Author Archives: Mundabor
The FrancisGame is very simple. It can be played by everyone no matter how stupid.
Actually, being stupid helps a lot.
First, you look good and oh so sensitive by encouraging and calling for a Muslim invasion of the Continent. When your own policy causes poor innocents to be slaughtered you look good and oh so sensitive by giving your solidarity to the victims of your own senseless enmity with the Christian West.
You look good before the massacre and after the massacre. Actually, there's no way not to look good and oh so sensitive.
The game is also future-proof, as the continued importation of Mohammedans will make the first phase more obvious and the second phase far more frequent.
Gotta love the FrancisGame.
The only ones who lose at it are the victims, their families and those who still care for our Christian heritage and civilisation.
Look at how many headlines mention Islam!
One would think the attackers were just nervous because of the heat
I am somewhat perplexed at the behaviour of otherwise excellent news outlets like, say, Breitbart. In their desire to expose the fanaticism of the Liberals, they end up publishing endless articles containing their antics. Basically, they give them a huge resonance box.
Does it help?
My first instinct is to say “it doesn't”: the space and energy should be better used to publish articles of those who say the right things, rather than endlessly giving a stage to the bad guys. I must say I am at times so put off by that that I instantly leave the page, and go reading somewhere else.
However, and for the sake of honesty, I must admit that Trump won the election, and this tactic of constantly rubbing liberal thinking under the nose of sanely thinking voters might, actually, have had the desired effect in the end, mobilising many who would perhaps have stayed home without the constant aggravation.
Still, aggravation it is. It also engenders the impression that the world out there be full of liberals, almost monopolising both the public discourse and the individual thinking. I would say that the exact contrary is the truth, with the liberal nutcases a very tiny minority of the population, but gaining traction because their ideas are endlessly spread from both friend and foe.
I personally do not react well to this kind of journalism. When some Liberal states something retarded I want to read the reasoned criticism and condemnation of it, not only the liberal madness in itself. This way I am both informed and nurtured. But I have no desire to be subject to an endless litany of liberal nonsense and a long list of dumb tweets every day, merely to be told for the millionth time that these people are dumb.
What do you think?
What effect does the tactic of Drudge or Breitbart have on you?
Wannabe hero without the battle Cardinal Burke is having a whale of a time.
After the most scandalous dereliction of duty for now sixteen months and – which makes it even worse – orthodox posturing without even acting on it, Cardinal Burke seems intentioned to sit on this fence ad infinitum, certainly counting on all the rosewater Catholics and Pollyanna resisters dumb enough to believe, without any evidence to back their belief, that this man is every bit part of the solution rather than of the problem.
Now, the Cardinal has once again ventilated that – at some point, in future, no one knows when – a formal correction could come; and that – mirabile dictu! – this correction might contain some faint meowing of criticism of the Evil Clown for failing to defend Truth; which is exactly what the Cardinal himself is doing even as he criticises others for it.
One must appreciate the game: eternal posturing without ever acting; paper tiger extraordinaire; professional fence sitter.
Cardinal Burke is literally having his cake and eating it; courtesy of the dumbness of too many lukewarm faithful, desperately on the look for a hero whilst Our Lord is spitted in the face every day. He should be ashamed of himself.
Make no mistake: if Cardinal Burke were to proceed to a formal condemnation of Francis and his heresies tomorrow, his delay would still be gravely sinful. However, the correction itself would still be the desired, and expected, outcome. But what is happening now is truly ludicrous, and such that the Cardinal deserves open condemnation and mockery until he man up, rather than approval.
By the bye, we are now past the Assumption and I distinctly remember the Cardinal stating that after the Epiphany any time could be right for the correction, implying January, February at the latest.
Beware of the paper tigers. They are not your friends, or Christ's.
Homosexuality is not a sin. Why? Because it is not an action. It is not something that you do or omit to do.
Homosexuality is something one is. One is homosexual, paedophile, incestuous, attracted to animals, etc. But the tendency in itself is not a sin.
The tendency in itself is a perversion. The tendency is perverted (Latin: per, which often means “wrong”, as in the English, Latin-derived word perjury, and versio, “direction”.
A pervert has his inclinations and desires going in the wrong direction: towards people of the same sex, relatives, children, animals.
So no, homosexuality is not a sin in itself. Homosexuality is a perversion in itself.
The perversion will then predispose to the sin, and will do so in a very violent way. When the devil has taken hold of a soul to the extent that the perversion has festered, has consolidated its presence within the person, then it is obvious that the devil has taken a strong bridgehead. This will create a very strong tendency to commit acts – with the mere thoughts, to which the pervert assents, or with physical action like sodomy – which are sins.
How strong this is can be observed continuously, when the pervert declares that he is that way, or was born that way. What the man is saying is that his assent to the perverted thoughts has become so strong that he is even unable or unwilling to dissociate it from the essence of what he is, from the way he defines himself.
This is a very strong sign of Reprobation, as it shows that the man is, so to speak, Satan's occupied territory and only God's grace will be able to motivate him to get out from the path to hell very clearly laid before him.
Therefore, Bishop Kohlgraf of (soon) Mainz is deceiving and betraying his flock when he simply states that homosexuality is not a sin without saying what it is and what it does to a soul.
The Evil Clown has expressed the desire to meet the mother of the Italian homo murdered by another homo because of his – real or alleged – relationship with a Trannie.
There is enough material here to vomit for a quarter of an hour. Still, this cretin has it known that he wants to meet the mother of the victim.
Notice here that there is nowhere any trace of condemnation of sexual perversion: not from Francis and not from the mother. Therefore, Francis does not want to meet her as a heroine of the fight for mental sanity, but far more likely as a part of the normalisation of sexual aberration this non-judging nincompoop seems to be pushing all the time.
There is something extremely disquieting and decidedly creepy in the attitude of this man towards perverts. It is as if he would surround with as many of him as he can (besides Ricca we can easily mention Martin, Rosica, Paglia and “Tucho” Fernandez as very easy suspects; I leave it to you if you want to add Coccopalmerio, too) and, when he cannot, he would try to be as near as he can to them by proxy, like the young man in love who likes to chat with the mother of the beloved one.
This man is truly creepy, and it might be even creepier that not many seem to notice anymore.
We live in times in which a Pope seeking the vicinity of perverts is not even news anymore.
And His Mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
These words, from the Magnificat, never fail to fill me with a great sense of consolation and hope.
Wretched sinner as I am, I too can hope to be, one day, not left out, but unworthily – and after a, no doubt, long purgatory – admitted to eternal joy beyond human comprehension.
There is something in Catholicism that atheists and assorted anticlericals are utterly unable to get. What they see as uncompromising harshness hides, in fact, infinite sweetness. They cannot see the sweetness, because the acceptance of the harshness is necessary to appreciate it in the first place. They are like a son rebelling against his rigid mother, who will never know how tenderly she loves him.
Fear of the Lord truly is the beginning of wisdom. Its absence is a major indication of foolishness on a vast scale.
I will keep my fear of the Lord and my very harsh religion; and will thoroughly enjoy the tears of consolation and hope that it gives me. May I – and you, my dear readers – never lose it, drowning in the stupidity of the Age of Francis.
Whenever some adherent of the “religion of peace” blows up himself in the air or does something just as stupid, UK Muslim leaders are not slow in condemning, in very generic term, “violence”. The mention of “Muslim violence” is not really there. It's a very generic condemnation of bad behaviour “whenever it may come from”.
Neither the BBC nor the mainstream press have a problem with it.
It is, therefore, strange that when a death occurs in the course of incidents which saw violence on both sides, Trump should condemn one side exclusively.
Actually, Trump is far more justified than the above mentioned Muslim leaders, because in the latter's case the violence is undoubtedly all on our side, and in Trump's case this is not the case.
Trump is right also in the “terrorism” quarrel. The death in Charlottesburg is a mixture of heated spirits and road rage. Never in my life have I seen such an episode called “terrorism”, and I have seen a lot of it in several Countries. The fake news machine just does not want to stop.
And please leave poor General Lee alone. A wonderful soldier and patriot that every Nation would be proud to call his own, and an Abolitionist to boot.
One thing you can safely say of these liberals and assorted leftists is that, besides not being born geniuses, they are ignorant of their own history.
I have already written a couple of times about how tiring it is to have to write the same things about the same idiot again and again. However – I reflected every time – the idiot does not get tired to spread his idiocy; therefore, I will not get tired to fight it.
Nor can it be said that scandal is addictive. Scandal is scandal. No priest or layman worth his salt would tell you, after seeing a persistent scandal in his village, that at some point it is better not to denounce it anymore.
Blogging can be tiring or repetitive. It's life. What we do is soldier on with the lights that God have given us, asking him for the energy and resolve to never give up the fight.
Countless martyrs have died for the faith; shall I get tired of some blogging?
If an 83 years old heretic can go on and on and on I can do the same, too. God willing, I will see him in his grave. When the situation improves and we have a Catholic hierarchy doing their darn job I will reconsider whether I want to spend the time blogging. But that time is, sadly, a very distant fantasy and now we clearly live an “all hands on deck” situation.
When the Clergy betrays their flock and Christ calls the laymen to the fight, I do not say “it's boring”, much less “dear Lord, scandal is addictive; shouldn't we rather pray?”.
No. I shout “presente!” loud and clear. Well I pray, too, but honestly I think blogging comes close as it helps others to live a life of Catholic sanity in an age of utter and complete insanity.
Of course, blogging is not only about that. I write a number of blog posts that are not about the scandal of the day, trusting that my readers will not forget that we live in horrible times if I don't remind them of the fact three times a week. However, the fundamental point remain: when it is time to fight you don't get tired, or even say that fighting heresy is making the work of the devil. This would be one of the most extraordinary inversions of truth ever stated by anyone, Catholic or not.
Yes be prayerful. Yes be in good spirit. Yes pray for your enemies (as you pound on them with your keyboard). But for heaven's sake, never think that it be bad to defy heresy and heterodoxy, no matter for how long you have to do it.
In the end, you know what?
You turn if you want to.
Mundabor is not for turning.
However, one who seems less bad than many others.
If he runs, trust him to cave in in the matter of sodomarriage. However, if there is one who, in time, might reverse the tide, it is this one.
Here in the UK some call him “the honourable member for the XVIII Century”. There are other versions around. A practicing Catholic to boot.
I must say I like it.
By the bye, the man is a Brexit Fascist.
My kind of guy in this, too.
In the last blog post I have touched upon the merely superficial effect of a bad papacy in bringing about the evil, as the only one accepting the novelties will be the ones who were embracing them anyway. However, this does not make a Pope, or a Papacy, irrelevant. A good Pope would have a huge influence within and without the Catholic world.
The values of today help shape the morality of tomorrow. A great, uncompromising, staunch warrior for Catholic values like an hypothetical Pius XIII would not cause a mass conversion in the likes of Francis. However, his vigorous campaign would send ripple effects through the press, the television and radio, and the Internet-driven social media channels. A new narrative would start impacting collective thinking and feeling. The Catholic trumpet would resound loud and clear. In time, this narrative would start to impact on local elections and local power structures, making its further resurgence easier.
It would not be a fast process, but it would be a massive one. An entire generation would start to grow in a substantially different environment than the present one. When the political power finds it convenient to follow religious instances, the atheist narrative and its consequences (abortion, euthanasia, perversion, disgregation of the family etc.) can only be toppled.
Imagine a Pope Pius XIII during a Trump Presidency: it would be a double whammy of global proportions, changing the narrative even in those Countries (like the UK) where the most practised religion will soon be Islam. It would be the recovery of Christian values as the basis of traditional Western culture. It would be a mutual strengthening in time of peace as well as in time of (just, or sacrosanct) war. It would be the end of PC rubbish in all but, say, the Nordic Countries.
And this is the biggest problem with a wrong Papacy: not much the evil that it cannot do, but the good that it does not want to do.
With Trump as President and Pence as Vice President, we are missing a wonderful occasion.
I am often led to reflect about the impact that a bad Papacy has on our Western culture, and I would like to spend two words on my reflections.
Like everyone working in the UK, I have a good deal of heathens under my colleagues and acquaintances, and it is perfectly evident to me that Francis is irrelevant to them: they barely know who he is and they do not care about what he says.
Then there are the atheists; who, coming from a Western background rather than from Sri Lanka of Pakistan, very well know who Francis is and in what he differs for his predecessors. However, they do not care about him, either. They think of him and his antics as an evidence that the Pope thinks like them, but even they know all too well that this is not what the Church teaches. They dismiss both as false, and the thing ends there.
The instructed Catholics are horrified by the man. They do not drink that kool-aid at all. They only differ in the degree of public criticism of the Evil Clown: very timid or even cowardly for most, assertive and combative in some. But the horror is the same.
Last, the tepid, wannabe, thin-varnished, hearsay Catholics. They certainly use Francis as an excuse for their becoming even more tepid and even more wannabe than they already are, but this seems to me more the willed acceleration of an erosion process that would be underway anyway, than a change of direction of any sort. Yes, the weakness of the Church may one day cause the disappearance of Catholicism from Countries like Italy of France; however, this would happen not directly because the Pope orchestrated it, but rather very indirectly because the dechristianised people of Europe want it that way in the first place, and being dechristianised don’t even care whether the Pope agrees with them or not.
In short, it seems to me that a bad papacy creates a sort of chameleon effect: it disappears in the background of the atheist, perverted Western world, and exactly in virtue of this disappearance it has little effect on the world at large. The largest impact of a bad papacy is, if you ask me, rather in this: the dismissal and refusal of the role of the Church, of her mission to be an enemy of the world.
Francis is hugely damaging in that he prevents the Church from being a strong force for Catholic truth. But as for actual, active damage, leading people who wish to be good towards a bad life, it seems to me that he does not have this power.
Catholicism stands like a huge block of granite against this idiot, continuously scratching at it with a fork as he shouts “look at me, comrades!”. Only people who hate the granite will ever be impressed, and not even many among them.
If you become like the world you disappear in it. Irrelevance is the price of acquiescence.
Pope Francis has stated he is “saddened” by “perfect Catholics” who criticise others.
This is a typical straw man argument. There are no perfect Catholics who say that whoever is not perfect must be criticised. The object of the criticism simply does not exist, and is chosen to make people who do exist look bad.
What does exist is Catholics who, whilst sinners, strive to live a Catholic life and justly criticise overt and covert attacks to it. Francis cannot put it that way, however, because it would reveal the fundamental soundness of the criticism.
This very mediocre, very emotional, completely unintelligent line of attack is perfectly in line with this Pope: a stupid, ignorant, arrogant man who hates Catholicism and all who love it.
It is a blessing that our heretical Pope is at least a dumb one. I start to fear what might happen if his successor were one like him, but with a better brain.
Please, Lord, save us from an evil worse scourge than an ass as Pope.
My post about the thankfully now deceased Cardinal Tettamanzi prompted a nice comment about the fact that those who have lived their lives in rebellion to God will not find it easy to manage that perfect contrition that would save them from hell when they die. This is all true but, lest the wrong interpretation is given, I would like to see things from the other side: God's grace.
We, on our own, can do absolutely nothing, much less save ourselves. God's will is the only variable in this. We are wretched sinners who, on our own, could never achieve anything at all.
All we do that is good is because of God's grace, given gratuitously to us without us meriting it. Whilst the common parlance states that one merits salvation, the matter is more complex: God allows him the immense grace of final repentance, and he merely collaborates with it; and he does so only and exclusively because God gave him the grace (that is: the unmerited gift) to do so.
This is an aspect of Catholic teaching that is, if you ask me, too often neglected, engendering in some the idea that, in the end, my salvation is in my hands. No it isn't. To believe in this is, in fact, a heresy.
Without God we are perfect nothings who can do perfectly nothing. All we do that is good is due to God giving us the unmerited grace to act in the right way.
This helps us to put episodes like the sudden death of Cardinal Meisner, or the recent demise of “communion for adulterers” Tettamanzi, in the right perspective.
Meisner might have been reading the breviary when he died, but then again Luther might (hypothetically) have been reading the Bible. The question about their salvation is: after they have gravely failed against Our Lord (in different ways) all their lives, how likely it is that Our Lord would give them this gratuitous, infinitely important gift of the grace of final repentance?
Well the simple answer to that is that – whilst God only judges and He has perfect plans we don't comprehend – it's just pretty unlikely. Again: a heretic or traitor does not save himself by doing things that sound right: if you are in mortal sin, nothing you do is conducive to salvation. If you are in mortal sin you can recite thirty rosaries a day, you are still in mortal sin. A heretic or traitor only saves himself if Our Lord decides to give him this great, unmerited gift, moving him to collaborate with Him and behave in a way that – leading him to the state of grace again – is conducive to salvation.
The grace of final repentance is the grace of all graces. With it, everything is achieved. Without it, everything is lost. None of us, nobody, and be him Padre Pio, can merit salvation out of his own actions and volition. It is always God's grace that allowed those actions in the first place, and gently pushed the soul to perform them.
Therefore, when some lifelong Quisling or outright rascal dies, the thought of how likely it is that he would have received this immense gift is more pertinent than the question about what the man was doing when he kicked the bucket.
Yes. This is exactly the way it should be.