in regard to the indissolubility of Matrimony
Already for a time, in the life of the Church, it has been demonstrated that in some places there is a tacit abuse in the admission of the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion, without asking them to life in perfect continence. The scarcely clear affirmations in chapter VIII of AL have given new dynamism to the self-declared propagators of this admission to Holy Communion, in single cases, of the ‘divorced and separated’.
We can now establish that the abuse began to spread into practice mostly because it was thought in some manner to be legitimate. Moreover, there is a confusion principally as much as regards the interpretations of the affirmations reported in chapter VIII of AL. The confusion reaches its apex since all, whether the supporters of the admission of the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Communion, or those who oppose them, sustain that « The doctrine of the Church in this matter has not been modified. »
With due reckoning of historical and doctrinal differences, our situation shows some similarities and analogies with the situation of general confusion during the Arian crisis of the 4th Century (A.D.). In that epoch, the traditional Apostolic Faith in the Divinity of the Son of God was guaranteed by means of the term, “consubstantial” (homoousios), dogmatically proclaimed by the universal Magisterium of the First Council of Nicea. The profound crisis of faith, with a quasi-universal confusion, was caused principally by refusing, avoiding the use and profession of the word “consubstantial” (homoousios). Instead of using this expression, there was spread about among the clergy and above all the episcopate the use of an alternative formulae which in fine were ambiguous and imprecise, as for example, “similar in substance” (homoiousios) or simply “similar” (homoios). The formula, “homoousios” of the universal Magisterium of that time expressed the full and true Divinity of the Word in such a clear manner as to not leave space for equivocal interpretations.
In the years, 357-360 (A.D.), nearly the entire episcopate had become Arian or semi-Arian on account of the following events: in 357 Pope Liberius [ we did have heretical Popes before] signed one of the ambiguous formulae of (the Council of) Sirmium, in which the term “homoousious” had been eliminated. Moreover, the Pope excommunicated in a scandalous way St. Athanasius. [we did have hugely scandalous heretical Popes before…] St. Hilary of Poiters was the only Bishop to undertake grave remonstrations with Pope Liberius for such ambiguous acts. [we did have scandalous silence of the bishops in front of heresy before] In 359, the parallel Synods of the western episcopacy at Rimini (Italy) and that of the eastern at Seuleukia, accepted expressions which were completely Arian, worse than the ambiguous formula signed by Pope Liberius. Describing the situation of confusion in that epoch, St. Jerome expressed himself thus: « The world groaned and found itself, with shock, to have become Arian » (« Ingemuit totus orbis, et arianum se esse miratus est »: Adversus Luciferianum, 19)
One can affirm that our epoch is characterized by a great confusion in regard to sacramental discipline for the ‘divorced and remarried’. And there exists a real danger that this confusion expands on a vast scale, if we avoid proposing and proclaiming the formula of the universal and infallible Magisterium: « The reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance — which would open the way to Eucharistic Communion — can be accorded only to those who, … assume the commitment to live in full continence, that is, to abstain from the acts proper to a married couple.” ( John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, n. 84). This formula is, unfortunately, incomprehensibly [I am kidding here] absent from « Amoris Laetitia ». « Amoris Laetitia », instead, contains, in an all-together inexplicable manner [… and here too], the following declaration: « In these situations (of the ‘divorced and remarried’), many, recognizing and accepting the possibility of cohabitation “as brother and sisters” which the Church offers them, find that, if there are some expressions of intimacy lacking, « it is not rare that fidelity is put in danger and that the good of the children come to be compromised » (Al, 298, footnote 320). Such an affirmation leaves one to think of a contradiction with the perennial teaching of the universal Magisterium, as it has been formulated in the text cited fromFamiliaris Consortio, 84.
It is becoming urgent that the Holy See confirms and proclaims anew, eventually under the form of an authentic interpretation of AL, the cited formula of Familiaris Consortio, 84. This formula could be considered, under certain aspects, as the “homoousios” of our days. [AL introduces elements of heresy sanctioned by the Pope with the complicity or acquiescence of the bishops; a situation so grave as it had not presented itself since the “homoousios” controversy] The lack of a confirmation in an official and explicit manner of the formula of Familiaris Consortio, 84, on the part of the Holy See could contribute to even greater confusion in sacramental discipline with gradual and inevitable repercussions in the field of doctrine. In this manner, one might come to create such a situation to which one in the future could apply the following exclamation: « The whole world groans and finds itself, with shock, to have accepted divorce in practice » («Ingemuit totus orbis, et divortium in praxi se accepisse miratus est »).
A confusion in sacramental disciple in regard to the ‘divorced and separated’, with the consequent doctrinal implications, would contradict the nature of the Catholic church, as She has been described by St. Irenaeus, in the second century (A.D.): « The Church, even though She is spread throughout in the whole world, keeps this preaching and this Faith, which She has received, with the same care as if She lived in one house; and in the same manner, She believes in these truths, as if She had one soul and one heart; She proclaims, teaches and transmits them, with unanimous voice, as if She had only one mouth » (Adversus haereses, Bk. I, ch. 10, n. 2; from the Office of Readings for the Feast of St. Mark, the Apostle, March 25). [ to proclaim that different Countries and social situation may allow priests to bend the truth is heresy].
The See of Peter, that is the Sovereign Pontiff, is the guarantee of the unity of Apostolic faith and sacramental discipline. Considering the confusion which has come to be among priests and bishops in the sacramental practice as much as regards the ‘divorced and remarried’ and as much as regards the interpretation of AL, one can consider legitimate an appeal to our dear Pope, Francis, the Vicar of Christ and « sweet Christ upon earth » (St. Catherine of Sienna), so that He order the publication of an authentic interpretation of « Amoris Laetitia », which should necessarily contain an explicit declaration of the disciplinary principle of the universal and infallible Magisterium in regarding to the admission to the Sacraments (sic) for the ‘divorced and separated’, as it has been formulated in n. 84 of Familiaris Consortio.
During the great Arian confusion of the Fourth Century, St. Basil the Great made an urgent appeal to the Pope of Rome to indicate with his own words the clear direction to obtain finally a unity of thought in faith and charity (cf. Epistle 70).
An authentic interpretation of Al, on the part of the Apostolic See, would bring about a joy in clarity (« claritatis laetitia » for the whole Church. Such a clarity would guarantee a love in joy (« amoris laetitia »), a love and a joy which would not be according to the minds of men, but according to the mind of God (cf. Mt. 16, 23). And this is what counts for the joy, life, and eternal salvation of the divorced who have remarried and for all men.
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan
There are reports on the Catholic press that Cardinals Sarah and Mueller are refusing to give interviews concerning the Apostolic Excrementation. Clearly, after Bishop Schneider's intervention they are going to have more, not less requests for them.
If silence in the face of heresy is unjustifiable and unacceptable in a bishop, it should be more so in a Cardinal. And the more so when one of these Cardinals is, actually, the formal guardian of orthodoxy within the Church apparatus (after the Pope, of course) and the other is the author of a book called “God or nothing”, and prefers now to do… nothing rather than speak for God.
Let me say this once again: there is no possible excuse for such a behaviour. To try to excuse any bishop or Cardinal for his silence concerning AL is exactly the same as finding excuses for almost all the Apostles leaving Jesus alone on the Cross.
Excuses are always easily found. “If they decided to speak, this would damage the Papacy”, it is reported. If the rumours are true, one can easily imagine that this is the very excuse the two have informally given to try to justify their silence, and which they now want to be discreetly filtered through the press in order to get their “get out of jail” card.
“My shutting up and doing nothing is a very orthodox one”.
What is more important: to defend God or to, allegedly, damage the Papacy? Who has ever said that the Papacy must be protected in preference to Truth itself? What kind of rubbish is that? Was then, say, right not to say anything against the Nuremberg Laws in order to avoid damaging the German Chancellorship? Or shall we shut up concerning the persecution of Christians lest more persecution follows?
And by the by: how is defending Truth damaging to the Papacy? It is damaging to Francis, not to the Papacy! On the contrary: what damages the Papacy is exactly the allowing that Francis ridicules and debases it, and prostitutes it to his social justice warrior ideology.
This is utter nonsense. No Bishop or Cardinal has any excuse for shutting up, and all those who do so will be exposed as hirelings every time they dare to pretend they are good shepherds in other matters.
My suggestion to Cardinal Sarah and Cardinal Mueller is that, if they shut up now, they should as well shut up forever, and never again talk to us about an orthodoxy they were not willing to defend when the trumpet called them to battle. They will not get away with it, nor will anyone who does not speak now.
Ubi honor, ibi onus. One isn't a Bishop or Cardinal in order that he may shut up when it is time to speak. I can't fathom many other times in the entire Church history when it was so necessary that the shepherds speak.
When John XXII threatened to proclaim a false dogma, concern for the Papacy was absolutely nowhere to be found. When Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to pagan deities (during the atrocious persecution of Diocletians) no excuses were found for him. Have our Cardinals become so emasculated that they do not think of this? For heaven's sake, one truly has the impression that these people spend their time in splendid palaces, playing with dolls.
If the rumour is confirmed, both Cardinal Sarah and Mueller would confirm thrmselves as not true shepherds, but hirelings. Hirelings now increasingly embarrassed by the public outcry at their silence, and looking for excuses to get away with it. Not going to happen.
Whoever shuts up now has lost face, full stop. Whenever he gives an interview or even publishes a book about the defence of orthodoxy, they will be told what the faithful think of their hypocrisy.
This is not going to go away. We will never forget this treason, nor will the Angels in heaven.
God help the Cardinal who dies in his shameful silence, whatever excuse he might have picked for his dereliction of duty.
I have, in the meantime, accurately read the beautiful intervention of the Bishop.
Let me make a couple of preliminary observations:
- Bishop Athanasius does not explicitly call the document heretical, or blasphemous.
- Bishop Athanasius does not explicitly warn Francis about his heretical, blasphemous position.
If there was a criticism that could be moved to this letter, it would be related to the points above. However, I do not feel I should move this criticism myself. Whilst truth must be proclaimed in season and out of season, I feel no difficulty at all in attributing Bishop Schneider’s choice to a prudent judgment. Clearly, this is not a man afraid of persecution. Please give him your most sincere prayers.
You might not read, in your lifetime, another criticism of a papal document as strong as this one from an “official” bishop. I note here that, to my knowledge, not even the SSPX has officially called the document heretical and blasphemous. I am sure this is a prudential judgment, too; but if you ask me who runs the risk of being too prudent, I would say “the SSPX”.
Below is the text (first part). My emphases (and the segment titles) in bold. My comments in red.
The paradox of contradicting interpretations of «Amoris Laetitia»
The recently published Apostolic Exhortation « Amoris Laetitia » (hereafter abbreviated AL), which contains a great spiritual treasure for Christian life in matrimony and family for our age [heavens, why does everyone praise the cream in a poisoned cake? Bishop Fellay did the same. I think it’s churchspeak for “I am about to punch you in the face”], has unfortunately in short order provoked contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate [the Bishop announces the line of attack: the document is ambiguous. Actually, the document is openly heretical and blasphemous. See above, “prudence”].
There are bishops and priests who have publicly and openly declared that AL has furnished an manifest opening to Communion for the divorced who have remarried, without asking them to live in continence. Under this aspect of sacramental practice, which according to them would now be significantly changed, would truly consist the revolutionary character of « Amoris Laetitia ». Interpreting AL in reference to irregular couples, one President of an Episcopal Conference has declared in a text published on the very website of that Conference: « One treats of a measure of mercy, of an opening of heart, reason and spirit for which no law is necessary, nor is there need to wait for any directive or directions. One may and one ought to put it immediately into practice ».
Such a view was further confirmed by the recent declarations made by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S. J., who after the Synod of Bishops in 2015 had written that the Synod had laid down « a foundation » for the access to Communion by the divorced who have remarried, « by opening a door », which was left closed in the preceding Synod in 2014. Now, Father Spadaro in his own commentary on AL, says that his predication has been confirmed. The same Fr. Spadaro is said to have been a member of the group which redacted « Amoris Laetitia » [the Bishop does not say that 2+2=4 here, as in “if Spadaro says this and he has collaborated to the document, the man has obviously followed Francis’ istructions”. The bishops does not say it; but make no mistake: he wants you to draw the conclusion, or make the addition, yourself].–
A way open to abusive interpretations seems to have been indicated by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn himself, who, during the official presentation of « Amoris Laetitia » at Rome, had said in regard to the proposal of irregular unions: « The great joy that this document gives me rests in the fact that it overcomes in a concrete way the artificial clear external division of “regular” and “irregular”. » Such an affirmation suggest the idea that there is no clear difference between a valid and sacramental marriage and an irregular union, between venial sin and mortal sin [ again: both the Bishop and his readers are aware that Schoenborn’s press conference has been explicitly indicated by Francis as the best guidance to interpreting AL. He who has ears to hear, let him hear].
On the other hand, there are bishops who affirm that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial Magisterium of the Church and that AL does not authorize Communion for the divorced who have remarried, not even in exceptional cases. In principle, such an affirmation is the correct one and the one worth of approval. In effect, every text of the Magisterium ought to be, as a general rule, coherent in its own content with the preceding Magisterium, without any rupture. [To state that a document must be read in light of truth is not wrong, but it is not remotely good enough].
Nevertheless, it is not secret that in diverse places divorced and remarried persons have been admitted to Holy Communion, without the obligation of living in continence. Some of the affirmations in « Amoris Laetitia » can realistically be utilized to legitimize the abuse already practiced for some time in various places in the life of the Church (sic). [some of the affirmations in AL are, realistically, blasphemous and heretical and meant to legitimise sacrilege. But as the Pope does not officially proclaim it, and prefers to introduce the heresy from the window, I will not expose myself to the accusation of slandering him].
Some affirmations of « Amoris Laetitia » are objectively open to a bad interpretation
Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, has invited all of us to offer our own contribution to the reflection and dialogue on the delicate questions concerning marriage and the family. « The reflection of pastors and of theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest and creative, will help us to reach a greater clarity » (AL, 2).
Analyzing some of the affirmations of AL with an honest understanding [stop kidding yourself, Cardinal Burke!], as they are in their own context, one finds that there is a difficulty in interpreting them according to the traditional doctrine of the Church. [this part is pivotal: it means that the context of the ambiguous affirmations is itself heretical; it creates a heretical climate, and the explosive blasphemies are correctly interpreted in this heretical context] This fact is explained by the absence of concrete and explicit affirmation of the constant doctrine and practice of the Church, [this is another one of the pivotal points: the Bishop states that if Francis had strongly and unambiguously stated that there is no change whatsoever from Familiaris Consortio, repeating the statements verbatim, this would have factually killed any ambiguous reading. Personally, I trust Francis to be, in fact, as duplicitous as to explicitly state the paragraph written here below and contradict it in the following statement. But undoubtedly, the heretical reading would have been made more difficult. Also, heresy is heresy no matter how many reaffirmations of catholci doctrine are contained in the same document.] which is founded upon the Word of God and was reiterated by Pope John Paul II, who said: « The Church, moreover, reaffirms Her own practice, founded upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion the divorced who have remarried. These are those who cannot be admitted, from the moment that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, signified and actuated by the Eucharist. There is moreover another particular pastoral motive: if these persons would be admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be lead into error and confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of matrimony. Reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance — which would open the way to the Sacrament of the Eucharist — can be accorded only to those who, having repented of violating the sign of the Covenant and their fidelity to Christ, have been sincerely disposed to a form of life which is no longer in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage. That is, which implies, in the concrete, that when a man and wife, for serious motives — such as, for example, the education of their children — cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, « assume the obligation of living in full continence, that is of abstaining from the acts proper to married couples » (Familiaris Consortio, 84).
Pope Francis has not established « a new general norm in canonical form, applicable to all cases » (AL, n. 300). However, in footnote 336, he declares: « Not even as much as regards sacramental discipline, from the moment that discernment can recognize that in a particular situation there is no grave fault » [see above: fist Francis states, then he denies what he has just stated]. By referring himself evidently to the divorced who have remarried, the Pope affirms in AL, n. 305: « By reason of attenuating conditions or factors, it is possible that, within an objective situation of sin — which is not subjectively culpable or which is is not such in a full manner — one can live in the grace of God, one can love, and one can even grow in the life of grace and charity, receiving for such a purpose the help of the Church ». In footnote 351, the Pope clarifies his own affirmation, by saying that « in certain cases, there might even been the help of the Sacraments ».
In the same chapter 8 of « Amoris Laetitia », the Pope speaks of « the divorced who live a new union, … with new children, with proven fidelity, generous dedication, christian commitment, conscious of the irregularity of their own situation and of the great difficulty in turing around without feeling in their consciences that one would fall into a new fault. The Church recognizes situations in which « man and wife, for serious motives, — such as, for example, the education of their children — cannot satisfy the obligation of separation ». In footnote 329, the Pope cites the document, Gaudium et Spes in an unfortunately incorrect manner, because the Council refers in this case only to a valid Christian marriage. The application of this affirmation to the divorced can provoke the impression that a valid marriage can be assimilated, not in theory, but in practice, with the union of divorced persons. [note here: the Bishop always says “the Pope states”, “the Pope speaks”. He attributes the heresy directly to him. He chooses not to say something like “footnote such and such, certainly misinterpreting the will of the Holy Father, states”… . You are supposed to know who is the culprit.]
The admission to Holy Communion of the divorced who have remarried and its consequences
« Amoris Laetitia » is, unfortunately, deprived of textual citations of the principles of the Church’s moral teaching in the form in which they were enunciated in n. 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, and in the Encyclical, Veritas Splendor, of Pope John Paul II, in particular in regard to the following themes of capital importance: « the fundamental option » (Veritatis Splendor, nn. 67-68), « mortal sin and venial sin » (ibid. nn. 69-70), « proportionalism, consequentialism » (ibid. n. 75), « martyrdom and the universal and immutable moral norms » (ibid. nn. 91 ff.). A verbal citation of Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and of the similar more salient affirmations of Veritatis Splendor would certainly make « Amoris Laetitia » unassailable on the part of heterodox interpretations. [ this is the Leitmotiv again: literal, repeated quotes explicitly stating what is what would have suffocated any attempt to give the document a heretical reading even if ambiguities are present] Some generic allusions to the moral principles and doctrine of the Church are certainly not sufficient in a controversial matter which is of delicate and capital importance. [This is an open indictment of Francis’ modus operandi: generic allusions on one side, concrete emergency exits from the straight and narrow on the other side. This is certainly not sufficient in a matter delicate and capital importance. “What kind of Pope are you?”,”What’s wrong with you?” is here the message].
Some representatives of the clergy and even of the episcopate do affirm that even now, according to the spirit of « Amoris Laetitia »’s chapter VIII it has not been excluded that in exceptional cases the divorced who have remarried can be admitted to Holy Communion without it being requested that they live in perfect continence.
By admitting a similar interpretation in the letter and spirit of « Amoris Laetitia », one would have to accept, with an honest understanding and on the basis of the principle of non-contradiction, the following logical conclusions:
[what follows is the most brutal condemnation of a papal document I have ever read from anyone, in any age. The Bishop veils it only very thinly by stating that this merely the reading of “some representative of the clergy”. However, he has already told you this is, honestly, the reading made possible in the document’s context. He who has ears, etc…].
The divine Sixth Commandment which prohibits every sexual act outside of a valid marriage, would no longer be universally valid if exceptions were to be admitted. In our case: the divorced would be able to practice the sexual act and they are even encouraged to it for the purpose of conserving reciprocal “fidelity”, cf. AL, 298. One would be able, therefore, to exchange “fidelity”, in a style of life directly contrary to the expressed will of God. Moreover, to encourage and legitimize acts which are in themselves (in se) and always contrary to the will of God, would be to contradict Divine Revelation.
The divine word of Christ: « That man not separate what God has untied » (Mt. 19:6), would, therefore no longer be always valid and for all married couples without exception.
It would be possible in a particular case to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion with the intention of continuing to directly violate the Divine commandments: « Thou shalt not commit adultery » (Exodus 20:14) and « That man not separate what God has united » (Mt. 19:6; Genesis 2:24).
The observance of these commandments and of the Word of God would hold in these cases only in theory and not in practice, inducing thereby the divorced who have remarried « to fool themselves » (James 1:22). One would, therefore, be able to have faith in the divine character of the Sixth Commandment and in the indissolubility of Matrimony without, however, the corresponding works.
The Divine Word of Christ: « He who repudiates his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if a woman leaves her husband and marries another, she commits adultery » (Mk, 10:12) would, therefore, not longer have a universal validity but would admit exceptions.
The permanent, conscious and free violation of the Sixth Commandment of God and of the sacrality and indissolubility of ones own valid Matrimony (in the case of the divorced who have remarried) would, therefore, no longer be a grave sin, nor in direct opposition to the will of God.
There can (sic) be cases of grave, permanent, conscious and free violation of God’s other commandments (e.g., in the case of a style of life of financial corruption), in which there would be able to granted to a determinate person, on the basis of attenuating circumstances, access to the Sacraments without exacting a sincere resolution to avoid in the future the acts of sin and of scandal.
The perennial and infallible teaching of the Church would no longer be universally valid, in particular the teaching confirmed by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, n. 84, and by Pope Benedict XVI, in Sacramentum caritatis, n. 29, according to which the condition of the divorced to receive the Sacraments is (the practice of) perfect continence.
The observance of the Sixth Commandment and of the indissolubility of marriage would not be an ideal realizable on the part of all, but in a certain manner only for an elite.
The intransigent words of Christ which intimate to men the observance of God’s commandments, always and in all circumstances, even when accepting some considerable suffering, or the Cross, for this purpose, would not longer be valid in their truth: « If you hand is an occasion of sin to you, cut it off and throw it away, because it is better for you that one member perish, than that thy whole body be cast into Gehenna » (Mt. 5:30).
To admit couples in an « irregular union » to Holy Communion, by permitting them to practice the acts reserved to married couples in a valid marriage, would be equivalent to the usurpation of a power, which, however, does not belong to any human authority to exercise, because one treats where with a pretense to correct the very Word of God.
[the parts I have evidenced all state the same: this document contains heresy and blasphemy; it spits in the face of Our Lord; it is the attempt to deny His Commandments, it is an insult to God. The Bishop does not say so explicitly. But the logical chain of argument, “if you read the document as it can honestly be read in its context, this is the conclusion you must draw”, does not leave any doubt in the intelligent reader as to what the bishop means].
(to be continued…)
I noticed it first on the page of Vox Cantoris.
Immediately thereafter I saw that some faithful commenters had also posted it on my blog.
It has happened. Praise the Lord!
Finally, one Bishop has spoken; and this poor old sinner could not, could not contain his tears.
Once again, one Athanasius is alone against the world.
The original, published on Corrispondenza Romana, is in Italian. An English translation is here. I have no time to read it now. I have parsed through it, and it seems beautifully brutal (as much as a bishop can be expected to be brutal, of course). I will write more on this as time allows. But this is huge. It’s like breathing after two weeks. It’s like seeing the light again after two weeks in a dungeon, in total obscurity.
Thank you, Lord, that in this horrible time you have left us with one true and brave bishop, one alone, in the “official” Church.
It is an immense gift. For more than two weeks, I thought it might be more than we deserve. Heck, it probably still is.But it is there.
Let me, therefore, cry it to the skies: there is still ONE Catholic Bishop who dares to speak against Francis!
Amoris Laetitia truly has separated the wheat from the chaff. The amount of chaff is staggering. But we still have some wheat left in the official Church.
One bishop has spoken. I cannot avoid thinking that he has spoken with others in the preceding days and weeks, and tried to organise a broader front; failing which, he has decided to do what he has to do, come what may. May the Lord give him infinite blessings; good, courageous shepherd.
After a seeming half eternity, one Bishop has spoken. One only. Will, now, others find the courage and take his side? Where the heck are the Polish Bishops? Has all Africa sunk into the Oceans? Are they all hirelings like Cardinal Burke, or are there true shepherds among them?
We will know in time, then the mills of the Church grind so excruciatingly slow. But I can’t tell you with words the joy I feel.
Going to work now. More to come.
This was the Lord’s doing;
It is marvelous in our eyes.
This is the day the Lord has made;
We will rejoice and be glad in it.
I have noticed it a couple of times, but yesterday it was evident to everyone present.
Garden variety Novus Ordo priest celebrates in the midst of baby din, and is utterly unfazed. You can imagine the thinking: “isn’t it sweet”, “the poor baby can’t help it”, and all that effeminate rubbish.
But then the din starts again during the homily, and at this point the priest is visibly peeved. Forget all the rubbish now: the man is on stage, how do you dare to disrupt his performance?
The Mass as the most sacred even in our daily life has been completely forgotten. The idea that the church is the most solemn space in our daily life (a space in which sacred silence must reign at all times, not only at Mass) is gone away completely. If one sees it as sacrilege that this sacred liturgy, and this sacred space, is disrupted by baby din he, not the parent of the baby, is the one to be blamed.
The Mass has become a performance, made of unimportant parts (the mass proper) and important parts (the part in which the priest takes over the performance). Yeah, it enrages me no end.
I had more respect of the sacred space of the church at five than most people who attend Mass have today. I felt in awe just looking at the church from the outside. When I was allowed to get in, I was literally entering into a different world, a sacred one, when wrong behaviour (which means, everything louder than the smallest of whispers) would have been followed by a terrible look, and swift punishment once outside. Every child my age was like that. It was mainstream thinking. I truly wonder what the heck has happened to us as a religion.
I am so old that I remember the time when people said come in chiesa (“like in church”) to indicate an extremely reverent silent. Say: “when the Headmaster started to speak, there was a silence like in church”.
The expression has now gone. There is no silence in church anymore.
But dare to disrupt the performance of the Main Character of the Novus Ordo show, and he will let you notice it.
You can disrupt Christ all the time. But woe to you, you interfere with the Mercy Showman.
Yesterday was the (I think, first) first day of coordinated, national protest against so-called Planned Parenthood in the Unites States.
More than 200 locations, coast to coast. The locations appear to have been (I have nosed around on the internet) generally outside of baby killing factories. Gotta love a (still; and no thanks to libtards) free Country.
“It’s chilling to see Planned Parenthood’s doctors talk about how to crush an unborn child’s body in order to most effectively procure his or her organs,”
Always nosing around, it seems to me that Catholic priests and Catholic imagery (rosary prayers; pictures of the Blessed Virgin) play an important role in this. May this continue and help spreading catholicism as it spread awareness for the astonishing Nazi mentality in millions of homes in our very Western Countries, in our very families!
Deo volente, this will grow into a deadly weapon against the Dr Goebbels of our times and their enablers and accomplices.
Let me say first that I abhor homosexuality, in the same way as I abhor sexual perversion of all kind. To me – as to countless generations of Christians before me, not to mention a vast number of heathens and atheists – sodomy and any kind of “same sex” sexual abomination are in the same ballpark as incest and bestiality.
However, as a Christian – and as a person of common sense – I know that, at times, people change; and I also know that to each and every pervert is given grace to overcome his perversion, if he only collaborates with that grace.
When, therefore, a person has overcome such a terrible – and disgusting – affliction, he has all the right to our appreciation. And let me tell you here that whilst I never had, nor I would ever have, one of those perverts people call “gay friends”, I would be glad to have Voris over for lunch at my place, and would be proud of calling a person of his intelligence and ability – and now completely cleansed of his old perversion – a friend of mine. Not, mind, out of the stupid and effeminate “inclusiveness” of this stupid and effeminate century, but exactly because of the opposite reason: that the man has freed himself from the filth, and is now disgusted from his past behaviour.
Praise the Lord, say I! Let this be a lesson to every “Born this way” pervertling out there! Homosexuality is a perversion: right thinking, prayer, and collaboration with God’s grace get. rid. of. it, because you can’t love God and be a pervert at the same time. Love of purity means hate of filth, full stop.
Nor can the poor man be now accused – as I suspect not a few will do – of hypocrisy. It would have been grave and unnecessary scandal if the man had gone about talking of his past perversion. Among decent people, homosexuality is a taboo, like incest. You just don’t put it out there in public. You wouldn’t have wanted to know if he had screwed his sister, either.
I still am in grave disagreement with Voris about the way he deals – or rather, not deals – with all the heresies and the blasphemies of the Evil Clown; and I find it desecrable that he has – to my knowledge – still not apologised to Mr Verrecchio, Vennari, Ferrara, and Matt after the brutal, gratuitous accusations thrown at them; but the commitment of the man I have never doubted; and if a man appears sincere and a lover of truth, I think he has the right to our confidence in his good faith.
When the prodigal son returns home, good Catholic slaughter the fat calf; they do not ask from him a detailed description of what he has done in the taverns and whorehouses. Nor do I. Actually, I would have had the details spared. But hey, I’ll put this on Cardinal Dolan’s tab.
Well done, Mr Voris.
Please find it in yourself to apologise to the excellent gentlemen mentioned above. Please also, if you can, find it in yourself to start fighting the abomination of this papacy in the right way. But be assured that from this little blog there will be no mockery, and no accusation of hypocrisy, because of your recent revelations.
This not, mind, because of stupid thinking à la “who am I to judge”; but because your sincere repentance and disgust for your past sins puts you squarely on the right side; where I hope and trust – and pray – you will remain for the rest of your days.
A famous pop singer dies (say a prayer, please). He is a wannabe “Christian” (I believe born Mormon, then converted to Jehova’s Witness; definitely not a Christian, then…) with a rather strong appetite for fornication and a lot of things besides. The world adores him for his raunchy (and, I add, more than vaguely camp) image. Whilst apparently a “social conservative” of (some) sort, he certainly embodies much of what is wrong with our times.
President Obama is full of praise. In the usual bout of effeminate emotionalism, buildings are turning purple. The world media have this as a huge story.
Mother Angelica died weeks ago. A real example of Christian virtue, she died a serene death in the midst of excruciating suffering. A wonderful example of integrity and virtue for every Christian, every believer, even every atheist. Mother Angelica certainly embodied the criticism of what is wrong with our times.
Can’t recall a word of President Obama about her. Only the Catholic world really noticed. There were no big secular headlines for one of the most significant US figure of the last half century.
The world will love his own.
Wonderful article of Catholic Family News' John Vennari about the heretical “situation ethics” not only contaminating, but constituting the very backbone of Amoris Laetitia.
This is a comprehensive analysis of the fundamental mistake, the all-pervading heresy of this astonishingly evil document. All is explained in concise and precise, but very understandable terms. This article is probably intellectually accessible to anyone past the age of, say, twelve.
Please, dear reader, follow the advice of the article's author, and work as you can within your sphere of influence to warn as many as you can from the poisonous effects of heresy and error shamelessly promoted from the very Successor of Peter. Facebook, Twitter, and email are probably all morally licit means, however obscene Facebook and Twitter may be.
Please post on your blog, on your Facebook “wall” (if it's called that way) , wherever you think it might help. For ten who ignore it, one might be moved to change his life for the better.
We are not asked to defeat the Enemy single-handedly. We are asked to do what we can to to damage him.
When I read this, it took my breath away.
In a sort of repetition of the Miracle of Lanciano (if you are Italian, you have probably heard of it; if you aren’t, I don’t know) a host was proven to have transformed in distressed cardiac heart tissue. The stunning conclusion of the research ordered by the ecclesiastical authorities read thus:
In the histopathological image, the fragments of tissue have been found containing the fragmented parts of the cross striated muscle. (…) The whole (…) is most similar to the heart muscle with alterations that often appear during the agony. The genetic researches indicate the human origin of the tissue.
As father Z very rightly points out, Not just normal heart tissue, but distressed heart tissue.
Feel free to take some breath before going on.
This is, literally, huge. Not only the miracle in itself is another stunning demonstration to us, of little faith, that Christ is always with us; but the distressed heart tissue adds another layer of breathtaking beauty.
The miracle happened on Christmas Day in 2013, the year that will remain in infamy forever. The official announcement of the miracle happened in 2016, another year that will remain in infamy forever.
The Country blessed with such an astonishing, fully undeserved demonstration of Our Lord’s undying love for us is Poland, a Country that so much suffered for the Faith, and so much gave to it.
A country, too, whose Bishops staged a unanimous insurgency against the Relatio post disceptationem in 2014, very fittingly stating that it was not only a betrayal of the Church, but an offence to JP II.
These very Bishops appear, at least to my knowledge, to remain stubbornly silent after the Pope himself released an official papal document spitting not only in the face of JP II but also, and very evidently, spitting in the face of Christ: openly, insistently, shamelessly.
Pearls to the Bishops.
May they find the courage to speak up, or repent of their cowardice, or pay forever the price of their own arrogance.
Francis now adds mockery to the heresy and blasphemy already abundantly exhibited in the Apostolic Excrementation.
Asked about the mess he created, he simply dismissed it out of hand with the usual “there are more important things” kind of waffle, and stated he does not even remember the Footnote.
Not only is the man pulling our leg with astonishing arrogance, he is also stating he does not care a straw for the concerns of faithful Catholics!
Perhaps could he make the effort to, actually, pretend to read the darn thing? Not at all! Announce a note of the Vatican with a clarification or, rather, a substitution? God forbid!
No. The man just mockingly dismisses the suffering of millions of Catholics, ignoring them with unspeakable arrogance, as heresy now advances with his clear complicity.
We are living unbelievable times. And they get more absurd every month.
Catholicism is logical. It is a coherent set of rules which fit into each other. They fit so, that if you try to manipulate one of the rules you soon discover this has a domino effect and other rules are affected, creating greater and greater damage.
The Church has always maintained that one who lives in public sin cannot be admitted to the sacrament of confession. The reason is obvious: the Sacrament is not an automatic dispenser of absolution; on the contrary, repentance and firm purpose of amendment are required.
The Church rules are logical. They are merciful, but not dumb. They aren't made for Jesuits, but for Catholics. It being utterly ridiculous that a public sinner may obtain an absolution presupposing a firm purpose of amendment that goes on for exactly the five seconds necessary to get out of the confessional, and then simply goes home to keep living in public sin the Church has always states that, as they say in Italy, here nobody is stupid: first you put an end to the public scandal, then and only then you approach the confessional to obtain absolution for your still not absolved sins of adultery and public scandal.
Nor can any sensible Catholic think even for one second that a person dead to grace (this is what being in mortal sin is) would need, or have any right to ask, that he be absolved from other mortal sins even as he chooses to remains in mortal sin anyway.
It's not a point system. It's not that a major sinner may think he can “improve his mortal sin score” by getting rid of some as he keeps accepting others. To be in mortal sin is to be dead to grace. Dead is dead, and there is no state of being “less dead” because some of the sins are – in hypothesis – absolved. Therefore, there is not only no need at all to have the public adulterer “confess other sins”, but this would be even counterproductive as there is no way this sinner would not go out of the confessional thinking either “absolved is absolved; therefore, I am now in the state of grace” or “I have my mortal sin counts down to one; hey, it could be much worse”. Then the question would pose itself how can a person dead to grace, and who chooses to remain dead to grace, obtain the grace of sincere repentance. Similarly the other question would pose itself on how the priest could, in hypothesis, absolve such a sinner. “Ego the absolvo”, but no communion? What absolution it is, one that leaves the penitent in mortal sin? How can a priest absolve anyone of any sin, who chooses to remain dead to grace?
A person in mortal sin is separated from Christ. The Chuch has always – charitably, and therefore firmly – maintained that such a person has no business trying to go around the point, and must be reminded at all times that when one is in mortal sin there is no fluffing around, and there only one thing to do: put an end to the state of mortal sin. Every other solution would not help the sinner to abandon his sinfulness in the least; on the contrary, it would reinforce him in his deluded idea that he is “almost all right”.
The public sinner must be excluded from communion. He must actually also be excluded from social life, and treated like a pariah in his own environment. He is a public sinner: not only bent for hell himself, but uncaring of the fact his scandal helps Satan to get other souls, too.
There is no way of making a tip-tap dance around this. Public sinner, in mortal sin, dead to grace, and bent for hell. The enforcement of such basic concepts, both on a sacramental and social level, provides the best chance for the sinner to see the error of his way and repent. Every false “acceptance” (and much more so: tampering with the sacraments in any way, shape or form) makes the work of the devil.
Mortal sin and public scandal? No confession unit the scandal has ceased. This is how the Church has always dealt with the matter when Truth came before niceness.
Francis is on a roll – and, we can safely add, completely in the thrall of Satan – after the Apostolic Excrementation. Only three days after the release of this infamous document, which will go in history as the most atrocious papal document ever, the man doubles down. From a homily held at the Casa Santa Marta on the 11 April (emphases mine):
“It hurts when I read that small passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas, who has repented, goes to the priests and says: ‘I have sinned’ and wants to give … and gives them the coins. ‘Who cares! – they say to him: it’s none of our business!’ They closed their hearts before this poor, repentant man, who did not know what to do. And he went and hanged himself. And what did they do when Judas hanged himself? They spoke amongst themselves and said: ‘Is he a poor man? No! These coins are the price of blood, they must not enter the temple… and they referred to this rule and to that… The doctors of the letter. “
I do not know you, but I am slowly thinking this man is not far away from singing the praise of “poor Satan”.
Francis is “hurt” at the way the “poor, repentant” Judas is treated. There is in him not the slightest hint of condemnation of Judas for his own suicide. The blame for that is entirely thrown on the Pharisees.
Now let us reason a bit:
Have you ever detected any “hurt” for Judas in Matthew’s Gospel? Matthew suffers for Christ, not for Judas. The episode is clearly meant to expose Judas’ total, complete, and utter disgrace. If you really hurt for Christ, you don’t really hurt for Judas. Yes, every soul who damns himself is an infinite loss. But God has seen this soul worthy of eternal condemnation and suffering, and that’s that.
Moreover, Judas freely hangs himself. The parallel with St Peter is striking. Both – in vary different ways – betray our Lord, but Peter repents and asks for forgiveness (true repentance), Judas doesn’t (false repentance, which is only a self-flattering emoting of the ego; just what Francis does when he “hurts” for him), and goes on to commit pretty much the worse crime imaginable after Deicide: Suicide. Only an enemy of Christianity like Francis can choose to ignore this fundamental difference in a bout of effeminate sentimentalism about the “poor, repentant man”.
Furthermore: Christianity has, traditionally, not shown any sympathy for Judas. Judas is the willing instrument both of the Deicide and of his own damnation. Francis reads a Gospel that has been read these 2,000 years. He has a different reading than the 2,000 years of Christianity before him. What does this tell you of him, I will leave to yourself.
Lastly, a striking contrast between Francis and Christ.
You can find many indications in the Gospels that Judas – pretty freaking obviously – damned himself by hanging himself from that tree. But none of them is as evident, as definitive, and as clear-cut as the words of our Lord:
“The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born”.
This is from the very Gospel of Matthew the Evil Clown has mentioned. It is a quoted direct statement of Christ, which means: it is a dogmatic statement.
“It had been good for that man if he had not been born”. There is no other possible way to read this, not on this planet and not on any alternative one, other than as a very clear statement that Judas is destined for eternal damnation. To believe otherwise is to believe that Our Lord changed His mind and did not let us know; or that He was just kidding; or that we should not take seriously everything Our Lord said.
It is astonishing that a Pope should “hurt” for a Deicide Reprobate. It is beyond contempt that he would not only completely ignore Our Lord’s words, but also attempt to appear more merciful than Him. This blasphemous arrogance is simply sympathy for the Devil and his minions. Francis is an enemy of Christ. He will do what he can to let you side with the one who betrayed Him.
For 2,000 years, Judas has been the epitome of everything. Francis “hurts” for him.
This man should be exorcised.
The second part of the reflections originated by the truly beautiful article appeared on the “Remnant” is to do with the way a sound Catholic reacts to the danger represented by a heretical Pope: by destroying his reputation. This cannot, realistically, be done with polite remarks. Too much is the clout of the white cassock for that, however unworthily worn. Besides, I have never noticed the need to treat evil, mortal enemies with white gloves.
No. A sound Catholic will know that this papacy must be crushed; and he will realise that this can only happen with brutal criticism, and utter mockery.
This is what was always done in the past, and it was done because it works. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Charlie Chaplin were recruited in the service of opposing Nazism. They certainly damaged Nazism, in the eyes of millions, more than any comprehensive, well-structured criticism oozing polite, erudite expressions that you can bother to imagine. If you want to destroy your enemy, it is not enough to politely criticise him: you must expose his evil with great forcefulness even as you ridicule him.
Ridicule works. Father Celatus does this very well, too, coining the beautiful expression Pope on a rope. Again, do not think that this is casual, or the fruit of momentary anger. Righteous anger is supposed to do more than expressing our displeasure. Righteous anger is supposed to cause damage. The heretic is supposed to have the mark of ridicule stamped upon him, for him to carry it to the grave and be remembered by it.
Pope on a rope. Boy, this is beautiful.
Pope on a rope. Evil Clown. Pope Dope. These things work. They work, in fact, infinitely better than many an effeminate blog post expressing “surprise” at the “strange” expressions of the oh so holy father; for whom, however, we must at all times all have the strongest affection blablabla.
I must come back here to a point made in the other post: the way you express yourself without says a lot about your priorities within. Father Celatus coins this wonderful “Pope on a rope” expression because to him Christ comes before the modern religion of “politeness”. His priorities have become language, his language has given witness about his priorities.
We must look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves where our priorities lie: the approval of very tepid but very polite Catholics, or the approval of Christ who, if you haven't noticed, often expressed himself in absolutely brutal terms; if you have forgotten it – probably because your NO priest never mentions the fact – I suggest you give the Gospels a good read again. I say Christ comes first, politeness is way back, Francis is not even on the radar screen.
Brutal language impresses itself in the mind of the listener far more effectively than veiled allusions. Ridicule is an extremely powerful instrument to fight evil.
An evil Pope – any evil Pope; Francis may be only the first of a long series – has deserved all the brutal language, and all the ridicule, we are able to throw at him.
The recently posted article of Father Celatus on the “Remnant” is the occasion for a couple of reflections I would like to share with you.
The first thing you notice is the language chosen by this faithful man. Do not think for a moment every word was not carefully weighted.
Whilst we generally owe a filial respect to the Pope, it stands to reason that this applies insofar as the Pope respects Christ and His Church. However, it should come perfectly natural to every faithful Catholic to verbally attack a Pope who attacks Christ. It should be part and parcel of his sentire cum ecclesia that he insults a Pope who insults Her. Why? Because if you don't, it means that to you the defence of the Pope comes before the defence of Christ, so that the latter has limits imposed to it by something that is infinitely inferior, namely: the dignity of a heretical Pope.
Father Celatus insults the Pope; but is a single one of these insults not more than abundantly deserved? Obviously, they are all more than deserved.
Is, then, Father Celatus moved by a personal animosity against the Pope? Of course not. His problem is not with Francis' qua Jorge Bergoglio. His problem is with Francis qua blasphemous and heretical Pope, a wolf instead of a shepherd.
Is, finally, Father Celatus insulting the Papacy itself? You know the answer. It is clear that this good priest has a high respect for the sacredness of the office. It is, therefore, perfectly natural that the abuse of it should enrage him even more.
There will be, no doubt, many who read the good father and think his words wildly inappropriate and uncalled for. I wonder how healthy their faith is.
A strong, deep faith naturally leads one to keenly perceive any offence made to God. An offence made to God is then seen, and rightly so, as infinitely grave, because infinite is the Goodness of the One who is offended. It follows from this that no attack to the Pope can be seen as too harsh, when the One Whom the Pope has attacked is so infinitely bigger than the Pope himself. The only boundary to this must, surely, only consist in what the Church commands under pain of mortal sin: the physical inviolability of the Pope himself, obviously as long as he is Pope. I have no doubt the Evil Clown would, once deprived of his office, not only deserve to be kicked in the ass all the way to Termini station, but also burned at the stake after that; then as our Christian forefathers very well knew, the supreme offence should be met with the supreme punishment.
Alas, we live in times of little faith. If faith is weak, substitute values easily overcome it. Life is deified, and no one can conceive capital punishment, much less the burning at the stake of a heretic. Niceness is deified, and any expression of sharp, harsh criticism is condemned for the mere fact of being unkind. The office of the Pope is deified, and Papolatry becomes widespread. The person of Francis is deified, and he can never be called a lewd minion of Satan, no matter how open his siding with the devil is.
If you have faith, your language will end up reflecting it; because if you have faith you will see Francis' open attacks to truth as direct insults to Christ, slaps to His Holy Face, a new Scourging going on by the hand of the very Pope.
How anyone can have any respect whatsoever for this evil clown is beyond me; or better said, it can only be understood with a faith weak enough that the scale of the offence to Christ is very dimly perceived, so that inferior goods – “niceness”, “polite discourse”, “the respect due to the Holy Father” – appear to him to have precedence.
If someone slapped your mother on the street, you would not engage the aggressor in polite conversation. You would – literally – beat the shit out of him.
And when Our Lord is slapped in the face, will you limit yourself to polite disagreement?
With great surprise I read around that some bloggers are afraid that the SSPX may deliver themselves to their executioner in order to… Well I don't even know: to be allowed by Francis to listen to confessions, which they do anyway and ever did anyway?
Do not be afraid and sleep soundly. I know we live in times of widespread betrayal and mass flight of supposed faithful pastors, but it is utterly unrealistic to think that this would apply to the SSPX, too.
Let us see why.
1. These are people ready to be excommunicated the day of their consecration. Everyone of them. They don't look to me like the ones eager to get the approval of a lewd heretic. They look to me, actually, like pretty tough guys.
2. Fellay told some years ago (when there was the provisional agreement with Ecclesia Dei, reneged by Benedict at the eleventh hour) that any deal with the Vatican would have to be approved by the majority of the SSPX priests. Therefore, even if you do not trust Fellay (very wrongly, I add) you can sleep soundly.
3. The SSPX has enough financial support to finance a massive growth, and their seminaries attract enough candidates to fuel this growth. The Society goes on like clockwork. If they were in dire financial straits one might understand a degree of fear; but they are in rude health both spiritually and financially.
4. Every SSPX priest has certainly been told, and has present at all times, the duplicitous attempts to neutralised them perpetrated by JP II and Benedict. That they would trust, of all people, Francis is simply beyond belief. Within the SSPX there is a culture of deep mistrust in the Vatican hierarchy. You can't undo such a situation so easily if you are a saintly Pope who is a friend of truth and tradition, much less if you are a dirty old man with a satanical attraction for Judas' character.
5. The treatment or the FFI must have opened the eyes even of those, say, three Pollyannas within the SSPX ready to trust Francis. But three seems a big number to me.
6. Two words: Amoris Laetitia.
No. The SSPX simply delivering themselves to a V II pope's mercy is just not going to happen.
What can happen, however, is that the Vatican surrenders unconditionally to their requests, creating a situation of de facto “pacific convivence”. We are pretty much there, in fact, when you think that Francis has just decided – as largely expected – to extend sine die the faculties of the SSPX to listen to confessions. This certainly authorises to think that the SSPX will keep doing their thing and the Vatican will simply look the other way, with nothing more than a mild meow of disagreement for their refusal of V II.
Stay calm and trust the Society.
They aren't the guys to be conned by a simpleton like Francis, or by any V II pope come to that.
God bless this faithful priest, “Father Celatus” (“celatus” in Latin means “hidden”).
He has a beautiful comment on AL (and Francis in general) here at the Remnant.
More on this as time allows.
Please read this short article, and let it sink in.
With Paragraphs 291 to 295 we are in the part of the Apostolic Excrementation where Francis looks at those shacking up and those in not sacramental marriage (which is shacking up, too; only of a more institutionalised sort) from a Presbyterian/Anglican perspective and, like them, tries to be hip, cool, and “relevant”.
Several justifications are made for public sinners, and there is no evidence of Francis feeling that they are, in fact, living in mortal sin and endangering their salvation. On the contrary, the man approves of “commitment” and blabla, again looking at the “relationship” from a purely secular perspective. The paragraphs from 293 on (“gradualness” in pastoral care) are all inspired by the same sentiment: these good men and women are not in danger of hell. Perish the thought! Look at our committed those public sinners are! Who are we to judge?
This is, of course, heretical mentality through and through. Denial of Christ and his laws. Willful, insisted, burying of Christian morality under a wave of easy, fully secular emotionalism. The language matches the mentality: nothing is condemned, and every mortal sin is an “imperfection” of people who really, really care, but just don’t know it or, you know, can’t spend the money for a church marriage because the great party with 200 people invited comes before the sacrament. Already the fact that “irregular” is always written in inverted commas speaks volumes about the man’s forma mentis.
You can read the paragraphs (if you really want to; not something I am advocating) and immediately become aware of the diffused, ever-present faithlessness that transpires from it. JP II is also abundantly misquoted, abusing him for the edification of a system of systematic avoidance of every sanction, and of every censure, which is the exact contrary of the stated intention of the man (see Familiaris Consortio, par. 84).
The big heretical bomb, however, comes in paragraph 297, where Francis starts by fluffing about in that usual Fag Dalai Lama-way of his, but then piddles outside of the potty-chair in the most tragic of ways, leaving a stinking pool of heresy and blasphemy he insists all the world sees and celebrates:
297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Satan is speaking to us very clearly here. Francis, his Number One minion on earth, is expressing to us the following concept:
No one can ever go to hell. Hell is contrary to the logic of the Gospel. And in case you think this only applies to adulterers, well no, hell does not apply to anyone. Christianity is contrary to the logic of the Gospel, you see.
When has a Pope in the history of Christianity spoken a blasphemy the like of this one!? When has a Pope dared to insult Christ in such a way!?
Any Bishop and Cardinal who does not openly condemn this blasphemous attack to Christ’s Infinite Goodness and Justice is a very obvious, very public accessory, through silence, of this heresy and blasphemy, and if you are a Christian you can have no doubt he will rot in hell unless he repents. Yes, this applies to Burke, Mueller, Brandmueller, Schneider, & Co.
After this absolute peak of satanical blasphemy, Francis goes on explaining to us how to deal with those who not only live in sin, but even think they are right, Christ is wrong, and say so very publicly around them.
How to deal with them? Simple, says the Evil Clown. Allow them to become part of the community. Make them pray together with the others. Make them do some “good deed”. Confuse the faithful even more by having in their midst open enemies of the Church. Destroy in the faithful any sense of sin by showing them how “good” a person dead to grace is, because he is involved in “social work”. Obliterate any consciousness in them that if one dies in mortal sin, no kind of “good work” will ever save them from hell. Allow the bad apple to corrupt the good ones every day of their lives! No one must remain out. No matter how much they are in open enmity with Christ, there will always be some way of inflicting them on the faithful Catholic, that they may be corrupted buy the faithless, the adulterers, the dissenters of all kind!
When Francis opens his mouth, Satan speaks.
There is only way to understand Francis:
Reading Francis through Satan
We live in depressing times. But this does not mean that we have any business being demoralised.
Christ has already won. That stupid, vulgar, ignorant, boorish, lewd clown sitting on the chair of Peter has already lost. You are not only on the right side of history but, more importantly, on the right side of truth.
Obviously, the situation is not exactly exhilarating. But again, it's a matter of perspective. If you think how massively the deception is being promoted, how many – culpably, in various degrees – fall for it, and that you are standing firm in the faith, you should actually feel rather proud (in the good sense) of yourself. You should feel quietly but solidly confident that you are, sinner as we all are, headed in the right direction.
No, I am not demoralised, and neither should you. The stink of heresy – and sycophancy – does make me want to vomit; but this is rather natural given the circumstances. Also, I cannot deny that – however much I try to think of the providential aspect of all this – the astonishing events unfolding in my lifetime make me suffer, and painfully long for the same environment my parents and grandparents grew in. Alas, it's not going to happen. Our generation has been given Francis. Not that haven't deserved him.
Every mother, every soldier will tell you that suffering for someone or something we love has a sweet side to it. Suffering for our betrayed faith also has a redeeming quality, and will encourage us to react by being stronger in our resolve to pray, and do penance, more.
There is truly no reason to be demoralised, and I invite all my readers to not give in, not in the least, to any thought of defeat or surrender. Victory is already won. Our duty consists merely in this: that we are required to fight for this already won battle for the rest of our lives. If the tomb meets us as faithful warriors, what does it matter how long or painful the battle was?
I have no illusions that the rest of our lives will bring more suffering, probably – and particularly for those looking to many decades in front of them – of a much more evident and brutal kind than today's. I see all the signs.
When even open heresy is met by most with nothing more than “puzzlement”, when it is not even openly ignored, you can be pretty sure of this: more and more blatant heresy, more heretical and perverted priests and bishops, more horrid Cardinals and, in the end, more Evil Clowns as Popes. This is what our polite disagreement will bring us, and this is what we have – collectively – fully deserved.
It is only when the Catholic world, or at least a substantial part of it, rises and cries “enough!”, and threatens the Pope with deposition, that things will at least start to change. Up to that point, the “I can't understand the Pope” (thought they do full well) crowd will continue to be the useful idiots of the heretics, and will continue to be led by the nose like the dumb oxes they are.
We know that. We can see decades of suffering coming. But we must not be demoralised.
Our generation has been given the opportunity to do battle for Christ like few others.
Let us feel energised by it. Let us resolve to be faithful soldiers to the end.
This is the war the Lord in His goodness allotted to us. Abandoned by our Bishops and Cardinals, insulted and openly attacked b our very Pope, we can still hear the trumpet calling us to war.
I hear the trumpet loud and clear. Everyone who isn't deaf must at this point react to it. And the trumpet is calling my name, and your name too…
I have only one answer:
The text of the rest of paragraph 305. Emphases, as always, mine.
Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”. The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.
This explosive paragraph, that will be condemned by orthodox Catholics as long as this world exists, ends with the usual mixture of platitudes, exaggerations, and implicit attacks to good Catholics.
Even a superficial reading of the Gospel teaches a child that the Gospel isn’t very nuanced. Dozens, hundreds of quotes can be brought as support to this claim, so I won’t insult your intelligence with quotes. If the Gospel is one thing, it is black and white in its uncompromising call to choose between sin and virtue, heaven and hell, this world or the next, Christ or Satan.
However, Francis here also uses his usual method of kindergarten exaggeration, which is very fitting to his kindergarten – if satanical – brain. No, whilst we all must live the fundamental dichotomy between black and white, not everything is black and white. It is Francis who says so i order to let you appear a life in the light of the Gospel as an impossible feat. Which, by the way, is a leimotiv of this entire Apostolic Excrementation.
Francis lets this follow with another of his favourite acts: the attack to faithful Catholics. It is true that the second phrase evidenced in bold could be read in an orthodox way. It is also true that, say, the Hail Mary painfully, perhaps even tentatively said by an atheist as if in the birth pains of a nascent conversion is far more pleasing to Mary than the Hail Mary recited by a devout Catholic, of whom she is sure. However, in Francis the subtext is always the same and is always extremely clear: “You, devout Catholic who live ordered lives and follow the rules: who are you to judge?” Read this in FrancisMode and you will see just this: Francis sees the public sinner who makes some little effort, however insignificant, as just as worthy of receiving communion as the Pharisees who are guilty of having renounced to exactly those sins who now make the sinner, in the eyes of Francis, oh so virtuous.
One wonders whether Jesus, confronted with the adulterous woman, told her: “go, and try to make some small step. This would be far more pleasing to me than the life of someone solidly anchored in the truth”. Francis’ gospel was evidently printed by Satan.
The paragraph concludes with the usual invitation to unhinge Catholic truth by substituting it for a heathenish praxis that is its exact negation. Negation of truth in practice is ipso facto negation of truth. Francis is either too stupid to see this or, far more probably, too evil to care.
Let us continue with our reading (painful as reading this rubbish is) of paragraph 306:
306. In every situation, when dealing with those who have difficulties in living God’s law to the full, the invitation to pursue the via caritatis must be clearly heard. Fraternal charity is the first law of Christians (cf. Jn 15:12; Gal 5:14). Let us not forget the reassuring words of Scripture: “Maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8); “Atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged” (Dan 4:24); “As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sins” (Sir 3:30). This is also what Saint Augustine teaches: “Just as, at the threat of a fire, we would run for water to extinguish it… so too, if the flame of sin rises from our chaff and we are troubled, if the chance to perform a work of mercy is offered us, let us rejoice in it, as if it were a fountain offered us to extinguish the blaze”.
The devil can quote from Scripture. Twenty Jesuits, gathered by Francis around a heretical table, can, with much effort, do that too. This is, again, unhinged Chritianity, and a new religion of utter stupidity.
You see this first in the choice of words: an adulterer living in mortal sin receives a massive upgrade to “person dealing with difficulties in living God’s law to the full”, as if his sins consisted in, saying, being too near to the cookie jar. He who thinks in this way has renounced Christianity.
That Francis even dares to quote Saint Augustine is truly hilarious. Saint Augustine lived, at some point, more uxorio with his concubine, and there is not one single word of him that authorises one to think the great Saint saw this as mere “difficulty in living God’s law”.
Furthermore, St Augustine attributes his conversion largely to the reading of the following Bible verse:
Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof
“Make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof”, not “make full provision for the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof, and know that every little step will be greatly praised”.
I am astonished at the continued comments on the blogosphere, according to which this heretical text is either orthodox, or “ambiguous”. It is neither.
It is an open, sustained invitation not only to heretical praxis, but to heretical thinking.
You may refuse any form of heretical praxis. But if you see the preceding statement otherwise, I must question how heretical your thinking has become.
Remember the beautiful reaction of the Bishops at the 2014 Synod? That was the day the pussycat roared.
The indignation was strong, and justified. It was, in fact, obligatory, as many bishops started on that day and in the following ones that they would betray their flock if they just let the abominations of the relatio post disceptationem without denouncing the error.
Do you get that? The bishops felt that they had the duty to denounce error, lest their silence confuses the faithful.
Eighteenth months have passed, and in between another Synod in which, again, thirteen Cardinals had the guts to warn Francis about the consequences of allowing heresy to be proclaimed. It worked again, and whilst the wording of the second relation was weak, it certainly did not contain heresy.
It is, therefore, simply unconscionable that only eighteen (and respectively six) months after these two events a papal document should be released which has every bit of the devastating heresy and blasphemy of the relatio post disceptationem, and the following should happen:
– Most bishops just shut up
– Some talk, and ask us to look the other way, as
– They accuse the faithful and rightly scandalised Catholics of being the ones who confuse the faithful.
It is a u-turn that exposes the weakness and hypocrisy of the same people who, only months ago, were proposing themselves as the guardian of orthodoxy, which btw is pretty much their job description.
Go to aka Catholic and read (twice, actually) the wonderful further analysis (there was a first blog post yesterday) of Louie Verrecchio about Cardinal Burke's (and the others') betrayal of their flock. The analysis is so well-structured and so cogent that I do not need to add anything to it. However, let me add some observations of my own about these days:
1) I must, with sadness, realise that 50 years of V II and three years of Francis have desensitised even faithful Catholics so much, that they consider heresy coming from a Pope something that can be simply swept under the carpet; or which in any way, shape or form can be considered the ground for tactical manoeuvres and “cunning plans”. Ladies and gentlemen, this rubbish is what gave us 50 years of Catholic decline – and, in time, Francis – in the first place. Let us continue this way and our measured reactions to blatant heresy and blasphemy will bring more heresy, more blasphemy, an entirely perverted college of Cardinals, and almost unlimited disgrace for who knows how long.
2) We must recover the very concept of sin. Every sin is an offence to God. Heresy is one of the gravest offences imaginable. Heresy officially proclaimed from a Pope is a disgrace that was, until three years ago, even beyond imaginable. And what should the reaction of our shepherds be? Measured response and polite remarks that this is not – if it is not, and it's a huge '”if” anyway – an instrument of the Ordinary Magisterium?
Who cares a straw how this document ranks! Wake up! The Pope is proclaiming heresy and blasphemy from an official document! What's wrong with you?
Every sin is an offence to God.
Heresy proclaimed from a papal document is like a repeated scourging and spitting of Our Lord' face.
I feel as if Christ were scourged again, none of the apostles were around, and some praised the “intelligent” and “prudent” work of those apostles trying to divert the attention from the scourging, and asking the faithful to focus on the beautiful parables of Jesus instead. Madness. Insanity.
We are living moments of untold gravity. Moment that have only a handful – if any – of precedents in the history of the Church.
If you think that this is the time to play for time and play tactical games, simply ignoring the reality of heresy and blasphemy, in black on white, for all the world to see, V II has damaged you far more than you think.
When was an age in Christianity when an attack of such a scale would have met with such effeminacy? Where was a time in Christianity when heresy was countered by the Bishops with the invitation to ignore it and focus on the rules instead? What the heck is that? Christ is being spit in the face, and the bishops should ask the faithful to… look elsewhere? Christ is being spit in the face, and those who decry it should be the one who give scandal? Insane. Diabolical.
Cardinal Burke has betrayed his flock, big time. So have – or will – all those Bishops and Cardinals who will avoid to denounce heresy. Heresy must be denounced and condemned, not ignored.
There is simply no possible universe in which a Pope can speak heresy and a Bishop or Cardinal is authorised to shut up about it!
This is on Burke's head. How he can sleep, he only knows. This was supposed to be one of our best Cardinals, and he reminds me of a Tory party functionary. This is a man who wears the red reminding him of the blood of the martyrs.
For shame. For shame. For shame.
I have, yesterday, commented on the phrase:
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [Footnote 351 here]
This astonishingly heretical, official papal statement has clearly opened the door for the reception of the Sacraments, because it simply states that even when the objective situation of (mortal) sin is there, this sin could not be mortal. And if the sin is not mortal, grace is not dead in the sinner. And if grace is not dead in the sinner, the sinner should be allowed to go to confession and receive Holy Communion.
If you read again this phrase, you notice there is no strict need for an explicit permission to receive the sacraments. The door is already ajar, with a sign saying “your German foot here”.
But Francis isn’t happy with that. He wants more. He wants to explicitly, in writing, allow the possibility of both confession and communion, spitting in the face of Christ twice in the same paragraph. But he does not want to go too openly about it, because he still fears his bishops (unjustifiably so, would I say on the morning of the fifth day after publication). Therefore, he allows the administering of both sacraments in a footnote.
Let us see the text of this notorious Footnote 351. Emphases, as always, mine:
351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 , 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).
Note here: the sinner is – in Francis’ satanical worldview – not in mortal sin. Therefore there is, in principle, no reason why sacraments should not be administered. Still, our Jesuit prudently states that in certain cases they might be administered. This is made so that the sacrilege appears “pastoral”, rather than the unavoidable consequence of his satanical way of thinking. It also allows him to open the door only for those who want to open it: the African bishops will not consent to the opening of any door, but the Germans are there waiting to push the door wide open with the shoulder.
The “help” include sacraments. Notice the plural. They must, therefore, be at least two. Which ones are they? The following text leaves no doubt whatever as to which ones they are, because Francis “reminds” and “points out” to exactly them.
The first is the Sacrament of Confession. Francis here quotes himself with one of his extremely stupid kindergarten comparisons (“this is not that”, where “that” is something no one has ever said in the past, but which must make him feel smart). There can be no doubt (unless you are stupid, or retarded, or a Jesuit; no, actually if you are a Jesuit you have no doubt at all) that Francis is here authorising the admitting of public adulterers to confession, in an official papal document.
The second is the sacrament of communion. Another extremely stupid kindergarten comparison is served, because Francis loves to humbly quote from… himself. It’s there, black on white, spelling damnation for reprobates.
I have no words to express my outrage, and those I might have cannot be published.
Before anyone produces himself in an exercise of “extreme Jesuitism” and tells me that Francis does not explicitly say, verbatim, “public adulterers are therefore allowed, in certain circumstances, to be admitted to the sacraments of both confession and communion”, I must (after insulting their stupidity; which is, at this point, both salutary and obligatory) ask them how they would interpret the following statements:
A) Heinrich Himmler writes to his camp directors the following instruction: “Jews must be exterminated. In certain cases, this can include the help of mechanical devices and chemical means. I want to remind camp officers that Zyklon B is not rosewater. I would also point out that crematoria are not storage containers, but a powerful way of getting rid of unwanted waste”.
B) A Ku Klux Klan chief sends the following message to his group leaders: “Blacks are an inferior race and must be kept submissive. In certain cases, this can include physical punishment. I want to remind you that hanging from a tree tends to calm down unruly individuals. I also points out that lynching isn’t great fun for the individual affected, but a powerful way of punishing one in order to educate one hundred”.
I wonder who is the man so retarded, so unbelievably stupid or, far more probably, so twisted and in bad faith that he would like to make the case with you that Heinrich Himmler is not directing his subjects to the use of crematoria and Zyklon B, and the Ku Klux Klan leader is not directing his chiefs to the use of hanging and lynching.
Francis, you evil clown, I have bad news for you. You may think we are stupid, but we aren’t. You may think that you can hide behind your finger, but you are far too openly heretical for that. You may think that you will deceive your critics, but you will only deceive those firmly intentioned to be deceived, and willing to ignore reality at any cost. In the same way as anyone would call twisted and in bad faith those who would refuse to draw the only logical consequence from the statements A) and B) above.
Let me close these remarks with an obvious, but rarely heard, statement: a Pope making openly heretical statements in an official papal document is worse than any KKK chief, worse than Himmler, worse than Hitler, worse than Stalin. He is, without any doubt, Satan’s Numero Uno here on earth.
There is no comparison whatsoever, there is not even a comparison in kind, between the massive destruction of perishable mortal bodies and the worldwide attack on Truth, and on immortal souls of infinite value, perpetrated by the Truth’s first and foremost representative on Earth.
Francis is Number One enemy of humanity. Stalin does not even come close. Not only in this generation, but possibly of all times. I struggle to find in history a man so dangerous to so many not in their ultimately perishable bodies, but in their immortal souls. Mohammed might qualify; but you see, Mohammed was clearly recognisable as not a Christian. This one is an inside job.
It is as if Stalin, or Mohammed, or Satan himself had become Pope. None of the three would, upon being elected Pope, proceed to openly proclaim their false religion or wicked ideology. They would not be as stupid as that.
They would use footnotes instead.
… An Apostolic Exhortation which bears the title “The joy of love,” but that makes us cry. This exhortation is a summary of the two synods on marriage. It is very long and contains many things that are right, that they are beautiful, and after building a beautiful building, a beautiful boat, the Supreme Pontiff has made a hole in the keel of the boat, along the waterline. You all know what is happening. Needless to say, the hole was made by taking all possible precautions, thus it is needless to say that the hole is small: the boat sinks! Our Lord himself said that even an iota, not a single iota will be taken away by the law of God. When God speaks, his words do not admit exceptions, when God commands, he is of infinite wisdom that has provided for all possible cases. There is no exception to the law of God. And now, suddenly, it is claimed that this law of marriage, which keeps saying that “marriage is indissoluble” (the repeats this sentence, it must be said), then it says you can, despite everything, have exceptions in the sense that these so-called divorced and remarried in this state of mortal sin may be in a state of grace, and therefore could receive communion. It is very serious! Very serious! I think they do not sufficiently measure the seriousness of what has been said. Needless to say, are small exceptions put there in the corner; that’s how it went to Communion in the hand and as I explained with the little hole in the vessel is appropriate, the boat sinks! “(1)
Courtesy of The Eponymous Flower
Cardinal Burke has given an interview to the NCR about Amoris Laetitia, and he was worse than lame.
Faced with a poisoned cake and asked about it, the Cardinal chooses to simply ignore the poison. Rather, he promotes the eating of the cake as if there was no poison in it.
The fact is: the poison is there, and the Cardinal has no business whatever simply ignoring it. As a Bishop and Cardinal, it is exactly his duty to warn the faithful about the poison, and to condemn the one who baked the poisoned cake.
Burke becomes even worse than that, when he implies that not the heresies in the text, but the strong reactions of the Catholic laity confuse the faithful. No, Your Grace, it is not the lay bloggers who confuse the faithful; it is the like of you who do it, indicating that open heresy can be simply ignored when it is leading people to hell every day. This behaviour would be unacceptable in any bishop, and it is utterly unworthy of a Prince of the Church.
Almost as lame is the other astonishing statement, that an apostolic exhortation has no juridical value. This is neither here nor there. Amoris Laetitia is an official papal statement packed with heresy and blasphemy, which cannot be simply ignored merely because the heresies and blasphemies therein contained have no official canonical value.
Of course there is some value in the Cardinal's words, as he points out that truth can't be changed anyway. But this is simply besides the point. The Catholic world was not waiting for the Cardinal to tell us whether truth can change. It was waiting for him to do his job as Bishop and Cardinal and condemn heresy!
Besides, the Cardinal can simply not pretend not to know that the subversion of Catholic doctrine evidently planned by the Pope and his minions does not go – nor could it ever do – through official, legally sanctioned, proclamation of heresy, but through the allowing of an heretical praxis vigorously, brutally defended and openly promoted by the very words of a Pope.
Shame on you, Cardinal Burke! Millions of devout Catholics stun in disbelief at the extent of the blasphemous and heretical effrontery, and all you can do is to invite them to look the other way!
Heresy cannot simply be swept under the carpet. It is happening now, even as the life of the Church is being split in two in the very basics of Catholic thinking.
To pretend that this can be countered simply by inviting the faithful to be faithful is not good enough.
The Cardinal was called to roar, and he has meowed. No doubt, many others will do like him. On his head be it.
I keep hoping and praying that, among our bishops and Cardinal, some men will still be found.
For the moment, I have heard only of a pussycat.
Prepare to hear many more like him.