Monthly Archives: June 2017
Cardinal Mueller's time at the head of the CDF has finally come to an end.
Can't say I am sad, or that the sack was undeserved.
Cardinal Mueller, never a paragon of orthodoxy himself but certainly fairly orthodox when compared to the Evil Clown, has presided over the most terrible pronunciations of various kind of a Pope, ever, and all he could do was to say in various ways “nothing to see here” or “heresy publicly proclaimed should be read as if it weren't heresy; because you see, otherwise it would be heresy”.
What has his cowardly silence got him? The sack. As it was clearly foreseeable.
I have had enough of people who, with their silence or cowardice or cover-up, help Francis to confuse the faithful. They are nothing more than a writing on the tin that says “this bleach isn't poisonous if drunk in the proper way or if you pretend it isn't bleach”.
Let Francis appoint a full-fledged idiot who will do his bidding to the end. It will be much easier for even the simplest Catholics to recognise truth from lie. Francis will propel himself against a wall of heresy and shame, because left to his devices he is just too darn stupid to do things in a subtle way.
We must welcome the dismounting of whatever alibi this ridiculous Curia still has. Let them do things their own way. They will expose themselves as heretical faggots in no time.
Good Riddance, Carninal Mueller.
Your yogurt was never any good anyway.
Pope Emeritus, who for one who wanted to be forgotten by the world talks an awful lot, is on record for saying that The Lord wins in the end.
No shit, Sherlock!
It surprises me that some have taken this fairly obvious point as a critic to the new Cardinals Francis has appointed.
Benedict was receiving those very Cardinals, something which he was under no obligation to do. He entertained himself with them in a very cordial manner. There is nothing in the linked article that shows he is in any way dissatisfied with them.
We should stop seeing in Benedict a sort of princess held in the tower by an evil wizard, or a man suffering in silence the papacy of Francis. The man is not silent at all, and when he speaks of Francis he invariably supports him, as the two interviews released in the last months, and about which I have reported, abundantly show.
The man is a total and complete disappointment. He is through and through a Vatican II man with merely a thin varnish of I do not say “conservatism” (I do not think he even deserves the adjective after supporting Francis), but merely prudence or timidity. His first and last allegiance go to V II: he promoted a vaguely more conservative version of it, but it is clear to him V II is the priority and Benedict and Francis only two slightly different flavours of it.
Forget Benedict as our ally.
Think of him as the well-spoken, multi-lingual useful idiot of the heretics and perverts in the Vatican.
Let us come back to the episode of the Cocaine Fag Partying Monsignor recently arrested in the very old building of the Sant'Uffizio (the old CDF of when they believed in Catholicism and had therefore much more to do).
How do you keep secret, in a place like the Vatican, perverted orgies with drug consumption?
You don't. You simply can't.
Therefore, the very reasonable assumption here is that such parties were the object of whispers of various kind, and the Cardinal who supported the arrested Monsignore is either a pervert like him, or too afraid of the perverts' lobby, or just too dumb to be a Cardinal. Albeit I much favour the first hypothesis.
However, I would like to make two other considerations:
1) For something like this to happen, much more must have been going on for a long time. The impudence of Monsignor Fag's behaviour is not born overnight. It grows slowly, nurtured by many years of complicity and silence and, very probably, the protection of powerful Cardinals.
The rot in the Vatican must have biblical proportions. Obviously, and very much in character with the rest of the man, Francis joked about the existence of the “gay lobby” and asked whether they go around with the badge. Well they possibly do even that by now, you lewd old nincompoop.
2) Nothing really happens by chance. It is difficult to imagine that the Vatican Gendarmeria has not known for a long while that drugs 'n fags were part of the menu in Vatican palaces. Is one, therefore, so far off the mark thinking that there are still some people in the Vatican with some sense of decency, and who decided that something must be done irrespective of how Francis might punish the “culprits” not of the deeds, but of exposing them?
Someone should watch the movements of the upper echelons of the Vatican police. Before you know, it could be run by Father Rosica or Father Martin.
3) Hopefully no one will say that “good Francis” is draining the swamp. Not only Francis is the swamp, but he has exposed himself on this a tad too often, for example with the episodes of “Don Mercedes” and of the Chilean bishop (no time to check names now ; do your homework).
Perverts run under the sun in the Vatican, many of them certainly in clerical habit. They grow so impudent that they think the Vatican palaces the best and safest placed for drug-propelled Fag Parties. All this has, of course, begun many years ago, but there can be no doubt it has become worse under Francis.
Francis is the anti-Midas. Whatever he touches turns to shit. There is absolutely nothing in which he is not a total disaster.
In another very eventful day, Cardinal Pell was forced to leave his post and fly back to Australia to defend himself from charges of boys molestation.
I take these charges cum grano salis. Two men apparently allege that the Cardinal touched them inappropriately in… the Seventies. Unless the two have been frozen shortly after the alleged facts and have been thawed very recently, I would take such accusations with great, great care.
Not, mind, that I consider Pell above suspicion. It is merely that in my eyes this thing of criminal proceedings for alleged facts of the Seventies has to stop, and it has to stop in any case; unless it is for genocide or, just perhaps, multiple murder.
Statutes of limitation exist exactly to avoid easy abuses like the one we might be confronted here; and in any case it is very reasonable to say that he who has shut up for forty years, including at least three decades of adulthood, should now forever hold his tongue; too many nameless priests have already had their lives ruined by people imagining, or pretending, to remember episodes many decades later. Madness, says I. Let us learn from civilised countries like Italy (last time I looked at least) and let us put an end to this nonsense.
My gut feeling (which might be wrong) is that someone is trying to settle scores with Cardinal Pell by slinging dirt at him; and not finding anything of KO value, has recurred to the easily trumped-up accusations of people in their forties. What a coincidence, huh? As we all know, some of the dirt will stick anyway.
Imagine how easy would be to make such accusations against Burke, Caffarra, or Brandmueller. Some old fag willing to state he thinks he remembers he was molested et voilà, the reputation is gone forever.
But even if I am wrong, and Pell is guilty, and obviously a fag or a perv, the statute of limitation should apply anyway. We are sliding into witch hunt land, and this makes it too easy to target good people.
Who will, who will then be the Cardinal who abetted the homo orgies of his own trusted Monsignor in the same building of the CDF?
We don't know. 'Course we don't. We don't take part in homo orgies, do we now?
However, this Cardinal – whoever he may be; and who will he be, one wonders? – must perforce be a damn fag so much smelling of dirt that his sheep must smell him from the Castelli Romani! Francis will be so pleased at his man carrying with him such a fashionable fragrance. They can them fudge packers for a reason after all.
We don't know who this Cock living Cardinal is. But what we know is that there is a pretty notorious Cardinal who might well be him.
Who, you will ask?
Ah, dear readers, don't be so curious! Don't you know that many of these Cardinals are either homos themselves, or blackmailed by the homo lobby because of indiscretions in their private lives, or are just too terrified to go against Francis and his rainbow-coloured minions?
Can't wait for the same revelations happening about, say, Monsignor Ricca.
We know who his “Cardinal” is.
After reading this article I felt the need to add my own considerations. Limbo is not only theologically necessary, but also logically so.
If murdering an innocent child were enough to merit him paradise, aborting a child would be the most merciful thing one can do to any soul. Nazi and Commie genocides were, unwittingly, the greatest benefactors. Every pregnant mother would have an influence on the soul of her boy of literally infinite importance, a power much bigger than the one of great saints in heaven. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Planned Parenthood would be great benefactors, more relevant than any great saint.
Actually, a religion proposing the killing of the unborn with great success would be more efficacious in sending souls to heaven than the Church. Conversely, the desire to have a child born would be no more than this: the risk of the loss of infinite beatitude in heaven for the selfish desire to see one's own children grow, or to allow them to live a handful of decades in this imperfect vale of tears dominated by injustice, disease, decay and, of course, sin and the snares of the devil. Monstrous selfishness would this be.
The absurdity of the conclusion demonstrates the absurdity of the premise from a logical point of view alone; without even considering the dogma.
We live in time of such confusion that people spread heresy and blasphemy and feel that they are the good guys, because in their fantasy world God could never be, erm, the One the Church has taught us about for 2000 years. Their fake god is a strange mixture of satanical licence and sugary, effeminate, all-pervading fake love that, by denying all the rest (from justice to faith, to the obedience due to Christ) denies the very love it wants to upheld.
We must cut this rubbish and go back to Christianity.
Original Sin is very real.
Baptism is extremely important.
The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons.
All self-evident truths many are trying to forget.
This senseless good-ism is the work of the devil, and it has to stop.
Upon giving us another handful of unworthy Cardinals, Francis told them not to call themselves “Princes of the Church”. How very fitting.
The hate of this man for everything Catholic permeates every aspect of it. So much so, that even his allies and consorts must be downplayed and made little, so that the bigger aim of the destruction of the Church – the same Church out of which Jorge Bergoglio scrounged his entire existence – may be pursued as aggressively as possible.
The church of Francis revels not only in its self-destruction, but in the dirtying of everything that is good and pure. Priests must smell, and Cardinals must smell in a very preeminent way. Perverted priests get to bask in the limelight, whilst the relatively orthodox (I use the term loosely) ones are not even received; nay, they do not even get their letters answered.
Francis hates everything that is Catholic. He hates in a particular way everything that reminds him – and us – of the unique role of the Church and of the demands she makes on us. A strong Church will always be a living condemnation of everyone like Francis, in whichever age they lived. A weakened, dirtied, perverted church is much better suited to inoculate in the weak, the lazy, and the stupid the germs of this socialist religion without God, in which you kneel in front of the poor but not in front of the Tabernacle.
Smell away, Cardinals old and new. You don't deserve anything better, none of you. All the humiliation Francis showers on you are, in the end, merited. Because you stink.
You all stink of Francis now.
It appears Francis spoke in front of an audience and, for the first time in many months, managed not to say anything unCatholic.
I am not surprised. The man is clearly lazy. So lazy, in fact, that he does not even bother to remember today what he said yesterday (cue the constant praise of tolerance, building bridges and the like and the persistent insults to everyone he does not like).
One who is so lazy that he does not care for a modicum of coherence will also be too lazy, at times, to insert some “off the cuff” heretical comment in the speeches written for him. He must have thought he would just go through the text and be done with it. Yerba Mate awaits.
This is the only way we get an orthodox Pope this day: when he can't be bothered to be unorthodox. In Francis orthodoxy is not a feature, it's a bug.
I wish him salvation. But I wish that the Church can be freed of this scourge soon, too.
After one entire (work) day of feverish expectation, the news has just reached me that Justice Kennedy will n ot retire… Yet.
However, the fact that he had his 30 years celebration brought forward one year seems to indicate that he will still resign at some point before next June, hopefully at the end of Summer.
It does not have to be all bad. Three or four more months of Trumpism will help our cause anyway, and will strengthen the resolve of the Senate to give the entire Western civilisation another decent judge. In the meantime, it is clear Gorsuch is all we hoped for, and possibly some more.
My childish enthusiasm and excitement of the entire day has gone. I also am under no illusion that, when Kennedy resigns, his replacement will be an epic battle. But I wanted this fight, and I will now have to wait.
It appears that justices of the US Supreme Court give a kind of solemn reception to their employees every 5 years in office : 5, 10, 15, and so on.
You will be pleased to know that Justice Kennedy, who also follows the custom, has just given such a reception, for year… 29.
It does not take a genius to understand what this means.
God willing, the announcement will be made tomorrow. This would be huge.
Mind, a huge battle will ensue as there will be no shortage of RINO Senators reflecting whether it is not better to profile themselves as “middle of the road”, “uniparty” little weasels and find excuses to stop the appointment of a decent candidate. But it seems to me that they would be underestimating the mood in the Country at large.
This can be huge. Gorsuch was the replacement for the loss of Scalia, but another like Gorsuch instead of Judas Kennedy would tip the scale for very long. And if Baader-Meinhof …. apologies…. Bader Ginsburg decides to retire too – or else the Grim Reaper asks to have a word with her – that would be huge, squared.
I can't contain my excitement. I have been waiting all month. 29 years reception? Really?
Finger crossed. Lots of prayers. Tomorrow could be one of those days that change the course of history.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!
Pity Nancy Pelosi, old botoxed hag marching towards hell with a very solid faith in her divinity. As to the others, perhaps a couple of words are in order.
Firstly, Catholicism has never said that homosexuality is compatible with anything. On the contrary, Catholicism has always maintained that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, and not one iota will ever change in Christ's and the Church's teaching. Therefore, when the old hag claims that homosexuality is compatible with Catholicism, she is saying that Catholicism is a fraud and she does not know jack of Catholicism. She is, therefore, being stupid twice.
Secondly, I wonder whether there are still people who believe in basic decency in Washington or among Democratic voters at large. If you come to the point of thinking that sodomy is in any way normal, it is clear that your mind has already been perverted to the point of not seeing the stench and the filth of sexual perversion. And yes, the two go hand in hand, because it is impossible to be disgusted by sodomy and still think that homosexuality is compatible with anything different from a perverted mind.
Thirdly, these people just forget plain common sense. They think the human brain has worked the wrong way until their own botoxed mug appeared on the scene. Even the Bolscheviks loathed homosexuality, and the Gospel had nothing to do with it. It was just plain thinking, of which even those people were capable.
Pity the old botoxed hag. So old, so vain, so stupid, and such a damn fool.
Canada is becoming more and more interesting as an example of Nazi Liberal sub-culture. Predictably, this will hit the local church squarely in the face. A well-deserved punishment for the cowardice and stupidity of the local clergy.
As Gloria TV reports, every priest will be assumed to be a potential criminal starting from 2020: fingerprints taken, never allowed to be alone with children, and – astonishingly – with parents legally allowed to assist to the first confession of the children preparing for Communion (I detect the pungent smell of sacrilege here, and observe that, if needs be, a normal grate would do the job admirably; and failing that, a camera without audio; but we live in stupid times).
What this means is that the Canadian Government is treating priests as a risk category; like a man released from jail for sexual offences, say. He might be good, but boy, he is a… a….. priest!! How can you trust those people?
In a way I understand the Canadian Government: the Canadian clergy must be abundantly infested with perverts, and perverts must be kept away from children. I would welcome the sacking of every perverted priest all over the planet. However, the grave issue of perverted priests should never be allowed to impinge on the Sacraments.
One also wonders whether other obvious categories “at risk” (teachers certainly, and then so-called religious that are not Catholic, including Muslim ones; I remind you here that the so-called religion of peace has no problems with the screwing of a girl of nine) are treated in the same way. Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. You never know what Nazi Anti-Clerical Nanny has in store for you.
However, what clearly emerges is this: fifty years of faggotry within the Priesthood have created a situation of such alarm, that a liberal wordly Country now thinks it can decide how the Church administers the sacraments.
Well done, Canadian fag priests and their enablers. Well done, effeminate Canadian clergy. You are now all potential pedophiles. Can't say you don't deserve it. Can't say I think differently, either. You smell like the sheep, and must be kept at distance.
I want you to know I am not sad about this at all.
I have written many times about Garrigou Lagrange's affirmation that it is reasonable to suppose that the majority of those living in Catholic Countries avoid hell. Very reassuring, for sure.
However, Garrigou Lagrange was writing this in the Fifties, when Catholic Countries or territories like France, Italy, Spain, Austria or Bavaria were almost totally, and extremely solidly Catholic.
Nor were those the Catholics of today. Very many of them not only went to Mass at least every Sunday, but stood pretty near to the Sacraments, knew about salvation more than Francis ever imagined and had, crucially, a great fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom.
If we compare them with today, we see how Catholicism has today become such a thin varnish that I seriously, seriously doubt Garrigou Lagrange would make the same claim today.
Today's “catholics” not only don't go to Mass, but they consider it utterly normal to call themselves (if they must) Catholic whilst making their own religion. They tattoo themselves (grave matter!) without a second thought; try to tell them this is grave matter and you will likely be insulted. They contracept, fornicate, often abort. They distance themselves from everything of the Church past and present that does not square with their own personal theology. Most importantly, they have no compunction about any of this.
In all ages, people have sinned. But in a strong Catholic culture with a strong fear of the Lord, repentance followed the sin, and most people were reasonable enough to be afraid of what a sudden death might do to them.
Perhaps even more importantly, a strong Catholic culture naturally enforced Catholic behaviour in the public square. When I was in grade school, not one of the pupils either in my or in my siblings' classes was the son of concubines (this was very easy to see then, because the wife had to take the family name of the husband). Not one. The scenario is inconceivable today even in once Catholic Italy. You want more? I knew the first guy who lived more uxorio when I was fifteen (a young teacher at my school). I knew of the first non Jewish boy who was not baptised when I was nineteen, and I still remember mine and my classmates' shock. I never had a school mate with tattooes.
It was all normal then, but it seems unbelievable today. Today we live in an age of mass rebellion. Still, we think that we should have access to the same mercy our forefathers (who would have been terrified I do not say of concubinage, but of a tattoo!! Something considered the preserve of godless Mariners, Pirates and jail inmates) earned with their fear of the Lord and their access to the Sacraments.
There is a big difference between, say, the girl who sleeps with her bethroted and is afraid of hell for that and the girl who sleeps with her boyfriend and thinks that she is right, because lurv. The first one is, clearly, also in danger of damnation, but she will always have access to a mercy the second one has cut herself out of. Still, there seems to be this thinking according to which God's mercy is something due to us, whilst we rebel to Him not out of weakness, but of sheer hubris. This thinking is so spread today that it is, actually, the default position among many who call themselves Catholic, let alone those who don't.
Fools, all of them. Fools in this generation as in every other before or after, because the rules don't change according to what you think about them. And yes, let us hope that the Lord will look with more mercy on the poorly instructed; but don't expect Him to have the same attitude with those who thought they had no need of, or even resented the instruction.
If we asked our Grand-Grandmother what the probable destiny of a person is who never darkened a church in decades, lived in sin and boasted of it, and died suddenly or anyway unrepented, said grand-grandmother would think we are pulling her leg, and we certainly weren't born Sherlocks. She might dismiss our statement as a bad joke. She might even (if she takes us seriously) slap us in the face for our obvious lack of fear of the Lord. Interestingly, it is very reasonable to assume that our Grand-grandmother would refuse to recognise the vast majority of our Catholic neighbours as Catholic in any way, shape or form. She would, on the whole, be pretty right.
Heck, I wonder how many children in once Catholic Italy are today actually not even baptised, as their vaguely deist parents think that 'ceremonies are not important' and 'God does not care for formalities'. These are, of course, the offspring of parents who did not believe fornication can lead you to hell if there is lurv, and such rubbish.
Let's get rid of the rules. I want to have it my own way. Father Faggot, whom I still despise, seems to think the same anyway. I think him an idiot, but I will use his godlessness whenever it's convenient to me.
Does it mean, then, that we live in a time in which the majority are Reprobates? I cannot see how it could be any other way, and it seems to me that those born now are in a much worse situation than those born only 20 or 30 years ago. Logically, it really cannot be any other way.
If the difference between a strong Church which rigidly enforces Catholic living and the pathetic, effeminate church of today showering her mercy talk on every fornicator is non existent or very little, then the Church has no importance. If a life of fornication gives me the same chances of salvation as a life of abstinence, let me grab those titties! If salvation is showered in the same way on a faithless and on a faithful generation, we and all our forefathers are idiots.
However, we aren't idiots. We are, actually, pretty smart; because we have the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom. A wisdom of which most of this generation seems utterly deprived. It was this wisdom that kept old sinners near the Sacraments and, in the end, out of hell. The current crop of heathens and self-appointed mini-messiahs has nothing of it. They march toward their judgment in the utter persuasion of their goodness, and in the entitled expectation of whatever salvation they think might exist. They literally think that if there is a God they deserve salvation because they love polar bear cubs.
This is the the thinking of heathens. We know (or do we know it still?) where most of them end.
So yes, we are probably living in an age of mass Reprobation; and this mass Reprobation is made evident to us every day, in that we see that very many around us actually live like picture book reprobates: fornication, concubinage, rejection of the sacraments, tattooes , abortions, soon euthanasia….
and not a care in the world beside climate change.
It is the 13 March 2513. 500 years ago, in the midst of a great crisis of faith, a heretical Pope was elected to the See of Peter.
No one remembers the event. No one – apart from people passionate of history, particularly of church history – remembers him. The second part of the XX and the first part of the XXI Century are recollected as times of great confusion, but the population at large does not care to remember those obscure times.
There is no need for it. A string of very strong Popes (Pius XIII to Pius XVII, who reigned between 2053 and 2144) fully restored Catholic orthodoxy in less than three generations, and the Church influence on Europe, America and Africa has been so strong since that the obscure times of heresy are barely remembered beside the moniker “one hundred years of heresy” or, more shortly, “the troubles”. Most Catholics don't know about Francis more than they do about the Synodus Horrenda.
There were some smaller challenges during this time. In the middle of the XXIII Century, a movement originating from Germany tried to make adultery and sodomy a venial sin and were therefore called the “Venialists” or, as they called themselves, the “Merciful”. But Pope Benedict XIX completely destroyed the heresy starting from 2352, and in twenty years the name was barely remembered.
Not that it was all so linear as it seems centuries later, mind. It never works that way. Pope Pius XIII was elected only in 2053, after his disgraceful predecessor Francis IV started to offer communion to Muslims and worked at an “interplanetary ceremony” able to unite Muslims, Jews, Hinduist, Sikh and Atheists in a “Common worship” meant to become the standard of a “unifying church of the persons of good will” (the project failed when the Pope died). What we barely notice today was a very bumpy road that went on for many decades then, for several decades from Francis I to Francis IV. But in the end, Truth triumphed. As always.
What did the Church do with Francis I to IV? What she always does with heretics: condemn, destroy, forget.
How many remember Huss or Wyclyffe? Ever wondered why? The Church destroys her heretics in a most definitive way: she obliterates them from the public consciousness.
No, you don't really need to know what Huss, or Wyclyffe or the Sillon movement preached. The Church has taken care that most people will never pose themselves the question. She destroys heretics even in their tombs. They deal with heretics so you don't have to.
And so we are here in 2513, in an age of unprecedented prosperity and religious revival. All is good in Vatican land.
You just have to be patient.
The next (disgraceful) Consistory is about to happen, and I read around about a possible confrontation between those Cardinals who still think they are Catholic and those those who don't want to make public they aren't, with even a rebuke of the Evil Clown in the cards.
It all seems rather far-fetched to me.
Amoris Laetitia has been released fourteen months ago, and not one Cardinal has dared to condemn either the document or the one officially taking paternity of it. To think that the reaction will happen now is tantamount to think that it is the mere absence of the physical presence of the Pope that prevents the Cardinals from doing their job; as if being in the physical presence of the Pope were an indispensable component of any reaction to heresy, with the obvious consequence that Francis would only need to avoid meeting every Cardinal he doesn't like to avoid ever being corrected. I admit as an excuse for inaction it would be wonderful if it were realistic, but it's too dumb even for a two-seconds scrutiny. So no, the Cardinals have no excuses and, actually, no clothes.
I am afraid that the reality is much sadder that a matter of geography and proximity: there simply is, as I write this, not one Cardinal around willing to stand up to the Pope. Not one. Francis could meet all the Cardinals he wants, and they would not be any problem at all. Actually, they would thank him for being so kind that he allows them to flatter him without any shame.
Of course, hope is the last to die. But I suggest you put this in your day dreaming drawer rather than thinking a public correction from the Four Kitten (much less a vast number of Cardinals) is in any way, shape or form in the cards.
We are going to have to go through this alone, and perhaps the next generation and the one after that, too. We should realistically apprise the situation and realise that as I write this even more FrancisCardinals are about to be appointed.
We might be surrounded by perverts, atheists, communists, and kitten in red for a long, long time.