Category Archives: Catholicism
I have written many times about Garrigou Lagrange's affirmation that it is reasonable to suppose that the majority of those living in Catholic Countries avoid hell. Very reassuring, for sure.
However, Garrigou Lagrange was writing this in the Fifties, when Catholic Countries or territories like France, Italy, Spain, Austria or Bavaria were almost totally, and extremely solidly Catholic.
Nor were those the Catholics of today. Very many of them not only went to Mass at least every Sunday, but stood pretty near to the Sacraments, knew about salvation more than Francis ever imagined and had, crucially, a great fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom.
If we compare them with today, we see how Catholicism has today become such a thin varnish that I seriously, seriously doubt Garrigou Lagrange would make the same claim today.
Today's “catholics” not only don't go to Mass, but they consider it utterly normal to call themselves (if they must) Catholic whilst making their own religion. They tattoo themselves (grave matter!) without a second thought; try to tell them this is grave matter and you will likely be insulted. They contracept, fornicate, often abort. They distance themselves from everything of the Church past and present that does not square with their own personal theology. Most importantly, they have no compunction about any of this.
In all ages, people have sinned. But in a strong Catholic culture with a strong fear of the Lord, repentance followed the sin, and most people were reasonable enough to be afraid of what a sudden death might do to them.
Perhaps even more importantly, a strong Catholic culture naturally enforced Catholic behaviour in the public square. When I was in grade school, not one of the pupils either in my or in my siblings' classes was the son of concubines (this was very easy to see then, because the wife had to take the family name of the husband). Not one. The scenario is inconceivable today even in once Catholic Italy. You want more? I knew the first guy who lived more uxorio when I was fifteen (a young teacher at my school). I knew of the first non Jewish boy who was not baptised when I was nineteen, and I still remember mine and my classmates' shock. I never had a school mate with tattooes.
It was all normal then, but it seems unbelievable today. Today we live in an age of mass rebellion. Still, we think that we should have access to the same mercy our forefathers (who would have been terrified I do not say of concubinage, but of a tattoo!! Something considered the preserve of godless Mariners, Pirates and jail inmates) earned with their fear of the Lord and their access to the Sacraments.
There is a big difference between, say, the girl who sleeps with her bethroted and is afraid of hell for that and the girl who sleeps with her boyfriend and thinks that she is right, because lurv. The first one is, clearly, also in danger of damnation, but she will always have access to a mercy the second one has cut herself out of. Still, there seems to be this thinking according to which God's mercy is something due to us, whilst we rebel to Him not out of weakness, but of sheer hubris. This thinking is so spread today that it is, actually, the default position among many who call themselves Catholic, let alone those who don't.
Fools, all of them. Fools in this generation as in every other before or after, because the rules don't change according to what you think about them. And yes, let us hope that the Lord will look with more mercy on the poorly instructed; but don't expect Him to have the same attitude with those who thought they had no need of, or even resented the instruction.
If we asked our Grand-Grandmother what the probable destiny of a person is who never darkened a church in decades, lived in sin and boasted of it, and died suddenly or anyway unrepented, said grand-grandmother would think we are pulling her leg, and we certainly weren't born Sherlocks. She might dismiss our statement as a bad joke. She might even (if she takes us seriously) slap us in the face for our obvious lack of fear of the Lord. Interestingly, it is very reasonable to assume that our Grand-grandmother would refuse to recognise the vast majority of our Catholic neighbours as Catholic in any way, shape or form. She would, on the whole, be pretty right.
Heck, I wonder how many children in once Catholic Italy are today actually not even baptised, as their vaguely deist parents think that 'ceremonies are not important' and 'God does not care for formalities'. These are, of course, the offspring of parents who did not believe fornication can lead you to hell if there is lurv, and such rubbish.
Let's get rid of the rules. I want to have it my own way. Father Faggot, whom I still despise, seems to think the same anyway. I think him an idiot, but I will use his godlessness whenever it's convenient to me.
Does it mean, then, that we live in a time in which the majority are Reprobates? I cannot see how it could be any other way, and it seems to me that those born now are in a much worse situation than those born only 20 or 30 years ago. Logically, it really cannot be any other way.
If the difference between a strong Church which rigidly enforces Catholic living and the pathetic, effeminate church of today showering her mercy talk on every fornicator is non existent or very little, then the Church has no importance. If a life of fornication gives me the same chances of salvation as a life of abstinence, let me grab those titties! If salvation is showered in the same way on a faithless and on a faithful generation, we and all our forefathers are idiots.
However, we aren't idiots. We are, actually, pretty smart; because we have the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom. A wisdom of which most of this generation seems utterly deprived. It was this wisdom that kept old sinners near the Sacraments and, in the end, out of hell. The current crop of heathens and self-appointed mini-messiahs has nothing of it. They march toward their judgment in the utter persuasion of their goodness, and in the entitled expectation of whatever salvation they think might exist. They literally think that if there is a God they deserve salvation because they love polar bear cubs.
This is the the thinking of heathens. We know (or do we know it still?) where most of them end.
So yes, we are probably living in an age of mass Reprobation; and this mass Reprobation is made evident to us every day, in that we see that very many around us actually live like picture book reprobates: fornication, concubinage, rejection of the sacraments, tattooes , abortions, soon euthanasia….
and not a care in the world beside climate change.
It is the 13 March 2513. 500 years ago, in the midst of a great crisis of faith, a heretical Pope was elected to the See of Peter.
No one remembers the event. No one – apart from people passionate of history, particularly of church history – remembers him. The second part of the XX and the first part of the XXI Century are recollected as times of great confusion, but the population at large does not care to remember those obscure times.
There is no need for it. A string of very strong Popes (Pius XIII to Pius XVII, who reigned between 2053 and 2144) fully restored Catholic orthodoxy in less than three generations, and the Church influence on Europe, America and Africa has been so strong since that the obscure times of heresy are barely remembered beside the moniker “one hundred years of heresy” or, more shortly, “the troubles”. Most Catholics don't know about Francis more than they do about the Synodus Horrenda.
There were some smaller challenges during this time. In the middle of the XXIII Century, a movement originating from Germany tried to make adultery and sodomy a venial sin and were therefore called the “Venialists” or, as they called themselves, the “Merciful”. But Pope Benedict XIX completely destroyed the heresy starting from 2352, and in twenty years the name was barely remembered.
Not that it was all so linear as it seems centuries later, mind. It never works that way. Pope Pius XIII was elected only in 2053, after his disgraceful predecessor Francis IV started to offer communion to Muslims and worked at an “interplanetary ceremony” able to unite Muslims, Jews, Hinduist, Sikh and Atheists in a “Common worship” meant to become the standard of a “unifying church of the persons of good will” (the project failed when the Pope died). What we barely notice today was a very bumpy road that went on for many decades then, for several decades from Francis I to Francis IV. But in the end, Truth triumphed. As always.
What did the Church do with Francis I to IV? What she always does with heretics: condemn, destroy, forget.
How many remember Huss or Wyclyffe? Ever wondered why? The Church destroys her heretics in a most definitive way: she obliterates them from the public consciousness.
No, you don't really need to know what Huss, or Wyclyffe or the Sillon movement preached. The Church has taken care that most people will never pose themselves the question. She destroys heretics even in their tombs. They deal with heretics so you don't have to.
And so we are here in 2513, in an age of unprecedented prosperity and religious revival. All is good in Vatican land.
You just have to be patient.
The next (disgraceful) Consistory is about to happen, and I read around about a possible confrontation between those Cardinals who still think they are Catholic and those those who don't want to make public they aren't, with even a rebuke of the Evil Clown in the cards.
It all seems rather far-fetched to me.
Amoris Laetitia has been released fourteen months ago, and not one Cardinal has dared to condemn either the document or the one officially taking paternity of it. To think that the reaction will happen now is tantamount to think that it is the mere absence of the physical presence of the Pope that prevents the Cardinals from doing their job; as if being in the physical presence of the Pope were an indispensable component of any reaction to heresy, with the obvious consequence that Francis would only need to avoid meeting every Cardinal he doesn't like to avoid ever being corrected. I admit as an excuse for inaction it would be wonderful if it were realistic, but it's too dumb even for a two-seconds scrutiny. So no, the Cardinals have no excuses and, actually, no clothes.
I am afraid that the reality is much sadder that a matter of geography and proximity: there simply is, as I write this, not one Cardinal around willing to stand up to the Pope. Not one. Francis could meet all the Cardinals he wants, and they would not be any problem at all. Actually, they would thank him for being so kind that he allows them to flatter him without any shame.
Of course, hope is the last to die. But I suggest you put this in your day dreaming drawer rather than thinking a public correction from the Four Kitten (much less a vast number of Cardinals) is in any way, shape or form in the cards.
We are going to have to go through this alone, and perhaps the next generation and the one after that, too. We should realistically apprise the situation and realise that as I write this even more FrancisCardinals are about to be appointed.
We might be surrounded by perverts, atheists, communists, and kitten in red for a long, long time.
Whilst my readers are, generally speaking, a pretty intelligent bunch, there are always people lurking here who seem to lack the ability to connect the dots and think long-term. For their benefit, and for the instruction of the (sadly) non-Catholic, it is fitting to reiterate why the correction is so important.
Truth cannot be changed. Doctrine, properly intended, cannot be changed either. Catholics will always be held to Truth, no matter what Francis says, because Francis cannot dispose of what is not his. There has never been, and there will never be, the possibility for the faithful to follow a doctrine they must know is wrong merely because the priest, the bishop, the cardinal or the pope say so.
However, the job of the clergy is to help the faithful to properly instruct themselves and their conscience, and to be good shepherds of the sheep entrusted to them. They have, therefore, the grave responsibility of denouncing heresy wherever it may come from. Not, mind, in order to avoid that the faithful are justified in being heretical (they never are) but in order to help them to stay out of trouble.
Now, doctrine will not change whether the correction comes or not, and no one will be justified in thinking that truth has suddenly changed. However, if no correction comes all future generations will be witness of the greatest betrayal of the sheep ever perpetrated by their own shepherds, and the latter's silence will shame them for all centuries to come. If, on the other hand, the correction does come, this will make it far more difficult for those seeking excuses to hide behind the finger of Francis' satanical “mercy”, and the posterity will record with at least a modicum of satisfaction that when the crisis was at its top, at least some Cardinals (and those who will follow them if they take the lead) had some Catholicism left in them.
The Church's existence is not at stake because the Church is indefectible. Truth is also not at stake because Truth is unchangeable. Souls are – ultimately – also not at stake because – ultimately – God does not allow Francis and his troops of atheists, heretics, perverts and cowards to decide who goes to hell.
What is at stake is the reputation of this disgraceful generation of our clergy, and the way it will be seen by God above and by all the generations after us: as an absolutely total disgrace without any hint of redemption and any extenuating circumstances, or as an almost total disgrace with a minority of voices ready and willing to fight for Christ. In our lifetime, the correction would deal a mortal blow to Francis' reputation, absolutely blowing his papacy in the air and shaming its the incinerated rests for all millennia to come.
If I were any one of the four Cardinals I would have very, very uneasy nights, knowing that whilst the Catholic world and all Catholic posterity are waiting for me to do my job I have been pathetically meowing for more than a year. Which, in the age of instant information, is a very long time indeed. And I am not sure that, if these four refuse to do their job, their punishment in hell will not be worse than the one meted to the silent cowards; then in my book, a silent coward is still not as bad as a grandstanding one.
The recent, tragic fire in London has not failed to produce the predictable amount of individual destinies and sob stories; something which in more serious times would have been considered very bad journalism for cleaning ladies and is now, actually, mainstream all over the West.
One of these stories is the one of the two Italian concubines living in the tower. At least, this is how a despicable fake Catholic internet publication describes them (without using the word, of course; “couple” is so much more XXI Century).
The horrible publication reports that the woman, in her last phone conversation with her mother in Italy (I know, heartbreaking; but I don't do cheap journalism for cleaning ladies so let's skip on this) would have said to her mother: “I am about to go to heaven”.
There is, in the horrible fake Catholic publication, no hint that the two would have needed to manage a perfect contrition to I do not say go to heaven straight, but – judging from what is plain to see – merely to avoid hell. The sob story is reported as a tale of hope and courage, with no one questioning the apparent self-evident truth of the public adulterer in a state of mortal sin committing a huge sin of presumption with her last breath, and still managing to be canonised by the whining press because hey, we are all teddy bear lovers after all.
Of course, we all wish the unfortunate people a perfect contrition and, one day, a place in paradise. But it is utterly indicative of our times that I might be one among very few pointing out to the extreme danger of damnation in this situation, and to the total absence – in the atrocious, fake Catholic publication reporting the news – of any sign that would induce one to have a reasoned hope that they avoided hell (something like the two kneeling together and praying the Blessed Virgin to forgive their sins with sincere sorrow; but you know how it works). Instead, we have the stunning “I am about to go to heaven” claim which, actually, sounds like the… perfect contrary of a perfect contrition.
This is what the Age of Stupidity has done to people. When they think of heaven, it is only the grotesque version they read about in cheesy Facebook posts. Even the very near approaching of death is – unless we have not been told something – not enough to elicit in people the fear of the Lord, that is: the beginning of wisdom.
Pray for the dead. But for heaven's sake, administer some truth to the living.
So, you are an old, lewd boor who does not believe in Transubstantiation at all. What do you do?
1. You call the Eucharist a “humble meal”, a Protestant expression denoting the lack of Transubstantiation.
2. You refuse to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament, because you don't kneel in front of a piece of bread.
3. You want to give communion to adulterers, because a bit of bread and wine does not do harm to anyone.
Francis is an arrogant boor, but at least in this he shows clearly a coherent thinking.
Methinks, workers in hell are digging an extra pit just for him.
Let us imagine a lowlife is savagely beating a prostitute in the middle of the night, when he sees a major fire developing in a London residential tower and promptly alerts the Fire Brigade. Who would comment on this saying “thank God for wife-beating”?
The fact is, wife-beating is (if you are Christian or at least sensible; if you are Muslim it's different) objectively wrong. Therefore, you don't thank God for something objectively wrong just because it caused a chap to save many lives.
It is, therefore, entirely absurd to say “thank God for Ramadan” just because it caused people to be out on the street in the night and promptly alert the Fire Brigade and/or help the locals. Islam is evil, and Ramadan is its fruit. That's all there is to say.
This, even assuming that these roaming Muslims were so decisive in promptly alerting the firefighters and/or giving assistance ; which I don't believe a bit, because in London you always have people around at night (yes, even in certainly not glamorous North Kensington) and the flames attracted major attention and a huge crowd in very short time.
Let us stop with this PC nonsense. The Ramadan-followers are the reason why we are having major terrorism problems.
A common trait of the Modernists of the last 50 years is the canonisation of V II, which was – they say – a true “outpouring of the Spirit” (Who had been clearly dozing up to then), leading the sheep to pastures new.
The Evil Clown is, obviously, the embodiment of this mentality, with the addition of abundant steroids. You would, therefore, think that Francis would leave Humanae Vitae alone.
This thinking has a fundamental flaw: it assumes that heretics operating within the Church have coherence and moral integrity. Both assumptions are clearly wrong.
The worship of V II is only acceptable inasmuch as it proposes and spreads heretical thinking. If it is even feebly orthodox it must be disposed of.
It is therefore not at all surprising that – as Roberto de Mattei revealed – the Evil Clown be now working on a “reinterpretation” of Humanae Vitae allowing for artificial contraception and, very possibly, who knows what else.
I can't wait for Cardinal Burke presenting new Dubias, obviously after having explained to us that the document meant to pervert Humanae Vitae upholds it. Don't wait for an answer from Francis, either. With opponents as weak and dumb as Burke & Co. he can go on undisturbed and proceed to Amoris Laetitia.
Prepare yourself for Conteaceptionis Laetitia and who knows what after that, courtesy of the immense cowardice of our Bishops and Cardinals.
Thanks, Cardinal Burke & Co. May the Lord give each and every one of you the just reward for your brilliant CINO, feebly meowed fake opposition to heresy.
But don't worry, dear reader. The Church of Francis isn't changing her teaching at all.
She is merely giving the faithful a heretical option in order to be more inclusive.
The horrible tragedy which unfolded in London last night led me to think – as always – of the eternal destiny of the dead whilst the media focuse – as always – on easy emotions.
As I write this, we don't know how many dead we will count. Around 500 lived in the tower destroyed by the fire, but we now know the fire brigade rescued many in the initial phase of the fire and was able to get to the 20th (not only the 12th) of the 24 floors.
A tragedy of such dimensions took place in what appears to have been a “council house” (things aren't called they way they are anymore these days, so who knows), which I suppose (like many others) vastly over represented with heathens and atheist, but certainly also with many good Christians living behind those walls.
The latter (the Christians) certainly had it easier to manage a perfect contrition, and the Lord in His mercy may have saved them from the worse. But as to the others…
how many, who have lived in perfect godlessness, discover God when death approaches? How many, linked to the cruel, false religion of a child rapist in the middle of Europe, have been able to claim invincible ignorance after dying in their perverted cult?
The crude reality is that if you live like an atheist or an infidel you will probably die an atheist or infidel. No, there are no brownie points for an early death. Death is, actually, never one day earlier than God has decreed or allowed. What counts is the state of the soul at the moment of death, and no emotional reporting of the Buggers Broadcasting Communism will change a iota in that.
As always, let us use these shocking event for a sobering reminder: the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night. When my hour strikes, will I be prepared?
Pray for the dead of the fire, and take care that these moment instil in you a stronger desire to be prepared at all times.
As expected, the hopefully soon to be announced collaboration between Tories and DUP will not entail any back-pedalling on Sodo-“marriage”.
It is certainly allowed to dream a bit at times, but I knew full well this was not going to happen. What we get is a wobbly half coalition which, in its wobbliness, promises to be fairly conservative at least fiscally. Brexit also appears to be rather renforced, as whilst the DUP has reservations about some parts (freedom of movement within Ireland comes to mind) it appears the Brexit fraction is now stronger than it used to be.
However, bar a miracle there will be no victory or change of any sort on sodomitical behaviour, which will continue to be “celebrated” by atheist or cowardly politicians.
You can stop dreaming now. The U.K. will remain a cesspool of aberrant thinking. Our hopes are the USA and Russia. Whatever big improvement we are going to see in the next decade or two is likely to come from there.
The question has recently been posed whether Francis is gaga. Easy as it is to call him a nincompoop, the obvious answer is no, he isn't.
There is method in what Francis does. It is merely his extreme ignorance of everything (from history to theology, and from canon law to simple logic) that lets him appear at times as if he had a screw or three lose.
Imagine the most ignorant, arrogant, anti-clerical old Communist man in any South American biggish village. Picture him as he pontificates about things he doesn't know, hates the Church, loathes the churchgoers, despises the Catholic customs and traditions, is at war with the rich, the powerful, the educated people who always despised his hateful ignorance. Close your eyes and see him swearing in the tavern, in the public square, in the queue at the grocery store. Picture him in vivid colours. We all have known at least one like him.
That man has become Pope.
Francis is not simply one who talks like him. Francis is him. Like the ignorant boor he is, he thinks he is the best thing since Juan Peron. Like the old, spiteful village hater, he will open his mouth everytime he feels like it. Like him, he will take revenge of everyone who dislikes him every time he can.
This is the simple reality of this Pope, for everyone to see. An unspeakable boor has been elected Pope, and it is all too obvious that he would behave like one.
There is no need for theories, because what we see every day is explanation enough.
The Evil Clown has given an ultimatum to the Nigerian priests who, since 2012, have refused to accept their Benedict-appointed new bishop: either they solemnly promise allegiance to him or they will get rid of their job.
I do not know enough of African matters to know whether this long confrontation is to do with orthodoxy or tribalism. However, I can tell you this: if it is to do with tribalism it is a shame that priests be concerned about tribal matters even as they shut up about Amoris Laetitia and the other countless scandals of this pontificate. I would not expect from a priest to be in the first line against Francis' heresy, but if these priests are ready to refuse obedience to a (actually, two) Popes for many years in lesser matters, then they should feel the more obliged to do it in the big ones; the more so, as they clearly have the numbers and, reassuringly, no sitting bishop.
If the controversy has been, all this time, about orthodoxy (disabuse yourself of the notion that Benedict appointed good bishops; many of them were simply atrocious), then it is still shameful that as a battle for orthodoxy enrages the elephant in the room (Amoris Laetitia) is not addressed.
Either way, this Nigerian issue shows us that the clergy is abandoning us even when one could hope that they are, for a change, trying to shepherd their sheep. If it's not silence for the wrong reasons, it is protest for the wrong reasons. And this in Africa, which should give us hope with its alleged orthodoxy.
The world should by now be aflame with condemnations of Amoris Laetitia.
What we get is, I fear, tribal controversies.
Cardinal Sarah has given another interview criticising those who criticised the once silent (but now talking a lot) Pontiff Emeritus for writing the introduction to his latest books.
These people write books and introductions, give interviews and lectures. They tweet and Facebook and do all sort of media things.
They only thing they absolutely won't do is… their job.
There is heresy ongoing from the very top. There is a huge Argentinian elephant in the room. Writing vaguely conservative books is not good enough.
Cardinal Sarah cannot hope in any credential of “conservatism” or “orthodoxy” until he starts doing his job and condemns Amoris Laetitia. All this book-writing and interview-giving is a pathetic attempt not to do the only thing he has to do now.
The same goes for Burke, Caffarra, & Co.
As I write this there is no Cardinal who has not deserted Our Lord. Not one.
But hey, they write and talk a lot.
The “Gateway Pundit” (recommended reading for Mundabor supporters) has an interesting article concerning the Polish Government. Their position is simple: you don't want Islamic terrorism? Don't import Muslims then!
This is, obviously, common sense. But it makes headlines in a time in which common sense flies out of the window because some overweight German bitch wants you to conform to the Merkelprinzip.
What the Poles got and Western Europe doesn't is this: Muslim immigrants and Islamic terrorism are like, erm, horse and carriage: you can't get one without the other.
Whilst it is certainly true that most Muslims are peaceful people, this is not the way to assess the degree of danger represented by a religion. You can be certain that among the Aztecs most people were peaceful, too, but theirs still was an extremely brutal, cruel, bloody religion.
Islam condones or encourages violence against non-Muslims. It does not matter that it sends ambivalent messages about being both bloody and peaceful: the aggressive, murderous component is there, and the more a Muslim is devout to his religion, the more likely he is to either condone or promote or put in act this violence. Islam also promotes the forced islamisation of a country and the subservience of the non-Muslims, even when they leave you alive.
This is particularly true of the Sunni (have you noticed that Muslim terrorists are, basically, always Sunnis?) because the Shia have, like Catholics, a doctrinal system condemning such acts, whilst the Sunnis are the sola scriptura people of the Muslim world. Unavoidably, some people will get the gist of the violent message of the paedophile so-called prophet and follow his commands to the letter. The more so as, being a sola scriptura types, they are really so dumb as to think they will get himself killed in the morning and screw girls in their porn paradise in the afternoon.
These are all elements we cannot expunge from Islam, because they are intrinsic to it. In the case of the Sunnis (the clear majority of the Muslims) terrorism is literally built in. In the case of the Shiah, the threat of forced islamisation is.
Every sane Westerner would therefore agree, if we lived in sane times, that Islam itself is the problem and the task of European Government must be to peacefully, but certainly, eradicate it. Even more obviously, he would agree that where there are no Muslims none must be imported.
This is common sense. But it appears Western Europeans hate common sense as they hate themselves (or better said, hate their Christian matrix), and they prefer to remain blind to a danger now developing at a faster pace.
To prevent is better than to repress. Every liberal would tell you that. Alas, when it comes to Muslims they want to have the problem first, thinking they will “teddy bear-away” it later.
Not happening, I am afraid. We will either wake up or end up with the ISIS ruling parts of Europe (not Poland, Hungary or Russia) at some point.
The London “Times” had a story today about a list of hundreds British fanatics currently operating in the Middle East, with the SAS tasked with killing or capturing them.
Imagine the fun if many of them are captured. We will have endless litigation about their human rights, the evidence they have done anything wrong, the way they suffer away from their cats, and the like. They will style themselves as freedom fighters. The likes of Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted to support them as directly as they can.
I trust the SAS will do a thorough work of this. I suggest that the accent is on making short shrift with them, taking them down one by one without any effort of capture. When the USA individuate a dangerous enemy, the clear trend is that they do not send troops on the ground to capture him, they send him a gift from the sky.
In the end, isn't “martyrdom” what they themselves want?
Make them happy, say I. Fulfill their wish. Grant them their greatest desire.
You see? We can find common ground with our enemies…