Monthly Archives: February 2017
Two good news from the front.
The first one is the first Catholic Mass ever celebrated at CPAC.
The second is this summary of beautiful traditional churches being built in the US.
Before you ask, I think this one here is the most beautiful.
What this tells me is that The Evil Clown can make all the noise he wants. In the ends, there is a rich humus of Catholicism that keeps nourishing young, tender plants. No Pope can control the sum total of still a vast number of devout Catholics. I’ll go further than that and state that even in the midst of sixty years of V II devastation, an awful lot of people keep longing for the “old religion”, and a good God instills in their hearts a certainly confused but clearly aching desire for that reverent, beautiful, so logical and so consoling faith of old.
Traditionalism will keep advancing, because it is the consequent, logical, final product of a more general desire for sound Catholicism that finds expression in these beautiful new buildings. And when Traditionalism is ready to take over again – not in our lifetime, I am pretty sure – it will find an awful lot that was done the right way even when the Church was headed in the wrong direction.
It will find a lot of churches built for the New Mass but perfectly suited for the old, the result of the effort of a lot of people who perhaps did not fully understand Traditionalism but still wanted to respect tradition. Even a lake of mud will produce beautiful water lilies, because the Lord in His goodness has decreed that no amount of mud will prevent their growth.
Make no mistake, vast is the damage that Francis and his minions – and very possibly, his successors – will create. But again, there is only so much you can destroy, and the Lord will not allow these people to destroy the Church.
Out of the rich humus of the faith, new plants will continue to grow.
As we all know, everyone can perform a baptism in case of emergency. As we also all know, the Church is already beset by the sad phenomenon of women in the sanctuary, uncaring of what St Paul said about how they have to behave in the church.
If Fra’ Cristoforo is right, the Vatican is planning something of the sort with the future female “Deaconesses”. Basically, this would be what the Germans call “Etikettenschwindel” (a fraud based on false labelling): the “Deaconette” would have nowhere near (as it is unavoidable) Holy Orders, nor would she have any of the privileges and faculties linked exclusively to those. However, you can bet that this fundamental difference will be more or less lost – or at least willfully ignored – by the ignorant and the dumb out there, who would end up perceiving the Deaconette for what she is not, and she will never be: a sort of deacon in petticoat. Also, you can be sure FrancisPriests will do all they can to carve for their “Deaconettes” as broad a role as possible, possibly hoping said “deaconettes” do not notice the way they look at young boys. Sudeenly, the priest will be too busy with his social work to find the time to baptise. But don’t worry, “Deacon Fatty” will be there for you.
If the Church becomes as stupid as this, one wonders what prevents Pope Francis II Tagle to do the same with the priesthood: creating “wymyn priests” who aren’t priests, but are called that way so that the faithful may be confused. At this point, the way for the Bishopess and the Papess, who would appear together with their “male counterparts” by all kind of ceremonies, would be wide open.
Let us pretend Francis had never been born, and we lived in an age of orthodox Popes. If we were having a conversation asking ourselves, in a pure hypothetical manner, what could a Pope do to undermine Catholicism without becoming officially heretical, this one with the fake deaconettes (to be followed by fake priestettes) would be very much at the top of the list, albeit it would – in an age of orthodox Popes – sound somewhere between absurd, impious and comical. This is exactly what this rapscallion is doing: undermining Catholicism in any way he can, without (at least in this case) touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but damaging it from the outside as much as he can.
This is how sad our times have become. I suggest you stop giving even one penny to your Novus Ordo parish (and direct it to other worthy Catholic institutions, like the SSPX) as soon as this one here with the “Deaconettes” comes out.
I doubt most “Deaconettes” will run the risk of dying of starvation anyway.
Read on the Eponymous Flower about the new real estate purchases of the SSPX in the Esquilino hill (this is one of the seven hills, a very central and prestigious location, though yours truly prefers the Aventino by far). As always, I read these news for signs of “ceased alarm” (it’s not that I am really worried; it’s that we live in times when even organisation endowed with Sovereignty poop their pants at the first sign of FrancisAnger). The translated article has two messages for me, one good and one bad.
The good one is that the SSPX is buying the real estate. This is clear sign of, cough, independence from a rich and self-assured order. Instead of asking the Vatican “could you allow me to rent, for a very low price, some nice structure?” the approach seem to be “hhmmm, the agreement is approaching. We’ll need a pad in Rome with all the accoutrements. Let’s go shopping!”
The less good one is that Matzuzzi seems to consider it a given that there will be a cost in the form of “painful losses” among his “faithful and priests”, and I wonder what this means.
Firstly, is this a generic expression of things that might happen, or direct knowledge of things that will happen? Of course some isolated Williamson-style hardliner will walk, but does this qualify as “painful”?
Secondly, last time I looked the situation was that any agreement would have to be approved by the General Chapter of the SSPX. Not only this is an extremely strong guarantee that the order will not be sold, as you can’t this is also a strong indication that the agreement will be approved by a vast majority of the priests, it being inconceivable that a cabal of, say, 21 or 22 people decides to split the SSPX into two on this. Rather, the 40 voters will only support the agreement if they are aware of vast support among the ranks and files. I even seem to remember Bishop Fellay promised a direct vote on this, but I might be wrong.
A last point that I think should mention: whether the SSPX is incardinated in the Vatican hierarchy as a Personal Prelature or Apostolic Administration is not as important as the actual legal situation the SSPX will find itself in. It would appear a Personal Prelature would give the SSPX complete freedom from the authority of the bishops, but this is a moot point as every Personal Prelature could be shaped as the Vatican sees fit.
The important thing is to keep the control of a) the hierarchy and b) the assets. This way, in case of bullying the SSPX could walk away from the paws of the Pope en bloc, intact, and with the coffers full.
The news that a Personal Prelature in Opus Dei style would have been offered, and the Vatican’s demand that the V II documents be considered intrinsically “dogmatic”, or in any way binding, to all Catholics in all their aspects now set aside, clearly show that the controversy – at least the official one – is not about doctrine anymore.
Here is a big Vatican spider, inviting the fly to take place in the inclusive, very merciful net prepared for it, and perhaps expecting the fly to make itself at home in the net in the name of, I don’t know, “unity” or “reconciliation”, or however you want to call the fly’s assured destruction.
Not going to happen, says the SSPX. We are going to talk to the spider, and all; we are going to even hover near the spider if the spider has this desire. But we are not going to fly in any net, thank you very much.
This is, put in rather blunt terms, the reason why the SSPX is now apparently working on the “clarification” of some points. Points which – you can bet your last shirt on it – pivot around who controls the order and its assets, and in which way.
As they (almost) say, reconciliation is nothing without control. No amount of pretended “autonomy” is worth anything, if this autonomy can be taken away at a moment’s notice. No “guarantees” are worth anything, if the Pope retains the factual ability to renege on them. No terms of reconciliation can be accepted, which leave the SSPX in any way, shape or form unable to protect itself from, well, the spider.
The SSPX must keep control of its own hierarchy and of its own assets. It must keep self-regulation independently from a Pope’s ukase. Most importantly, it must keep control of its assets in a way unassailable by the Vatican hierarchy.
If these conditions are met, of course the SSPX will obey the Pope. They already do, actually. They are already subject to the Pope in everything that does not undermine Catholicism or their own proper function. Therefore, if the SSPX would become “institutionally” subject to the Pope without losing control of their assets and chain of command, it would be impossible for Francis or any of his successors to subvert the organisation by, say, deposing their leaders, changing their statutes, and taking control of their assets.
Most people forget that the SSPX was, in fact, recognised and in perfect standing for several years, and became “rebellious” only when they were ordered to close their (at that time, only) seminary and – having control of their assets – plainly refused. This episode is far more enlightening than the more famous episode of “disobedience” with the appointment of the bishops, because it shows that if you have control over your chain of command and assets you have nothing to fear from the spider: you can walk away, intact, anytime.
This has happened once, and can happen again. Let the SSPX be formally subject to the Pope, and let them have the factual and legal ability to disobey if the Pope gives wrong orders; for example rescinding their organisational autonomy, ordering them to hand assets to the Vatican, deposing their leaders and so on.
Vatican saves face. SSPX saves autonomy and safety from the spider’s net. Everyone is happy.
Or at least, they should be.
Well, there is no good way to convey this.
The terrible news is here.
Vennari is (with Ferrara, Matt and Verrecchio), one of my Four Musketeers. One had a selfish hope he would stay with us for many years more.
It was a selfish hope. It appears the Lord has sent the message, that He wants Vennari with him at some point in the, alas, not too distant future.
Sad as the news is, one tries to see it from a broader perspective. A life of such beauty that goes now slowly towards its end should fill our hearts with consolation, not sadness. We will all be called one day, and I wish so ardently I could, if it came for me today, take the call with the serenity Mr Vennari shows in his post, and with the same quiet assurance of a life well spent.
God calls the good and faithful servants to him, that he may have them near. We, wretched sinners, will have to fight for who knows how long still, and I doubt we will go to our judgment with the same confident serenity of this good man.
John Vennari requests our prayers. Let us do for him a tiny fraction of the good he has done to all of us.
And let us pray that, one day, we may go to our Lord with the same strong faith he has graced us with, with the same serenity he shows in this hour, and with the same chances of salvation with which he will present himself to His Judge.
Please pray for John Vennari.
There Is No Need For Dangerous Faggots: On Milo Yiannopoulos And The Liberace-Style Of Making Politics.
The very recent news of Milo Yiannopoulos’ “resignation” from Breitbart allows me to share with you a couple of reflections of – as is typical in Yiannopoulos himself – very politically incorrect nature.
I visit Breitbart every day, and in the last week or two I was peeved not a little at seeing those very disgusting pictures of Yiannopoulos on the site almost every day. My impression of the man was that, whilst he said a lot of things that were sensible and reasonable, he had a very basic, very fundamental flaw: like in most homos, his perversion was clearly his dominant character trait, the “feature” that defined who he is. Nor have I ever believed his repeated protestations of being a, so to speak, involuntary fag who would very much like to be straight, as everyone who really thought that way would avoid dressing and behaving like a flaming queen immediately afterwards. For this reason I have often read what the man wrote, but I could never stomach any video of his, nor have I ever given him any meaningful space on this blog. Basically, the man was like a well of fresh water in order to reach which you have to drill through thick strata of excrement. Thanks but no thanks, Mr Liberace. There will be other wells.
The specifics of Yiannopoulos – momentary, I think – fall are also less transparent that many would want you to believe. It is true that the man has not – literally – advocated sex with pre-pubescent boys. However, I think this is fairly irrelevant from our perspective. Like most homos, the man has clearly no problem with sex with very young boys, and be they grown up physically. The “growing process” crap with which homos tend to snare confused boys of questionable virility is obviously present in him, too and no, I don’t care a straw that he says he has been “abused”. Sodomy is always abuse. Homos tend to like very young, very thin boys. You wonder how deep behind the surface the paedo is lurking.
Most telling to me, though, is that Breitbart decided to ditch Yiannopoulos, which I think indicates a high probability that they know more than we do and have decided that they are better off without him. Everyone who knows Breitbart a little realises that, if they had had confidence that Yannopoulos is sound – at least on pedophilia -, a) they would have started a crusade and extermination war against the liberals clamoring for his scalp and b) they would have relished the fight. They can be such pitbulls that they surprise even yours truly, which in my eyes makes their decision to “resign” Yiannopoulos the more telling.
And what is the moral of the story? It is that you can never trust a homosexual, particularly one that has “outed” himself and thinks he is Liberace. The very fact that he is homosexual tells you that something is very wrong with him; and as a Catholic you know full well that when Satan has already made such inroads into a man’s conscience, chances are he will do further damage. Thinking that a homo will be a perfectly decent man besides the “detail” of his homosexuality is – particularly in the presence of openly effeminate behaviour and associated circus antics – as naive as to think that a fox can gain her way in the hen house and be happy with one victim or two. The high rate of suicides and psychosomatic diseases, and the high percentage of pedophiles who are homosexual, make it clear enough. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of matter-of-fact, sensible information you will ever read from the Buggers Broadcasting Communism.
Conservatives have tried to make excuses for him, because they liked what he had to say. “He uses his homosexuality as a weapon against the attacks of the liberals”, some said, or “this is only a vehicle used to spread the message among the young”.
Rubbish. No decent person can condone indecency in the name of turning an indecent generation away from it. Yiannopoulos’ antics could have never been justifiable, much less “good”, in the name of a higher good. You see how these people often end up anyway, because their own deep seated disorder is a constant menace to themselves.
Breitbart does not need Yiannopoulos, and Yiannopoulos needs to put his life where his mouth is and convert to decency, living the morality he preaches.
It always peeves me when libtard scalp hunters can claim a victory. But this wasn’t a very difficult target.
There is no need for dangerous faggots. There is, in fact, no need for faggots of any sort.
Pope Francis had, with usual hypocrisy (I do not call him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, or TMAHICH, for nothing) pretended he was on the sidelines during the synod, allowing the “debate” (including perversion, and sacrilegious undermining of Sacraments) and then intervening at the end like the good uncle who cares for orthodoxy.
Well, that was another blatant lie, as we all knew but is now officially official.
You must notice a couple of revealing elements here. Emphases mine:
1) Cardinal Baldisseri’s bomb: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”
2) The reason Cardinal Baldisseri gives for dropping the bomb: “This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease,”
I can see a clear pattern here. Baldisseri is feeling the heat for his scandalous behaviour at the Synod. He is more or less fed up of being identified with it by all the mainstream Catholics (the informed Catholics know Francis was behind everything, because they think). He then separates his responsibility from the one of the Unholy Father, and lets the bomb drop: “don’t blame me”, he says, “this is Francis’ work”.
Baldisseri is obviously the little lapdog of Francis, but it is true that in this case the responsibility for the text lies entirely by Francis. Francis is in charge, Francis read, Francis green lighted the text, Francis answers for it.
Another difficult day for the Pollyannas, then.
But don’t worry. They are stupid enough. They will swallow new excuses.
The text of the relatio, and the scandalous events happened before and after, do demand that we pose the question: is this Pope homosexual?
The relatio post disceptationem was a piece of clearly homoerotic rubbish. It cannot have come from the mind of a normal, healthy, straight man because normal, healthy, straight men are disgusted by homosexuality.
Therefore, even Francis has such a dirty mind that he has some sort of lewd sexual excitement by mixing with sexual perverts (as the latest example of the Trannie has proved once again), or he is homosexual himself, and promotes the homo agenda at every step.
Either very lewd, or outright pervert. Tertium non datur.
I continue to pray for both his immortal soul, and the end of this pontificate.
Tomorrow 22nd February is the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Whilst St. Peter’s feast day is the 29th June, the feast of the 22nd February is more directly aimed at celebrating the Petrine Office. This feast is, therefore, as Catholic as they come.
This feast day might be an occasion to explain to some non-Catholic in your circle of acquaintances why you are Catholic. When requested, I proceed more or less in this way:
1) And I say to thee: that Thou are Peter…. Jesus doesn’t say to Simon that he is a nice chap; or that he is very perceptive; or that he himself is surprised that among the apostles Simon was the only one to give the right answer to his question “Who do people say that I am?”. No, he changes his name and calls him a rock.
2) and upon this rock I will build my Church…. Jesus doesn’t say “I will build my first church”, nor does he say “I will build my provisional church”. Jesus picks a rock, and builds upon him One (1, Una, Eine, Une) Church.
3) and the gates of Hell shall not previal against it….. It, that is: the very same Church built on Peter, the “rock”. That one, and no other. Jesus doesn’t say “the Gates of hell shall, in around fifteen centuries, prevail against the Church I built on you”, nor does he say “the Gates of Hell shall prevail against the Church built on you but hey, let us be happy with a generic term of “church” so it can work even when yours goes astray”. He is very specific: he builds one Church upon one man and gives his promise of indefectibility to this – and no other – organisation.
4) And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven….. This is also dumb-proof: keys are a very obvious symbol of power and authority and it is clear here that Jesus is speaking with extreme solemnity. He doesn’t say to Peter: “Peter, you keep the key for the moment” or “look mate, gotta go; keep the keys until I find you or yours unworthy, will ya?”. No, this is a solemn promise evidently made for all times, as his just pronounced promise about indefectibility must make clear to the dumbest intellect.
5) ….and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. For those who should at this point still not have gotten what is going on, Jesus becomes even more explicit: Peter has the keys, and the keys mean authority upon the faithful now and forever; an authority given in the most emphatic terms possible.
The meaning of these phrases; the clear solemnity Jesus gives to his words; the crescendo of emphatic declarations of such a broad and clear scope do not leave room for any possible doubt and as a result, Protestants have nowhere to hide. Whoever reads Jesus’ words with a minimum of intellectual honesty cannot avoid to recognise that the Only Church of Peter’s time (and of the following fifteen centuries) is the Only Church of today and that as a result whatever grievance against the men who run the Church does not change a iota concerning the position of authority of the Church. As to the complaint that some Popes were oh-so-bad (not much worse than many a tv-preacher I’d say, but laissons tomber….), Peter wasn’t immaculate either, but his shortcomings didn’t prevent Jesus from promoting him to rock of His Church.
To believe anything different from the fact that the Only Church founded by Jesus is.. the Only Church means to believe one or more of the following:
1) that Jesus made a mistake in founding His Church on Peter;
2) that Jesus was mistakenly persuaded that Peter’s successors would be good chaps, but had his toy ruined by the baddies who succeeded Peter;
3) that Jesus couldn’t count;
4) that Jesus’ words had a sell-by date, or
5) that Jesus made his promise of indefectibility without taking it seriously.
Or perhaps one could decide to read and understand the only possible meaning of such emphatically worded statements, as Jesus repeatedly made.
There is only One Church, folks. It’s the only one founded by Jesus. Simple, really.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Evil Clown “celebrates” the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter.
- The people, or actually the almost total absence of them. The Romans have more sensus catholicus than this old, lewd idiot.
- The nudity and revealing outfits, and the moves of the young women.
- The music. Again, this is the feast of the chair of Saint Peter. Please, Lord, make the man die soon.
- The prelates. Embarrassed and embarrassing. I think they were thinking point 3 above.
- The old creep wants to kiss the little girl at the end. Someone call the police.
This is what this lewd idiot has reduced the papacy to.
Can’t wait for the one below.
I used to be very angry when the Evil Clown used to spit his social justice fake gospel to the masses. In time, I started to notice the following:
- The man has lost the novelty factor
- He is so verbose, not even his atheist and communist friends will bother to read him
- He has now lost all prudence, further decreasing the danger caused by his propaganda
At this point even as an abortionist, atheist, drug addict “transgendered” Black Lives Matter activist you just wake up in the morning and expect from Francis this kind of crap just like people expect the sun to rise: an obvious event without any special significance.
Francis is mightily angry that after his many messages to the American people (and in particular American Catholics, whom in his stupidity he thought he could influence) inviting them to ditch Trump, his own sheep have decided this shepherd is either on drugs or in the hands of Satan, sending Trump to the White House instead. Actually, I suspect Francis might be even angrier because he realises that with his shameless abandonment of reason and common sense he has, in fact, directly contributed to Trump’s victory. The Lord has the finest sense of humour.
This shameless clown has become not only the joke of every Christian with a head on his shoulder; but he is rapidly tiring even those he so desperately wants to help.
The half time period of an Alinskyite Pope is rather short. The novelty wears fast, and what you are left with is an old commie idiot in white whom the mainstream media increasingly neglect, or mentions in connection with the anger he is causing to real Catholics.
You can be a decent Pope and you can be an Alinskyite one. What you can’t do is to be the latter and be considered the former.
Francis can keep vomiting Alinskyite crap as much as he wants. The game is up and he knows it, which is why he reacts losing all sense of decency.
I think Satan will punish people in hell by ordering them to stay near him, and forcing them to listen to him reading Amoris Laetitia.
It appears John Vennari’s health is rapidly deteriorating and the last rites have been received.
What a blessing it is to approach judgment after a life of literally fighting the good fight.
Please pray for him.
Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.
Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.
But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.
However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.
But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one’s own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.
How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.
Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.
When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.
I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.
This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world’s or his battle’s outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.
One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren’t like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God’s grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.
In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God’s grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.
Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.
May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!
After the unfortunate (or rather disgraceful) piece published by the SSPX with the public condemnation of the anonymous critics of the Pope, yours truly has published some old but, I think, valid considerations about the reasons for anonymity. It seems to me that whoever does not get the very simple concepts I have therein explained is being very naive in the best of cases, and very bad in the worst.
Also, please mind that my blog post was not meant as a defense of this little effort. I doubt the SSPX is even aware of my existence. However, the SSPX is certainly aware of the epic, but absolutely justified anti-Francis pranks in the last weeks (the posters and the fake Osservatore page), as well as of the well informed, anonymous, very critical posts published on Rorate Caeli in the past and signed by Don Pio Pace (an example is here. Every respectable search engine will give you others). In the last days we also had more explosive commentary from the excellent, anonymous Fra’ Cristoforo (this, dear readers, is Manzoni again!), who blogs in Italian in the aptly named site Anonimi della Croce. (“Anonymous Ones of the Cross”). All of them have intervened to target one man: the Evil Clown.
It is utterly amazing that after the Holy Ghost allowed Trump’s great victory in part through anonymous revelations to Assange’s WikiLeaks and even more anonymous hacking of John Podesta’s emails, there should be people who still prefer – when this is at no cost and no risk to them – to accuse of “cowardice” people who are giving an extremely precious service to Christianity. Would the anonymous author of the SSPX article have preferred that the “cowardly”, anonymous WikiLeaks hacker had never penetrated John Podesta’s emails? Words fail me.
Even more persuading is the argument appeared on Non Veni Pacem. : the organisation that justifies her own disobedience to the Pope in the name of the state of necessity is unable to understand, condone, or even not insult the in comparison extremely harmless disobedience of critics of probably the most Satan-friendly Pope in history? Really? Is the anonymous writer of the SSPX article unable to understand that we are living every day in a state of necessity the like of which Archbishop Lefebvre could only imagine in a very hypothetical way?
But there is more. The SSPX is, many say, about to be “reconciled” with the Vatican. Am I the only one who thinks that such initiatives should be avoided now more carefully than ever, in order to avoid even the suspicion that the SSPX may be trying to ingratiate themselves to Francis?
Not saying that this is the case, of course. But I do think that the SSPX should be above suspicion. I am sorry to say this, but right now they aren’t; at least some corners within them.
It would be smart to let that disgraceful article disappear. It would be even smarter to let it follow with the most brutal indictment of Amoris Laetitia, in a condemnation even worse than the comparison to the boat with a hole in its bottom. It would be smartest to accuse Francis of being a heretic again, renewing the accusation that he is a genuine Modernist , just in case anyone might be forgetting. Think of the words Bishop Fellay used on that occasion:
“Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”
Pretty clear, uh? This is the attitude we want to see from the SSPX, not the third-rate politicking at the expense of perfectly decent Catholics. We don’t need this kind of attitude from the SSPX. If they don’t like the anonymity of the pranks and the accusations, they should be decent enough to shut up about it.
I know, it’s the Proddie version. But I will take it every day in preference to Gay Mulatto expunging God from his speeches and working, now doubt also under the influence of Chewbacca, towards the eradication of Christianity from the U S of A.
I sense eight (and hopefully more) years of partial return to sanity. May the Lord guide and protect the First Man of the West, and his Christian wife.
It’s good to watch videos like the one above. They tell you there are still Catholics around. Actually, they tell you there will always be Catholics around. To paraphrase St Athanasius, the heretics may occupy our churches, but we will keep our faith.
In this matter of so-called communion for adulterers, there are a couple of things that always give me a light case of nettle-rash. Not saying they are both happening in this video. I just want to get this out of my system.
The first is describing the teaching of the Church as if had been created, or at least clearly affirmed for the first time, in Familiaris Consortio. I think I will scream next time I read that Familiaris Consortio is mentioned in this regard. As evidence of what the Church teaches, Familiaris Consortio is neither here nor there. The prohibition of communion for adulterers is based on the constant teaching of the Church, it is based directly on the words of Our Lord and has always been considered part and parcel of the Depositum Fidei. If, therefore, Familiaris Consortio introduced a novelty, then this novelty could be a heresy or a quasi-heresy like several other novelties introduced in V II-times encyclicals. If (as it is most certainly the case) JP II based his very words in Familiaris Consortio on the constant teaching of the Church, then it is this last element that must be constantly stressed, as it is infinitely more decisive than what one of the at times very bad, and at all times more or less questionable, V II encyclicals states.
Let the V II people try to explain everything with documents of the V II era. We should simply ignore them. Everything that is right and has a solid foundation in Catholicism can be explained without mentioning them, and everything that cannot be founded in pre-existing Church teaching is very probably wrong and in any way never to be trusted unconditionally. The only innovation not suspect of heresy or watering down of the faith introduced by V II I can think of is the invitation to the faithful to denounce heresy. But this is a logical consequence of the rise in education and literacy. Educated laymen were never requested to shut up when confronted with heresy.
Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated. If JP II alone can be the foundation of Church doctrine, than Francis can be it, too.
For this reason (and this is my second nettle-rush trigger), the mention from the man in the video that Francis might, in theory, announce a “change in discipline” is just plain wrong. Discipline cannot contradict doctrine. Therefore, Francis could never change discipline in such a matter. The only thing he could do is to proclaim heresy. This is something that I would like to see stressed more in the public discourse. Truths are immutable facts that can never be changed by way of “discipline”. They can only be attacked by way of heresy.
We are in a de facto schism, in which the Pope willingly allows cardinal to contradict cardinal and bishop to contradict bishop in matters that every child old enough to know what “adultery” is would understand without any difficulty.
Francis and Satan observe this happening without any meaningful reaction, and laugh.
At least for now.
In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.
1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.
2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.
3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.
4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.
5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.
6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.
7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.
This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).
8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.
9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.
10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.
This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.
Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.
I very much liked this post appeared on One Mad Mom. I invite you to read it in its entirety. It is beautiful to see that in the midst of the stupidity of our times, there are still an awful lot of Catholic mothers who understand the very basics of life, basics which obviously escape the rich wife of the many, many billions.
The blog post also allows me to spend two words about this strange phenomenon of the modern times: bought and/or married prominence.
The First lady wasn’t elected President. Her husband was. Melinda gates isn’t a successful entrepreneur. Her husband is. She literally bought he public space by way of marriage and sinking an awful lot of money earned by her husband in more or less (often: more) satanical activities.
This idea that we should listen to someone (who, like in this case, may well be the perfect cow) because she has married someone who was, or has become, extremely rich and/or extremely powerful is just plain dumb.
Let her write her own blog if she wants, by all means. Let her express her opinions freely like everyone else of us. But prominence by way of the husband is clearly off.
I have barely started to breath again now that I don’t run any (big) risk of seeing pics of the former First Trannie, always a menace to my digestion.
But I really would like a world in which prominence is earned, not married or bought.
Father Gregory Baum, at 93 still an indefatigable agent for Satan, has just admitted to decades of sodomy.
He has, also, said that he preferred to conceal his perversion in order to better work to undermine Church teaching as a V II peritus.
Father Rosica, whom many besides me suspect of being a first-class fudge packer, has expressed himself about this disgusting parody of a priest in the following words:
You remain a faithful, deeply devoted Catholic, love Jesus, the Church, the Eucharist
I’ve certainly admired very much your theology, your writings but also your love of the Church, your love of Christ, and you helped to keep alive not only the spirit of the Second Vatican Council but also the authentic teaching of the Council
One wonders whether Father Rosica will now have a word or two to say about sodomy in general and sodomy in a priest in particular. This is a priest for whom he carved a prominent role on his TV station, so he can’t really dream he will be able to shut up and get away with it.
These, my dear readers, are the “peripheries” of the Church.
They smell of sheep, they pack fudge, and their rectum is severely damaged.
When even the most unCatholic of Francispapers starts complaining about Francis being “divisive”, (please don’t click on the linked Tablet article! It gives them money!) you know they are very much afraid of being caught on the wrong side of a nuclear conflagration.
Mind, it’s not that the Tablet wants Francis to become Catholic. They are merely uncomfortable with the pace at which the demolition is going on, making the work of the Evil Clown far too overt even for his own allies!
I seem to read a subtext in this: “The old man is becoming more and more imprudent in his old age; the cowardly silence of the Cardinals and Bishops is emboldening him too much! If he goes on in this fashion, he runs the risk of altogether ruining the work of demolition we have so strongly supported by letting the entire thing explode in his hands!”.
Dear heretics at the Tablet, let me tell you what is happening here with an Italian saying: “il diavolo fa le pentole, ma non i coperchi”, “the devil makes the pots, but not the lids”.
The satanical influence of this Pontificate must show itself in some way or other for everyone who has a Catholic heart and a desire for Truth. Yes, the Lord could still allow a more subtle satanical influence, which is what the Tablet is calling for; but in His goodness, He has given us at least this consolation: that in the midst of such confusion we can at least very clearly see who is wrong and who is right.
The desire of the Tablet that the Pope be more subtle about his subversive work is understandable from their heretical perspective. However, the devil will never make the lids of his pots. There will always be a way to recognise deception, because The One who is The Way has decreed that he be always recognisable as such.
This consolation we at least have, and we will always have: that there will always be a way to recognise a heretic. Let us be glad that as God inflicts on us a decidedly deserved punishment, He does it so in a way that allows us to very easily see who is on the right side. He has not abandoned us. He will never abandon us.
and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The question is: will you abandon Him?
The Tablet will not get, as long as Francis lives, the subtle heretic they wish.
They will have to make do with this stupid boor instead.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio (a FrancisCardinal with the t-shirt) has, bizarrely, deserted his own press conference on occasion of the launch of a heretical booklet ‘splainin’ why the Church was wrong for 2,000 years, but heretics like himself and the Evil Clown are right. This is bizarre, but still understandable in view of the barrage of questions the heretical Cardinal clearly did not want to answer.
Even more bizarre, and outright absurd, is the rumour circulated by gay operatives of the Vatican that Coccopalmerio’s press conference would be the way the Pope answers the Dubia.
The Dubia are made exactly so, that either the Pope himself or someone who officially claims to speak for him with his authorisation (say: the head of the CDF stating “the Pope authorises me to answer in the following way”) can be considered a valid answer. What gay operatives in the Vatican allege the statements of a Cardinal should be considered counts exactly zero point zero. If Coccopalmerio is the signatory of an answer explicitly, officially authorised by Francis, then Francis (not Coccopalmerio) has answered. If the man is just spreading heretical statements, his statement cannot count as the Pope’s answer more than any other statement of any other Cardinal not officially qualified by the Pope as the answer to the Dubia.
We should never allow Francis’ gay Troops to state that (cough) hey, in a way, I mean, you might say, pretty clearly, that Francis has answered (in their sense, of course) when he hasn’t. Nor can Francis call himself out by just not answering. An answer is due and expected, and this answer must come from him. If the Pope refuses to answer, then clearly this silence condemns him and as such he must be condemned by whatever Bishops and Cardinals are still afraid of hell (not many, I gather). But really, what must not happen is that Francis is allowed to get away with having his own faggots stating he has answered without taking the responsibility and doing exactly that.
The Dubia were formulated as they were, and the vehicle of the Dubia itself was chosen, exactly in order not to allow Francis to hide behind interviews without a recorder, third party statements, and interpretations of various kind. He must say yes or no, and this is all there is to it. Including, of course, that his silence condemns him in the most blatant way anyway.
I do not know whether the private warning to the Pope that should precede the official censure has been delivered or not. What I know is that if the Cardinals do not follow through and do not condemn Francis for not answering (meaning here: condemn him for not answering; not simply compare his silence with a reaffirmation of truth coming from themselves) they deserve to be transferred to Guam en bloc (as the rumor has it this is about to happen to Cardinal Burke) and be buried there.
Enough with Popes heretical by silence, and Cardinals bravely meowing.
Time to call a heretic a heretic, no ifs and no buts. By now even my cat understood that Francis is a commie heretic anyway.
And as to the question:
No, I am not afraid to have a heretical Pope openly proclaim his heresy. It is certainly preferable to having a heretical Pope promoting heresy in less open ways. It has been decreed that we should live in such disgraceful times. Let us look at reality in the face, and fight the good fight.
We are not afraid.
This blog post made me reflect on the fact that it has been a great advantage for the Evil Clown to come from the “peripheries”. The English-speaking press, which together with the Italian one dominates the Catholic discourse, is very far away. There does not seem to be any big interest in serious investigative journalism about The Life And Evil Work Of Bishop Bergoglio. His connections to homosexual priest (search this blog), his arrest for having marijuana in his luggage (search this blog), and his support for clearly evil bishops and cardinals (refer to the post linked above) should give a newspaper ready to pay the cost more than some hope for rich pickings.
Unfortunately, the secular press is largely interested in promoting the Evil Clown and they have no interest in bringing him down, not even for the sake of prestige and income. Meanwhile, the big Catholic press seems too much beholden to a strange concept of “loyalty” to start the serious digging exercise that is called for now. It is difficult to think that the likes of EWTN will make the conscious decision to start unearthing the excrement in the excrement-rich life of Jorge Bergoglio, sadly of Italian ancestors.
We can still pray.
It would be glorious, and a new pearl in the crown of the Church, if a brave Catholic publication would take on itself the costly work of exposing the dirt at the very top, where a man with a very dirty mind is operating every day.
Oportet ut scandala eveniant.
Only days after the Orlando massacre, the wrong vocabulary is everywhere. “Gays”, “LGBT”, “homophobia”, all that rubbish.
It angers me no end.
When will people understand (even conservative pundits) that you can never win a battle by accepting the vocabulary of your enemy?
The Libtards have created a new vocabulary to reprogram the brain of the simple. If we want to deprogram the brain of the simple, we must go back to the old vocabulary.
It’s not “gays”, it’s “homosexuals” (which refers to the sexual perversion) or “sodomites” (which refers to the acting on the perversion). It’s not “LGBT”, it’s “perverts”. It’s not “homophobia”, it’s Christian feeling and Christian decency.
This, if you write for an official publication, or if you are a priest.
All the others should, if you ask me, be more assertive than that, and assertively use language to shame wrong behaviour. Fag, Dyke, Fudge Packer, Pillow Biter, Elton, and so on. It’s like flying a flag. It does get noticed. Be ready to double down whenever necessary.
It astonishes me how many people do not understand this simple concept: words shape thinking. We can’t escape this reality. We can avoid the issue, but it will came back to bite us when we are then forced to fight with one hand bound.
Let’s stop talking the language of our enemies.
Let’s start talking the language of our grandfathers instead.
On both occasions one fact appeared clear: the Cardinal tried, in more than one way, to defend the fiction that Amoris Laetitia (and the Pope who excremented it) is not heretical, and the problems lie somewhere else; like for example Cardinals who dare to ask the Pope if he is really a flaming heretic when the man has stated to Argentinian bishops, and more indirectly on countless other occasions, that he clearly is, or bishops giving instructions to their priests to commit sacrilege because a) they are heretics, and b) they read the document for what it says.
In the second blog post I wrote the following:
Cardinal Mueller has produced himself in a triple somersault, and we would be tempted to appreciate the skill if the exercise weren’t almost entirely useless. He is doing nothing else than proclaiming his own blindness in front of blatant papal heresy, even as he indicates to the Evil Clown who the candidate for the next phase of bullying and demolition is: himself
It seems the day of reckoning might be coming faster than even I expected, as the Stalinian Francishounds have now been unleashed after this particular (and not terribly smart) German fox.
When Cardinal Mueller is kicked out (which I expect to happen in Summer, after some months of character assassination from various sources who will never mention him directly) he will have achieved the stunning performance, from a V II perspective, of causing maximum damage to the doctrine of the Church (by choosing to just shut up, though with various contortions and some bonus somersaults), his career, the reputation of his office, and his eternal salvation.
A smart man would have understood where the wind blows and, recognising an inevitable final result, would have chosen to defend the Church as stated in his job description, and to suffer the consequences he would have been suffering anyway (not talking of torture here; merely loss of one office). As a Cardinal, wearing that particular red in order to be continuously reminded of the blood many have spilled – and he is also called to spill – for Christ, there should be no better way to wake up in the morning and look at oneself in the mirror.
Instead, one seems to understand Cardinal Mueller will look at himself in the mirror and see the useful idiot of the Evil Clown: the man who was used to cover Amoris Laetitia for months, then to attack the Cardinals who had dared to be Catholic, and finally to still defend Francis whilst he performs his triple somersaults, and finally discarded when the way of his defence of a heretical Pope was not good enough for Joseph Vissarionovich Bergoglio.
The linked article states once removed from the burden of the office, Cardinal Mueller could become a vocal critic. With all due respect, this is nonsense. No one interested in not losing face could say that he has renounced to defend Christ when he was in the most important position to do so, but now feels he has to relieve his conscience when the office and the power have gone. It would look almost as stupid as it would look hypocritical.
The Cardinal is burned. Actually, he has burned himself. He deserved to be discarded, because he is culpable of the gravest dereliction of duty in a time as grave as this one.
Let’s hope the Evil Clown will substitute him with some open revolutionary heretic. It will make our job easier.
Contortion artists like Mueller are the worst that can happen to us.
If you want evidence that Cardinals are not what they used to be, look at the photo above and the linked article from the Eponymous Flower, and reflect on the following:
- Cardinals used not to use the vulgar gesture the Cardinal uses in the photo; and yes, in Germany everyone understands the meaning. It is also very difficult to think that the Cardinal might have done it “by mistake”. Look at how his second finger is carefully held by his thumb.
- Cardinals used to know what they were talking about. A man so confused that he is able to state, in front of journalists, that he “thinks” that “unanimity prevailed” should take the habit of thinking twice before he speaks. It’s not so difficult to see whether a vote was unanimous or not. Plus, it is clearly a lie that it was.
- Cardinals used to be Catholic. This one here clearly isn’t. Beside the other lie (that AL would be in sync with the two Synods) it is just plain Protestant to say that if a document clearly states something at variance with what the Church has always believed, it is fine for any Catholic to believe the lie.
Cardinals are not as they used to be.
This one is, for sure, much nearer to Friedrich Engels than Jesus Christ.
An article on the generally good (for what I can read) Crisis magazine states some rather preposterous things, like the rhetorical question whether we should have asked St Thomas Aquinas to exercise more. Once again, the Western society is so secularised that it does not even get how much it has lost the sense of faith.
St Thomas Aquinas was a great saint, and a man of extremely strong will (the episode of him being locked in a room in the family’s castle, and the other famous episode with the prostitute introduced therein to persuade him to abandon his plans to become a priest, are abundant demonstrations of it). The man wasn’t your run-of-the-mill saint, who might be heroic in fighting temptations but is often overcome by it. All we know of him tells us this was a ferociously disciplined man, and a man of both overflowing holiness and overflowing intelligence. It is simply preposterous to think that he would not have his appetite for food, or any other of his appetites, under control. Whilst the man was certainly big (as abundantly reported, in very colourful words, by one who was demonstrably very fat, G.K. Chesterton, and (cough…) very probably never met the man in person), it is plain dumb to think he would sit in front of just another real (not dumb) ox and would be unable to restrain his food intake. I am not informed about the daily diet of the man, but elementary sensus catholicus tells me this: if the man had seen a serious problem in his eating habits you can bet your last shirt he would have starved himself to Obama levels all right. Those ones weren’t the times, and that one wasn’t the man, to take the sin of gluttony lightly. In the man’s case, I can’t avoid thinking he considered his less than attractive physical appearance a blessing in disguise, a lesson in humility, and in general a help to a saintly life. Even the tale of the “ox” might have been vastly exaggerated, as in the middle of thin people you become an “ox” much more rapidly than among the “minorities” in, say, 2017’s London (ask me how I know).
Alas, modern times are stupid. People don’t understand anymore than once upon a time, people behaved (and believed) in a far more intelligent manner than today; that they had a great fear of the Lord and a very keen sense of sin; and that they might have perceived as very sinful what many later saw as venial sin or not a sin at all.
There, we already have out of the way the first platitude of the day: Saints weren’t gluttons, period. If they were big, of even fat for ancient standards (certainly much different from the disgusting accumulation of big fat waves of people unable or almost unable to walk in their Thirties or even Twenties we see today), it was because the Lord in His wisdom had decreed so, but heroic virtue can’t live together with stuffing one’s pie hole to the point of disgusting obesity.
He who tells you otherwise is destroying in front of you the concept of heroic virtue, trying to persuade you that you might be a saint in the making, or trying to make you believe sinners who actually kept sinning all their lives went straight to heaven.
Famously, Padre Pio ate almost nothing, and it was clear his rounded figure was a straight demonstration for all living around him that he was sustained by God. But Padre Pio wasn’t obese in any of the sense commonly used today. He was a well-rounded man, like a Pius IX or a JP II; and this as he was aging, again *almost without even eating*. There was, most certainly, no hint of gluttony in him, as there could be no succumbing to a deadly sin if there is to be heroic virtue.
Which leads us to the crux of the matter: gluttony.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, and many sensible people of his and of all ages, would not eat too much simply because of the sinfulness of the habit. A concept, this (the sin of gluttony), that has all but disappeared in an age which wants to justify and “scientifically” explain everything, from sexual perversion to evil tendencies to morbid obesity.
I grew up in Italy, in a time when the concept of gluttony was alive and kicking. I have seen people berated, humiliated in front of everyone because of their gluttony. I have seen ridicule, mockery and outright condemnation surround them, from children and adult alike, and I am talking of people who in today’s US would not even attract attention. I have not seen many people who were fat for half-moderate US standards, and I have seen none (zero, zilch, nada, nothing. Not.A.Single.One.) that were fat in the way millions of US and UK teenagers and young adults are fat today.
Now, sensible societies always had a sensible approach to the matter. Older people and some ugly women were allowed to verge on the fat. Provided they remained able to conduct their daily life, walk, work, go up stairs, play with their children, people were not considered gluttons. Wise men like Cicero are often portrayed as portly. Saintly men like Pius IX certainly were. Omo de Panza (man of belly) meant, in Catholic Sicily, the man’s man, the manly man. But every sensible person must see the difference between the famous actor Aldo Fabrizi in his old-ish age (pictured above; pretty much as fat as it went in those years) and people forced to go around in a wheelchair in their thirties, or who are about to massacre their knees in their twenties, because they just can’t stop eating. There has always been a distinction between a natural roundness, particularly with age, and disordered obesity, particularly at a young age. Everyone could pick the difference. Everyone understood the difference between what is reasonable and what isn’t. Everyone felt free to condemn the latter.
Don’t tell me it was “cruel”. I won’t have any of that sensitive faggot shit. It worked. Therefore it was salutary, not cruel. Now we have people dying in what should have been their prime, and after having attracted on themselves all kind of disease and discomfort for many years; but we are too stupid – or too sensitive in that faggoty way mentioned above – to tell them to **eat the Obama less and exercise the Obama more**, and in case (money allowing; no, not necessary) invest in a dietologist that might make things even better, or faster, or smarter for them. Much less we tell them gluttony is a sin. No: nowadays people with $1,000 smartphones die of junk food, gluttony and utter stupidity, but woe to the one who tells them some straight facts about life.
Let their stupidity kill them instead. Don’t you know it’s the sensitive thing to do?
No sense of sin. No common sense. No desire to improve the lot of other people if it makes us, or them, feel “uncomfortable”. It’s no surprise people seriously ask (and be it in a rhetorical way) whether a great saint should have been asked to eat less and exercise more.
We need to go back to the basics. We need to understand that 1) a strong religious feeling and 2) strong societal condemnation are extremely effective weapon in the “war on fat”, an expression unknown in those Countries who had 1) and 2).
As St Thomas Aquinas very well knew, Gluttony is a deadly sin.
That’s all you need to know.
The SSPX-Vatican agreement seems now (not for the first time, actually; and we know how it ended before) very near.
However, this time the situation is different, in that the Church is led by such a demonic, heretical, and bullying individual that some question (among them professor Roberto de Mattei) whether such an agreement is really the best way to go in the current situation.
I must say I am with New Catholic on this, and think that what is good in itself should be regarded as good irrespective of the circumstances in which this good takes place.
However, I have a number of caveats, which are the same I have expressed several times on this blog. They are as follows:
a) The agreement should be made from a position of complete mistrust, and actually utter contempt, for the Evil Clown.
b) Therefore, it should be structured in such a way that the assets and legal position of the SSPX as an institution are completely insulated from the paws of the ‘umble ‘eretic, Pope Uriah.
c) It should be (but of this I have no doubt) accompanied by the strongest desire to keep following the truth no matter what the Evil Clown says, or orders, or spits about. Finally,
d) it should be (but of this I have no doubt, either) accompanied by the firm resolution to be just as critical of FrancisChurch after the agreement as before.
The way I see it is this: you don’t refuse something good for Catholicism merely because it comes from a man who is bad for Catholicism. However, this clearly assumes that the agreement is such that the bad guy cannot hurt the good guys.
The agreement allows the SSPX to expand like a cancer in Francischurch’s body. This, my friends, is jolly good.
What advantages Francis has in inviting this cancer is in my eyes not difficult to fathom. I see a maximum of three of them.
a) Firstly and most importantly, credentials of “tolerance”, which will allow him to push his heretical agenda even further;
b) perhaps, the suppression of Summorum Pontificum and of the FSSP and other traditionalist bodies as he would claim there is, now, a legitimate outlet for Traditional concerns;
c) also possibly, the attempt to bully the SSPX into submission like he has just done with the girls at the Cowards of Malta.
I see a) as the first motivator and the only realistic aim for Francis. I suspect the agreement with the SSPX would be followed by a “mercy offensive” that would see Kasperism more or less officially embraced. However, not the SSPX would have to answer for this, but Francis. Francis can attempt any and every heresy every day, and it is not realistic to demand from the SSPX that they should reject a historic victory out of a misplaced sense of responsibility for the evil actions of other people.
The b) scenario is, ultimately, possible with or without agreement, any day. Ask the FFI. But also here, I do not think the SSPX should have a set of genitals for themselves, another one for the FSSP, a third one for the institute Of Christ The King Sovereign Priest and other ones for the Papa Stronsay priests, etc. If these institutions are ordered to disband, it is their damn duty to refuse and go the way the SSPX did in the Seventies; protecting their assets as they can, but their integrity first. Once again, you can’t avoid a good outcome out of fear that cowards will accept to be bullied. Not even sovereignty was enough to allow the Cowards of Malta to resist, and this was a protection around ten orders of magnitude bigger than any SSPX “rebellion”. Cowards will be cowards. It is not the job of the brave to be held hostage by their cowardice.
The c) is, in my eyes, completely unrealistic. I doubt there are people outside the SSPX who distrust not only Francis, but the entire V II Church more than they do. They breath it, eat it, drink it every day. A priest who accepted to be suspended a divinis the day of his consecration isn’t likely (bar something very short of demonic possession or total loss of faith) to accept to be sodomised “in obedience” by the very people against whose heresies he vowed to fight the good fight for his entire life.
Again, the SSPX are no Cowards of Malta. This is Sparta.
Heretics will be heretics. Francis will be evil, very probably, for as long as he breathes. Whatever evil deed he wants to do, he has abundantly showed he will do not only out of calculation but also out of a whim, out of spite, out of long held grudges, or out of pure arrogance, and there is no way we can rely on him to behave rationally.
He has his own motives in pursuing this reconciliation. We have ours. If this reconciliation is made the proper way (see above) I see no reason to refuse it.
By weary of Greeks bearing gifts. Look attentively into the horse. Then make of the horse a war machine against the Greeks.
We shall see who is smarter, who is Catholic, and who has the Lord on his side.
It has been reported that on the fateful election night, Hitlery Clinton lost it to such an extent that a) she had to by physically restrained when she attacked John Podesta, b) she crashed an extremely expensive bottle of champagne against a TV megascreen and c) she then started to sob ceaselessly until the following morning.
Not quite the same, but rather similar must have been the reaction of the Evil Clown on being informed, not many days ago, that the centre of Rome had been populated with around 200 posters openly mocking his clown pontificate.
How do I know this? Very simple: from Sancta Martha they informed us the Pope didn’t make a big deal out of the incident.
I had to smile.
This is a man whose rancor and pettiness shows up every time he opens that heretical mouth of his. A man who never misses an occasion to insult everyone who disagree with him. A man who remembers supposed slights many years later (it has widely speculated that his enmity with the FFI has its roots in confrontations he had with them when he was bishop in Buenos Aires).
Therefore, allow me to smile at the idea of the “serene Pope” upon knowing about the posters. He must have fumed like a chimney stack. I am inclined to think he is still doing it. I doubt he crashed any bottle of expensive bubbly (too much of a peasant for it, anyway), but I would bet my pint he must have behaved in a frightful way, not dissimilar from Hillary’s in that fateful night.
Smoke away, Evil Clown.
Every faithful Catholic must hate you, and hope that the Lord free us of your disgraceful presence soon.
Disclosure: I don’t care for American Football.
It seems to me a sparse sequence of very short plays, followed by interminable babbling, with a lot of interruptions in the middle. Then you get more babbling, and some more babbling, before you get more appeals of the decisions of the referees. And they never stop talking. They never ever stop! It drives me mad! It’s the greatest mystery to me how there could be people who prefer this endless stream of interruptions to baseball or (as you call it) soccer.
“Oh, but those two and a quarter second are very intense, Mundabor!”. Yeah, right.
[Add there all the reasons why I am wrong]
[No, I still haven’t changed my mind]
The Superbowl Number 51 (Latin: LI; but you know that) is upon us (actually: you), and I am perfectly willing to ask you to consider boycotting it, or as much of it as you can (namely: the advs and the entire intermission including Lady Whore).
The matter is not whether Lady Whore will stage some kind of obscenity, protest, or both. The matter is that the NFL has abandoned every pretense of political neutrality by ramming their own political agenda down the throats of people who, perfectly rightly, would want to keep politics out of it when they watch the interminable blabbing and endless stream of interruptions. You know all the single events, so I won’t get into the details. My aim is to get you to become angry enough to say: “stuff it, I will go for a walk/watch a movie/ do something else instead”.
If all fails and you can’t stay away from the endless babbling, I implore you to get a half hour break and cut all the part of the big intermission.
All of it. Cut the head of the hydra. Say “no” to every and any product that would like to enter your home before and in the wake of Lady Whore. They have picked the wrong product to place their ads. Then say to everyone in your circle of acquaintance that you are fed up with this (actually, do it now!), and have therefore given the thing a very wide berth.
You might say that your refusing to watch has no influence unless you are one of the Nielsen-surveyed viewers, but I would disagree. Perceptions are shaped by the bigger reality around us just as much as by the official surveys. As the Superbowl becomes less and less popular and more and more controversial, this will be “picked up” by sponsors and advertisers until the NFL feels it where it hurts: the wallet.
Even if you are a fan of the endless blabbering and countless interruptions, challenges, and referee consultations, please consider that unless the NFL’s politically correct drive is stopped you might see all the rubbish rapidly going down the food chain: college football very soon, then the local or regional series. The point will come when your son won’t be able to watch a game of his high school without some kind of rubbish protest going on.
I suggest you fight for sanity now, and walk the dog instead.
Every Roman (and most Italians) knows him, “Pasquino”, the fictional “Pope critic” (actually every anonymous poster of criticism) in the Piazza Pasquino, just outside Piazza Navona. Every Roman (and most Italians) is also familiar with the “Pasquinate”, which you might call “Pasquinades”: short, funny, rhymed statements written in Roman dialect, affixed on the basis of the statue by strictly anonymous amateur funny Roman dialect poets.
Romans now woke up to a different, modern-times Pasquinata.
However, this time the “Pasquinata” was not affixed merely on the statue; rather, several dozen posters have been (illegally; another Roman tradition…) affixed in strategic point in the center of Rome. Enough, actually, for the important press agency ADN Kronos to report the news.
Not only is the “Pasquinata” funny. It shows once again that opposition to the Evil Clown will continue unabated, and will grow more fierce as Francis keeps ravaging the Church.
Poor Francis! he wanted to be remembered from history as the Great Innovator, but he must now discover that more and more people are ruining the party.
He will be remembered as the picture in the poster instead: a boorish, arrogant, grumpy old commie hating the Church and everything it represents.
Well done, “Pasquino”!
May you find new inspiration, again and again, for as long as Francis – and, it is to be feared, his successors – play fast and loose with the teaching of the Church.