Monthly Archives: May 2021
What Do Miniskirts-Wearing Heretical Women And Priestly Formation Have In Common?
One answer to the question in the title is, obviously, “nothing”.
One other answer is “Cardinal Woelki”, as the man has appointed a miniskirt-wearing, heretic woman to the head of the “Direction of Studies in the Formation of Priests and Deacons”.
The miniskirt-wearing lady will, therefore, have some sort of say, and certainly some sort of influence, in what seminarians study.
You might say: “come on, Mundabor. Don’t be that guy! She might be wearing miniskirts at times, but she is a right-thinking woman, surely?”.
Well, is she? Let us examine this quote from the linked article:
..her answer to the question what beliefs about death she has thrown overboard, “The old doctrine of the separation of body and soul
Let us pay attention here: the interviewer is clearly posing a faux-fashionable question, something that must be quite OK in German “catholic” circles: where is it that you deviate from what all generations before our have believed?
The miniskirt lady does not even think of answering to the interviewer whether he/she feels well, considering that she is a Catholic and she will obviously believe (forgetting miniskirts for a moment) all that all generations before hers have believed. No, she actually feeds the interviewer with something meant to indicate that she is, you see, an independent woman!
The idea that, at death, your souls stays in your coffin, or in your urn, or at the bottom of some ocean is quite in contrast with what the Church has always believed: that at death, a soul goes immediately to its judgment, up or down as they case may be. This is, besides being logical, so foundational that it is a mystery to me how any woman who is not thinking with her legs may disagree.
But hey, these are the people whom Cardinal Woelki think should have a say in how priests are formed.
One thing we know: Germany is in deep, deep doodoo.
I do not even know whether this madness happens in Continental Europe, though I suspect something of the sort might happen, in slow motion, in the UK.
However, it appears that, in the United States, some boy can decide to have his balls cut at eighteen and it will happen pretty fast, and without anyone daring to question the wisdom (or, rather, the sanity) of the decision and of the rapidly following surgery.
The same happens, of course, in the other direction, with breasts being taken away like they are tonsils, and the mad girl then discovering that, would you ever believe it, there’s something missing down (or, rather, up) there.
One of the things that angers me most is when people who are supposed to be conservative import and normalise the insane language of their adversaries. For example, this happens anytime they mention “gender dysphoria” as anything but a manifestation of a grave mental disorder; a disorder which, in past times, was called just being raving mad.
Could, in these cases, a doctor help? Perhaps, sometimes, he could. But make no mistake: as this is the work of the devil, the right cure is prayer, not some alleged medical “science”. “Science” is, in this, just as mad as on many other issues.
A willie makes you a male. A little guitar makes you a female. It’s as clear as the sun. If anybody thinks he can change his sex, to me it’s like asking that the sun be obscured in order to leave more space to the moon.
So we read a pearl of wisdom like this one:
I started to have a really disturbing sense that like a part of my body was missing, almost a ghost limb feeling about being like, there’s something that should be there.
Yeah, well, yeah, like, you should have switched your brains on, like, earlier.
This particular case will, I think, end up in litigation.
It works in this way:
Mad girls wants to be amputated. Doctors doesn’t dare to say anything, because he could be cancelled and find himself unemployed and unemployable in no time. So if doctor dares to oppose mad girl, all the “advocacies” of this world will throw around a lot of adjectives ending in “phobic”. If doctor does not dare to oppose mad girl, girl will, after a while, discover that her madness is not cured with a mad amputation and will, like, yeah, ask to, like, go back to her old madness as far as practicable and, like, sue for the rest.
As a doctor, you can’t win.
As a mad girl (or boy), you will lose every time.
Welcome in the very inclusive, raving lunatic XXI century.
There are alarming rumours about the possible half-castration of the already half-castrated Summorum Pontificum.
I think the SSPX will not be devastated, at all.
Apparently, NuChurch is very scared of the constant increase of SP Masses and its increased adoption by young priests. So, NuChurch does what is always does: it tries to stop the mounting tide with the bucket, like children used to do before they became too busy with their smartphones.
Newsflash: you can’t stop a tide with a bucket. The only thing you can do is to look like a child.
The Church thrives in times of persecution. Tradition cannot hope of a better way to cause it to flourish than some half-thought measures like the ones now rumoured. If these people weren’t children, they would realise why organisations like the FSSP exist in the first place : in order to try to counter the vast rise in popularity of the SSPX.
The same principle will, no doubt, find application here. If these stupid ideas are carried out, they will only result in increased popularity of the traditional orders, increased demand for traditional masses, and increased opposition to this bunch of heretics and perverts daring to tell us that the mass of the ages is not good for us.
I am curious to see how stupid these people really are, nor do I expect any help, apart from the usual meowing, of the usual suspects like Cardinal Burke.
Only a fool thinks he can stop Christ.
The line above, if you copy and paste it on your browser, will lead you to the most shocking video you have ever seen: a video recording of an abortion as it happens; so to speak, “live”. I think from the video you might see more details about the pro-life organisation which posted it on Gloria Tv; I did not manage to embed the video together with the source, apologies to the posters for not getting the credit.
This is, without any doubt, the most shocking video I have seen (just jumping around the video; it truly is unbearable) in my entire, not-so-short life. I thought I was about to vomit. Do not get near this unless you feel up to the task.
No words, no matter how strong, about abortion can match the atrocious reality.
It is, therefore, fitting that the atrocious reality be made available and spread,
lest the delicacy of our palates leads to more deaths of innocents; and what an atrocious death it is.
We live in the middle of a holocaust.
We should not be worrying about delicacy.
Smash this video in the face of your abortionist (not “pro-choice”; abortionist, as “a person who enables abortions) acquaintances.
Quarrel with people!
Obsess about abortion!
Or, as that guy said…
Ah, the giiiiifts of the spiiirit. They are blowing on Francischurch again!
To understand what is about to happen, you need to recall what I have said many times now about the Evil Clown: he hates the Church, wants to disrupt it as much as he can, but will not risk being deposed.
Enter the Two Years Long Synod. This is a process of institutionalised invitation to heresy, by which the dioceses first will be invited to express every heretic opinion and propose every heretical change that the satanical spirit of heresy and enmity with Christ has suggested to them.
Francis will be very happy with the mayhem that follows. Hagan lio!
At the end of the first phase, the results of the blowing of the satanical spirit of rebellion to Christ will be compared with those who, in some ways, are still recognisably Catholic. There will be strong words, (justified) accusations of schism, a mess likely with little precedent in the history of the Church as the Bride of Christ descends into the same huge mud fight that we have been seeing for many years now among Protestants.
Francis will be very happy with the mayhem that follows. Hagan lio!
At the end of the second phase, there will be the third phase. In this phase, the warrying factions will converge on Rome, when Francis (if he still alive, which I truly hope he will not be) will do the usual Francis thing: he will make decisions that cause as much damage as possible to the Church, tamper with the Sacraments, perhaps even sanction some sort of “non-blessing but really, really understanding accompaniment” for perverts, whilst avoiding a mass revolt against him; which, in a world in which Burke is considered anything more than a kitten, is not difficult to achieve.
Francis will be very happy with the fact that he has spoken, is seen as the boss, but a boss that listens to “the spirit”, and his maximum damage policies will then slowly but surely push forward the decay of the Church.
We see month after month the fruits of allowing Francis to go on unchallenged. If the Four Cardinals had had a semblance of guts years ago, we would not be seeing this now. Meanwhile, Burke tells us that the SSPX is outside of the Church. One can’t believe these are the people who are – or so they say – on our side.
The Big Mayhem is about to start. It will plunge the Church into a huge deal of confusion and strife. It will further spread the Protestant concept that truth changes because hey, the spiiirit.
Please, Francis, pretty please!
Do us all a favour, and die today.
I was re-reading Garrigou-Lagrange’s observations about the number of the damned. From a XXI Century’s perspective, a couple of things were striking.
The first: the obvious consideration that, as Christians were, historically and even today, a more or less tiny minority of the world population, and considering the low-to-actually-very-low probability of salvation for a non-Christian, the great majority of the souls born up to now is in, or will go to, hell. I wonder how long it will be before such obvious considerations are branded as “hate” or, at least, considered “unchristian ” by the majority of our bishops.
The second: considering the amount of the saved among Christians- Catholic or not – the argument was made that the number of infant deaths would actually be a big argument in favour of hoping that the majority of Christians are saved. Reflect on this: an event that was, until recent times, so frequent as to possibly tip a big scale in the other direction, and was considered, after all, a big plus in the great scheme of Salvation, would today be considered a cruelty justifying, in the eyes of most, the parents of the deceased child losing the faith.
In both issues, how things have changed in just a couple of generations! Your average pew-sitting Christian would, nowadays, utterly sympathise with the parents advertising their loss of faith, instead of warning them about the reality of hell.
Similarly, I am not surprised that people who have lost the very concept of hell claim for the “blessing” of homosexual relationships. If hell isn’t in the cards, there’s little preventing a constant, ever-escalating game of “we are all ok”, ending with embracing everything that is even remotely to do with “lurv”.
We need to realise this: most people who, nowadays, call themselves “Christian” have a very little idea of what Christianity really is and what consequences the refusal of Christ has. In only two generations, Christianity has been reduced from the pillar of civilised societies to a very thin veneer of social conventions covered by a very thick varnish of do-goodism and political correctness.
This unprecedented catastrophe is, as a whole, the result of the unprecedented assault on Christian values started by the Second Vatican Council.
Do not be surprised if we are, as a result, punished with an unprecedented bad Pope.
Mundaborland, a very recent afternoon, around 17:30.
Your anonymous hero has called a lift (for you Gringos and Gringas out there: “elevator”) and, as the automatic doors open, is about to enter with his usual debonair, but manly stride. Three people are already inside the “elevator”, two women and a biological man. All three are wearing a mask.
Biological man asks me if it is “OK” for me to wait for the next lift.
Well, of course it is. The landlord of the office building where Yours Truly discharges his worldly duties has made it clear that the maximum should be, I think, three (big, big lifts!), and you might have to wait. However, no mask obligation (predictably, your humble correspondent was not wearing a mask) in the “elevator”.
The tone of the biological male, a guy whose ancestors have likely contributed to the building of the British Empire, left no room for mistake. He was not bitchy or aggressive in any way. I think he was sincere. His unspoken words were: “I know that you people are all amply relaxed; particularly in your Company, Mundabor, which is quite notorious for it in the whole big, big building! But as for myself, I will make myself important and show myself concerned to the very last minute, before I go back to making myself important with Global Warming, or the like; because you see, I need it to be seen that I care, or I will feel utterly miserable!”.
No, he did not say that. But at his age, Yours Truly understands unspoken words; or, as in this case, manifestos.
It is so, so sad to see that a Country that once produced empire-builders, now produces concerned mask-wearers.
I can’t wait for total normality to go back again.
It will be beautiful to think about how miserable all these “concerned” fools – including the biological males – must feel.
“Keeping the truth doesn’t mean defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas, but remaining bound to Christ and being devoted to his Gospel”,
I don’t know if I have ever read anything as stupid as this.
Sadly, yes, it comes from that guy.
Let us examine the egregious piece of excrement that Francis has just deposited all over Catholicism; enjoying, no doubt, the scandal he creates.
By definition, being a guardian of doctrine and dogmas is (at least for us Christians; and we are talking of truth here, so we are not talking about… Hindus) keeping the truth, because, get this…
the dogmas and doctrines are there exactly so that truth be kept.
In fact, there is no way in which a Christian can better defend the truth than by – you guessed it – becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas. There really isn’t. No amount of mental retardation or senility can ever justify wannabe emotional rubbish like this. This really is Satan at work.
One wonder what kind of filth must inhabit the mind of a person that does not seem able to see the most elementary logic in the religion he is called to, actually, defend; yes, including the dogmas and the doctrines!
The only way to try to give a meaning to the blabbering of this nincompoop is by assuming that what he means is that doctrines and dogmas are not suited to defend the truth, because lurv does it. I really, really cannot find any other explanation for the nonsense that the man spouts.
What this is is, simply put, not Christianity. It is a novel religion in which you “keep the truth” by denying it, as your lurving heart persuades you that being “bound to Christ” and being “devoted to his Gospel” is whatever makes you feel good or, better said, is convenient to you today.
What a piece of work our not-so-holy father is!
He can keep his strange lurv religion.
As for me, I will keep trying to guard the doctrines and dogmas as good as I can.
I have written very recently about the two priests who have, in a relatively short period of time, left the priesthood for a woman *in the same parish*.
It says something about the present state of the Church that it appears that several of my readers have checked very accurately that the priests in questions have not left the priesthood because of falling in lurv with.. each other.
I do not think that this is an exaggerate reaction. I think that it reflects, in the end, a drive to the progressive perversion of the priesthood that we all see happening, albeit in different ways and perhaps – if we are lucky – only through blogs and headlines.
In other words, it seems that many of us have, how should I put it.. that feeling…
Realistically, there is no way that, as I write these lines, the number of perverted priests is not at the maximum of the last several centuries and, very possibly, at a level only seen before in the times of St Peter Damian. Tragic as this is, it also reminds us that, whatever we see happening to our beloved Church, it has likely already happened before. What is different now is that the disease appears in an extremely violent form, a form which in some way has never appeared before; but the disease itself, the Church already knows.
Yes, we have had heretical Popes in the past. Yes, we have had homosexual priests in the past. Yes, whenever you have to deal with homosexual priests, you will have to deal with paedophiles, then most of the latter come from the cohorts of the former. All this has, alas, been experienced before.
How do we react to these times? In the same way our ancestors reacted to the evils of their times.
Prayer and penance. Penance and prayer. A militancy that is as outspoken as prudence allows. The strong desire to never give up our truth. The firm, ferocious intention to die in the religion our forefathers followed, no matter how mad the people (and the priests, the bishops and the popes) around us become.
Look, at this point I have no illusions anymore. I am preparing myself for Francis II “Che”, Francis III “Elton” and, if I am very, very unlucky, Francis IV “Caitlyn”.
“This is madness, Mundabor!”, you will say. “This will never happen!”.
Let’s hope so.
But if the Cardinals are of the same strong fibre and manly disposition as Cardinal “Kitten” Burke, when Francis IV announces that he wants to undergo a hormone treatment, will there be a real reaction? I think that, as per today, we would only have some kitten-like meowing and posturing, followed by… nothing. There is no saying, at this point, what kind of evil the Cardinals would not leave unpunished. It’s good that Francis is too cowardly to test it.
Past periods of Church crisis have gone on, at times, for many decades, or for centuries. We have no right to expect that this time be any different. In fact, as in the past there was, broadly speaking, no betrayal of God that reached the scale of what we have witnessed with the Second Vatican Council, it is not unrealistic to fear that the level of madness that we will see in the next decades will, also, reach an unprecedented scale; then a bigger offence must perforce cause a bigger punishment.
Still, my situation is as binary today as it ever was for everybody else in the past: I will either be saved, or damned. There is, in this, no difference at all with all ages past. Whatever the challenges we are faced, we are given the graces to overcome them.
Pope Francis IV, as he undergoes hormone treatment, still has no power over my salvation.
This is the news of two priest in the same Italian parish, deciding to abandon the priesthood for the (questionable) joys of married life when you should, actually, be a priest.
Basically, it is the decision of living a lie because the truth of one’s choice was hard to bear.
Wait, have I written “too hard to bear”? No. The decision was made , and the two priests had decided to dedicate their lives to the priesthood. Sorry, “father”, but at that point, if you are a man, there is no going back. Do you have any doubt? Pray more. Are you tempted? Fast more. Whatever happens, keep your vows and stay at your post. This is what you promised, as a man, to do.
What grated me most, in the article, was not the fact, enough shameful in itself, of a parish that seems to work as an incubator for the abandonment of the priesthood. It is, once again, the failure of the bishop to offer any leadership.
A bishop who states that he “respects” the “free decision” of the two to betray their vows devalues the priesthood, makes the sacrament cheap, and makes it appear like a temporary life choice that can be discarded when the circumstances change, leaving Father Quitter with the perceived right of being “respected” for his “free choice”; and, oh, isn’t it all so ro-o-o-mantic?
I don’t know: perhaps the two priests though they were Protestant Pastors? Perhaps the Bishop has forgotten what the sacrament of Holy Orders is?
How about a comment along the lines of: “The decision of Father X and Father Y is shameful, a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of Christ. However, given the circumstances, I have chosen to defrock the two rather than having such black sheep within the fold, possibly giving scandal, and certainly unable to inspire their sheep to sanctity”, or something along those lines.
I wonder what is next: a nice little “farewell to the priesthood” party – with the priest and his future Signora and the usual accompaniment of boring, sugary speeches about lurv – so that the parishioners can wish him all the best? Will there be a gold watch, I wonder?
What is happening to us? What is happening to the Sacraments? How much has remained of the Catholicism of our forefathers? Which Bishop would, 100 years ago, have chosen the same words as Bishop Cancian now?
Food for thoughts.
Actually, food for prayer and penance, too. Today I will pray the Lord that my Catholicism never (again) becomes so dull that I feel no sense of shame (for him) and scandal (for the others) at a priest abandoning his post.
We will see whether these marriages become beds of roses. Given the circumstances, I am inclined to think, rather, of beds of thorns.
We have recently learned that, if you asked the text writers at the CDF how they call people in favour of killing a baby in his mother’s womb, they would (shrug their shoulders and) call them “pro-choice”.
I would love to ask the same people whether their would call the architects of the Holocaust “pro-final solution”. Because you see, if the wilful murdering of innocents can be called being “pro” something , they would not have a problem, surely?
We are, as always, in front of one of the biggest tragedies of our time: the adoption of the language of the enemy in order to look “moderate”.
The enemy uses words with positive connotations to mean something intrinsically wrong or evil. As a result, in the long run in becomes impossible to effectively criticise with arguments what we cannot even criticise with words.
This is, as I have often written – but I will keep doing this, because it is one of the most important fronts of the culture wars – bound to end up in defeat.
Any criticism of sodomy starting with the word “gay” will not force anyone on the other side of the argumet to think; because, by using the word “gay”, the criticism has been already devalued and made to sound whiny and petty. But use, and explain, the real word, and the argument will suddenly appear to the reader to have a different force, quite a new energy. Similarly, it is utterly senseless to go on around the dangers of having “undocumented” immigrants if you have already castrated your argument from the start.
Now, why does the CDF (or even Breitbart!) use the wrong words? Because they want to appear moderate, or measured. In the meantime, your adversaries will call you racist, white supremacist and all sort of insults for merely disagreeing with them, and they will not care one straw for your attempts to appease them and show them that no, you are quite the reasonable guy.
You know what? They have the better strategy, and you are being a fool.
We need to react to this by ditching all language conventions that are remotely stinking of leftism; from the horrible “they/them” instead of “he/him” when you don’t know the sex (not “gender”) of the person you are talking about, to the use of stupid leftists fake words like gay, polyamorous, transgender, Latinx, undocumented, reproductive rights, pro-choice, and the like.
The Culture War can’t be won when one side keeps bombing, and the other side keeps appeasing.
Also, use liberally those words that actually mean something: bitch, bastard, concubine, illegal, etc. Make them feel the heat. Soon you’ll see more and more will start getting out of the kitchen.
And for heaven’s sake, stop trying to be nice.
They aren’t, and so shouldn’t you.
Predictably, after the decision of the CDF, the German Homonazis and Kirchensteuerwhores are now starting to defy the rules and proceed to their homemade “blessings”; to which, as I have already reported, seems that no-one wants to take part.
Some people may think that Francis is displeased by this, as defying the authority of a Vatican congregation is a slight to him, too or, at least, it makes him look “backward” and “homophobic”. I beg to differ.
Francis isn’t interested in being seen as an enforcer. He is interested in being seen as a disrupter. “Hagan lio” is the best expression of his forma mentis.
A man who deeply hates the Church, Francis has no interest in Her well-being or in Her reputation; whilst, clearly not believing in Christ, he has no issues with the open defiance of His teaching, either. If he is a closeted homo himself, the Germans will please him; if he isn’t, the damage made to the Church will please him anyway.
On the other hand, Francis is, like every bully, a coward. It is not for him to push hard the boundaries of what he can get away with it. Faced with the choice between 50% lio without risk of deposition and 90% lio with risk of deposition, he will always choose the former. In fact, he likes it when other people do the lio-ing for him, allowing him to watch, from a distance, the damage to an institution he clearly hates.
Therefore, the situation in German will not improve as long as Francis is Pope; and even after he dies – no, he will not resign; that was another of his thousand lies – it will take a long time for every Pope who is not a tough guy to set this right.
My advice to all my German readers: get out of the Kirchensteuer now. And no, you will not cease to be a Catholic.
This bunch of Kirchensteuer prostitutes will only get the message when it hurts in their pockets; the Kirchensteuer is an obsolete, un-Catholic system anyway.
Get out now, and let Father Juergen (or Father Wilhelmina, as the case may be) know why you do it.
It was only a small number of years ago (in 2003), that the Presbyterians had their first officially sodomite “bishop”. I can easily imagine that, at that time, a “trannie bish” would have ben unthinkable to the very people who, actually, supported Robinson
However, once you go down the road of “affirming” perversion, where do you end?
Let us see the stages: first “specially ordered” freak show guy in 2006; first mutilated “priest” allowed to remain “such” in 2007; first officially enrolled freak show guy in 2012; and now, in 2021, the 2006 freak show guy is the first “freak bish”.
The link is posted only because, otherwise, you might not believe anything in this blog post; and I must confess that I, myself, who have zero esteem for our proddie non-brothers and non-sisters (also because, these days, you just don’t know) in the faith, had to do a double take and stop at the enormity of the situation.
Also please note – in a further piece of evidence of the degeneracy of modern times – that the author of the linked article, who is very supportive of the novelty, refers to the freak show guy (or girl; whatever that person is) as if they were two people. Which is strange because even a schizophrenic guy, or gal, is, in fact, always only one person.
There was a time when I, in my naivete and inexperienced, was actually angered at such news, because I thought that they would be harming the faith and leading people astray. In the meantime, though, “such news” have become so outlandish that I am persuaded that, rather, they serve to help the good people to stay away from such organisations; it being, at this point, evident that only a person whose heart and mind has been deeply, deeply corrupted can accept this senseless parody of Christianity as the real thing.
Make no mistake: him, and her, and they, and them, and xir, and all that rubbish, will go straight to hell unless they manage to get their pronouns right before they kick the bucket.
I have just written about the obvious justice of hell.
Honestly, this one here is another great example of it.
How many times have we seen it? “Progressive” priests and prelates (what I think about their motivation is here) organise a schismatic event in that most schismatic of Countries, Germany. The homo event is promoted by the Diocese. How many people show up? Frankly, it was clearly only the perverts and their closest accomplices.
This must be atrociously embarrassing, at least for people who are still capable of embarrassment. In fact, it is the natural consequences of Catholic thinking still being, in some way, still present among Germans.
Consider this: the Germans are an extremely, atrociously gregarious people. They don’t really “do” independent thinking. They will, as a whole, go with what other people think, or with what they are told by people they see as in a position of authority. The inability to accept a position that makes one isolated in the group is quite scary, and – besides having been encouraged since the time of the Denazification – has a strong tradition in Germany. Your average Georg Zimmermann has a very, very strong dislike for being, on a hot issue, the only one with a contrary opinion in the room; which is what, for example, would greatly please many Italians.
So, let us look at the ingredients here: the German government, the local parish, even the local Diocese tell you that perversion is good and must be supported if you want to be a good Christian/good human/part of the group. Still, German Catholics refuse to take part to this game. If you have lived in Germany, and know how scarily gregarious Germans are, this gives you all the measure of how much Catholics must feel betrayed by their own priests and Bishops.
Now please mind this: whilst both the parish priest and the bishop might well be homosexuals themselves, in Germany there might be a simpler explanation for this pandering to the public opinion: the notorious Kirchensteuer. These prelates might, as a rule, simply be looking for a paying public for their impious, godless circus, thinking that by being godless more people will want to pay the price of admission. However, it can also be easily said that a priest, or prelate, that reduce himself to such a state is clearly giving Satan a huge opening, and who knows where that will end; in many cases, methinks, it ends in sodomy.
Still, what we keep seeing is this: that even the atrociously gregarious German Catholics refuse to follow their “betters” (the civil and religious authorities) and do not collaborate with the worst of the anti-Christian propaganda pushed by both.
I don’t know how long this will go on. But boy, it is good to see that, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, the homo agenda of the German Bishops is going absolutely nowhere.
The pertinent question, then, is not whether an empty hell is something desirable—which it obviously is—but rather whether it is something “possible to obtain,” given what we know about human freedom and man’s proclivity to sin.
This statement appears in this article, dealing with the “dare we hope” hoax.
Let us leave the hoax of the empty hell aside. Let us focus, instead, on whether it is desirable that there be an empty hell. Is it desirable – even more: obviously desirable – that hell be empty?
Well, if you ask me: obviously not.
Let me first make a statement that is, I think, pretty much unquestionable. It is our job, whilst here on earth, to try to conform ourselves to God’s will. Once it is evident, and a certainty of the faith, that God considers an empty hell something wrong, why would I think differently? Who am I to decide that it would have been obviously desirable that God had done things differently from the way he did them? Am I getting something right, that God has obviously missed?
Look: call me ignorant, or theologically inadequate, but I am fully persuaded that whenever the Church shows me the truth of something willed by God, it is not my job to decide what my preferences – obvious or not – are. It is clear – actually, obvious – that whatever God has established and willed is perfect in its own way, and could not have been done in any way better.
Yeah, man. I know. We can jokingly say that we wish that fornication wasn’t a sin, or that tiramisu were good for your health and prescribed by the doctor. But we say it in jest. We know that whatever God has established is good and holy. In some ways, we even understand why; and, to stay by the example, the poisonous effect of fornication on marriage, carried out both before and after said marriage, is too evident to even discuss it, if we only stop for a moment and think seriously about it.
When we are serious about it, we know that everything that God has made is good and holy, and that this includes hell, even if – quod Deus avertat! – we, ourselves, were to merit to land down there!
Do you think that the saints, in heaven, think that it would be “obviously good” if hell was empty? Do you think that their full alignment to God’s will makes an exception when it is about their own relatives and friends who have merited to be sent the other way? What do the saints think, “God is such a nice guy, but that thing with Hell was a tad too much, if you ask me”?
This cheap “goodness” at the expense of God is not really good, though it is certainly cheap.
Plus, let us stop and reflect on the desirability of hell, even in what our little minds can understand.
If hell were empty, would not any infinitely grave atrocity (like the infinitely grave offence to God caused by, say, a life of mockery of Him and a death in the refusal of Him) end up in another God’s mockery, inasmuch as the sinner could boast that he ate his cake and had it, and that he mocked God by escaping the Divine punishment he himself has merited?
And if hell were empty, what values would all our sacrifices have? Isn’t the fear of the Lord such a fundamental part of our (God-willed) way of being Christians? If we all end up in Paradise and our good life only makes a difference in our degree of beatitude, why would not only any fornicator, but any child rapist be worried?
Are you the one who will say to the raped child that he should not for a moment think that his rape would deserve – even if the rapist dies in perfect hate for and mockery of God – anything less than heaven for his torturer? It seems to me that this cheap good-ism leads to absurd consequences, and this is what even my little mind can readily understand. Imagine how much, of the goodness and wisdom of hell, my little mind can not even begin to fathom!
No. It is not desirable that hell be empty. It is not desirable that hell be empty because we know that God has willed that it be not, and we know that there be nothing less than desirable in what he has willed.
If we can wish that God had done things differently, where does it end? Should we wish that God had not condemned sodomy? Should we wish that God had allowed concubines to have access to the Sacraments? Do you see the permanent rebellion that this thinking encourages?
Hell is right as it is.
Because God did it so.
You know that feeling, when you read about powerful prelates espousing some strange, distinctly non-Catholic cause, and something inside you knows that things aren’t right?
Yes, I mean those powerful Bishops and Cardinals. The “concerned” ones. The ones who speak “for the poor”. The ones who are always ready to espouse the easy causes.
Then you remember the curas villeros in Argentina, who disappear in the dirty slums of Buenos Aires to get the most disgusting sexual favours from all sorts of desperate perverts. At that point, you start to connect the dots, observing that the advocacy for the “downtrodden” can, very easily, hide a predatory desire for people either already totally corrupted, but which the “social work” gives easy opportunity to approach; or else, the ability to attack the vulnerable and to blackmail them because of the important position the powerful “social worker” slash priest slash prelate has in that already very corrupt environment; a position that can be the difference between, say, getting a decent job or remaining destitute.
There seems to be a common theme, is it not. A lot of these “social workers” appear to have had different motives than simple social work. How many of those corrupted curas villeros has the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires protected? How many are, like that archbishop, zealous apostles of the “social work” of the priest themselves? What is it, that these powerful men are hiding?
Could it be that all that social preaching is just a huge covert operation to allow an entire mafia of perverted priests and prelates to protect each other and climb the ranks of the Church through the net they have created; some of them, in time, becoming powerful and continuing to serve the same mafia-style organisation of which they are part, to which they have been linked all their lives, and which could destroy them if they stopped working for the “group”?
Am I being a conspiracy theorist here?
I don’t know.
I might be right.
I might be wrong.
But then I read this, and I know what to think.
On 2 May of the Year of the Lord 2021, Father Z published a blog post about St Catharine of Siena. I will try to link to the article here, but it seems not to work.
The blog post is, like every other one of the same author, very interesting. It would appear that this saintly woman “travelled widely” and “was enormously influential”.
How does this, pray, square with the usual feminist narrative of women who were treated, more or less, like dirt, and certainly as radically “inferior beings”, before “emancipating” themselves? Well in one word, it doesn’t. Letting aside the issue of the travels (which already demolishes a good part of the narrative), it is the fact of her enormous influence that gives the lie about the role of the woman in the pre-emancipation age. This would never be possible if Catherine had been considered, qua woman, unable to exert influence. You will find no child, bar Jesus, able to exercise such “enormous influence”; and even Jesus chose to exercise his influence later in life.
It appears clear that the, undoubtedly, very manly and very “patriarchal” Christian society of the time was extremely ready, eager even, to be influenced by a woman who was also – besides being woman – very young!
Watch with me the feminist edifice of lies crumble in front of your eyes, leaving behind a huge cloud of smoke and debris everywhere.
It is extremely wrong, and the result of the stupidity of our times, to make women’s position and human dignity directly related to her voting rights, or to her ability to parrot men in this or that activity. It is like thinking that cats will be inferior to dogs until they are finally allowed to bark.
Intelligent women have always been influential. However, their influence was exerted in a different way than the one proper of men, and was used (when a good, positive one) in perfect harmony with the special graces that God has given specifically to women. It appears, as we read in the blog post, that men of the past perfectly understood this. I wonder how many men, today, can think with the same lucidity; though they have, no doubt, smartphones vastly exceeding the computation ability of their ancestors.
Also, it is not known to me that St Catharine of Siena, who was “enormously influential”, ever used her influence to advocate for women’s vote, or women’s emancipation, or the right of women to become part of the Imperial armed forces, or priestesses, or deacons, or lectors at Mass. It is, in fact, not known to me that this saintly woman ever thought that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the societal structures of her time.
But no, we are to listen to Hillary Clinton and (*if* she is a biological female, of course; which is said in jest, but not so much…) Michelle Obama. They clearly know better than St Catherine.
Modern Western societies are deeply, deeply intoxicated with feminist poison. Yes, even many males who think themselves conservative. They might think of themselves in that way, but every quisque de populo in a factually independent, largely self-administered city (“Comune”) in Italy in, say, the XII or XIII Century, would have actually laughed at hearing these people defining themselves as manly, or even “conservative”.
They would, in a word, laugh at people with such smart phones, but unable to get the basics of the God-given order themselves.
The attempt to completely destroy the integrity of the vote on a National scale might be doomed to fail, as Senator Manchin appears to have put another nail in this particular coffin. It’s not the first time he does it, and I can well imagine that his position allows others (like Sinema in AZ) to stay in the shadow without being forced to speak against it, if they want to save their job.
Simply put, the Democrats’ hold on the Senate is, at least in some matters, much weaker than the 50+VP official position makes it look.
You know that I, like many in Europe, look at the United States as a luminous example of Western Civilisation and a Country that – still – can teach liberty to everybody else. But there is no denying that this liberty – and, in fact, the very way in which America sees itself – has been under constant, massive attack since Michael Brown at least (very possibly, since Occupy Wall Street; which was different, but equally Marxist), and that this is going to stay with us for some years.
The main issue, as I see it, is education and his cascading issue, language. The Country has allowed a cabal of Marxist to take control of vast part of the education system in the US. In time, this has created a wave of nutcases that are, already, numerous enough to cause trouble. In pure Marxist style, these people do not – in their vats numbers – openly support Marxism (some do; Black Lives Matter before they got smarter is a point in case). What they do, is supporting proxy causes that they can then use to push a covert, Marxist agenda. They use language to push their agenda. They take horrible things and give them a new facade.
Every time that you hear words like “racism”, “social justice”, “oppressed”, “reparations”, and the like, know that these words are pronounced either by a closeted Marxist or by a person to dumb to understand he is working for them.
How have conservative reacted to this? Very badly. Actually, as stupidly as they could.
In their pathetic, effeminate efforts to look “nice”, the milquetoast Conservatives (that is: the majority of them) ended up adopting their enemies language, at which point they make their victory in the issue inevitable. To make a point, “civil partnerships” and so-called same sex “marriage” have started to win when conservatives have started to say “gay” instead of homosexual, sodomite, deviant, or the like. “Perv marriage” doesn’t really sell well.
If you adopt the language of your enemy, you adopt his underlying ideology. When that happens, you will have to cede terrain one bit at a time.
Let us go back to Senator Manchin. He can oppose the prospective legislation because there are enough people calling it a fraud. If Conservatives were to start saying “I hate voter suppression, but…”, this would, in time, be the end of this battle, too. You don’t espouse the narrative of your enemies because you want to look understanding or inclusive. You counter it from the first centimeter, and never give up one inch of ground.
Conservatives need to ban from their vocabulary words – when used in the sense of the enemy – like “gay”, “Lgbt”, “voter suppression”, “of color”, “gender”, “transgender”, and many others.
Gay means debonair, happy. LGBT means assorted perverts. “Voter suppression” means “attempted ballot fraud”. “Of colour” means “non White”. “Gender” means a language tool, or sex. “Transgender” means “transsexual” or “freak show”, and so on.
When our side starts using the language of their opponent, we lose. When they don’t, and call a spade a spade, there is hope.
Banish from your vocabulary any word meant in the wrong way and only use it in the proper way.
“You seem very gay today, Mark!”
“I am not gay!”
“You mean that you are not a sodomite? I know that!”
Let’s take back our values, one word at a time.