Author Archives: Mundabor

Throwing The First Stone

 

Everyone knows the story, so no need to tell it. This is one of the most abused episodes of the Gospel, though I think the “do not judge, lest ye be judged” part must take the biscuit on this. I would like today to speak of an aspect that is, in my opinion, not mentioned enough.

The Romans allowed the Jews a certain amount of self-administration, but only up to a point. The Jewish self-administration did stretch to what we today call criminal justice, but it stopped short of the death penalty. You see this most obviously in the fact that Jesus is brought in front of Pontius Pilate, so that the latter may condemn Him and agree to the wish of the Pharisees to have Him executed. An execution, mind, which is made entirely under the sign of the Roman Eagle, and with the Pharisees as mere onlookers. The cross is a Roman, not a Jewish instrument. Roman soldiers accompany and lead the slow and painful advancement of the three condemned. Roman soldiers dispose among them of Jesus’ expensive tunic. Roman officers decide when to put an end to the whole thing. The entire proceeding is completely under the sign of the Roman Eagle. Everyone would need to see and know who the masters are.

The Romans took their role as occupying force seriously. They would crush every attempt to trample it.

This is why Jesus is posed the famous question: “the woman has been caught in adultery and according to our law she should be executed: what say you?” The trap here is clear: if Jesus had answered “she must be executed” they would have denounced him to the Romans as a subversive, as He publicly presents Himself as alternative to their power, and in opposition to it. If Our Lord had said: “ask the Romans” they would have accused Him of being a toy of the hated Roman occupier. If He had said: “she must not be executed” they would have accused Him of despising the Law.

Jesus turns the table on them, and puts them in a very difficult spot. He exposes their corruption and hypocrisy, but does not do their bidding. His answer is game, set and match. Even if Christianity certainly changed this aspect of the Law, and we can therefore today say whether Jesus was in favour of the public stoning of adultering wives, He did so on His own, not on their terms.

This legal and political aspect of the episode is, in my eyes, too often neglected. In this way we lose a very interesting layer of the story, and fail to fully appreciate another way in which our Lord shows His divinely sophisticated reasoning. Other episodes – the one with the Roman coin comes to mind, or the one with the gold coin in the mouth of the fish – show broadly the same kind of dynamics of, at the same time, turning the table on the opposer and showing him how Truth looks like.

Too easily, it seems to me, the episode gets reduced to the “he who is without sin” narrative; which can be also easily manipulated by the enemies of Christ in an attempt to make you believe no one who isn’t a living Saint should ever open his mouth, or condemn any sin or abomination. A paradise for thieves, murderers, perverts, and heretics. Oh, and evil clowns, of course.

By every public execution of heretics, the Church had someone lighting the first bunch of faggots. By every public hanging of criminals, the Church had a man in charge of the noose. It’s more complicated than the usual, rather absurd “he who is without sin” of your oh so nice, but rather deluded neighbour, who does not understand much of Christianity but is so proud of it.

I wish this aspect were mentioned more often. I have enough of the implicit message of too many, that no one should ever open his mouth.

M

God, Sin, Saints, And Francis.

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

As for compassion, I declare that the emotional sissies – of both sexes, and none – do contribute to create the very problems they claim to be so compassionate about; if not with positive help and approval, at least with the implied acceptance and the complicit silence that make them accessory in the others’ sin; whilst, no doubt, feeling awfully good with themselves, and undeniably saintly.

View original

The Evil Clown And You, Part Two

Yes… again!

You have read part one, and if you are still here you are, hopefully, getting the point that the attack is serious and unprecedented, and the answer must be unprecedented, too.

It is my opinion – not only in matters of religion, but in everything that is to do with public opinion at large – that half measures won’t do. The tepid criticism does not even cause a tepid reaction; it does not cause any reaction at all.

Individually as well as collectively, it is only the strong message that has a chance to get through. One strong homily about hell is remembered when one thousand homilies about “peace in the world” are forgotten. Your grandma’s slap at some religious misstep will stay with you forever, after endless mercy blabla has been forgotten. Even if you become oblivious of the slap, you will never really forget it. One day, it might well pop up again. It might do you a lot of good.

Padre Pio had no problems with slapping. He threw around sandals, too. He screamed in the church, when the situation (which was extreme) required it. He got very angry whenever Homosexuality and Communism got touched. I can’t even start to imagine the scandal of the Pious Anglosaxon Catholic Bloggers! Stop obsessing, Padre! You are being so uncharitable!

If the message is to have any chance of getting through, it must be presented brutally. As brutally as the reality of eternal damnation is brutal. As brutally as the reality of a Pope raping the Church is brutal. Jesus’ words were absolutely brutal, and it needs someone who does not know the Gospel to not recognise this brutally clear fact. St John the Baptist was His equal in unsugared talk. Very many saints were exactly the same. Our Lady’s words, and the images showed to the children of Fatima, must have been utterly terrifying to the children, and remained with them for life.

Half measures won’t do.

The enemy knows that. The enemy calls you “homophobic”, and you react with a raised little finger, telling him how the Church loves the sinner. So-called “gay marriage” ensues, and you still don’t get it; your little finger firmly up in the air as persecution gets one polite step nearer.

Francis insults you in all possible ways, day in and day out, and with you he insults all generations of Christians before you and all the Church stands for. You know that perfectly well. Still, you sit there like a kindergarten child, expressing your “surprise”. Of course, then, Francis asks you to reject the Sacraments and the Commandments! It’s your spineless reaction that encouraged him! You are not part of the solution! You are part of the problem!

The strong message gets through. The polite disagreement goes nowhere. If ten thousand good Catholic people were to boo Francis in St Peter’s square once, all this mess would end. They prefer to have a Synod in which heresy and blasphemy are put to discussion instead. You don’t want to be more Catholic than the pope, do you now?

Collective dynamics need strong messages to develop. This blog is but one drop in the ocean that is needed. But a drop it is. Everyone of us is but a drop. Be a drop for Truth, not a raised-little-finger catholic.

The same goes in the individual sphere. Remember the grandmother’s slap?

I am that slap. I am your surrogate grandmother in a world of sissified do-good ism and in desperate need of slapping grandmothers, now sadly extinct. I am the trumpet you will reject – and despise, and insult – today, but might well remember in ten or thirty years time. I had such trumpets, may God bless them. I got to understand their value only decades later. I want to be one of that sort. Hate me now. I don’t care. It’s all in a day of being the Catholic blogger I chose to be.

And truly, it is beyond belief that in these times of open, unprecedented attack to all that is sacred there should be people worried about the adjectives used on the Internet, on Facebook, on Twitter about the Pope. It makes one seriously wonder.

Decide to Whom your allegiance belong, and act accordingly.

——-

There you have it. The brutal proto-Fascist, Torquemada-cum-Francisco-Franco, Slapping Grandmother Enchilada.

You may read me, or not. You may agree with me, or not.

But you are an utter fool if your question my motives, my sincerity, or my love for the Church.

M

The Evil Clown And You, Part I

Bad, bad rosary-counters!

I have written about this often, but it is in the nature of things that such concepts be repeated, so there you have it. If you have no qualms with the image above you can happily skip this post and go walk in the park, or read one of the more than four thousand posts this little effort contains.

——-

I will never buy Francis’ heresies and blasphemies. Not in a life of one thousand years, if the Lord gives me the grace of keeping my senses. If the aim of all the Evil Clown blog posts were to persuade me, there would be no need for any of it.

No. The Evil Clown is there for you. Therefore, for you, and – as far as I can help you, and discern what is right from what is wrong – for my desire to do what I can for the Holy Church, the Evil Clown will firmly remain. If it shocks you, perhaps you are in need of some shocking.

There was a time where I wasn’t a practising Catholic. I was aware of the sacraments – as in: their existence and their importance at large – but their deep meaning, and their deep sacredness, someway escaped me. It is almost a mystery to me today to think that I could, in the past, not attend Mass and be fine with it. It wasn’t out of evil intent, I can assure you in perfect good faith. It was out of brutal ignorance of the deep meaning, and therefore utter sacredness, of the Mass, and of the cardinal importance of the Sacraments – not as something that “is out there somewhere”, but as something that has a deep impact in my life – in my salvation.

I was a bit like Theoden – without the Kingdom – when Gandalf first visited. Not evil, but slumbering. I needed to be awoken. By God’s grace, and the brutal words of charitable people – both dead and alive – I awoke.

This blog is here to awaken those who are slumbering, and to encourage those who are awake. This blog is the blog I wish I had read when I was slumbering, and vaguely looking for I did not know what. This blog is the trumpet I want to blow in your ear, loud and clear; so loud, in fact, that you will never completely forget the moment you heard its noise. A noise you might remember again in ten or thirty years, as it happened to me.

Does this scandalise you? Good! If you can wake up in the morning and not be horrified at what the pope himself wants to do to the Church you are slumbering, and in serious need of waking up. And if you in fact are horrified, but think that politeness and a veiled, utterly harmless criticism is the maximum you can do you must truly wonder whether for you Christ comes first, or an evil clown, or your own little, polite world.

The more you get to love the Church, the more you will feel it in your heart, in your skin, in your stomach, when She is attacked. When the attack is led by the Pope (wake up, smell the coffee, and realise that the attack is led by the pope) then the stomach pain is serious. If I get a cancer, I start to think I’ll know where it comes from. So shut up with your talk of politeness, because it won’t wash with me. This is serious, it’s not a matter for light conversation.

I feel pain. I want you to feel the same pain. I want you to realise how the Bride is being raped. I want you to feel the pain in your bones, as I do. When you understand the scale of the threat, and the importance of the Church, you understand the sheer scale of the satanical evil that is now ravaging Her. If you don’t, then of course you’ll have plenty of time to talk about politeness.

It is futile to hide behind your finger. You can’t say “I can do no else than pray”. Christ allowed Himself to be spitted in the face when the appointed time came, but do you think that the Apostles would have stood there with a sad face and praying their rosaries if any had tried to spit Him in the face? And what else do you think Francis is doing? How do you call attacking Him in the Sacraments, in the institution of marriage, in the Trinity, in the Commandments, and in the thousand other ways you well know by now?

I believe in God, not Niceness. If I see Christ spitted upon, I draw the … keyboard. I do not stand there muttering something about the “unlucky choice of words” whilst the man is planning a Great Offensive against everything the Church stands for.

You can have your afternoon tea with your little finger raised as much as you want, as you reflect – between a scone and a sandwich – whether “we can criticise the pope”. I see the Bride spitted upon, and I will have nothing of this rubbish.

Nor can you say “relax, Mundabor! The Church has already won!” Of course She has! But not because people relax, but because people act! You can’t just stand there and do nothing! Christ did not call us to… relax and watch!

———–

What many do not understand is that we have a new situation. Never – not even with Liberius, or John XXII – had we such a formidable fifth column of Satan inside the Church, planning an attack at her very heart. Never had we a pope so obviously committed to the subversion of Church teaching (and if you still can’t see this, I slowly wonder about your chances of salvation) as we have now.

This is absolutely new. It requires new answers. The scale of the attack is so vast that no one can say “I can’t be wrong by remaining in the ranks of the Pope” when it is clear the ranks of the pope are shooting at the Bride. You are just not allowed to be as blind as that, because Bergoglio’s treason is so extreme, so shameless, so shouted, that no one can pretend not to see it.

It’s Francis here, and Christ there. Tertium non datur. We must have the guts to look at the facts in the face, and act accordingly.

It is important to get this. When one gets the point, the discussion about “what to do” can begin in earnest.

This wretched sinner has decided what to do. But this is for another post.

M

The “Il Duce” Reblog

The “Il Duce” Reblog

(link should now work)

On The Way We Look

I am the product of a different cultural environment than the one in which I live now. As a result, I may notice some things I do not say more rapidly, but perhaps more strikingly than others.

I seem to notice the de-Christianisation of this country in the way more and more people here simply look. If you are the PC, sensitive kind with the blue-haired daughter you can look away now, or read at your own peril.

Two words in advance: where I come from, the way we look shows our respect for others, and for commonly accepted rules of behaviour. It is not only that we want to look properly: by the way we look, we show others that we took care of appearing in front of them in the proper way, and that we share their same values. You may say that in Italy things are rather intertwined (we do like to look good, anyway) but you get the gist.

Together with this always went common rules of “appearance” which, shared by everyone, made the standard of decency and respect for others. People gladly submitted to these rules, out of a generally shared sense of what is good and proper. In fact, in those times there still was something like that: a generally shared sense of what is good and proper. It was a broadly Catholic society, you know…

When Christianity went out of the window, these rules were subverted like all the rest. Some examples among many:

1) the “drug addict” look. You know, half the head with the “Auschwitz cut”, the other half normal.

2) the “I wish I were a fag” look. This is the “as thin as I can”, “ephebophiles, look at me!” look.

3) the “I will make you look at my hair” look. Purple metallic, ivy green, cobalt blue. Everything goes.

4) the “I work for my tattoo man” look. Entire arms, entire shoulders, or the entire neck covered in tattoos. Grave matter? What’s “grave matter”? There is still some reaction here (cue the word “tramp stamp”: women are always the harshest judges of their sex…) but in general the epidemic is clear to see, and no sign of abatement.

5) the “stuck in 1968″ look. Any or several of the above mentioned, but worn from people, generally women, clearly beyond Sixty. This, my friends, is what a life of marijuana does to you. I notice it far less in men, and I attribute this to the need of the old hags to carry on to the bitter and very, very ugly end an “emancipation battle” their marijuana-smoking male counterparts never needed to, ahem, “fight”.

As an addendum, I shall add the “Battleship Potemkin” look: strictly below thirty, 300 pounds or more, a belly protruding from the corners before the rest, and the attitude that says “I look wonderful as I am, and if you disagree you are a chauvinist pig”. This last comes with the small caveat that there is a small possibility that said battleship got to look that way out of sheer frailty and correctly identified rather than, so to speak, ideological gluttony. But all the others are entirely voluntary, and require time and money.

Now let us ask ourselves: how comes that our forefathers were so “judgmental”, and we (I mean: the others) aren’t? Because they were Christians, are we (I mean: the others) aren’t, is the simple answer.

In sane times, the “alternative look” immediately told them one had an alternative lifestyle; and being neither politically correct nor stupid they did not fail to notice, and to say it.

The fag look would have indicated to them one who is either a sodomite or, in case he wasn’t, creepy and outright worthy of mistrust.

The purple metallic hair would have been seen – and rightly so – as an obvious sign of rebellion to all that is good and proper.

The tattoos would have been seen as an obvious sign of godlessness.

Battleship Potemkin would have been seen as an obvious sign of gluttony.

Not anymore in the “time of mercy”. Today, being seen as “judgmental” is the only sin. Everyone is a good boy, or girl, or whatever he feels he is, until proven otherwise. When it’s proven otherwise, it’s “who am I to judge”…

Some of you might say that this is not so anymore, and that today so many good people look like bad ones; but I must disagree. The simple fact is that those very rebellions our forefathers rightly condemned are still there, but now they have become mainstream. Our forefathers saw them because they were smart; we don’t see them because we are stupid, and don’t want to look unkind; but rebellion still was, and still is; it’s just that the rebel does not even feel such anymore, merely up with the times. Nowadays it is mainstream that there is no right and wrong behaviour. It is mainstream that there is no bent or straight, no sacred or profane, no sinfulness or saintliness. It is mainstream that everyone can do whatever he pleases, “if he does, oh, not, oh, harm, oh, otheeers”….

Nowadays, Godlessness is mainstream.

The way people look simply reflects it.

M

Flaming Modernists

As I had (very easily) predicted when I wrote the blog post about the rape of the Church (and which will remain pinned at least until the end of the Synod), a fairly consistent barrage of interviews of the or other flaming heretic has been given to more or less allied journalists, with the clear aim of creating a kind of fait accompli atmosphere at the Synod. Here, I will stop in order to allow you to utter one or two fitting insults at the address of these bastards, and to pray heaven that it may put an end to the work of said bastards in its own good time, but hopefully soon…..

After this brief intermission, I submit to your attention another interview (not the first, not the last), given by bishop Franz-Joseph Bode, undoubtedly one of the chief German bastards bishops.

Bode reads like an exercise in Modernism:

1) We must take account of the fact that the world has changed

2) we don't want a second marriage. But we should consider giving our blessing to adultery.

3) Some people put their prick in other people's sphincter, but we should obsess about sex.

4) when the teaching of the church becomes difficult we will uphold it in principle, but call it “an ideal” that must still “have a connection with life”; which is clearly impossible when God asks something as absurd as indissolubility of marriage.

It goes on in that vein, but my adrenaline level has peaked already so I will stop here.

I know the Angels have been reading Bastard bishop Bode. To me this is enough for today.

Make no mistake: they are being watched.

M

 

The Dangers Of Professional Journalism

Louie Verrecchio at Harvesting The Fruit of the VII has an interesting article about Church Militant TV. If you have hunger for more detailed names and circumstances, this article from the always excellent “Remnant” comes to your rescue and gives even more background.

I struggle – as, evidently, Louie Verrecchio himself does – to question the sincerity of Michael Voris. I just cannot persuade myself the man has no honest intentions. Rather, it seems to me a clear case of getting the wrong influence. At the same time, I reflect that it would appear that this wrong influence came about because… there was need of his money. This – let me repeat it once again – does not mean that the wrong position was wilfully embraced by Voris in exchange for financial support; but it certainly seems to corroborate the old Italian adage, that he who walks with the lame man learns to limp.

An organisation that is in the business of providing sound Catholicism is not unlikely to expose itself to this kind of influence if the business is to produce enough revenue to at least pay for its expenses. In this, it is not even so relevant whether this business aims at the distribution of a profit or not; in the end, renouncing to a dividend does not make things so much easier, taking away perhaps 10% (or perhaps much less) of the pressure to generate revenue; and whilst you can persuade some to work for less, you’ll have to pay market price for most of the services. In the end, it is fair to say that the remaining 90% to pay for the entire machinery will have to be generated – bar more massive donations, which then engender more massive influence – anyway.

Hence, you must be, broadly, mainstream. Hence, you can’t say that the Pope is wrong, or a rascal, or a heretic, or all of this together. Hence, you must pay attention that your wealthy donor does get his message out. Hence, you end up making a disservice to Catholicism. Hence, Church Militant TV, Catholic Herald, Patheos, and worse. In the case of Church Militant the personal insult to Verrecchio, Ferrara and others must be added.

I struggle to feel much compassion here. Thousands of men and women of good will get to the cybersphere to take part in the war as humble foot soldiers, and not only they do not make any money out of their blog but they even spend money to run it. Whilst they might wish that a financial reward could be attached to their activity, the reward in heaven is the reason why they blog and they therefore write gratis et amore Dei without any difficulty.

This little effort does not give a Barack Hussein if the fairly clear words therein published about the Pope – words that the blog authors feels not only can, but must be said for the good of his and his readers’ souls – cause the readership to stagnate, dwindle, or disappear. Such considerations are neither here nor there. There are no running costs to be paid, and whatever technology investment is required is paid by me gladly and without thinking twice. The freedom this gives is a luxury few businesses (and be they without the aim of a profit for the owner) are willing to afford.

If you make of journalism your profession you are a professional journalist. Even if you accept a lower pay to help the cause, you get your livelihood from it. Even if your organisation is a non profit, the necessity to make that 90-to-94% of the revenue (good is the media company that makes 6% of its revenue in net profit before taxes, and very good the one that makes 10%; very many do not make any profit at all, and the Internet isn’t going to make it easier for them) is there anyway. All this can easily – and we have an example in front of us – shape the way these companies do business.

Mind, it does not have to be so – look only at how exemplarily orthodox Verrecchio is! Look at the Remnant, and let us not forget Catholic Family News! I am sure I forget many other worthy initiatives! – but it can very easily be so, because the pressure will be not only unavoidable, but at times subtle and not immediately perceived as a “request to sell out”. Which can lead to people with the best intentions ending up doing the wrong thing. As in the case of the – certainly sincere – rich donor who appears to have a problem with the most beautiful example of Catholic orthodoxy of the planet, the SSPX, and of the journalist – certainly sincere – that allows himself to be led to a wrong position by the former.

There is a price to pay for professional Catholicism, and it can be a rather subtle one. There is an unavoidable price in opportunity and revenue few are ready to pay, though – let me say it again – we see several examples of people ready to pay it. Others, like Church Militant, pay a price of undue influence to which they would not have been exposed as a non revenue generating operation. Other still, like Patheos or the Catholic Herald, will just be weather vanes of smaller or bigger heretical content.

There is certainly a place for professional Catholicism. I do not see the Remnant, or Verrecchio, as influenced by turnover considerations. But these are examples of rare beauty, because they are clearly run by souls of rare beauty. Out there – in the big world of cameramen and cameramen assistants, of commercial space rented and fitted, of equipment and travel expenses – things will, very often, look different.

There is a danger built-in in professional Catholicism. The danger is very real. Compare the different outlets and judge for yourselves who is and who isn’t affected.

M

Obergefell Vs Hodges: Huge Gauntlet Thrown Down

The Pewsitter informs us that the American Catholic Lawyers Association have thrown down a huge gauntlet against Obergefell vs Hodges. 

What I found particularly beautiful are the part about Sodomy (which is called by name! Unheard of in times in which even people who deem themselves conservative keep vomiting that horrible word, “gay”) and the indictment of that little minion of Satan, Justice Kennedy.

If those five apprentice demons thought they could have the matter “settled” with their satanical decision, they will soon have to see the stupidity of their own thinking. This is going to be another battle like the one against abortion, and the only way to put an end to it will be to crush Christianity in a Country having “in God we trust” as the national motto and in which Christianity is, even if in an imperfect form (but I can’t say the Church shines much in these times) still a force to be reckoned with. Eradicate Christianity from the U.S.? Not an easy task, if you ask me. Though I am sure it is being attempted as I write this.

This is not going to go away. This is not going to become settled. This is going to stay with us as long as we live, and be carried on by others after we have died. Going, hopefully, to a different reward than the one Justice Kennedy seems very… bent on getting. 

M

 

 

 

 

Obama Would Have Aborted Himself

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

View original

More Catholic Than Francis? Of Course I Am!

"Are You More Catholic Than The Pope?"

“Are You More Catholic Than The Pope?”

A small “c” catholic magazine – the one who on the day of the infamous Synod mid-term declaration, the relatio post disceptationem, came out with an article explaining to us how much the Church still has to do; which really tells you everything you need to know about the sad business of prostitution – now thinks it can publish a smart article by asking us if we are more Catholic than Francis  (no link, of course).

The article is an exercise in Clericalism, and one can only remark here that Clericalism is truly one of the marks of V II; Grima Wormtongue as he thinks and speaks.

 

The answer to the heresy and blasphemy is very easy, so I will keep it short.

Yes, if you are a good Catholic you must be vastly more Catholic than the Pope, because the Pope spreads heresy and confusion whenever he opens that stupid mouth of his. Yes, you know that you are more Catholic than the Pope because you, in striking difference to people who write for that magazine, actually know the first three things about Catholicism. Yes, you know that you are not making your own religion, or of yourself a God, because you compare your thinking with two thousand years of Catholicism and discover that not you, but Francis is at variance with that, and at variance in such a tragic and massive way as to not leave an excuse to anyone. Yes, you can recognise a traitor and a heretic because the Church teaches you how to do so, and many papal encyclicals (search this blog, or shut up) help you to do it effectively. Yes, you do not give any credit to the novelties of an encyclical letter if they go against what the Church has always taught.

The article is, in fact, so stupid that th every simple concept is not realised, that if the Pope had not made such an ass of himself, even with the extraordinary way of an encyclical, so many Catholics would not criticise him; but if he does, well obviously they do. Being Catholic never meant being stupid, whatever this rag wants you to believe.

 

It is utterly pathetic that the utterly clericalist claim be made that we should submit to heresy, because the heresy happens to be Pope. Have the people over there never read the words of St Paul? 

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

And we should not believe to angels, yet believe a stupid, ignorant, boorish Argentinian of which we can never even know if he is even sober when he opens his mouth?

This is not a light issue. This has a direct bearing on our salvation. Very plainly, you cannot serve Christ and Francis.  

I know Whom I will choose. Everyone else can make his choice, and pay the price of his stupidity if he so wishes.

 

I have a page called “the quotable Catholic”. You see it above this text. The very first quote is also repeated on the right hand column of this blog. It could well make the difference between salvation and damnation for many of us. It states: 

What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now.
Robert DePiante

I will stake my salvation every day on those words. I hope to die with these words in my mind, and “miserere mei, Domine” on my lips. Those who think they must believe not an angel, but an Argentinian heretics are reckless fools. 

Don’t be among them. No matter what (you know what I mean)never betray the faith of your Fathers under the disguise of a “restyling”, or an “updating”  (ahem, “aggiornamento”).

It’s not an update. It’s heresy, and blasphemy. 

I stake my salvation on the words above. I will never give allegiance to evil heretics and their little, little minions. 

Let these little Grimas talk as much as they want. God will know what to do with them. 

As for me, I will follow the Lord. 

Volato Si…

Volaaaare....

I am not an expert in the matter, and I would therefore be grateful for anyone attempting a calculation of the total co2 emissions caused by the latest papal folly: an entire aeroplane of entourage and journalists flying the other side of the ocean, touring several countries and back, in order to spread more nonsense and feel a bit at home for some days. Another six weeks or so, and the exercise will be pretty much repeated…

I am also grateful for any news of the pope ordering to switch off the a/c in the residences that lodged him and his entourage. Mind, I am sure he did so (everything else would be the height of hypocrisy…), but just to be sure…

It appears to me that if it never necessary for a Pope to travel, it should be even less desirable for a pope breaking our … ears with talks of co2 emissions, air conditioners, and the like. A pope's role isn't in being seen around. He isn't an Hollywood actor, or the attraction of an itinerant circus. A pope is called to be a good Pope, and if he is that no travel is necessary; not ever, and particularly not for one who tweets and blabbers with journalists every time he isn't eating, or in the bathroom.

No, it is not necessary for Francis to travel. But he seems to like it a lot, and stuff the emissions…

This is not only a pope unprecedented in his hypocrisy. This is a Pope unprecedented in the arrogance of putting his hypocrisy in front of the whole world and not caring for it one bit. “Hey, I am the Pope”, is the clear implied message, “and I do whatever I want, because I can. ¿Está claro?”

How I miss old Benedict…

M

 

God Bless This Jesuit

The great James V Schall, mentioned on this blog – and only for lack of time – much less than he deserves, has another wonderful contribution about FrancisThink.

The man is obviously gentle with the ass he must deal with, but you can read between the lines that his patience is being tested. The article examines all that is wrong with the way Francis sees the world, beginning from the root of the problem: that Francis does not have a Christian view of the world. I add, though he does not say, that Francis has a Marxist one.

The worthy man goes on examining the utter senselessness of Francis economic views, not saying but certainly implying that the man is at the intellectual level of the thirteen year old school boy terrorised at suddenly being told that resources are about to end, there will be horrible wars, and we will all be doomed if we don't shut down our evil air conditioners at once.

The vision of a quasi-agricultural society (around 1-2% of GDP in Italy) as the medicine for supposed illness is almost as stupid as the assertion the the poor have warned us of the destruction of the planet. So let me rephrase: a thirteen years old boy with Marxist parents at home.

There are many other interesting topics in the article (the continuous opposing the very rich and the very poor is an example; and I note here that the very rich are invariably bad, and the very poor invariably good), which I invite you to read in its entirety. It's longish, but well-reasoned and worth the time, and you might agree with everything, but you will see a robust common sense everywhere.

James V Schall is one of the few voices of sanity remained in a Church that drifts slowly towards utter madness in more and more of her clergymen and religious. But his generation is going to be gone soon, and it will be more and more difficult to find voices like him within the official V II Church. As Francis appoints more Marxists as bishops and Cardinals, the danger will become bigger. And whilst we will probably still avoid catastrophe in October, it seems to me that a long attrition war about the very basis of Christianity is about to begin.

God bless this Jesuit, then.

M

 

Born That Way

crucifixSome of us (including yours truly) are the kind who relish the battle. We were, basically, born to cross swords. We just love to be part of the minority. We may be tired at times, but we are tired like the professional cyclist is tired: you know after a while he will be on the saddle again.

Alas, not everyone is born with the contrarian attitude, and the character trait of enjoying it.

Let us imagine for a moment that you are one of the latter. Let us imagine that you feel exhausted at the string of bad news, the discussions with friends and relatives, the endless drain this has on your energy. Understandable, that you may be at times tempted to give up: stop the discussions, or the blogging (if you blog), or the commenting (if you comment), or the reading (if you read).

Would this make you feel better? Would this improve your, say, “quality of life”?

I bet it wouldn’t. Apart from the very obvious fact that this is a vale of tears, and quality of life should not be our first concern, the brutal fact is that if you are a sincere Catholic shutting up would just let you suffer more. You would have to endure the careless mentions of the “gay” all tyour friends make as if this was a normal state of affair. You would have to endure the spreading of what you know to be Satan’s poison among those you love most. You would have to know that whilst you are shutting up, others are writing and fighting and quarreling and exchanging adrenaline on the Internet, and you are not part of the battle.

Would that make you happier? I doubt. Certainly: the tepid, the wannabes, the small “c” catholics can live better in that way. But you, my dear reader, you can’t. If you could, you would have found this blog unbearable a long time ago. You can’t, because you care.

Then I say to you: let Catholicism be one of your daily cares. Let the suffering that the continuous reading about bad news gives you make a part of your suffering, and give it to Christ together with all your other cares and sorrows (which, be in no doubt about that, will increase with age anyway). Get up in the morning knowing that there will be bad news, or stupid commenters, of journalists that let your adrenaline go sky high, or priests that send you out of the grace of God (let’s hope not literally; it’s an Italian way of saying…), or a Pope that… OK, I’ll stop here.

Embrace it all as part of your cross. We weren’t born for “quality of life”. We were born to give witness in our small way. It will cost anger and adrenaline. It will cost friendships (but were they good ones?). It will cost the loss of comfort in many  small and less small occasions. But there is no better alternative; not only thinking of our own salvation, but even thinking of our own “quality of life”.

Some people were not born to shut up.

Then it is much better for them that they don’t.

Born that way, and all that…

M

Perverting The Faithful

The enemy’s priest (the one who has lost his faith, or gives his allegiance to Satan) is unavoidably led to pervert the sensus catholicus of the sheep. He will try to set the sheep on the wrong path under the disguise of piousness. He will manipulate them into thinking that if they want to be good Christians they must, in fact, do the exact contrary of what they were always told before. He will do all he can to lead the faithful as far as he can from his lack of faith, his mistress, or his sodomy. He will get away with an awful lot, because his sheep are mostly naive or stupid, and most of them very badly instructed, and very many find it simply convenient to pretend the traitor is a “man of God”.

How could such a priest proceed to do that? Let me make some hypotheses.

1) He could start by devaluing piousness. If you pray the rosary, you are bad. Devotional practice is not only downplayed, but criticised. All in the name of true spirituality, of course. Some people count their rosaries, you knew that? No, don’t laugh!

2) He could devalue purity, honesty, integrity. He might, for example, say that it is good to “smell like the sheep”. Suddenly, having dirt on you is something good, and being clean is something sanctimonious. This will, methinks, work particularly well for the homosexual priest, who will not resist the temptation to praise in some way the dirt in which he lives and breathes and to which he is, being a pervert, attracted.

3) He will “enlarge” Christianity into embracing its enemies. For example, he might say in church that a Muslim should “hold on to his Koran”. Suddenly, Christianity has been openly opposed in the name of the fantasy Christianity the enemy’s priest has chosen as his Trojan Horse.

4) He might, if he feels so inclined, proceed to attack the Trinity Itself. This is a bold move, I admit; but he could, for example, Say that Muslims and Christians “believe in the same God”. One small phrase et voilà, the Son and the Holy Ghost are out of the picture in the name of… some strange tutti frutti religion that is not Christianity anymore, but lets people feel so fuzzy inside.

5) This priest would then say homilies at Mass. He would not get the chance pass. The attention of the pewsitter would then be constantly diverted from heaven, and pointed firmly of earthly matters. This would be the ideal starting point for a socialist preaching: injustice, inequality, all the long list of Socialist grievances could be propagated from the pulpit with the thinnest varnish of Gospel quoting; which he can, like every idiot and Satan, do without difficulties.

6) The perversion of the minds entails the destruction of the modern, middle-class, well-ordered society. The preaching in favour of illegal immigration would therefore be tireless. This is another occasion to bash the good middle-class Christians. Besides, the one or other grateful illegal might well be amenable for acts of sodomy.

7) the general leitmotiv would be simple: you who think are good Christians are the bad Christians; those whom you think are the bad Christians (those who stink like sin) are in fact the good Christians. You are bad, because you do not worship the poor.

8) Such a priest would, of course, accompany his lack of faith with tangible, visible signs of his attitude. For example, he could always avoid to genuflect or kneel in front of the blessed Sacrament, but openly kneel in front of jail inmates. He might do this out of simple laziness and disinterest in a God in Whom he does not believe, or he might do it quite on purpose. But my hunch is that he would do it all right.

9) A man like that would also influence the faithful in more subtle ways: perhaps the Blessed Virgin thought she had been deceived? Perhaps Jesus Himself deceived the Apostles? Perhaps the miracle of the multiplication of bread and fish was a purely symbolic one, a “miracle of generosity” because people suddenly share what they have? Purity, Sanctity, Faith are, in this way, continuously undermined.

10) Nor would the Sacraments be spared; why oh why must public concubines be “refused” they “hunger” for Holy Communion? Why, oh why, are we so “judgmental”? And should we not find “ways” to “accept” sodomites in our beautiful community?

11) Of course, the fear of the Lord would have to go. God may scold, but he never slaps. Crap like that. Soon the sheep will believe salvation was achieved just for the feat of being conceived.

Such a priest could find many other ways to spread his impiousness and divert from his own faithlessness, or even sexual perversion. But I think I have given you an idea.

God forbid, such a priest should become Pope!

But the Cardinals would never do such a mistake.

Would they now… ?

M

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,555 other followers

%d bloggers like this: