Monthly Archives: February 2020
If you go here and, once scrolled down to the comments, click on the little image posted by reader “Defensa de la fe”, you will find the transcript of the words of Our Lady to St Bridget concerning a Pope allowing priests to contract marriage. Alas, I did not manage to import the image here, but you will be just fine clicking on the image and letting the image fill the screen.
Note this: a Pope allowing a person who is already a consecrated priest to contract marriage would be infinitely worse than a pope allowing men who are already married to become priests. The first case has never happened and could not possibly happen, as it has always been a tenet of the faith that a priest, once consecrated as such, cannot marry. The second has always happened in exceptional cases in the Western church, and regularly in the Eastern (and then schismatic, and then in part again in communion with Rome) one. I actually know of two Catholic bloggers (one good, one not so much) who are exactly in that situation: marriage first, consecration later.
Still, the text that is reported of the vision to St Bridget does not say at all that a Pope who would do such horrible things would, ipso facto, cease to be a Pope; nor does it say that it would be for every faithful to decide that such a Pope is an Antipope, or a flower vase, or an elephant. No, the words of the vision (those, mind, who can be read in that image) leave the reader in no doubt that such a horrible man (more horrible, no doubt, that even His Heretical Horrendousness, Pachamama Francis) would be subject to blood-curling punishment for being an absolutely horrible Pope. Also, it is clear that God would allow such a pope to lose every spiritual illumination and inspiration, and to be left in a state of complete spiritual blindness, whilst remaining the Pope. No other interpretation is possible, because if a pope carrying out such deeds were to lose his office, most certainly Our Lady would have warned the faithful, via St Bridget, to refuse to recognise him as such!
This, my friends, is exactly the reading that every Catholic raised in the Italian environment (accustomed to horrible popes, and finding the history of the city and surrounding territories scattered with the remnants of their deeds) would think of such a pope; then the idea that it would be for the individual faithful or theologian to establish who is the pope and who is not the pope would be so outlandish as the idea of rewriting the Commandments.
Mind: this is an individual revelation and, whilst St Bridget enjoys enormous prestige, no Catholic is obliged to believe in it. Similarly, there could be more in the revelation than is addressed in the quotation I have linked to.
Still, keep this well in mind: that it is not for you, or for me, or for everybody that is not a sufficiently robust body of bishops and cardinals, to officially declare who is validly a pope.
The sad fact still remain, that this pope is clearly so evidently heretic as the sun is evidently hot; but the heresy would be just as evident in the hypothesis related to St Bridget.
The situation is, if you ask me, brutally simple:
- We live in times of heretical popes (I add here Francis II Cupich and Francis III Tagle for good measure, so you are ready for things getting even worse)
- The heretical popes are God’s punishment for the immense rebellion of Vatican II; they are, in fact, allowed exactly in order for the faithful to get this single point.
- The heretical pope must, in the natural, be deposed by Bishops and/or Cardinals rebelling to the heresy and forcing him to recant, or else declaring him deposed; and woe to those bishops and cardinals who refuse to act!
- This age of heresy will end when God has decided that we have been punished enough, either by inspiring the bishops and cardinals to finally act or through some other extraordinary event.
- it is, cela va sans dire, not for us to decide who is pope in the meantime; particularly when there is no other person even claiming Francis’ job, or declaring him an usurper, or even rebuking him publicly and officially; the person often unwillingly chosen for the role obviously refusing it very publicly and supporting Francis on different occasions.
We live in sad times. But I personally still prefer these times to the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death, or the conquest of Constantinople.
We cannot choose the times we have been given to live in. What we can do is to march on with the truth revealed to us, dying in the Catholic faith in the midst of crumbling worlds if needs be.
The legal structure of the United States never ceases to surprise those who come from different legal systems. Compared to every European Country, it is, in many issues, rather atomised due to the existence of 50 States, each with their own very extensive legislative powers. This is why, even if Roe vs Wade were to be reversed (it will be one day), the battle would only be half won, as many States would run to implement State legislation allowing the killing of babies. It is only when the Supreme Court declares abortion not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, that the legislative powers of the States will be neutralised.
The same happens with the phenomenon of “sanctuary cities”. In Europe there are no “sanctuary cities”. The concept itself is foreign to the legal system. If, say, the Italian region of Lombardia decided that, within its territory, illegal immigrants are welcome and the local authorities are ordered to disobey or to obstacle law enforcement, people would start going to jail pretty fast. It is obvious that this does not happen in San Francisco or Los Angeles, where – the way I understand it – the battle against sanctuary cities is fought with federal lawsuit and with the threat of withholding federal funds, not by sending the FBI to simply arrest people (legislators, and enforcers) for subversive activity.
It works, fortunately, both ways. I am following with interest the phenomenon of the “sanctuary counties” in Virginia, vowing to defend the Second Amendment rights of their citizen against the tyrannical attitude of their own State legislators. The most recent development I have read about is the one of the eleven Texas cities banning abortion. The linked article is interesting not because it indicates a way to get around Roe vs Wade (it is obvious that the legal ground is extremely shaky here; which, if it was not the case, would allow for the vast hollowing of every unwelcome judicial decision in States like, say, California or New York), but because it moves the battle against abortion to the public opinion via the courts.
It is clear to me that this lawsuit is not meant to result in a victory. It is meant to result in a discussion. It is meant to, as they say in today’s parlance, “raise awareness”. It is the expression of a local, pacific revolt of decent citizen, choosing to fight through the courts against the iniquity of a Constitution willingly and unashamedly bent to the will of the leftist mob by politically motivated activists.
If you think that cities can decide to not follow Supreme Court precedent, you can keep dreaming at your leisure. But if you think that these initiatives amplify the discussion about the evil of abortion, you might be on to something.
Still, the way towards an abortion-free United States (which, make no mistake, will in time result in an abortion free Western Europe) does not go through “sanctuary cities”. It goes through sound judicial appointments both in the higher courts and in the Supreme Court.
In 2020, just as in 2016, it is vital that Trump be reelected in November, and that a working majority in the Senate allows the President to keep doing the excellent job of appointing dozens, at this point actually hundreds of sound thinking judges.
Look at the age of the Supreme Court Justices, add to Breyer and RBG the diabetic Wide Latina and realise that Trump’s second term can be, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, just as explosive as the first; actually more so, if the great, 72 years old Clarence Thomas felt sure enough of the soundness of his successor to resign, allowing Trump the appointment of another judge like him, but 30 years younger.
Like 2016, 2020 is an extremely important battle in the war for the defence of the unborn.
Please hammer the concept in the head of your tepid relatives, or colleagues, or friends, whenever they start moaning that Trump is not nice enough, and his tweets are oh so unkind.
I am late to this party; but the party does not want to end, and it might be useful to spend a word or three on this.
Some Bishops reported that the Evil Clown was “displeased” that James Martin, aka “Martina”, used the meeting of the two months ago to promote his sodomitic agenda. Others deny or disagree.
In my view, the truth is in the middle; or rather, both sides are right.
Francis will say what his counterparts want to hear. This is what he always does and will always do. A man able to say “soon, soon!” to the parents of a persecuted FFI friar will obviously not have any qualm in saying to visiting Bishops a couple of words that makes them believe that he is actually not actively helping Martina to push his agenda. This makes the poor nincompoops happy, and avoids the awkward moment for Pachamama pope.
The real news in this is not what Francis may or may not have said. It is the fact that, after seven years of speaking out of three corners of his mouth, there should be any Bishop who gives any importance to what this evil man blathers.
A short internet search will reveal to everybody that the meeting between Pachamama and Martina happened on the 30 September. The alleged conversation with the Bishops happened in February, which means that the Bishops and Pachamama Guy were talking of something that had happened more than four months before.
You would think that, if the matter had had any relevance to Francis, he would have made known his opinion before February? Even if Francis expressed his disapproval in strong term to the Bishops, what value does this have, if this disapproval is four months late and expressed in private conversation? It would clearly mean that Francis himself does not attach any importance to anybody exploiting him for his purposes.
Make a mess!
Francis is a born liar. He lies just as easily and automatically as you breath. He does not attach any value, or dignity, or manliness to his words. To him, a man is as good as his Socialist credentials. It is really dumb to believe that anything that he says in a private conversation would have any value to him. If you were to say to Francis that the earth is flat, he would answer to you that there might be some merit in what you say, just to avoid the awkward situation. Why wouldn’t he? He lies about everything anyway!
This is the guy who boasted of lying to his mother, who was sending money to him, about studying Medicine whilst he was paying his studies in the Seminary (which, by the way, tells you a lot about the lack of Catholicism in the allegedly oh so pious home of Mother Bergoglio). If one is able of lying to his own mother about what the money she sends him – and, no doubt, the fruit of her sacrifices – is being used for, what would he not lie about? If he is able to even boast about it, what does this say about the attitude of this scoundrel?
I report less and less about what the man says in his almost daily heretical exercises in bloviation. The fact is, once you understand a guy is – as the common parlance goes – full of shit, you cannot give any value to any word he says, period.
Francis is – besides being a heretical pope, who would have been deposed and trialled for heresy a long time ago if our Bishops and Cardinals had some testosterone in them – a compulsive liar with no self-respect, no decency and, quite possibly, homosexual tendencies. How any Bishop can give any value to anything he spouts is beyond me.
Francis is a cancer that has now spread to the very limbs of the Church. To excise this cancer will require the amputation of one or more limbs. But this does not make this amputation less necessary, if we want to avoid that the cancer, albeit never terminal for the patient, keeps spreading everywhere for who knows how long.
The Bishops and Cardinals need to move and force this guy to retract everything (it would be a long retractation), or be deposed and trialled for heresy. This should be the daily issue of conversation among them.
What the old, lewd liar might have said to some of them is really neither here nor there.
The news reaches us today that, if elected, Bolshevik Bernie will only appoint to the Supreme Court justices supporting infanticide barely masked as abortion.
In simple terms, this means that he would likely be able to get, if not the rabid baby-killing machines he eagerly supports, some vaguely “moderate” (for him) pro-killing justices, who would be invariably supported by the Judas Republican Caucus consisting of Senators from, say, Utah, Main and Alaska.
Heck, Bernie could even go nuclear and appoint utterly bonkers Justices without Senate approval, with recess appointments; an imprudent move, very likely, and fraught with questions about its legality, but perfectly in line with the man’s attitude, character and utter inability to compromise.
Also, in case of an improbable victory, Breyer and RBG would likely resign immediately (or she could die of her own anyway), and perhaps even the diabetic Sotomayor, aka wide Latina, could decide to resign. This could be a triple whammy, either compromising the court for decades or, in case of succesful recess appointments, making the 2022 election entirely about the Senate, but without presidential race connected to it.
This goes to show that the battle is never won and, with all his successes in judicial appointments, we need both Trump and a solid Senate majority (ex Judas Republican Caucus) in November.
Let’s hope and pray that Bernie does not get his way. Let us not be complacent. Let us work for Trump and sanity with our friends, colleagues and relatives.
The battle is not won yet, and Bernie could do a lot of damage even as Lame Bolshevik.
The Nevada Caucus results are out, and it is clear that it will be between Bolshevik Bernie and Mini Mike, with more than a hunch that a lot of grassroots Democrats are really, really angry at a billionaire wanting to buy the presidency and being (up to now at least) so pathetic at it.
Bolshevik Bernie has, among his many delirious policy points, a federal law that would enshrine abortion rights in law. Let us set aside for the moment the constitutional feasibility of this, and let us reflect on what this means for the American people.
It is fair to say that Sanders’ is the most brutal attack on the unborn ever committed by a Presidential candidate. He really goes all the way out.
The current frontrunner of the Democratic Party really, really hates babies.
A person claiming of being “proud to be Jewish” promoting a yearly Holocaust. Go figure.
Mind, it is not that the other candidates are much better; in fact, it is only now that some people on the left probably begin to regret moving the needle of the party so much to the left. The “moderate” candidate, Ueber Bitch Amy Klobuchar, voted against both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and, if memory serves, attacked the latter viciously. If these are the “moderates”, give me Sanders every day. At least the danger is made very clear.
Bolshevik Bernie hates unborn babies really a lot. Klobuchar will gladly sacrifice them to get elected. All the others are in the middle, which means babies will still have to die. Whoever gets the nomination, this was the most baby-killing candidate troop the United States have ever seen.
If Bernie gets the nomination (we need to wait for Super Tuesday; but I think Nevada was a good indication of the raw energy that will be mobilised against Bloomberg), his extremism even in the matter of baby-killing needs to be a constant issue among Catholic journalists, assorted pundits and humble bloggers. I know, it will likely play second fiddle to the obvious danger the man represents for the economy and the freedom of those who have not been aborted. Still, it cannot be neglected merely because other parts of the man’s utterly bonkers platform catch the imagination of the public with more force.
We need to attack Battleship Bernie with the Catholic submarines, torpedoing it all the time to November. Trump and the GOP will attack it with the aircraft carriers USS MAGA and USS KAG, hopefully disposing of the danger.
But we need to do our job trying to move some of those who tell themselves believers to stay away from this toxic man in November.
There is a thought that has been floating in my head for years. Today, I would like to share it with you, and ask what you think.
It has been my experience all my life that people who are disillusioned with something -like, say, elections- are not easily persuaded to abandon their scepticism. They will want to, first, be persuaded by facts without them doing anything; and they will, once confronted with facts, change their minds and act accordingly.
It is my conviction that, by all his success, exactly this happened to Trump during his glorious 2016 run. He did move to action a number of people who had been disillusioned and had not voted for a long time; but – crucially – the numbers were relatively minor if compared to the untapped potential that still remained after the election.
I remember thinking, in the early hours of that glorious day, that a victory in 2016 would go a very long way to procure a victory in 2020, because the great mass of “doubting Thomases” would be aroused to action and to support Trump exactly where it counted – and will count in November – the most: that is, among the formerly disillusioned non-college educated voters in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Do not expect these voters to march to the polling station in November because they are against abortion, or think a wall indispensable, or like Trump’s North Korean policy. Expect them to go to vote in November because, for the first time since Reagan, someone really cared for their jobs and families, and they have tangible evidence of it.
Granted, many eternally disaffected and professional complainers will still stay home instead of going out in the cold, as complaining is likely what they do best and hat gives them most satisfaction in life. Still, I think that there is a big army, a huge, still untapped potential out there, particularly in the Rust Belt, ready to join the Trump Train in November. The polling organisations will, like in 2016, not be able to detect them, because these are not people getting vocal on social media or interested in talking to pollsters; but their votes will be real and, I think, largely unexpected again.
This, unless grumpy guys in the Rust Belt are different from the same guys in Italy; which I very much doubt, because nature does not change with the passport.
I do not see these people polled. I do not think many pundits are interested in them. I suspect that they think that Trump will have difficulties in keeping that constituency, much less enlarge it. But I at my age might know more of human nature than a 24 years old analyst of artificial statistical data; particularly then, when such analyst is afraid to see the signals he has in front of him.
If what I think happens, then it’s game over for Bloomberg, Sanders, or whoever else should make it. It will be a big win, and a lot more liberal tears.
The Lord acts in mysterious ways, and He might choose to let factory workers pave the way for everything the “educated” urban crowd hates.
Starting with sensible judges, and babies in the womb.
In a piece of good news that will not fail to please the readers, the Gay Scouts of America have filed for bankruptcy. What this means, is that they will now begin to sell the silverware (they have a lot of that) to deal with the many sexual abuse charges they are facing.
They will, of course, re-emerge from bankruptcy at some point as a new organisation, and I bet the legal framework is more complex than the newspaper article mentions. Still, the new organisation will be, as things stand now, also doomed.
These people allow weird things, like having boys who think they are girls to join them. This is in addition to allowing homos within their ranks, after which they are suprised that it rains sexual abuse charges on them.
Most homos like young men. Deal with it.
Similarly, “boy” means “boy”. To allow a boy who thinks he is not a boy to join the Boy Scouts is like admitting to a seminary a young man who thinks he is a girl (or, come to that, an elephant, or a Ming vase). What other things these people do I have no idea, but I am sure the details are quite disturbing. I am curious to know whether the Girl Scouts allow boys who identify as girls, or the Boy Scout girls who identify as boys.
Confusing? It’s because they are confused themselves.
Henceforward, the Gay Scouts will be an organisation for the offspring of liberals who insist in confusing their children as much as humanly possible, perhaps because they think that growing them in a “tolerant” environment will help the parents themselves get away with all the selfish stuff they do (infidelities, divorces, remarriages, addictions, etc.). If you are a marijuana-smoking swinger, with a divorce behind you and actually liking the fact that your second wife really likes the milkman, the Gay Scouts might just be the right place for your boy; particularly, of course, if you have encouraged him to “identify as girl” just in order to go for the safest option.
The simple fact is that, besides the obvious impiousness of the PC stuff, it never pays to get away from common sense. A boys’ organisation is either a boys’ organisation, or it is useless. Going away from the simple facts of life is like hoping that water will suddenly start falling upwards.
The Gay Scouts are desperate. Desperate people with no faith do desperate, stupid things. It really is amusing to see how dumb they are.
Keep your boys away from the Gay Scouts. There’s nothing good left in them.
It seems to me that there are two parties inside the Democrat party. One (let us call it Donkey 1.0) is the party we have learned to know and hate in the last twenty or so years: baby-killing, perversion-affirming, gun-controlling, eco-panicking, tax-and-spend type of guys. The other (Donkey 2.0) is the same, with the addition of Marxism.
Donkey 1.0 and Donkey 2.0 don’t really like each other. Actually, the hate each other almost as much as they hate Trump. More importantly, they see themselves as not compatible with the other. Which is, in fact, perfectly reasonable if you consider that Donkey 1.0 has an abundance of Billionaires among its supporters, of which not one, but two are actually vying for the top job; whilst Donkey 2.0, which sees with hostility and resentment the very existence of Billionaires, is largely fuelled by champagne-sipping actors feeling “virtuous” between two cocaine benders and by the vast number of envious, resentful people once – and rightly so – called the Undeserving Poor.
Donkey 2.0 was kicked in the … ass in 2016 already, when the party establishment rigged the rules to make Hillary prevail on her way to glorious defeat in November. They are, therefore, positively angry, and ferociously determined to not let it happen again this time. This does not faze Donkey 1.0 a bit, with an unlimited amount of money to spend and no lack of Greta-angering private jets to coordinate their movements; but then again, Bernie and Fauxcahontas (yes, she is still in the race! It’s difficult to let those private jet flies go!) don’t disdain a private jet ride, too.
It seems to me that in this simple reality (two parties, united by the same baby-killing zeal and desire to control your life in the minutest detail) lies one of the most important keys to understand this race. The leaders of the two parties will, likely, compromise at some point (remember: Bernie graciously accepted to be set aside in 2016 and supported the very woman who had rigged the game against him, thinking of his necessity to remain in the graces of the party!). Still, I doubt that the respective grassroots will do the same.
Les us say that Bloomberg wins the nomination, buying all opposition and promising the Bernies of the world one house here and one well-paid charity job there. In my eyes, there will be no amount of public display of (fake) affection that will move the People Of Marx to enthusiastic support of a Billionaire who will, very clearly, have nothing to do with Marxism. Nor should you think that, once deprived of their economic revolution, they are going to be happy with environmental madness: it is clear to them, and to everybody else, that climate panic is about total population control, not the environment. The result of this will be a handful of millions of votes missing from Bloomberg’s tally. This spells, bar an astonishing amount of complacency from the other side, a clear defeat.
Even worse will the Donkey fare if it is the Bern who carries the day. After all the toning down of Marxism has been done and the fake support of the Democrat Establishment has been promised, a Bernie run would be seen with terror by many of the decades-long supporters, whilst a vast number of Independents will run to the ballot and will not be able to wait to vote for Trump. Bernie would have a difficult run if the economy were bad. As it stands, the economy is so good that this would be just suicide.
I do not see how this situation can be remedied. The reality on the ground clearly indicates that these are two parties under the same (circus) tent. No artificial statement of unity, of which we will read many after the Convention, will change a iota in this.
Sanders, together with AOC and the virtue-signalling, champagne-sipping actors, has destroyed the Democrat party, splitting it right in the middle with its poisoned ideology. When even James Carville and Chris Matthews are terrified of you, you should really think how electable you are.
The Tale of Two Donkeys is, alone, an important key to understanding this election. A successful President running on a very strong economy, and on promises kept, will do the rest.
Do not ever become complacent. Still, I invite you to savour this race to the full until November.
Let’s party like it’s 1984!
Ahh…the eternal optimists, who always make “trends” out of every event, are now wondering whether the Excrementation constitutes Francis’ “Humanae Vitae” moment. How I wish I had their innocent, naive spirit!
Look: Paul VI was no hero, but at least he was Catholic! He allowed an awful amount of rot to fester, but his active participation to it was, if certainly scandalous in his and in any time, rather minuscule when compared with the almost daily barrage of Catholicism-free nonsense coming from the Humble Pachamama Pope!
It is obvious that Paul VI used HV to say “the nonsense stops here”, drawing a line in the sand in the matter of contraception. Nothing of the sort happens with the Amazonian Excrementation. In the latter case, Francis stops short of ratifying the nonsense concerning viri probati, deaconesses and the like (I do not even want to investigate what other rubbish is there, as I am sure that there is an awful lot), but he actually recommends the heresies of the Final Document to everybody, as if they were an acceptable source of debate and inspiration!
Francis is not saying that the debate ends here. He is saying that he actually wishes for it to go on! That he has no nerve to push his nonsense farther is merely a result of his inveterate habit of having two tongues, and of his innate propension for cowardice. It’s pressure from outside, not courage from inside.
This is not Francis saying “stop!” This is Francis saying “go on!”. The difference is fundamental.
Never lower your guard. Never think that Francis is backpedaling, much less converting to Catholicism! He is, and remains, a clear and present danger for the Church.
But he is, and remains, a little, cowardly, petty old bully.
Stay vigilant, and keep the pressure on the man as much as you can in your little sphere of influence.
You put together millions of us and, as we have just seen, it works.
The latest Excrementation, which stopped short of the Nuclear Holocaust which, by this pope, we were authorised to fear, allows in my eyes to have another example of the way Francis thinks and operates.
Francis has no shame, or faith, or decency. But with all that, he will only do that which he thinks he can get away with. As with the first synod on the family, or the SSPX, he will always stop whenever he sees a realistic danger to get seriously hurt. In parallel, he will only act (say: Amoris Laetitia) when he is very confident that he can do so with impunity.
It seems that this time, at least concerning the “deaconesses” and the “viri probati”, he did not trust himself to push heresy as hard as he would have liked to. The book that Ratzinger would not have written, if he had known the controversy that it would generate, might have played a role. More likely, private warnings from a number of bishops and cardinals played a more important part, then Francis would walk over a whining, crying, frail Benedict with a tractor, if he thought he can do so with impunity. Sarah, he would not even notice.
We see, from all this, how – in the end – easy it is to force this scoundrel to at least shut up. And we see, in the same way, how atrociously cowardly most of our bishops and cardinals are, who – at the very maximum, and certainly in not very great numbers – manage to stage some resistance only when Armageddon appears near.
Twenty Cardinals would be enough to have Francis hide under the bed. The four Dubia Cardinals alone would have put an end to any official antics after their own very public censure. Really, we have been needing, all these years, no more than a handful of cardinals, or a couple of dozen bishops, to give Francis a much-needed Humble Pacifier. They were, in seven years, not to be found.
What we have now is a heretic can kicked down the road. Francis will give it further kicks himself if he thinks he can, and leave things to some Tagle or other if he cannot; because this one, my dear readers, is not motivated by any sort of religious zeal, but by hatred for the Church and a petty desire to feel important as he inflicts damage to the faithful he hates.
The way with Francis is to make him feel that popes have been deposed already and could be deposed yet. It is quite remarkable that hundreds of prelates should be afraid of an adversary so evidently mediocre, so obviously ready to cave when he does not feel sure of the outcome.
Our Cardinals (first) and Bishops (second) bear a great part of the responsibility for the last seven years. Then facts show again and again that Francis is a paper tiger; a little, old, petty lewd man bent on angering and insulting everyone as long as he can get away with it.
Francis is a paper tiger; but even a paper tiger can try to look strong if all he has to deal with is a bunch of kitten.
I have now made my homework on the text.
I wish I could share the optimism of those who see in the text of Querida Amazonia a stop to the mass ordination of married priest. However, I think that Mr Verrecchio has, from what I have read up to now, one or two very sensible arguments. I am a bit in the middle, as I will proceed to explain.
What follows is paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Excrementation. Emphases mine.
2. During the Synod, I listened to the presentations and read with interest the
reports of the discussion groups. In this Exhortation, I wish to offer my own
response to this process of dialogue and discernment. I will not go into all of the
issues treated at length in the final document. Nor do I claim to replace that text
or to duplicate it. I wish merely to propose a brief framework for reflection that
can apply concretely to the life of the Amazon region a synthesis of some of the
larger concerns that I have expressed in earlier documents, and that can help
guide us to a harmonious, creative and fruitful reception of the entire synodal
3. At the same time, I would like to officially present the Final Document,
which sets forth the conclusions of the Synod, which profited from the
participation of many people who know better than myself or the Roman Curia
the problems and issues of the Amazon region, since they live there, they
experience its suffering and they love it passionately. I have preferred not to cite
the Final Document in this Exhortation, because I would encourage everyone to
read it in full.
So: Pachamama Francis is *not* officially endorsing the heretical Final Document. His exhortation is to be read as a response to it, which clearly (as far as anything with that cretin can be “clear”) means that the response of the Pope has higher authority than the document he is responding to. I note here that Francis is clearly not ratifying the decisions of the Synod. Therefore, I think that Can. 343 does not find application.
However, Pachamama Francis is not slamming the door on the heresy. In fact, he encourages us to read all that manure. He does not endorse the heresies, but he does not want the discussion to die.
To me, the meaning seems clear: “I do not have the balls to ratify the Final Document, because you never know what could happen afterwards. But I hate the Church and all Her institutions. Therefore, I refuse to close the debate and I actually encourage fake Catholics to “make a mess”; what I could not destroy today could well be destroyed tomorrow, no?”.
We can accept as uncontroversial that the document, in itself, does not endorse either mass consecration of married men or – which would be impossible anyway – sacramental deaconesses and other such rubbish. Still, the issue is not that. The issue is in the fact that Francis has refused to close the door on the subversives, clearly showing that he is on their side, but he does not see it as feasible – or prudent for his own job security – to officially endorse their theories.
Therefore, we remain in a state where we are invited to read, and therefore to debate, the unreadable and not debatable.
Trust this cowardly subversive to put a bomb in his document, so that he can continue to wreak the Church whilst maintaining the desired amount of plausible deniability. The bomb is still there, armed, waiting for a Pope able and willing to make it explode. Francis is willing; but, for the moment, he does not feel able.
What a little, cowardly piece of work this guy is.
Once again, we have to endure the spectacle of a Cardinal professing allegiance to the very man at the root of the present scandal and confusion, ” pulling a Burke” and trying to be Catholic whilst professing great loyalty and vicinity to Pachamama Pope.
Cardinal Sarah’s so vociferous protestations of allegiance to Francis is the perfect picture explaining why we are where we are: because the heretics wreaks havoc, whilst the Cardinals profess allegiance to them.
Like Burke before him, Sarah seem to believe that there is something in Francis’ water, or in the air around him. This something creates strange and inconvenient situations; for which, however, Francis is never to blame. There must really must be something wrong in the pizza over there.
Nor is this limited to Cardinals.
All the Benedict fanboys over there, living in a dream in which the old man is kept “prisoner”, do not behave much differently. The obvious complicity of Benedict with Francis, minus one or two meowing promptly downplayed when it becomes clear that they displease Pachamama Boy, must be due to every possible evil influence, but Benedict himself; a man who communicates who knows how many times with cardinals and publishers but is now, mysteriously, evidently kept prisoner, like a horribly wrinkly Rapunzel, by some evil archbishop or other.
I have abandoned hope that the solution will come from men. There is just not enough of those among bishops and cardinals. The solution, when it comes, will come out of Divine Intervention, with the powerful intercession of the Blessed Virgin.
It seems clear to me that God is showing us that the Vatican II movement is a betrayal of God and His Church, and that He is putting in front of our eyes, with a just but terrible majesty, what happens when we betray.
One day, I am persuaded that the generations of the newly found sanity will not see a picture of heresy in Francis, but a movie of rebellion beginning with John XXIII and going through all the other Popes, until the unavoidable consequence of Francis III, or Francis IV, or whoever he will be, until God puts an end to this madhouse.
I am curious to see how Cardinal Sarah wants to put an end to abominations, when he himself is at pain to remain in the graces of Pope Abominable. Nor will it be of any use, then he will be set aside like, say, Müller before him.
Francis does not tolerate any “loyal opposition “. No leftist evil man ever does.
Cardinal Sarah has pulled a Burke, and I am ashamed of the clergy that God has allotted to us in this shameful times; clergy, mind my words, who are the direct consequence of the rebellion most people in the pews have gladly supported.
We keep hoping, and praying. We will die without seeing a solution on this earth. But we don’t need to. The day of our death will mark the end of confusion, and the entry in a world of perfect mercy and perfect justice.
This mess might go on for who knows how many decades yet. But we, we must only stay strong and keep being faithful for the time allotted to us. Seen in this way, it is easier to see the way forward: fidelity to our last breath, no matter how many evil Popes succeed Pachamama Guy.
In the last year or so, I have noticed a word used fairly often by the Left: “dehumanising”.
They use it every time someone describes one of their own in some time-honoured, typical fashion, for example calling him “ass”, “donkey”, “cow”, “bitch”, or the like. So, if I say that Nancy Pelosi has the brains of a hare – or, much more spontaneously, that she is a cow with the addition of Botox – I am “dehumanising” her. I am, or so they say, preparing the ground for the alleged Nazi behaviour of Trump supporters, who – so goes the theory – are depriving their opponent of their dignity of human beings as a prelude to putting them all in ovens, or something like that.
If you think this is totally deranged, reflect that a prominent members of the Leftist Cult has declared – quite officially, and not joking in the least – in the Senate, that, if Trump is not stopped, he could give Alaska to the Russians in exchange for help by the next election. I know, I know….
Well, I am more than somewhat surprised that the accusation of “dehumanising” human beings should come from exactly that corner.
These are people who support the right of a mother to kill her baby up to the moment of birth.
Let us sink that for a bit, and let us reflect of who is “dehumanising”: me for calling Pelosi a cow, or them for killing babies in the womb.
Pope Francis has made an(other) “impassionate appeal” for globalist wealth redistribution, condemning tax cuts as, in a word, “sinful”. In Francis Commie World taxes can never go down, only up, and they will never be high enough.
I thought this guy was supposed to be about the message of Christ, the protection of the doctrine of the Church, eternal salvation, stuff like that. I thought the poor would always be with us. I thought we were supposed to be poor in spirit. I thought Jesus had some very rich friends. I thought the Church condemns Socialism and Communism.
This guy has not a shred of faith in him. He is as much of an atheist as a door handle. He is a bitter, resentful, lewd old guy who has lived an entire existence evidently scrounging from the organisation he hates the most on the planet, with the possible exception of the United States of America.
Go away, Pachamama Pope. Resign already and disappear somewhere in Venezuela, where you can’t do any damage that has not been done already. Remove your disgusting, scandalous presence from the reach of decent Catholics who, actually, love the Church.
But wait: your resignation would leave, irrespective of the title you choose to take, two former Popes! Not good! I remember the Three Tenors, and I still shudder!
I suggest you do something better, and more clear-cut.
Do us the favour and die. I wish you salvation, and hope to embrace you in heaven one day. I have just said the best three Hail Mary I could muster for you. I sincerely wish your immortal soul all the best.
But as it is now, kindly do all of us a great favour and die.
We will have challenges after you. We will have them, largely, because of you and the horrible Cardinals and Bishops you have appointed. But we will face these challenges in prayer and with faith, knowing that God will sort this out one day.
But you, you old faithless, lewd, Commie scoundrel, you have done enough damage already.
Series 2 of the “Impeach Him!” reality TV show went to an end yesterday, with the brutal rejection of the Democrat machinations by all Republicans Senators but one, the well-known Senator Judas from Utah (I think he writes as Pierre Delecto, too).
The TV show achieved abysmal ratings, vastly disappointing its creators in the Democratic Party. It never gained traction, and as the episodes went on it was clear that the public was not only not interested but, actually, positively hostile. Even the mass media hostile to him must admit that Trump’s popularity reached a new high during the impeachment show. What they don’t tell you, is that Trump likely achieved this new high in popularity, at least in part, because of it.
I followed the last episode of Series 2, live, yesterday evening. I enjoyed every minute. Not even the strident whining of Chuck Schumer managed to make me angry. In fact, I found his warnings about the impending end of Democracy As We Know It quite amusing. Thank you, Mr Schumer, for this bit of entertainment! We all know that the (mediocre) comedian blood runs in the family.
The Producers of Series 1, revolving around Russia, and Series 2, revolving around the Ukraine, must now decide whether to start Series 3 of this shameless reality show. The end of Series 2 hints at such a decision: the screenplays have decided to create another TV fantasy and have Trump end Series 2 as King. Therefore, it stands to reason that Series 3 has been already approved, the casting is going on as we speak, and production will begin as soon as practicable.
However, the producers of the show need to reflect on this: whilst Series 1 could attract a certain audience for a long while and managed to keep the public entertained, Series 2 – which was much shorter to boot – had the public bored, annoyed, or even enraged rather fast. Therefore, Series 3 constitutes a great risk. It could do much more damage than the already disastrous Series 2, as the public decide that they really have had enough of bad reality TV shows of this sort.
I, for myself, wish for Series 3 to start soon (It could start very soon: Series 2 first went on air merely days after the end of Series 1!), as I think that it would greatly help Trump’s reelection prospects, which are excellent anyway. In a strange way, I think it might be ghoulishly entertaining to watch. I am, I must confess, getting accustomed to it as I can barely remember a time without this TV show (heck, I think Obama was still President!).
Alas, it does not help to promote sound legislation on infrastructure etc. and will more or less paralyse the legislation activity; but hey, I don’t think the Producers of Series 1 and 2 will give us the sensible collaboration that would be necessary, so I had better enjoy the entertainment they can clearly give us.
The next weeks, perhaps days, will likely tell us whether Series 3 is going to get approved.
It is amazing to see how much The Producers do not care for viability or commercial success. They seem to love the show as a welcome escape from a sad reality (for them and their cult followers; the rest of the Country is in an excellent mood) and they might well have developed a dangerous addiction.
It might be very, very fun to watch.
The suicide of the young priest, Father Evan Harkins, has been keeping me occupied for a while. A suicide is always shocking, and a suicide generally leaves – whatever rubbish some V II priest may have told you – very little hope that the person who committed it escaped hell, for the reasons we all knew when we were three and a half year old, before political correctness utterly ruined our sensus catholicus. I will, therefore, remind everyone that the “heart in the right place” argument, so easily used to play God and feel good at the same time, must be expunged from the Catholic mind.
The sad case of Father Evan Harkins, however, might really be different.
Read here the absolutely terrifying letter written by a religious who witnessed several cases of people treated with the same medicament. The most terrifying period of an otherwise terrifying letter:
Yet another Sister fell into deep depression after being prescribed an anti-depressant for the relief of headaches. After she had been taking it a couple of days, she felt so depressed and suicidal, she walked out of the monastery down the road, with the overwhelming yearning to just end her life.
I realise the medicament given to Father Harkins was a reaction to severe, likely life-threatening, digestion problems, which demanded a robust countermeasure. However, I cannot avoid thinking that there is something seriously wrong with a medicament that can cause such suicidal instincts in those who take it. At the very least, it is fair to say that cases like the one of Father Harkins and the other ones mentioned by the Abbess should be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate authorities and regulators; at the very least, one would think that a thorough and serious warning about the potential side effects and, perhaps, mandatory medical supervision should be linked to the cure. I am approaching sixty years of age, and I did not even know that medicines with such brutal side effects exist in the first place. Truly sobering reading. I am, of course, not God and therefore do not know, but I truly hope that this goes as “not being able to understand what one is doing”, helping our poor Father. Lord, have mercy on him, and on us all.
However, you would rightly accuse me of becoming soft in my old age, if I were to engender the impression that this is just another “let us make our own fluffy religion” post, like you read almost everywhere nowadays. There can be no doubt that in case of suicide – of someone that is not insane, etc. – the probability of hell is just very high; so much so, that the Church thought it appropriate (who would dare, in the West, to do it today?) to prescribe that there should be no burial in consecrated ground, and no requiem mass. It did not mean, of course, that the suicide was in hell. It meant that the hand of cards was bad enough that the Church deemed a scandal to just send the signal that the deceased is quite OK, because “he had his heart in the right place”, and such stuff. For the record, pretty much everyone has his heart in the right place, and every professional assassin loves his children and pets.
I am also told that Hitler was always extremely nice. It gives one food for thought.
Pray for poor Father Harkins. Hope with a sensible, rational hope that a merciful God had mercy on him.
But please, do not nourish the narrative of a God looking at suicide now in a different way than the Church always told us He does.
Two remarkable took place last Friday. The first is Brexit. The second is the vote on additional witnesses in the Senate, all but assuring Trump’s victory in the impeachment battle.
In both cases, the Prophets Of Doom have done all they can to terrify the voters and tell them that, unless they do what their “betters” say, Britain and, respectively, American Democracy are in danger. Turns out they looked, as every prophet of doom always does, very stupid.
In Britain, trains are running and motorways are flowing just as every other day. People go about their business in the usual way. The economy is robust. Free Trade agreements are about to start being negotiated. As always, there will be challenges. As always, people will cope with them.
In the United States, the Trump Train appears all but unstoppable, and only a great dosis of complacency or sudden death or disease can now prevent a great victory in November. There were no signs of impending revolutions over the weekend. It seems Americans have decided that, Democrats notwithstanding, democracy is working just fine.
Honestly, can’t wait for the next Impeachment run, possibly based on Trump’s motorcade speeding. It will be fun to see the Dims shoot themselves in the foot, again.
The prophets of doom are losing ground, fast. They have simply abused the argument, which was never one in the first place. The common sense of the hard-working normal people is not so easy to eradicate. It is the same, by the way, for the impending EnviroDoom, which is not gaining any meaningful traction in normal people’s behaviour.
Keep screaming, Prophets Of Doom.
We will keep winning.