Search Results for bagnasco

Don’t Cry For Cardinal Bagnasco

The man on the left thinks he is a woman; the man on the right thinks he can receive.

The obvious waning of Cardinal Bagnasco's power within the Italian church has made some headlines in the past days, so I thought I would add a word or three.

Cardinal Bagnasco used to be one of the best – as V II Cardinals go – of Benedict's cohort. For a V II Cardinal he was very outspoken, and he has certainly given his contribution to the – failed, we can now say – attempt to avoid that Italy falls into the pit of legalised, and even protected, sexual perversion. He is the kind of man a Ratzinger would appoint as head of the Italian Bishops' Conference, but certainly not the choice of Francis, nor – if I remember correctly, that the Pope will now renounce to appoint the head of the Italian Bishops' conference himself – of his Italian colleagues.

Still, Bagnasco has betrayed. In a typical V II, “let us be stupid and call it pastoral” fashion, around two months after Francis' election he has dared to give communion to a scandalous, well-known, former Italian member of parliament, a pervert in drag commonly known under the name of Luxuria, which is Latin for lust.

The occasion was the death of a Father Gallo (which in Italian means, fittingly, “cock”, and a huge gallo Father undoubtedly was); one of those unspeakable priests who promote the likes of the above mentioned pervert. It was already extremely grave for the Cardinal to officiate at that mass, but it was unpardonable that he would accept to give communion to the idiot in rags in front of the entire country and without any sign of repentance and acceptance of Catholic teaching from the latter. In one day, Bagnasco not only has been the accomplice of an obvious sacrilege, but he has become a helper of the same people, and of the same cause, he wanted to oppose.

Please do not let my adrenaline level explode with one of the usual effeminate tambourine comments along the lines of: “oh, but we do not, oh know whether he has not oh repented before taking oh communion, and who are we to, oh, judge?”. The freaking pervert has presented himself for communion looking like a female: a walking scandal perfectly in tune with the scandalous crowd present, and the scandalous agenda he and them were there to promote. There's nothing else to say.

I remember well thinking at the time that Bagnasco might have been trying to save his appointment as head of the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana by showing to the new ringmaster that he can cope with a renewed circus programme. I cannot explain otherwise why he would be there, and why being there he would not give an example, in front of the entire country, of his love for Christ. Even in the absurd case that the new Pope would have ordered him to be there, no Pope can order him to whom he has to give communion if he thinks he shouldn't.

Bagnasco could have given a wonderful example. He did not. He chose to do what he knew would scandalise each and every good Catholic in the Country, and he the head of the Bishops' Conference.

Do not cry for his departure. It is better for the cause of sound Catholicism to have prelates who are very obviously the wrong ones, rather than those who appear to be sound, and then end up making the work of the Enemy anyway.

 

Bagnasco Scandal: SSPX Italia Speaks

The Homo Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

SSPX Logo

The press release of the SSPX Italia  after the scandalous events at the funerals of don Gallo.

Italian original first, my translation (as literal as possible, no emphases) follows.

——————————————————————————————

In seguito ai funerali di don Gallo presieduti dal card. Bagnasco la Fraternità San Pio X denuncia il grave scandalo causato dall’intervento di Wladimiro Guadagno (detto Luxuria) e dal fatto che il cardinale gli abbia amministrato la Comunione, come se il suo pubblico comportamento e la sua attività da parlamentare non fossero contrari alla morale e scandalosi.

Così si è agito anche nei confronti di altri rappresentanti di movimenti contrari agli insegnamenti della Chiesa. Secondo la dottrina cattolica e la logica del Vangelo gli autori di peccati notori, prima di accostarsi al sacramento dell’Eucaristia, devono pentirsene e riparare pubblicamente.

Riguardo alle posizioni difese da don Gallo, non denunciate dalle autorità ecclesiastiche, ed in un certo qual modo avallate dalla…

View original post 631 more words

Bagnasco Scandal: SSPX Italia Speaks

SSPX Logo

The press release of the SSPX Italia  after the scandalous events at the funerals of don Gallo.

Italian original first, my translation (as literal as possible, no emphases) follows.

——————————————————————————————

In seguito ai funerali di don Gallo presieduti dal card. Bagnasco la Fraternità San Pio X denuncia il grave scandalo causato dall’intervento di Wladimiro Guadagno (detto Luxuria) e dal fatto che il cardinale gli abbia amministrato la Comunione, come se il suo pubblico comportamento e la sua attività da parlamentare non fossero contrari alla morale e scandalosi.

Così si è agito anche nei confronti di altri rappresentanti di movimenti contrari agli insegnamenti della Chiesa. Secondo la dottrina cattolica e la logica del Vangelo gli autori di peccati notori, prima di accostarsi al sacramento dell’Eucaristia, devono pentirsene e riparare pubblicamente.

Riguardo alle posizioni difese da don Gallo, non denunciate dalle autorità ecclesiastiche, ed in un certo qual modo avallate dalla presenza del presidente della conferenza episcopale italiana al suo funerale, si ricorda che:

1-      La legge di Dio condanna la pratica omosessuale e la Chiesa insegna che essa costituisce un peccato contro natura che grida vendetta al cospetto di Dio.[1]

2-      Don Gallo ha aiutato delle donne ad abortire.[2] Ora l’aborto è un crimine poiché si uccide un essere umano innocente ed è punito con la scomunica non soltanto per coloro che lo praticano ma anche per tutti quelli che lo favoriscono in maniera efficace.[3]

3-      L’utilizzo delle droghe cosiddette leggere, incoraggiato da don Gallo, non soltanto costituisce spesso il primo passo verso altre sostanze stupefacenti, ma è contrario al V comandamento che ci ordina di custodire il nostro corpo come un dono di Dio.

4-      Il comunismo, esplicitamente sostenuto da don Gallo[4], è stato condannato dal Magistero ecclesiastico come “intrinsecamente perverso”.[5]

Tali comportamenti manifestano in maniera sempre più evidente la grave crisi che sta attraversando la Chiesa ed il tradimento da parte di membri importanti della gerarchia dei principi più elementari della morale cattolica.

 Don Pierpaolo Petrucci

Superiore del Distretto d’Italia della Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X

[1] Catechismo di San Pio X

[3] Nuovo codice di diritto canonico can. 1398

[4] «Comunque è vero, sono comunista. Non dimentico mai la Bibbia e il Vangelo. E non dimentico mai quello che ha scritto Marx». Da Angelicamente Anarchico, Oscar Mondadori, Milano, 2005.

[5] Pio XI, Divini Redeptoris

———————————————————————————

Following the funerals of don Gallo, officiated by card Bagnasco the Fraternity of Saint Pius X denounces the grave scandal caused by the intervention of Wladimiro Guadagno (known as Luxuria) and from the fact that the Cardinal allowed him to receive the Communion, as if his public behaviour and his activity as a Member of Parliament were not contrary to the morals and scandalous.

The same happened concerning other representatives of movements contrary to the teachings of the Church. According to catholic doctrine and the logic of the Gospel, the authors of notorious sins must, before they approach the sacrament of the Eucharist, repent of them and make acts of reparation publicly.

Concerning the positions defended by don Gallo, not denounced by the ecclesiastical authorities, and in a way endorsed by the presence of the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference at his funeral, it must be kept in mind that:

1. God’s law condemns the homosexual practice and the Church teaches that it constitutes a sin against nature, that cries for vengeance in the presence of God [1].

2. Don Gallo helped some women to abort [2]. Now, abortion is a criminal act because an innocent human being is killed, and it is punished with excommunication not only for those who practice it but also for all those who facilitate it in an efficacious manner [3].

3. The utilisation of so-called light drugs, encouraged by don Gallo, not only often constitutes the first step towards other hallucinogen substances, but it is contrary to the V commandment that orders us to custody our body as a gift of God.

4. Communism, explicitly supported by don Gallo [4], has been condemned by the ecclesiastical Magisterium as “intrinsically perverted” [5].

The events show in an increasingly more evident way the grave crisis the Church is now going through, and the betrayal of the most elementary principles of Catholic morals by important members of the hierarchy.

 Don Pierpaolo Petrucci

Superior of the Italian District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X

[1] Catechism of Saint Pius X

[2] http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1998/novembre/23/aiutato_prostitute_abortire__co_0_9811236626.shtml

[3] New canon law code, can. 1398

[4]. “Anyhow it is true, I am communist. I never forget the Bible and the Gospel. And I never forget what Marx wrote”. From Angelicamente Anarchico, Oscar Mondadori, Milan0, 2005.

[5]. Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris.

Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco: Fair Portrait Of A Papabile.

What the title says...

What the title says…

Fairly balanced article from John Allen, the only readable journalist at the National Schismatic Reporter concerning my favourite papabile, Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco.

You can forget the last argument against him, probably added merely for the sake of symmetry and because there was nothing else; certainly, the “caso Boffo” would be either unknown or not interesting for most foreign Cardinals.

The other points are, if you ask me, very fair. 

I would add an element that he has not mentioned explicitly, though he touches on it: Bagnasco has the reputation of one you don’t want to have against you. Whilst he can smile, he can stab too, as he has amply proved with his decision to defenestrate Berlusconi. This was a decision I never thought right, but which showed a man who is not too shy for a fight. The same he did in the Englaro case, or in the controversy concerning the atheist advs on the buses not long thereafter. 

These were all cases where the head of the Bishop’s conference could choose whether to meow or to roar. Bagnasco chose to roar. A national quarrel for atheist advs on buses: can you imagine Vincent “Quisling” Nichols even thinking of doing it? But again, Bagnasco clearly believes in God…

We never know what Cardinals do once they become Pope; but boy, this man can bite.

I would say this is, in these troubles times, exactly what the doctor ordered.

Mundabor

Three Cheers For Cardinal Bagnasco

 

Apparently, an authentically charitable Cardinal: Angelo Bagnasco.

 

I hope that my regular readers approve my stance, but there is no doubting in the general corruption of everything Catholic these days the comparison – often read on these columns; very rarely elsewhere – of sodomy with abominations like zoophilia, incest and pedophilia tends to “offend” the more sensitive natures; either because they are poorly instructed and polluted by the politically correct climate of our time, or because they simply want to feel “good” and “sensitive”, which has in itself become the new religion of the shallow and the outright stupid.

It might, therefore, be of some use in your discussions with friends, relatives and perhaps even colleagues of yours – as long as this does not imperil your job, of course, which I would not find very prudent – to know about this nice statement:

“Why say ‘no’ to forms of legally recognised co-habitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say ‘no’ to incest? Why say ‘no’ to the paedophile party in Holland?”

Please read it again and notice the – if I may be so bold – Mundaborian brutality of such an utterance. This must be some SSPX religious like Bishop Williamson, surely?

Well, erm, not quite. This most orthodox Catholic reflection – and most charitable one – comes from none else than the Number one of the Italian bishop, the present head of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco.

I do not know the details of Bagnasco’s Vatican activity, and do not know what sins of neo-modernism and V II-ism he is answerable for.  But I would say there is some reason to hope they will not be many, and not so terribly grave.

Be it as it may, as an Italian living in Albion I cannot avoid noticing the difference with our coward in chief, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols (no, no link: use the search function on the right hand column and you’ll find more than you wished for…).

I can also scarcely imagine this Cardinal abandoning himself to senseless modernist blabber about Mary Ever-Virgin, or about the new mantra of Archbishop Mueller, Extra Ecclesiam Omnia Salus.

I wanted to mention this episode to you, as our natural – and right – focus on what is wrong with today’s Church should not let us forget that here and there there are still people able to – more or less occasionally; some of them regularly, like Cardinal Burke – upheld Catholic values even ehn – and particularly when – unpopular, rather than prostituting Catholic doctrine to the need for popularity and Kirchensteuer  revenue like this tool here.

As they say in Italy, even in a lake of mud* you can find the occasional water-lily. Cardinal Burke and, hopefully, Cardinal Bagnasco are two of them.

Let us not be too despondent, or pessimistic about the future.

Dio vede e provvede.

Mundabor

* “mud” is the word I chose with regard to the sensitive among you. You generally hear a different one….

Who Will Take The Lead?

First and Bravest of the Brave: cardinal Burke.

First and Bravest of the Brave: cardinal Burke.

 

The army of Faggotry has had a setback this week, but there is no hoping that this is the end of the satanical pro-faggotry, sacrilegious madness fueled by TMAHICH and his minions. 

Give it a couple of weeks at the most, and interviews from dissenting (from the Magisterium) bishops will start to appear, in order to gather for them Brownie Points with Francis. 

The publication of the shameless Relatio will now lead to what was planned all along: the opening of a “debate”, a “discussion” between orthodoxy on one side, and sacrilege and sodomy on the other.

Whilst it is obvious the Pope did not want to start the “discussion” with a bleeding nose and a black eye, it is perfectly clear this kind of “debate” is what was planned all along, and this is what we are now going to get. And no doubt, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History will be the one who fuels it from the very first line with more outlandish, or outright heretical, or utterly blasphemous statements. 

It is clear enough by now that most Bishops do not want such a discussion at all, because Truth is not questioned and is no object for debate. But the homo troops will be reorganised in a matter of weeks, perhaps days. When the big media noise has subsided, it will be the time to start advancing again: timidly at first, more and more strongly as the months pass. 

We need strong leaders now. We need Bishops and Cardinals who are actually afraid of going to hell, and put their duty to Christ before the rich privileges of their positions. When Christians in Africa and Asia risk their lives everyday just for going to Mass, it is perfectly reasonable to ask consecrated Bishops, people who should be ready to die for Christ at a moment’s notice, to run the risk of losing a diocese, and being sent to some remote and unpleasant location, at the very worst.

Some names have emerged in the last days. Cardinals Burke, Mueller, Pell, and Napier seem to me the four most courageous ones, the elite of the Christian troops in this very difficult moment. And I say this with admiration for Cardinal Mueller: a man of very questionable theological integrity concerning the Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Lady and the Resurrection; but who has, when severely tested, reacted in an exemplary manner.

In the same vein, I am less than impressed by the silence of two names that could, I think, be expected to be among the voices claiming in the wilderness. Cardinal Piacenza is the first, and Cardinal Bagnasco is the second. The latter has, it is very true, shamefully caved in to Francis’ Gospel of inclusiveness in a past, very scandalous occasion, but it would still have been a legitimate expectation to see him, a man to whim many look as at a protector of orthodoxy, to speak clearly enough to make world news. The former is a riddle to me. A man who has never, to my knowledge, compromised his faith, has now allowed others to expose themselves to the ires of the Gay Army whilst – as far as I can see – not voicing any criticism strong enough to put him in the first line of the Resistance. Perhaps he is working with them behind the scenes. Perhaps he will intervene when his friends decide that the time is right. Perhaps the English-speaking press has ignored his strong criticism. I am grateful for links to his public utterances in these days, in whatever language. It would be a great joy to be able to count Cardinal Piacenza among the Very Brave. 

 Let us pray for Mueller, Pell, Napier, and particularly Burke, the first one of this brave troop to open his mouth and, from what I could read up to now, the most outspoken. But Francis needs to be questioned and criticised publicly far more strongly than this has been the case up to now.

The word “heresy” is still nowhere to be heard. We need for brave Cardinals to get into the next gear now, openly denouncing the heresy and putting the Pope in front of the choice of either openly supporting or openly recanting it. 

Half words will not serve anyone now. If Francis is allowed to sit on the fence he will have reached his main objective: to sit there as the “referee” of a “friendly match” between two “pastoral views”. This is what he wanted all along. 

There are no two pastoral views. There is orthodoxy on one side, and heresy on the other.

We need strong Cardinals calling Kasper’s doctrine heretical, and doing the same with the Pope if he does not condemn it. We need this vulcan to erupt in the open now, if we want to avoid the subterranean subversion of Catholicism to go on as the Pope threatens, persuades, cajoles and corrupts in the next twelve months and beyond.

The moment is now.

Who will take the lead?

M   

Peron-Style Collegiality: Francis Strikes Again

Janus. Vatican

 

 

The all-informed Rorate Caeli has another bomb; and this time, the bomb is originally delivered by no other than the radio network of the Patriarchate of Lisbon. 

Follow the link and read the long version of the facts. 

The short version is that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) has once again showed his true colours behind an extremely thin veil of “neutrality”.

The act of the humble Bishop, whilst obviously in itself perfectly in the man’s right, is so worrying that the Patriarchate of Lisbon openly criticises it, with the works still in progress.  

Note the choice of the words: 

The fact is worrying those who want to maintain the current discipline of the Church regarding these issues, considering that all the persons named by the Pope are of a liberal tendency, unlike Erdö.

This is – as such declarations go – a brutal indictment of the Unholy Father. “We want to defend orthodoxy, and we are now worried at seeing that the Pope himself is scheming to undermine it”. 

No, read it again. That’s exactly the message, and this is exactly the situation. 

Charitable voices have expressed the opinion that perhaps Francis wants to keep “balance” between the two opposing fractions. This simply cannot be.

Firstly, it is simply inconceivable that, after the Bishops clearly steer the debate in the direction they consider orthodox, because traditional, a Pope would say to them: “no, this is not right. You are giving Tradition too much space. Those who speak against it must also be represented, in order to make the debate more balanced!”. 

Secondly, raise his hand who believes that, had the situation been the opposite one, Francis would have appointed Burke, Bagnasco & Co. as members of the group in charge of the composition of the final report. If this had been the case, TMAHICH would have shouted “Collegiality!” so loud that even the furthest peripheries would have heard it; and he would have praised the attack on Tradition as the work of the Holy Ghost.

And in fact, one of the countless hypocrisies of this man is in his continuous appeals to collegiality whenever it serves him, and his most brutal autocracy in his governance of the Church. Pope Janus would have been a more likely name. 

 Time to wake up to the sheer danger this man represents for Holy Mother Church.

Kudos to the Bishops and Cardinals who refuse to bend to the climate  of “collegial intimidation” clearly created by this shameful man. Time to reject his schemes, and say to the world what kind of man this is.

The Patriarchate of Lisbon has done us Catholics a great service today. Let’s hope the men of good will continue on this path, and do not yield to the veiled threats and intimidations which, make no mistake, will now become massive. 

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History is now Pope. Let’s see if the Bishops and Cardinals have their salvation dearer, or their privileges. 

Mundabor

Goodbye, Good Cardinals

There is much surprise in the blogosphere about the rumours that want Cardinal Burke on its way to a comfortable, but obvious semi-retirement at the head of the Knights of Malta. I must say I am not in the least.

The Cardinal will, I am sure, enjoy the view from the Aventino (you know that hole from which you can see the dome of St. Peter surrounded by an arch made of plants? Well, that’s them; among other things…). Whilst so doing, he will probably reflect that this was the only way it could end seen that he is not a boot-licker like many others – in red, in purple and in black – around him. It had to end that way, because Burke is – if even in the more moderate V I I version – a thorn in the side of NuChurch. Too obsessed with abortion, too attached to Tradition, too much of a Rosary-counter, Burke was clearly a fish out of the water in a world dominated by ecclesiastical prostitutes.

I can only hope his successor will not be an open subversive; which, by the wind that is blowing, is somewhere between a hope and a dream.

In a way, Burke unavoidable departure might give him more freedom of movement. As a member of Francis’ team of “super ministers”, he might have refrained from stronger criticism; as a man now outside of the big game, he could feel free to express himself more freely and become, one day, the focal point of what they call “loyal opposition” and I call merely sanity, and refusal to prostitute oneself to the new times.

It’s a beautiful piece of real estate, that plot on the Aventino. The view is astonishing, and certainly better than from the near Giardino degli Aranci, a favourite of Romans and tourists alike.

It’s a good place to reflect, in one of the wonderful October mornings Rome never fails to give, about the price of loyalty to Christ.

Cardinal Burke is probably not a saint, and clearly he is not the man to tell all the truth, hard and straight, at the cost of real persecution. Yours truly can, in conscience, not tell you that he is sure he would behave differently and would have the strength to openly invite persecution, loss of privilege, and a poor, lost, dreary, uncomfortable parish somewhere in Alaska, or Alabama. But as Cardinals go, Burke is at the moment among the very best; and is, therefore, put aside in favour of the young generation of willing careerist puttanelle; those who are the first to do TMAHICH’s will today, and will be the first to denounce the climate of leftist intimidation tomorrow.

The good ones will be removed one by one and moved where they have less, or no, influence; as already seen in the case of Cardinal Piacenza and – though I am bitterly disappointed in the man – Bagnasco.

Enjoy the October mornings, Your Grace. You may not be a martyr, but you have deserved them.

M

 

Pickaxing The Faith

Look at me! Ain’t I the coolest Pope ever!

 

A new Gallup poll informs us the majority of Americans now agree with institutionalised sexual perversion. 

It is not surprising that many more or less militant, but obdurate atheists would espouse the cause of the perverts. What would be surprising in a sane world is that, no doubt, an awful lot of people who call themselves Catholics do pretty much the same, either openly dissenting or finding tortuous ways to to allow back in from the window what they state it should, actually, in theory, and if we are really strict, stay out of the door.  

We see this attitude everywhere. Many pewsitter liquidated the argument of sodomy with the reflection that hey, so sodomy is a sin, but aren’t we all sinners? Others seem to think God makes some people homosexual and, unaware of the blasphemy, proceed to condone homosexuality as such in their mind. Other still profess to believe what the Church believe, but then fill their minds and their mouths with the dirty thinking and the perverted vocabulary of the aberrosexual: “gay”, “homophobe”, and “same sex attraction” will be among their favourite words, and in everything they will let you know how allegedly Catholic, but also how aligned with the world they are. 

This Pickaxing of the Faith is nowadays so diffuse that it does not cause any surprise. Which is natural, as the good-ism now reigning excludes the idea of being ever against any sin. A priest whose only message consists in “God loves you” will implicitly deny any obligation to follow His commandments. 

Most of the clergy are not different. Our satanical Cardinal Nichols goes on record saying he is fine with “civil partnerships”, provided one does not call it marriage. Evidently, for this man is not the behaviour that counts; merely how you call it. 

Nor are Cardinals who are supposed to be on our side much better: Cardinal Bagnasco proceeding to give communion to a most disgusting Trannie and banner of the Italian homosexualist movement – a man dressed in rags as he received, just in case some Pollyanna would think he was, oh, perhaps, just oh, gone to oh, confession and oh, repentant! …. – not only insults Jesus and His Church’s Sacraments, but gives to the perverts an aura of normality, implying – or perhaps, God forbid, even believing! – that a scandalous Trannie working for Satan every minute of his life may not be in mortal sin, and may therefore be allowed to receive. 

The culprit numero uno is, though, with all certainty the Destroyer himself. A Pope who goes around with “who am I to judge?” slogans and is perfectly happy to be identified with them is Satan’s most useful tool in the perversion of the very mind of your average Christian, and even of your average Pewsitter. 

Perversion is becoming mainstream. The Pope himself and very many Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests all happily work on this, hiding perversion behind the fig leave of “mercy”, or whining with the pervs whenever they complain about “bullying” and “homophobia” against anyone who dares not to espouse their disgusting ideology and lifestyle. 

The single man who is giving the biggest contribution to this normalisation of sexual perversion is, without the shadow of a doubt, Pope Francis. May the Angels, whom he considers inferior to man, observe his actions and give witness of them in Heaven. 

Francis was very probably never a Sodomite, but he clearly is their most efficient weapon and, volens nolens, their best ally by far. He certainly is the most important single driver of the Gallup poll mentioned above. 

I do not know whether Angels cry to heaven for vengeance also for people who publicly promote and normalise sodomy, rather than only whenever an actual sin of sodomy is committed. That would be an interesting thing to know, because if there has even been a Pope making the Angels cry to heaven for vengeance, it may well be this one. 

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

SSPX Official Statement On Kasper And Francis’ Folly

 

 

 

 

The link is here, but the text is below in its entirety (and beauty). 

The study mentioned in the linked text is here.

One has the impression the battle lines are forming.

God bless the SSPX.

Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!

Mundabor

 

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Statement by Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, on the new pastoral approach to marriage according to Cardinal Kasper

What will happen at the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that is to be held October 5 – 19, 2014, dedicated to “the pastoral challenges for the family in the context of evangelization?” This question is asked with great concern, since during the last Consistory, on February 20, 2014, Cardinal Walter Kasper, at the request of Pope Francis and with his emphatic support, presented the topic of the next Synod by making supposedly pastoral overtures that were doctrinally scandalous.

Cultural revolution

This presentation, which was initially supposed to remain secret, was published in the press, and the agitated debates that it sparked among the members of the Consistory ended up being revealed as well.  One university professor dared to speak about a veritable “cultural revolution” (Roberto de Mattei), and one journalist described as a “paradigm shift” the fact that Cardinal Kasper proposes that divorced-and-“remarried” Catholics could go to Communion, even without their earlier marriage being annulled:  “at present that is not the case, based on Jesus’ very severe and explicit words about divorce.” (Sandro Magister)

Open resistance

Some prelates have spoken up against this change, such as Cardinal Carlo Caffara, Archbishop of Bologna, who asked: 

What about the first ratified and consummated marriage?  If the Church admits [the divorced-and-“remarried”] to the Eucharist, she must however render a judgment about the legitimacy of the second union.  That is only logical.  But then -as I asked-what about the first marriage?  The second, they say, cannot be a true second marriage, because bigamy goes against the Lord’s words.  And what about the first one? Is it dissolved?  But the Popes have always taught that the power of the Pope cannot go that far:  the Pope has no authority over a ratified and consummated marriage.  The solution proposed (by Cardinal Kasper) leads one to think that the first marriage remains, but there is also a second form of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes….  The fundamental question is therefore simple:  what about the first marriage?  But no one gives an answer.”  (Il Foglio, March 15, 2014)

One could add the serious objections formulated by Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Walter Brandmüller, Angelo Bagnasco, Robert Sarah, Giovanni Battista Re, Mauro Piacenza, Angelo Scola, Camillo Ruini… But these objections, too, remain unanswered.

We cannot wait, without speaking up, for the Synod to be held next October in the disastrous spirit that Cardinal Kasper wants to give to it.  The attached study, entitled “The New Pastoral Approach to marriage according to Cardinal Kasper” shows the gross errors contained in his presentation. 

Not to denounce them would amount to leaving the door open to the dangers pointed out by Cardinal Caffarra:

Therefore there would be such a thing as extramarital human sexuality that the Church considers legitimate. But that negates the central pillar of the Church’s teaching on sexuality.  At that point someone might wonder:  then why not approve of extramarital cohabitation?  Or relations between homosexuals?”  (Ibid.)

Whereas in recent months many families have demonstrated courageously against civil laws that, everywhere, are undermining the natural, Christian family, it is simply scandalous to see these same laws surreptitiously supported by churchmen who wish to align Catholic doctrine and morality with the morals of a de-Christianized society, instead of seeking to convert souls.  A pastoral approach that scoffs at the explicit teaching of Christ on the indissolubility of marriage is not merciful but insulting to God, who grants His grace sufficiently to everyone; and it is cruel toward the souls who, when placed in difficult situations, receive the grace that they need in order to live a Christian life and even to grow in virtue, to the point of heroism.

Menzingen, April 12, 2014

+Bernard Fellay
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X

Communion For Adulterers: Kasper Isolated Among Cardinals.

Now it's official: Cardinals don't like puppet shows; at least those with Kasperle, hier depicted.

Now it’s official: Cardinals don’t like puppet shows; at least those with Kasperle, hier depicted.

 

I had been alerted to the Italian version, but the excellent Rorate Caeli already has the English translation, so I will refer to it directly.

If you follow the link, you will notice that among the Cardinals there is a clear refusal of the Modernist measures, and of the obvious contempt of Christ, showed by Cardinal Kasper.

Among the Cardinals who have expressed themselves clearly – or brutally – against the measures proposed by Kasper, Giorgio Tosatti mentions not only those already gone public with their disagreement (to my knowledge Mueller, Caffarra and Burke), but also Brandmueller, Bagnasco, Sarah, Re, Piacenza, Tauran and Ruini. If we are to believe to cardinal Ruini, it’s 85% against, an dmany of the others “embarrassed”.

Note that some of the interventions are so explicit one struggles to believe they come from a Cardinal (hey: these the ones who gave us Big Problem in the first place), and some of them come from cardinals, like Re, who cannot be praised with having a sound conservative spirit. Also note cardinal re explicitly mentions the fact that expressing oneself against the measure may hinder one’s chance of becoming Cardinal, thus clearly stating what everyone knows: Kasper is nothing else than Francis’ longa manus.

My reading of the events is that it would appear that those mentioned believe in God, whilst Kasper and Francis either don’t, or do not believe in anything resembling the God of the Catholics. Because if they would, they would be terrified of playing fast and loose with the Truth and the Sacraments.

The resistance to the Francis-Kasper assault to the Sacraments is, certainly, good news. But I reflect that the opposition reported by Tosatti came from Cardinals, and the synod in October will see – as it was also on the latest occasion, though we are not told about them – the participation of Bishops,among whom there will be no lack of cheerleaders (who have lost their Catholic faith, all of them, no exception) ready to praise the direction whereto the “spirit” is leading the Church; as clearly proved by the many magazine covers, and the millions of twitter followers.

We can’t do much more than pray I am afraid, but at least we can try to be vocal about what is happening in our sphere of influence, so that those around us may be educated to sound Catholicism; which will be good even if this huge mess does not become reality.

The Faith is going to be severely tested in the months and years to come. Most of my readers belong, I want to hope, to those whose faith and loyalty to the Church of Christ is unshakable, but many around them will be made of a weaker stuff. It is for us to instruct, support, console and encourage them.

Because the local priest will very probably sing the praise of Francis whilst getting all excited about some young nun jumping on the stage like she is on cocaine.

Mundabor 

 

Pope Francis: Reflections After The Shock

Pope Francis

Pope Francis

Firstly, let me say that I have prayed, and will pray, sincerely that the new Holy Father may be a good Pope, able to at least start the process of real renewal (that is, well: restoration) we were all hoping for.

Secondly, please do not expect from me the usual “ohh this is the maaaan the Holy Ghoooost has given ussss” rubbish. If you think so, you are probably in the wrong blog.

Thirdly, allow me to say this is a shock and, very probably, not good news at all. But again, we do not know so much, and at times the Pope acts differently than the Cardinal used to do.

—————-

Like probably everyone of you, I am trying to understand; understand who Pope Francis is, and why he was made Pope. There will be a long time for reflections, so today I will list what I know up to now and, at some point, try to sleep. There will be no bottle of Brunello, for sure. Hopefully not too much grappa, either…

So, what do we know about Pope Francis?

He is known for his “social engagement”; which, coming from Argentina, is ominous indeed. Bad.

He used to be the Jesuit provincial in Argentina. Bad.

He was considered “conservative” (as far as Jesuits go). Good.(Jesuits are not all bad after all, though very many are; and I mean really, really bad; this is, when they aren’t closeted homos, or deny Christ).

He was then sent to lead a seminary. Can’t imagine the seminary produced many Jesuits, and many of them good Christians. Bad.

He has ties with the rather right-wing (but V II right-wing, not Mundabor right-wing) Comunione e Liberazione, aka ciellini. Now not what they used to be, but certainly no socialist sissies. Good.  

The usual Allen describes him as “unwaveringly orthodox on matters of sexual morality, staunchly opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception”. Unfortunately, coming from Allen this ain’t worth much, so we will have to wait and see. Half good.

He is certainly orthodox in matters of sexual perversion. Google and Wikipedia him, you’ll be surprised. Good. (The “gay mafia” within the Vatican might be facing very hard times).  

He travels with the bus, cooks his meals alone, doesn’t want to live in the archbishop’s palace. He has simply no respect for his role and the role of the Church. Bad.

He has chosen the name Francis, which might be hinting at a wave of populism like the Church has never seen. Bad.

He has been accused of complicity or silence during the Argentinian dictatorship. Well, at least not a dyed-in-the-wool revolutionary. Good.

He has obviously instructed Cardinal Tauran to cut the multi-language rubbish of Benedict’s election (“Liebe Brueder und Schwestern; Dear Brothers and Sisters…”) before the announcement and go directly to the “Annuntio vobis…”. Good. 

He has spoken of the Church as “presiding over the other churches”. No guts to say there is only one Church, and the usual V II wishy-washy words. Bad.

I had read days ago he has made a very good impression talking about the problems of the Curia. He is certainly seen as a good and effective administrator. Good.

He has been considered fit not by the absolute majority, but by two third of the Cardinals. Good (you see, I am clutching at straws now…).

He has given the impression of being extremely youthful for his 77 years (the way he talked, moved, gesticulated…). Good if he is good, bad if he is bad…

All in all, I have to say the new Holy Father exudes more than an unpleasant whiff of Vatican II. Bad. 

Dulcis in fundo, if you search “Bergoglio” on this blog you will find a single blog post, but a very complimentary one.  Once again, Bergoglio’s uncompromising stance on homosexuality is the trait which seems to be most evident. I am curious to see how the liberal press will salute a “friend of the poor” of this caliber…  

—-

Those who have voted for Bergoglio will have to answer to God before all too long for what they have done; as I assume most of them do believe in God and know they will have to answer to Him, there might be some hope. I want to think a Pope elected with a high majority (apparently higher than Ratzinger’s) must have given elements of reassurance also to rather conservative elements among the cardinals, and given guarantees to be a safe pair of hands to tackle the problems of the Church. The Cardinal must have known better than us what they are going to get, and they did like it.

As to what has happened, we will probably know more in due time, but what I imagine now is that it was clear from the start there were not one, but two strong candidates: one almost certainly Scola, the other possibly Scherer. These candidates must have been both strong and clearly destined to neutralise each other, because the quest for a credible outsider started, and was concluded, so soon.

Bergoglio was probably seen as a surrogate Italian (100% Italian blood); a surrogate conservative (ties with C&L; strong on homos); a surrogate liberal (a Jesuit, for crying out loud! And a “let’s travel with the bus”, “oh look how modest he is” type); not a man of the Curia; a man who speaks Italian and knows Italians; actually, one who is culturally one of them; a man who at 77 gives perhaps more guarantees – or so his electors thought – of toning down “social justice” bollocks; a man who, by his strong dislike for homos, can clean up the Vatican all right, and no risk of picking the wrong one in this.

I have not read anything about him being in favour of “collegiality”, but I mistrust whomever is defined as “pastoral”, which to me reads “heretical” and “accommodating”. Schoenborn, whose mother will be pleased, is always described as “pastoral”.

If you ask me, Sandri and Schoenborn would have been much worse, Ouellet probably better (for us), Scola even better, others like Bagnasco probably never had a chance.

It would be interesting to know whether the Austro-German heretic Sturmtruppen pushed his candidature. By the Pontiff’s stance on homos, I very much doubt. He does look very un-German from here, at least for now.

And what about the SSPX? Frankly, I am relaxed about them. Pope Francis certainly does not seem a liturgical friend of theirs; but again in the end – and after all the posturing, the rhetoric, and the lies – neither was Ratzinger. If the new Pope wants to “play Mueller” on them, he’ll discover the SSPX men are tougher than Argentinian generals, and can destroy his credibility as a decent Pope. I doubt he would relish the experience, and I think he’ll be rather more prudent than opening a front he certainly doesn’t need.

As always, yours truly tries to be an optimist; which today is, admittedly, not entirely easy. Still, a vast number of Cardinals thought cardinal Bergoglio the right one. Unless they only did so in order for them to be left free to do whatever they please at home, there might be hope.

In the end, the much-vaunted Pope Benedict has given us Summorum Pontificum (good), a shameless charade on the SSPX (bad), an impressive series of wrong or disastrous episcopal appointments (bad), a rampaging homosexuality within the Vatican (bad), and in general the perfect portrait of roi fainéant (bad).

For this pontificate to be worse than the last one it will take some doing.

Mundabor

Italy: Abortionist Doctors On Their Way To Extinction

giuramento_ippocrate

I knew the numbers for London doctors are good (for us), but this here is a devastating blow for the Nazi troops.

In Italy, conscientious objection is over 70% among doctors, with some regions at or above 90% when counting effective objectors.

If one considers objection is highest among the youngest doctors, one has a clear picture of the Italian abortionist doctor as a more endangered species than the Panda.

Predictably, Nazi Activists are now getting nervous,  and asking for legislative provisions to force the doctors to kill babies.

Keep dreaming, Adolfo...

This is one of those areas where a strong Pope – and strong clergy – can really do a lot. Again, Catholic thinking – broadly intended – still has a big traction in the country: but it must be cultivated and led to bring fruit, with an aggressive defence of Catholic values.

The article seems to praise Pope Benedict for the advancement of the cause; but I’d say the Italian clergy themselves – and Cardinal Bagnasco first – are the ones who deserve praise.

Bagnasco was the kind of chap willing to cause a pandemonium in order not to have atheist ads on buses. Compare with London, where atheists and homos advertise their own stuff undisturbed (but Christian organisations are not allowed, because it is “hate”: frock yourself, Boris…) and our Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is so nuanced he doesn’t even notice, and you’ll see what a difference assertive clergy makes.

Think of this: if your clergy are ready to put up a fight for atheist ads on the bus, what message will this give concerning their attitude about abortion? 

Kudos for the Italian doctors. The vast majority of them still know what the Hippocratic Oath means.

Mundabor

 

A Cardinal Talks Sense

And a good day to you, Your Eminence! Cardinal Sandoval

And a good day to you, Your Eminence!
Cardinal Sandoval

“Would you want to be adopted by a pair of faggots or lesbians?”

This very pertinent question was, according to the Guardian,  posed by Mexican Cardinal Sandoval only a couple of years ago.

What does this refreshing bluntness tell us?

It tells us, if you ask me, that when the Cardinals are gathered in the Sistine Chapel there will be a number among them who are abundantly fed up with the way things are going; and for one Cardinal who still has the intellectual honesty of calling sodomites “faggots” there will be many others who stop short of saying the word, but completely share the thinking.

I personally do not think the right thinking Cardinals will be enough to pick one of the men the readers of this blog would want, but I think it is fair to say they will almost certainly be enough to avoid the election of a very bad guy.

The reinstatement of the 2/3 rule for the election of the Pope (in all elections; not switching to absolute majority after a number of attempts) means that a block of 39 Cardinals can veto every unwanted candidature.

It certainly works both way, which is why cardinal Bagnasco was given odds of 18 to one from Paddy Power yesterday afternoon. But it is probably fair to say the Cardinals who think of sodomites as “faggots” should comfortably outnumber those who think Luther a “man of God”.

This 2/3 rules, a wise modification of the last Pontiff to the rule of his predecessor, is what allows me to be fairly relaxed regarding the possibility of a “worst case” Pope (a Schoenborn, say), with a “Benedict clone” being the realistic “worst case” scenario in front of us.

It would be such a pleasure to have a Pope who is on record with calling sodomites “faggots”. He would probably not do it once elected, but you could be sure the right thinking is there. We have allowed perversion to be sanitised for too long and it is now time to start talking sense again.

Hopefully, starting from the Sistine Chapel…

Mundabor

Cardinal Ouellet Is Ready And Willing.

Marc Cardinal Ouellet

Marc Cardinal Ouellet

 

Cardinal Ouellet has given an interview (good Lord, is any Cardinal able to survive without giving interviews nowadays?) saying pretty much the same things Jim Hacker was saying in “Yes, Minister” before becoming Prime Minister: one feels there are other, more qualified candidates, and one is not desiring to candidate; but one would feel able to step in if one were required, etc.

The Cardinal also said he is “somewhat afraid”, which I think in pre-conclave parlance means “I do not want to sound arrogant, but boy, I am ready…”.

Cardinal Ouellet has, thankfully, not said how he desires to pander to feminists, or in which way the aggiornamento must be aggiornato, &Co. In this he shows himself, if you ask me, vastly more “papabile” than the recent primadonnas looking for an applause before the curtain falls, and basking in the attention given to them before all eyes are set on the new Pope.

It seems to me Cardinal Ouellet is saying: “Just ask, and I am your man”.

Good. I’d prefer one who does not give any interview in these crucial days and prepares himself with prudence and discretion for the scrutiny of the 115 who really count rather than the countless curious who don’t; but I personally like a potential Pope to be excited, not scared, at the prospective of being in charge.

In my modest opinion, not many are born leaders, and those who aren’t rarely grow to the task once they are required to lead. Personally, what I would prefer is one who feels ready for the task, and eager for battle; one who has spent years saying to himself ” If I were in charge, I’d put an end to (put here any one of the infinite problems caused by papal timidity, conciliar thinking, or straight inaction)”; one who dreams of a strong, assertive, pugnacious Church led by a strong, assertive, and pugnacious Pope.

Is Ouellet this kind of man? We can’t really know. A prudent Cardinal wanting to be a warrior Pope – or something resembling to it – would not openly advertise his intentions, but rather point out that, were he to be asked, he would, though probably not the best candidate, take the burden on himself, and so forth…

I notice in the meantime that to my knowledge neither Cardinal Scola nor Cardinal Bagnasco have given interviews directly touching their own chances; if they did, I missed it.

May it last until Monday, and then may the real decision be taken without any regard for the mood of the people, or of the press.

O Lord, please give us a strong and orthodox Pope.

Mundabor

Papal Wagers

roulette-wheel-spinning

CCC 2413

Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. the passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

When I bet (which is rarely) I generally fix the limit at one pint, which I nowadays set at £4.

Whilst I have not made any bet on the next Pope (which I, and everyone else, could do in perfect good conscience, see above), I must say I am tempted to add one (or two) pints to the event.

Paddy Power has, as I write, here  the betting page about the new Pope. Surprisingly for me, Turkson still leads the race. I am not a bookmaker, but I suspect  what the people at paddy Power want is an army of people putting their three or five pound for the excitement of the “Black Pope”. I honestly think the odds are too much in the bookmaker’s favour.

If memory serves, the day Pope Benedict resigned Paddy Power had Cardinal Scola 11 to 1. I missed the occasion to bet then, because I simply forgot. A couple of days later (when they had started to read the Italian newspapers) Cardinal Scola was quoted a disastrous 11/7, basically an invitation to give them some money with which you don’t know what to do. 

But today is different, with bets on three Cardinals offering interesting quotes: Ouellet at 7/1, Bagnasco at 9/1 and Scola already improving to a more inviting 4/1.

I am pleased to see “hug a heretic”/”protect-a-fag”-Schoenborn is in eight place, at  a rather sceptic 20/1. Whilst the man is my nightmare scenario, I frankly do not think he has any chances in the real world; that is, outside of dissident wannabe catholic rags like the “Tablet” and, obviously, homos. A category, this one, which one would think will be totally absent from the Conclave, though recent events actually do not invite to much tranquility in this respect.

Other bets are either funny or meant to take money out of the uninformed. Richard Dawkins is at… 666/1, which is a very evident Christian joke on him (though with much truth in it). Still, if Paddy Power were to really take real money for real bets on him, this would seem to me a criminal abuse of public credulity.

Almost funnier is Archbishop Mueller at 200/1, and it’s fair to say this yogurt will get sour. Even Bono has a quote of 100/1, and one wonders how much money Paddy Power makes on bets like these, and how drunk are those who make them.

Cardinal Policarpo (already tired and emotional on so-called wymyn priests; then forced to retract but, it is fair to say, still a disgrace to his habit) is given at a sporty 100/1, and so is a funny guy some people believe to be a Catholic, Cardinal Lehmann, one of the many Germans Cardinals who lead you to doubt of the mental sanity of the Popes who gave them a red hat. 

Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor is given at 150/1, but he will get zero votes as he cannot take part to the Conclave himself. Even Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, one who would have loved to see himself all in red entering the Sistine Chapel, is given better chances, though his name is clearly there because he is known by hearsay to most Brits who have no clue how his chances stand (answer: not much better than Dawkins’).

Sadly, Cardinal Burke, who is a real tough guy, is nowhere to be seen; which means either Paddy Power are scared of taking bets or, more probably, he is nowhere as far as election chances are concerned, too.

I will monitor the situation carefully in the days leading to the conclave, as the odds might also be an indication of how the perceptions have shifted. IN case of Bagnasco’s victory, it would be beautiful to have the Brunello bottle paid for by Paddy Power.  Bagnasco is, among those given as papabili (again, Burke is nowhere to be… read), my very first choice, followed by Scola. I very much fear the election of Ouellet, who in my eyes would be another Pope Benedict; which, if true, would – I think – spell disaster.

At 7/1 he might be a good bet, though I am sure it would be a sad victory.

Mundabor

Vatican Leaks: Sodomites Within The Leonine Walls?

Inside the very walls?

Inside the very walls?

Fair Warning: If you think it inappropriate to discuss leaks from the Vatican, click away now…

Disturbing rumours from the Vatican in these anyway rather disturbing times.

It appears (but… I wasn’t there) that the report recently given to the Holy Father concerning the “Vatileaks” scandal contains prudently worded but clear references to what in common parlance is called a “gay mafia” operating within the very Leonine Walls. In addition, members of this group would be currently blackmailed by what in common parlance are called their lovers.

The allegations about the content of the report are now made by the biggest Italian newspaper, “Repubblica”, after already the “Corriere della Sera” had heavily hinted at the matter in the past. “Repubblica” claims sources near to those who wrote the report. I do not like “Repubblica” as a newspaper, but cannot imagine they would publish the rumours without being very sure of what they do.

The report seems to describe an environment characterised by infighting groups, of which the above mentioned homo mafia is the truly disturbing element.

Now, it is common for every organisation made of humans to have different groups thinking in different ways (say: Cardinal Bagnasco does not like Berlusconi and threw him out of the window; but Cardinal Sodano thinks he is the Church’s natural ally) and being human they can be certainly forgiven if they tend to entrench themselves a bit in their own positions; but to have a group of people acting in concert not to pursue what they think is the best policy for the Church, but to cover and aid each other in what concerns their common perversion is utterly disturbing.

We will probably never know whether this report is – as also rumoured – what moved Benedict to decide it was time to abdicate; I personally thinks the decision was taken before, and the Vatileaks scandal forced him to wait a bit longer; but certainly, the report must have definitely persuaded the Holy Father that he did not have the strength (both physical and of character, I think he is too harsh with himself when he says “spiritual”) to add this battle to the many Catholicism is now called to fight all over the West (sodomy, euthanasia, abortion, secularism and militant atheism come to mind).

It is certainly disconcerting that a Pope should leave in the moment when war must be waged. Does the report contain names, dates, facts? And if it is so, how can it be possible to go away hoping that one’s successor cleans the mess one hasn’t cleaned? On the other hand, if one partout does not have the energy to fight this fight (and Pope Benedict never had the energy to fight any meaningful fight; just think of the Wagner episode in Linz…) it is certainly better to abdicate and hope the next Pope is fit for purpose.

In a development of the latest hours, La Stampa informs us the dossier will now be made available to the Cardinals in the conclave. Whilst the Vatican (obviously) denies the rumours of sexual impropriety among high ranking officials, this move would seem the way Pope Benedict has assured that whilst he does not act, his successor will have to. This very proper cleaning of dirty laundry within the family of the Cardinals will make sure the necessity to get a strong man able to clean the mess is forcefully stressed, and remains in the mind of every Cardinal.

Let me say once again before I close that I have obviously not read the document, and it could well be in the end that this devil is not as bad as he is represented. Still, everyone who follows the affairs of the Church knows very well that homosexual infiltration is ripe at many levels of the Church, and should not be surprised to know that the filth has paved its way to the Vatican.

If you let the smoke of Satan enter the temple of God, be prepared for Satan to get to work with it.

Please Lord, please inspire the Cardinals to give us a strong Pope!

Mundabor     

Italy: What Now?

RGB base

 

 

I received this question, an ideal starting starting point, from the always very perceptive Catocon:

Mundabor,
where do Monti and this centrist coalition stand on the *really* important issues, that is, abortion, homosexual “marriage”, secularism etc…? My impression has been that he is what Europeans call a liberal, that is an economically moderate technocratic statist too timid to confront social issues but (if necessary) always a willing slave of the spirit of modernity. But my knowledge of Italian politics is certainly lacking, so maybe Italian “centrists” are different.

How certain are we that those centrists will not start to “evolve” as it is called in Obama’s language, as “centrists” all over the West inevitably tend to do when the pressure from the media and the established cultural revolution starts to mount?

As I understand the Italian electoral system, the strongest party/coalition is guaranteed a majority of at least 54% in one chamber of parliament and also, on a regional basis, in the Senate, right? Any split between non-leftist coalitions would be utterly disastrous in that case as leftists could win a majority of seats even if they lost the election in terms of the popular vote because of the split in the non-leftist vote between “centrists” and “rightists”. To support any kind of centrist coalition just to avoid endorsing someone like Berlusconi would be utterly irresponsible in this case.

Does not the Church hierarchy, by throwing her weight behind the center coalition, effectively help secure a parliamentary majority for the socialists and communists on the left even if the center does turn out to be relatively solid on the issues that matter most to the Catholic?

In order to give a better idea of how I see things, I will divide the answer in several sections: how the system works, what the Vatican is trying to do and why, and whether we can trust the Catholic parties.

Keep in mind the situation is at the moment extremely fluid and fascinating, with a very mobile electorate.  Also keep in mind hardcore Catholics are, for now, slowly dying.

At the Camera there is the majority premium Catocon describes: the strongest coalition gets 340 seats out of 615. It doesn’t matter if the strongest coalition only has, say, 20% of the votes. The coalition with the relative majority gets 340 members, period. 

At the Senate there are 20 regions, and 17 of them get a (regional) majority premium. The biggest ones (like Lombardia, Lazio, Campania, Sicilia) are seen as crucial. Again, the premium here is regional, so there are several decks of cards to be distributed. 

At the moment the field is divided in four major major camps, again with the situation extremely fluid and changing almost daily.

1. Left wing coalition.

They are the almost sure winner of the majority in the Camera. They will probably ally with the sodocommunists, though they don’t really like them. If the centre is strong (which it might well become) they will lose some parts on their right wing side (this is already happening), which makes the alliance with the sodocommunists the more important to them. The main component of this coalition supports Monti’s agenda, though the extreme left wing of the sodocommunists don’t. This might be a split in the making, with the two allying for the vote and to bag the majority premium, but splitting afterwards as the sodocommies do not support Monti’s austerity program. Together with the sodomites, this grouping is (for now) comfortably in the 30%-35% range. But they have a difficult job as this is the only coalition with divided loyalties concerning Monti and o one can say how many moderate elements will prefer the centre instead now that they have become a very credible alternative.

2. Right wing coalition

This is what is left of the old Berlusconi coalition who won big in 2008, after losing several pieces down the road. The Lega Nord appears not to want an agreement if Berlusconi wants to run as PM, but they would support the alliance is Berlusconi renounces to Prime Ministerial ambitions.

Neither Berlusconi  nor the Lega support Monti. This attracts to them a lot of protest votes, but makes them invotabili for that part of the country committed to stop Italy from becoming the next Greece.  They have a component of very tough Catholics, but their Catholic credentials aren’t considered the best as Berlusconi would only follow Catholic interests as long as they serve him and would throw his weight on the other side whenever necessary.

This coalition appeared dead in the water only two weeks ago. Berlusconi’s offensive is now causing them to strongly recover. Last time I looked they were given at 20%, trend ascending, even without the Lega. If you ask me, they are going to fish protest votes from Grillo’s voters (see below) like there’s no tomorrow.

Berlusconi has now also announced a strongly Catholic program, in preparation as I write.  His aim is to make the Vatican lose credibility and rally around him the Catholic voices. Brilliant strategy as always (this man is around one thousand times smarter than the foreign press depicts him), but Berlusconi still has a credibility problem, and no Vatican endorsement. 

3. Centre coalition.

This is the fiscally and (in large part) socially conservative coalition created to support Monti’s program. A strong Catholic party (UDC) is the backbone of the coalition, which is integrated by non-Catholic components. The loss of the UDC is what causes the second biggest headache for Berlusconi, the Lega being the first. This coalition gained the open support of the Vatican  and is, literally, defying gravity, at 23% yesterday.

They are, as a coalition, purely focused on Monti’s program. But the UDC as a party is the safest bet for Catholics in Italy. The Vatican endorsement will take care that the coalition becomes more and more dominated by the Catholic element, but do not expect them to campaign as a coalition with Catholic values: they are there to support Monti’s economic program and they want their votes, whether Catholic or not. Still, Italians are sophisticated voters and many of the supporters of this coalition will be seen (or officially vote in the Camera; in the Senate there will be a unity list for complex reasons of minimum votes necessary) as staunch Catholics.

4. Grillo (Five Stars)

Grillo is a successful comedian with the hobby of politics; he has been creating a vast consensus around him, based on the usual refusal of professional politics and desire to reinvent the wheel such protest movements always have. He is an enemy of Monti and of everything that is unpopular and difficult to bring to the masses; as always, his message appeals to the dissatisfied, the disaffected, the undecided, the irresponsible and the plain stupid. They used to be very strong months ago, when Berlusconi’s party officially (if begrudgingly) supported Monti, and they were even given as the biggest single party (not coalition) out there. If you ask me, they will have a tough time now that the populist position is covered by the Right Wing coalition. They could end up massacred, or else the second or third biggest coalition. At the moment, no one knows.

—————-

Cardinal Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops’ conference, threw Berlusconi out of the window in 2011 and never fished him in again. I have already written on this blog I do not know how wise this was, but their reasoning is that it is for the right-wing coalition to get rid of Berlusconi, rather than for the Vatican to have to support Berlusconi no matter what. In fact, in Italy you are traditionally expected to listen to the Vatican rather than expect them to listen to you, as they are (for now) powerful enough to demand it. Again, Ruini swallowed Berlusconi’s toad for many years, but Bagnasco (a rather tough guy particularly compared to Ruini) has decided that enough is enough and there will be no turning back.

How powerful the Vatican (still) is can be seen in the “centre” coalition now given (last time I looked, that is: yesterday) at an astonishing 23%. Mind, these votes aren’t transferable 1 to 1 to a centre-right coalition, as a good part of the country will never vote Berlusconi anyway. By refusing to support Monti’s course, Berlusconi has chosen the populist and protest vote, but he will emphatically not get the moderate conservative vote; certainly not now that the Vatican says to vote centre, but it is clear many of them would have never voted for Berlusconi anyway.

I think Bagnasco & Co. consider the winning of the majority premium from the left side inevitable, as does the entire country. By supporting Berlusconi (largely seen as the losing camp, and irremediably opposed to the left) there is a concrete risk of leaving the left with two majorities, and a sodomarriage of sort would follow (probably) rather fast after that.

On the other hand, by trying to “defy gravity” and put all their weight behind a strong centrist coalition, the Vatican aims at warping the leftist bid for double majority, as the centre coalition amputates them on their right wing side. If they manage to thwart a left-wing majority in the Senate, which is the real name of the game, they are very probably safe against any sodomite legislation without having to marry Berlusconi’s populism, opportunism and corruption. The rallying cry of the Curia should help the centre reach critical mass instead of being massacred in the middle of the opposing left and right wing blocks. I call this “defying gravity” because  what is happening now is unprecedented in the history of the new electoral system, which is designed to divide the country around two big blocks of centre-left and centre-right. Small parties have always survived (or not) as independent, but never was a big “third” coalition seen to have any chance.

The centre and the right are now fighting for the soul of the (moderate) country: they will not work together because the right is now a kind of populist “protest party” whose Weltanschauung is at odds with the fiscally responsible centre. Still, whilst you can’t unite their votes to make a government, you can unite them to avoid sodomite legislation. It everything goes according to plan, this will be an insurmountable barrier at least in the Senate. 

As to the Catholic parties, be not afraid: they are very different from the CDU, or from the CSU come to that. The UDC voters have been in these twenty years such a steady element that it is utterly irrelevant whether their leaders would want to sell themselves: they won’t, because they know it would very probably be their death. As I see it, no “evolving” is to be feared from that side, rather the contrary… What Germans (and Brits of Americans) needs to understand here is that a core of hardline Catholics (perhaps 10-14% of the voters, now divided between right and centre, formerly between centre-left and centre-right) are real Catholics who have up to now always successfully gone on the barricades when necessary. They are square in the middle and they are still seen as the key to power, which is why the moderate leftists don’t want to anger them and Berlusconi wants their votes so badly.

I will, unless something huge happens, vote for the UDC myself. Not so much because Bagnasco says so, but because I think that in Italy you will not find another party you can thrust so much to defend Catholic values, and which such a good chance of your vote truly being put to work against the Left. I might be wrong of course, but as far as the Catholic vote is concerned I wasn’t these last twenty years. Italy is a country where people were ready to even vote for Berlusconi merely because he defended Catholic values (they actually voted Catholics components and candidates within his coalitions) and I can’t imagine any other European country ready to swallow so much for the cause.

As I see it (and the Vatican seems to agree with me.. 😉 ) the centre coalition is the wedge pushed in the middle of an otherwise probably unavoidable double majority for the left-wing. They have pooped in the leftist party, and if everything goes according to plan they will be the elephant in the room without which no majority – much less sodomite legislation – is possible. 

Once again – and to conclude – the votes of the populist right wing and of the Monti coalition can’t be added, as the fiscal differences can’t be bridged. It will have to be the one or the other.

The Vatican has chosen the “other”.  I think it’s the wiser bet.

Mundabor

 

 

Not Too Late, But Still Very Late

They’re not humans, you see. They’re just animals.

We slowly see a reaction from the Church hierarchy to the rising cry toward the institutionalisation of sodomy or other same-sex sexual perversions. In the USA, the bishops have eventually decided to show some teeth, and in France they are even going to reintroduce a prayer which, whilst very politically correct in the tones, is still unmistakably clear in its content.

Nothing against Catholic bishops remembering what their job is, of course, but I continue to think that the excessive weakness shown in the past decades will continue to hamper the action of the Church, unless it is put in the dustbin once and for all.

For example, you see everywhere these appeals in defence of “traditional marriage”, as if the unions of perverts were, in some strange way, good, but the “traditional marriage” simply better and as such worthy of protection. The fact is, it is extremely difficult to persuade the public that the traditional marriage is good, without saying why the “modern” marriage is wrong. The simple reality is that sodomy is an abomination in the eyes f the Lord. It is a perversion. Truly truly bad. So bad that it used to be a taboo, like incest or zoophilia, until very recent times, and what goes for sodomy must be pretty much extended to other arts of sexual perversion, like being a lesbian. 

Alas, the Church hierarchy (with very few exceptions, like this one) does not speak the clear language that, alone, would allow to make the matter well understood. They either shut up or express themselves in vaguely appreciative tones when there are calls for “civil partnerships”, or the like (our Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is a specialist in this art of satanic perversion of Truth under the pretence of defending Catholicism), and are then in great difficulty when they must explain to non-Catholics why one should be “nice” about civil partnership and not nice anymore when the word “marriage” is pronounced.

What should be told, is that Truth is indivisible: either sodomy is a perversion, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there is no problem different from those posed by, say, fornication. If it is, then it is the sacred duty of the Church hierarchy to thunder against it without waiting for marriage to be attacked. 

Is this happening? I doubt. Will the French Bishop  start hammering in the ears of their faithful that sodomy is a perversion and those who practice sodomy are perverts bent (pun not intended) for hell? Don’t bet your pint. We will, instead, hear more or less flowery words about how nice it is to have a family with mom and dad, which is a model which has worked rather well and therefore shouldn’t be changed. A bit like the Volkswagen Golf, you see. How many will they persuade?

This battle will only begin to be won when the clergy begins to fight it in the proper way, rather than trying not to offend anyone.

Mundabor

The Voter, The Cardinal and The Pig

Looking for the wrong target.

I never liked Berlusconi. What I think of him, you don’t want to read here. But after following his political career for almost twenty years one thing has become clear to me: that this corrupted, corrupting, thieving, liar, bastard pig is an exceptional salesman and is, like all exceptional salesmen, obsessed with the satisfaction of his clients.

This is, in the end, what has kept the nano pelato (“bald dwarf”) in power all these years: even most of his voters have realised that he is a pig and a (former, at least) thief. But they also know that the man is well aware of who keeps him in power, and does his best not to disappoint them.

Italy has not only no homo-“marriage”, but not even “civil partnerships”. In a world where even Spain, Mexico and Portugal  do not know better, this is an achievement. Italy is a country where crucifixes are still in every classroom and every court room, after the government had the gut to fight for them. Italy is still a country with a decent anti-euthanasia legislation, also because of the very controversial battle of this government. Make no mistake, dear reader: these achievement are largely not due to the Italian clergy, rather to a diffuse conservatism that knows that it is better to have a pig in power who serves your ideals, than a clean man who doesn’t.

It has worked, in a way (in Italy, almost everything “works in a way”), until now, where after months of rumbling the Vatican has started the steamroller and it is now clearly moving it in the direction of Berlusconi. Which in Italy is a serious problem, as proved by the fact that after a couple of days the dwarf still hasn’t picked up the gauntlet and declared total war. Never happened before, I assure you.

Let me say it once again: Berlusconi is a thieving bastard. But I hope Cardinal Bagnasco knows what he is doing, and I am not so certain he’s making the right calculations.

Let us examine the situation with a bit of coolness: the man is a pig, but he is largely at pain to keep his piggish behaviour outside of the public sphere. What comes out, comes out largely because of phone tapping,  directly intruding into the life of a man for whom breathing and bragging are one and the same, or private indiscretions. Berlusconi doesn’t do scandal for the notoriety, or the desire to be considered a stud. Pig as he is, he is smarter than that.

But he should publicly repent, one might say. How hypocritical, and how Anglo-Saxon. In Italy the contrite politician going in front of the cameras and reciting the little tale of repentance for the use of the simple has no chance. If you aren’t really repentant, you had better shut up, is the thinking. Fine with me.

He could resign, they say. Fine too. But if we do not want to help the lefties to come to power – and make no mistake, with them in power the next battle against homo-“marriage” is on us, as sure as the “amen” in the church – there is no need for the Vatican to kick on a man already lying on the ground. If he is weak enough and the centre-right thinks it can do without him, he’ll be disposed of anyway. If the Vatican is decisive in his political demise, then the Vatican is involuntarily helping the leftists. Not good.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the centre-left can throw in the ring not one, but many candidates much cleaner than Berlusconi was the day he made first communion. But you see, I do not care in the least. My Christian values come before my desire for clean politicians, and that’s that. Millions, in Italy, think like me. This is the only reason why the man is still in power: he delivers. This is also the reason why no one on the centre-right side could bury him: no one is sure they would. 

Now it can certainly be that you can have a strong centre-right coalition without the bald dwarf. I’d be the first to greet the event. But I do not want the Vatican helping anti-Christian values to spread, just because they aren’t very satisfied with the private virtues of one man.

And come on, this is Italy. People have a big mouth, and language is very, very imaginative. The more so, when people speak with friends and do not know that they are tapped. Even more so, when a pathological megalomaniac mythomaniac sex-obsessed old pig is speaking. Everyone knows it, even Cardinal Bagnasco.

Thief, corrupt, egocentric, megalomaniac, sex-obsessed idiot that he is, I still prefer him to Cameron every day, because with Berlusconi Christian values will be defended in the public arena, irrespective of what he does with them in his private life, or how gross is his bragging among friends. The man is an exceptional salesman. He’ll protect what is sacred to his clientele. He is very good at that.

Try that with Cameron, who kicks in the eggs middle-class England to please 0.5% of the population and try to court the Labour moderates.

Mundabor

New Consistory In The Making?

Lots of Reds, but hopefully no leftists: Consistory.

It would appear that a new consistory is rather probable within the end of the year.

This is not entirely surprising as the vacancies are now numerous. By the end of the year there will be the possibility of appointing 15 Cardinals (if Pope Benedict wants to remain by the number of 120 elettori, that is). Now, this is at least one eighth of the next conclave, probably more – due to the system which sees Cardinals continuously losing electorate – and it is clear enough that every consistory can, in and of itself, radically change the situation at the next Conclave.

Pope Benedict is still in rather good health, but at 84 and with a past of heart problems I’m sure he is not planning for a reign of JP II’s duration. It is therefore rather important that this consistory injects the right energies into the next conclave.

Much is at stake, as both Summorum Pontificum and the relationship with the SSPX and the other traditionalist groups could be seriously compromised in case the next conclave results in a serious mistake. On the other hand, a careful but noticeable shifting of the centre of gravity towards the right wing would give everyone the serenity necessary for long-term hopes.

Ideally – if you ask me – Pope Benedict would appoint only one or two of the liberals to appease them (Nichols’ appointment is this time, alas, very probable) and choose for all other places men of undoubted liturgical and theological orthodoxy, possibly rather young so that they stay around for a long time.

I wish the Holy Father a long and healthy reign of course, but the demographic reality is what it is and it must be clear to us that this might be the last consistory of this pontificate.

Ad multos annos, Papa! But please, please conservative appointments!

Mundabor

Pius XII: Beatification Prayer Is Already Approved!

Many signs of upcoming beatification: Pope Pius XII

Browsing the net, I have found that this rather impressive news had already been published by the Corriere della Sera last November. The link is not accessible without logging in, therefore I will link to this for those of you blessed with a knowledge of the most useless, but most beautiful language on the planet.

The information is very clear and rather complete, and it is improbable that the Corriere della Sera would risk a blunder on such a matter. It would therefore appear that the prayer has been written by don Nicola Bux, an advisor of the CDF, and that it has already obtained the imprimatur from Cardinal Bagnasco, the head of the italian Bishop’s Conference.

It also transpires from the article ( I didn’t know it) that Rai Uno has broadcast a TV series about the life of Pius XII, obviously criticised by the professional holocaust-whinos among those of the Jewish persuasions. Being Rai Uno rather conservative, still clearly Catholic and with the best links with the Vatican, it seems clear to me that the work was meant to “prepare” the Italians to a beatification that it is now difficult not to consider probable in the next few years. In addition, it seems even more difficult to believe that all preparatory work would be made without at least a “safe” miracle, whose existence has been wildly rumoured but never confirmed.

I do hope that Pope Benedict will find the courage to proceed with the beatification of this great, great Pope, choosing – as he must in this case – to weather the storm caused by the liberal, the ignorant and some of the above-mentioned “older brothers and sisters”. A political decision, of course, by which the Holy Father will have to weight the positive and – if any 😉 – negative effects.

May I remind you on this occasion that, on the day of Pope Pacelli’s death, the great saint Padre Pio had a beatific vision of the Pope in paradise, surrounded by angels, which went on for hours. Padre Pio himself never made a mystery of such an occurrence and for the rest of his life showed the utmost certainty about the holy Pope being in Paradise. It goes without saying that the devout followers of Padre Pio – yours truly among them – will, due to the extraordinary power and duration of this vision, find it difficult not to be as persuaded about Pope Pius XII’s immediate access to Paradise as the great Saint himself was.

Let us hope and pray. It seemed clear to me, though, that it is now only a matter of “when”, not “if”.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: