Monthly Archives: May 2017
Cardinal Marx asks God to listen to the prayers of Infidels.
One wonders how far Catholicism is from the mind of these people. The first thing that a Cardinal – or any Christian – should ask concerning Muslims is that God may give them the grace of conversion. The second, third and fourth too.
The idea that an infidel should pray and a Catholic – a Cardinal at that – should ask God to listen to those who deny the Son and the Holy Ghost (thus also clearly disfiguring the Father) would be ridiculous if it wasn't deeply offensive to Christian thinking.
The Cardinal is here simply saying that God should listen to infidels irrespective of their infidelity. At this point, why not ask God to listen to atheists? At this point, what value does it have to believe in Christ? At this point, what prevents this man from asking Luther's intercession – he certainly believes him in heaven – for whatever pet project Catdinal Marx has?
The entire meaning of being a Christian, and more specifically a Catholic, is being reneged. The problem of not being it is being willingly ignored. One is clearly proposed an image of the world in which what is important is to believe in something wordly like peace, social justice, and the like; a world in which salvation is a recompense for fuzzy feelings. One who talks in this way is not even Christian anymore: he is a multi-faith guy supporting any religious feeling – nay, any allegedly good intention – whatsoever.
Who made this man a bishop and a Cardinal? Oh wait, it wasn't Francis!
The rot has been growing for a long time before Francis. It nourished itself on rubbish like Assisi, and an overdose of fuzzy feelings. It was multi faith propaganda way before Francis appeared on the balcony in St Peter.
We are now only witnessing the explosion of the bubo.
Francis is about to appoint more Cardinals. It is a slow process of erosion, from Cardinals who do not believe in God but feel obliged to fake their faith to Cardinals who do not believe in God and feel obliged to demolish the faith.
At this point it is fair to say that even if Francis were to die tomorrow, the probability of getting a Tagle would be very high. Or a Schoenborn. Or some other CINO. Bar a Divine intervention, the demolition of the Church is going to continue. People like Schoenborn would be far more dangerous than Francis, because whilst Francis is stupid and uneducated Schoenborn is neither. We might, therefore, be steering towards a phase of far more dangerous, because far more subtle, perversion of Catholicism going on for a very long time.
What is, therefore, a poor Catholic to do? I suggest the following:
1. Realise that God is punishing us for the madness and rebellion of Vatican II. He is making us swallow the entire bottle of the poison we wanted to drink. This will teach us a lesson all right.
2. Resolve to live and die in your faith no matter the scale of the destruction.
3. Realise that your individual salvation is not decided by Tagle or Schoenborn or Bergoglio. It is decided by God, who expects you to collaborate with His grace towards it.
4. Understand that God's ways are such that no one, whom God has decreed worthy of Salvation, will be lost because of Francis. God does not allow Francis to decide for Him concerning the eternal fate of anyone. Therefore, an age of unbelief and clown Popes is simply an age in which many are Reprobates. But they always were. They were Reprobates from all eternity. God has decreed already that they will refuse, out of their own volition, to collaborate with His grace. Not one of them will be lost because of Francis; rather, they were born in the Age of Francis because God has decreed that they will be lost.
5. Fight your battle with determination and perseverance, but do not expect to see any improvement during your lifetime. We don't know how long this punishment will go on. We can do no other but endure it in faith and fight our little battle for as long as we breathe.
6. Realise that this determination will cause you to collaborate with Grace and “merit” (as far as your part is concerned) Purgatory one day. Paraphrasing the famous statement, blessed are those who carry on for decades believing what their forefathers have believed in the face of generalised treason from the clergy. Inasmuch as we can gain merit for ourselves, there must be more merit for carrying on for an entire lifetime in an age of sabotage.
7. Use the possibilities modern technology and the wealthy, peaceful conditions of the West give you. You are not living under bombardments, or in time of famine, or pestilence. Nurture your Catholicism on the endless sources you find on the Internet, buy good Catholic books, deepen the faith in its many aspects. React to Francis by becoming more Catholic.
8. Ask the Blessed Virgin to intercede with the Lord so that your faith may be strengthened no matter what. Resolve to let your faith grow, not falter, at every papal assault. Pray your favourite Saint every day that he may also intercede for you.
9. Reflect that even if you have a very long life, it will be but an instant compared to the eternity afterwards. Whatever pain FrancisChurch gives you, resistance to it is an investment with huge rewards.
10. Think of this every day: nil inultum remanebit, nothing will remain unpunished. All those popes, Bishops and cardinals who betray the faith and die unrepentant will pay the most atrocious price for their rebellion. When their antics enrage you, reflect that God will not leave anything unpunished.
I wish I could tell you that this is soon going to end. Alas, I am not one of those who know the future and talk to you with great certainty about it. I have no idea how long this will go on. But I know that at some point, when everything seems lost, Our Lady will intervene.
Will I see that moment? Better not to become complacent. I prefer to prepare myself for a lifetime of resistance. I know that the Lord above will count it for me, and for us, one day.
Keep the faith no matter what, and expect to die in the midst of chaos. It's the best to save your soul in the Age of Francis.
Once again, Pope Ass has expressed the 3mm profound opinion that he has no answers for the suffering of children.
Lord almighty, I had the answers when I was in Kindergarten. Mundabor at 5 was more advanced in Catholic thinking and general outlook on life than this rotting piece of Communism at 80+. The Manzonian expression vecchio malvissuto (ill-lived old man) seems to have been created for this one; and in fact, I can picture in front of my eyes an old Jorge Bergoglio inciting to the looting of bakeries with rabid expropriatory rage, just like Manzoni's original.
It is utterly absurd to think that Francis has no idea of what Original Sin is. Of course he does. The problem is that he does not believe in it. As a result he has, like Steven Fry, no answers for the evil, or suffering, in the world. He stays there like a retarded adolescent who has been listening to John Lennon for too long and now feels so pure as he complains that in this world innocents suffer. You would excuse the man if he were senile; but this is not senility, this is pure unbelief.
Obviously, Francis must pretend he believes in Jesus. Therefore, he keeps saying that when he does not have answers he simply looks at a Crucifix and stays there like a moron, instead of switching on whatever brains he is supposed to have. Funny this. If you believe in Jesus you believes in what He and His Church say. If you don't believe in those you clearly don't believe in Jesus as Lord. Francis is a secular mind with the addition of a pretend crucifix.
Little Mundabor was, at the tender age of Five, told all about the suffering of children. It all made perfect sense to him. He accepted the truth told to him with childish innocence, without questioning what he was received. I wonder if little Jorge Bergoglio received the truth with the same innocence when he was very young and corrupted himself later or whether he was so rotten, even as a child, as to question his religion at the age of five.
You may think these words harsh, but you must recognise that there is serious, serious evil spouting out of this man day in and day out. This is not your run-of-the-mill scoundrel. The forces of evil are strong in this one. This is one able to weep like a girl about the suffering of innocents and tell us we should not obsess about abortion!
I thank God he is so obviously dumb he cannot deceive but the already corrupted, eagerly willing to be deceived by him.
You see them at trains stations, or in shopping malls, or near tourist destinations. Armed policemen. This is historically unusual in a Country like England, where the policeman is often unarmed. But these ones sport not only pistols, but short-ish guns looking like rifles or carbines to me.
The weapons look the part, though the policemen don’t. They smile at children, make an effort to be extra friendly, and generally endeavour to look non-threatening to the populace. But the message is clear: I want you to feel reassured by my smiling, armed presence.
Your typical UK terrorist would likely not try to go on a shooting spree. Too risky to get the weapons and to provide for the necessary training (whatever they told you in the movies, shooting people ain’t so easy). Rather, they would use devices like trucks, cars, or bomb vests. No training needed, and the results are pretty much assured. Not much a rifle can do against it, either. It will stop the terrorist at some point, but only when said terrorist has mowed down a dozen or three according to the distance of the friendly policeman. As to the self-exploding bastards: when they’re up in the air, that’s it.
Yours truly observes the smiling, rifle-carrying policemen and cannot avoid two considerations:
- Either it is useful to have a gun or it isn’t. If it is useful I, as a law-abiding citizen, want to be free to carry one. If it isn’t useful, then the police should wear smiles instead of rifles. But you see, they do carry the rifles. It works, then.
- The willed, planned immigration of millions with a different religion from our own has caused this. This immigration was pushed by largely Labour governments, and by weak and stupid Tory Governments, in the Fifties to Seventies. It is clear that the aim was to de-Christianise England. Have an awful lot of Hindus, Sikh and Muslims coming in and at some point Christianity will cease to be the defining moral system of the Country, and the Religion Of Man will take its place. It worked, though I must say the so-called Church of England and our very own priests have helped a lot. But it also means to import the problems always linked to importing Muslims. Then where there are many Muslims you know trouble can’t be far away.
And this is where we are now, with smiling policemen sporting pistols and rifles I am not allowed to carry; because I cannot save my life on my own, you see, the job being forcibly contracted to a friendly professional who will likely arrive there to protect me after I am dead.
This Country is braced for a good dose of religion of peace. But it is a strong Country, and it will react at some point.
As to the Germans, God save them; though clearly they don’t deserve it in the least.
Melania Trump refused to wear a headscarf in Saudi Arabia, but she wore a veil in the presence of the Pope. Good girl.
Less good are the rants of those idiots on Twitter who took scandal for this, as if if was some kind of hypocrisy or double standard to follow your religion but not the religion of others. This, apart from the fact that, apparently, Melania follows the right religion anyway. Bad losers.
But what is truly ugly is that Francis blessed Melania's rosary. From the man who mocks those who “count their rosaries”, I wonder how much this blessing is worth. The man does not even kneel in front of the Tabernacle. If I were Trump, I would suggest to Melania's that she throws away the thing immediately.
Pope Francis heaped insults on Donald Trump when… he thought he would lose.
Sadly for him, Donald Trump won. Bergoglio, who is just as good at bullying the weak as he is incapable of opposing the strong, had to readjust to reality and decide whether he wanted to part of the “resistance” (outing himself as a damn Sixty-Eighter for the last of Cathokic Trump voters, who are an awful lot) or limit himself to the useful trite common place that do not frontally attack anyone of the really powerful and popular.
Trump, on the other hand, keeps being his usual self. Trump would screw someone multiple times whilst smiling telling the world what a wonderful person the screwed one is. He has done it with Romney, he is doing it with Francis. Today we had another example: Trump beaming, Francis grumpy. It was clear who of the two has bent the other to doing what he has to do.
The Wall with come. Francis will look and whine, but the Wall will still come. Trump will sport a radiant smile as he swears how much he likes the Francis, and forces everyone to acknowledge him as the POTUS and just live with it. It will be mighty fine to watch. Today, Francis has contributed to make America great again by being too cowardly to risk an open confrontation with Trump.
But again, this is what the man always does. A bit of pressure, and he will cave in. No pressure, and he will eat you alive.
A last word about the gifts. Trump to Francis: Martin Luther King. Francis to Trump: (as always) his own crappy writings. Francis is so full of himself he thinks he is the best thing anyone could read.
What a humble Pope we have.
Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.
Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.
But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.
However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.
But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one’s own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.
How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.
Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.
When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.
I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.
This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world’s or his battle’s outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.
One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren’t like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God’s grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.
In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God’s grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.
Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.
May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!
I read around other blogs comments which ask what would be the use of the correction, seen that Francis will not change his mind or his policy afterwards.
This is tantamount to asking what good it was to condemn Luther's heresies, seen that Luther did not change his mind or policy afterwards.
Truth must be defended irrespective of immediate consequences. It must be defended to encourage the faithful of this generation, and to serve as a witness to faithful of all generations to come.
In the present times, countless good Catholic will feel a great consolation in knowing that they have not been left entirely alone by their clergy. In future centuries, it will be known that, when the rot within the Church was so deep that even Popes were not ashamed to support – if not openly proclaim – heresy, at least some of the Princes of the Church had the guts to stand up for Truth.
There is in the history of the Church a period that is given little attention, but in my opinion was absolutely devastating at the time: the period between Pope Honorius' heretical statement and his death first, and the condemnation of his heresies second. Honorius had given support to the heresy of Monothelitism in 635, with a letter clearly intended to be circulated and to end a controversy. Heresy was, at this point, openly defended. A materially heretical Pope was, at that time, sitting on the throne of Peter.
To my knowledge there was, at the time, not only no convocation of a council to depose the Pope, but also no open confrontation with him and refusal to accept his authority in everything pertaining to his heresy. There was, in short, not only no ecumenical council, but even no Athanasius willing to go against the flow of acquiescence to papal heresy. This went on for three years.
This situation (of a heretical Pope not officially censured) did not end in 638, when the Pope died unchallenged und en-deposed. In fact, the official condemnation of the man as heretic only came more than four decades later, in 680. However, between 638 and 680 we know of continued confrontations between the promoters of the heresy and Rome, with all Popes after Honorius firmly on the side of truth.
Still, the fact remains: a Pope intervenes in a controversy openly supporting a heretical position, and he neither deposed nor (for what I know) denounced as heretic. What a stunning challenge to the faith, what shockingly turbulent times, and without an Athanasius to challenge his Pope Liberius!
We need our Athanasius. We need witnesses for Truth among our Bishops and Cardinals. It does not matter much (though I would love it) if Francis is or is not deposed by an ecumenical council in the end. But it matters that all faithful of this and all future generations know that when the going got tough, tough bishops and cardinals got going.
Today, we cannot mention Liberius without remembering Athanasius. Athanasius stands tall as the man who exposed error not forty years later, but whilst it was happening. As the heresy reared its ugly head, the hero arose to challenge it. But we have no Athanasius for the time of Honorius. Honorius lived three years after his letter, and I have no knowledge of any Athanasius. What a shame.
We are now repeating the situation in the times of Honorius: a Pope (at least materially) promotes heretical positions and we have no more than rumblings, rumblings which must certainly have existed also in the time of Honorius because they aren't dangerous. But those willing to stand up and openly proclaim the faith against papal sponsored heresy, we do not have them.
Cardinal Burke & Co. are in front of a choice: to be the Athanasius of our time or to remain silent in a time of heresy openly proclaimed and shamelessly spread. They have failed all of us up to now. They actually give the impression that they would have liked to be like Athanasius if it could have been done without risk, but have decided to revert to the behaviour of Honorius' bishops when it became clear they do not have the support they thought they had. Paper tigers, the four of them.
Athanasius did not wonder how many would follow him. His famous contra mundum statement is the most glorious example of faith defended no matter what the consequences. Athanasius was a giant.
Do we live in times of Giants or Dwarves?
I fear I know the answer, but I would love to be proved wrong.
Turns out white collar natives are responsible for almost all of the violent crimes in Sweden.
Mainly accountants, bankers and lawyers. The percentage of crimes committed by dentist and medical doctors is also clearly on the rise.
The figures back up veteran Swedish police officer Peter Springare’s assertion that crimes he processed, which include rape, assault, violence against police, drug trafficking and murder, were almost exclusively committed by someone named “Bjorn” or a variation of that name and the culprits were invariably from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Danemark or Iceland.
If you don't believe me, click the link above and check for yourself.
I really think that we should do something against these people.
The attack in Manchester does have an element of novelty: that the Manchester Arena terrorists targeted children and teenagers. The Religion of Peace never ceases to surprise.
All the rest is identical: a tidal wave of sugary common places, always the same phrases, always the same official statements, always the same nonsense. As I write here, an idiot on Sky states “it does not matter who did it”. Go figure.
The root cause of the problem is not being addressed. Therefore, the problem will remain.
This time the dead are (for now) 22, and this is not only stolen lives, but broken families. Who knows how many they will be next time. That there will be a next time, there can be no doubt.
I look at all this not only with sadness, but with a clear perception of the historical processes that are happening: our Western institution have invited this cancer within themselves, and this cancer is now developing as it is designed to do.
Meanwhile, the praise of the multicultural society goes on unabated on all the major UK channels. It truly beggars belief.
Please follow this link and, among the documents therein contained, isolate and read (at least) these:
1. The one dated 7 April 2012 (Three Bishops to General Council).
2. The one dated 14 April 2012( General Council to Three Bishops) .
I have – not for the first time – read both documents and found myself – not for the first time – in full agreement with Fellay & Co.
However, I point out to the following. I will present this as a series of short points in an effort to make my thought linear and easy to digest in short pills. What I lose in prose I hope to gain in clarity and brevity.
1. You could have said that Ratzinger was sincerely interested in healing the riff with the SSPX. You cannot say that Bergoglio is sincerely interested in anything Catholic, at all.
2. This being the situation, mistrust toward any ouverture from the Vatican is more justified, and must be taken more seriously, than this was the case in 2012.
3. There can be no doubt that every agreement, every agreement at all which leads to a big fracture within the SSPX is not worth pursuing, as it is far more important that the SSPX remains a visible instrument of help to faithful Catholics in a time of crisis; a crisis which we see becoming deeper and deeper.
4. From what I can see up to now, the Vatican has laid no obvious traps. The independence of the Order is not threatened. The Order will maintain its own autonomy. The agreement seems to be no – legal – Trojan Horse.
5. However, Bishop Fellay's interview (about which I have written yesterday) indicates that a different price is being requested: the softening of tones against the Conciliar Church. This is extremely grave in light of the fact that this is most certainly not the time to soften any tone.
6. In turn, this softer attitude – now officially proclaimed by Bishop Fellay – reinforces the suspicion, certainly present inside the Society, that this embrace will prove deadly, albeit in several instalments. The recent removal of the eight French SSPX priests, though obviously connected to other controversies, does nothing to assuage the fear that some bullying not from Francis, but from the inside of the Society, in order to make it more agreeable to Francis and thus “deserving” of reconciliation, is in fact happening.
7. This is a destructive way to go at things. Archbishop Fellay should never put the reconciliation with the Vatican in front of the danger of a division within the SSPX. If he did so he would allow the enemies of Tradition to celebrate the tearing in two of the Society. Any reconciliation that causes such a bad outcome can most certainly wait for better times, when more orthodox Popes will allow a rapprochement in a different spirit and with far less divisions. No serious Catholic considers the SSPX one iota less Catholic without reconciliation. The reconciliation in itself is a lesser good than the continuation of the work of the SSPX in favour of tradition, her prestige and powerful voice speaking for orthodox Catholic in a time of heretical Popes.
8. Alternatively – and as others and myself have suggested in the past – a much better way is open to Bishop Fellay: a brutal defence of Catholic Truth, against the Pope and his minions, day in and day out. This would assuage fears that the SSPX is “going native”, which is the most important result. From this position of strength, every proposal of reconciliation – without any do ut des – could be discussed within the Society in a completely different atmosphere. And if, in consequence of this vigorous defence of Truth, no offer of reconciliation comes, so be it. This would be the obvious evidence that the reconciliation had only one aim: emasculate the SSPX and make of it a shark without teeth.
Bishop Fellay undermines the very mission of the SSPX when he states that, in consideration of the process of reconciliation, the SSPX will get softer. He is doing the work of Francis. This attitude can only have as a result a self-imposed obligation to be either silent or very hushed in the denunciation of the thousand evils of the Church. Even if the authority and autonomy of the SSPX should remain complete and unchallenged, this attitude would still be tantamount to a half self-castration for the sake of… what exactly? The approval of the biggest rascal ever elected Pope?
Fellay 2017 seems much different to me from Fellay 2012. I do not trust the motives of anyone who, in the face of unprecedented attack on Christ, invites to be less incisive in its condemnation. The SSPX must go to war full scale against Francis and his heresies, and leave Francis with the choices of whether to play the “inclusive card” for his own motives (which he has, as he could claim a non-judgmental attitude towards both extremes of the spectrum) or go wherever he pleases, sharpish.
What is happening is, if you ask me, very wrong. I hope that this line does not prevail. It would cause immense damage to the cause of Traditionalism exactly in a time of emergency. I would prefer for Bishop Fellay to be made to go first.
Astonishing words from an unrecognisable Bishop Fellay reported by Gloria TV.
“We may be a little less controversial in attacking the persons”, the man said. He also added, in purest V II style, that “sometimes” ones get more with “a simple argument” than “by barking”.
When Bishop Fellay's “simple argument” leads to the Vatican reneging on Amoris Laetitia and substituting it with a document Archbishop Lefebvre would have approved in toto I will agree with him.
As it is, I cannot but be very alarmed at reading that the head of the only major ecclesiastical bastion against heresy starts talking like a damn V II sellout.
I cannot avoid wondering whether the danger for the SSPX does not come from the heretics outside, but from the careerists inside.
In this moment of extreme gravity in the history of the Church we must all bark more, not less; and we must bark like very angry mastiffs.
I never thought I'd see the day when I read Fellay spout such nonsense. This is very, very alarming and it behooves every good Catholic to denounce appeasement wherever it comes from.
Good Lord, if even the SSPX is devoured from the cancer of promises of appointments (a red hat for Fellay perhaps?) the only one remained will be honest laymen and isolated priests in micro-SSPX organisations. A real blow.
What is wrong with this man? Does he not realise that if he says “there is no trap” and in the same interview says “but we will go soft on the enemies of Truth”, then most certainly he is the trap?
The Catholic Blogosphere seems very excited about Cardinal Burke now (suddenly) advocating for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
If memory serves, this is the same Cardinal who announced a correction of Amoris Laetitia (or of Pope Francis directly) now around eight months ago, for the case that the Pope does not answer the Dubia posed to him.
You can make a baby in eight months. In the same time frame, Cardinal Burke has not managed – together with his paper tiger colleagues – to write three or four well-written sentences of condemnation of, at the very least, Amoris Laetitia and in fact, logically, of Francis' own pontificate and mindset.
I can't say I am impressed by this man. The entire planet is waiting for him to show some balls, and he reacts by doing nothing on the matter and… opening another front instead.
If he thinks we will forget what he has to do, he is sadly mistaken.
Cardinal Burke's dereliction of duty is ongoing. It becomes more scandalous every day that passes. No amount of deflections will let us forget that this here is one who can (almost) bark, but can't bite at all.
And please spare me the elaborate excuses for this man's and his confreres' utter lack of action. This is not the XVI Century anymore. In the age of Twitter, eight months are the equivalent of a geological era of the past. Also, it is clear that the four Cardinals were told in no uncertain terms that Francis will not answer the Dubia. There is no reason at all to wait one minute longer. Actually, at this point there would not be even if Francis had stated he intends to answer.
The man should just do his job, instead of trying to invent more ways to get an easy approval for his sheer dereliction of duty.
Callista Gingrich is slated to be appointed ambassador of the US to the Holy Sea.
From the linked article we know that she is active in the usual charitable activities, authors books about rediscovering God and writes stories for children. I am moved to tears, I tell you.
We also know she was in an adulterous relationship with Gingrich for years, so I wonder what the children would think about that. I have never run a chariteee, but I have never run an adulterous relationship for years, either, so this makes me too boring to write a book called Rediscovering God In Other Men’s Marital Beds. Actually, in my experience a lot of these charitee people are either appeasing their conscience, of they are managing to look good with other people’s money, or they use their activity to network and make a lot of extremely useful contacts.
Callista means, in old Greek, “the most beautiful” or “extremely beautiful”. In this case, nomen non est omen.
So no, we are not in front of a role model here. However, this post is not about this. This post is about the role of the Catholic Callista Gingrich as the wife of the Catholic Newt Gingrich.
The wife should stay at the side of her husband and be submissive to him. By marrying Newt Gingrich this is the role she, a Catholic woman, chose for herself. Instead, we have another case of “emancipated” aged Catholic who sends the message that it is fine to leave her husband one ocean behind, because feminism. If this is Catholicism, I am an elephant.
This is wrong. The place of the wife is at the side of her husband, and the place of a prominent Catholic wife is at the side of her husband whilst she proclaims that it it should be so. Who does she think she is, Nancy “Botox” Pelosi?
Don’t tell me that Newt has certainly approved. It does only make two wrong, but the wife who goes away from her husband the more so. However, this makes Newt a cuck, too. A man who does not even have her wife under control should not be allowed to run for President.
This is another example of modern secular culture running counter to our traditional values, amidst the applause of the more or less Catholic press. Catholic values are defended by having wives in public positions publicly espousing and defending their Catholic role, not running the rat race.
Callista Gingrich should have publicly stated that, as a Catholic wife, her role is at the side of her husband. This would have sent a beautiful message and would have contributed to have her less than exemplary past seen in the light of a reformed woman. But what I see here is not this; what I see here is arrivism, power grab, and feminist attitude. This is, in fact, the same attitude that leads a woman in the bed of a married man and reach a position of prestige and eminence through this adulterous relationship.
Callista Gingrich reminds me of Nilde Iotti. A smart woman for sure, she was a collaborator of Palmiro Togliatti, the head of the Italian Communist Party, and his mistress before Togliatti publicly ditched his wife for her. Nilde Iotti managed to make a prestigious political career for herself, but smart people always remembered what stood at the beginning of it all: the marital bed of a powerful man. But she was a Communist at least.
One day, Callista Gingrich will run for senator.
I wonder if we will, then, get another book about “rediscovering God in Italy”.
Breitbart has a very funny (though tragic at the same time) story about a hoax study passing peer review with flying colours.
The story just shows to what extremes madness is carried in the world of “social science”. There is, of course, nothing scientific in any of that. There is a rabid hate of everything that is traditional morality, pushed by people either living in very strong opposition to this morality of too afraid to oppose it in any way. In this particular case, the “peers” who reviewed the bogus document managed to dig themselves into an even deeper hole and make themselves even more ridiculous in the process.
Will the “peers” lose their job because of manifest incompetence, pathological bias and congenital stupidity? Don’t bet your pint. In a world that revels in its fanaticism there is no point at which fanaticism become excessive, or sanity and competence required.
Still, this little episode will contribute to opening the eyes of a number of people. The same, by the way, can be said for the other sectors in which bogus science is peddled everywhere: from global warming to the destruction of the forest, to the imminent death of the polar bear.
Enjoy the article.
The funny blog post published on Father Z’s site prompts me to some not so obvious, not so politically correct, and not so kind considerations. Read the post first if you want to avoid the spoiler below.
The particular building mentioned in Father’s post was built after a public appeal. The money collected was such that there was a lot to spare, which led to the extensive alabaster decoration inside. Put it simply, the Archbishop only had to ask, and it was given to him much more than he had asked. Even, I add, for the godless monster he then built to show the world how godless he was (and is, because the man still lives). You will also remember Cardinal Dolan mobilising around $140 millions in no time to restore the roof of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan.
Moral of the stories: the Church has limitless resources. It’s not about how much money is in the bank account. It is about how much money can be received just for the asking.
What does this tell us? That you don’t need to be afraid that good priests will ever starve, or there will be no money for the restoration of Catholic patrimony. However, this does not mean that you should finance a monster like the Los Angeles Cathedral, or atheists like Cardinal Mahony.
My suggestion is this: starve the bad parishes and give your money to the good causes. The good causes may well be distant, the bad parish may well be near. It doesn’t matter. You help what is right, not what is near.
The way a Catholic should react to the current confusion is to cause the closure of bad parishes and the thriving of good ones. Yes, up to a point wealthy donors will keep bad parishes alive; but only up to a point, as we keep seeing that whilst it is very easy to mobilise big money for big or prestigious projects, parishes out in the “peripheries” keep being closed.
There is, obviously, no guarantee this will end well. A bad bishop might be so stupid that he closes the thriving parish to keep the bad one open; but I bet most of them aren’t as dumb as that, because they understand the risks this involves. They know that in the modern world a Catholic will not hesitate to send his money to worthy Catholic causes in other nations, even on the other end of the earth, but punish him for closing down the good parishes. Not will he be able to mobilise his rich donors in every circumstance. For the Cathedral, easy. For the ugly Sixties church with no bell tower, not so much.
The faithful do that (and you should do that) because the traditional idea that your parish should be helped first cannot stand in an age when your parish sabotages, rather than helping, Catholicism. Do they starve you of sensible, sane Catholicism? Starve them of their means of survival. Again: Cathedrals always find rich donors. Ugly parishes in the suburbs, not so much.
Let your money talk. Do not be afraid that the Church might ever remain without money for the roof of the cathedrals, or for the restoration of old, beautiful churches. There will always be money for the indispensable, the very beautiful and the very visible. Give your money ad hoc as much as you can to minimise the risk of misdirection (e.g. money for single, nominated projects: the new traditional vestments for the priests; for sanctuary renovations bringing them back to the old glory; for the new monstrance or tabernacle, etc.).
But starve the horrible parish with the horrible liturgy. Make the bad priests unemployed (yes, a priest can be unemployed). Vote against V II with your wallet. Make the parish go down in flames. In time, the unavoidable shrinking of the Church will see more sane parishes surviving and a more than proportional extinction of the bad ones.
Your cathedrals will not crumble. But you will contribute to the regeneration of the Church by voting with your wallet.
Do not be impressed by the whining of your V II priests that the parish is dying. He had it coming, and so did the army of lecturer, assistants of the assistants, busybodies of all sorts, and their applauding (in church) smug audience.
Let them go the way of the Dodo. Make them see that their own stupidity has ended in self-extinction.
Church of Stupid must die. It is better to have less parishes, but with a greater content of Catholicism, than help V II to survive;
and your local dumbo priest be damned.
The Rome Life Forum that is about to begin will be centred not only on the protection of the unborn life, but on the current crisis in the Church. This is good, as there can never be too much discussion about a Church that seems to have forgotten Her role and mission.
However, it gives one pause when one reads that among the participants will be some of those of whom concrete actions has been awaited for many months now, and who seem intentioned to renounce to it in favour of … more words. These two are, to wit, Cardinals Burke and Caffarra: two of those who, after announcing that they would defend the faith, have preferred to just wait for… no one knows exactly what reason.
A Cardinal's (and bishop's) job is not to participate to discussions about generic church problems, but to denounce them loud and clear with all the necessary consequences.
To see Cardinals who not only should have acted months ago, but who have announced that they would so just limit themselves to discussion rounds as if they were journalists or activists is extremely saddening, and gives you a clear picture of the scale of the crisis currently plaguing the Church.
It reminds me of “Life of Brian”, where the members of the revolutionary committee issue a resolution protesting the arrest of their member. However, in that case there was at least a resolution. In this case, the resolution was announced but never put in place.
Cardinal Caffarra and Cardinal Burke are gravely in arrears. More words will not wash. They must now do the right thing and openly condemn the heresies in Amoris Laetitia, accusing the Pope of dereliction of duty and promotion of heresy for refusing to answer the Dubia.
This and only this, not more abstract words of dissatisfaction and diffused clerical whining, is what is required of them. It is required of all bishops and Cardinals of course; but it is required of the Four Cardinals in the first place, as they have made themselves beautiful with the faithful announcing a vigorous defence of Church teaching whose concrete exercise we are still awaiting.
It's like someone announcing he would challenge the school bully and then doing nothing about it. He will probably be despised more than those who shut up from the start.
The time to participate to fora has now passed, at least for the Cardinals. They should remember why they dress in red and act accordingly.
Perhaps we will hear something about when the Cardinals are planning to act, but I will not hold my breath. At this point, I think the plan is to let the matter of the Dubia be quietly forgotten, with some lame excuse about the Pope not answering them, or the like.
Pray for the Cardinals, that they should not flee in front of the wolves.
As they have most certainly been doing up to now.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
We are not told if the Disciples were carrying open or concealed. I suspect they did both according to the occasion. On this particular occasion, only two out of eleven (Judas already gone, and he would not count anyway) were actually carrying. On other occasions they must have been more, because it is obvious that the Disciples here count the armed ones among them on that particular day.
Of these two, one would make a defensive use of his sword before long.
These swords were, methinks, like the Roman gladius: a short but lethal sword, easy to carry and to use for short quarters combat, and therefore very apt for a defensive urban use. They clearly weren’t daggers, either. The word sword is not equivocal.
Our Lord does not object to his disciples’ carrying in the least. Actually, he says to them they should carry more. No, actually I think he says all of them should carry. Their right to keep and bear arms should, very obviously, not be infringed. The Second Amendment is so very evangelical.
Thought I would mention this blatant disregard of Our Lord for any form of arm control and, in fact, strong encouragement to defensive carry.
I am sure Hillary & Co. are very disappointed.
In his catechesis during today’s Wednesday audience Pope Francis called God in the grammatical present “a dreamer who dreams about the transformation of the world”. At the same time he claimed that God “has realised the transformation of the world in the mystery of the resurrection.”
This is drunk nonsense even for the standard of The Francis.
God in His Providence has made the world in the way the world it is supposed to be made. Whatever sinfulness there is in it, God has providentially allowed it in order to make a greater good emerge out of it. God has not created a faulty toy of which He dreams it would work properly. God does not sighs about a perfect world whilst he listens to John Lennon’s “Imagine”. God is not only Omniscient, but Omnipotent. There is no “dreaming” in Him. There is no separation between what things are and what He would have them to be, if He only could. God has allowed the Fall as He has allowed all the rest, from the Holocaust to… Pope Francis.
The Death and Resurrection of Our Lord, which the man mentions without having any idea of what he is talking about, is exactly the way through which this faulty existence and fallen nature – which is by no means meant to go away – is given the possibility of redemption. It isn’t the shaping of a new earth. It isn’t a promise of an earth in which hounds and foxes say “good night” to each other before going to sleep. It isn’t the promise of a paradise on earth. On the contrary, Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life we must follow exactly because of the fundamental flaw we had since birth: Original Sin. The reality of Original Sin is not going to change. Therefore, the reality of evil is not going to go away, either.
The reality of sinfulness due to the Fall has been, once again, allowed by God, with all the consequences and all the sins, all the injustices and all the atrocities; not only from the beginning to the end of time, but from all eternity.
Dreams of fundamental transformation of this world are the most obvious indication of lack of faith in the next one.
What we once again see here is a stupid, ignorant old bloke who never understood jack of anything Catholic and keeps going around spreading sugary nonsense for adolescent cretins like, no doubt, he once was (I mean by that that he is not an adolescent anymore).
There is in him no concept whatsoever of Providence. There is clearly no belief in the Original Sin. Therefore, there is no explanation for the evil in the world. On the contrary, there is this completely bonkers idea of God standing there like a spot-plagued teenager, dreaming of a better world. This is part of the humanisation and banalisation of absolutely everything that has been a trademark of this disgraceful Papacy.
“Imagine” was an openly atheist song. It had to be, as the Christian vision of the world and of the fallen human nature is radically opposed to Lennon’s and Francis’ idea of radical transformation of the human being, and of the possibility of creating a paradise of social justice and harmony on earth, if he only behave. There will always be injustice, there will always be conflict, there will always be evil in the world. At the root of the evil is not human laziness, but the serpent.
The reality of the Fall will be part of the human condition for as long as the world exists. All this escapes Francis. He is aligned with John Lennon instead.
Francis is not only stupid. He is clearly either an atheist or a person so confused about God that he thinks Him a sort of Dalai Lama In The Sky, prisoner of all sort of sentimental rubbish.
The ignorance of this man should be an embarrassment to every Catholic. Unfortunately, it seems that around 6000 bishops prefers to keep schtum about it, lest their career should suffer.
The news is everywhere so I am sure you will be able to find the links yourselves: the Medjugorje commission has given the most ambiguous, non-answering answer to the scam of Medjugorje, and the CDF has countered with its own, far more critical document.
Alas, the Church of V II appears to have only one commandment: Thou Shall Not Offend.
The commission bent over backward in the most extraordinary way, dividing the apparitions in two groups: the first set of “unannounced” alleged apparitions and the industry of the thousand of alleged apparitions afterwards. In the first case, the majority (but not all, as Church Militant tell us it’s necessary) of the members consider the apparitions supernatural. There is no conclusion of constat de supernaturalitate, because – again, according to what CM reports – for that unanimity would be required. Therefore, even the first apparitions do not pass the test.
The second set is destroyed as expected, though even in this case our heroes stop short of issuing a constat de non supernaturalitate. Rather, it seems to me the conclusion is non constat de supernaturalitate, but I will have to read more in detail.
In a third stunning turn of event, it is proposed to examine the possibility of making of the place a sanctuary, under control of the Vatican, because Medjugorje would encourage “spirituality” and blabla. Apart from the obvious rebellion of following a fake Blessed Virgin who says uncatholic things against the open condemnation of two bishops, with this train of thought the Church should establish Lutheran sanctuaries in all important places of Lutheranism (Erfurt, Wartburg, Worms, the lot) as there is no doubt Lutheranism has produced many very pious men and women.
The entire document is an exercise in absurdity: it implies the possibility that people may 1) see the Blessed Virgin and 2) subsequently be deceived by the devil, or by their own stupidity, or by greed, or by vain glory. This is too stupid for words: any real apparition of the Blessed Virgin must be a transformative experience, it being inconceivable that the Blessed Virgin would appear to people of which she must know they will seed heresy and confusion afterwards. “Let’s appear to these people”, this fantasy blessed virgin would think. “They will exploit me for decades afterwards and deceive countless people, but hey, it’s on them…” . Do the bishops not see how insulting and utterly stupid this is?
These obvious truths seem to escape most of the bishops in the commission, but they actually don’t. What is happening here is a shameless attempt to find something good in a scam, because an awful lot of people who deem themselves spiritual happen to believe in it.
Don’t insult your intelligence thinking that these bishops have been deceived. They are, as they always do, going with the flow, and are avoiding to rock a boat that would cause cries of indignation from a multitude of dumb fanatics in great need of a doctor and a reality check. Heck, Medjugorje is too stupid even for Pope Francis, what else do you need to persuade yourself of its absurdity!
What the bishops want to do is, in the best case, to embrace the crap, put it under the church’s umbrella and let it slowly die of neglect and starvation and, in the worst case, to ride this easy wave of “spirituality”. This is wrong and cowardly. Deception must be denounced as such, instead of allowing countless souls to keep deceiving themselves.
A sanctuary for an apparition which is not acknowledged is truly too absurd even for this pontificate.
Then you can just as well made a sanctuary of both the Santiago Bernabeu and the Juventus stadium because millions of football enthusiasts are praying for Real Madrid’s or Juventus’ victory in the Champions League’s final. Really, the level of cowardice in front of every group of organised lunatics has reached levels unthinkable only some years before.
But then again no cardinals and only one bishop have spoken against Amoris Laetitia, so this is par for the course.
Forgive me if I am saying something wrong here, but I always thought that a Monstrance had to be splendid. Not nice. Not beautiful. Splendid.
This is, very obviously, because the fact that the Monstrance is destined to carry the Blessed Sacrament has as obvious corollary that no material can be too precious, no design too elaborate, no expenses can be deemed excessive.
In the end, the Monstrance – even the most elaborate – will always be the palest attempt at conveying the Preciousness of its content. Still, the more precious it is, the less unworthy the attempt.
I now see on Father Z’s blog the photo reproduced above, of the “propeller-monstrance” used in Fatima last weekend and carried by the Evil Clown himself.
What immediately strikes me as evident is not the ugliness of the design, but the banalisation of the object and, by reflection, the downplaying of its sacred content. Vatican II and, the more so, its latest version on steroids, aims at taking the divine out of the Church. In the same way as Francis keeps insulting the Blessed Virgin as an ignorant girl of the people, which not only banalises but outright protestantises the way the Church sees the Blessed Virgin, he does the same with this monstrance; which, though certainly made of silver, could be any frame of a domestic clock for people who never learned subtlety.
The design wants to be everyday decoration. The material wants to look like everyday metal. There is nothing here of the exceptional effort, immediately visible to the onlooker, that said “the importance of what is contained here is such that no contained could be too precious”. No, this here looks like an Ikea wall clock that has been dismounted to put a huge host in its place.
The sabotaging of everything that the Church is and believes is not only made of off-the-cuff speeches and heretical homilies. It is also visual as visible symbols are very apt to convey theological meanings, a fact of which the Church has made the most wonderful use during the centuries. These visual symbols are now demolished one by one: banal and horrible croziers, the demise of the tiara or the sedia gestatoria, the refusal to wear appropriate papal dresses and, now, the extreme banalisation of even the monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament. It starts with communion in the hand, it ends with the Ikea monstrance.
To Francis and his people nothing is sacred. Everything must be banalised and reduced to your everyday experience. The Blessed Virgin didn’t know what was happening. She was, perhaps, angry at God under the Cross. Laudetur Jesus Christus must be substituted for buonasera. The Blessed Sacrament is shown in an Ikea decoration article.
But woe to the one who builds a wall to keep illegals and criminals out.
Gloria TV reports a surreal interview with, of all people, a US Rabbi giving The Francis and the entire Conciliar church a lesson in Catholicism.
You might say that this is an infidel and that he should convert first, but this is not the issue. The issue is that the decay of the Catholic Church and “the dismantling of the Catholic faith in the aftermath of the [second] Vatican council” is now so evident, so blatantly obvious that even a Rabbi can easily recognise and denounce it whilst looking with some longing (of sort) at the proud, uncompromising church of the past. Strangely, all the while hordes of flip-flop clad Catholics keep clapping and applauding in the church as they feel so, so good for having showed up at the self-celebratory gathering.
At some point the heresies and blasphemies of Francischurch will be visible from Mars. For the moment, they are visible even to people capable of denying the divinity of Our Lord.
It is as if a policeman were so astonishingly corrupt that even the criminals lament the good old times of the honest cop, when the world still followed its own God-given order.
Every now and then I read strange stories about executions in the US. Things like executions being “rushed through” because the substance used to execute the criminal is about to expire.
It all seems absurd to me.
It is as if a criminal had a sort of right to be executed in the most painless, safe, clinically proven method possible. Such a right has never existed, not should it.
Either it is unjust to condemn a criminal to the death penalty, or it isn’t. Catholic doctrine has always said it is justified when the circumstances are sufficiently serious. That’s it. Besides the obvious necessity of not choosing a method unnecessarily painful, there is no obligation to go the extra ten miles to make the experience of being executed extremely complicated and extremely expensive, by the way offering to the defence attorneys countless ways to try to delay the (allegedly) inevitable.
In more Christian times all these problems did not exist. One got either shot or hanged, and that was that. In the Papal States, civilians normally got hanged, though apparently it was not always that way (Tosca‘s Cavaradossi gets a firing squad for an execution that should be fake, but isn’t; it might be poetic licence as he wasn’t a military man, I don’t know).
Either way, it wasn’t very long, and anyone who wanted to avoid the short suffering that was necessary merely had to avoid being executed. Often, the criminal would die instantly or almost instantly. But honestly, it isn’t too much to ask, say, a murderer to wait thirty second before dying. Tough luck, boy (or girl). You should have thought about it before.
In the Age of Effeminacy, this seems to be too much. The entire kindergarten assembles and decides what is the absolutely darnedest safest way to execute one. Why?
Murder = noose. This is what the kindergarten needs to be told. In the Papal States, young boys were made to assist to public executions, and no Nazi social worker crying “child abuse” in sight.
You see a man being hanged. It sits. Which is exactly what is supposed to happen.
Life is a simple thing, but the loss of faith makes everything complicated. Suddenly innocent children can be murdered in the womb in the most atrocious way, but condemned criminals have every right to the most immaculate white gloves, foxes become more precious that babies, and the planet God has created becomes endangered by one of his most diffused components, which is most certainly not a pollutant.
Let us learn from our very Catholic forefathers, and from our extremely saintly Popes of the past.
Get a noose and a priest, and be done with it.
Below Father Martin has a list of very correct things said about him. I wanted to share this as, seen that Father Martin wants the world to know what kind of tool he is, I thought I would help him. However, notice that I do not approve of the use of the word “gay” to mean a sodomite.
This disgraceful individual, this pathetic queen in priestly clothes, truly embodies everything that is wrong with FrancisChurch.
Pray for his immortal soul, that he may avoid burning in hell forever.
Just avoid betting your pint that he will.
It is reported by Rorate Caeli (with the text to prove it) that the Evil Clown is going to refer himself as the “Bishop dressed in white” of the famous “third secret” of Fatima.
The mind boggles. And, actually, laughs a bit, too.
In my eyes one of the following is happening:
1. The Blessed Virgin appeared to Francis and told him he is the Bishop dressed in White.
No, really. Just kidding…
2. Francis has no idea what he is talking about.
This is the most probable. It's also very, very frequent.
3. Francis wants to style himself as a sort of martyr in waiting.
This is, however, too stupid even for him.
I'll go for 2. then.
See blog post title.
The welcome firing of Mr Comey from the head of the FBI opens a number of interesting scenarios. It appears evident (to me, at least) that Trump waited to fire the dolt until it became very clear that by doing so he was not hampering an investigation against him. This is why in the short, brutal letter communicating the dismissal, Trump states that Comey told him three times (how biblical, by the way) he was not being investigated.
It is also evident (because it appears in the letters of the AG and, much more in detail, of the deputy AG) that the way Comey handled the investigation against Hitlery was instrumental in Sessions & Co.’s decision the man is just unfit for the job.
Well, with a smart AG and an FBI deprived of the swamp at its very top it is now the perfect time to put the foot on the gas pedal concerning not only the server (how much we do not know yet about that? Are we really sure Mr Weiner’s laptop did not have more compromising material?) but also the pay-for-play system of the two Clinton foundations. This here is just an appetiser. This is a gigantic swamp waiting to be drained.
Then there would be the matters of the leaks, of the unmasking of US names facilitated by Obama officials, and of the Obama-sponsored wire tapping of Trump communications. These are all issues that will certainly benefit from having a man at the top of the FBI interested in draining the swamp rather than be a part of it.
Let me close with a couple of ancillary observations:
- Once again, we see here Trumpism at work. He could have fired Comey on the 20 January. He waited for the time that appeared right to him. This man is not in the least as impulsive as his tweets make him appear.
- Trump is walking testosterone. He knew the decision to fire Comey would cause a huge amount of fake indignation in all those who wanted Comey to be fired when it did not suit them. The man not only is not afraid, but attacks frontally with several tweets after firing Comey. The next years will be such fun I literally can’t wait.
I am at times – like, I suspect, many – tempted to just ignore Francis. It's not only that the man is so boringly repetitive. It is that one tends to think at times that the entire planet has had enough of this ever-talking man and the best thing to do is to help the world forget his miserable existence.
However, I then reflect that, much as the world has already suffered Francis Overload, the man is still the Pope and will therefore always get more resonance boxes than we would like. There is, in fact, an entire industry – made of Catholic magazines and, in some Countries, Catholicism sections of big newspapers – literally living out of what the Vatican does and the Pope says, and they will not let Francis go unnoticed no matter how many heresies he can spout in one day.
Therefore, it behooves us to do our best so that Francis' heresies, sacrileges, and assorted stupidities be exposed again and again, untiringly. If the man has decided that he has nothing better to do than to promote heresy, we must have nothing better to do than to expose it.
But this is just half of the story and, as I have already done in the past, I must stress another important ingredient in the fight against heresy: the utter demolition and complete destruction of the man's reputation.
Heresy is not only fought with rational (and obvious) arguments about the sanctity of marriage, the importance and meaning of the Sacraments, or the spotlessness of the Blessed Virgin. Heresy is also fought by ridiculing the heretic, exposing his evil dumbness for all the world to see. If we want the Papacy to be upheld, it is necessary that such an insult to the Papacy be utterly and completely insulted, annihilated, incinerated, made the butt of jokes the Catholic world over.
Whatever traction Francis still might have with low-information, low-IQ, high-excuse “faithful” (invaluable immortal souls, all of them, no matter how dumb) is due to the pussyfooting of too many critics towards Francis. If the criticism of Francis had been robustly offensive since, say, 2014 at the very latest, we would today experience a far more discredited Pope.
Ridicule is an extremely powerful weapon. Calling an idiot an idiot is a true wake-up call for many who are slumbering. Disabuse the people around you of the “but he is the Pope” emergency exit. Go all over him with the steamroller. Leave no doubt whatever in your listener as to what you think. Your words as a devout Catholic will carry more weight in those who know you than forty BBC pro-Francis reportings.
Therefore, my suggestion to you is:
1. Never tire of countering Francis.
2. Incinerate the man with everyone you can reach.
Francis is in total opposition to Catholicism, and a massive insult to the Papacy. If you want to defend the institution, you must attack its enemy.
Keep braying, old lewd man.
We are ready.
Pope Francis will be in Fatima on Saturday for the obvious celebration of the centenary of the first apparition of Our Lady to the three children. Whilst it was obvious the man would travel, I cannot avoid finding his presence in Fatima an insult to the Blessed Virgin.
Reading about an anti-Catholic Pope insulting Catholics and Catholicism from one of the places not only most sacred to millions of them, but most closely linked to the sanely conservative Catholic movement will be the last unreal episode in an unreal papacy. Brezhnev himself, coming to preach communism, would not have been a worse insult than this old lewd man, who will preach something very similar to Brezhnev anyway.
Francis will fly to Fatima and will, for the umpteenth time, spread his satanical “gospel according to Juan Peron”.
Countless faithful bloggers, and a handful of journalists, will counter word for word.
It is a safe bet that no bishop or Cardinal will have anything to object.
It may seem to the superficial that the man is getting his way, but I disagree. The strategy is dumb. Francis can never win with a frontal attack against two thousand years of tradition. He can deceive those who want to be deceived, and try with unconfessed uneasiness to tell themselves that they will be fine when they die, because they are following the Pope. But they all know, to the last one, what is truth and what is lie.
Also, the voices of opposition to this shameless circus are countless, and getting better known to the mainstream as the scandal increases. Some of them will tire, some will die, some might even move to the dark side of FrancisChurch. But the others will go on, and they will see Francis to his tomb all right.
This will never be a winning strategy. It is too blunt, too obvious, too damn stupid. It is a wrecking ball impossible not to notice. It is unavoidable that, in time, the wrecking ball be destroyed and the reconstruction started.
If Francis had been smart, he would have used a much lighter, subtler approach, leaving it to his successors to continue the insidious work of destruction. But Francis is dumb, vain, and petty. He wants the limelight for himself. He does not even seem to care of the contempt of Catholics, because they are people he despises. He cares for the applause of his own buddies: the atheists, the wordly, the adulterers, the leftists, the perverts, the dirty souls of all varieties. So what if his work will fail one day. This does not seem one believing in life after death. He is not concerned with what happens after he has died. He wants to drink from the chalice of easy popularity as long as he lives.
Francis in Fatima is, firstly, an offence to the Blessed Virgin. Secondly, it is a spit in the face of orthodox Catholics. But it is also a surreal joke, an utterly ridiculous freak show made of clowns dressing in black, purple, red and white.
Dumb, vain, and petty. You can only destroy so much with such an attitude.
Make no mistake: the Chuch will swallow this clown whole.
Donald Trump is certainly not perfect, but he is the gift that keeps on … winning.
The recent decision to appoint ten federal judges of various types – all of them in the mould of Judge Gorsuch – shows once again that the man is serious about the return of sanity in the American judicial courts. The number of vacancies is higher than normal, in part no doubt because Obama lost control of the Senate and preferred to wait rather than appoint decent judges. Trump's victory and (narrow) majority in the Senate now allows him to help shape the federal courts for decades to come, through the appointment of young judges with impeccable credentials.
This is another example of how important Trump's victory was not only for the United States, but for Western Civilisation and Christianity in general. We are winning in so many ways that we should count our blessings instead of moaning of what is going slower than we expected.
Remember the sanctimonious Judases? No doubt, they will never be happy. They have decided never to be, lest it sullies their sanctimonious feelings of utter superiority to us mere, corrupt, compromising mortals.
Idiots and traitors. They must be despised now that we have won just the same as if we had lost. They are the scum of Catholicism. I wish we could have a Clinton administration applying only to them.
Yes, not all is perfect. Yes, the daughter and son-in-law are bad influences. Yes, there are people around Trump who try to steer him in the homo globalist direction.
But look at how smart the man is. Is he not delivering way, way more than any other candidate would have done? How realistic is it that, after building half his electoral campaign of the wall, he will cave on it? I'd say he will rather bide his time and then go nuclear on the RINOs, and this is one I would not want to have against me come primary time. How realistic is it that, after clearly ending the War on Coal, he will cave in on the Paris treaty? He will rather use it to expose the stupidity and anti-American attitude of the Obama administration. I have watched his 100 days Pennsylvania rally in its entirety, and I had never seen anything like that since the time of Thatcher and Reagan.
He promised the wall once again, by the way. Just in case the Doubting Thomases got nervous.
In the meantime the wall is being planned, the judges are being appointed, the economy is profiting from a new optimism, the health reform is going forward, the tax reform might do the same too, the ISIS is being bombed, North Korea is being tackled, the pipelines are going forward, the TPP is dead, Canada can't cheat on timber and milk derivative anymore, mining has a future again, I am sure I am forgetting a lot.
And then there is the elementary matter of freedom. It is easy to forget how important first and second amendment are when… they are not in danger anymore. Soon even the Sanctimonious Judases will pretend not to know – or will want you to forget – that they were fully ok with both of them being endangered and possibly hollowed out in ways never seen before, as they revel in their Schadenfreude. It truly seems that there is a particularly poisonous category of idiot that will only be satisfied when he, and all those around him, are miserable.
Never tire of winning. Enjoy these years, and do your utmost that they may go on for as long as possible. And not expect perfection.
Expect victory after victory, and a country recovered to sanity both for its own sake and for the sake of the Western Country looking at it for guidance (and protection).