Daily Archives: April 2, 2018
There is an article on Antonio Socci’s blog that got me thinking. The article was published yesterday, April Fools’ Day, and when I read it I thought of an April’s fish; particularly for the use of the Italian adjective, “farlocco”, normally a jocose way of saying “fake”, or “pretty dumb”, and would have caused a smile after the announcement of the “fish”.
However, I write this on the afternoon of the 2nd, and the post is still up there with no “Fish” whatsoever.
The article is long and smart, but the part that interests me is Socci’s assertion that a non-Italian Cardinal got very angry, contacted other Cardinals, then contacted the Pope and, also on behalf of those other Cardinals, let him know that his statements exposed him to the danger of being deposed.
This would be, if confirmed, quite the bomb. However, yours truly observes the following:
- What kind of Cardinals are those who ran to the phones for a quotation in an atheist newspaper, but do nothing for an entire encyclical signed by the Pope? It seems unlikely that the Cowardinals would shut up (even the four, after some meowing) following the official proclamation of an alternative morality, but would be suddenly up in arms for the quotation of a 94 years old in an atheist newspaper. Unless…
- Unless even Cowardinals are humans, and some of them might even believe in God, and be afraid for their eternal destiny; hence this short outburst of reason; which, by the way, was put to rest when the Vatican denied not even that Francis might believe in heresies, but merely that he would say so openly to a journalist. Still…
- … the perhaps most interesting fact is in the rumor itself: this is a Pope who might have been called by a Cardinal more or less kindly threatening him with deposition, and the facts makes headlines, and no one finds it absurd or the fruit of fantasies. This Pontificate is so discredited that rumors of threats of deposition are seen, whether true or not, as perfectly realistic.
How the humble have fallen!
There are on the Remnant some beautiful reflections of Michael Matt about death in general and John Vennari in particular. You will hear in the video that Mr Matt has also suffered a very recent bereavement, and I am sure you will want to join me in my prayers for his sister.
Today I would like to add some reflections of my own as an unworthy addendum to what has been already said so well.
I am not a complicated guy. I am not the “doubter” guy. I believed in God before even knowing His name. There has never been a day I did not believe in God. Faith, to me, was never something conquered. It has always been there. What was not there was proper instruction, and when Providence finally led me to give this proper instruction to myself every piece fell into place, and every capital question in…
View original post 585 more words
First of all let me say this: it was great fun. It was a nice way to add to the joy and general merriment of the greatest feast known to Catholicism: Easter. I would obviously have refrained from this is April 1 had fallen on a Good Friday. But as it was, it was quite a good occasion to have a laugh and draw a lesson or two.
The post had to be shocking, but it could not be too obvious; therefore, I had to strike a balance between shocking surprise and utter impossibility. I also wanted to throw some bait in the mix, and see how my readers would react. If you enjoyed the fun yesterday, I hope you will enjoying reading this. If you didn’t, you need to lighten up and look at the calendar more often. In any way, I think I have thrown so much sugar in this that any reader had at least the possibility to stop and reflect.
There were many clues to yesterday April’s Fool. Let us see them one by one.
1. The sugary picture.
Come on, folks. Such senseless, effeminate nonsense is really not like me. It’s the kind of rubbish you find on your average one-world-cretin’s Instagram or Facebook page. I am pretty sure many of you spotted the fishy post at first sight.
2. The violent husband.
It has come to my attention that in this country, every middle-aged woman seeking a new man to take care of her children and ageing ass always had a violent husband. Yep, no exceptions, at least not in my experience. I see this not only in the female colleagues who suddenly talk to you about their violent ex husbands, but also in the male colleagues now in a relationship with a woman who has divorced… a violent husband. The latter tend to belong to that type of guy who seems to have “FOOL ME” written in capital letters on their good- hearted foreheads. Then there are those middle-aged women who, on knowing I am single, try to bait the fairly attractive, fairly manly, exotic-talking Italian red fish with the sob story of the … you get it.
There evidently is, in my estimation, an epidemic of domestic violence in this rather civilised country, possibly due to strange substances in the tap water. It’s just astonishing. Or perhaps this is the way dumb men are lured into adultery and fornication with ageing, manipulative bitches. One of the two, anyway.
3. The Possible “Annulment Play”
I have left the door ajar on this, because I wanted to see how many would suggest the “Catholic Divorce”. I am proud to say that almost nobody did, which is a great testament to the sensus catholicus of the readers of this little effort.
No, folks. It’s “for better or for worse”. If your husband becomes an alcoholic, then you have an alcoholic as a husband. To try to delude yourself that perhaps you never wanted to marry the guy and hope that the referee gives you an easy way out (which will require you to, pretty much invariably, lie; to yourself first, and to others after that) is not a solution. I hope reader “Billy Chickens”, to my knowledge a new commenter, is not a Catholic. Either way, I suggest he stays very near to this blog.
4. The “perspective of my heart”
This one was, actually, huge. This blog lives and breathes out of the basic concept that truth is unchangeable, and that compared to that my feelings, my “perspective”, my “discernment” and all other circmstances (aren’t the children adorable? The little, trusting creatures? Do you want to make them…. cry? C.r.y.? C-R-Y??!!) simply disappear into nothingness. I have, here, introduced the “concrete circumstances of the case” and baited my readers to a process of “discernment”. Most of you, dear commenters, have refused to take the bait; actually, it appears the thing did not even cross the mind of many of you.
You made me proud. Catholicism lives in this place, all right.
5. “When they’re near me, it’s so delicious. They’re the answer to my wishes”.
Not musically inclined? A pity…
Still, I think some of you might have had something whistling in their ears….
6. “Love is God”
This was, my dears, the very big clue; or, rather, the nuclear bomb I charitably threw in the mix in order to avoid the one or other of you having a heart attack. It was also my last way to let you look at the damn calendar!
“Love is God” must be the most atrocious, satanical lie ever devised. It is also a staple in “inclusive”, Presbyterian-style “churches” for lesbians and sodomites. It is purest nonsense. It is completely incompatible not only with Christianity, but with every form of organised religion. It is a licence to create a completely bespoke, diabetes-inducing religion of “feelings” whose only rule can only be the complete absence of any rule. If, my dear reader, you were still taking the bait after reading “Love is God”, kindly don’t blame it on me.. 😉
In general, I can say this: that the known commenters have reacted in a properly Catholic way, whilst the questionable answers have generally come from readers I did not remember and were, possibly, not at all acquainted with the, erm, rather assertive nature of this blog (subtitle: “Catholicism Without Compromise”).
But it was fun and it was, I think, instructive when read with this “companion”.
Let us soldier on, my dear fellow warrior ants.
We are not the kind of people who fall for the sob story, and the lie of “discernment”.