Category Archives: Catholicism
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Some 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…
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… ?
There a very smart bear around, though I have become aware of it only very recently. St Corbinian’s Bear truly is one of those bear who deserve all the salmon he can get.
This particular bear has the following observation:
…. but the Bear senses that God wants you to feed a hungry person more than he wants a hungry person to be fed. God wants us to act for the glory of His Name, and in charity for our neighbor. He doesn’t want us to come up with grand bureaucratic schemes to eliminate poverty or save the planet. Like all of us, The Poor will soon be called to judgment and be spending eternity in either Heaven or Hell. The planet is slated for destruction according to God’s hidden and unchangeable will. .
This is, as I have said, a smart bear. A bear, I mean, who gets the difference between Charity and Socialism.
The rich help the poor because they love the neighbour out of their love for God. The poor accept their help in gratitude and in charity, because they love the neighbour out of their love for God. Brotherhood is not about rights, and charity is never about rights. Charity demands that love moves the ones to help out of generosity, and the others to be helped in gratitude.
All this is absent from the Socialist thinking now so very pervasive in the West, even among people who would react with indignation at being called “Socialists”. Socialists think that the poor is entitled to an economic transfer decided by people who do not own the rich’s wealth, and that the rich has no right to what is his own insofar as the poor can make a claim on it.
How destructive this is, is apparent even to Al Gore. This mentality is the contrary of brotherhood. It creates envy and entitlement. The poor considers it unjust in itself that he is poor and the rich is rich. The Socialist helps him in this evil thinking and tells him that he is a victim, and that he is entitled to at least a part of what the rich has. To the Socialist, the very existence of the poor is a man-made defect of society, which he is called to destroy.
The socialist wants to “make poverty history” (thus forgetting, or insulting, Our Lord), because for him poverty is the fruit of an injustice. In so doing, he makes Charity history. In vast parts of the world he will, soon enough, make Christianity itself history. But poverty will, of course, remain; together with the social envy, the social conflicts, the untold economic damage, and the general selfishness that this entails. As always, God will not be mocked.
God wants a world in which charity, not envy, is the engine of social thinking. A world in which the “social engineering” is made not by evil Socialists, but by good hearts. In His Goodness, he has always cared that in Christian societies, for an abundance of poor there was also an abundance of rich with a generous heart. This is why Christian Europe was always spared from the atrocious need, and the atrocious way of dealing with the poor, that you saw and still see among the heathens, for example the heartless Hindu.
Of course, the expropriation of the goods of the rich (or of the “haves”) has brought to the modern “poor” an unprecedented level of unearned prosperity. But are they happy with it? Are they one tad happier than their poor forefathers? No, they aren’t. On the contrary, where their forefathers lived a life in charity and humble serenity, they live a life in resentment. Wanting more, and more, and more, of that which they have not earned, of that which others have earned. And thinking that this more, and more, is theirs by right. And thinking it is an injustice that they do not have more of what is not theirs. But they still feel poor! They still are resentful! They still see rich people among them, and call this inequality, and declare it bad, and an evil to be destroyed!
That by this thinking charity goes out of the window is quite apparent. That envy and hatred take its place is just as obvious.
Francis is the Socialist through and through. He does not even begin to understand why there are poor and rich people. His thinking is entirely secular; his attitude is entirely resentful; he is a Chavez made Pope. He thinks that poverty is the rich people’s fault. he even think that poverty can be defeated. He is as resentful, stupid, blasphemous as every other Socialist out there.
When sanity comes back (and I am fully aware that I will not live to see that day), one of its fruits will be the dismantling of the modern “social state”; a fruit of the godlessness of our times, that has substituted faith in the Lord with the allegiance to the pagan god of equality.
The media are full of a very recent Gallup survey showing a marked decline in papal approval in the U.S., a drop of 25% based on the entire population. Basically, Francis is now where he was when he was elected.
It is, obviously, stupid enough to measure the popularity of a Pope: of the man, that is, who should be the one on the entire planet most obliged to seek unpopularity. However, we do have a very stupid papacy completely bent on just that: popularity. Therefore, the news that 25% of Americans have discovered the man is a Castroite rascal does not bode well for the continuation of this disgraceful experiment in evildoing.
I also notice that some other chicken, beside the Castroite ones, are now coming home to roost. Francis' popularity appears to suffer also – if in smaller measure – among liberals. Not rainbow enough, you see. And this even after the man is so much out of the window he could fall any moment.
The fact is, to adore liberalism is to adore an insatiable Moloch. He will want more and more from his worshippers, and will turn against them when they refuse to become their slaves. Francis has prostituted himself to the liberal public opinion to an extent inconceivable before his election, but he will soon notice that even that is not enough and, in fact, nothing will ever be enough. Serves him right, anyway. The wall of reality isn't less hard because a Castroite soft head smashes against it.
Nor can the Evil Clown tell us that hey, he is the Pope, he is supposed to be unpopular. The man manages to be despised from orthodox Catholics as well as from Liberals! This is not the mark of a courageous pope. This is the man of a small, ignorant, boorish, Mini Me Peron showing his evil incompetence for all the world to see.
I sometime wonder: if Hugo Chavez had been elected Pope, what would he have done differently? Not much, is the answer. Possibly nothing, is a better answer.
A Chavez as Pope. This is the papacy God is inflicting us, and which we have richly merited. Perhaps next time we wil learn the lesson, and expect that a Pope be a Catholic, instead of a clown.
Of all the fluffy cretinous talk, the blasphemous one is the worst. Particularly when it tries to disguise itself as pious.
A prominent Italian politician expressed his disgust at the notorious “hammer and sickle” crucifix blasphemously given to Frankie The Evil Clown and by him not only blasphemously accepted, but blasphemously defended in that oily, Jesuitical way of his.
Following that, the usual cretin went on record saying that you are never disgusted from a crucifix.
These people are so blinded by their own fluffy stupidity that they do not realise (or perhaps they do) the degree of irreligiousness and impiety they exhibit.
Shall we, then, accept a Trannie Jesus from a Trannie? A “Rainbow Jesus” from a faggot? Are these people so thick that they do not understand the meaning of “sacrilege”, and “blasphemy”?
Oh, but I forgot. If for you nothing is sacred (but your own sanctimoniousness) you will never have a problem with a hammer and sickle crucifix. Feeling good is all that counts. Christ is just nowhere to be seen.
Something tells me the man speaks for Francis. Actually, he thinks like him, too.
And it came to pass that a priest – and very successful blogger – was transferred from his thriving parish to another, actually in the same diocese but still – if seen in regards to London – in a galaxy far, far away. One notices – yours truly certainly noticed – that the posts of said blogger have become noticeably thinner since then, or thereabouts; and a number of these posts have to do with the natural beauties of his new parish or other themes unrelated with the Great Battle the man certainly bravely fights every day in his, no doubt, sterling work as a priest.
One also seems to remember that another Bishop, with a name like an asparagus soup, had very openly silenced another blogger, who happened to be a deacon of his, with the very revealing accusation of being “divisive” (what the Bishop with the name like an asparagus soup would have done to Christ I do not even dare to think; but hey, this is V II…).
Yours truly had started to make 2+2 a while ago, wondering whether the blogger priest had not been, more or less openly, but certainly effectively, ordered to decrease his blogging but without shutting it down altogether, because his bishop is a bit smarter than to do like Asparagus Soup did.
I do not think it is so unthinkable that a bishop should order one of his priests to greatly reduce his blogging activity, but without making him shut down the blog altogether, which would give him (the bishop) a bad press worldwide. The more so, as said priest had published a beautiful blog post, which I still remember, pointing out to all that is wrong in the decision to shut down the blog of the deacon. One imagines a bishop (or his office) calling another bishop (or his office), and you imagine the rest.
I also think that, if it were so, the priest might well comply out of obedience to his bishop; and that he might well, if asked, feel obliged not to reveal the real causes of his decreased blogging activity; be it because he finds it indelicate or disloyal, or because he has simply been ordered to do so.
You see, one cannot avoid thinking. The former priest of Blackfen was – is – very popular, and in the Church of Bankruptcy everyone who stands out for the wrong reasons – say: being an engaged Catholic priest – is automatically suspected. He will, also, be a thorn in the side of a number of people, of the divorced and remarried, or contracepting kind. These people will complain to the bishop and play the old broken record: divisive, uncharitable, & Co. The bishop without a spine will, at this point, do what all bishops without a spine do: kow-tow to the noisy “c”atholics, silence the blog as well as he can with minimum risk of scandal and inconvenience for himself, quietly remove the “divisive” priest, and hope for the best. Away from the keyboard, away from the hearts. Away from the successful thriving parish he built, away from the loss of face this causes for the Bishop himself. In the land of incompetent bishops successful priests must be seen as subversive. They truly are a danger for the Official Uniform Decline, who makes no bishop stand out as particularly bad because they pretty much all are.
Please visit the blog (you know the name). A handful of blog posts in March. One in April. Nothing in May. One in June. Nothing since. Actually, only one posts in more than three months; the decrease in posts has been very noticeable since last year, but it has become extreme in this one. It’s like a hibernation in instalments. But no, the blog will not shut down. No uproar this time, thank you very much.
I have thought for a while (many months now) of writing this blog post. But today I read about the very prompt way in which the bishop sanctioned the abolition of the Tridentine Mass in the parish in question, and I make not only 2+2 = 4, but 4:2 = 2, too.
It seems to me that something very foul is at work here, and the bishop may well be de facto silencing his blogger priest and ordering him to keep schtum, under obedience, about his being de facto silenced. And I might be wrong here, but I reflect on this: this is a bishop who sends away an extremely beloved and successful priest and sends in his place an homosexual who immediately proceeds to reintroduce the sale of the “Tablet” and shortly thereafter announces the end of the TLM.
Call it stupidity, call it incompetence, call it outright evil spirit. But however you call it, you know by such a man this is perfectly in the realm of the feasible.
So no, I think it far more probable that I am not wrong here. And yes, I might receive assurances that all is fine.
And no, I would still not be persuaded.
The sad news of what has happened in Blackfen is the source of sadness on one side, and questions on the other. Let us look at what has happened.
There is an excellent priest there. The man celebrates the Mass and of the Ages and has a thriving parish. He is also a world-reputed blogger, and his example even spurns several others from his parish – and who knows how many from outside his parish – to do the same.
Suddenly the priest is moved to the certainly more remote – if certainly rather idyllic – Ramsgate, at the boundary of the diocese, far away from the (broadly) Londoner audience of the old parish.
Why did the Bishop do such a thing? What need was there? I know, priests are routinely moved every now and then, but do they have to? Really?
The new man is, to say the least, strange.
Yours truly, who often tries to be charitable but never tries to be stupid, wrote a message to the parishioners of Blackfen, inviting them to lose the chap tout de suite and attend somewhere else. Very simply, nothing good can come from priests who want you to read the “Tablet”.
It has transpired in the last days that, as so often, when a priest wants you to read the Tablet there are other issues at play. Which confirms once again an old leitmotiv of this blog: they are “progressive” because they are perverts, or have some other huge skeleton in the cellar.
Father Fisher is, as it is now clear, very officially just another faggot priest who shames the Church with his very existence; and who, instead of praying more (and more; and much more still!) and get on with the Catholic program refusing even to THINK of his diabolical perversion decides instead to “embrace” it and, as it is said today, “come out’ as a faggot surrounded by repulsive perverts, and is clearly “proud” of it. (Warning: disgusting fag!).
At this point, the man is toasted as a Catholic priest. Bar some extraordinary work of the Holy Ghost, this one is also toasted in eternity, because the smell of Reprobation is strong in him. More on this later, though.
The question arises now rather obvious: what did the Bishop know? Why did he remove Fr Finigan? If Fr Finigan had to be moved, why so far away? Why send at his place a man like that? Did the bishop not know? Really? Not even rumours, whispers, hints from smart people? Is it truly so, that nowadays unless one is a first-class ass or a wilful promoter of sexual perversion he cannot become a Bishop?
We should pray for the poor faggot. He is an infinitely worthy soul, more worth than the entire Universe. His eternal soul was made by the Lord to be happy with Him forever in the next world, and the fact that God may (probably will) allow Satan to snatch this one does not mean that God (antecedently) wants it so. We do not give up on anyone. His guardian angel will try to the last, and we do not want Satan to get easy preys.
This one is a particularly disgusting, and particularly disturbing, faggot. Which is why we must pray for him and for the good of his immortal soul. If the man sends himself to eternal torment (don’t be an idiot now: that’s what the odds are, or being a good Christian is useless), at least it won’t be for our want of trying.
But we should also pray for Bishop Smith, who seems intent in doing what so many colleagues of him do day in and day out: take a golden parish, cover it with excrements, call all this being “pastoral”, and proceed to ruin the next parish.
Boy, this one has the stuff of the Cardinal in himself.
The diocese of Southwark was one of the healthier, or less ailing, ones.
I wonder how long this will last.
A man is required to make choices, and live with it. If one signed for the Army, he obliged himself to be bound for that particular life, the life of the soldier. No one was interested in knowing whether his choice had made him “happy”. The bed you've made, and all that.
To be able to make choices and live with them is an elementary mark of the adult and, for what interests us today, the man. The man who chose wife and family cannot – if he is a man – go back on his commitment because he is not happy, or does not like his wife after all, or married life isn't what it was supposed to be. You have made your choice. Live with it like a man.
The more strongly this applies to priests. The one who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders has said to the world that he wants to die a priest. This is what a grown man has decided to do with his life. After the fact, whether this priest is happy or unhappy is neither here nor there. He is now a priest for life, and that's that. A man has made a choice.
More and more often you notice that men who want to renege their commitment taken as adults will find excuses to do so. They are leaving the habit because the Church is this or that; their bishop is this or that; their situation is this or that. What they are saying, is that they are whining children unworthy of be considered manly, much less pious.
They will tell you that they have changed; that their circumstances have changed; that their bishops, their pope, the planet have changed. Guess what? We change all the time; our circumstances never remain the same; bishops and popes come and go (let's hope this one goes fast…). What always remains the same is a promise, a solemn vow, made forever.
They will tell you that they have lost the faith; that they never had it; or that it has evolved. Little capricious children throwing a tantrum and declaring they will now go away with the ball, because the game is tough.
Men stick to their commitment. Accept a nagging wife like you accept hail. Make their lives work according to the choices they have made, like men.
“I would not have taken the habit if I had known Margie” is no argument. You have taken the habit, which entails the solemn decision that there will ever be any Margie. “My bishop is a pedophile” does not count, because a pedophile bishop does not authorise one to renege on his vow. “I have lost the faith” does not count, because the priest who loses the faith must keep schtum and pray all the time that he may, with God's grace, find it again.
But truly, behind these claim is often a very simple claim: “I am a small child. I do not want to be held to the standard of a man. I will throw a tantrum, seek excuses, and invent all sort of grievances to justify with you that I am a selfish boy bound for hell”.
Society does not teach anymore a man to be a man. It does not expect anymore that observance be given to a solemn promise, just because it was made. The husband will leave his wife with the extremely childish claim of a “right to happiness” that firstly was never there in the first place, and secondly will prove, as always in life before that moment, a rather elusive goal after the euphoria of the first times.
We live in a society plagued by men-boys. They will tell you that they want to eat their own solemn vow, and will expect, even demand, your approval. There goes a wife. There goes a clerical habit. There goes, alas, at times even a child.
Men, and boys. From the way they live with their commitments you will recognise them.
A couple of Protestant blogs run by sincere (if wrong) Christians do me the honour of quoting me regularly, and linking to my site. When this happens, generally a “ping” appears on my message box. These pings appears to land in the message box whether one wants it or not, that is, whether the author of the message has said “send a ping about this” (which might be automatic) or not. I receive an awful lot of pings about my own messages, and I haven’t the faintest idea now where I would have to go to disallow the ping, or whether this would be a smart thing to do in the first place. What I mean to say by this is that the authors of those posts might not want to attract my attention, but WordPress cares for that anyway.
I rather systematically ignore Proddie blog posts. If I don’t, it is because there are very fitting and pressing reasons to do so. In general, I am of the opinion that no matter how good the good faith of the blog writer is, what is wrong is wrong and I will not – in general – post links to Proddie sites.
Still, every time that some Protestant blog links to me others will unavoidably follow the link, and land in what must seem to them, at least at first sight, a carpet bombing of Papist propaganda (and thanks, by the way).
I can only invite every one of those souls (and most dearly those eager souls writing their Protestant blogs) to not die in their Protestant error; to browse around the site and try to look at the One Church as what it is: the Only Shop, the one founded by Christ on Peter; to reflect whether what has up to now kept them outside of the only Church of Christ was not an inherited set of beliefs accepted as you do rain and wind, but never critically examined.
There have been no regularly established Protestant sects for fifteen centuries. What we have had is what everyone, including Protestants, calls heretical sects. The logical thinking of this very simple fact to the end should be enough to get one thinking. Never, for fifteen centuries, has anyone believed that he could be saved by faith alone, or that only scripture could be the basis of his Christian doctrine, without being considered heretic, and worthy of execution if needs be.
On the contrary, there has always been only One Church, and that Church the one Christ found on Peter. Nothing else could be called, ever, a church. Not with big C, not with little one. Read the inscription above again, and understand the very profound meaning; a meaning so obvious to every Christian for so many centuries.
I implore all those souls landing here from Protestant blogs – and most dearly those of the well-intentioned souls writing those blogs – to stop and give these lines a serious thought for five minutes.
Founded AD 33. And considered, for fifteen centuries, the only possible One Church by every Christian. By.every.Christian.
That’s it. That’s all you need to know.
Fetal Liver CD133+ Stem/Progenitor Cells (FL-CD133) are positively selected from homogenized liver tissue. First, fetal liver tissue is enzymatically digested and further processed to generate a leukocyte-rich suspension. CD133+ cells are then positively selected from the leukocyte-rich suspension using immunomagnetic anti-CD133 microbeads, leaving highly purified fetal liver CD133+ cells.
The Nazification of Western societies is now at a very advanced stage, and it perfectly fits the degradation and degeneration of pretty much everything, from sexual mores to sexual thinking to elementary things like the ability to think, write, read.
You couldn’t make this up. But it’s not a creepy fantasy of wannabe Nazi scientists, it is the reality of our days.
After the scandal with the Planned Parenthood video, Planned Genocide were quick in pointing out that they don’t sell organs. I smell a huge fish here, and a very smelly one at that.
These cells are, methinks, “harvested” from aborted babies, then one very much doubts the liver of deceased, non-aborted (lucky them!) people would manage to make it out of mortuaries, this even imagining they would be fit for purpose (I am not a doctor, nazi or otherwise, so don’t ask me). That the partial amputation of livers from living humans for the scope of re-selling would be allowed is also beyond imagination (yet).
I have not vomited looking at the site, which means the times have made me rather retch-resistant.
I wonder, though, what kind of human beings are around, walking on the same earth as we do, sipping their coffee near us, reading the newspaper on the bus.
Satan is having a home run. Pope Francis is so worried about our A/C.
It is extremely difficult to find even orthodox catholics not willing to use to word “gay” to say “sodomite”, or “homosexual” for the inclination.
We appease the enemy. This is the result.
The wrong side does not miss an occasion to unleash hell for their own purposes. Remember the young woman who died in Ireland and prompted calls to introduce abortion? What about the wave of laws restricting individual freedoms after Sandy Hook? Or the present crusade against the Confederate Flag?
Atheists and liberals never let an occasion go to waste. In comparison, we are far too kind.
The recent wave of emotion concerning the beastly behaviour of Planned Parenthood (oh, they say now they were not selling body parts. I am waiting for the details. Can't imagine they did not expect some sort of advantage anyway; this, without considering the satanical behaviour in itself) should be used not only to attack Planned Parenthood, but to demand loud and clear the end of abortion, call Nazi butchers those who practice it, and invent all kind of neologisms like “baby-hater”, “babyphobe”, Nazi Butchers, and the like. Every time, all the time.
What happens of this? Not much. Planned Parenthood will be in some trouble for a while, but the occasion for a big wave of emotions will be lost. Imagine if a row of prominent U.S. senators had profited of this to openly ask the end of abortion. It would not happen overnight, of course; but it would put us on the offensive, and with the emotional wave on our side. Little by little, people would begin to sway.
People don't think much nowadays. Many of them mainly emote, and do so with a view of feeling good with themselves.
We should profit from the enemy's own goals much more than we are doing. We should use them to aim directly at the beast's heart, rather than merely aim at give the enemy a thrashing.
As the enemy invents a new vocabulary to insult us, we cannot go beyond polite remonstrations.
Call them names. Rouse emotions. Attack abortion directly and frontally.
We lose because we are too nice.