Category Archives: Catholicism
The best way to expose the madness of gender theory is, actually, apply it.
Let all those who preach to “support” the idea that one can change his sex practice what they preach, and let us see how much they like it.
I hope that female sport will be utterly and completely annihilated in every discipline. The PC troops need to drink their bitter medicine to the full, if there is to be any hope of getting healthy again.
Still, only those with a functioning brain will call it “annihilation”. All the others will have to shut up, because they are hypocrites, or actually deny that any annihilation has taken place, as all the freak shows dominating every aspect of the once female disciplines will, actually, be considered “females”.
The sad, confused individual, the object of the linked article, said it, albeit involuntarily, very well:
“we are either full and equal women or not”
This guy (or whatever he has mutilated himself to at this point; I don’t even want to know) is either a man, or a woman. There can be nothing in the middle.
I hope this spreads everywhere. From the traditional athletics disciplines to tennis, soccer, you name it.
When the reaction comes, it will have to be based on sanity.
Because you can’t call a man who castrated himself an “imperfect female”, and fills himself with hormones on his way to probable suicide, an “inferior female”. The world does not accept this kind of “discrimination”.
Therefore, it will have to be either madness, or sanity.
Drink of this cup, XXI Century.
Who knows: it might do you good.
In the Age Of Insanity, wholesome thinking must be branded as outdated, which is the stage before “offensive” and, in time, “phobic”.
Walt Disney, for a long time now clearly a force for evil, is going explicitly against the movies that made the fortune of the company. It is not surprising that they are now thinking of “remakes” of the same movies with all sorts of deviant people.
The Walt Disney Company is trying to either pervert your children, or make them accustomed to perversion at a young age; like the children in Sodom must have been, before God put an end to the entire show.
Take the original Snow White. In this wonderful movie for people of every age, a very young Snow White is seen praying for a husband. Imagine that! Young girls must, surely, be protected from such a nefarious influence? How can a modern, “woke” woman, probably already divorced once or twice and with (pardon my French) a cock count in the dozens, even imagine subjecting her girl to th… the… Pa… Patr…. Patriarchy? God forbid! Her young girl must be taught to go to university, ramp up her (cough…) cock count at a young age to “affirm her sexuality”, “learn” some useless discipline that will make her perfectly useless for the rest of her life, get accustomed to wake up in the morning with one thousand grievances and, in general, become just a replica of her mother, but even more easily “triggered”. We can’t have any of that wholesome stuff here! You never know: little girl could grow up and realise what a woman her mother is!
And what about the male protagonist in the movie? One of the dwarfs asks her whether the Prince “stole a kiss” from her. I can’t wait for the #metoo Bitch Troops asking for the immediate arrest and utter destruction before trial of the poor dwarf, for the suggestion alone! Actually, this would be material for countless useless doctoral theses, written by equally useless “woke” feminists, explaining to the world that such movies “perpetuate violence against women”, or such like rubbish. Alas, Snow White is not “triggered” at all when the dwarf asks the question. She actually goes on to sing a beautiful song, that is so “unwoke” it must trigger every modern Woke Bitch in no time! What dark, dark times those must have been!
We are really living in an upside down world. It behooves all of us – those who have children and those who don’t – to contribute to a world in which children are helped to grow up in a sane, normal, wholesome environment. Actually, Walt Disney might be helping us, as the products they brand as “outdated” are actually indicating to parents that they are safe and good for their children! The irony must, surely, not escape such a woke Company.
Walt Disney, the old company, has done much for the world.
I wonder what old Walt would think, if he saw what his wonderful creation has become.
The Catholic Church feels the need to parrot the world, adopting a “day” that was “created” by a group of obscure NGOs some twenty tears ago. I wonder what kind of people the promoters are on… all the other days of the year.
In Her two thousand year long history, the Church has never felt the need to have a “world kindness day”. Firstly, the Church is concerned primarily with heaven, and therefore celebrates Her angels, saints, martyrs, etc. Secondly, kindness is easily misunderstood, misused or even perverted. If one lives in a religious frame of mind, his kindness will be completely different – and will often manifest in very different ways – than the purely emotional “kindness” of the worldly man; which, more often than not, is just a celebration of everything that is wrong in order to celebrate oneself for one’s own… kindness.
The kindness of the world helps people to go to hell. And when it doesn’t, it is often just emotional tosh.
According to this site (boy: who pays for this rubbish?) treating yourself to a cup of coffee is an act of kindness. They must know. They have written the list.
Let us say it again: there is a kind of kindness that helps people – including the “kind” giver of “kindpliments” – to go to hell. There is a kind of kindness that reinforces people in their sin, often scandalous sin, which in these times can be perversions and abominations our Christian ancestors did not even dare to mention. But hey, we are so kind, aren’t we?
The atheist missionary goes to hell. Imagine the pit of the atheist donor of coffees to himself!
At least, Accomplice Emeritus gets that the small acts of kindness “make a person pure” (in itself, another big piece of tosh: congratulations, Accomplice Emeritus! You are well on your way to Francification!) only if accompanied by truth and love; but I very much doubt that Francis The Apostate gets even that.
To Francis, being kind must mean that your orthodox religious order gets massacred more slowly than the FFI.
And now please excuse me, I need my morning cup of coffee.
Yeah, I know.
I am so, so kind…
I will keep this as short as I can because it’s late and I am tired, but I feel that I cannot go to sleep before writing this.
Let us say a man – a known criminal, of sound mind – is seen on the street killing three children in cold blood, in broad daylight, because they did not say “good morning!” to him.
There is no doubt he is an assassin. If the place where he lives has the death penalty (or Capital Punishment, if you want to be theologically exact), there is no reasonable doubt that he deserves it.
Is he, then, on the moment, an assassin? He certainly is. When one kills unjustly, that is, assassinates someone else, he is, ipso facto, an assassin. He is already that, before the need for any sentence.
Can he, therefore, be lynched? Of course not.
Even the obvious fact, already happened, of the assassination – and the fact that this man has, by his act, lost the right to live – must be ascertained and declared in the proper manner, by the proper authority. When this happens, the factual assassin is declared a legal assassin and punished as such. In the factual order, the assassination has already happened, and the assassin has been already such from the moment of the crime. But the declaration of such crime – the one that has consequences on his legals status: say, on his right to be free, or to live in the first place – only happens later. The sentence that states that the man is an assassin has a declaratory effect. It declares as assassin someone who, factually, has been an assassin since the time of the assassination. If he were to never be condemned, he would still die an assassin; but only a factual, not a legal one.
This is not difficult to understand, and it happens every day in various circumstances. If President XYZ (say: Clinton, or Obama) commits an impeachable offence, he is not deprived ipso facto of his rank. However, his offence is such that he can be declared to have committed such an offence and, therefore, can be deprived of his office. But it’s not for you or me to decide that he is not the President of the United States anymore.
You understand where I am going with this.
There can be no reasonable doubt that Francis has apostatised. I think that no reasonable Catholic would disagree with the statement that he has, with his behaviour, violated the First Commandment, like Marcellinus before him.
However, it is not for you or me to decide that he is not Pope, just as it is not for me or you to decide that Bill Clinton’s Presidency ended on a certain day, when he first committed perjury.
We do not know much of the trial that was held against Marcellinus. But one thing we know: he presented himself to the trial as the Pope. We can also have different opinions about the offence committed by Honorius, but it is a fact that he was condemned after his death, and still remained Pope until his death. John XXII, another obvious heretic, also died as Pope. Mind here that John XXIII maintained an obviously heretical (in the common usage of the term; please spare me the discussion) position until very shortly before his death, but was still allowed to remain the Pope and seen by everybody as such.
It is not for us to lynch the assassin, much less to declare Francis deposed. It is, however, for us to cry from the roofs that the man has clearly apostatised, and that he must be declared such – with the consequences of the case – by the relevant tribunal. Which is, obviously, no one of us, but is widely believed to be either an imperfect council called by enough quality bishops to make it qualitatively credible as Catholic, or a declaration by a smaller but, again, credible number of quality Cardinals, able to carry the voice of orthodoxy on their shoulders in a credible way.
It is as simple as that.
Whatever horrible acts Pope Formosus had committed (and to my knowledge the Church ended up, after a number of reverses and counter reverses, confirming his condemnation; but it’s too late to go and check and it is ultimately irrelevant anyway), the fact remains that he died a Pope, as we would say today, “in good standing” and, if memory serves, his acts were not even condemned by his successor, but by a successive pope (Stephanus VI). In fact, Stephanus’ unusual, but very “media effective” decision to have him trialled as a corpse dressed in his papal robes was exactly the confirmation that the one so accused was Pope.
Do not be confused by the apparent contradiction between an apostate pope and a pope in office. The man keeps remaining in office, until it is declared that he has – with acts committed in the past – renounced to it. This is why Pope Formosus was first trialled as Pope, and only after the sentence declaring his deposition had the three fingers of his right hand amputated, symbolising his unworthiness of giving a papal blessing.
This is the only reasonable way to look at it, and it appears (see the examples above) to have been consistently followed in the past.
Stray from this common sense approach, and you will find yourself believing that a quisque de populo can decide who is and who is not Pope. Which can be convenient, or – in these astonishing times – even consoling and, in a very dangerous way, deceptively reassuring; but certainly isn’t Catholic.
Francis needs to be declared an apostate and deposed, just in the same way as the assassin needs to be declared an assassin and, in case, executed. The one and the other could get away with it in this life. The one and the other will not escape the final judgement. God in His Goodness will remedy this situation at the time He has appointed.
For the time being, we remain, decidedly, no Popemakers.
I had never heard, until yesterday, of Father Mitch Pacwa, SJ. He has a show on EWTN. Whilst a Jesuit, he appears to, actually, be a Catholic.
Father Pacwa went strongly against Pachamama, and did not not mince words. If you copy and paste the link, you will get the show itself. I have not listened to the entire show, but our part starts at around 31:30, when Father speaks of his experiences in Peru. What he refers is an astonishing mixture of Paganism as the main actor and a pseudo Christianity with, so to speak, a walking part.
Make no mistake, this mixture must be known to Francis, as more and more testimonies from South America are emerging that confirms that the cult of pachamama is spread over there. It can, certainly, be that the idolatry takes different forms regionally. But there can be no doubt that something that is adored as an idol in some parts will be adored as the same idol in other parts, and that Francis very well knows that.
So there we have it: we have a pope that openly, publicly, unashamedly promotes pagan idols, and apologises to its followers when good Christians actually remove the idols from a church.
If this does not deserve the stake, I don’t know what does.
Also, please reflect on this: Father Pacwa describes a hierarchy composed of “gods of the mountains” first, “pachamama” (goddess of the earth) below them, and Jesus, Mary and the Saints below Pachamama. Is such a hierarchy not perfectly consistent with the beliefs of a man who refuses to genuflect in front of the Blessed Sacrament, denies the Divine nature of Our Lord whilst on earth, and – most recently – denies His bodily Resurrection? Actually, it seems to me that the behaviour is in line with this idolatry, and the only thing that speaks against it is that this man appears to have no faith at all, and the Pachamama stuff might just be the way he chooses to anger you like the stupid child he is.
It is an unreal time, in which the pope himself encourages and practices the adoration of pagan idols, and must be told to “knock it off” by, of all people, a Jesuit.
Father Pacwa makes another observation: the prayer to Pachamama appeared on the internet site of an Italian mission organisation (imagine that!) was very probably there without the knowing of the Italian Bishops, and was the work of some, as he himself says, apparatchik trying to smuggle pagan idolatry in the middle of Catholicism. I thought the same when I read the prayer some time ago. Still, it now behooves the Italian Bishops to apologise, remove every trace of the idolatrous prayer and very public state that this will not be allowed to happen again.
We are talking of open idolatry here, not of some prelates saying something which, on a bad day, might be interpreted in the wrong way.
And it came to pass that I read of another appeal to the world (but, actually, only to the West), to change our sinful ways against goddess Gaia. This time, no less than eleven thousand “scientists” explained to us that we are really, really, really in an emergency and, unless we want to die, we will have to avoid being born. The eleven thousand (who, I think, were, every single one of them, actually born) pontificated about how necessary it is to change our ways and reduce our numbers.
They fell short, I think, of mentioning Adolf. But I am sure that he is near to their beneficent hearts.
I wonder if, by this reduction, they meant a massive reduction of the Chinese or Indian population. I actually think they meant, mainly, us; because, in case you don’t know, these people hate Whites with a passion, and want them gone.
Being the friendly nature that I am, encouraged by this reading, and endowed with a typically Italian sunny disposition, I decided to take prompt action.
On the way home from work, I proceeded to steer the fresh meat counter at the local supermarket, and bought a massive rumpsteak. The thought of the Co2 caused by the animal privileged with giving me such a tasty nourishment was already causing a happy sense of anticipation.
Once home, I proceeded to cook the rumpsteak “New York style” (then it should not be said that I hate everything that comes from there, particularly now that Trump has moved his official residence to Florida). A small mountain of butter was ready to be melted in the pan and, and the appropriate time, repeatedly poured over the cooking steak, again and again, as the flavour of the melted butter mixed in perfect harmony with the smell of the juicy, savoury steak.
I left (as you do) the steak rest a while after the end of the procedure, then we all non-Gaia people know that the juices must have the time to uniformly spread within the steak, improving its taste and tenderness. When the time was ripe, I proceeded to prepare a beautiful, very anti-Greta dish with a side of mashed potatoes. I confess, here, that I did not know how anti-potatoes the Eleven Thousand are; but I reflected that it is only a matter of time until they are against potatoes, too. I suspect, though, that Kale will be fine.
The melted butter over the steak was a sight for tired eyes. The first delving of the knife into the buttery delight revealed a tender, juicy, medium-cooked consistency that promised a great deal of enjoyment. I proceeded, not without some trepidation, to introduce the first mouthful to my eagerly awaiting taste buds.
Oh, blessed flatulence! Oh, generous ungulate! How much you both, working together over many months, have made this miracle possible!
I focused, with almost mystical devotion, on the huge amount of Co2 that the animal who gave me this steak must have caused during the process of its slow formation. I tried to picture the ugly face of Greta cringing at the idea, and visualised her just there, very near the source of those “emissions” she loathes, in self-righteous pain. I made a mental image of the Eleven Thousand, crying in anguish every time my knife proceeded to isolate another delightful piece of environmentally sinful nourishment, as the meaty and buttery pleasure alternated with the simple, earthy savour of my side dish. Perhaps should I search the internet for the kind of side dish that causes most Co2 emissions? I owe it to the Eleven Thousand, surely?
In due time, the meal had run its course, washed by the red wine never absent from the table of the sensible Italian. I felt pleasantly sated, and satisfied with the good feeling of having, actually, done something good for the Planet. I closed the meal with a small glass of Whiskey; sipping it very slowly, one drop at a time, as is the custom of my people, and wondering to what extent I was, with that little, simple gesture, contributing to World Happiness by angering Adolf’s Sturmtruppen.
I really need to become more environmentally aware, because those lunatics are something that concerns us all.
And so my meal went to its appointed end, and I felt sated, satisfied, at peace with the world, and conscious of my active contribution to conscious Co2 emissions for the day.
But I need to do more.
We all do.
Greta and the Eleven Thousand make it necessary that we do so.
This is not the expected call of an Imperfect Council but, as rebukes go, this is quite something.
Besides praising the Pachamama heroes for exactly the action for which Francis has “apologised” to pagans and fake Catholics the world over, the Bishop gives Francis a double one on the nose.
Firstly, Schneider openly states that Francis is “the first who should condemn such acts (the veneration of Pachamama) and do reparation”.
Secondly, the Bishops openly states that Francis’ soul, as well as the souls of those who perpetrated such acts of worships, is in danger of hell.
Again, this is not the start of a Crusade. However, this is vastly better than the acts of all those Bishops (there was one from Brazil last week) who think they can be orthodox from one corner of their mouth whilst they praise Francis from the other.
If I remember correctly, Bishop Schneider is firmly in the “Francis cannot be deposed” camp, and it is therefore unlikely that he will ever join the calls for an imperfect Council. I also note that, as one of thousands of bishops, his position is, factually, far weaker than the one of a Cardinal (like, say, Burke or Brandmueller).
Still, I can say this: at least one Catholic Bishop has remained to us.
Not very many keeping him company, I am afraid.
Joe Biden – asked again about the priest who refused to give him communion – said, again, that he does not talk about it. After which, he proceeded to… talk about it, accusing the priest of having “gone to the press” and stating that pope Francis does give him Communion.
My dear Creepy Joe: Francis wants to give communion to Protestants, adulterers, shamans in the forest, probably even cats and dogs! It is really no surprise that he has allowed a fake Catholic like you to receive Holy Communion! These days receiving Communion from pope Francis is not a sign of distinction, but a sign of suspicion.
If Biden thinks this incident is going to be soon forgotten, he is mistaken. This has put abortion square into the public debate, and it will not need many other incidents like this one to make of abortion a permanent fixture of the primary season. Every time the man is known to have received communion, the brave priest who denied it to him will be remembered. Every time he mentions abortion in debates and tries his tired excuse of being personally opposed to… slavery but feeling he has no right to …. prevent other people from owning slaves, the Catholic listeners will be reminded of this. It might be only 3, 4 or 5% of them that decided not to vote for him, but this is still a permanent damage for him and, perhaps more importantly, a permanent place for the slaughter of innocents in the coming campaign.
I hope that Trump picks up on this, and does not get tired of putting abortion front and centre in the political debate in the months coming to the elections. It will be a heavy blow to the Democrats if Biden himself wins the nomination, but it will still help with the Southern Blacks and the Latino vote if someone else does. If Trump manages to sway even only 2 or 3% of each voting block with this argument, it will be a great victory not only for himself (he will likely win anyway) but for the unborn in the US and elsewhere.
In the meantime, Creepy Joe Biden will keep saying that he does not talk about his being such an obscene type of Catholic that he is denied communion, before taking the worst possible excuse for it any Catholic can imagine.
Dear “Quid pro Joe”, I have bad news for you: Francis is a losing card. Appealing to him as a credential of Catholicism is not going to bring you one additional vote. But you are going to lose anyway, so in the end it’s all the same.
I would like to have on my blog the official record of Francis’ apostasy from the Catholic Faith.
In the statement mentioned and reported in this article, Francis refers to the statues as “statue della Pachamama”, statues of the Pachamama.
He does not deny what these statues are. Therefore, every statement that they were not there with idolatrous intentions is as stupid as Francis himself.
It is like putting a statue of Buddha on the altar and saying that there are no idolatrous intentions. It is like filling a church with Swastikas and stating that they are not there to support the Nazi ideology. As Francis very well knows, Pachamama is a pagan idol.
I honestly see this as outright apostasy. The man seems to consider normal that orthodox Catholicism may include veneration of Pachamama. This is religious syncretism at its most obvious. This puts Francis square outside of the Church, then he is the pope and can certainly not claim that he is not fully aware of the implications of this idolatry.
This toxic, satanical guy must be removed.
The Society of St Pius X has issued a statement about the Synod on the Amazon.
It is, no doubt, the strongest statement ever come from the SSPX concerning the troubled times we are living. They also state:
On Sunday, November 10th, 2019, each priest of the Society will celebrate a Mass of reparation, and in each chapel, the Litanies of the Saints, taken from the liturgy of the Rogations, will be sung or recited to ask God to protect His Church and to spare it from the punishments that such acts cannot fail to draw down upon it. We urge all priest friends, as well as all Catholics who love the Church, to do the same.
I invite all the faithful to participate to this initiative.
The statement of the SSPX is very apposite. Still, I allow myself to explain here what else I would have wanted from this statement, and what I hope future statements will contain.
- An open accusation of Francis as an apostate or, at least, a heretic, and
- The call for an imperfect Council declaring that he has deposed himself.
I do not think for a moment that behind the choice of not doing this may be the fear of losing whatever “privileges” Francis has accorded to them. No follower of the SSPX could ever care a dried fig whether Francis recognises the Sacraments imparted by the SSPX or not. In my eyes, the SSPX is fearful that, if they start with this Crusade, they will stump it, as every Bishop and Cardinal who dares to say half a word against Francis will be accused of being a “schismatic” like those pesky Traditionalist people. In short, it might colour the entire movement with the kind of tinge that the mainstream avoids.
Still, it seems to me that extreme times call for extreme measures. If no other Bishops and Cardinals call for the events mentioned above (Bishop Gracida, in a way, does; but he has fixated himself on the Conclave. This is a dead end of dubious chances, and impossible to push through without the real argument, which is Francis’ heresies and, at this point, open apostasy), then I think that it is for the SSPX to do it and put themselves, as people used to say, “at the head of the movement”.
I understand that this would not be something going on from inside the Hierarchy (whilst the SSPX has valid orders, they certainly are not a part of the Church command structure). Still, at this point I would prefer a call for an imperfect Council from the SSPX, even if not followed or attacked and discredited for the very reason that it comes from them, to no call at all. And if you think that Cardinal Burke and Brandmueller could wake up from their King Theoden-esque slumber – and actually do something more than some encouraging talk and some praise for people with far more courage than them – I have a bridge on sale that I would like to offer to you first, but you have to act fast.
We live in disgraceful times. In front of such an apocalyptic pope, I think that the following generations of Catholics, and the Saints and Angels above, will be pleased with every call to depose this satanical guy, no matter how little the chances of success.
It would be very sad if history would record this pontificate in the same way as the one of Honorius: open heresy, and no action.
In case of Honorius, the action came after his death. In case of Francis, I doubt even that. One reason more to shoot with every available weapon at this Pontificate, and the SSPX would certainly be a massive tank in itself.
We are informed that, at the closing Mass of the Pagan Synod, the statues of Pachamama were not present. This, apparently, because a number of Bishops and Cardinals told Francis that they would refuse to participate if that had been the case.
You would think this good news. I am not so sure.
To tell the Pope that you refuse to participate to Mass with him is a very serious step. It does not fall far from stating that the guy is not in communion with you. It certainly indicate very grave differences with the Pope (or, in this case, the pope; and may he die today).
It is clear that, in this case, the matter of contention is not one of the hundreds of heretical statements made by the Evil Clown. It is, specifically, the presence of the pagan idols of Pachamama and the adoration offered to them.
Therefore, a number of Bishops and Cardinals considers the Pachamama incidents such grave episodes of idolatry, that they cannot be in the Church if the pagan idols are present.
Very well, then. Who these Bishops and Cardinals think responsible for these statues? Do they think that all happened because of evil people who did not inform the Pope that these are pagan goddesses adored by savages? Do they think that Francis is kept isolated from the outside world, and is not responsible for the idolatry? Do they think that it was not Francis, but his evil twin who asked the Italian Government for help in the recovery (if such took place; it is not difficult to get some more statues from Bolivia in all that time; and I would have expected the statues to show permanent signs of their very long bath) of the wooden idols?
This can mean only one thing: a number of Bishop and Cardinals know perfectly well that these statues represent pagan deities, and that pope Francis encourages and takes part in their idolatry. But they don’y say anything in public about this.
The awareness of such a gross violation of the First Commandment, and the silence in front of it, is a shame just as big as Francis’ idolatry; just as Francis knows what he is doing, and still acts, the Bishops and Cardinals know what he is doing, and still remain silent. They are accomplices in his idolatry.
They will have to answer one day, with him, of his violation of the First Commandment.
Bill Maher certainly has the wrong mind set in everything; but at times he has a clarity of thinking many other leftards miss.
The attached video is a good example.
Maher’s theory: the bigoted anti-Trump troops will vote for the Dem candidate anyway. It’s the “middle of the road” ones who need to be persuaded. The way to persuade them is to avoid shouting about the issues that satisfy that 5% or 10% of utter nutcases and alienate the moderate element. The rest will come of itself, because even many Republican voters don’t like Trump.
Maher is right in that a moderate will always have better chances against Trump than a bigoted extremist. However, I think that he neglects the following points:
- These people are trying to win the Primary. No one knows how many senseless bigots are going to vote in the Primaries, but anecdotal experience says: a lot. It is of no use to be the sensible Dem candidate, if the sensible Dem candidate is too sensible for the mob out there. This is exactly why Bloomberg decided not to run. Maher does not touch on this.
- It is not guaranteed that the bigots will vote for the moderate Democrat candidate in November 2020. You see, Mr Maher: they are bigots. Many of them will enjoy staying home – or voting Green, or waste their vote in another way – enjoying the defeat of one they consider a traitor. This will be an important factor in many of those who represent, say, the 20% most leftist part of the Democrat electorate. Just look at how well Sanders did in 2016, and how Hillary repelled many of his fans.
- Mr Maher keeps making the mistake these people have been making for many years now: they believe their own fake news. Trump disliked by 69% of Republicans? In which planet? Has the man ever been to a Trump rally, and be it only via PC screen?
Maher’s reasoning is faulty in that he does not stop to consider *why* so many Dem candidates are intent on this suicidal run to the extreme left (answer: because they fear it is the only way to win a nomination process likely dominated by bigoted, senseless morons).
Still, he is right in the fundamental reasoning, and reality is confirming his theory: even a painfully senile, extremely vulnerable, embarrassingly incompetent Biden is doing better than all those far left nutcases, and you can be sure that, when the primaries begin, you will see a further alignment towards moderate positions, because then it is the “real thing”, not an exercise to which only the bigots feel really motivate to participate.
Be it as it may, the Dems face a very difficult task. Unless the economy tanks seriously, Trump will be a very strong incumbent.
As it stands I see no one, transgender policies or not, that can defeat him.
I remember the days when pope Francis’ scandals were emerging in the matter of, say, one a week.
Ah, blessed times of innocence!
Nowadays it is much, much worse than that.
Michael Voris has cared to make an extensive list of all the scandals which came to light in the last weeks alone, and they are… a lot!
Besides the obvious lack of faith of this satanical pope, what I find really staggering is the degree of incompetence of the man.
Francis always reminds me of one of those Central and South American governments that were not uncommon in the Seventies and Eighties. They were, as a whole, glaring examples of thieving attitude, arrogance and economic incompetence.
Francis has taken everything from them. He just does not manage to do anything right. It does not make sense to try to ascribe the chaos he has engendered to some astute plan. There is nothing astute in looking a cretin every day that God sends on earth. No, this is just another example of an idiot put an the top of a big organisation by thieving bastards, and in cahoots with them, helping his clique of sodomites and thieves to do whatever they want, from sodomy to embezzlement to heresy. As in the governments I mentioned before (but I could make other non-Southern American examples of staggering, thieving incompetence: Taylor in Liberia, or Mugabe in Zimbabwe also come to mind), there is no intention or desire to even try to run things properly. It’s party time, and the clique in charge will party to the end, probably thinking that, with the Cardinal appointments made by Francis, the party ill have no end.
Similarly, criticism is countered with aggressive attacks (as in those Governments mentioned above). It’s not their fault, it’s us being Catholics, and actually normal.
Even an idiot like Francis must, at this point, recognise that he just cannot do jack without botching everything. His plan to remake the church in his image only had sense (in its own perverted logic) if the man had had the ability to introduce change “on the sly”, in a very subdued and gradual manner, boiling the frog of popular piety in a very slow way.
But this is not Francis.
Francis is arrogant, impious, and ignorant. But most of all, he is – by God’s grace – so damn stupid.
The idea that he can transform Catholicism into a sort of Santeria cult openly, publicly, and get away with it is too dumb for words. One must be blinded by Satan to even think of that.
Francis is one blinded by Satan, who never had a properly functioning brain to begin with. Satan’s fool, this is who Francis is.
The day will soon come when he discovers it; and who knows, he might even like it, then I want to be on record with stating that I do not consider satanism beyond the reach of such an evil, stupid mind.
Francis’ downfall is certain. We are seeing it even on this earth, as he demolishes himself and his disgraceful papacy day by day.
I receive this from Argentinian reader Marcela
Hi from Argentina, I am glad real catholics are seeing the sheer evil behind all his Pachamama cult, it is deeply rooted in the traditions of amerindian people in north Argentina, Bolivia, Peru. The Pachamama represents the “mother earth” in the shape of a woman, these statuettes with the red belly are depicting one important ritual in this pagan cult in which women pour their menstrual blood on the soil as an offering to the mother earth, many women do this here in those rituals, Argentina and latin america in general aren’t really catholic, the renmants of centuries of paganism prior to Columbus are lingering and hard to erase, even people who say they are catholic participate in these rituals and sadly the dirty old man Bergoglio keeps encouraging this disgusting evil.
Well, this gives the lie about all the tales of “our lady of the Amazon”, a poor, satanic excuse for the introduction of pagan idols within Catholicism. Those who propagate such lie are accomplices, even if in good faith, of the satanic work of this pope, because if you are so damn stupid that you don’t understand simple things you should just not write about them.
That the Blessed Virgin, Destroyer of Heresies, be abused to cover pagan idolatry makes my blood boil.
As to the man, I have stopped long ago to think anything good about his mother (if you know what I mean). I will, from now on, honour the man with the title “pope”, with lower case p, as I have seen done elsewhere.
Mind, he clearly is the pope. But he is a pope obviously controlled and driven by Satan. Denying him a capital P is still way too nice.
Die soon, pope Francis. With God’s help, you will kick the bucket today, and no tears on your tomb. I hope one day your corpse will follow the Pachamama statues in the Tiber.
Down there, at the bottom of it, eaten by animals, is where it belongs.
After the wonderful video of the abduction and swimming lessons (alas, they failed!) for the pagan idols adored by pope Francis, it is time to pray for the heroes who executed this world-celebrated feat.
Make no mistake, there will be people at the Vatican who will try to have the men found and prosecuted; something which, if extremely unlikely to ever result in jail terms, might negatively affect the lives of the people involved. If Matteo Salvini had still been in power, you could have been reasonably sure that nothign would have come out of it, as the police in Rome have better things to do than go after men of God. But Matteo Salvini is not in power (for now), and you never know where the lurid tentacles of the Vatican might reach.
These courageous men deserve our prayers.
I invite all of my readers to recite their rosary, today, for the welfare of the courageous men who gave us all an example of strong faith in action, and a very good laugh at that.
The recent open apostasy of Pope Pachamama, with a pagan deity brought around in procession, makes every discussion about the validity of the Conclave even more superfluous, useless and counterproductive than it ever was. I see in this obsession the remnant of those papolatrous instincts unfortunately spread among converts, particularly in the Anglo Saxon world.
The Holy Ghost has never promised that the Pope would be a holy man. Therefore, when confronted with a monstrous Papacy like Francis’, one does not have to conclude that he could never be Pope. If a guy like John XXII – whose abstruse theological convictions put him square at variance with the words of Our Lords in the Gospel – could be validly elected Pope, so can Francis.
The apostasy of Francis stares us in the face. Francis now openly mocks us with it, because he has seen that the likes of Burke & Co. are such cowards that they will never react with a call for an Imperfect Council.
Notice the dynamics here: Pope Francis provokes Catholics only one step at a time, because his innate cowardice suggests to him that he should not try to do what could prove fatal to him. Every time, he sees that no reaction comes. Every time, he is emboldened to do more, because he hates all of us and there is no end to the humiliations he wants to inflict on us all.
Pachamama is the fruit of the cowardice of Bishops and Cardinals on Amoris Laetitia. Without the latter, we would never have had the former. At the same time, Pachamama is such an open, obvious instance of pagan idolatry, that all discussions about Amoris Laetitia must be overshadowed by this new scandal; which is so obvious, so much in-your-face, so openly insulting that every doubt about the real intentions of this Pope must be rejected even more strongly than before.
Bishops and Cardinals: Pope Pachamama is provoking and humiliating you as he spits in the face of that Christ he hates.
Will you finally man up?
One of the things one notices about the disgraceful Synod Of The Savages is that… it does not take place in the Amazonas.
We were not given the privilege to see the Pope (who flies absolutely everywhere without any compunction for the use emissions he causes) flying on the same aeroplane with his chosen FrancisBishops and Franciscardinals to Manaus, whence they jump into their modest indigenous vehicles and, closely followed by cameras, immerse themselves in the spirituality of the deep Amazonian forest as they travel to a place where the local savages have traditionally practiced their own heathen rituals; from which, we are told, we and they, the Pope and Bishops and Cardinals, have an awful lot to learn.
Not really. Instead, it appears the synod dealing oh so movingly with the spirituality we can learn from the trees and the spirit of the forest sees the Holy Pope Of The Earth and his Environmentally Conscious Holy Bishops not anywhere near the ones or the other. He has, in fact, remained in the Vatican, where the spiritual call of the Mother Forest and the simple chant of the Savagepriest cannot be heard, even one bit!
A shame! A shame, I tell you! The TV-broadcast march of the Holy, Modest Men as they open their way in the forest, and their hearts to it, amidst Kumbaya chants and the simple sound created by the local spirituality would have been the media event of the decade! What an opportunity to learn an “integral ecology”, and grow spiritually listening to what the Spirit has whispered to the Holy Savages, away from the trappings of Capitalism!
I think I know why they decided to talk about the spirituality of the forest from the comfort of the palaces inside the (hateful, and clearly Unchristian) Leonine Walls.
There are no gay saunas in the Amazonas!
I read around of the one or other blogger who said he did not do anything to deserve Francis. He said worse and, in my eyes, unintentionally blasphemed. But I would like to dwell on the first point.
To say that one did not deserve Francis is akin to say that one did not crucify Christ. We all crucified Christ. We all deserve Francis.
Catholicism is diachronous. We pay for the sins of our fathers, and we carry in us their own sinfulness. We, as Catholics, carry in us both the guilt of Adam and Eve and the guilt of Vatican II.
History shows us that God allows the Church to go through corrupted times. It was so in the IX and X Century, or in the times of the Great Heresies. It is so now.
Let us take a peasant in Central Europe around 975. What had he done to deserve the astonishing merry-go-round of largely corrupted Popes that occurred in his age? Well, first of all, probably a lot. Secondly, it is not about him, and even the most virtuous peasant of his vicinity did carry the guilt of the corruption of his first ancestors.
Some might say that the peasant in 975 could go on with his life blissfully unaware of all the turmoil in Rome, whilst we have to endure echoes of Francis every day. But it works both ways. The peasant did not know much of the turmoil, and this was to his advantage. But we (collectively speaking) have at our disposal the Internet, and with it a knowledge of what the Church should be far more advanced than the one of that peasant. What do we do, collectively, to restore sanity? Not much, as abundantly showed by your own Parish church, where every Sunday atrocious songs are singed in astonishing out of tune voices, by tattooed people wearing flips-flops, treating the Church like a kindergarten, and deciding what they believe or do not believe of what the Church teaches even as they stand up and say the Creed. All this, in the noisy surrounding of a protestantised Mass that clearly falls short in honouring God truly present in the Tabernacle; something, by the way, which many of them likely not even believe.
V II is the reflection of the arrogance of our times, but it is also nourished by that arrogance. The same arrogance, incidentally, which leads people to say that they do not deserve Francis.
Oh, I deserve Francis! I deserve Francis big time!! Firstly, because I am a wretched sinner. Secondly, because I have, in my life, thought for a long time that I could, also, make my own religion, and the mitigating circumstances of atrocious Catholic formation and parents not interested in religion do not fully excuse my fundamental mistake. Thirdly, because the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons. Fourthly (and most importantly) because it is completely logical that God would punish the arrogance of Vatican II by sending Popes like Francis and, I am afraid, his successors.
Play heretic games, win heretic prizes.
In a sense, the statement that one has not done anything to deserve Francis (made by a person who is, very likely, a good Catholic and, most probably, better than me) is a good portrait of exactly the arrogance of this generation, of the strain of rebellion the post-V II Catholics have in their blood. We think we can decide what kind of Pope we have deserved. We even think that a God that sends us Francis, to use the words of that blogger as I remember them, “sucks” (if it wasn’t that, if was something to that effect). See? The rebellion is just there, in black and white.
God has allowed Francis to become Pope for the same reason why he always allows evil to happen: that good may come out of it.
In this case the good appears evident both individually and collectively; individually, so that we are led to do penance, and pray more, for the restoration of sanity. Collectively, so that we understand that Francis is the unavoidable by-product of Vatican II, and the rebellion that V II made official will lead to worse and worse consequences as the decades go by, until sanity is restored again.
I followed from Canon 212 this astonishingly dumb article from some Proddy blogger.
Proddy blogger is so edified that his daughter (unspecified age; but you already know she will likely be dumb all her life) first tries to pump money of of him so that she can feel good with herself, then – when all has failed – engages in a virtue-signalling exercise by giving the beggar all of a twenty dollar bill.
I am pretty sure there was no lack of booze, that evening, for the beggar “made in the image of God”.
The vacuity of it all is, predictably, underpinned with a quote from Pope Evil Clown and his hate for the “throwaway culture”.
I am only missing the tirade on the alleged man-made global warming now.
This is what proddies too often do. They might have good intentions of sort, but, left to their own devices and without the solid guidance of the Depositum Fidei and the rich tapestry of the Catholic Church, they end up drowning in their own emotional vacuity. Vacuity amply demonstrated by the fact that the guy can’t find anything better than Pope Francis – and the FrancisAuthors who parrot his inane blathering – to tell us that Catholicism has something good in it (no Obama, Sherlock!). Unfortunately, he cannot see this good, because a proper Catholic does exactly the contrary of what moved this guy so, so much. The author of the article speaks at proddy conferences, but he has not understood the basics of life and he is training his offspring to fuel vice.
You don’t give money to beggars, full stop.
We do have the duty to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, for sure. This, we do primarily by giving money to those institutions (the Catholic Church is the first) which care for the homeless. By all means, if you want to buy a garment, or food, for a homeless person, do it and give him the garment or food. But to give money to the homeless means making almost 100% sure that this money is wasted in a, likely, very sinful way; then I can assure you one thousand times that that very same homeless person is a complete expert in how and where to get food and garments when the stupidity of the people has given him the means to get drunk, or even buy drugs.
This is common sense. You know it sounds absolutely logical. But will it stand against the cheap fix of feeling good with yourself giving money to, very likely, an addict or deranged man?
“But, but, Mundabor! The homeless in question was… a.. Veteran! How can you be so, so, soooo cruel?”
Please cut it off.
As you are there, also cut off the “perhaps this one was was not an alcoholic”, because I feel it coming.
Give money to beggars, be an accomplice in their vices.
It appears from here that Pope Francis allows the Vatican to run a deficit of around 23% budget.
Well congratulations, Frankie dear. This is not Venezuela yet, but you are well on your way.
I have wondered for a long time whether Socialists can count. After mature reflection, I have come to the conclusion that they (probably) can, but they do not allow irrelevances like facts, numbers, or common sense to stay in the way of their ideology, their caprices, their and their own friends’ desire for waste or personal enrichment, and their own general childishness.
It is normally fine until there are other people whose money can be expropriated. If there are any complaint, shout out loud and expropriate more. Rinse. Repeat.
It’s a complex problem. Rich liberal donors apparently do not like to donate money for causes that aggrandise the Pope and his bunch of homo prelates. They will normally donate to the Church only if they can aggrandise themselves.
They must profit something that can be seen. Big. Famous. Shiny. The renovation of St Patrick’s Cathedral in New York amassed more than $100m in a matter of hours. That was an easy fundraising. But the game becomes much more difficult if what is necessary to finance is a bunch of anonymous Monsignors, many of them actually given to sodomy.
Then there is the other problem: Francis, like every socialist idiot, likes to play statesman.
He launches big “reforms” that go nowhere but cost money. And he travels a lot, which is not as cheap as it used to be, because the Italian Government does not subsidise them anymore.
Then he does other stupid things like forbidding the sale of cigarettes within the Vatican (note here: smoking is not a sin; promoting heresy is), forcing his people to actually walk a couple of hundred metres to buy the cigarettes in nearby Italy, where the Italian Government will cash in the tax money. A small example, but very much indicative of the great stupidity of Francis.
Mind: he will not go bankrupt. The Church’s resources are potentially unlimited. But if people do not want to give money to socialist, Banana Republic dictators, these dictators take the money from somewhere else.
I suspect that, at some point, Francis will target the one or other conservative order just in order to plunder their coffers, with the thin excuse of some “reform” or other.
Lying, cheating and stealing is what socialists do.
Francis is, whilst (unfortunately) being also the Pope, no exception.
The Weasel Zipper states that Greta Thunberg gave Trump the “death stare” after having to stop to make him pass.
That one is not a “death stare”.
It is Greta Thunberg’s standard expression.
LifeSite News has a long and very detailed article about the cover-up of sexual abuse in a Vatican pre-seminary.
One Bishop and two Cardinals are implicated in this story. But my blog post is not about this. I note the following:
1. The molester: (obviously) homosexual.
2. The “victim”: homosexual.
3. The whistleblower: homosexual.
4. Reports of several relationships of sexual nature among the pre-seminarians.
5. The Vatican appears to say, inter alia, that the investigation was stopped because the people involved were of same age. It does not say (and it does not appear anywhere) that the investigation led to both parties being kicked out because homosexual.
6. The homosexual alleged aggressor, actually, now ordained a priest.
Summa summarum: an Astonishingly sordid story, in which the sordidness of it all is treated by the Vatican as ordinary administration.
This, if you ask me, is a bigger story than the alleged cover up itself. Then in my culture, a 13 years old homosexual boy cannot really say that he was “abused”. At 13 you are old enough to kick anyone in the balls, and many a boy is almost as bis as his homosexual aggressor. A homosexual 13 years old was, more likely, just plain horny. To this I add the bitchiness, primadonna attitude and general lack of reliability of anyone who (like the whistleblower) has the effrontery to present himself as a decent guy when he was a homo trying to become a priest, and no qualms about that.
Also, my hunch is: forget the “victim”. The Italian prosecutors are investigating, but frankly, the underwriting remembers boys and girls sexually active at that age in school time, and I personally don’t buy the “abuse” story. The age of consent in Italy is 14, and for very sensible reasons. Let us stop pretending that 13 years old boys can just be cowed into sodomitic submission. That’s not how life and common sense work.
No, the underlying story here is much, much bigger: homosexual tendencies and outright sodomy are considered business as usual in the Vatican of Francis and Coccopalmerio.
That this is not shouted out loud from every roof (and the attention is misplaced on a likely rather horny 13 old homoboy, of whom it is in question if he was even 13 at the time), is the most astonishing feature of this story.
I have read on Vox Cantoris that Father Rosica is now in a sort of rehabilitation centre for confused priests, or something of the sort.
Mind, this is not the French Guyana. Actually, it seems not bad at all.
Church Militant has a short essay on the exploits of this remarkably pernicious individual, even before trying to ruin the life and destroy the livelihood of a good Catholic blogger. I have seen no signs of any heartfelt apology to Vox Cantoris. I will, therefore, allow myself a healthy dose of scepticism about this event.
Personally (your mileage may vary) I would be interested in knowing the following:
- What was Rosica “recovered” for? Is this some serious problem (like, say, alcoholism or, more likely, homosexual tendencies) he wants to deal with, or is it just something that is so fashionable to have today, like “stress” (the disease of the rich; peasants can’t afford to get into a clinic for “stress”) or the like?
- Who pays for this? It seems a rather nice place. Can’t imagine there is a great scarcity of good food, beautiful gardens, and the like. I’d say that the one or other t-bone steak might find its way to Father Rosica’s salt, too. It would be a shame if this were financed by, say, diocesan money out of the collection of good, Catholic people.
- What happens next? Because you see, if at the end of the “treatment” we see that Father Rosica recants all of his atrocious homo interviews and apologises to the blogger he has tried to ruin, then it is one thing. If this is just an exercise in battery recharging or – worse – pretension to be undergoing a “spiritual rejuvenation” at the end of which the man spouts the same rubbish as before, then this is seriously bad.
Before I go, let me say a couple of things about forgiveness, because on the Vox Cantoris blog there are some comments that I found strange.
The way I understand this – and please correct me if I am wrong, or if I am using the wrong terminology – a person who forgives his enemy does not mean to say that his enemy is right in being such, or that he is even a good guy. It does not even mean that a good guy must make a public offer of reconciliation if he does not believe in the good faith of the counterpart.
It means that we do not desire that our enemies go to hell because of the horrible things done to us and, as far as we are concerned, we ask God to enlighten them so that in some way – with our knowledge or not; apologising to us or not – they may merit to escape hell in the end.
Santa Maria Goretti forgave, in dying, her rapist and murderer. She did not approve of his actions in the least.
This is the spirit with which I pray for the people who, in my life, have seriously and viciously hurt me. It’s not that I think better of them. I think of them now what I thought of them before, and it cannot be published. But certainly, I desire for these people to, one day, be with me in paradise. We all help each other asking God to forgive our trespasses as we forgive the trespasses of others against us. In that other realm, where there is no division and discord, may we, one day, be all at peace with each other. But in this one, there is a time for peace and a time for war.
Of course, it does not have to be this way. Renzo sincerely forgives Don Rodrigo *after the man is repentant*, and this forgiveness is, therefore, also a reconciliation. But the one does not mean the other. Reconciliation cannot be a unilateral, much less obligatory, exercise. The “other cheek” means that we do not handle aggressively at the first slight, and try to be slow to anger. It does not mean that we have a duty to be abused by the people who wish us harm.
I sincerely wish Francis salvation, because even a tool like him is an immortal soul, with infinite value in the eyes of His Creator. But make no mistake: as I wish him this, I do not consider him a bit less of a tool.
And I’d still like to know who pays for Father Rosica’s apparently quite comfortable “retreat” in a luxury which, likely, most of us can’t afford.
God cannot allow Himself to be scorned with impunity. Now if the pains of hell were not eternal, the obstinate sinner would persevere in his revolt, since no adequate sanction would repress his pride. His rebellion, we may say, would have the last word, would be the triumph of iniquity.
These words are from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Life Everlasting”, one of those books I go back to again and again and that remain fresh, insightful and instructing after many readings (either because I forget things, which I do, or because it throws a fresher light on what I already know).
The reflection below strikes me anew every single time as absolutely logical, but often neglected in conversation. It is a simple point, that cannot be refuted.
You certainly have, as I did and still do, come across Sunday Theologians who improvise a theology of niceness for reasons peculiar to their own but, generally, fruit of the desire to have things their own way. They invariably reject eternal damnation as not being good enough for their lofty spirit.
Memorise this simple argument and keep it in store for when the circumstances require its use.
This is how we remain Catholics and work (with God’s grace) towards salvation in these atrocious times: absorbing the religion of our fathers as best as we can, and using the knowledge so acquired both for our salvation and, when prudence allows, for the instructions of those in more or less dire need of it.
Catholicism is all there already. There is nothing to know which we need Francis, or any other bishop or cardinal. Conversely, not making an effort to learn what we know to be true is not likely to be treated kindly when we die, then a bad pope is no excuse for being a bad Catholic.
We work on our salvation with fear and trembling whatever Francis goes around blathering.
It’s getting cold again in this part of the world. Another summer will soon be gone, and the Evil Clown is still in place.
I reflect on the years that have led to this, and what I always think is this: it was the fault of Cardinals and Bishops, from day one.
The Cardinals elected* a man whom they either did not know (desperately trying to be charitable here) or knew to be evil and, at the very least, Catholicism-free. They also clearly followed the counsel or suggestions of Cardinals of whom they had to know that they had nothing holy in them. The decision to offer Francis the Keys is unjustifiable however you look at it.
Francis is obviously vain, and not very deep. He starts with the easy platitudes and the easy gestures on day one. This alone should have alerted our shepherds about the real goings inside the mind of the man. Many were accomplices, I know. But how many just chose not to see?
It got worse pretty fast, as Francis started to preach a strange fake gospel made of a lot of socialism mixed with a lot of social envy. Almost no one, among our supposed shepherds, reacted.
It was, therefore, not a surprise when Francis started the brutal persecution of a staunchly Catholic order, the FFI; for petty personal reasons, certainly, but also to send a signal of what will happen to those who are not in his graces. Again, no reaction.
The heresies came pouring in. For a long time, only on aeroplanes, with the entire world wondering whether there is some strange virus in the their AC, or whether the poor man just cannot stand altitude. All sorts of excuses were fabricated. Again, no condemnation.
Is it not the most natural, obvious thing in the world that a vain, stupid, impious, devilish man like Francis would feel encouraged by the cowardice he saw all around him? Francis is evil, but he is not so reckless that he risks a heresy trial. Like every bully, he is first and foremost a coward. When the Bishops condemned the instrumentum laboris of the synod on the family (the first attempt to make heresy official), Francis backpedalled like a professional athlete, before starting a systematic work of covert, or overt, oppression of Catholics. Before he kicks you in the teeth, Francis wants to be sure he will be able to do so with impunity.
Amoris Laetitia came, and the heresies were now, in the immortal words of Yes, Prime Minister, “officially official”. You would think that now, surely, a strong reaction would follow?
What we heard was… crickets, but this time, they were special crickets, in the form of four Cardinals mounting the greatest grandstanding operation known to man, just to fold like the cowards they all are when they were required to, actually, act. God forbid, the last eighteen months of their lives should be marred by a slight decrease in the comfort they have become so accustomed to. The youngest one of them, Cardinal Burke, is now considered “persecuted” because his extremely comfortable Roman existence lost some of the extremely comfortable perks. I wonder what St Stephan thinks of him.
It went, predictably, downhill from there. Once the bully is assured that he can bully everyone with impunity, his insolence will keep growing.
The current phase is the one of spitting on several sacraments at the same time, as even priest celibacy is put into question and Catholicism is, so to speak, invited to learn from the tattooed savages of the forest. There is some moaning here and there, but make no mistake: this is just because Francis has not yet officially put his seal of approval on the new heresies. Let him make so, and watch some faint, respectful meowing as the only reaction.
This is where we are now: homosexual Cardinals, rampant heresies, and Cardinals and Bishops living a comfortable existence and doing, as a whole, nothing.
Many of them, on day, will be gnashing their teeth in hell.
And if Cardinal Burke is not terrified for his eternal destiny, and for the destiny of his small band of grandstanding cowards, he is the greatest fool alive.
- The Holy Ghost does not elect the Pope. The Cardinals do. It is a blasphemy to think that God would choose an evil man to lead His Church. Disabuse yourself of this blasphemy, if you want to understand what is going on withing the Church.
And so I am sitting at a McDonald’s, eating my meal in peace. The paper cover of the plastic tray tells an ominous tale: unless we do something, the Amazonian Forest will be destroyed in five years’ time, and that forest produces 20% of the world’s oxygen.
Impressive, uh? This isn’t today, though.
This was in 1995.
24 years later, the same rubbish is propagated everywhere, going from mouth to mouth, or from screen to screen, because of a chain of people who are either tragically ignorant, or on the look for some purpose in life, or trying to promote an anti-Capitalistic agenda, or simply scrounging an existence out of people’s stupidity.
In times as stupid as these, however, you can expect the Cretin in Chief to be at the head of the movement. Firmly determined to dethrone the Dalai Lama as the King Of Platitudes, Pope Francis calls for international action on the Amazon wildfires .
The guy can’t even be bothered to genuflect in front of the Blessed Sacrament, but the world must do his bidding every time he wants to look good with the world’s press. What a fraud.
In the meantime, smart people prefer to stick with the facts.
We truly live in an age of superstition. Every fake announcement about the planet is eagerly welcomed from an avid army of simpletons whose only desire is to look less stupid with their peers, or to go with the mainstream opinion, or to have some occasion for virtue signalling. They are being manipulated by a tiny minority of subversives, seeking to fundamentally change the ways of the West and to put an end to Capitalism as we know it. Some days ago (google it) a study in England suggested that in order to achieve the necessary reduction in CO2 emissions electric vehicles may not be enough, and the ability of the people to use their own private transport may have to be curtailed. Yes, this is truly where this madness is going.
Stupid people desperately try to look intelligent. Pope Clown desperately tries to look good. Climatologists without scruples desperately try to scrounge more decades of subsidies, tenures, and honours. Socialists desperately try to fundamentally change the way we live.
In the meantime, God’s creation continue to exist, unfazed by these cretins, for as long as He will see it fitting for the universe to exist.
The Remnant has an excellent article from Michael Matt about the necessity to “unite the clans” and stop demanding total frontal attack from everybody. I found the article so convincing that I would like to touch on something that has been touched upon on this blog a couple of times, but is, I think, worth repeating.
It is a sad reality of the Novus Ordo Church that, if you want to be a priest as God intended, your Bishop will be your first enemy. With the exception of a few fortunate cases, here in the West it is fair to say that a Priest who want to say it as it is concerning a lot of stuff (say: from sodomy to concubinage, and from drug addiction to more common forms of gluttony) would see the usual old harridans and badly lived men complaining to the Bishop for the “insensitive” world, who have caused such a grave shock to their niece Shoshana, who lives in sin with her “fiance”, or their nephew Dawn, who has discovered that God has made her lesbian, and who is father to judge and be oh, oh, oh so cruel?
Woe to the priest daring to, actually, be unapologetically Catholic about this. If his Bishop doesn’t silence, or punish the priest because the Bishop himself is a liberal, or a flaming queen, he will do it because he is, himself, terrified of the liberals, and flaming queens, over his head. You have read how this ends too many times to doubt the veracity of this.
It is sad, but accurate to say that a good Catholic priest is now forced to live in hiding from all the people who can easily destroy him, starting from his Bishop. I see these priests now and then, and I listen to their homilies with the utmost attention. You can literally draw a line in the homily when the priest thought “more than this, and it will be dangerous”. And when the good priest is gone, who will care – in all the ways he can – for the souls of the parishioners?
It is bad. I have often the impression that all too often, the best a priest can do is to build his homily around principles which the Pewsitters have to know, without mentioning them explicitly. Because if you do, you are too obviously a Catholic, and there will be people in your very church (if not today, tomorrow or in three years) bent on your destruction. It is as if the homily were a minefield, and the principles of the Depositum Fidei as many land mines. The priest needs to go from the one side of the field to the other, without touching any of the landmines but still making clear what the direction has to be.
I do not envy these priests, or the blogger priests, of which I have read several that are really engaged, but predictably prudent.
I do, however, draw a line at the Bishop. The Bishop is the one on which the entire diocese hinges. The Bishop is a successor of the Apostles. The Bishop is the one upon which the denunciation of heresy primarily depends. The buck clearly stops there.
Also, think of the numbers. Priests can be neutralised by the thousands without the world really noticing. Two dozen bishops out of many thousands ready to fight the fight would cause an earthquake, one or two hundred of them and Francis would very possibly not survive it (hint: Bishops are, in their great numbers, cowards. When they see the tide going the other way, countless of them would run to defend the… winner).
When you hear the next “I would like to say more” homily (they are easily recognisable, because the homily is still entirely orthodox and hints at a strong Catholic content, which is never delivered), say a Hail Mary for the poor priest, that he may be put in the position to give better spiritual food to his sheep.
Paul Joseph Watson has a very interesting video about the Cult of Greta and the stupidity of our times. The montage is more than a tad juvenile (particularly at the start) and I warn you that there is strong language at times. But the message is on target.
The news of a so-called “church of Sweden” appointing Greta Thunberg as “Jesus’ Successor” looked like a joke, but it is not.
We see here several phenomena converging: Firstly, the advanced stage of decomposition of Christianity in the Nordic Countries has led to the substitution of Christianity for a cult of the earth; a cult which the decayed so-called christian institutions of these countries actually even try to exploit for her own aims of recognition and popularity, revealing the Christ-Free space they have become.
Secondly, the loss of respect for real education has led to the appearance of millions of people who have come out of a university but cannot read, write or think; don’t know history; don’t have any critical thinking; and are extremely easy to manipulate exactly because they think they are so smart, and so cool. They are the ideal fodder for cults.
This cult of the environment is fed by the “icons” of our times, who are the cultural references of an ignorant generations; actors, models, stuff like that. If your life is spent watching reality shows, every famous idiot is a thinker.
Everybody wants to jump of this train, particularly if he is stupid. An individual like Prince Harry, who is – apart from likely being a bastard of sort, and the son of a notorious slut; but hey, in stupid times sluts are heroes – so dumb that he is unable to even “paint” an “abstract painting” on his own, now tells us how many children to have, as he jets around the world and is a honoured guest in the house of one of the most rabid f@ggots who ever drew breath. His new wife has him eating form her hand already. She has found an idiot to chew before she, very likely, gets tired of his idiocy and divorces him. I pity the poor, dumb bastard.
The Cult of Stupid is the new religion.
“Retards of the world, unite!” is their new slogan.
After my post on the death penalty yesterday, I received a message from a reader, Noahvail, asking several questions.
It seems fitting to use the message to repeat some points that have been mainstays of Catholic thinking, and are clearly counter cultural in today’s climate. I will assume that Noahvail is not trolling me and is merely, like so many nowadays, extremely confused.
“Is it conceivable that the “executive director” has taken it upon himself alone, to write, in his ‘official capacity,’ for the commutation of the sentence?”
Obviously not. Whilst the arguments made by the man are un-Catholic, we should not be surprised at Bishops being un-Catholic. Actually, nowadays I rather expect it every time a microphone or journalist pad is in sight. The letter was not corrected or reneged by the Bishops. It is simply not realistic to think that they do not agree with it. It is obvious that they answer for it, as he speaks on their behalf in his position as Executive Director for them.
“As Catholics don’t we hope for the conversion and salvation, in life, of every soul?”
Of course we do. We hope that the soul converts. This cannot happen after death. Therefore, it has to happen in life. Life ends with the execution. The soul knows that the end of life is about to happen. This certainly focuses the mind. See the next point.
“The death penalty does put kind of a foreshortening , a closure of the window of choice for the sinner. Does it not?”
No, it doesn’t. The contrary is the case. When the sinner knows that the day of reckoning is coming, this helps him greatly to make his peace with the Lord.
If you know that you only have time until the 15 April to make your income tax declaration, the approaching of the date is not, for you, “a closure of the window of choice”. It is a forceful reminder that you have to act fast, because there isn’t much time left. The same goes for every deadline: enrolling children to school, etc.
Knowing that his life is about to end should be seen by every convict as a great blessing. This is a grace not given to many other people; they die suddenly, and who knows whether they have made peace with the Lord or not. To know that the end is approaching allows a person (the ill man, or the criminal) to make every effort to die with his soul in the state of grace. This is the greatest gift that God can give to a soul beside the gift (which is supposed to come immediately thereafter, and because of it) of final repentance. Conversely, a man who, knowing that death is approaching, refuse to make his peace with the Lord, is clearly showing his total refusal of Christ. In this case, too, he has willed his own fate.
Eternity is infinite. Life on earth is not. Therefore, eternity is infinitely more important than the duration of the life on earth. The gift of approaching infinity with the right frame of mind, and – with God’s grace – of acting accordingly, is the greatest one.
Is not life imprisoned more of a punishment than a death penalty?
Very likely. But we are not a bunch of sadists. We are Catholics. We do not seek the maximum suffering for a criminal. We seek the reestablishment of justice. If this reasoning were sound, it would actually call for the torture of those who have tortured, etc. It does not work that way.
The execution reestablishes the order of justice. This suffices. It’s not about making people suffer.
That is the only argument I can imagine a Catholic to make. Allow the miscreant the opportunity for repentance.
The argument is no argument. If the miscreant does not see a “deadline” approaching, it will happen to him the same that happens to everybody with their taxes: there is still time! How many, in and out of jail, postpone their repentance until it is too late! Again, it is the greatest blessing to know that the time for repentance has come.
But then the “executive director” may not even be a Catholic, but rather simply catholic in his beliefs.
This is something I had not even thought about. In fact, in the times we are living you cannot even be sure that the guy is, in fact, a Catholic. Still, this does not change the matter. He speaks for the Bishops, the Bishops answer for what he says.
Summa summarum, it is fair to say this: we need, as Catholics, to stop making excuses for wrong behaviour. A Bishop who does not defend Catholic teaching is a bad Bishop and, in fact, he is unworthy to be one. A murderer needs to be treated accordingly, without strange appeals to “science”. We need to stop thinking that the behaviour we see in front of your eyes might be due to, say, the Bishops just not being informed of what is done.
It is time to look at things as they are and speak accordingly.
No reasonable person applies the “difficult childhood”, or the science” argument, or the “perhaps he didn’t know” argument, to Hitler. Reality is clear enough, without any need for signed documents.
Please let us apply the same elementary common sense to our lives as Catholics.