Monthly Archives: March 2017

Married Priests? Let’s Wait And See

smoke

The smoke of Satan is getting very, very thick… 

 

The anonymous, apparently well-informed blog of Fra’ Cristoforo has published a post announcing Francis’ intention to allow – as a general praxis rather than the exception as it is traditional in the Roman Rite – married men to become priests

This document, says Fra’ Cristoforo, will be not an encyclical, but a pastoral letter. The application of the rule will be universal. The document will be released before the end of Autumn.  I don’t need to tell you that whilst, in a way, strictly a matter of discipline, priest celibacy has in the West such a strong tradition that for most Westerners it is difficult to even imagine a Catholic Church made of married priests as the usual case. I have also read that in many quarters the tradition of priest celibacy is deemed so hallowed by time that it should be considered an unofficial matter of doctrine, a factually untouchable mainstay of the Church in the West. There is no doubt that the news would be historic, and the disruption in the Barque of Peter huge. I will rant against this plan as time allows, which is: not today.  

I report this as a humble blogger, because I think it is important enough to be mentioned. I also believe in the good faith of Fra’ Cristoforo.

What I am less convinced of – but ready to change my mind – is the actual truthfulness of his sources. Sources which might, in fact, be using him to promote a “Fake News” narrative and try to discredit the Traditionalist, anti-Francis movement. Which would be a stupid thing to do, but then again many liberal priests, Bishops and Cardinals are stupid. 

I published some time ago another explosive revelation of Fra’ Cristoforo, concerning Benedict’s abdication.  In it, Fra’ Cristoforo states: 

“[…]tra un mese Anonimidellacroce sarà in grado di pubblicare il contenuto della lettera fatidica che Benedetto ricevette prima di decidere di dimettersi”.

“In a month, AnonymousoftheCross will be able to publish the content of the fateful letter Benedict received before deciding to resign”

It is fairly obvious to your humble correspondent that Fra’ Cristoforo does not have the material, but was promised it would be delivered to him.   

Well, this is a very simple matter then. Either this famous letter is released and authentic, or it is not released or not authentic. I will personally await for the event (scheduled during Holy week if we take Fra’ Cristoforo literally, though we might give him some slack in the form of a week or two) in order to see how truthful these revelations are.

Again, it’s not that I doubt the personal integrity of the man. I doubt the personal integrity of those who feed him the “scoops”.

As I wait for the Holy Week, I allow myself a last, small reflection: Francis is such a plague that there is no rumor, no matter how savage, that would be dismissed out of hand as not realistic because obviously un-Catholic. Actually, the contrary is the case: the most unCatholic the plan, the more reliable appears the rumor.

And there can be no doubt that this idea of married priests as the usual way is, doctrine or no doctrine, as unCatholic as they come.

M  

Beware Of Selective Orthodoxy

 

 

A Sicilian priest, Don Minutella, who broadcasts through a Catholic radio called radio domina nostra, has launched a scathing attack to Pope Francis and has invited to a manifestation against FrancisChurch. The event will take place on Saturday, 22 April, in Verona. 

“Good guy!”, you will say. Well, yes and no. 

I believe, like Riscossa Cristiana, that the man is in good faith; actually, you can’t listen to the Italian video without realising very fast that there is nothing deceitful in this man. However, like Riscossa Cristiana, I do not think those on the right side of Catholicism (that is, obviously, Traditionalism) should support a priest (brave as he certainly is; he openly states he is awaiting canonical sanctions, and insults Francis without any problem nevertheless) that in the end is just another part of the same poisoned cake called Vatican II.

Alas, Don Minutella is Vatican II through and through. Not only he thinks that the likes of John Paul II and Benedict are the solution, rather than the problem, but he even criticises Traditionalism. Now, this is where I personally draw a line.

You want my support even if you are a V II fanboy, fine. I support Cardinal Burke (if he had the guts) criticising the Pope even if he is a V II man. But when I get called “extremist fringe of supertraditionalist”, that’s where my support ends. 

We should not support this kind of half-blind orthodoxy. We do not need people who condemn the heresies of Pope Francis and think Bergoglio has fallen on the papacy out of absolutely nothing. We can do without any priest, however well- intentioned, who calls us to rally around him and talks about the “extraordinary gift of the Second Vatican Council”. It is akin to fighting against Stalin, but for Communism. 

Of course, the more people criticise Francis, the better. However, this does not mean that sound, Traditionalist Catholics should support this invitation to keep supporting heresy so that heresy may be defeated. And in fact, if you support this guy you support exactly the problem that gave us Bergoglio.

Not only Bergoglio must be eradicated, but the entire V II ideology must be eradicated with it. Unless and until this happens we will keep having more Bergoglios, because Francis is merely the (provisional) end of a slippery slope that must lead from heresy to heresy and from confusion to confusion. 

Let V II supporters criticise V II supporters. Let them tear apart each other in the name of different interpretations of what is fundamentally wrong. 

V II is rotten to the core. Therefore, no matter how orthodox one tries to be, rot is what will come out of it.

We, the sound Catholics, do not help rot to survive so that no worse rot may happen.

Don Menichella appears well-intentioned to me. He appears also fully resigned to whatever persecution will fall upon him (and it will). However, you should not give any support to people who criticise you for criticising V II. 

Don Menichella wants to live of V II.

Let him die of it.  

M  

 

 

 

 

Faggotry On Steroids. In Church.

 

Courtesy of Vox Cantoris, this appalling video of a clearly homosexual priest “dancing” in the church as he goes around caressing people (a lot of them, men). The thing is so revolting I could not stand it to the end, but I still want this horror to be posted on my blog as a further testimony against this damn faggot, and his enablers, the day he dies.

The stink of reprobation is so strong one can not even stand the spectacle. The church itself is so deprived of Catholic ornaments you would think it is a Methodist prayer hall. The stupid people applaud at the end.

No one slaps the fag in the face, either, as he approaches to “caress” him; another clear sign the public of this shameful “spectacle” was carefully selected among a collection of unrepentant fornicators, adulterers, perverts, and their “supportive” relatives.

Dies irae, dies illaOne must be really stupid to think that God: a) exists, and b) will not punish everyone of the present in the harshest way. These people have made an alternative religion for themselves. They must like Francis a lot. Methinks, they will keep him company one day. 

Oh, I almost forgot. 

Dear Lord, when the time comes please, in your charity, be particularly harsh with the sisters, who have chosen to wear their habit in a particularly despicable act of deception.

 

 

 

Enough With The Waiting

4_Abyssian_kittens

For some reason, Francis wasn’t scared of them… 

 

If you visit the page of Canon212 (something which you should do every day, as I do) you will see, scrolling down on the left hand side column, the

“number of days since Francis received the Cardinal’s Dubia on Amoris Laetitia”.

As I write this, the count is 188.

I will not, on this occasion, be silent about another fact: that even the Dubia came after an extremely long, certainly gravely culpable silence from the clergy en masseAmoris Laetitia was published on 8 April 2016. Heck, it’s almost a year, and we are still awaiting for the first (cough) blessed Cardinal to openly say that the encyclical is rubbish. 

Now, the Church is normally slow. She is slow because she is prudent, and she is slow because in many situations slowness is a good course of action. But you see, slowness must then be prudent and/or a good course of action. Slowness isn’t good in itself. 

The Church is also traditionally slow because, traditionally, information used to travel very slowly. When the one or other heretic started to get notoriety in some more or less obscure part of Europe it would take months (or years) before the thing got to the ears of Rome. Then it would get an awful lot of time only to reliably confirm the information and get more details. Then there might be other distant bishops and cardinals to consult with. In short, the slowness wasn’t there because people just slept one year at a time on well-known facts. The slowness was there because that was the way the entire world was.

Today is different. A published encyclical will be read all over the planet in a matter of hours. A papal tweet (boy, what has the world come to!) is spread worldwide instantly. Information is exchanged with extreme rapidity.

The Cardinals knew as a fact, when they decided to make the Dubia public, that they had been told that Francis would not answer them.  How does waiting six months change any of this? They were told. They got the memo. The decision was made. 

If a private correction was to be made, the time was very fast after getting the news that the Pope had decided not to answer. There was no need for the crème de la crème of Catholic theology to assemble at the Sorbonne, after consulting with who knows how many others. There was no need to visit the King of France and procure his support (financial, if needed) for the planned action.

The correction should have been officially made a week or two after being informed the man does not want to do his job, and a very public rebuke and accusation of promoting heresy should have come a week or two after that. All the rest is meowing of scared kitten.

What it would seem it might happen now is that the mountain will give birth to a country mouse:   a shame for the church as a whole and something that makes the Four Cardinals look, if possible, even worse than those who have shut up from the beginning; then the latter have at least not tried to make themselves beautiful with faithful Catholics and smuggle themselves as the defenders of Catholic orthodoxy. 

Francis must be laughing all the way to the porta potty at seeing that his opponents are such little boys, so fearful and so scared of him that they will not dare to do anything after showing a very, very, very big mouth. To add insult to injury, we are made to wait even for the country mouse, as if a banal reassertion of Catholic doctrine (something I have heard in church, and even in V II churches, in no uncertain terms at least a dozen times since the publication of Amoris Laetitia) were such a momentous event showing anything but the monumental cowardice of these supposed Princes. 

I might still be wrong, of course. The kitten might still wake up lions one day. But what I keep hearing is only the most disgraceful meowing. 

Let the Cardinals speak and be done with this farce. If they speak plainly, then let the serious battle begin. If they limit themselves to the meowing the longer the wait, the worse the shame.  

M

 

 

 

The Correction That Won’t Be One?

This one here was on the twitter account of Canon 212. 

You will forgive this native Italian for not understanding exactly what the Cardinal says, but what I could acoustically get is this: 

  • If there is no response the Cardinals will “correct the situation”, in a “respectful way”.
  • they will, in this case, “draw the response to the question from the constant teaching of the Church”

 This means, to put it plainly, that there will be no correction.

What there will be is only a sort or reminder, or integration. Something every Bishop can do every day. “The Pope has not answered the Dubia, so we will do it for him”. No demand that the Pope speaks himself. No ultimatums. No warning that the Pope is, by refusing to answer the Dubia, promoting heresy. Merely a faint meowing. 

This will open the floodgates for more heresies and more perverted encyclicals letters, in which Francis implies all sorts of abominations and shuts up when asked to correct them. After which, a handful of kitten will tell us what we already know without the slightest need for them to remind us of the obvious. In the meantime, the heretical Pope will go on spreading heresies, and these people will seriously try to make us believe that they have fulfilled their duty.  

Mind, it might come out differently in the end. It might be that the Cardinal does not want to show his hand right now.

However, if this were to be the situation it seems to me that Fra’ Cristoforo is absolutely right: no correction at all; with the addition of some blabla so that the Cardinals may try to save face.

These here are supposed to be Princes of the Church. In what miserable state we are. 

 

Meet Francis, The Humble Shitter

portapotty

 

How I love those pictures that say everything without a single word! 

Shabby Pope is here pictured in the act of going out of a Porta Potty in Milan, whilst the present (including, no doubt, professional photographers) are snapping like there is no tomorrow. 

This would make for a couple of nice headlines: “Porta Pope”, “The Humble Shitter” and “Pope Humbly Piddles In Front Of Cameras” come to mind. 

After which, the Humble Shitter was flown back to his entire floor of a quite nice Hotel. 

The hypocrisy is so strong in this one that he does not see the contradiction between these empty gestures of “humbleness” and his splendid life.

Almost as strong as the hypocrisy is the vanity: the old lewd man is so eager to make a headline that he does not hesitate to literally piddle (or faking a piddle) in front of the cameras. This abnormal vanity and desire to attract attention and approval is, by the way, a well-known mark of homosexuals, which is why so many of them become actors and politicians.      

Francis is both. And a clown to boot. 

Shit well, Evil Clown. 

You will have your reward. 

M

 

 

 

 

How The SSPX Can Pave The Way For “Reconciliation”

The SSPX seems – not for the first time – on the brink of “reconciliation”. I am assuming here that the reconciliation will be what every sensible person would insist on: complete control of assets, seminary and command structure. As I have written many times, nothing else would be acceptable.

However, there seems to be in some quarter some fear that the SSPX may either “go native”, or become scandalously silent in front of this scandalous Pontificate because of the carrot being dangled in front of them.

Luckily, Mundabor comes to the rescue and suggests a very simple way for the SSPX to obtain both aims: reconciliation with both the Vatican and their mistrustful supporters.

The solution is a scathing attack against Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ heretical pontificate. I don’t care how they call it in sophisticated theological term. What I would like to see is that they hurt him badly.

After that, only one of two things can happen. The first is that Francis abandons the idea of the reconciliation. This shows that he only wanted to keep them silent as the carrot dangles in front of them. The SSPX sees the cards and wins the hand. The second is that Francis decides that his “mercy” dividend is still worth the attacks of the SSPX, and the reconciliation process moves on under the banner of “mercy”. The SSPX keeps intact credentials and wins the hand again.

What’s not to like? If Francis really has interest in the “mercy credentials”he won’t mind the steamroller going over him; actually, the accusations will help him in presenting himself as meek and very, very Ghandian.  If he closes the door to the SSPX then he didn’t have anything “merciful” in mind in the first place.

Can’t see what the SSPX has to lose if they – as I am sure they do – value Truth first.

M

 

 

 

 

Liar, Cheating Francis Tries It Again

Photo-20161021122235731.jpg

See? I have answered the Dubia! Only…. I haven’t!

 

I had to smile when I read about the Chilean Bishops reporting that Francis has expressed himself, oh so clearly, about his being against the very same abomination and sacrilege he has relentlessly pushed during his disgraceful Pontificate. 

Mind, I do not doubt for a second that Francis has really spoken in the way indicated by the Bishops. What is also certain, though, is the following:

Firstly, even my cat knows that Francis is a damn Jesuit who says everything he thinks may profit him for the moment.  

Secondly, this one here is a cunning rascal and a liar on steroids. Remember: “Soon, soon!”??

Thirdly, when a Pope is asked to officially answer some Dubia the only thing he has to do is to officially answer them, or have them answered by someone to whom he has given authority to do so. Rumours, reported speeches and “my cousin heard him say” are absolutely nowhere.

So no, if Francis thinks he can pull himself out of a difficult situation by trying to let us believe that he answered the Dubia without doing it he had better think again.

Liar. Coward. Jesuit.

And stupid. 

 

 

Meet Cardinal Scola, Sycophant On Steroids

boots

Cardinal Scola found the licking not tiring at all…

 

In the Age of the Kitten Cardinal you really don’t know whom to turn to. There is one (Scola), who would have been considered a more than passable choice (as V II Cardinals go) in 2013. Well, not really. 

The same Cardinal  kitten is now on record with saying that Francis was a salutary blow to the stomach for the Church. 

Words fail. The sycophancy is mind blowing.This is one who missed the train in 2013 and is now ready to do absolutely everything in order not to miss the next one. Prompt comes the reassurance to the ever growing ranks of the FrancisCardinals: “Pick me, gentlemen. I am innocuous, reassuringly middle-of-the-way, and will lick every boot there is to lick to become Pope”. 

I fear for the old bastard that his train has left the platform for good. Francis will polarise the ranks of the Cardinals, and at the end of the exercise there will be no place for middle-of-the-road boot lickers. More likely, it will be either another FrancisCardinal (Tagle, Schoenborn, Maradiaga) or the result of a silent Revolt of the Kitten, a man considered “conservative” in V II circles: one like Piacenza, or Pell, or Mueller.

Poor Cardinal Scola. All that licking utterly in vain…  

When Francis kicks the bucket, the Church will wake up with a huge hangover. The Cardinals will then have to choose between sobriety and alcoholism. I very much doubt they will pick a vocal vodka fan.

M  

 

 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 302 & 303

Guido_Reni_031 (1)

 

The text of 302 (emphases always mine)

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

This paragraph is the priming of a bomb about to explode. Francis starts from something already mentioned in the Catechism of JP II, and always known in Church doctrine: we aren’t Jews, who consider a behaviour only in its external manifestation, without consideration for the subjective element. We also know, and have always known, how these situations apply: the eight years old child who steals from the cookie jar is a different situation from the eighteen years old who steals scooters, and the like. The suicide in a sudden raptus of madness is difference than the suicide deliberate and planned, and so on. We all know this, it has always been that way, each one of you can bring infinite examples. 

This is also why the statements in that sense of the October Relatio were – and are – not problematic. They are in line with what the Church has always said. There’s nothing new or worrying here.  

However, this has never applied to the situation of objective scandal and mortal sin. For these, the answer given by the Church has always been the one given by JP II. With the important difference that I very much doubt that in, say, 1898, the “living like brothers and sisters” idea would have found many friends. But then again it is always that way: you start by conceding a finger, at some point the entire hand goes.

Francis here takes a general principle that applies in limited circumstances and extends it – and this is a novelty and subversion of established truth, which in common parlance is rightly called heresy – to situations to which these principles have never applied. I have written about this in the linked article, so you can read it again if you like. 

Francis closes this primer with another subtly subversive statement: that pastoral discernment in these situation must take into account a person’s properly formed conscience.  

This is an exercise in Jesuit hypocrisy. If the conscience of a person is properly formed there can be no discussion at all: he knows that he is in adultery, public scandal, and mortal sin.  There can be no other pastoral work than to say to this man “pack you things NOW!”. What the Evil Clown here means is that the priest must consider what the distorted, hypocritical, self-righteous “conscience” of the adulterer tells him. How do I know this? because it is the only way how what follows makes any sense. If, as already stated, the conscience is properly formed, there can be no discussion at all, and the only “pastoral” exercise can be a reiteration of why what can’t be can never, ever be. 

The bomb, now primed, is ready to explode.  Enter paragraph 303:  

303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

Heretical bullshit like this would, in Christian past, have deserved its author the stake.

Read it carefully. Francis has already said that the “properly formed conscience” must guide the adulterer’s action, but it was immediately obvious that a properly formed conscience has no need at all for discussion, because it knows that truth isn’t there for discussion. Therefore, he now examines how to deal with your typical unrepentant adulterer. What follows is an open support for the heresy of Kasper, and this happens in the most brutal of ways:

*for now* this is the most the adulterers can do

*God Himself* asks them not to do more (not only heresy! Blasphemy, too!!)

The adulterous situation is downplayed to *not the objective ideal*

I see here more than a hint to what is called “situation ethics”: what appears bad can actually be good given the circumstances. The mother and wife can consent to sex with the prison guard in order to be let go and go back to her husband and children, and such like. The Church has always condemned such thinking, refusing any kind of “lesser evil” (much less, making of the evil anything “good”) and stating that evil is not committed, period.

Even V II Popes (before Francis) clearly saw this and defended it robustly. From Veritatis Splendor, paragraph 72:

72. The morality of acts is defined by the relationship of man’s freedom with the authentic good. This good is established, as the eternal law, by Divine Wisdom which orders every being towards its end: this eternal law is known both by man’s natural reason (hence it is “natural law”), and — in an integral and perfect way — by God’s supernatural Revelation (hence it is called “divine law”). Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man’s true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness.

[….]

The rational ordering of the human act to the good in its truth and the voluntary pursuit of that good, known by reason, constitute morality. Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good.122 Activity is morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.

There you have it, in very clear words. And mind, it is not that JP II is making some difficult, little-known, sophisticated argument here. This is confirmation stuff. Francis throws everything out of the window, and profoundly subverts the very basis of Catholic thinking. 

Let me say it once again: in our Christian past, such rubbish would have led its proponent to die at the stake.

This is heresy and blasphemy in the most open form imaginable. There is nothing ambiguous in this. This is pure poison. It is not enough for our shepherds to ignore this fetid words. They must condemn them. 

Heresy! Blasphemy! Where are our shepherds?

M

 

  

 

 

 

E’ Primavera! Uplifting Reflections in The Times Of Francis

 

It’s Spring, and this year it is a somewhat different Spring. 

After four years of devastation, in the next months things might come to a head. This year we might finally have meowing Cardinal kitten, or even – if we are extremely lucky and the Lord assists us – the one or other kitten producing himself in somewhat vaguely resembling a roar. Come on, it’s Spring! Let me daydream a bit…

Getting a bit of distance from the daily business, however, we can see this: kitten or no kitten, this Papacy is unraveling like the South American corrupt, incompetent, boorish, actually stupid dictatorship that it is. This is clear enough with or without meowing kitten. 

The Cardinals may speak, or more probably won’t. The devastation may continue, or not. The next Pope could a tragedy like Tagle or someone more Conservative like Piacenza, probably among the best or least worst this corrupt generation can produce; but one fact is clear: real Catholics aren’t buying Francis fake currency. 

It is Spring. Leave aside the cares of the day and reflect that no amount of sexual perversion or demonic subversion can stop the sun, the seasons, or the Truth. 

M

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 301

St.-Michael-the-Archangel2

 

The text (emphases mine). 

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

—-

“Irregular” situation. “Irregular” is written in inverted commas. These people are afraid even of the word “irregular”. Hey, who are they to judge? 

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Huge heretical bomb. The reason why adulterers are forbidden communion is exactly because they are in mortal sin. It is not only the sexual behaviour they put in place between the sheets (which might not be there; he could be an impotent ass, and she a frigid bitch), but the scandal they give that makes the mortal sin. There is no way any cat, dog or evil Pope can get around this.

Even Pope JP II – specialist of doctrinal slalom, capital punishment saboteur and allower of pagan deities on Catholic altars – saw this very clearly. Read what he writes in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

See? There are facts which are in objective contradiction to receiving communion, because they are contrary to everything Communion is and represents. The adulterous couple’s “feeling” and “discernment” are neither here nor there. Facts are facts. Catholics do not let feelings get in the way of facts. 

Also note how the writing is heretical in itself. It was said. It can no longer be said. Truth has changed. 

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Another huge heretical bomb. Basically, this amounts to the abolition of mortal sin for everyone but satanists. Every prostitute, drug dealer, and child rapist can easily claim that he has great difficulties in understanding the “inherent values” of rules that go against what he really, really wants to do. Everyone can say that he “cannot act differently”. Everyone can say that he cannot decide otherwise “without further sin” (“the impulse to rape children is too strong. I could commit suicide if I were to attempt to let it go. I am already so depressed!”. “I cannot but be a prostitute! If I were to stop, my child would die on the street! On the street!! How is that not a sin!?).

Besides, I have never heard that the standard for a mortal sin would be so high as to require the grasping of the religious and philosophical edifice behind them. The commandments are not explained. They are commanded. They were and are made to be grasped by simple people: peasants, factory workers, domestic servants. No intellectual prowess was ever required, and the lack of it never excused the sinner. These are the commandments. That’s it. Are you retarded? No? Then you know what they mean, period. 

——

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

Of course they did. Of course they may. But again, no Pope in the history of Catholicism had the effrontery of extending this obvious consideration to situations of objective scandal and clear mortal sin. See the above mentioned quote from Familiaris Consortio again. Francis, in his satanical hypocrisy, quotes in the notes the very same Familiaris Consortio, but blatantly ignores the very cornerstone of Pope JP II’s reasoning in the matter. 

—-

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, the effrontery! Saint Thomas Aquinas would have had Francis deposed as a heretic and burned at the stake. That the Evil Clown even dares to mention his name, and tries to take him as hostage for his heresy, is beyond contemptible. 

Besides, the argument is stupid in itself. What St Thomas said does not mean in any way, shape or form that a public adulterer may have some form of grace, but be unable to exercise them well. The argument just does not follow. On the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas would have stated without hesitation that a soul in mortal sin is a soul dead to grace. This idea of the public adulterer has some grace that he can’t extract from his pocket is just stupid. 

Let us see what even JP II’s mediocre catechism says (1855 and 1861):

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him….

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 

All this is turned on its head by Francis atheist, Jesuitical rambling. This is pure heresy. It is the attempt to wash the character of mortal sin from basically all mortal sins bar those committed by the most evil among evil people.

———

Paragraph 301 is obviously heretical in several ways. It attacks the very heart of Christian morality. It tries to subvert Catholicism at its very roots. 

Saint Michal the Archangel, defend us in battle! 

M

 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 301

St.-Michael-the-Archangel2

 

The text (emphases mine). 

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

—-

“Irregular” situation. “Irregular” is written in inverted commas. These people are afraid even of the word “irregular”. Hey, who are they to judge? 

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Huge heretical bomb. The reason why adulterers are forbidden communion is exactly because they are in mortal sin. It is not only the sexual behaviour they put in place between the sheets (which might not be there; he could be an impotent ass, and she a frigid bitch), but the scandal they give that makes the mortal sin. There is no way any cat, dog or evil Pope can get around this.

Even Pope JP II – specialist of doctrinal slalom, capital punishment saboteur and allower of pagan deities on Catholic altars – saw this very clearly. Read what he writes in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

See? There are facts which are in objective contradiction to receiving communion, because they are contrary to everything Communion is and represents. The adulterous couple’s “feeling” and “discernment” are neither here nor there. Facts are facts. Catholics do not let feelings get in the way of facts. 

Also note how the writing is heretical in itself. It was said. It can no longer be said. Truth has changed. 

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Another huge heretical bomb. Basically, this amounts to the abolition of mortal sin for everyone but satanists. Every prostitute, drug dealer, and child rapist can easily claim that he has great difficulties in understanding the “inherent values” of rules that go against what he really, really wants to do. Everyone can say that he “cannot act differently”. Everyone can say that he cannot decide otherwise “without further sin” (“the impulse to rape children is too strong. I could commit suicide if I were to attempt to let it go. I am already so depressed!”. “I cannot but be a prostitute! If I were to stop, my child would die on the street! On the street!! How is that not a sin!?).

Besides, I have never heard that the standard for a mortal sin would be so high as to require the grasping of the religious and philosophical edifice behind them. The commandments are not explained. They are commanded. They were and are made to be grasped by simple people: peasants, factory workers, domestic servants. No intellectual prowess was ever required, and the lack of it never excused the sinner. These are the commandments. That’s it. Are you retarded? No? Then you know what they mean, period. 

——

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

Of course they did. Of course they may. But again, no Pope in the history of Catholicism had the effrontery of extending this obvious consideration to situations of objective scandal and clear mortal sin. See the above mentioned quote from Familiaris Consortio again. Francis, in his satanical hypocrisy, quotes in the notes the very same Familiaris Consortio, but blatantly ignores the very cornerstone of Pope JP II’s reasoning in the matter. 

—-

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, the effrontery! Saint Thomas Aquinas would have had Francis deposed as a heretic and burned at the stake. That the Evil Clown even dares to mention his name, and tries to take him as hostage for his heresy, is beyond contemptible. 

Besides, the argument is stupid in itself. What St Thomas said does not mean in any way, shape or form that a public adulterer may have some form of grace, but be unable to exercise them well. The argument just does not follow. On the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas would have stated without hesitation that a soul in mortal sin is a soul dead to grace. This idea of the public adulterer has some grace that he can’t extract from his pocket is just stupid. 

Let us see what even JP II’s mediocre catechism says (1855 and 1861):

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him….

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 

All this is turned on its head by Francis atheist, Jesuitical rambling. This is pure heresy. It is the attempt to wash the character of mortal sin from basically all mortal sins bar those committed by the most evil among evil people.

———

Paragraph 301 is obviously heretical in several ways. It attacks the very heart of Christian morality. It tries to subvert Catholicism at its very roots. 

Saint Michal the Archangel, defend us in battle! 

M

 

 

 

Will The Correction Come? Keeping The Faith In The Age Of The Kitten Cardinal

four little kittens

 

Will, then, the famous correction come?

Fra Cristoforo says it won’t.

Edward Pentin says it will.

I quote the Bible:

 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

I will be very glad if the correction comes. I will be moderately sad if it doesn’t. But one way or the other my faith will not be shaken, my days will go on exactly in the same way and my salvation will not be directly influenced by it.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty. I do not believe in four Cardinals. As far as I am concerned, these Cardinals can decide to send themselves to hell together with the others and it’s their decision, not mine. Or they might decide to finally, finally, finally take a stand against Francis’ abomination and denounce at least his heresies, and bully for them. But no, my faith will not move one micron whether they speak or not. 

Too many people think of the Church as a wonderful apparatus that never misses a bit. They lack historic depth and basic understanding of human nature. Several times in history the Church was plunged into chaos, and this chaos went on, at times, for many decades. 

The Church has a supernatural and a human aspect. The supernatural aspect lies in her ultimate nature and function, and in the protection she enjoys.  The human aspect is the way humans run her here on earth. 

If Jesus had wanted the Church to be the Most Wonderful Perfect Institution He would have chosen angels, not men, to run her. The very first man he picked for the job denied him. Out of the very first twelve bishops one betrayed him, and other ten had no guts to show up at the foot of the cross. If your faith is shaken because we live in The Age Of The Kitten Cardinal you haven’t been paying attention both at doctrine and in history class.   

I wish the Cardinals salvation. I hope that at least four of them will make a decisive step in that direction. But I wouldn’t be shocked at all in knowing, one day, that all of them went to hell, with no exception. Bishops and Cardinals do not decide about the validity of the Only Church. They can only decide about their eternal destiny vis-à-vis their duties towards her.

Hope that the Cardinals decidee to speak, but do not be discouraged if they don’t. Keep praying your rosary. Keep deepening your faith. Keep looking to heaven, where the saints are on your side, rather than in the gutter of cowardice and convenience , where you will find most bishops and cardinals. 

One day we will die, and on that day whether Burke & Co. have found the nerve to finally, finally, finally do their damn job will not play any role in your salvation. 

But pray your rosary, deepen your faith, resolve to be unshakable in your determination to die in the one true faith. And let any Cardinal who wants to send himself to hell.

Hell will be packed with kitten priests, kitten bishops and kitten cardinals.  

M

 

   

 

[REBLOG] Jesus, Joseph And Mary Were Not Illegals

In another show of diabolical misinformation about the simplest facts of life we are, now and then, told, or rather suggested, that the Holy Family was in the same situation as the army of pimps, prostitutes, small criminals, their children and families, and other opportunists or simple scroungers (and, possibly, terrorists) who now wish to enter Europe without being in possession of the legal requirements to be considered refugees simply because… we are getting more and more stupid.

Let us clarify a point here: Jesus, Joseph and Mary were never “illegals”. They did not dodge any frontier post. They did not fake any distress call. They did not pay any criminal to smuggle them anywhere.

They simply moved from a territory under direct or indirect control of the Roman Empire to another territory under direct or indirect control of the Roman Empire. Exactly as Jesus did when going to and fro between Judea and Galilee. Exactly as St. Paul did when moving around the Mediterranean. Exactly as Christianity spread all over the Empire. There is clear indication in the Gospel – and there is obvious indication in the history books – that none of these movements was “illegal”.

Nor has Christianity ever taught that frontiers are illegals, or boundaries unjust. Those who tell you such rubbish are the third-worldist enemies of the West, aided by their Muslim brother in arms, all of them at war against Western culture and civilisation.

It always sends my adrenaline levels to the sky when I hear illegality preached as something not only good, but godly.

I wonder why Pope Tree Hugger never talks about these simple facts?

M

Sacrilege Beyond Words

 

Let me start with a preliminary consideration: I find it very good, and very Catholic, to appropriate ourselves of Protestant music for our Catholic purposes. In past centuries – far more orthodox than this one – good souls had no hesitation in using the wonderful work of, say, Bach and Buxtehude for our beautiful liturgy. This was also easier, as in those times Protestant liturgies were much more similar to the Catholic one than today. The praxis was also reciprocated (understandably, from their perspective) by the Proddies, which led to the very famous episode of Allegri’s Miserere, a composition of such supernatural beauty that the commissioners decided that it should never fall in Protestant hands.

However, the principle remains: take the beauty produced by heretics and use it ad maiorem Dei gloriam instead. I will go so far as to say that I wish this effort were made today with the same zeal, adapting the words were necessary – and always reading the words in the Catholic sense – but importing the vast patrimony of beautiful Protestant music in our own Catholic world.

This is all good, provided we do what no child of ten would do: confuse the liturgies. This would be extremely bad even if made in ignorance, but it becomes positively satanical if made with the obvious, stated intent of downplaying the One True Church and put it beside any old Proddie wannabe “church”, as if they were merely two varieties of ice cream.

What has happened in St Peter is an abomination difficult to describe with words. I do not doubt that the music was wonderful, but this is exactly not the point. The point is that the lure of the beautiful music – beautiful music which should be “annexed” by the Catholic Church, and used to extol Her glory after the necessary adjustments – was used to allow a protestant mock liturgy to happen within the very sacred wall of the most representative Church in Catholicism: complete with mock priests, mock costumes, mock blessings, and the like.

The only adjective that comes to mind is: satanical. Only Satan can be behind such a grotesque insult to the Catholic Church, perpetrated by Pope and Cardinals and publicly executed in the presence of two of the latter. A sacrilege beyond words, perpetrated with the blessing, and in the presence, of what goes today for Princes of the Church. 

Mr Ferrara has said it so well that there would be no need to add more words; but as I write this blog also in order for it to speak on my behalf in my last hour, I wanted to have my inadequate considerations added to the pages of this little effort. When Francis’ offences and abominations go beyond what can be said with words, it is fitting that outrage be expressed by as many people as possible, irrespective of their ability to convey the extent of the sacrilege.

What Francis and his minions are doing goes beyond the scale of the imaginable only a few decades ago. It is astonishing to see this old man throw away the mask and openly, publicly, almost daily proclaim an alternative religion even as he insults and berates those who prefer to follow the old (and only) one. I can easily imagine the man putting a Buddha statue, Assisi-style, on the main altar of Saint Peter himself, and boast of the feat whilst his Cardinals blather about “tearing down walls”.

We have come to this point. I can’t imagine the situation will improve as long as Francis is Pope. Actually, my impression is that his attack to everything that is Catholic will get more and more aggressive, defying imagination again and again. We are living astonishing times. 

Is the Pope Catholic? 

In name and official function only. In reality, he is a dyed-in-the-wool enemy of the Church. 

Pray that 2017 is the year that rids us of this scourge. We don’t know what will come afterwards, but at least we will have a shot at some sort of improvement. 

M

[REBLOG] Little Vademecum for Those Anglicans Thinking of Conversion

In occasion of the now widely publicised conversions celebrated today in Westminster Cathedral, I allow myself to give my little piece of advice to those thinking of conversion.

This little advice is given in charity (the real one. Fake charity is for whinos, and Anglicans…). Charity requires that one tells the truth out of love. Calls of “who are you to judge” don’t have any effect with true Catholics. Catholics deal with Truth, not false compassion. Anglicans need to be told the Truth without any fear that they might be “hurt”. They’re heretics, of course they will! It’s not a walk in the park, it’s two systems of values clashing, and they can’t be both right.

Charity requires the Truth, and the Truth said whole. Those who aren’t ready to undergo a painful process to reach the Truth can avoid wasting time reading this. If only one reads and understands, the time will not have been spent in vain.

Please, have a chamomile tea first 😉

————————————————————————————-

1) There is only One Church, and it is not the Anglican one.

2) Christians are divided into: a) Catholics; b) Schismatics; c) Heretics.

3) Anglicans of whatever orientations belong to c) above: Heretics. Every one of them, however they may call themselves.

4) Anglican so-called orders are invalid. Anglican clergy are, for Catholics, laymen. This is Catholic teaching. No amount of self-delusion will ever change an iota in this.

5) There is nothing like a “something-Catholic”. You can’t be Anglo-Catholic more than you can be Methodist-Catholic. You are Catholic, or Schismatic, or Heretic. Are you Anglican? You’re Heretic.

6) This has been repeated (not stated, or invented, or decided; repeated) by Leo XIII in 1897, with Apostolicae Curae. He who can read, let him read.

7) The decision to convert is the decision to leave the Lie and embrace the Truth. Ego investments, personal preferences, how nice the Vicar is & Co. have no role to play in this. This side, or that side.

8 ) Every “converted” former Anglican who still claims to believe Anglican heresy (from the validity of the ordination of Anglican clergy; to Anglo-Catholics being “Catholics”; to whatever else) is a fake convert, sacrilegious and heretical. Better to remain a heretic from outside until one is ready for a real conversion, than to try to be a heretic from within the Church. Heretics are, by definition, outside of the Church anyway. Cheating one’s way to a club card leads to nothing and, possibly, to perdition.

9) Truth cannot be embraced in half. You either embrace Truth, or you cling to the lie. Tertium non datur.

10) Anglican doublethink doesn’t work the other side of the Tiber. “Two and two is four, but also five and we respect those who think it is six and will dialogue in chariteeee with those who think it is seven and a half” works only before the (notoriously lethargic) Vatican steamroller starts to move, but it leads to tears and excommunications when it invariably does. Those who think that they can export their doublethink and “tolerance” past the Tiber are in for a very late, but very rude awakening.

11) Catholicism works differently. To say “I’m hurt” will not make you right. To say “you’re uncharitable” will not make you less wrong. To say “you must adjust your doctrine to accommodate my feelings” doesn’t exist at all. You’ll have to eat the same fare as Padre Pio and St. Philip Neri, St. Francis and St. Dominic. No Anglican preservatives, and no choice of toppings. What a blessing.

12) The decision to embrace the Truth is difficult. It requires the acknowledgment that one (and one’s old soi-disant “church”) was wrong all the time. That one’s ancestors were wrong all the time. That one’s former organisation had no Catholic being or legitimation whatsoever. Nothing less is required. If you can’t say this to yourself with a sense of elation and Truth finally found, you are still a Heretic.

13) Truth will make you free. The decision to discard the lie and embrace the Truth in its totality is the healthiest and most productive single decision in one’s man existence. So healthy and so beautiful, because so difficult. If it wasn’t difficult, there would be no beauty and no merit in it.

14) Truth is like a diamond: extremely beautiful, but extremely hard. Are you ready for the beauty (and the hardness) of the diamond? Or do you want to continue to believe that the synthetic version is a diamond too? Choose the true diamond. Accept no substitutes. You’ll discover that its beauty is beyond your hope.

15) True Catholics will stand in awe in front of real, serious converts. You are in our prayers and we know that many of you will become extremely orthodox, wonderful Catholics. But true Catholics will attack without mercy those who attempt to import the heresy within the Barque of Peter. This is an unprecedented experiment, but will not be a door open to “Catholicism a’ la carte”. Again: forget the old Anglican ways, this is not going to work that way.

16) Pray Blessed Cardinal Newman that he may guide you. He knows all your troubles, went through the same pains as yours, sees all the obstacles in front of you. It took him years of reflection and prayer before deciding himself to the step. But once he took it, what a wonderful march he started! So take your time and be assured of our prayers and of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, your Guardian Angel and the Blessed Virgin. Take your time and prepare yourself carefully for the impact and the beauty of the Truth. It is better to carefully invest some years of sound investment leading to a copious yield, than to waste everything in a fake conversion leading nearer to Hell.

17) Best wishes and good luck to you.

Mundabor

Fighting Evil With Evil?

Photo-20170113124129161.jpg

 

 

And it came to pass that the “bidding prayers” (if they are called that way) at the friendly NO parish near you contained a sort of appeal for people who follow the religions of Abraham to fight “evil” together. Now, “evil” certainly meant here the things all those religions (the true one and the false ones) oppose: abortion, perversion, euthanasia, and the like. It is also undoubtedly true that in Countries like the UK certain things can only be achieved if Christians and Infidels fight together (the famous example is a definition of “hate publication” that would have included the Bible and the Koran, a definition then expunged from the legislative text).

However, I cannot avoid alarm bells starting to ring whenever I hear anyone, the more so a priest, in any way engendering this idea that Islam and Judaism are somewhat good in themselves, at least by association with the goodness of Christianity. Whatever goodness there is in these false religion is Christ’s Goodness, not their own. Islam and Judaism are, in and of themselves, worth exactly nothing. Worse still: they deny Christ and are, therefore, objectively evil. And of the two, Islam is by far the worse one; then it came after Christ, and it is nothing but a grotesque, sensual, violent parody of the truth.  

Al Capone might have had some good feelings in himself. I am pretty sure he loved his mother, his wife and children, and probably even his dog. But you wouldn’t hear in church an appeal to fight together with a modern-day Al Capone for, say, the establishment of the new village park or children’s recreation zone.  Why? Because this modern-day Al Capone is evil even when he happens to do something good, that’s why.

We live in very confused times. The laymen who have “composed” the bidding prayer suffer of this common disease, good-ism; the priest who should keep them in check – and most certainly knows better – is too weak to speak out.

It is out of this huge sea of dung that Amoris Laetitia can grow and try to prosper.

M

 

 

 

Francis Tries (But Does He?) To Be Orthodox, Fails Miserably

“We are all saved! All of us!”

 

This unbelievable creature can’t avoid causing scandal even when he is too lazy to… cause scandal. The rot inside him is too strong for the smell to be contained inside even for a short while.

Vatican Radio publishes a short report on Francis’ prayer with the pilgrims from his window.  His initial remarks are clearly Catholic. One understand someone else has written them and Francis is just being too lazy to go expounding on them, so he repeats them verbatim.

However, the rot will out.

The very last words of the quote give us another example of this strange religion Francis keeps peddling to more and more scandalised Catholics (emphasis mine).

Let us make sure that the Cross marks the stages of our Lenten journey, that we might understand more and more [perfectly] the gravity of sin and the value of the sacrifice with which the Redeemer has saved us – all of us.”

Redemption is confused with salvation, and the advent of the Redeemer is now smuggled for universal salvation. Universal salvation directly contradicts the words of Our Lord and makes Catholicism, Christianity, the Sacraments, the very Pope surplus to requirements. No surprise that the man goes on insulting all of them, including past Popes. This is more of that “no one can be condemned, because this is not in the logic of the Gospel” rubbish.   

I have made a huge effort of charity and tried to think whether perhaps Francis has simply tried to be orthodox for once. But what I think has happened is far more simple: he is too lazy to write every little public declaration himself, too heretic to limit himself to reading them out, and too arrogant to renounce to let you know it. 

Pray for the end of this Pontificate, and the return of at least a recognisable Catholic Pope. 

M   

 

Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 291-295 & 297

 

 

 

St_Michael_Raphael

 

 

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

M  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep Praying For John Vennari

Michelangelo-pieta (1)

 

I receive this on my combox and immediately post here: 

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3082-update-on-john-vennari-from-john-s-wife-susan

Please keep praying for this beautiful soul and his family. 

Mundabor

 

AbdicationGate?

keep-calm-and-catholic-on-SPL

 

“[…]tra un mese Anonimidellacroce sarà in grado di pubblicare il contenuto della lettera fatidica che Benedetto ricevette prima di decidere di dimettersi”.

“In a month, AnonymousoftheCross will be able to publish the content of the fateful letter Benedict received before deciding to resign”

The bomb was published here.  More to come in a month (means: after Easter? Or literally during Holy Week?). The motives of Benedict’s abdication were allegedly a) very serious and b) nothing to do with his health. 

Yours truly reads, and reflect as follows: 

  1. I have always thought Benedict a decent man. Therefore, I have always believed his words, that his resignation was due to his feeling he was not strong enough to keep being an effective Pope. I think we owe the man, as every man we believe decent, to believe what he says until the contrary is proven.  
  2. I will wait to see whether something really gets published, and really confirms Benedict decided to resign because of external pressure. If it turns out Benedict is a liar (and, inevitably, a coward of stellar proportions), this is the reality we will have to live with. My estimation of the man took a decided turn south when he gave the gushing FrancisInterviews anyway. However, I greatly hesitate in believing that he could be such a horrible person. 
  3. If it turns out Benedict was put under pressure to resign, do not think for a moment this justifies the old man, no matter what caused the abdication. There is no universe in which the resignation of a Pope because of external pressure cannot be an act of immense cowardice. It is inconceivable that, say, Pius XII would have resigned if Stalin had said to him: “either you abdicate or I start a nuclear war”. A Pope must never be strong-armed, full stop. Nor does the Church recognise the idea of a Pope resigning because he embraces some “lesser evil” to avoid a bigger one. The idea that Benedict might have resigned to protect himself I do not even want to entertain.  
  4.  If it turns out Benedict was put under pressure, I will leave it to expert theologians to decide what happens next. However, it seems difficult to me to deny that the decision of Benedict was, in any way, voluntary. It is, also, what the man explicitly stated. If a Pope abdicates because he is a coward my first take is that he has still abdicated, and he is still a coward. To my knowledge, there is no provision that says that if the Pope is a coward, the next Pope can’t be validly elected. If this were the case, we would have the rather problematic possibility that the last, say, 203 Popes were invalidly elected and we never knew it.We live in the Age Of The Kitten. An age in which people like Cardinal Burke are considered courageous. We must cope with the fact that our clergy are a bunch of girls, Popes possibly included. But this does not mean that the entire institution of the Papacy is put into question.  
  5. It can still be that nothing comes out of this. “Fra’ Cristoforo” clearly wasn’t there, and he might not have seen the letter he mentions. Even the best can be deceived. 
  6. Don’t be distressed. Bad Popes are a constant fixture of the Church. Many Popes in the past have been put under pressure to condemn and destroy good people or institutions (Joan of Arc and the Knight Templars come to mind). The Church has survived. 

In what horribly entertaining times it was given us to live…! 

M

  1.  

 

[REBLOG] Jesus Was No Girlie

Another excellent blog post from the “man with no uncertain trumpet”, Monsignor Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington.

This time, Monsignor Pope’s attention is focused on the image of Jesus that was smuggled around in the Seventies, and that still influences the Sixty-Eighters and other pot-smokers today. In those years – and whilst I was a child, I got my share of those years – Jesus was generally portrayed as a kind of a whimp, a girly boy unable to exert or project any form of manliness, a mixture of hare “krishna” follower and Gandhi with, later, the addition of a dollop of Nelson Mandela. Victimised, but as meek as a sheep; bullied, but always answering with a smile, and unable to threat or harm, this is the Jesus we had brought to us as an example. “Peeaace” and “luuuuv” were everywhere, and not a whip in sight.

Well, one only needs to read the Gospel to get a completely different picture of Jesus; a man who never said things half, and never minced words; a man able to openly defy his opponents in public, in times when conflicts were carried out rather less nicely than today, and “being hurt” had a different meaning than today; a man whose followers went around armed with swords, certainly not for aesthetic reasons; a man able to free himself from the grasp of multitudes desirous to apprehend him, which can’t have been accomplished without a towering presence and an extremely commanding, charismatic, utterly manly attitude; a man able, alone, to throw away from the temple an undefined, but certainly not little number of moneychangers out of the sheer fury of his action, and the might of his whip. On this occasion, the contrast between the calm preparation of the whip and the explosion of irresistible physical power gives a wonderful example of the manliness of Jesus’ behaviour.

No, this was no pink-shirted, manicured, anti-wrinkle-lotioned, tubular-jeans-wearing metrosexual; this was a real man, oozing masculinity in everything he did. Try to imagine the scene of St. Matthew’s conversion and tell me whether it is compatible with anything else than the most commanding authority. Then try to imagine how Gandhi or Deepak Chopra would have tried to achieve the same result, and you’ll know the difference.

You see this everywhere in the Gospels, as the words and gestures of Jesus are always accompanied by an undercurrent of sheer authority, a commanding stance, the attitude of one who knows that he will be obeyed everytime he wants. Even scourged almost to death, Jesus talks to Pilate from a position of utter power, and leaves him in no doubt as to who is boss. Make no mistake, this is no Gandhi.

Thankfully, the gently whispering Jesus of my younger years is now slowly being substituted for an image more attuned to the Gospel image, largely – I think – because of the excellent “passion of the Christ” and James Caviezel’s very manly rendition of the Lord. It will take time, though, before the Birkenstock-sandalled, tofu-eating, Cosmo-reading and Oprah-watching Jesus is replaced by, well….. Jesus.

Mundabor

Fourth Anniversary: Eleven Things To Know And Share

francis balcony

“Boy, how many stupid Catholics out there!”

What is happening? 

The 13 of March is rapidly approaching. The day will mark the fourth anniversary of Francis’ papacy.

Why is this bad?

Because this papacy has been the most obscenely insane homoerotic, blasphemous, sacrilegious, socialist, atheist, anti-Catholic  heretical circus we could, actually, not imagine.

Do you mean to say that Francis is an obscenely insane homoerotic, blasphemous, sacrilegious, socialist, atheist, anti-Catholic heretical Pope?

No shit, Sherlock!

Is it appropriate to say this of the Pope? 

In the case of this Pope, it is appropriate to say this and much worse than this. Behave like a freakin’ Commie (and you the Pope!), be treated like one.

What can we do to help this situation to change? 

Pray that the Lord frees us from this disgrace. Do penance. Pray the Rosary.

What else? 

Denounce the disgrace of this Papacy whilst you explain the beauty of proper Catholicism. Paint the contrast between Francis and good Popes of the past. Don’t waste any occasion to explain proper, sound Catholicism. I suggest you skip V II altogether.

But this will not make any difference, surely?

It will potentially make a huge difference for your salvation. It might also touch the lives of others, perhaps in decades to come. You never know. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

And will people not call me “mean”, “homophobic”, “rigid”, and the like? 

‘Course they’ll do.

What shall I do, then? 

Why, double down, dear….

Shall I pray that the Pope dies? 

It is not sinful at all to pray that the Pope dies a painless death, if you do so for the good of the Church. However, I’ll leave it to you. You may set your hopes on abdication instead. It’s becoming fashionable nowadays. However, recent experiences have shown death is a much cleaner cut. We don’t want to have former Popes forming a football team, either.

Will the Church survive Francis?

The Church has survived Diocletian and Julian the Apostate. She will survive Francis all right.

 

[REBLOG] Pope Gay The First

There is no week now without this disgraceful man reaching for a new deep from the gutter in which he has already put himself.

Once again, the immense scandal he causes is born from his being so much in love with himself, that he cannot resist “humbly” making the world new in the presence of journalists. This time, we had 80 minutes of off-the-cuff “Francis show”, and if you have already photographed the arrogance and ignorance of this man – if you read this blog, it is probably because you have – you know that 80 minutes of Bergoglio Show can’t be good for Catholicism. More alarming still, is that the off-the-cuff remarks show how this man really thinks.

The Neo-conservative press is now desperately trying to spin the immense stupidity (or evil intent, or a mixture of the two) of this man; but you can spin as much as you like, the man is a plague.

Let us see what kind of subversive bollocks a Bergoglio can spit in one single day, when he feels in good form.

1. So-called Gay Lobby.

If there is one, Francis hasn’t seen it in the Vatican ID card. Besides the absurdity of the statement, this is so gay even Elton John – an admirer of his, you must know – must see it that way.

Seriously: what a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say. What an insult to the intelligence of every sane Catholic. What unspeakable arrogance. The Bishop of Rome is here clearly being the best ally of the “gay mafia” within the Vatican. He has clearly exposed himself as their man, elected by them so that he may not do anything against them, and help them.

Please let us wake up here. First important appointment is the one of a sodomite with levers everywhere within the Vatican; when a huge scandal involves this man, Francis refuses to get rid of him; then he proceeds to downplay the whole issue, so that he can be free to help his sodomitic friends without too much nuisance. Make no mistake, Screwtape would be delighted with Francis.

2. Homosexuality

Innovating on 2000 years of Christianity, this extremely confused (or worse) man wants us to believe being an homosexual is something that doesn’t stay in the way of being a priest. This shows you, better than anything else, how deeply rotten this man’s thinking is. I wonder if he would say the same of people with a tendency to screw their own mother, or dog, or niece. Either the answer is “yes” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted in all matters of sexual abuse) or it is “no” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted concerning the matter of homosexuality).

The moral of the story is that for this man, provided a homosexual is not part of a “gay lobby” (which he would allegedly not spot anyway; see the ID wannabe joke) not only can he be a priest, he can be one of his strictest collaborators, and who is he to judge?

Francis’ Christianity, and requirement for priesthood, ends by “accepting The Lord and having good Will”. Welcome, perverts the world over. The priesthood awaits you.

Satanic. Utterly and completely satanic.

Some people (like Jimmy Akin, who today makes a quadruple salto trying to defend the indefensible; I think we’ll see a lot of this in the years to come) will even try to sell you that, formally, Benedict’s explicitly stated policy of not allowing homos to the priesthood will not be touched. How can this be? If this is the example he gives; if this is the way he talks; if this is, very obviously, the way he thinks, how can this be?

Compared with this man, Pope Paul VI is merely an amateur. This here is Screwtape’s real deal.

You may or may not know that a good Catholic has traditionally had the faculty to pray for the painless death of the Pontiff if he is persuaded the Pontiff in question is a disgrace for the Church – as you can see, nothing new under the sun – .

I have a huge problem with praying for the painless death of Bergoglio, because in my naïveté something within me rebels to the idea of wishing the death of a Pontiff.

Still, the times are such that a Pope may well step aside if he finds himself in the physical impossibility of working as Pope. I have written in the past that I consider Benedict’s decision – seen in isolation – a wise one. If a Pope can’t make it, than he should not make it either, and leave his place to someone with the necessary strength.

You decide for yourself.

I start praying for the end of Bergoglio’s papacy today.

Mundabor

 

Pope Francis: Still A Heretic

 

The SSPX is publishing a series of articles (five up to now) about Francis’ heresies. A sixth part will follow.

The fifth part deals with the question of Francis’ heresy: is Francis, then, a heretic? The very theologically oriented article first restricts the meaning of the word to the rigidly confined theological boundaries of  “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”, and then proceeds to (unavoidably) conclude that no, in this strict theological sense the Evil Clown is not a heretic, though he is clearly favens haeresim, “promoting heresy.”

Well I had to smile when I finished reading this part (I have not read yet the other four). What the author of the articles is saying is that Pope Francis is a heretic in the popular, commonly understood sense of the word, the one used by 99.99% of the population and their cats. However, the expression favens haeresim is the proper word to be used in the strict theological context. Quite. Of course. Fine with me. 

The fact is that, by God’s grace, the broader Catholic discourse is not confined to the boundaries of theological definitions, and that in common life and common sense language a person who promotes heresy is, ipso facto, a heretic.

I allow myself to say that this is not only a “popular use”, as the editor of the article says, but a beautiful expression of that sensus catholicus  that moves a healthy Catholic conscience to call excrement excrement, irrespective of the many shades of brown and grades of stinkiness a trained theologian may distinguish in the material, and more power to him. If it stinks like shit, has the colour of shit and the consistence of shit, then it is Francis’ Papacy. 

Therefore, it is not only unavoidable, but highly fitting that outside of theology faculties Pope Francis be called, as before, for what he is: a heretic. 

Pray for the end of this pontificate and a true restoration of sane Catholicism. No more Benedicts, no more Francises, no more of this V II nonsense. 

We want that old time religion. It will save you when you die. 

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

 

[REBLOG] More Catholic Than The Pope: Trump Exposes FrancisLie

NOT with her…

 

 

The exit polls I read around all indicate that Trump has won the Catholic vote (no, I am not talking of the judases with the same name, and may they sink in the irrelevance they richly deserved). If you ask me, the reason for this is not to be found in his (weak) homo stance, or in his defence of religious liberty and the consequence for Catholic organisations and religious orders in case of abolition of Obamacare. Whilst these factors probably played a role in some way, I do not think they were decisive. The decisive factor was, if you ask me, abortion.

Very bravely, Trump and Pence chose to “obsess” about abortion. In time, more and more tepid Catholics were forced to confront their conscience, and decide that the unborn child was more deserving of their vote than their wallet or their personal (dis)likings.

This seems to me to confirm a concept I have often expressed in the past: most Catholics are now like scattered sheep, unable and too lazy to follow their mediocre pastors. But at some level they still know what is what, and they know that truth can’t change. Once constantly confronted with the reality of Catholic teaching vigorously defended, slowly but surely many of them start to move in the right direction.

Catholicism is unique in this: that whoever start to defend it vocally does not have to reinvent or reshape anything. It is no novelty like a “New Labour” or “Reaganomics”, that must be developed, justified, tested. It’s there, beautifully immutable, ready for use and with no need of justification. You don’t have to persuade people that it works. It is enough to inform them that it exists. It is an all-encompassing, ready-to-use religious system with vast ramifications in the economic and social sphere. It’s an all-you-can-eat buffet read for use, and available for free.

Trump and Pence used the buffet, and took from it a big portion of abortion and a side of religious freedom and persecuted nuns. And it worked spectacularly well, because shattered as they are, enough sheep were smart enough to listen to the improbable shepherds rather than to the poppycock of the “glass ceiling” and the criminal lesbian witch thinking it is enough to cry “Vaginas of the world, unite!”.

Trump and Pence chose to do exactly what Pope Francis so despised: they “obsessed about abortion” with a frankness unthinkable for most political personnel only a decade or two ago, and not frequently found even among US bishops. They exposed the cowardice and complicity with the Enemy of Francis and his socialist ilk. They showed that when a couple of willing – if imperfect – pastors show up, the sheep start to respond pretty fast.

Shame on you, Francis, lewd promoter of everything that is evil. The Trump Train rode all over you, and millions of Catholics now realise what a phony you are.

Millions now realise that even a Donald Trump, with all his much-publicised shortcomings, is way more Catholic than the Pope.

M

 

 

International Feminist Deception Day

fat-ugly-feminist-1024x655

Quite…

Today is the day feminists all over the world scream the usual nonsense about a fake “parity” that betrays the very essence of femininity. 

Happily, this 2017 appears different from the more recent ones. Chewbacca is not the First Lady anymore, and we see timid signs of the rejection of aggressive “femancipation” calls. The new First Lady recites the Our Father at her husband’s rallies. Long may it last. 

For Catholics, the matter of emancipation is fairly simple:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Hhmmm…. St Paul on the one side, the secular culture on the other side. I wonder who is right? 

We live in times of pernicious mixing of secular and religious values. For nineteen centuries, Christians have felt no need for “emancipation”. At some point, though, the movement gained such traction that it became ingrained in the Western way of thinking. So much so, that even decent Catholics thought it obligatory to reconcile the differences.

It does not work, because St Paul and the Suffragettes (and their descendants) are in fundamental opposition to each other. 

It is no coincidence that the Lord, through St Paul, commands different roles for men and women, at the same time as the Church has never ever denied same dignity and importance to women. There are no differences in what souls are. There are differences in the way they are supposed to work together for their own salvation and the salvation of their children and loved ones.

One hundred plus years of logical derailment have now put us in front of what happens when we ignore the way life is supposed to be organised. The shifting of the measure of dignity (from having dignity in one’s own role to only having dignity if allowed to parrot men) has engendered a rebellion that starts with suffrage and ends with sexual promiscuity, contraception, abortion, mass divorce (in the West, very largely initiated by women), mass single parenthood and, crucially, massive divorce rape of men, with the subsequent unwillingness of the latter to contract a bond that can see them ruined and deprived of house and children at their wives’ calling. The latest trend is for the emancipated, divorcing wife to immediately accuse the husband of rape and/or violence: it makes it easier to get house and children, you see.

The so-called International Women’s Day is the International Women’s Betrayal Day. It is the day when the progressive self-destruction of femininity is celebrated as an achievement, and a further injection of testosterone into Western women is demanded as fitting and long overdue. Less Our Father, more Chewbacca. 

Reject the mentality en bloc. Be a counter cultural “agent for change”. Proclaim in your circle of influence the right of the man to be the head of the woman, and the right of the woman to be led by her man.  Assert the utter superiority of the traditional system, that did not produce anywhere near, anywhere near the amount of utterly miserable women we see around us today.  

I know that, because my life experience straddles what seem to me now two different planets: the traditional Italian societies of pre-female suffrage (represented by the army of grandfathers, grandmothers, grand-aunts, and grand-uncles I had around me as a child)  and the utterly unbelievable world I live in today, a world that would have had those grand-aunts heartily laughing in disbelief at the immense stupidity and absurdity of it. 

That perfectly absurd world is now everyday reality. I see all those wretches around me every day. The wrinkled colleague in her Fifties talking to you about her “boyfriend”, who at some point will abandon her like every other man before him, and with good reason. The single mother desperately looking for a companion, and giving her body to a number of sub-prime or third-rate males she will likely never manage to persuade to marry her. The young woman already sampling a number of pricks higher than her ten female ancestors together: an experience devastating and soul-ravaging in the long term, utterly unsuited to the female nature, and disqualifying her as marriage material for any quality man. Up to the most benign case, the poor mother labouring under a huge strain, and forced to have two jobs (mother and office worker) and a long commute, because “emancipation”. Enjoy that train ride, ma’am, whilst you suffer at knowing that your children see their mother at 6:30 PM. You wanted to be “independent”, n’est-ce pas? 

My grandmothers and grand-aunts lived in the middle of children. They all wished to marry and be the women of one man, but even those to whom the grace of a husband and children was not given were happy in their abandonment to providence, could care for the children of the enlarged family, had time to laugh and cry and be real women rather than caricatures of men, and were an important part of a large family fabric that was all-sustaining and all-absorbing. They were fully women, and lived a life far more fulfilling than the modern office slave will ever imagine. And they lived and died in the fear of the Lord, which coloured all the rest.  

I see all those wrinkled women with “boyfriend” around me, and reflect that all this started with the oh so celebrated “suffragettes”.

Who, between you and me, must have been first-class bitches all right.

M    

[REBLOG]: “Catholic Answers” Has Lost The Plot

Catholic…. What?

Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past – but repetita iuvant – they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an “ask an Apologist” question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like “good suicides to go heaven” and the like.

Today, out of sheer boredom, I clicked the page once again, to see what’s going on. I use “predestination” as search item and find a couple of threads that make your blood curl, with the usual sensitive posters (they are generally women; further proof God is rightly spoken of in the masculine) clumsily trying to avoid hard truths and tapping in the dark about what they “feel”, or “imagine” rather than doing what sensible people would do, that is: read a couple of sensible books first, and in case find a very good (means: not a wishy-washy V II one) priest later.

Still, this is a difficult issue: predestination is probably the most inextricable mystery of Christianity, up there with the Trinity, and a degree of confusion is normal, though once again a good book or a good theologian is vastly better than trying to concoct a solution among blog commenters.

Then I went on the “ask an apologist” section, where in the past I generally – but not always – found sound “Catholic answers”. The first (and only) post I read was this one.

In short, a woman has a perverted sister who “married” (not!) and her husband – one is glad there are true men around still – says to her wife the perverted woman is not to set foot in the house again. Not when he himself is there – obviously – and not when he is not there too – also obviously; then it’s a matter of principle, not of presence -.

The wife writes to “dear Abby”, and what do you think the “apologist” answers? Something along the lines of “he has no right to give you orders, you are his accomplice with your submissive behaviour, I suggest you speak to a marriage counsellor; with your husband if you can but alone if you must”.

What is this, a Catholic Forum or Cosmopolitan’s letters to the editor? To suggest that a third person be put between man and wife? After the head of the family (read my lips: head-of-the-family) has taken a perfectly reasonable decision about the scandalous reprobate he does not want to have in the house he (read my lips again: he) has the duty to lead? Really? What do these people think a marriage is, a democracy? There are Christian rules about how a marriage works; Christians have applied them for 2000 years with great success; it appears for “women’s liberation theologians” isn’t good enough.

For heaven’s sake, it’s not like the husband is alcoholic, or violent, or a lazy good-for-nothing married in a moment of Samaritan excesses (some women have that; though I think low self-esteem plays a far bigger role). This is a perfectly sensible, reasonable man confronted with the smoke of Satan wanting to enter his home, and he takes a perfectly reasonable decision about how he, the person responsible for the spiritual welfare of the family, is to deal with that.

Or do you think the feminist “apologist” would remind the wife that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the husband? A wife with the blessing of a man who knows he will have to answer to Jesus about the way he led his wife, and takes responsibility for it, has been graced with a good husband indeed! But that third parties would come to the extent of suggesting another person is put in the middle is really beyond belief.

Tra moglie e marito non mettere il dito (“do not put your finger between a husband and a wife”), says the wise Italian. The Catholic Answers apologist puts an entire counsellor. What a feminist nutcase.

This so-called “apologist” needs a very good rapping before she is kicked out, and I truly hope she is never allowed to instruct Catholic women preparing for marriage. She should also be informed that even today, even today such an outlandish “answer” (all, but a Catholic one) would be considered the answer of a feminist bitch by every sensible woman living in traditional Catholic countries, where – I can assure you from endless, and continued experience – this “let’s put a third person in our controversy” mentality is just not there, and would be considered the result of an acute bitchiness attack and controlling mania.

I do not need to mention here – because every woman with some brains knows it; apparently not the case by some female “apologists” – that women perfectly well know how to deal with disagreements within the family; and have far more effective (as in: smartly feminine) ways to influence their men, insofar as it can be done, or the intelligence to let it be, when it’s clear it cannot.

I am truly stunned. Where I come from, the answer to disagreements is never “put a counsellor in the middle”, but along the lines of “he is the man you wanted to marry: now let it work” or “try to change his mind if you can, with sweetness and prayer and patience; and accept his decision if you can’t, because this the way it goes”. Apparently, it’s now the counsellors who run Catholic families. Pathetic, and so stupid.

I really must say it, but if this flippin’ American mentality has infiltrated the minds to the point where such rubbish is even suggested in a Catholic Forum, by a so-called apologist, you in the old U S of A are in a very, very bad shape indeed.

Catholic Answers might well be the most clicked Catholic site on the planet. The damage they make with their blasted “American Feminist” mentality can hardly be overestimated. These people do not even know what makes a real woman, but they spread their rubbish on the Internet on how to run – or to break – a marriage.

I was always surprised when I left Italy and these colleague in Germany told me “Italian women are so feminine!”. Why, of course they are, thought I. They’re women, aren’t they…

I began to understand, later, what was meant by it, and it seems to me the problem is not limited to Germany.

Fight against feminism and bitchiness, even when it is in disguise of “Catholicism”. If you want to see real women in their environment, try to spend some months in a traditional Catholic country and see how those among them who have been properly raised – still the vast majority, even today! – live, embrace and enjoy their womanhood.

They live far happier lives, too.

Mundabor

[REBLOG] Hillary Is After Stupid Women: Some Inconvenient Truth About The Tragedy Of Female Suffrage.

Bar big surprises (Assange is your friend) it seems to me that the remaining weeks of the electoral campaign will be dominated by the following themes. 

  1. The MSM will keep screaming hysterically by every new tape (of which, of course, there will be several) in which Trump says something that wouldn’t be heard at the local Salvation Army chapel. All those liberals ceaselessly spitting on Christian morality will discover themselves aflame with zeal for purity in their candidates. Actually, in the candidate of the Republicans only. They will manage to impress the gullible, and I suspect that many of these will be women.  
  2.  The sane part of America – and I suspect many of these will be men – will actually react to the MSM pro-Hillary, nuMorality bombardment by doing exactly the contrary of what the media relentlessly push for. They will vote for Trump just because they can’t stand this North Korean situation anymore.

It remains to be seen how many are ready to be impressed by lies and fake indignation, and how many are those who can still think straight. However, it seems to me that Hillary’s campaign is doing the only thing that leaves them with a shot at victory: make of the campaign an emotional attack to Trump and try to capture with it the gullible females (and some not very manly men) ready and willing to be carried away by this wave of emotions. Already the fact that Trump appears to have suffered in the polls for calling a fat woman “Miss Piggy” tells you all you need to know how easily US female voters can be manipulated, how emotional this race has become. And don’t get me started about the “first female president” rubbish, which is the same as to say that a vagina gives a candidate special rights. 

I’d suggest these Miss Piggy women eat less instead. But hey, I am a man, what do I know… 

So, let’s come to the inconvenient part of this blog post.

It fills me with rage at this stupid age to know that, in the most crucial US election in the last decades, there is such a discrepancy between female and male voter orientation. It seems that this wave of Reprobation (make no mistake: voting for Clinton can only be a mortal sin) is mainly fueled by the female sex, who is more prone to swallow hook, line and sinker all the rubbish about the “first female President”, the “objectifying of women” and all that insignificant noise meant to cover the real issues: the fact that Christian heritage and fundamental liberties (besides the Country’s security) may well be at stake.

Women of past ages knew very well that it was better for them that only men could vote, or be a judge. It helped a lot to keep the emotions out, and preserve an ordered society. It prevented the brutal emotional manipulation of serious issues we see today.

In a society in which only males can vote you can’t get very far with the emotional appeal to the “poor pregnant girl”. In a society in which only males can vote you could never attack the Second Amendment. In a society in which only male can vote not only Trump would clean up, but you would probably have a better Democrat opponent in the first place. Instead, we have a world in which a conversation filled with reasoning and expletives any men who was not raised among girls has heard hundreds of times truly is an important part in deciding the destiny of a nation. 

Women suffrage has done great damage to women. It has allowed them to hurt themselves in so many ways: with abortion, with divorce, with a stupid push for an “emancipation” that has become a double burden, with the attempt to dismantle a patriarchal society that served them so much better than making of them the toys of many men. 

The extreme emotional tones of this campaign, in which the word “Pussy” (let me say it again: “Pussy”) has at least the same public echo and relevance than the real issues (security, immigration, Christian values, fundamental liberties) could never exist if only men had the right to vote. You may not like it, but that’s how it is. Even those pussified men (like Paul “Pussy” Ryan) who profit from the events to stab their own candidate in the back do so not only because of intrinsic lack of manliness, but because they are afraid of their female electorate. Ryan’s pathetic, unnatural, unmanly grovelling is the result of the sex of more than 50% of the voters.

It would be better for everyone, and particularly for women, if they were not allowed to vote. In time, this would cause a reversion to what every Catholic (that is: sensible) woman must wish: a solidly patriarchal society honoring women for their real qualities and helping them to give the best of their feminine nature, whilst stifling the self-destructive tendencies unavoidably generated by their (otherwise so beautifully) emotional nature.

Look at what three generations of female voters have done to the US, and reflect whether they have made a better world for women. A better world, I mean, not only as the world judges, but as the Lord does.

M  

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: