Category Archives: Catholicism

What Went Wrong For Cruz, Part III: Political Correctness


Chicago, 12 March 2016: Libtards celebrate after the announcement that their violence and intimidation has caused the Trump rally to be cancelled.


In this last blog post about what in my estimation contributed to the best candidate for us Catholics (and for every Christian, I think) not making it, I would like to examine two major mistakes I believe the man made. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. But some mistakes can damage you more than others, particularly when they feed into a mistrust that is already there.

Cruz could have presented himself – and could have been reasonably be believed as – an anti-establishment candidate in normal circumstances. However, the circumstances in 2016 aren’t normal.

Too often the so-called GOP has betrayed his people. Too often promises of conservative policies have given way to do ut des and accommodations of all kind once the alleged champions of conservatism have smelled Washington’s air. As a result, in this cycle the one who promised to damage the party the most was the one with the best cards. If another candidate had come and had presented himself as even more in opposition to the party establishment as Trump, he might have had a chance. If a candidate had come and promised to nuke the party, he would have been cheered out loud by many party members.

2016 is not the expression of a malcontent, it is the unfolding of a revolution. A revolution will devastate anyone remotely connected with the old regime. Cruz did not differentiate himself enough (not enough for 2016 standards, I mean) from the old regime, and a couple of situations certainly persuaded many the man would have been a more sophisticated variation of the betrayal already seen so often.

I have noticed two episodes that were, in my eyes, extremely grave.

The first: the incidents in Chicago. The usual, aggressive libtards make use of violence and intimidation at a Trump rally; they even manage to get it cancelled. Cruz thinks he can profit of the occasion to kick Trump in the balls and condemn him, rather than the liberal nutcases and their Alinsky tactics of intimidation and publicity seeking. A cheap, despicable shot, and a big, big mistake. In normal times, this wouldn’t have done so much damage as the personal animosity between the two (and the heat of the battle) would have been taken into account. Also, Trump himself has made far bigger mistakes (yours truly has reported). However, when millions of GOP voters are determined to see the party die rather than ever, ever again electing another sellout this is exactly the kind of mistake Cruz should not have made. In revolutionary times, your revolutionary credentials must be unimpeachable. Trump has far better revolutionary credentials than Cruz, and his mistakes were of the “you know, at times I am an idiot” sort. No friend (and no enemy!) of his thinks he will be a sellout, and this counts a lot. 

The second: the choice of Carly Fiorina as potential vice-president. I wanted to bang my head on the wall, repeatedly. Let us forget for a moment the arrogance of acting like one is the nominee. Let us also forget the implicit admission that one needs to add another name to his own, because he has seen his own name is not good enough. But the worst of all is this: that one who is clearly losing because he is seen as not revolutionary enough picks the very epitome of PC establishment loser as potential VP.

Fiorina’s campaign has gone absolutely nowhere. She has lost more massively than Christie. She has basically persuaded no one besides family friends, domestics and (perhaps) the dog. She is seen as the expression of the usual, old, stale, mischievous way of doing politics; which is what led to the rapid extermination of her vanity candidature. Why on earth pick… her? 

I am afraid we all know the answer: because she has a vagina.

Granted, the situation was serious already when the announcement was made.  However, with it Cruz chose the best way to kill his candidature for good. I cannot imagine a better way to commit suicide than the one he chose. Even Jeb Bush would have been less embarrassing. This was pure PC, middle-of-damn-nowhere, focus-group-rubbish, Rove-mentality, which is the best way to lose.

Trump is not steered by focus groups. He does not care a straw about the “demographics”. He talks so that the demographics follow him, not that he may follow the demographics. This, my friends, is (massively flawed as Trump is) the mark of the real leader.

Trump shoots with the Uzi, and when the libtards cry switches to the bazooka. He serves you The Original Donald, and does not ask you whether you will like what he is about to say. He is outrageous because he is authentic. It works. People love authenticity and forgive mistakes to those who are passionate. They become far more critical of those who looks at the “demographics” before they open their mouth or take big decisions.  Cruz is smart enough to know all this, but I think he did not have the guts, the sheer balls to do what Trump does effectively and effortlessly all the time: being smartly, unapologetically, bravely countercultural. Cruz had the better platform, but Trump had far more leadership. A leader leads you where he wants you to go. A follower tries to understand where you want to go. 

Cruz had some “follower” moments, and he paid for it. Can’t say he didn’t deserve it. There’s a revolution ongoing. This is no time for demographics accountants and poll strategists. Ask Trump, who has been devastating polls with a giant wave of support since last August. 

Why I write all this? 

Because Cruz is and remains, to me, by far the best of the crop, and I credit him with vastly more integrity and fear of the Lord  than Trump will probably ever have. I think there is greatness in this man. But from what I could see, he must still ripe to the kind of conservative Reagan was, and he is clearly not there. 

I hope (and think it probable) that Trump will break the witch’s spine come November. This gives Cruz eight years to ripe to a truly formidable candidate. He will still be young in eight years’ time, and in a wonderful position after Trump has (hopefully) cured the country of his PC disease. There might be great years ahead. But there must be changes.

The man is smart. Smarter, I think, than the already very smart Trump. He will reflect and, hopefully, ripe. I wish him all the best.





What Went Wrong For Cruz. Part II: Persona.


And now, let me preach to you…


Continuing the short series of posts about what went wrong for Cruz (the first part is here) I would like to tackle a second issue: Cruz’ public persona. 

The man is the most similar thing to Reagan appeared on the scene for a long time, but God knows he is not the Gipper.

Where Reagan was charming, personable, and always likable, Cruz comes across as rigid, cold, and rather unpleasant. Where Reagan had a warm, winning voice accompanied by a smile, Cruz has a cold, somewhat shrill, metallic voice wrapped in the attitude of a rigid, old style preacher. I am sure it works well in the religious congregations Cruz was accustomed to since an early age; but it does not help you at all to become President. 

A candidate is more than ideas. A candidate is also an emotion, the way you feel when you see him on TV or hear his voice on the radio. This is particularly true in a world in which women have the vote, but it also has a universal validity that transcends the sexes.

Trump understands this perfectly, and uses this knowledge masterly. He projects an image of manliness and a winning attitude, but at the same time has an approachable, “man of the people” stance he carefully nurtures. He is – and this truly says it all – a Billionaire liked by Walmart employees and factory workers. 

Watch and learn, Mr Cruz. Watch and learn! 

Trump plays to his strengths, and he does so to the full. Cruz seems to rely on the fact that he has the right ideas. Not enough I am afraid. 

Trump is on TV constantly surrounded by beautiful women – who are there, let us look at reality in the face, to show the beauty wealth both attracts and gives birth to -.

You can say it’s not Cruz’ fault his wife isn’t anywhere near a stunner. However, I suspect Cruz would be afraid to enroll the stunner wife even if he had her. I suspect he would rather expect you to listen to his sermon, and be persuaded by it. Trump uses all the cards he has. Cruz thinks he is right, and that’s enough.

Trump is clearly the leader of his wife. Cruz has a tiger executive wife stating she would work with him as a “partner”. Only, she is not elected. One wonders. And don’t ask me who is the manlier of the two, because you know the answer. From their wives you will recognise them. 

And I will give you that Cruz is far more eloquent, and very possibly more intelligent, than Trump; but he squanders that too, with his long sermons, his metallic voice, and his rigid attitude. 

Does Cruz play to his strengths? Does he work on his weaknesses? I have not seen much of it. How many have become President in the age of television, who had not bothered to learn to smile in a proper, sincere way? A winning smile will get you a lot of mileage whatever your shortcomings. Ask Bill Clinton.

Trump played on his strengths, ruthlessly, all the time. Cruz never seemed to me to work on his obvious weaknesses. Trump even “flipped the script” and used all those elements of his persona Cruz would have been too politically correct, or not enough man, to use. Trump is a billionaire and not only he does not apologise for it, but he makes it work for him. He marries (and is father to) stunners, but he does not hide them for fear of incurring the ire of obese feminists; on the contrary, he projects with them an aura of beauty and, ultimately, manliness, success, and power. 

Don’t tell me it does not work, because you have just seen how the race ended. Don’t tell me Trump’s manly attitude will “alienate women”, because this is the usual pussycat crap only pussycat men are willing to swallow. Women like manly men. Listen to this Italian male, and believe.

Men, by the way, like manly men, too; and too many of them have now had enough of limp-wristed Presidents who want to be “partners” of their wife. You can’t be the most powerful man of the Free World, and have your unelected wife as your “partner”. A man who can’t lead his wife wants to lead the free world?

Cruz did not work enough on what, in him, does not work. If he made an effort to minimise his weaknesses I have seen nothing of it. Not only he is no Gipper, but he does not seem to make an effort to become as much of one as he can. 

Watch Trump, Mr Cruz, and learn. 







Cardinal Burke Had Better Shut Up


shut up

Cardinal Burke has now given an interview criticising the rather easy target of a Jesuit university awarding a honour to a fake Catholic. I haven’t even read what the man had to say, as it is irrelevant. 

Honestly: the hypocrisy is breathtaking. 

The very man who has not only decided to shut up about the heresies and blasphemies of Amoris Laetitia, but has accused orthodox Catholics to be the real problem now has the almighty gall to try to remake a virginity for himself by waving the Catholic flag when it is easy and safe.

I have enough of these people. After the 8 April there can be only one criterion to value a bishop or a cardinal: if he has spoken against Amoris Laetitia or not. Silence, excuses, and other subterfuges do not wash now, and will not wash until they stop playing with dolls and speak out against AL.

I am done with this man and with all those who have willingly chosen a vocation that should see them undergoing persecution without even flinching, and prefer to look at blasphemy in silence to keep their (abundant) privileges. I am sick and tired of this cheap orthodoxy that costs nothing, and comes from those who are called to be the very first to pay the price. I refuse to consider this man, and all those wannabe orthodox clergy, as examples of anything but pusillanimity and dereliction of duty.

To be a Cardinal is a great honour exactly because of the great burden the position entails. The magnificence of a Cardinal’s life is, and very rightly so, the counterpart of the duty to set it at naught (if needs be) when the time comes. i will write this again and again: ubi honor, ibi onus. He who does not want to bear the burden is not worthy of the honour. He should be man enough to admit it and ask to be sent to a faraway parish, where he can work as a simple priest; hopefully having the guts to defend truth is his new, far little sphere of influence, and without insulting those who not only love truth before luxury, but are helping him to do his job properly.  

Cardinal Burke is unworthy of his red robe. Not only that: he even blamed us for what Francis did! A slap in the face, this one, that Mueller, Brandmueller, Sarah, & Co. and the other professional blind and mute Cardinals (= all of them) at least had the sense to avoid. Unworthy all of them, but he unworthy the most. 

God knows I liked this man. But the facts shout louder than any sympathy or emotional attachment to a cherished image of “orthodox V II Cardinal”. There are none. I am done with Burke and with all those like him. He has betrayed the cause as he has insulted those who defend it. He has no excuses. 

The Cardinal was weighted, and he was found wanting.

He could now at least have the common decency to shut up.






What Went Wrong For Cruz. Part I: Globalism

Georges_de_La_Tour._St._Joseph,_the_Carpenter (1)

No fear of unemployment because of cheap Chinese imports or hunger illegal immigrant wages: St Joseph, the worker.


I am tempted to say: nothing went wrong for Cruz. This man gave an overall stunning performance, and brought conservative values at the centre of the political debate in a manner not seen since, I think I can safely say, the Gipper. This, in a world that celebrate sexual perversion and is preparing to persecute Christians for allegedly denying the “human right” to be a pervert and impose your perversion on the normal people who have remained.

However, I thought I would identify four weaknesses in Cruz; or better said, two structural weaknesses of his and two big mistakes he made during the electoral campaign. 

The first is the globalist stance.

I can talk more eloquently than most about the advantages of free trade.  I see them, and I agree with their proponents about them. However, it seems to me that economic advantages do not encompass the whole of the human experience. There is, in the life of a Country, an ethical dimension that cannot be reduced to economic terms. 

If you have three, or even five, percent of the population – people willing and eager  to work – unemployed, dissatisfied, and ultimately cut off from a wholesome dimension of living, this creates a damage that cannot be compensated by the (undeniably present) collective advantage for the economy as a whole in having cheap clothes, cheap steel, and cheap more-and-more-things.

A person (and particularly a man) needs to know that he is a self reliant provider for himself and his family. He instinctively feels  that this is what he was born for: to provide for himself and his loved ones. Getting up in the morning and going to work in the factory, in the mine, in the foundry; working as a gardener, or a cleaning lady – and bringing home the paycheck at the end of the month that pays (or helps to pay) for the mortgage, the children’s shoes and a dignified existence in the fear of the Lord, has a deeply satisfying wholesomeness to it that will never be compensated by having enough handouts to scrape by.

A person (and particularly a man) has the right to know that he will have to compete, in a sane and healthy manner, with the other workers in his village, not with Chinese workers paid one or two dollars an hour, or illegal immigrants ready to work for a wage that allows them to live in dismal conditions.  

It is profoundly unethical to ask these people that they convert into what they are not – software programmers, say – or are content with merely being kept away from cold and hunger from a cynical system that coldly calculates the costs of his handouts against the benefits of having all sorts of cheap imports, decides that there is a collective gain in it, and therefore proclaims it good.  

It is unethical because you can’t blame a man or a woman who are willing to work according to their own inclinations and to the wages the market establishes that they cannot have that job, because the job goes to another person in a foreign country who is ready to work for a pay that it would be unreasonable – or even illegal – to ask him or her to work for. And no, not everyone is born to be an accountant, or a software programmer. It is deeply, profoundly unethical to ask a man born in, say, Pennsylvania – and who would have plenty of work opportunities at home, in a honest market without unfair competition – to move to the other side of the Country in the hope of a job he is not cut for so you can have cheap socks. Pay your socks what is the fair price for socks produced by honest working men and women in Pennsylvania instead, mend them instead of throwing them away, and be glad for the millions of men and women who have the right to a wholesome life.    

To those who do not want to work, we should give nothing to eat. But to those who do want to work we should give the possibility of doing so, in a dignified manner, for a market wage, and according to their own inclinations; then not everyone want to be an accountant; some have a natural inclinations to be gardeners or factory workers, or are perfectly happy with being miners and cleaners.  

I could go on, but you get the drift. 

Cruz did not understand the message at the start, and when he started to see it it was already too late. The man relies, like many statesmen in perfect good faith (in which I do believe, and I deeply despise the conspiracy theories and “man sold to the big conglomerates” rants), too much on numbers and economic theories, and too little on the dimension those numbers and theories will never be able to quantify.  

Cruz never saw that dimension fully. Trump did it from the start. Like, by the way, the Gipper. 

I believe this is the first, and main, reason why the Republican candidate’s name begins with T, rather than C.



The “Mass Communication” Reblog

The “Mass Communication” Reblog 

Veri Catholici: First International Conference To Condemn Amoris Laetitia




I have already written about the sterling work of Veri Catholici

The announced conference to condemn the Apostolic Excrementation is now officially launched. The hashtag is #ALConf. 

It is a mystery to me how there should be people around – people, I mean, who are not certifiably insane or clearly retarded – who do not see the immense damage that this pontificate in general and Amoris Laetitia in particular are causing to the Church and to the Faithful.

The clergy is being silent. The laity will have to speak. It has already happened in the past, in circumstances much harder than today and in which there was no precedence; still, the laity remained strong then, and those of us who are still sane Catholics will remain strong now.

Therefore, there is no reason to be afraid, much less waver in our faith and determination to defend truth no matter who has the temerity and arrogance to attack it.

Wake up, Catholic laity, and let the world hear your voice. 

Our stupid clergy can send themselves to hell without us.



I Thought I Would Share This




Hail, holy Queen….


I receive this from a reader who signs with the (pen) name John D’Esposito. 

Dear Sir,

I am an avid reader of many blogs as I have had very little or no interest in TV for many years even prior to the internet. Even so, I am averse to commenting on blogs and you will not find my name associated with any comment. In your case I feel the need to make an exception to express my gratitude and heartfelt thanks for your advice. I refer you to your blog of April 30th, 2013 wherein you advised your readers

“When you click here, think every time if your time would not be better employed praying the Rosary, unless you have already done so. Don’t listen to me. Listen first to the Blessed Virgin, St. Dominic, Blessed Alan de la Roche, Padre Pio and countless others.”

Well, I took up your advice and have not stopped since. I just finished praying the Rosary and my thoughts turned to you when I realised that tomorrow is the eve of Mary’s Month of May. I thought, well, might as well offer up tomorrow’s Rosary for that old codger seeing he got me into this. Mundabor, my life has turned around . . . and I mean big time!

So if your ears start ringing tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar it is me praying for you and yours and for whatever your spiritual needs are.

Thank you Sir, and may God bless you.



Well, thanks to you, Sir. You truly have made my day. You have made this old codger proud, and he will remember you in his prayers tonight. 

I see in this a lesson for all of us, and a reflection for me alone.

The lesson is that what we write (myself as blogger, or you as bloggers and commenters) counts; by God’s grace, it touches other people’s lives. It touches them, at times, rather permanently, as in the case of this reader who read a blog post of mine exactly three years ago, and still remembers the day it changed (if I may say so; but rather, God changed it through this wretched, utterly unworthy sinner)  his spiritual life.

What we write is read. This blog if often read by 1,500-2,000 unique visitors every day. What is published here, goes out in the world. Which is one of the reasons why I censor the comments with (old) Dominican zeal.

The reflection is whether I should not write non-political blog posts more often. Alas, the situation is so bad that I can’t even manage to keep pace with Francis’ heresies, so that becomes difficult. It seems to me that when the barn is burning, the first priority should be to be a part of the bucket brigade. However, messages like this tell me I should perhaps think a bit more beyond the burning barn. But it’s difficult, when the barn is burning.

Many thanks again, Mr D’Esposito. I am sure your comment will be of inspiration to many. May the Lord give you (and all of us) the reward for which we so much long, one day.






How The West De-Christianised Itself

The day of... What???

The 1 May is a festivity pretty much all over Europe. Even the UK, which does not have the official “Labour Day”, has a public holiday on the first Monday in May.

This is another example of how we have slowly de-Christianised ourselves.

In Christian times, the year was marked, and flew at the rhythm of its religious festivities. We see numerous examples of this in old literature, when Candlemas, St Crispin or the like where days known to all.

The 1 Mai was the feast of St Walpurga, in Germany Walpurgisnacht. It was traditionally celebrated with dances starting on the vigil (in those times dances were chaste affairs, and important social lubricants), hence the German expression of calling it Der Tanz in den Mai, “the dance into May”. The Christian tradition has gone. The social dimension has remained, but it is now linked to a purely secular feast: the self-celebration of the working man. The Social Democrat Party thanks heartily, and the others try to get as big a piece of the cake as they can.

I can see the day when Christmas and Easter will be abolished as public festivities, and will be replaced by festivities of secular character on the same day. The Pollyannas will not protest at all, because they are still allowed to celebraaaate their sweeeet festiviteee. But the blow will be massive, because it will gravely impact the public awareness of Christ's Birth and Resurrection exactly as it has impacted the awareness of St Walpurga or Saint Crispin.

The West de-Christianises itself by accepting to push Christianity in the private dimension, as an option which the Pollyannas ask that it be treated in the same way as other options. At the end of which, it is really not clear why exactly Christmas should be a public holiday, and Yom Kippur shouldn't.

When sanity comes back, one of the ways it will happen will be through the ditching of the secular mentality which has been poisoning Europe since the very dark days of the French Revolution and which, through several populist iterations, has given us the extremely populist feasts of “labour”, in whatever secular way it is called.

Screw “Labour Day”.

I will celebrate the feast of St Walpurga instead.




The Lord Of The Trannies

Here, Donald Trump is telling you what he thinks of Christian values.

I have not written about the US primaries for a while, because the heresies and blasphemies of the Evil Clown logically had to come first. However, today it might be a good time for some additional reflections.

1) Trump is clearly going to make it, and the moment is rapidly approaching when any result other than his nomination would clearly be a theft and a slap in the face of the Republican voters. When Trump had 700+ delegates and an advantage of less than 200 over Cruz it was one thing; but when he is at 900+ and with an advantage of almost 400 delegates things start to look vastly differently.

2) Trump will give Christians a lot of grief. He has come out in the last days in favour of having trannie dongs (actually: every dong) dangling around in women's bathrooms. If this man is a conservative I am a Maoist. Now we are informed a horribly mutilated, hormone-devastated monstrum called Bruce Jenner (yes, he will always be a Bruce. Born that way, you see…) went into one of his buildings, piddled in the women's bathroom and praised the man loudly. The Lord Of The Trannies is running for President. How much better would Cruz have been! A man who has been sharply criticised for occasional PC mistakes, but never even thoughts of monstrosities like Trump's assertions even as he keeps asking for Conservative votes. I smile at all those comments (on my blog and elsewhere) lamenting the man's mistakes around 1066, or saying he is unsuitable because they don't like his father. I am sure they prefer the Lord Of The Trannies….

3) Still, I think on the one side there is a lot of good in Trump's ideas on immigration, tariffs and foreign policy; and on the other I reflect that if the November elections return Republican majorities in both the Senate and the Congress there will be much scope to force the man, volens nolens, on conservative positions on many issues, first of all the crucial appointment of the Supreme Court judge meant to substitute the great Antonino Scalia.

4) Do not believe those who tell you the man is going to lose big against Hillary. Actually, I think the only way he can lose is if his Lord Of The Trannies attitudes causes the Evangelicals to stay home. Unlikely, considering what is at stake in the Supreme Court. Trump will make big inroads among the disaffected (read: unemployed) white voters (many millions), and it appears he is cleaning up even among (largely employed, and not all White) union members. When the Country has come to grips with the fact that it's him or Hillary, it will be the end of the whining and the beginning of the reasoning. The way I see it, Trump is his own biggest enemy, and the only one who can still screw his victory.

I did not wish this solution. If you ask me, Cruz was and his the better candidate by far. But not even I would want Cruz as the nominee at the price of sordid schemes, and headed for a certain and brutal defeat.

The time is rapidly approaching when the party (and all Catholics) will have to choose between the Lord Of The Trannies and the Witch Of The West. I think Trump will still be the by far better choice. And I think it will be far easier to bend him to the will of the Republican majority than to force Hillary to appoint the right judge at the Supreme Court.

Who knows, one day trannies might, even with Trump as President, have to bring their dongs elsewhere.



“We Shall Fight On The Beaches”: “Veri Catholici” Organises An International Conference To Condemn “Amoris Laetitia”!

Jesus-Christ-Ravenna-Mosaic-6C (1)


The news is here. “Veri Catholici” means, of course, “True Catholics”.

My congratulations to these brave men and (one supposes) women.

It goes to show that if our comfortably silent Bishops think they can continue unpunished to hide behind their fingers, the coming years will show them that silence isn't so comfortable after all. They would have gone away with it (more or less) before the Internet. They will certainly not go away with it now.

As to the discomfort after they die, I do not even want to imagine what fate awaits all those who will not repent. Memento mori! Dies irae, dies illa!

One fact is clear: left alone by a disgraceful clergy, the remnant of faithful Catholics will fight alone, but we shall fight.

Remember Churchill?

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

This is what will happen, this is what is beginning to happen already. Go wherever you please in the (real) Catholic blogosphere and you will find anger no end. Smart people (always a minority) understand that the destiny of their souls depends on how they react to Francis' pontificate (and, very possibly, those who will come after the Evil Clown).

We shall fight, and we shall fight with growing confidence. Because if a lewd old Argentinian Commie fond of pacifism and fags thinks he can convert us to his satanical creed, he is very gravely mistaken.

The battle is already won. We are asked to fight so that, one day, we may proudly say we fought on the right side.



Trannie In The Female Bathroom: It’s So Much More Than Safety

The controversy about the “Trannie in the Bathroom” shows once again how adept Conservatives are at losing battles out of fear of appearing “insensitive”. And there can be no doubt that when fundamental issues are avoided in the name of peripheral considerations defeat is already assured.

The problem with the Trannie in the female bathroom is, certainly, also a problem of security. But this is merely an accessory of the main problem. The main problem is the progressive transgenderisation, and therefore deep perversion, of Western civilisation.

Do you think that the Trannie really cares where he piddles? To him – and those who help him – the issue is one of homologation of his perversion within mainstream society.

Therefore, when the opposers avoid to touch the main issue and hide under the issue of “safety” they have already lost, because they have already accepted the perverted frame of their opponents.

And by the way, after this battle is lost I will be very glad for all the wannabe conservative idiots who now have to endure a Trannie in their bathroom, or in their daughters' bathrooms. I am talking of those who weren't opposed to civil partnerships provided it's not marriage, those who must always let you know how much they love perverts (but hey, they hate their sins!), those who cannot talk of perverts in other terms than “gays”, and so on.

It serves you right, you nincompoops. You did not want to appear “insensitive”. How do you like them…Trannies?

We reap what we sowed. We accept the frame of reference of the perverts' lobby, of course we end up in a corner.

A Trannie must not be allowed in the female bathroom because he is a damn male, no matter how much he has amputated or disfigured himself. This, and no other, is the argument.

If a male thinks that he is a female the appropriate place for him is the madhouse, not the female bathroom. Safety is nowhere as important as recovering sanity.

But no: reading around about the controversy, it seems it's already a problem of “safety”.


Let's lose this one, too.

God forbid, we are called “haters”!



Athanasius Contra Franciscum, Part II

I continue today the analysis of Bishop Schneider’s intervention on the Apostolic Excrementation 

The first part is here. My emphases (and the segment titles) in bold. My comments in red. 


The Dangers of the Church’s collaboration in the spread of the “plague of divorce”

In professing Our Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching for all times, the Church teaches us:  « Faithful to the Lord, the Church cannot recognize as Matrimony the union of the divorced who have remarried civilly. « He who repudiates his wife to marry another commits adultery against her.  If a woman repudiates her husband to marry another, she commits adultery » (Mark 10:11-12). [ the Bishop is here showing that the entire Apostolic Excrementation is meant to do one thing and one thing only: to go against the very words of Christ in the Gospel]. In their regard, the Church undertakes an attentive solicitude [the Church never “excludes” anyone who does not choose to exclude himself from Her], by inviting them to a life of Faith, to prayer, to the works of charity and to the christian education of their children.  [But] these cannot receive sacramental absolution, nor approach Eucharistic Communion, nor exercise certain ecclesial functions, so long as there endures a situation among them which contracts objectively with the law of God.” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 349).

To live in an invalid marital union, contradicting constantly the Commandment of God and the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony, does not signify that one lives in the truth [ pace Francis, you can’t live in public scandal and pretend that you live in the truth].  To declare that the deliberate, free and habitual practice of sexual acts in an invalid marital union could be, in a concrete case, no longer a grace sins, is not the truth, but a grave lie, [means “mortal sin”, as both the subjective and objective elements must perforce be there] and, therefore, can never be an authentic joy in love. To permit, therefore, these persons to receive Holy Communion signifies fakery, hypocrisy and mendacity. [Pope Francis is a fakes, a hypocrite, and a liar. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].   Indeed, the Word of God in Sacred Scripture remains valid:  “He who says, « I understand », and does not observe His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.” [ this is Francis](1 John 2:4).

The Magisterium of the Church teaches us that the validity of God’s Ten Commandments is universal:  “Since these enunciate the fundamental obligations of man towards God and his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, some grave obligations.  These are fundamentally immutable and their obligation prevails always and at all times.  No one can dispense from them ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2072).  Those who have affirmed that the commandments of God and the particular Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, can have exceptions, in such cases that there is no imputable fault for a divorce, were the Pharisees and then the Gnostic christians (sic) in the second and third centuries (after Christ). [ Francis is a heretic. He is promoting exactly the same heresies that were promoted in the II and III centuries.  But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].

The following affirmations of the Magisterium remain always valid because they are part of the infallible Magisterium as part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium:  “The negative precepts of the Natural Law are universally valid:  these oblige all and each one, always and in every circumstance.  In fact, one treats here with prohibitions which forbid a determinate action semper et pro semper (i.e. always and at all times), without exceptions, … there are behaviors which can never be, in any situation, the adequate response…The Church has always taught that one can never choose the behaviors prohibited by the moral Commandments, expressed in the negative form, in the Old and New Testaments. [ Francis is openly going against 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian civilisation. He is simply beyond the pale].  Has has been see [sic], Jesus, Himself, reaffirms the inderogability of these prohibitions:  « If you want to enter into life, observe the Commandments …:  do not kill, do not commit adultery, not do not steal, do not give false testimony » (Mt. 19:17:18). (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor).

The Magisterium of the Church still teaches us, more clearly:  “A good and pure conscience is illuminated by sincere faith [ Dear faithful, please realise that Francis has no faith, and a dirty conscience].  In fact, charity wells us, in its pace, “from a pure heart, from a good conscience and from a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5) [Cf. 1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3; 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 24:16] (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1794).

In the case in which a person commits moral acts objectively grave in full knowledge, with a sane mind, with deliberate decision, with the intent to repeat this act in the future, it is impossible to apply the principle of non-imputability of the fault by reason of attenuating circumstances. [Francis attempts an impossible subversion of the basics of moral law]. The application of the principle of non-imputability to these divorced and remarried couples would represent a hypocrisy and a Gnostic [sophism] [Francis is a heretic, a Gnostic wannabe sophist].  If the Church would admit these persons, even in only one case, to Holy Communion, She would contradict what She professes in doctrine, offering Herself a public contra-testimony to the indissolubility of Matrimony and contributing in this wise to the growth of “the plague of divorce” (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n 47).

So as to avoid such an intolerable and scandalous contradiction, the Church, infallibly interpreting the Divine truth of the moral law and of the indissolubility of Matrimony, has immutably observed  throughout 2000 years the practice of admitting to Holy Communion only those divorced who live in perfect continence and “removed from scandal”, without any exception or particular privilege. [I’d love to see example of such lax praxis of “brother and sister”. I do not know a single one. I think the Bishop might be extending the praxis of the last 50 years 2000 years back].

The first pastoral duty which the Lord entrusted to His Church is teaching, doctrine (cf. Mt. 28:20). The observance of God’s commandments is intrinsically connected to doctrine. For this reason the Church has always rebuffed the contradiction of doctrine and life, qualifying such a contradiction as Gnostic or as the heretical Lutheran theory of “simul iustus et peccator”. [dear faith, please realise Francis is a proto-Lutheran wannabe Gnostic sophist, too clever by half. Not buyin’ it]. Between the faith and life of the children of the Church there ought to be no contradictions.

When one treats of the observance of an expressed commandment of God and of the indissolubility of Matrimony, one cannot speak of opposed theological interpretations.  If God has said:  “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, no human authority could say:  “in some exceptional cases or for a good purpose, you can commit adultery”. [again! Francis goes explicitly, frontally, against God’s word! Blasphemy! But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud].

The following affirmations of Pope Francis are very important [,]where the Supreme Pontiff speaks to the proposal of integrating divorced and remarried persons into the life of the Church:  “this discernment will never be able to prescind from the requirements of truth and charity proposed in the Gospel by the Church … The necessary conditions of humility, modesty, love for the Church and Her teaching are to be guaranteed, … One avoids the risk that a determinate discernment leads one to think that the Church supports a double morality” (AL, 300).  These praiseworthy affirmations in «Amoris Laetitia », however, remain without concrete specification in regard to the question of the obligation of the divorced who have remarried to separate from one another or at least live in perfect continence. [Francis is all orthodox in vague theories, and all heretic in the concrete praxis. This is what Modernists do]

When one treats of the life or of the death of the body, no doctor would leave anything in ambiguity.  A doctor cannot say to his patient:  “You should decide on the application of this medicine according to your own conscience and respecting the laws of medicine”.  Such a comportment on the part of a doctor would, without a doubt, be considered irresponsible. And, yet, the life of an immortal soul is more important, since upon the health of the soul depends its destiny for all eternity. [If you follow him, Francis will lead you to eternal death. But I am a Bishop, so don’t expect me to say this out loud]. 

The liberating truth of Penance and of the mystery of the Cross.

To affirm that the divorced who have remarried are not public sinners signifies the simulation of a falsehood.  Moreover, being sinners is the true condition of all the members of the Church militant on earth.  If the divorced who have remarried say that their voluntary and deliberate acts against the Sixth Commandment of God are not in fact sins or grave sins, they fool themselves and the truth is not in them, as St. John says:  “If we say that we are without sin, we fool ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He who is Faithful and Just will forgive our sins and purify us from all iniquity.  If we say, “We have not sinned”, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8-10).

The acceptance on the part of the divorced who have remarried that they are sinners and even public sinners takes nothing from christian hope.  Only the acceptance of reality and truth makes them capable of undertaking the path of fruitful penitence according to the words of Jesus Christ.

It would be very salvific to renew the spirit of the first Christians and of the age of the Fathers of the Church, when there existed a living solidarity of the Faithful with public sinners, and, moreover, a solidarity according to truth.  A solidarity which has nothing to do with discrimination; on the contrary, there was in that age a participation of the whole Church in the penitential path of public sinners by means of the prayer of intercession, of tears, and of acts of expiation and charity on their behalf.

The Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, teaches:  “Even those who have wandered away from the Commandment of the Lord and continue to live in this condition (divorced and remarried) can obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, if they persevere in prayer, in penitence and in (acts of) charity” (n. 84).

During the first ages, public sinners were integrated into the praying community of the Faithful and had to implore the intercession of the Faithful, on bended knee and with arms raised up.  Tertullian gives us a touching testimony:  “The body cannot rejoice when one of its members suffers. It is necessary that its whole entire self grieve and work for its healing. When you extend your hands to the knees of your brothers, it  is Christ whom you touch.  Equally, when they pour out their tears for you, it is Christ who suffers with you” (De paenitentia, bk. 10, ch. 5-6).  In the same manner, St. Ambrose of Milan says:  “The whole Church  has taken upon Herself the yoke of the public sinner, suffering with him by means of Her tears, prayers and sorrows” (De paenitentia, bk. 1, ch. 81). [They weren’t “rigid doctors of the law”. They had true charity].

It is true, that the Church’s forms of penitential disciple have changed, but the spirit of this discipline should remain in the Church for all times. Today, some priests and bishops, basing themselves on some affirmations of AL, are beginning to make the divorced and remarried understand that their condition is not equivalent to the state of an objective public sinner. These tranquilize them by saying that their sexual acts do not constitute a grave sin.  Such a mindset does not correspond to the truth.  These deprive the divorced and remarried of the possibility of a radical conversion to obedience to the Will of God, by leaving these souls in a deceit.  Such a pastoral mindset is very easy, in the open market, it costs nothing.  It does not cost tears, prayers and works of intercession and fraternal expiation on behalf of the divorced who have remarried.

In admitting, even in only exceptional cases, the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion without asking them to cease to practice the acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment of God, by declaring presumptuously, moreover, that their acts are not grave sin, one chooses the easy road, one avoids the scandal of the Cross.  Such a pastoral practice for the ‘divorced and remarried’ is an ephemeral and deceitful pastoral practice.  To all who pedal such an easy path at a cheep price to the ‘divorced and remarried’, Jesus turns, even today, with these words:  “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a scandal to me, because you think not according to God, but according to men! Then Jesus said to His disciples:  « If any wills to follow Me, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow Me. » (Mt. 16:23-25), [this here is against Kasper & Co]. 

In regard to the pastoral care of the ‘divorced and remarried’, today there is also a need to revive the spirit of following Christ in the truth of the Cross and of penitence, which alone brings a permanent joy, by avoiding the ephemeral joys which serve deceitful reasons.  The following words of Pope St. Gregory the Great show themselves to be truly timely and illuminating:  “We ought not habituate ourselves to much to our earthly exile, the conveniences of this life ought not make us forget our true Fatherland let our spirit become sleepy in midst of conveniences. For this reason, God unites to His gifts His own visitations or punishments, so that all which is enchanting in this world, becomes bitter for us and there be enkindled in the soul that fire which spurs us always a new towards the desire of heavenly things and makes us progress towards them. That fire wounds us in a pleasant way, it crucifies us sweetly and it saddens us joyously” (In Hex, bk. 2, ch. 4, n. 3).

The Church’s spirit of authentic penitential discipline in the first centuries has perdured in the Church through all ages even unto today. We have the moving example of Bl. Laura del Carmen Vicuna, born in Chile in 1891.  Sr. Azocar, who took care of her, narrates:  “I remember that when I first explained the Sacrament of Matrimony, Laura fainted, having understood without a doubt my words that her own mother was in a state of mortal sin so long as she remained with that man.  At that time, in (the town of) Junin, only 1 family lived in conformity to the will of God”. [and still, God’s laws were exactly the same!] From then on, Laura multiplies her prayers and penances for her mother.  On June 2, 1901, she was to make her first Communion, with great fervor; she wrote these following resolutions:  “1) I desire, o my Jesus, to love Thee and serve Thee for my entire life; for this, I offer Thee all of my souls, my heart, my entire being. — 2) I prefer to die rather than offend Thee with sin; therefore, I want to distance myself from all which could separate me from Thee. — 3) I promise to do everything possible so that Thou may be always more known and loved, and to repair the offenses which the men who do not love Thee inflict upon Thee every day, especially those who receive (Communion) among those who are near to me. — O my God, grant me a life of love, of mortification and of sacrifice!”  But her great joy was overshadowed in seeing her own mother, present at the ceremony, not take communion (on account of having not repented of her sin).  In 1902, Laura offered her own life for her mother who was living with a man in an irregular union in Argentina.  Laura multiplied her prayers and self-denials to obtain the true conversion of her mother.  A few hours before dying, she called her to her self.  Understanding that she was at the last moment of live, she exclaimed:  “Mommie, I am about to die. I asked Jesus and I have offered my life to Him for the grace of your return.  Mommie, will I have the joy to see your repentance before dying?  Overcome, her mother promised:  “Tomorrow morning I will go to church and I will confess.”  Laura, already blind, turned to the priest and said:  “Father, my mother in this moment promises to abandon that man; you be witness to this promise!” and she added, “Now I die content!”  With these words she breathed her last, on January 22, 1904, at Junin, in the Andes (Argentina), at the age of 13, in the arms of her mother who then refound her faith by putting and end to that irregular union in which she was living.

The admirable life of the young Blessed Laura is a demonstration of how much a True Catholic seriously considers the Sixth Commandment of God and the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony [if you are Catholic, you’ll have none of that “social circumstances” rubbish]Our Lord Jesus Christ recommends to avoid even the appearance of approbation of an irregular union or adultery.  [my personal note: which is why the “brother and sister” thingie isn’t a good idea, at all!] That Divine command, the Church has always faithful conserved and transmitted without ambiguity [see above] in Her doctrine and practice.  By offering her own young life, Bl. Laura was certainly not representing one of many diverse doctrinal or pastoral interpretations. She did not give her life for a possible doctrinal or pastoral interpretation, but for a divine immutable and universally valid truth.  A truth demonstrated with the offer of their life by a great number of Saints, from St. John the Baptist even to the simple faithful of our days, whose names are known to God alone.

The Necessity of a true “veritatis laetitia” (Joy from Truth”) [brilliant irony]

« Amoris Laetitia » contains, surely and fortunately [ I had feared the contrary would be the case!], some theological affirmations and spiritual and pastoral indications of great value.  Nevertheless, it is realistically insufficient to affirm that AL should be interpreted according to the doctrine and traditional practice of the Church.  When in an ecclesiastical document, which in our case is deprived of a definitive and infallible character, there are found elements of interpretation and application which might have dangerous spiritual consequences, all the members of the Church, and in the first place, the Bishops, as brotherly co-workers with the Sovereign Pontiff in an effective collegiality, have the duty to point out respectfully this fact and to ask for an authentic interpretation.

[Bam! You are betraying your flock, you silent Bishops and Cardinals! All of you!] 

When one treats of Divine faith, of the Divine commandments of the sacrality and indissolubility of Matrimony, all the members of the Church, from the simple faithful to the highest representatives of the Magisterium, ought to make a common effort to conserve intact the treasure of the Faith and his practical application.  The Second Vatican Council has in effect taught:  “The totality of the Faithful, having the anointing which comes from the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2:20,27), cannot error in believing, and manifests this property by means of the supernatural sense of the faith of the whole People (of God), when « from the bishops even unto the last faithful laymen » (St. Augustine, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum, bk. 14, ch. 27) shows a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. And, in truth, through this sense of the faith, which is suscitated and guided by the Spirit of truth, and under the guide of the sacred magisterium, Who enables, if He is obeyed faithfully, one to receive no longer the words of men, but truly the word of God. (cf. 1 Titus 2:13), the People of God adheres indefectibly to the Faith transmitted to the Saints once and for all (cf. Judges 3), with right judgement It penetrates into it more deeply and applies it to life more fully.” (Lumen Gentium, 12). The Magisterium, for its own part, ” is not above the Word of God, but is at its service, since it teaches only what has been transmitted (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 10).

It was the Second Vatican Council itself which encouraged all the Faithful and the bishops above all to manifest without fear their worries and observations for the sake of the good of the whole Church.  The servile and politically correct are causing a pernicious evil in the life of the Church. The famous bishop and theologian of the Council of Trent, Melchior Cano, O.P., pronounced this memorable phrase:  “Peter has not need of our lies and adulations.  Those who, with closed eyes and in an indiscriminate manner defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff, are those who compromise most of all the authority of the Holy See.  These are destroying Her foundations rather than strengthening them.”

Our Lord taught us, without ambiguity, by explaining in what consists true love and the true joy of love:  “He who keeps My commandments and observes them, he is the one who loves Me” (John 14:21). [Francis does not love Christ] In giving men the Sixth Commandment and the observance of the indissolubility of Matrimony, God has given them to all without exception and not only to an elite.  Already in the Old Testament, God declared:  This commandment which I prescribe to thee today is surely not above your strengths, nor beyond your doing” (Deuteronomy 30:11) and “If you want to, you will observe the Commandments; being faithful will depend upon your goodwill (Sirach 15:15).  And Jesus said to all:  “If you want to enter into life, observe the Commandments.  Which ones?  And Jesus replied:  Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery” (Mt. 19:17-18).  The teaching of the Apostles has transmitted the same doctrine to us:  “Since the love of God consists in the observance of His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). [so let’s cut it off with the idea that marriage fidelity is merely an “ideal”, shall we?]

There is no true, supernatural and eternal life, without the observance of God’s commandments:  “I precept you to observe His commandments:  I place before you life and death. Choose life!” (Dt. 30:16-19).  There is, therefore, no true life nor true joy of authentic love without the truth.  “Love consists in living according to His commandments” (2 John 6). The joy of love consists in the joy of truth.  The authentic Christian life consists in the life and joy in the truth: “For me there is no greater joy than that which I find in knowing that my sons live obeying the truth” (3 John 4).

St. Augustine explains for us the intimate bond between joy and truth:  “I ask all of them if they do prefer the joy of truth to that of the lie.  And they do not hesitate here more than for the reply to the question regarding happiness.  Because the happy life consists in the joy of truth, all of us want the joy of truth” (Confessions, bk. X, ch. 23).

The danger of widespread confusion in regard to the indissolubility of Matrimony

Already for a time, in the life of the Church, it has been demonstrated that in some places there is a tacit abuse in the admission of the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion, without asking them to life in perfect continence. The scarcely clear affirmations in chapter VIII of AL have given new dynamism to the self-declared propagators of this admission to Holy Communion, in single cases, of the ‘divorced and separated’.

We can now establish that the abuse began to spread into practice mostly because it was thought in some manner to be legitimate.  Moreover, there is a confusion principally as much as regards the interpretations of the affirmations reported in chapter VIII of AL. The confusion reaches its apex since all, whether the supporters of the admission of the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Communion, or those who oppose them, sustain that « The doctrine of the Church in this matter has not been modified. »

With due reckoning of historical and doctrinal differences, our situation shows some similarities and analogies with the situation of general confusion during the Arian crisis of the 4th Century (A.D.).  In that epoch, the traditional Apostolic Faith in the Divinity of the Son of God was guaranteed by means of the term, “consubstantial” (homoousios), dogmatically proclaimed by the universal Magisterium of the First Council of Nicea.  The profound crisis of faith, with a quasi-universal confusion, was caused principally by refusing, avoiding the use and profession of the word “consubstantial” (homoousios).  Instead of using this expression, there was spread about among the clergy and above all the episcopate the use of an alternative formulae which in fine were ambiguous and imprecise, as for example, “similar in substance” (homoiousios) or simply “similar” (homoios).  The formula, “homoousios” of the universal Magisterium of that time expressed the full and true Divinity of the Word in such a clear manner as to not leave space for equivocal interpretations.

In the years, 357-360 (A.D.), nearly the entire episcopate had become Arian or semi-Arian on account of the following events:  in 357 Pope Liberius [ we did have heretical Popes before] signed one of the ambiguous formulae of (the Council of) Sirmium, in which the term “homoousious” had been eliminated.  Moreover, the Pope excommunicated in a scandalous way St. Athanasius. [we did have hugely scandalous heretical Popes before…] St. Hilary of Poiters was the only Bishop to undertake grave remonstrations with Pope Liberius for such ambiguous acts. [we did have scandalous silence of the bishops in front of heresy before]  In 359, the parallel Synods of the western episcopacy at Rimini (Italy) and that of the eastern at Seuleukia, accepted expressions which were completely Arian, worse than the ambiguous formula signed by Pope Liberius.  Describing the situation of confusion in that epoch, St. Jerome expressed himself thus:  « The world groaned and found itself, with shock, to have become Arian » (« Ingemuit totus orbis, et arianum se esse miratus est »: Adversus Luciferianum, 19)

One can affirm that our epoch is characterized by a great confusion in regard to sacramental discipline for the ‘divorced and remarried’.  And there exists a real danger that this confusion expands on a vast scale, if we avoid proposing and proclaiming the formula of the universal and infallible Magisterium:  « The reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance — which would open the way to Eucharistic Communion — can be accorded only to those who, … assume the commitment to live in full continence, that is, to abstain from the acts proper to a married couple.”  ( John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, n. 84).  This formula is, unfortunately, incomprehensibly [I am kidding here] absent from « Amoris Laetitia ».  « Amoris Laetitia », instead, contains, in an all-together inexplicable manner [… and here too], the following declaration:  « In these situations (of the ‘divorced and remarried’), many, recognizing and accepting the possibility of cohabitation “as brother and sisters” which the Church offers them, find that, if there are some expressions of intimacy lacking, « it is not rare that fidelity is put in danger and that the good of the children come to be compromised » (Al, 298, footnote 320).  Such an affirmation leaves one to think of a contradiction with the perennial teaching of the universal Magisterium, as it has been formulated in the text cited fromFamiliaris Consortio, 84.

It is becoming urgent that the Holy See confirms and proclaims anew, eventually under the form of an authentic interpretation of AL, the cited formula of Familiaris Consortio, 84.  This formula could be considered, under certain aspects, as the “homoousios” of our days. [AL introduces elements of heresy sanctioned by the Pope with the complicity or acquiescence of the bishops; a situation so grave as it had not presented itself since the “homoousios” controversy] The lack of a confirmation in an official and explicit manner of the formula of Familiaris Consortio, 84, on the part of the Holy See could contribute to even greater confusion in sacramental discipline with gradual and inevitable repercussions in the field of doctrine.  In this manner, one might come to create such a situation to which one in the future could apply the following exclamation:  « The whole world groans and finds itself, with shock, to have accepted divorce in practice » («Ingemuit totus orbis, et divortium in praxi se accepisse miratus est »).

A confusion in sacramental disciple in regard to the ‘divorced and separated’, with the consequent doctrinal implications, would contradict the nature of the Catholic church, as She has been described by St. Irenaeus, in the second century (A.D.):  « The Church, even though She is spread throughout in the whole world, keeps this preaching and this Faith, which She has received, with the same care as if She lived in one house; and in the same manner, She believes in these truths, as if She had one soul and one heart; She proclaims, teaches and transmits them, with unanimous voice, as if She had only one mouth » (Adversus haereses, Bk. I, ch. 10, n. 2; from the Office of Readings for the Feast of St. Mark, the Apostle, March 25). [ to proclaim that different Countries and social situation may allow priests to bend the truth is heresy].

The See of Peter, that is the Sovereign Pontiff, is the guarantee of the unity of Apostolic faith and sacramental discipline. Considering the confusion which has come to be among priests and bishops in the sacramental practice as much as regards the ‘divorced and remarried’ and as much as regards the interpretation of AL, one can consider legitimate an appeal to our dear Pope, Francis, the Vicar of Christ and « sweet Christ upon earth » (St. Catherine of Sienna), so that He order the publication of an authentic interpretation of « Amoris Laetitia », which should necessarily contain an explicit declaration of the disciplinary principle of the universal and infallible Magisterium in regarding to the admission to the Sacraments (sic) for the ‘divorced and separated’, as it has been formulated in n. 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

During the great Arian confusion of the Fourth Century, St. Basil the Great made an urgent appeal to the Pope of Rome to indicate with his own words the clear direction to obtain finally a unity of thought in faith and charity (cf. Epistle 70).

An authentic interpretation of Al, on the part of the Apostolic See, would bring about a joy in clarity (« claritatis laetitia » for the whole Church.  Such a clarity would guarantee a love in joy (« amoris laetitia »), a love and a joy which would not be according to the minds of men, but according to the mind of God (cf. Mt. 16, 23).  And this is what counts for the joy, life, and eternal salvation of the divorced who have remarried and for all men.

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan

There Is No Excuse For Silence.

There are reports on the Catholic press that Cardinals Sarah and Mueller are refusing to give interviews concerning the Apostolic Excrementation. Clearly, after Bishop Schneider's intervention they are going to have more, not less requests for them.

If silence in the face of heresy is unjustifiable and unacceptable in a bishop, it should be more so in a Cardinal. And the more so when one of these Cardinals is, actually, the formal guardian of orthodoxy within the Church apparatus (after the Pope, of course) and the other is the author of a book called “God or nothing”, and prefers now to do… nothing rather than speak for God.

Let me say this once again: there is no possible excuse for such a behaviour. To try to excuse any bishop or Cardinal for his silence concerning AL is exactly the same as finding excuses for almost all the Apostles leaving Jesus alone on the Cross.

Excuses are always easily found. “If they decided to speak, this would damage the Papacy”, it is reported. If the rumours are true, one can easily imagine that this is the very excuse the two have informally given to try to justify their silence, and which they now want to be discreetly filtered through the press in order to get their “get out of jail” card.

“My shutting up and doing nothing is a very orthodox one”.


What is more important: to defend God or to, allegedly, damage the Papacy? Who has ever said that the Papacy must be protected in preference to Truth itself? What kind of rubbish is that? Was then, say, right not to say anything against the Nuremberg Laws in order to avoid damaging the German Chancellorship? Or shall we shut up concerning the persecution of Christians lest more persecution follows?

And by the by: how is defending Truth damaging to the Papacy? It is damaging to Francis, not to the Papacy! On the contrary: what damages the Papacy is exactly the allowing that Francis ridicules and debases it, and prostitutes it to his social justice warrior ideology.

This is utter nonsense. No Bishop or Cardinal has any excuse for shutting up, and all those who do so will be exposed as hirelings every time they dare to pretend they are good shepherds in other matters.

My suggestion to Cardinal Sarah and Cardinal Mueller is that, if they shut up now, they should as well shut up forever, and never again talk to us about an orthodoxy they were not willing to defend when the trumpet called them to battle. They will not get away with it, nor will anyone who does not speak now.

Ubi honor, ibi onus. One isn't a Bishop or Cardinal in order that he may shut up when it is time to speak. I can't fathom many other times in the entire Church history when it was so necessary that the shepherds speak.

When John XXII threatened to proclaim a false dogma, concern for the Papacy was absolutely nowhere to be found. When Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to pagan deities (during the atrocious persecution of Diocletians) no excuses were found for him. Have our Cardinals become so emasculated that they do not think of this? For heaven's sake, one truly has the impression that these people spend their time in splendid palaces, playing with dolls.

If the rumour is confirmed, both Cardinal Sarah and Mueller would confirm thrmselves as not true shepherds, but hirelings. Hirelings now increasingly embarrassed by the public outcry at their silence, and looking for excuses to get away with it. Not going to happen.

Whoever shuts up now has lost face, full stop. Whenever he gives an interview or even publishes a book about the defence of orthodoxy, they will be told what the faithful think of their hypocrisy.

This is not going to go away. We will never forget this treason, nor will the Angels in heaven.

God help the Cardinal who dies in his shameful silence, whatever excuse he might have picked for his dereliction of duty.



Athanasius Contra Franciscum, Part I

I have, in the meantime, accurately read the beautiful intervention of the Bishop. 

Let me make a couple of preliminary observations: 

  1. Bishop Athanasius does not explicitly call the document heretical, or blasphemous. 
  2. Bishop Athanasius does not explicitly warn Francis about his heretical, blasphemous position. 

If there was a criticism that could be moved to this letter, it would be related to the points above. However, I do not feel I should move this criticism myself. Whilst truth must be proclaimed in season and out of season, I feel no difficulty at all in attributing Bishop Schneider’s choice to a prudent judgment. Clearly, this is not a man afraid of persecution. Please give him your most sincere prayers.

You might not read, in your lifetime, another criticism of a papal document as strong as this one from an “official” bishop. I note here that, to my knowledge, not even the SSPX has officially called the document heretical and blasphemous. I am sure this is a prudential judgment, too; but if you ask me who runs the risk of being too prudent, I would say “the SSPX”. 

Below is the text (first part). My emphases (and the segment titles) in bold. My comments in red. 


The paradox of contradicting interpretations of «Amoris Laetitia»

The recently published Apostolic Exhortation « Amoris Laetitia » (hereafter abbreviated AL), which contains a great spiritual treasure for Christian life in matrimony and family for our age [heavens, why does everyone praise the cream in a poisoned cake? Bishop Fellay did the same. I think it’s churchspeak for “I am about to punch you in the face”], has unfortunately in short order provoked contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate [the Bishop announces the line of attack: the document is ambiguous. Actually, the document is openly heretical and blasphemous. See above, “prudence”].

There are bishops and priests who have publicly and openly declared that AL has furnished an manifest opening to Communion for the divorced who have remarried, without asking them to live in continence.  Under this aspect of sacramental practice, which according to them would now be significantly changed, would truly consist the revolutionary character of « Amoris Laetitia ».  Interpreting AL in reference to irregular couples, one President of an Episcopal Conference has declared in a text published on the very website of that Conference:  « One treats of a measure of mercy, of an opening of heart, reason and spirit for which no law is necessary, nor is there need to wait for any directive or directions.  One may and one ought to put it immediately into practice ».

Such a view was further confirmed by the recent declarations made by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S. J., who after the Synod of Bishops in 2015 had written that the Synod had laid down « a foundation » for the access to Communion by the divorced who have remarried, « by opening a door », which was left closed in the preceding Synod in 2014.  Now, Father Spadaro in his own commentary on AL, says that his predication has been confirmed.  The same Fr. Spadaro is said to have been a member of the group which redacted « Amoris Laetitia » [the Bishop does not say that 2+2=4 here, as in “if Spadaro says this and he has collaborated to the document, the man has obviously followed Francis’ istructions”. The bishops does not say it; but make no mistake: he wants you to draw the conclusion, or make the addition, yourself].

A way open to abusive interpretations seems to have been indicated by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn himself, who, during the official presentation of « Amoris Laetitia » at Rome, had said in regard to the proposal of irregular unions:  « The great joy that this document gives me rests in the fact that it overcomes in a concrete way the artificial clear external division of “regular” and “irregular”. »  Such an affirmation suggest the idea that there is no clear difference between a valid and sacramental marriage and an irregular union,  between venial sin and mortal sin [ again: both the Bishop and his readers are aware that Schoenborn’s press conference has been explicitly indicated by Francis as the best guidance to interpreting AL. He who has ears to hear, let him hear]. 

On the other hand, there are bishops who affirm that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial Magisterium of the Church and that AL does not authorize Communion for the divorced who have remarried, not even in exceptional cases.  In principle, such an affirmation is the correct one and the one worth of approval.  In effect, every text of the Magisterium ought to be, as a general rule, coherent in its own content with the preceding Magisterium, without any rupture. [To state that a document must be read in light of truth is not wrong, but it is not remotely good enough].

Nevertheless, it is not secret that in diverse places divorced and remarried persons have been admitted to Holy Communion, without the obligation of living in continence.  Some of the affirmations in « Amoris Laetitia » can realistically be utilized to legitimize the abuse already practiced for some time in various places in the life of the Church (sic). [some of the affirmations in AL are, realistically, blasphemous and heretical and meant to legitimise sacrilege. But as the Pope does not officially proclaim it, and prefers to introduce the heresy from the window, I will not expose myself to the accusation of slandering him].

Some affirmations of « Amoris Laetitia » are objectively open to a bad interpretation

Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, has invited all of us to offer our own contribution to the reflection and dialogue on the delicate questions concerning marriage and the family.  « The reflection of pastors and of theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest and creative, will help us to reach a greater clarity » (AL, 2).

Analyzing some of the affirmations of AL with an honest understanding [stop kidding yourself, Cardinal Burke!], as they are in their own context, one finds that there is a difficulty in interpreting them according to the traditional doctrine of the Church.  [this part is pivotal: it means that the context of the ambiguous affirmations is itself heretical; it creates a heretical climate, and the explosive blasphemies are correctly interpreted in this heretical context] This fact is explained by the absence of concrete and explicit affirmation of the constant doctrine and practice of the Church, [this is another one of the pivotal points: the Bishop states that if Francis had strongly and unambiguously stated that there is no change whatsoever from Familiaris Consortio, repeating the statements verbatim, this would have factually killed any ambiguous reading. Personally, I trust Francis to be, in fact, as duplicitous as to explicitly state the paragraph written here below and contradict it in the following statement. But undoubtedly, the heretical reading would have been made more difficult. Also, heresy is heresy no matter how many reaffirmations of catholci doctrine are contained in the same document.which is founded upon the Word of God and was reiterated by Pope John Paul II, who said:  « The Church, moreover, reaffirms Her own practice, founded upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion the divorced who have remarried.  These are those who cannot be admitted, from the moment that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, signified and actuated by the Eucharist.  There is moreover another particular pastoral motive:  if these persons would be admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be lead into error and confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of matrimony.  Reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance — which would open the way to the Sacrament of the Eucharist — can be accorded only to those who, having repented of violating the sign of the Covenant and their fidelity to Christ, have been sincerely disposed to a form of life which is no longer in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage.  That is, which implies, in the concrete, that when a man and wife, for serious motives — such as, for example, the education of their children — cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, « assume the obligation of living in full continence, that is of abstaining from the acts proper to married couples » (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

Pope Francis has not established « a new general norm in canonical form, applicable to all cases » (AL, n. 300). However, in footnote 336, he declares:  « Not even as much as regards sacramental discipline, from the moment that discernment can recognize that in a particular situation there is no grave fault » [see above: fist Francis states, then he denies what he has just stated]. By referring himself evidently to the divorced who have remarried, the Pope affirms in AL, n. 305:  « By reason of attenuating conditions or factors, it is possible that, within an objective situation of sin — which is not subjectively culpable or which is is not such in a full manner — one can live in the grace of God, one can love, and one can even grow in the life of grace and charity, receiving for such a purpose the help of the Church ».  In footnote 351, the Pope clarifies his own affirmation, by saying that « in certain cases, there might even been the help of the Sacraments ».

In the same chapter 8 of « Amoris Laetitia », the Pope speaks of « the divorced who live a new union, … with new children, with proven fidelity, generous dedication, christian commitment, conscious of the irregularity of their own situation and of the great difficulty in turing around without feeling in their consciences that one would fall into a new fault.  The Church recognizes situations in which « man and wife, for serious motives, — such as, for example, the education of their children — cannot satisfy the obligation of separation ».  In footnote 329, the Pope cites the document, Gaudium et Spes in an unfortunately incorrect manner, because the Council refers in this case only to a valid Christian marriage. The application of this affirmation to the divorced can provoke the impression that a valid marriage can be assimilated, not in theory, but in practice, with the union of divorced persons. [note here: the Bishop always says “the Pope states”, “the Pope speaks”. He attributes the heresy directly to him. He chooses not to say something like “footnote such and such, certainly misinterpreting the will of the Holy Father, states”… . You are supposed to know who is the culprit.]

The admission to Holy Communion of the divorced who have remarried and its consequences

« Amoris Laetitia » is, unfortunately, deprived of textual citations of the principles of the Church’s moral teaching in the form in which they were enunciated in n. 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, and in the Encyclical, Veritas Splendor, of Pope John Paul II, in particular in regard to the following themes of capital importance:  « the fundamental option » (Veritatis Splendor, nn. 67-68), « mortal sin and venial sin » (ibid. nn. 69-70), « proportionalism, consequentialism » (ibid. n. 75), « martyrdom and the universal and immutable moral norms » (ibid. nn. 91 ff.).  A verbal citation of Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and of the similar more salient affirmations of Veritatis Splendor would certainly make « Amoris Laetitia » unassailable on the part of heterodox interpretations.  [ this is the Leitmotiv again: literal, repeated quotes explicitly stating what is what would have suffocated any attempt to give the document a heretical reading even if ambiguities are present] Some generic allusions to the moral principles and doctrine of the Church are certainly not sufficient in a controversial matter which is of delicate and capital importance. [This is an open indictment of Francis’ modus operandi: generic allusions on one side, concrete emergency exits from the straight and narrow on the other side. This is certainly not sufficient in a matter delicate and capital importance. “What kind of Pope are you?”,”What’s wrong with you?” is here the message].

Some representatives of the clergy and even of the episcopate do affirm that even now, according to the spirit of « Amoris Laetitia »’s chapter VIII it has not been excluded that in exceptional cases the divorced who have remarried can be admitted to Holy Communion without it being requested that they live in perfect continence.

By admitting a similar interpretation in the letter and spirit of « Amoris Laetitia », one would have to accept, with an honest understanding and on the basis of the principle of non-contradiction, the following logical conclusions: 

[what follows is the most brutal condemnation of a papal document I have ever read from anyone, in any age. The Bishop veils it only very thinly by stating that this merely the reading of “some representative of the clergy”. However, he has already told you this is, honestly, the reading made possible in the document’s context. He who has ears, etc…].

The divine Sixth Commandment which prohibits every sexual act outside of a valid marriage, would no longer be universally valid if exceptions were to be admitted.  In our case:  the divorced would  be able to practice the sexual act and they are even encouraged to it for the purpose of conserving reciprocal “fidelity”, cf. AL, 298.  One would be able, therefore, to exchange “fidelity”, in a style of life directly contrary to the expressed will of God.  Moreover, to encourage and legitimize acts which are in themselves (in se) and always contrary to the will of God, would be to contradict Divine Revelation.

The divine word of Christ:  « That man not separate what God has untied » (Mt. 19:6), would, therefore no longer be always valid and for all married couples without exception.

It would be possible in a particular case to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion with the intention of continuing to directly violate the Divine commandments:  « Thou shalt not commit adultery » (Exodus 20:14) and « That man not separate what God has united » (Mt. 19:6; Genesis 2:24).

The observance of these commandments and of the Word of God would hold in these cases only in theory and not in practice, inducing thereby the divorced who have remarried « to fool themselves » (James 1:22).  One would, therefore, be able to have faith in the divine character of the Sixth Commandment and in the indissolubility of Matrimony without, however, the corresponding works.

The Divine Word of Christ: « He who repudiates his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if a woman leaves her husband and marries another, she commits adultery » (Mk, 10:12) would, therefore, not longer have a universal validity but would admit exceptions.

The permanent, conscious and free violation of the Sixth Commandment of God and of the sacrality and indissolubility of ones own valid Matrimony (in the case of the divorced who have remarried) would, therefore, no longer be a grave sin, nor in direct opposition to the will of God.

There can (sic) be cases of grave, permanent, conscious and free violation of God’s other commandments (e.g., in the case of a style of life of financial corruption), in which there would be able to granted to a determinate person, on the basis of attenuating circumstances, access to the Sacraments without exacting a sincere resolution to avoid in the future the acts of sin and of scandal.

The perennial and infallible teaching of the Church would no longer be universally valid, in particular the teaching confirmed by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, n. 84, and by Pope Benedict XVI, in Sacramentum caritatis, n. 29, according to which the condition of the divorced to receive the Sacraments is (the practice of) perfect continence.

The observance of the Sixth Commandment and of the indissolubility of marriage would not be an ideal realizable on the part of all, but in a certain manner only for an elite.

The intransigent words of Christ which intimate to men the observance of God’s commandments, always and in all circumstances, even when accepting some considerable suffering, or the Cross, for this purpose, would not longer be valid in their truth:  « If you hand is an occasion of sin to you, cut it off and throw it away, because it is better for you that one member perish, than that thy whole body be cast into Gehenna » (Mt. 5:30).

To admit couples in an « irregular union » to Holy Communion, by permitting them to practice the acts reserved to married couples in a valid marriage, would be equivalent to the usurpation of a power, which, however, does not belong to any human authority to exercise, because one treats where with a pretense to correct the very Word of God.

[the parts I have evidenced all state the same: this document contains heresy and blasphemy; it spits in the face of Our Lord; it is the attempt to deny His Commandments, it is an insult to God. The Bishop does not say so explicitly. But the logical chain of argument, “if you read the document as it can honestly be read in its context, this is the conclusion you must draw”, does not leave any doubt in the intelligent reader as to what the bishop means]. 

(to be continued…)



Athanasius Contra Mundum…. Again!



I noticed it first on the page of Vox Cantoris. 

Immediately thereafter I saw that some faithful commenters had also posted it on my blog.

It has happened. Praise the Lord!

Finally, one Bishop has spoken; and this poor old sinner could not, could not contain his tears.

Once again, one Athanasius is alone against the world.  

The original, published on Corrispondenza Romana, is in Italian. An English translation is here. I have no time to read it now. I have parsed through it, and it seems beautifully brutal (as much as a bishop can be expected to be brutal, of course). I will write more on this as time allows. But this is huge. It’s like breathing after two weeks. It’s like seeing the light again after two weeks in a dungeon, in total obscurity.   

Thank you, Lord, that in this horrible time you have left us with one true and brave bishop, one alone, in the “official” Church.



It is an immense gift. For more than two weeks, I thought it might be more than we deserve. Heck, it probably still is.But it is there.

Let me, therefore, cry it to the skies: there is still ONE Catholic Bishop who dares to speak against Francis!

Amoris Laetitia truly has separated the wheat from the chaff. The amount of chaff is staggering. But we still have some wheat left in the official Church.  

One bishop has spoken. I cannot avoid thinking that he has spoken with others in the preceding days and weeks, and tried to organise a broader front; failing which, he has decided to do what he has to do, come what may. May the Lord give him infinite blessings; good, courageous shepherd.

After a seeming half eternity, one Bishop has spoken. One only. Will, now, others find the courage and take his side? Where the heck are the Polish Bishops? Has all Africa sunk into the Oceans? Are they all hirelings like Cardinal Burke, or are there true shepherds among them? 

We will know in time, then the mills of the Church grind so excruciatingly slow. But I can’t tell you with words the joy I feel. 

Going to work now. More to come. 

This was the Lord’s doing;
It is marvelous in our eyes.
This is the day the Lord has made;
We will rejoice and be glad in it.









Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,664 other followers

%d bloggers like this: