Daily Archives: April 6, 2016
The Apostolic Excrementation is about to be inflicted on the Catholic world, and my impression is that the Evil Clown is about to behave like a child who, asked by the mistress in which year Julius Caesar was murdered, starts saying as many years as he can; hoping that the teacher will find there the answer she wants, and will leave him alone. This particular child has more than one teacher to satisfy (the CDF; the majority of his own bishops; a bunch of aggressive orthodox Theologians; but also the Jesuits, the homos, and the darn Kasperites), but the attitude is just the same.
There is no way Francis can escape reality. He may avoid to normatively sanction either communion for adulterers or other kind of abominations (like allowing them to be godfathers, and the like), but he will not be able to escape the consequences of allowing others to behave in that way.
Say, the pope proclaims, among 200 pages of obscene fluff: “God's mercy overcomes every obstacle”. Following that, Kasper & Co start to proclaim that this allows them to give communion to all kind of perverts. The words – or, say, the pretext – is at this point irrelevant. The Pope could have said “good day to all”, and this could have been taken just as much as excuse (“how can my day be good if I can't marry my neighbour/sister/dog/goat?” Kasper will heartily approve). In the end, the Pope is responsible for what happens under his watch. He can't get away with it merely because he gives a wink and a nod to abomination, but does not sanction them explicitly or officially.
Or put it this way: if a de facto schism starts in Germany and other parts of the West, the Pope is just as responsible for it if he shuts up and does not act to destroy the revolt. His actions say that he is enabler and accomplice. Whether there are 200 pages of fluff in the middle is fully irrelevant.
Catholics have to be Catholics. Catholic clergy have to be the more so. If a Pope allows them to stray, and more or less openly encourages them to do so, he can't hide behind the finger of not officially sanctioning what they do.
Let's make a parallel with the Mafia. In the Italian practice, it is fully irrelevant how a mafia boss orders a murder. He can give an explicit order; ask to make the victim an offer he can't refuse; express sadness at what a good picciotto the victim used to be; raise his eyebrows and emit a sigh; even do absolutely bloody nothing. If, in the context, his behaviour can be considered the sanctioning of the murder he is the one who has ordered it, full stop.
Francis may believe in the joy of fluffing around to satisfy both those who will want his scalp if he proclaims heresy and his darling perverts and adulterers. But he will soon discover that he can't avoid being held responsible. He is the Pope, therefore he is responsible.
This is very simple, but it requires some logic and moral integrity to grasp its logic.
Francis has none. Which is why he is about to release a document with (unless it is even worse) 200 pages of fluffing around in ambiguous, ultimately poisonous Francispeak.
What is this clown doing? Why is he still around?
How can a politician who approves of the democratic process publicly state he is trying to stage a Byzantine coup de main at the expense of the most elementary sense of democracy, and of decency?
The man is breathtaking. A walking and talking offence to the most elementary understanding of democracy. An open subversive. A shameless careerist who does not want to realise a very elementary fact: Republican voters do not want him, and he will never make it to the nomination; but if the world becomes mad and he or someone who is not Cruz or Trump should get the nomination he would be destroyed at the polls in November and politically ever after, together with all his public supporters.
Kadich is an insult to any democracy; but particularly to the one he wants to be sworn to protect.
Last Sunday was, well, Dominica in albis. You might have noticed in the past that I don't like this Divine Mercy thing much.
I accept the fact that the first translations might have been particularly bad. I accept the fact that St Faustina Kowalska was a saintly nun. But being saintly does not make one infallible, and even saintly people may be wrong. In the same way as the canonisation of Bernadette does not oblige anyone to believe in the Lourdes apparitions, I as a Catholic am not obliged in the least to believe in the Divine Mercy ones.
Much has been written on the subject. What makes me instinctively and immediately sceptical is this idea of fast and easy paradise. Apparently, the followers of the apparition believe that it is very easy to go to paradise on the express lane; not only ourselves, which would be wrong enough, but even people who have a lot to be purged from in purgatory. Come on, this can't be right.
For centuries we have been warned of a long and painful permanence in Purgatory. Countless generations of very holy men and women have prayed and done penance for decades on end in the hope of shortening theirs and their beloved ones' stay there. I pray for my loved ones – and can't imagine any serious Catholic who did not do it in ages past – decades after their death. This is how it has always been.
Why this should be changed is beyond me. God can't change, so it cannot be that Our Lord suddenly decides to appear to a Polish nun and to say to her: “you know what? Let's do it differently now! Big Paradise Sale! Until life lasts!”
Browse on the Internet and you will read the most outlandish conclusions from the alleged revelations: “straight ticket to heaven”, “floodgates of mercy are open”, 1000 souls released from purgatory for a short prayer, and the like. Please.
The practical implications are devastating. It is impossible to believe in such a fast lane to heaven without losing a good portion of the fear of the Lord of our forefathers; when this happens, it becomes very difficult to reconcile an extremely easy paradise with the terrible reality of the danger of hell. If Paradise is so easy hell can't be a real danger, either.
If we look at the past centuries, we can clearly see that in the ages in which faith was strongest purgatory was feared the most, and the great season of theological reflections on purgatory came exactly because of the great importance it had in pious people's lives.
I also wonder why an omniscient God would not only change His rules, but He would also do so in an age of widespread licence, rampant heathenism, and endemic loss of faith. Who in his right mind can think that this wholesale elimination of punishment actually does anything for Catholicism? When has the child, upon being told that pretty much whatever he does he will meet only an extremely mild punishment, been encouraged to be a better child? Those who think this way are far more likely raise thieves, sluts, and drug addicts.
Beware of those who tell you the way is so easy. We are supposed to work on our salvation with fear and trembling, and I can't see how there can be any fear, much less trembling, when the Big Paradise Sale is ongoing.
Also note a general trend: that the more faithless the time become, the more we are surrounded by talk of mercy. Visit any V II parish for a while and tell me whether there is no underlying atmosphere of something for nothing, of result without effort, of salvation without sacrifice. In the end, it all boils down to the same concept: relax, unless you are Stalin there isn't much to worry about.
I for myself will follow a simple rule: if it would have seemed “off” to my grand-grandmas, it is “off” to me.
And so Catholic.