Monthly Archives: January 2020
I have received this message and I thought I would publish it:
You need not publish this comment. It’s simply a personal information, and also a request. First the information: I hadn’t heard about the Kobe guy before he crashed, but what I’ve read these days about his commitment to support the perverts’ lavender lobby isn’t quite to be expected by a Catholic man. It’s more like the stuff of a Pelosi hag or what not. I report only hearsay, I haven’t investigated the whole thing. So feel free to ignore the info if it happens not to be reliable.
The other thing is a request: after I was sacked from “Catholic” University in Belgium for speaking against abortion, I found a job at a small pro-life group in my country. We have a monthly letter sent to people supporting the good fight in both French and Dutch. I happen to like the manly measure you suggested about how to deal with the abortion issue properly the other day. A bit harsch, maybe, but the world is a tough place, so it’s an option worth considering. I’d be glad to translate that little article from you into French and hand it to my boss, to see whether he’d consider publishing it and sending the message through the mail to our supporters here in Belgium. He might refuse because, you know, sensistive matters etc., but I say this is definitely worth a try. If people feel a little outraged it means they’re not quite dead yet and still able to react, so…
By the way, a Mass was said for you the other day, as I promised. A traditional Mass, it goes without saying. And I’m keeping the promise of one Hail Mary per article, too. If you want to answer my request favourably, you can simply mail me at
Well, I must say the one or other tear might have escaped my eye here.
This is guy who loses his livelihood for speaking in favour of the unborn, whilst working at a supposedly Catholic university, and not only prays for me every time he reads me, but also has a Mass said for me, and a TLM one at that.
If I ever manage to get to heaven, I will find the likes of this gentlemen (I prefer not to publish the name, not knowing if this is desired) much higher in graces and accomplishments than myself, then my blogging here does not even begin to approach the level of dedication to the Christ, sacrifice and steadiness in the face of and persecution that this gentleman is enduring.
Be assured of my prayers, Sir!
I invite all of my readers to pray for this gentleman (you don’t need to know the name, of course) and dedicate to him your rosary of today as I will do.
My readers in the United States are, I think, not so much aware (for lack of lived experience) of the level of stealth and less stealth persecution that has been going on in Europe for several decades now, with countless personal tragedies (doctor and nurses above all, but in other professions, too), loss of job, loss of house, that people have to endure for wanting to be Christian in Countries that restricts more and more not only their ability to practice their faith, but to speak about it.
Speaking of which, of course everything that I publish can be translated (and, in fact, I see this happening routinely) in other languages, and spread in whatever ways the reader finds convenient. I have, I must confess, no desire for martyrdom and have, up to now, managed to navigate the XXI Century without persecution (at the cost of some professional choices that were prudent, but not anything approaching sacrifice or outright persecution); but I think that I can write well, at least for someone who is not mother tongue, and think that this might be useful to much better people than me.
Dear readers, pray for this gentleman today, and remember the many who, without any fanfare and proclaims, or any defence from Church authorities, suffer for Christ today, in the middle of the oh so advanced and allegedly civilised Europe; where people are euthanized and countless children aborted, but the phones are so, so smart.
P.S. I wish Kobe Bryant salvation, as I do even to Pope Francis. I am, however, not expecting him to be a sterling defender of Catholic values. He was a churchgoer, which certainly will have helped him in his all-decisive moment. But yes, we don’t know the state of his soul, and we don’t know the degree of rebellion that might have been present in his heart. Still, I really hope he made it, as I do of everybody else, even darn Francis The Pachamama Scoundrel.
After my first post on Kobe Bryant, I have been informed that his name apparently means something that might be Christian, or might mean something else i some language. Well, let us spend two words on it, shall we?
Firstly, I have not invented that Mr Bryant was called after the beef. I have read it around from professional journalists.
Fake news? Maybe, but when one is called Kobe, I think the journalist in question can be forgiven for it.
Secondly, and most importantly, the point I made is that the guy went around all his life without a recognisable Christian name. Whether his name meant tortoise, or Jakob, or “He who goes to Mass every cloudy Wednesday afternoon with a smile on his face” is fully besides the point. As the name is given to give testimony of one’s Christian name, it should be recognisable as such.
If I call my son “Lamborghini”, and have to explain to the world that it means “he who prays a lot in the morning” in some obscure African dialect, I have obviously failed in giving testimony of my Christian faith. Rather, I have either chose the name “Lamborghini” because I like fast cars, and want to attach to it some obscure Christian meaning, or – at the very least, and without a doubt – I have indulged in this damn habit of our times of thinking that common names are not good enough, and I must give my son a snowflake name before raising him telling him all the time what a unique, wonderful snowflake he is. We all know this happens all the time, and we all know that the obscure Christian meaning, if any, is obviously not the reason why the name was given; then the first duty of a name is to make the person with that name recognisable (as a person and, in this case, a Christian).
The problem with the word Kobe is not whether it means beef, or cat, or John The Baptist. It is that it is not recognisable as a Christian name and therefore does not give witness of the Christian faith.
Therefore, the point stays; and the blog post, too.
The helicopter is flying in what appears to have been thick fog. The pilot is apparently not flying instrumental, but with visual aids (motorways, and such). He lands into a thick bank of fog. What can happen now is that he gets disoriented. He thinks he is flying in a certain direction, but he is flying in another. Therefore, he may fly into a hill without any warning, without any emergency.
I have tried to replay the scene in my mind and, if things have gone in this way, it seems difficult to think that there has been any warning whatsoever. Like emergency sounds, some seconds of panic, the kind of stuff that makes one recommend his soul to the Lord. We will likely know more in the coming days, but what might have happened is that the impact was just at full-speed, and without warning. This could be just one of those cases of sudden deaths, with no possibility whatever to get some extra preparation before one’s judgement.
Kobe Bryant was, thankfully, a churchgoer, and he had attended to Mass on the early morning of that day. Whilst we don’t know the state of his or his daughter’s soul, I would say that one would be justified in not being all too worried. I do not know anything about the other victims.
Worried, I was saying, compared to whom? To all our friends, acquaintances, even relatives, who do not have any sort of religious life, and whose spiritual dimension consists in believing that there “must be something”; after which they proceed to make their own religious and tell you why they, who have a very confused idea of the things in heaven, have a clear private religion concerning the things on earth.
Besides the sacramental life, in the last years I have taken the habit of saying a properly made act of contrition at least once a day, often more, as age advances and I reflect on the rapid way some of my relatives left this vale of tears. It could happen to me and to you. It could happen to a wealthy sport legend on his way to his destination via helicopter. It could happen to anyone of us, in the most improbable of circumstances.
As always, things are done well that are done by habit.
A daily act of contrition, recited as well as we can, does not take much time and can be performed pretty much everywhere.
You never know when the habit might prove of great use.
I read, like everybody, about the tragic death of Kobe Bryant, and said my prayers for all people involved. But I need to get rid of a little rant.
Kobe? Like the.. beef? Really? I thought it was a nickname. But no, he was called after a quality of beef!
I read he was raised in a Catholic family. Where I grew up, it would have been inconceivable to call a child after a type of beef. I don’t say Catholics, but not even a militant atheist would have done it!
Christianity – and Catholicism – should not be something that we “do” one hour a week. It should be something that walks with us, it should be what we are. Therefore, it behooves every Catholic – particularly in these times – to have his children named in a way that makes them recognisably Christian, at least in their general cultural outlook.
Yes, it is certainly right to mourn the tragic death of a sport superstar, particularly when other 8 people are also dead. But I wish there were more people around complaining about this further sign of the decadence of Christian culture in the West, and pointing out that, if Christianity is what they are, it should be reflected in the way they are called.
I am terrified at the thought that the priest who baptised him might have allowed “Kobe” as his baptism name. More likely, he had a baptism name (say: Luke) and an official first name (the beef). But again, where I grew up the first name and the baptism name were, actually, synonymous. Which is just as it should be.
I missed the time when this kind of behaviour was punished with endless mockery. Alas, the times are too effeminate for that, and the unwillingness to defend Christianity in the way Christians call their own children is then, in time, reflected in the unwillingness to fight the many other challenges to Christian culture, from promiscuity to contraception, and from abortion to sodomy.
If he had a real Christian name, I hope that his tombstone will carry that one. Mr Bryant presented himself to his judgement with the name Christ knows him from.
Forget the beef, and the potatoes.
I have just seen a moving picture, and I would like to share it with you.
The link to the article is here.
Look at our beloved Francis, basking in the warm support of Reverend Gonzalo Aemilius, his new secretary.
The Reverent is impeccably dressed as a priest, in a traditional cassock and – to show reverence to Francis – dark brown shoes. But just because he is so impeccably dressed, you don’t need to think that he is a desk man; a boring, cold apparatchik, who loves to work in some obscure bureaucracy role. No!
This man has worked with “street kids” in – I suppose – the streets of Uruguay. This is sooo good!!
I invite the readers of this blog – who all know better than to be judgemental about our Sweet Peter on earth – to reflect that, whilst some priests working with “street kids” in the poor quarters of Buenos Aires, and knows as curas villeros, could, according to several reports, use their position to seriously abuse vulnerable poor children, the same can certainly not be told of Uruguayan religious working with the same street kids. We all know that Uruguay is different, and no priest would, over there, ever try to use his role to engage in homosexual acts with children and minors, away from the eyes of his bishop, or from the scrutiny of decent faithful.
Rather, please focus on the posture and attitude of the cassock-wearing priest. His warm, smiling attitude is indicative of full support, both physical and spiritual, offered to the Holy Father.
Francis, who is seen almost giggling, and clearly enjoying his little, innocent “magic moment”, understands the spiritual vicinity of the Reverend, and signifies by his expression all his satisfaction at this budding bromance.
Oh, how many battles will be fought together! How many discussions about the many qualities of the street kids will be held! How many fashion tips will be exchanged!
Pope Francis The Humble has been such a gift for the Church.
It is beautiful to see that he is, now, also in almost direct contact with street kids.
I think that soon after his departure, he will be canonised by the new Pope. Particularly, if the latter turns out – as we all hope – to be a progressive like Tagle, or Cupich, who both understand what the church needs to remain relevant in the XXI Century.
Please look at the picture again.
Isn’t he so, so very happy?
A horrible blog aggregator (no link!) has the usual stuff about “helping people where they’re at” (no idea where the usage comes from. Blacks? If I had written it at school, it would have been marked a mistake). As always, things are complicated, we are detached, we seek simple solutions for complex problems, etc. Oh, how peace and love, dialogue and understanding would help!
I would like to offer, here, my two cents. Feel free to be offended. I would be very happy to live in your head, totally rent free, for a while.
Contrary to the opinion of many wannabe philosophers, the solution to most problem *is* simple.
Nazism was destroyed by just… physically destroying it.
Communism crumbled when it was aggressively tackled, and forced to choke under the weight of the challenge.
Saddam Hussein ceased to be a danger when he was invaded. His sons ceased to be a danger when they were terminated.
The Brigate Rosse started to be defeated when the Italian Government started to, actually, be willing to kill them.
It works every time. You kill the enemy, and the enemy is suddenly not a threat anymore. As to the multiplication of the enemy always promised by the Cucktelligentsia if you get tough (be that Islamic or Italian terrorist, just to make two examples) *I have never seen it*.
A dead terrorist does not magically transform himself in a propaganda wonder. He transforms himself into a corpse. I have never seen corpses killing people. I have also noticed that the willingness of people to die as “martyrs” is way, way below what the prophets of doom keep telling us.
Therefore, I present to you
Mundabor’s Quite Astoundingly Efficacious Recipe Against Abortion
1. Brutal legislation
2. Brutal enforcement
3. Brutal communication
Abortion is murder. Make legislation treating abortion as murder, enforce it just as you do with murderers, and don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Headline: “woman jailed for 28 years for murdering her own baby; doctor gets 35 years; boyfriend who procured the address 21”.
Also, forget all sociological analysis, and focus on… repression. I have been around the block enough to know that, whatever leftists say, repression works.
To those who give the trite answer that baby murder will continue to happen, but this time illegally, I reply that we will never obtain the complete disappearance of criminal behaviour. Murder still happens. Terrorism still happens. But it happens on a small scale, compared to what would happen if the behaviour were just legal. If (say) 900,000 abortions all over the USA (or, say, 110,000 in Italy, or 130,000 in the UK) are treated like murder, someone will still risk 20, 25 or 30 years in jail to abort. However, they will be few and far between. You need a lot of money, and a vast criminal energy, to make people defy *that*.
I saw the effect of enforcement in so many societal changes that I have lost count. I remember the time when, in Italy, it was common for a restaurant owner to declare a lower income than any of his waiters. Nowadays, the restaurant must be really doing bad, and the enforcement against tax evasion is so brutal that, last time I looked, not even the cleaning lady could be paid in cash.
It works. If one is smart enough to adopt harsh legislation and to dedicate enough energy to enforcement, it always does. Mussolini eradicated drunkenness from the Country. Yeah, you still had the occasional drunkard. But no, he changed the landscape on that. It wasn’t made with dialogue and understanding, or an army of social workers perpetuating the mutual dependency.
What is your real priority: the end of abortion (as far as practicable) or just looking good, and sweet of heart? If it is the first, start supporting harsh measures, and no mistake.
Yes, it means sending to jail – inter alia – the mother. The threat of a very long jail sentence will clear the mind uncannily, and a baby will thank you.
Most problems have simple solutions.
From the answer people give to them you are generally able to gauge how really interested in the solution they are.
Every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting.
Who said this:
- Pope Francis
- Donald Trump
- The Bern
The answer is below. No prize for guessing.
What times we live in! As the Lord punishes us with a clearly heretical Pope who, by the way, insists in not wanting to die and at least give us a new shuffling of the cards, hope comes from the most unsuspected corners.
A man of whom no one, the day Francis became Pope, would have imagined he could become President of the United States – a sinner, for sure; a brash man; but with a big, big heart – is giving the unborn help in many ways (judicial appointments; constant attention; participation to the March for Life), showing himself to be a new Ronald Reagan of sort, showing up on our side on this most controversial of subjects. This, without caring for the effect of his taking side in States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin; and this, in the year in which his political destiny is on the line.
Follow the link and listen to his beautiful words.
I suspect that Mike Pence and Kellyanne Conway have played an important role in this behind the scene, then it is difficult to me to think that the likes of Ivanka are on the front line on the issue. But most of all, I think that Providence is at work, and that God is giving us a hero as he punishes us with the villain Pope we, collectively speaking, have deserved as Catholics after sixty years of Vatican II madness.
Not since Ronald Reagan had I seen anything like this, and I never thought I would
When you wake up in the morning, I suggest you say a prayer for President Donald Trump.
Archbishop Chaput was long considered, by the naive proponents of the V II Church Of Milquetoast, a “conservative”. After his announced departure from Philadelphia, Francis very recently appointed his successor. This man, named Perez, is universally considered a liberal and supporter of FrancisChurch.
You would expect that Chaput, the first Archbishop of Philadelphia to not be made Cardinal in a long time, would either elegantly shut up about this appointment, or limit himself to the usual diplomatic words, like wishing his successor a fruitful work etc.
Instead, Chaput goes on record with this .
We see here the V II Cuckchurch at work. Obedience to the earthly boss come before obedience to Christ. This obedience must be shown publicly and in very clear terms. The approval and celebration of everything that Francis does is the new doctrine. It is like the Chinese Communist Party.
Wasc Chaput never a real conservative? Was he merely playing a more moderate role in the FrancisTheater? Was he told that, if he behaves and is a good cheerleader for The Francis, he might still get that red hat? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps, and more probably, he is just another Benedict, so eager to please the powers that be, no matter what, because he thinks that loyalty to heresy is, in some strange way, the thing to do.
Chaput has been a disappointment for many years, and his social view far more aligned with Francis than any bishop has any right to. But it is so sad to see this constant abject servitude to Francis, this unedifying boot licking spectacle from people who, at least, were not suspected of siding with Francis’ open heresies.
Chaput unconditional, enthusiastic approval of the appointment of his liberal successor is just another example of the deterioration of the higher echelons of our clergy, of the universally spread view that Francis must be praised in absolutely every circumstance. It makes me sad, and it persuades me more and more that even very many of those bishops who appeared to have a sound basis of Catholicism in them consider themselves obliged to stretch their arm, and cry “heil Francis!”, with the best of the liberal troops.
And no, I might be wrong, but I think Francis will not give him his red hat, either; not before his 80th birthday and very likely, if Francis is still alive, not after that. His gesture will be remembered as a sad capitulation, when a dignified reserve would have been very easy and would have been understood by everyone.
Sad. So sad.
This one once had potential.
The machine has swallowed him whole.
Rorate Caeli has an article from Prof. Roberto de Mattei about the strange situation of the “two Popes”. I invite you to visit the site and read the excellent article yourselves.
I would like to add to it my own two cents.
I do not think that Benedict confuses the papacy with the Episcopacy. The man is, if you ask me, far too smart for that. I also think that, when he abdicated, Benedict did not have in mind a Bishop Emeritus, but rather the well-known figure of the Professor Emeritus in the University system; that is, a title that indicates the persistence of the role and of the attached prestige in the relevant person, without any reference to sacraments.
Why Benedict did this is evident enough to me: a man deeply rooted in history, and extremely informed about the Italian cultural environment, Benedict wanted to eat his cake and have it, which is what he has done his entire life.
Bishop Ratzinger wanted to look progressive to “revolutionary” V II thinkers, but still appear conservative to the solid faithful when he was a theologian. As a Pope, he wanted to look like the Pope of the Latin Mass to us decent Catholics, whilst proceeding to countless progressive appointments and not only tolerating, but promoting inter faith rubbish to appease the progressive lobby.
Is it surprising that the same Pope wanted, when the time came, flee for fear of the wolves, whilst still appearing like he is doing his job?
Hence, the University-derived “emeritus” title. With it, Benedict wanted to tell us: “See? It’s not that I do not want to be Pope anymore. It’s that I simply do not have the energy to do it!”. Once again, Benedict seeks the easy way out of a conflict, whilst paying attention that he still looks good. Yes, like he did with Summorum Pontificum, which he promulgated to please us and then allowed to largely remain lettera morta to please the other side.
Ratzinger is deeply embedded in the Italian culture, and he did not want to bear the mark of the Celestino Quinto; a man who can be canonised, but is still not popular in Italy, where he is still considered (via Dante; who does not mention him explicitly, but makes sure you know whom he is talking about) the very embodiment of the cowardly Pope. This, however, does not mean that he wanted to do his job. In a word, the Benedict who abdicated was, actually, pulling another Ratzinger stunt.
I begin to think that an element of vanity crept in. Perhaps he wanted to be sure that he would be allowed to live within the confines of the Vatican, enjoying its gardens and astonishing beauty, and many of the same priivileges of before the abdication, without the hassle of actually having to have harsh confrontations with people. Perhaps the white habit was important to him, because it helped him to lie to himself and not feel like a Celestino. Perhaps he thought that the next Pope would be sound, thus allowing him to stay out of the theological fray.
Alas: as it often happens, Benedict had to discover that his plan with the cake did not really work. As his successor descended into an abyss of heresy, Benedict once again felt that he had to say something to appease sincere Catholics (eat his cake) whilst still professing great admiration for Francis (have it). Hence, the book; which, once again, he thought he could co-publish without need for any harsh confrontation.
Sadly for him, the confrontation came anyway, in the form of an extremely irate Francis and an extremely hard lobbying Gaenswein.
Trust Benedict, at this point, to do what he always did in life: cave in, and flee for fear of the wolves.
There are very simple explanations for Ratzinger’s behaviour, and they all have to do with the Celestino issue, that is: with Benedict being one, but without wanting to appear one.
This is, by the way, more and more corroborated by the facts that are emerging now. When Archbishop Vigano’ reveals that in 2011, when he was still in charge, Ratzinger candidly admitted to him that he was aware that Gaenswein kept hot issues away from him, without proceeding to instantly fire the guy, Vigano’ tells us that this man was a puppet of much stronger people than him, and unwilling to steer unpleasant confrontations, even when he was officially in charge and could have ordered whatever he wanted. Is it a surprise that this man was an object of pity and contempt even for his own butler, the one who caused “Vatileaks”?
It all seems very linear to me. Start seeing Ratzinger from the Celestino perspective, and it all becomes very logical. It becomes also more and more credible in light of the behaviour of the man whilst he was Pope, as Vigano’ has so openly exposed.
This one is a Celestino all right.
He is merely very particular that he should not appear one.
Once again, the Great President took it on himself to expose the myth of the Religion Of Doom and tell the planet that the dangerous fantasies of its priests aim at the total domination of the world population.
This was not only very beautiful and eloquent in itself. It was more beautiful, because the attack was carried out in the very lair of the Globalist Wolf. A wolf cosily sipping champagne and flying private jet, I admit, but a wolf nevertheless. How about this:
These alarmists always demand the same thing – absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.
Trump is expressing – in his usual, robust way – what many thinks. He speaks for the hard working, no-nonsense people.
He is also a powerful voice against atheism, then the fantasy of a world about to self-destruct because of the number of souls living in it, and because of the “effect ” of too much of two of its most common components (carbon and oxygen) is a blasphemy, beside being dumb beyond word. If these people believe in God (which they don’t: and why no-one ever asks little Greta, or rather her father, about that?), they must believe in some dumb creator, extremely poor at planning, working with second-class material, unable to make a house for His creatures they would not destroy not with apocalyptic wars, but simply by living. The godlessness is on par with the stupidity.
Imagine now if Hillary had been elected. The activism would be deafening, at least in words; and the action, whilst relatively limited, would still cause great damage to the world’s economy.
Trump went to Davos like a voice of reason preaching to the inmate of the madhouse; and he did it not so that the madman get sane (the real madmen won’t; those who stand to profit from the Madness Economy have no interest in changing), but so that the sane recognise the madhouse.
Thank God for this great man.
I have published very recently a short post about my satisfaction with the events in Munich. I would like to expand on this with a couple of personal considerations.
I do not think that it is necessary to #unitetheclans. We are all united in Christ, and it is from Christ that we get our strength. We do not need to become a counter church and in fact, such an event would be very dangerous as it would really, really lead many to schism.
Also, we do not need a charismatic lay leader, a Joan of Arc taking the lead and being followed by a faithful army. The heretic are not wreaking havoc because they are better organised. They are wreaking havoc because they are in power.
The resistance to heresy is not doing poorly. It is doing wonderfully, and I think that in centuries to come – and, of course, in heaven – this will be duly honoured. In fact, this resistance has managed to become of common knowledge among tepid Catholics and even heretics because of their untiring defence of orthodoxy. We don’t need a supreme commander because we don”t need to invade the Vatican, and for what we need- the return of sanity at the moment God appoints – we are doing quite fine.
We should welcome the Munich initiative. We should welcome every other initiative of the sort. We should welcome every rosary crusade and dissident interview. We should welcome any bishop who dares to say the truth. The one thing we should not be concerned about is having a Resistance Supremo, or a Resistance Party. Let everyone fight for Christ as he knows best. I think this is what is expected from the Laity now.
And the Clergy? The Clergy has largely abandoned us. When God wants to send us a new Athanasius, he will appear. For the moment, it looks like we haven’t deserved him. But in the fourth Century the Laity did not wait for Athanasius, either.
This time is no different.
I read about the event in Munich and I was, actually, pleased.
If the #unitetheclans stuff is important to you, you will be pleased to see that several groups were involved. No, not everybody was informed. Honestly, I would not be offended by it.
The organisers will have had their reasons to make of this an event restricted to certain groups. The fact is, they were and are under no obligation to have all the world participate. Some would have organised this in a different way, and they are free to organise everything they want, and invite whomever they want.
The event was a success. The Archdiocese was surprised, Archbishop Vigano’ made an appearance, the Catholic world is talking about it.
I am not sure it is wise to complain because one was not invited.
If anyone talks about egos colouring the event, I would wonder about his ego. Was it so important that everybody is there? Trad Catholics don’t want to be a counter church. They don’t need to be monolithic. What they need to do, is to voice their disapproval. God in Heaven, who sees them all, will one day cause the effort of them all to come to fruition.
I am thankful for this event and would like to express my gratitude to all those who have taken part.
In another day of quite astonishing revelations, we were informed by Archbishop Vigano’ that in 2011 (that is: when Benedict was still Pope), Benedict candidly admitted to Vigano’ that Archbishop Gaenswein prevented him from reading an entire dossier.
The mind boggles at such weakness, incompetence, or outright corruption.
Benedict was in charge in 2011; but apparently, he was just the little coward he is now. He knew that people near to him kept very important information from him and, instead of firing Gaenswein in 3 seconds straight, he did exactly nothing. Romulus “Augustulus” appears like a giant compared to this one.
I do not see any alternative to one of these scenarios:
- Benedict was so incompetent and weak, that he could not bring himself to get rid of an obviously traitorous and scheming subordinate. This is a pathological weakness, a real inability to function as an adult man.
- Benedict lied to Vigano’, stating that he had not received the dossier because he knew that Vigano’ has contacted him to request action; and Benedict wasn’t, and isn’t, a man of action.
- Gaenswein has some terrible secret on Benedict, which allows him to remote-control an obviously quite remote-controllable man.
- Gaenswein and Benedict have some horrible secret together.
The tale of the Benedict “prisoner in the Vatican” is clearly absurd. The man can quite obviously freely communicate with Cardinals and publishing houses ad libitum. There is absolutely nothing that indicates that he be restricted in his communications. He would be able to alert the Cardinal, or whoever else, of any coercion on his person in absolutely no time. Also, a person kept “prisoner” is not allowed to co-authors entire books, which could be harmful to his jailers.
Similarly, kindly refrain from the legends about Benedict’s life being in danger, or the homo mafia wanting to kill him. With a very old, frail man living the other side of the garden, the possibilities for foul play are endless. Still, after almost seven years the man is still alive and kicking. This is quite a disaster as a murder squad.
No, the latest revelation abundantly shows what an astonishingly ineffective man Ratzinger always was, how easily controllable and manipulated he was when he was the Pope.
In my eyes, this puts his famous statements when he was elected in a quite sinister light: the man knew that he was weak, and would flee in front of the wolves; but he also was too weak to refuse the job in the first place.
What a tragedy, and what a failure.
Pray for poor Benedict. There are a lot of people in the Vatican worse than him.
But I doubt that there is another one so pathologically ineffective and weak.
Reality taught the “Vatican Bizarro World” a good lesson today.
Ignatius Press said that they will print and market the book as joint authorship Cardinal Sarah/ Pontiff Emeritus Ratzinger. Why? Because these are the facts, the reality on the ground, as evidenced by several letters of Cardinal Sarah and all the internal correspondence of the publisher.
So, why all the ruckus? To look like the idiots they are, all three of them.
Francis, who has allegedly put Benedict/Gaenswein/both under pressure to “recant”, looks like a perfect nincompoop: the clamour around the book only helped to make known to more people that Benedict actually published a book going against Francis, and approved every part of it.
Gaenswein looks like an idiot, for making claims destroyed by… reality in a matter of hours. At his age, you would expect that he knows better than to lick Francis’ boots for the sake of a smokescreen, so soon dissolved.
Benedict looks like… a Benedict. A guy that tries to talk tough, and then shuts his mouth when it is clear that his tough talk actually puts him in a difficult spot. At 94, you would think his fear to be poisoned is quite limited. Actually, at 94 one could almost “hope” to be poisoned for the faith. Very “cheap” martyrdom, if you ask me. Not pleasant, I agree. But a Pope should actually embrace the possibility.
I am still awaiting Benedict’s statement that he is nothing to do with Gaenswein’s initiative. My suspicion is that I will wait forever. This makes Benedict an accomplice of Francis and Gaenswein, both of whom he clearly put before Christ and His Church.
I would like that someone would explain this to me: how is it that when Francis does not correct anyone (say: Eugenio Scalfari) attributing outlandish stuff to him, we all consider Francis responsible for what he has not corrected, but the same metre never seems to apply to Benedict? Why must a man so obviously “there” with his head (though obviously very frail physically now) be exempted from avoiding scandal to be spread in his name? He can communicate at anytime with anyone, apparently?
In the end, reality always wins. In this case, Francis’ “spitted-flecked nutty” made three people look bad, but did not change the legal and factual reality on the ground.
Refreshing, for once, to see a publishing house publicly – if implicitly – rebuke two Popes and an Archbishop. It will teach them to take reality more seriously in future.
As for Benedict: boy, what a shame. At his age, and clearly in full possession of his faculties (read the letters to Cardinal Sarah), he offers this show of betaness.
Sad. So sad.
If Catholics had been told, 100 years ago, that, one day, a Pope would try to have his authorship of truth removed when the truth turned out to be offensive, they would have considered it the circus trick of the year.
This is now a circus we have to live with every day.
It was only yesterday when I compared Benedict to a Danton of Francis’ Robespierre: both very bad, but one recognisably worse than the other.
Today, another bomb: Benedict* substantially denies paternity of the book he has co-authored*.
This is vintage Benedict: “I want to do the right thing. But when it attracts criticism or there is a big fight brewing, you’ll see me running away like a Bavarian hare”.
This is the guy who commissioned a brutal study to investigate homosexuality in the Church and, when he had the truth dished to him, preferred to quit rather than fight the fight obviously in front of him. This is the guy who first issued Summorum Pontificum and then watched as the measure was boycotted the world over. This is the guy who gave off a whiff of Catholicism, whilst continuing to appoint atrocious bishops. This is the guy who tried to distance himself from JP II’s ecumenism, but then had to make another scandalous Assisi gathering. This is, finally, the Emeritus who is never short of some vaguely sounding conservative noise, until the game gets tough. Then he does what he always did in life: abandon the fight, for fear of the wolves.
I add another trait of Benedict that some of you might not be aware of: he is as gregarious as even a German can be. He never rocks the boat. He never does the controversial thing. He may try, at times; but when his actions cause controversy, he just surrenders. He goes with the flow. He is the very antithesis of a shepherd. This one was born sheep.
Benedict* has gravely insulted Cardinal Sarah and the intelligence of every sound Catholic. The very idea that a book (with all the legal implication of the matter) might be ready for publishing, with date announced, without him controlling every detail, from the text to the authorship to the title to the book cover, is just stupid. The publisher and the Cardinal have already exposed him as, I must say, a coward and a liar*.
It really is sad to behold.
At the age of 94, Benedict keeps doing it wrong, and he keeps being misled into appeasing everything and everyone, but Christ.
Sinner as I am, I seriously would not want to be him when he dies.
He will be remembered as a tragic, weak figure. A Paul VI on steroids, but with more erudition.
Pray for the poor guy.
He might not understand the situation he is in, but we do.
*as always: it does not matter that Gaenswein said it. If Benedict does not correct him, he owns what Gaenswein said.
The news is everywhere that a book is about to be published, in which the Emeritus frontally attacks the Amazon Synod plans for married priests. This, from the background of an expected Excrementation from Francis, which is expected to use oblique words to allow the praxis to be introduced by those who want to introduce it, without Francis having to admit that he wants them to. Perhaps, who knows, using footnotes.
This is an interesting development, because the Emeritus has, up to now, lavished his successor with V II praise, whilst paying attention that he himself is always seen as a tad more Catholic than the other. This time, it won’t be so easy.
Benedict’s cry is the cry of the Vatican II man, who does not want a V III. But Benedict is every bit a part of the problem, so kettles and pot come to mind. Granted, the Emeritus is on the right side here. Still, I won’t praise Danton just because of Robespierre.
The Emeritus has never denounced Francis as a heretic. This is like Dr Frankenstein watching his creature in horror. I invite all of my readers to keep a fundamental fact in mind: without the Conciliar Popes there would be no Francis, because V II is the beginning of the slippery slope that must lead to reverse gear or chaos. I wonder if Benedict got this in the end, and frankly I doubt.
I wonder if Francis will now wait for Benedict’s death before publishing his Excrementation. I doubt he will show this modicum of tact. What I suspect, is that the Excrementation will be published soon, and will be a middle finger shown to Benedict, too.
What a tragic figure, this Benedict. Too weak to be orthodox, but still too Catholic to be loved by the world. Without the nerve to embrace the fight Providence has given to him, and choosing to retire rather than fight the homo mafia. Too German to rock the boat when the monstrosity of Francis’ pontificate became clear to him. Too insecure, and unwilling to be called a Celestino, therefore keeping habit and title (of sort) and engendering more confusion. Benedict, like Paul VI, specialised in occasional right acts in the middle of a vast subservience to the wrong ones, his desire to do good always hampered by the awareness of the problems this would create for him. Now, at the end of his life, he gives us another trinket. But it is fairly little, and mighty late.
Danton is dying. Robespierre is thriving (for now).
I want the end of the revolution, and the condemnation of both.
The holy farter, aka Evil Clown, has now instituted a yearly “Bible Day” in order to appear…Protestant, with the argument that too many Bibles in Catholic households collect dust. All of it , obviously mixed with usual claptrap about rediscovering the freshness and the surprise of the Bible, and you see oncd again whiff of that heretical “spirit” behind all that Francis does.
It would certainly be good to read the Bible in well-instructed Catholic households, as they would naturally read the text in the proper way and constantly use their knowledge as a compass in their navigation of the texts. However, this haphazard “let’s read the Bible” from not properly instructed Catholics can too easily become a buffet, from which the uninformed believer extracts exactly what he likes, without putting it in the proper context. This would be very dangerous because, as we all know, even the devil can quote from the Bible.
The same mentality lurks every time someone says that we need to “discover” the message of the Bible.
Look, pal: the message is well known, it has been there for two thousand years, and it is not what you hoped it would be.
Francis and his ilk want to fundamentally transform Catholicism and plunge it into utter chaos. The modifications to the catechisms are one way of doing it. The invitation to just ignore the doctrine and jump straight to the sacred texts is another.
And then there is this Protestant attitude emerging. This undercurrent of “It’s me and my buddy, Jesus, alone”. Doesn’t it match beautifully with the “discernment” of the adulterers as to whether they should receive?
It does not work that way.
The depositum fidei comes first. Sacred scriptures are read in the sense given to them by the depositum fidei. The Church was there before the New Testament. The Church decided what constitutes the New Testament. There is a logical succession and ranking between them.
Francis want people to drive, who have forgotten the Highway Code.
This is exactly the attitude of the one who wants chaos on the roads.
And he is supposed to be Catholic, for crying out loud.
I had to look to know what “non-binary” is supposed to mean, and even after looking I was not persuaded I had understood what it apparently means. What is clear is that there was one particular guy, called James Shupe, who was the first to be officially declared “non-binary”. Meaning, I think, that when he woke up in the morning he had to decide what “gender” he was that day, or that his gender is not what everybody sees it obviously is; one of the two.
It appears now that James Shupe has officially de-non-binarised himself.
So, the first guy who, very officially didn’t know, now very officially knows and, having looked with great attention between his legs, has gone back to his authorities and has demanded that he be declared – for everybody to finally realise – a man.
Mister Sherlock Shupe has come to this realisation after discovering faith, and I really hope the guy stays on the right path. But I notice that Mr Shupe is on record with the following:
“I was indoctrinated to believe that I had this thing called a gender identity and that suppressing it was causing my mental health problems,” he added. “It was all a lie.”
So, a person with obvious mental problems is allowed to quarrel with the authorities of his land to have something “declared” that he thinks “helps”with whatever (a lot) is screwed in his head. With this train of thought, he could have been persuaded that he had the right to be officially declared God, or an elephant, and have this officially declared in his passport, because it helps him in the fight against depression.
It seems that Mr Shupe now feels better:
“I am and have always been male,” he said. “That is my biological truth, the only thing capable of grounding me to reality.”
This blatant banality is, nowadays, worthy of a headline and a quote. Biological Truth might actually become a “racist expression” at some point.
I wonder if Mr Shupe would have sued anyone who, in his Mssss Shupe phase, called him….. the way he absolutely wants to be called now. He is likely aware at this point that he has been instrumental in the most colossal attempt at silencing free speech, and even free thought, ever experienced in the West; an attempt that is still going on, though it is clear it will ultimately fail as the absurdity of this gender madness hit the populace where it hurts (female athletes, say).
Now, I am trying to have sympathy for Mr Shupe. It may be that he has finally seen the light. His clear statement, that the gender ideology is evil, and the fact that he now lives with his wife, might indicate that he also rejects his own (past, I hope) homosexuality, though he does not explicitly say so. However, we are here in front of what appears to have been, for a long time, a seriously deranged individual, and it will take a long time to be assured that this is not just a phase of sanity before the next jump in the parallel universe in which many of these people have decided to live, inflicting their fantasy world on all of us.
My take is: whenever you see an individual apparently coming back to sanity, hope he stays that way, but never cease wondering how the opinion of deranged individuals were allowed to be declared as parallel truths, to be followed by everyone.
President Trump has, in his most recent trip to Florida, chose to meet Evangelical Christians. Now, it is obviously wrong to be evangelical. However, the meeting is important because it shows that Trump does not make apologies for his Christian stance, and wants all Christians to know.
Liberals (and bad Christians), don’t understand Trump’s appeal for Christians. To them, the personal morality and history of Trump is what should come first. If Trump is shown to be below the lofty standards they have set for him, almost one million babies a year will have to be legally slaughtered in the womb of their respective mothers, because we can’t run the risk of looking bad, can we?
True Christian think and act – and vote – differently. If Trump appoints judges far better and more qualified than the political agitators preferred by Obama, he is their man, because they have their priorities in order.
Trump speaks to sound Americans, with sound beliefs, and with a no-nonsense approach to their Christian life. If they can make abortion illegal or more difficult to obtain, and protect religion freedom from the tyrannical ideology of the Left, they will choose the man who can deliver for them as much as he can.
This is why Trump keeps winning, and the Liberals keep losing.
They don’t understand his success, because they don’t know the world they live in.
They prefer to see the world through the eyes of retarded adolescents and scrounging bogus “scientist” instead.
Thd holy farter, aka Evil Clown, has given a sermon on the occasion of the Feast of the Epiphany. I want to help my readers to have their own epiphany about the nature of this quite remarkable individual.
I utterly and completely refuse to believe that Francis encouraged the present to “bend the knee” before Christ without knowing that he has been criticised, for many years now, for refusing to do just that. It is utterly and completely idiotic to think that this might have been the case. So, where does this leave us?
It leaves us at several aspects that seem typical of Francis’ character.
Firstly, he loves making Catholics angry. Petty man as he is, he will enjoy encouraging people to do what he himself refuses to do. It’s his ways of telling you that he really, really hates you. Because he can.
Secondly, he loves to show defiance of the Church and Her rules. It is as if he would say: “you bend the knee, you stupid pewsitter who think that there is a God above. But I don’t believe it, therefore I don’t; because I can”.
Thirdly comes the sheer laziness and self-centredness. This is a guy that skip concerts just because he feels Iike it, uncaring of all the faithful (and possibly donors) waiting for the meeting of their life. It does not surprise me that he would enjoy in telling the faithful, in so many words, “you bend the knee; I really won’t be bothered; because I am lazy; and because I can”.
There is really no way he does not know of the criticism against him. Therefore, this is Francis being Francis: a petty, resentful, spiteful, bitter, lewd old man.
It will be interested to see if he now starts genuflecting in front of the altar, and keeps doing it. I think he won’t.
I think he won’t for the reasons 1,2, and 3 above.
As I commented on the papal slapping episode the other day, I tried to be somewhat light in my irony against the man, as repeated observation of the video showed to me that, whilst Francis is most certainly a boor, this was an encounter of kindred souls: the behaviour of the woman being, in my book, undoubtedly and unjustifiably rude. A saintly Pope would have reacted differently. Still, try to be yanked that way at his age and I don’t know how calm you will remain.
Today’s post, however, is not about that, but about the stupidity of our times.
A Pope sabotages Catholicism every day for now almost seven years, and he gets one thousand passes from the liberal press, who want to be able to have their leftist hero. The theological abominations of this Pontificate are thoroughly ignored, and the holy farter received worldwide attention for….. things like stupidly criticising Trump for building a wall. In short, in almost seven years the msm never got even near to tell their audience what atrocious pope this cretin is. But let the man contravene the commandments of the religion of niceness, and the entire planet will be informed instantly.
This is, of course, entirely demented. Still, Francis deserves all the excrement that he had to eat, because he is part and parcel of that stupid, attention-seeking, platitude-spouting, nice-at-all-costs world that has now turned against him.
Francis does everything he can to impress the stupid masses. But being stupid, the masses will not make any distinction, fruit of sound reasoning, concerning a situation. Rather, they will look for the image, the gesture that goes around the world because it is so “new” to most (not to us: we know what a vulgar boor the man is) as to make instant conversation and gossip material.
Francis does not understand how it works, because, besides being arrogant, he is stupid. He has put himself in the hands of people who will tolerate countless heresies and blasphemies from him, but will not tolerate any offence against the religion of niceness.
You made this bed, Frankie Boy. Now you will have to lie in it.
And the exact word he said to the woman I still want to know; because whilst “bruja” is completely unwarranted, if he really said “puta” we are in real need of an intervention, like forbidding him all contact with public and journalists.
A stupid world can’t stop piling judgment on a Pope not because of countless heresies and scandals, but because of an unkind act. Can’t say I am very sad, though, and don’t think the man should be defended from the lynching now going on.
In the end, who am I to judge?
I am, alas, a bit late to this party.
Still, I would like to use this little space to praise Francis for his commendable behaviour on occasion of the incident in St Peter Square on 31 December.
An ethnically Chinese woman is seen grabbing the man, in one of those inappropriate, but spontaneous gestures of affection that simple people show to the ones they really care for. The likes of Padre Pio have experienced much, much worse, but they bore it with great patience and love for Christ’s sheep. Actually, it is reported that Padre Pio was the object of such an affection that he often had great difficulties in extricating himself from the mob, with the peasants trying to grab whatever could be grabbed. This is what simple faithful do. They touch. They grab. They yank. If someone does not like it (which I understand) perhaps he should greet people from the Pope mobile.
Francis was in this situation on the 31st. And I must say, his kind reaction surprised me.
As the woman grabs him and literally yanks him toward herself (good energy, ma’am! You know how fat the man is?), we see Francis smilingly, lovingly encouraging her to lose her grip. I must say I found it very edifying. As the woman – which is so typical of simple faithful – hesitates to let the object of her Catholic affection go, we see Francis gently, calmly, and totally, totally non-judgmentally, exhorting her to allow him to continue his walk. His demeanour is so calm, so kind, so Pope-like and, in a word, so noble, that I am, myself, surprised to see Francis behaving so well for once.
I must confess, in such a situation I would have expected Francis to react angrily, and perhaps even physically, to the woman’s behaviour. I would have expected him to physically force the woman away from him just as as he forcefully opened the little hands of the boy, joint in prayer, years ago. In the end, we all know he hates Catholics, and he goes through them just because his PR machine says he has to, and because he loves the camera like Hillary loves Huma Abedin.
But this time, I must say the man has surprised me.
Gentle, calm, loving, outright benign, noble Francis manages to surprise us for once. See for yourselves!
Can’t imagine why he had to apologise.
Back at home after a long, deserved Christmas Holiday (you will be pleased to know that, after one year of Francistoxyns, I have stayed away from the man and his news as far as I could), I find myself reflecting on what I wish most for the Year of the Lord 2020, at least as far as the Church is concerned.
I wish a Conclave.
Of course, I do not know whether a Conclave would give us an even worse Pope than Francis. On the one hand, this would appear impossible, because the man is such a mixture of stupidity and arrogance. On the other hand, it is certainly thinkable if we think of a Pope just as evil as Francis, but not as stupid. Someone like Schoenborn, or perhaps Tagle (not sure about this one).
Why, then, do I wish a Conclave?
For several reasons.
Firstly, I refuse to accept Francis as the new normality. The man is an aberration in every conceivable way, and I for myself wish him gone, no matter what comes after him.
Secondly, I believe in Providence, and think that God sets things in motion in His own way. Whilst these ways have something of the miraculous at times, much more often things happen in their proper, expected ways, using the usual, expected channels. A Conclave is still the most likely way God will use to at least start to put an end to our punishment.
Lastly, because I can personally use the beautiful, lived reassurance that all bad things come to an end. I’d like to wake up in the morning and simply think: “remember Francis? Well, he’s gone now. All evil has an end”. Of course, I know this. But it would be nice to experience it, to see it come to pass in real life. It would be like a mini detox cure.
I obviously don’t know whether the Year of the Lord 2020 will be the one that will give us the Conclave; much less whether the Conclave would give us someone with at least some Catholic spirit. But what I know is that, bar an extremely improbable conversion of this cretin, all improvement will have to go through at least one Conclave. Bring it on, then. It would be like reshuffling the cards. You could end up worse than expected, but at least it’s a new game.
Still, and to conclude, I think we can safely say this: that even if the man is still in charge in one year’s time, his ability to damage the Church and confuse the faithful decreases every year, and it is difficult to think that the man is now seen as anything but a problem and an embarrassment from everyone but the extremely simple and the outright evil.
I wish him salvation, of course, and I invite you to do the same.
But boy, how I wish for a Conclave….