Category Archives: Bad Shepherds
How many times have we seen it? “Progressive” priests and prelates (what I think about their motivation is here) organise a schismatic event in that most schismatic of Countries, Germany. The homo event is promoted by the Diocese. How many people show up? Frankly, it was clearly only the perverts and their closest accomplices.
This must be atrociously embarrassing, at least for people who are still capable of embarrassment. In fact, it is the natural consequences of Catholic thinking still being, in some way, still present among Germans.
Consider this: the Germans are an extremely, atrociously gregarious people. They don’t really “do” independent thinking. They will, as a whole, go with what other people think, or with what they are told by people they see as in a position of authority. The inability to accept a position that makes one isolated in the group is quite scary, and – besides having been encouraged since the time of the Denazification – has a strong tradition in Germany. Your average Georg Zimmermann has a very, very strong dislike for being, on a hot issue, the only one with a contrary opinion in the room; which is what, for example, would greatly please many Italians.
So, let us look at the ingredients here: the German government, the local parish, even the local Diocese tell you that perversion is good and must be supported if you want to be a good Christian/good human/part of the group. Still, German Catholics refuse to take part to this game. If you have lived in Germany, and know how scarily gregarious Germans are, this gives you all the measure of how much Catholics must feel betrayed by their own priests and Bishops.
Now please mind this: whilst both the parish priest and the bishop might well be homosexuals themselves, in Germany there might be a simpler explanation for this pandering to the public opinion: the notorious Kirchensteuer. These prelates might, as a rule, simply be looking for a paying public for their impious, godless circus, thinking that by being godless more people will want to pay the price of admission. However, it can also be easily said that a priest, or prelate, that reduce himself to such a state is clearly giving Satan a huge opening, and who knows where that will end; in many cases, methinks, it ends in sodomy.
Still, what we keep seeing is this: that even the atrociously gregarious German Catholics refuse to follow their “betters” (the civil and religious authorities) and do not collaborate with the worst of the anti-Christian propaganda pushed by both.
I don’t know how long this will go on. But boy, it is good to see that, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, the homo agenda of the German Bishops is going absolutely nowhere.
You know that feeling, when you read about powerful prelates espousing some strange, distinctly non-Catholic cause, and something inside you knows that things aren’t right?
Yes, I mean those powerful Bishops and Cardinals. The “concerned” ones. The ones who speak “for the poor”. The ones who are always ready to espouse the easy causes.
Then you remember the curas villeros in Argentina, who disappear in the dirty slums of Buenos Aires to get the most disgusting sexual favours from all sorts of desperate perverts. At that point, you start to connect the dots, observing that the advocacy for the “downtrodden” can, very easily, hide a predatory desire for people either already totally corrupted, but which the “social work” gives easy opportunity to approach; or else, the ability to attack the vulnerable and to blackmail them because of the important position the powerful “social worker” slash priest slash prelate has in that already very corrupt environment; a position that can be the difference between, say, getting a decent job or remaining destitute.
There seems to be a common theme, is it not. A lot of these “social workers” appear to have had different motives than simple social work. How many of those corrupted curas villeros has the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires protected? How many are, like that archbishop, zealous apostles of the “social work” of the priest themselves? What is it, that these powerful men are hiding?
Could it be that all that social preaching is just a huge covert operation to allow an entire mafia of perverted priests and prelates to protect each other and climb the ranks of the Church through the net they have created; some of them, in time, becoming powerful and continuing to serve the same mafia-style organisation of which they are part, to which they have been linked all their lives, and which could destroy them if they stopped working for the “group”?
Am I being a conspiracy theorist here?
I don’t know.
I might be right.
I might be wrong.
But then I read this, and I know what to think.
“There is a huge problem in the Church. Active homosexual activity by priests and the secrecy of this sin must be revealed, and the holy priesthood must be restored to what Jesus said it ought to be,” Vasek said.
“The dark, secret cover-up of homosexual behavior has been under the radar for many years. Now the darkness is coming to light,” he added.
These are the words of the whistleblower in the sordid story of Bishop Hoeppner, who was just removed from his job.
The long, detailed article is quite interesting.
I do not know whether Bishop Hoeppner was a “conservative”, as V II bishops go. It seems to me that he has all the marks of the leftie. Still, I do not think he is justifiable in any way.
The information we have up to now shows that, whilst Hoeppner does not seem to have that horrible affliction himself, he wasn’t shy in covering those who had; actually, several of them. What also grates me a lot is the admission, from the Bishop, that he knew he was breaking the rules. Quote:
Bishop Hoeppner admitted in the deposition he understood himself to be violating Church norms, but said he did so to maintain confidentiality.
Well, Frankie blathers so much about clericalism, now he has found a real example of it. That the Bishop also pressured the whistleblower to recant his accusation might or might not be true; that he though he could go out of his way to defend several homosexual priests and put him in a position to offend again really shows the arrogance of these people.
You might say that some of the episode had happened many years before. I ask you who, of you, believes that a homosexual priest with a past of abuse (and be that in 1815) can be “reformed” and stay at his place, happily cured after a pretend session with some counsellor.
My humble take: he may or may not be reformed, and I am being extremely generous here. Still, the priestly office will have to go.
The only way to free the Church from the scourge of homosexual priest is to get rids of all priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. It does not matter whether the episode was 3 or 300 years ago. “Homo” must mean “you go”.
A priest who is afflicted by such a terrible deviancy should not have been a priest one day in his life. Therefore, to say that the priest has been spotless for 29 years (if you believe that, I have a bridge on sale) is still admitting that the guy has been a priest 29 years too many. Still, we have here a Bishop (possibly, one who calls himself a conservative one; I await more info) not only not incensed that this tainted priesthoods happened, but (with variation) going out of his way to allow this to happen for longer.
This is why we have this tragedy within the Church. Not even Bishops are horrified. Best case, they are incurably naive, unforgivably arrogant and utterly unfit for the job. In the worst case… well, you know what the worst case is.
I am awaiting to see the further developments of this story. But I still wonder: for one who gets caught, how many have behaved exactly in the same way? How many are behaving like this today? How many people, every Sunday, go to mass and receive communion from a priest of whom his very Bishop knows he is homosexual and, as such, simply unfit for the priesthood?
There must be no understanding for Bishops who cover homosexual priests, with or without allegations of abuse.
Homosexuality makes a priest unfit for office. That’s all there is to it.
This swamp needs to be drained, and I don’t care how many (in case) “conservative” bishops need to go down for this.
“Mercy is made tangible, it becomes closeness, service, care for those in difficulty. I hope you will always feel you have been granted mercy, so as to be merciful to others in turn”.
This is a tweet sent out by the Evil Clown himself.
It’s difficult to find a single word that is right.
Firstly, the usual “this is that”. Mercy “becomes” something that it is not, namely a) service and b) with an obvious social work tinge. In Francis’ atheist world, everything must be deformed, and forced to serve his social justice agenda.
This is bad enough, but what follows is worse: the encouragement to the faithful (I am, here, wildly assuming that there are faithful who read Francis and take him seriously) to commit a huge sin of presumption, assuming that mercy is always extended to them, no matter how adulterous, sinful, or evil they are.
This is no Christianity. This is a UN religion made of slogans, and stupid ones at that, meant to make people feel good even as they are indoctrinated to the new “good” their own masters want for them: socialist thinking.
Read again the text of the tweet and you will clearly see that there is nothing Catholic in it. It is something that a politician or a new age writer might have written. It is something with which a TV show host might try to look good.
It is something you might find in a fortune cookie.
This is, in reality, what we have. The fortune-cookie pope. Catholicism-free, with a total lack of shame, and wanting to show you (the Catholics) his longest finger every day.
Keep assuming, Frankie dear.
You will see how that ends.
Every First of April, when I reflect on what to write for April’s Fool, I am confronted with the increasing difficulty of writing something wittily absurd about Francis.
We have now come to such a level of absurdity in real life, that every joke about the next impossible stunt that Francis could be mocked with is very, very difficult to find. The man is such a factory of absurdities that the reality of his pontificate has long surpassed anything that could have been considered a joke only a few years ago.
In the last weeks only, we had “clericalism is a perversity” and the openly homo man appointed to a Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.
Both of them would have made for excellent April Fool’s stunts only one year ago, and both of them would have been impossible to think, and no joke to be seen anywhere, until 2013.
Imagine the April Fool’s line “Pope Francis appoints homosexual man to commission meant to protect children”. Just one year ago, it would have been so hilarious you would have split your coffee over the keyboard! The other one, “Pope says clericalism is perversion”, would have been an excellent mockery of Francis favourite Marxist play, “this is that”. Impossible, of course, and therefore so funny…
Alas, with this guy reality has gone far beyond the joke a long time ago. I discovered that it is, in fact, not easy to make fun of a clown.
The matter is, though, not a very funny one, even if we try to take these things with some sense of humour in order to protect our liver. Each one of Francis’ heretical, perverted, or Marxist stunts is another whip lash against Christ. In fact, it is not easy to picture Francis happily whipping Our Lord, like the Roman soldiers so brutally did in reality, and as realistically rendered in the movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. Only, the Soldiers weren’t Christians, Francis is actually supposed to.
It always incenses me when, after the latest stunt of this monstrous individual, some follower of the religion of niceness writes some inane comment about it not being nice to write these things about a Pope.
Today we remember Christ humiliated, flagellated, and crucified.
Do you care for Christ? Do you care for the Church? If you do, I bet you will be very angry!
If you don’t, I question your love for Christ and His Church.
Mr Pentin has a detailed article about the way the German Bishops are defying Church doctrine and try to make their own protestant “mini me” church of Heresy at home, whilst pretending that they are still Catholic.
The issues are many and all of them known. What, however, struck me most in the article is the revealing statement of Bishop Baetzing (the leader of the heretical movement). The statement is framed as follows:
Bishop Bätzing said he was “convinced” we are living in a “time window in which we can really change something,” and that “we have to use it.”
It seems clear enough to me. The Bishop is saying that as long as Francis is in power, they can and should push as hard as they can. If the man kicks the bucket (which, at his age, can be any day), you don’t know what happens next.
It seems, to me clear enough what is happening: Francis is culpable of either direct or indirect complicity with these heretics, by either sending signals to them that they should push their agenda forward and nothing will happen to them, or by refusing to do anything after the Germans have decided to give it a try and push anyway.
This is another example of how Francis acts against the Church. It is not only what he does, it is what he refuses to do.
Some observer might even comment that Francis did not feel strong enough to contrast Ladaria on the CDF answer to the “dubium” (he is evil and of mediocre intelligence, but not entirely dumb: he knows that he is still on time to die humiliated and deposed, in a Jesuit cell, forgotten or despised by everyone, and not one journalist in sight! He will, therefore, avoid going into waters that he deems to hot for his liking). Therefore, what he does now is to take every occasion and every pretext to oppose the people he hates (that is, my dear readers, all of you).
I suggest that my readers are not discouraged by what they read daily on the Catholic “press”. It behooves every one of us to take a bird’s eye approach and evaluate the events of these years from a broader perspective. Twenty of forty years of such a mess will likely be forgotten when, in 800 years, the Church is still going strong and all his opponent of today have long become dust.
This Baetzing guy will be totally forgotten in I don’t say 800, but possibly 8 years. Francis will be remembered, if he does, as one of those “bad Popes” people actually know nothing about besides the fact that they were bad. What, I think, will be remember is that, in the XX and XXI century, there was a people of great turmoil and of great corruption, like the Church had never been before, and from which the Church recovered, as always, in the Lord’s good time. Same as we, today, only vaguely care to know the details about the big mess in the X and XI Century. Even the Western Schism is, today, but a note in Church History.
This will, I think, help to put the Baetzing guy, and all those like him, in the proper perspective.
The CDF has, today, made known the answer to a Dubium, whether homosexual so-called “couples” can be blessed.
The answer is, of course, “no”. It is still full of PC, inclusive, milquetoast language. But in the end, yes, it is an undeniable “no”.
One sees with I do not say satisfaction, but a certain sense of half relief that at the Vatican they have not become all completely insane. Instead, insanity remains, for the time being, confined to merely dozen of the most important aspects of Catholicism, from the Pachamama scandal to the oblique, wink wink green light to the sacrilegious abuse of Holy Communion, to the persecution of sound Catholics, to the sellout of the Church in China to a communist dictatorship, and so on until tomorrow morning.
Let it not be said, therefore, that the stating of the obvious is something for which the appalling FrancisChurch should be praised. Rather, let it be said that not even the appalling FrancisChurch desires to be sacrilegious and heretical all the time.
What will be interesting now is to watch what kind of reaction this complete and utter banality and stating of the obvious will cause among the perverts and their friends, aka “progressive Catholics”. Methinks, Francis already knows what favour he will do them next, in order to appear like a “middle of the road” guy (being pro pervert half of the times probably counts as “middle of the roads” among the Polllyannas) and get more praise from the mainstream media.
In fact, yours cynical truly cannot but think that this answer to the Dubium has been released exactly in preparation of the other event. I could be wrong, of course. But in the case of Francis, thinking badly of him is just being realistic.
In fact, the most appalling reflection in all of this is that in this day and age, the Vatican makes headlines merely for stating that two and two is four.
It tells you a lot about the state of the Church in the Age of the Socialist Popes.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
The above is from the Ecclesiastes. Which, as Pope Francis might have known at one time, is part of the Bible. Which, as Pope Francis might have learned around 1962, is the Word of God.
Now, with the basics firmly im place, let us examine the “introduction” to the official prayer that the Evil Clown recited in Iraq. No, I haven’t even read the prayer itself. I had enough after the introduction.
If God is the God of life – for so he is – then it is wrong for us to kill our brothers and sisters in his Name.
If God is the God of peace – for so he is – then it is wrong for us to wage war in his Name.
If God is the God of love – for so he is – then it is wrong for us to hate our brothers and sisters.
This must come from some kindergarten; or from some Jesuit seminary run by perverts. It tries to impose on the intellectually challenged a pseudo-logic of the notorious “do not judge”-kind. It is the parody of Christianity so loved by those who hate Christianity.
Once again, Francis is saying it very plainly: he hates Christianity. Then if you consider, say, the Crusades wrong, and the idea of killing in the name of God abhorrent, how can you not come to the conclusion that Christianity is all wrong, and has always been?
The answer to this is very easy: Francis has gone full steam down the road of the Church-haters, and he has done this, very obviously, for decades. Now that he is (however unworthily) pope, the man cannot resist the temptation of dishing all his hatred on your dish, and demand that you eat it. I am afraid he will be disappointed.
You eat your excrement, Francis.
We will have nothing to do with it.
The news reached me today that the rather disgraced Cardinal Wuerl is receiving 2 million dollars a year for his “continuing ministry”.
Boy, how I would like a “continuing ministry”!
How hard does the Cardinal work for the 2 millions? What do all the people whom he employs with such a budget actually do? Or does it fritter everything away with expensive flights and hotels? Or perhaps does he spend the money in other ways, like the infamous Cardinal McCarrick (an old acquaintance of Wuerl, shall we say….) used to do? I have only found about one or two “retreats”, which he could have done pretty much on his own, possibly without even the need of a personal assistant at, say, 250 dollar a day.
It also emerges that this is not money donated by, say, some association of wealthy Friends of Horrible Cardinals, for the exclusive use of our guy. No, this is money that the Archdiocese of Washington could have used any way they please. Instead, they have gone to finance the “continuing ministry” of a retired, rather disgraced guy.
Honestly, I think that pious heads should piously roll.
Heck, if the guy is so eager to work, could he not have asked to be assigned to a parish and continue his work there, at a net saving of probably 1.96 million a year and with many, many more documented hours of “ministry” than what we can see now?
This “poor church for the poor” isn’t half bad or, apparently, half poor.
It seems that 2 million dollar of the faithful are treated like pocket change, to keep some old guy (little) occupied. It seems that it pays to be friends with the humbly powerful and the piously wasteful. Or, perhaps, that it pays to know an awful lot of things, so that those who want to appease you and prevent you from disgracing a lot of people with you prefer to fund an extremely cushioned retirement, sorry, continuing ministry. It could even be (thinking out loud here) that the Cardinal is merely a conduit for bribes paid to others, as a compensation for horrible “services” rendered other, more simply, to keep their mouth shut without the risk of Clintonising them.
I think that Catholics should demand that every cent of this is accounted for, justified, or restituted, and those responsible for this sent to some obscure parish to work for a change.
But hey, what do I know?
I am no friend of paedophiles.
Decidedly, Benedict is not like wine.
The gentlest thing that one can say of him, is that he is undergoing the same trajectory as Joe Biden. However, in the case of Joe Biden it is evident that the man struggles to remain on planet earth for more than a short period of time. In the case of Benedict, who even remembers Bishop Williamson and Wikileaks, the jury is seriously out.
Some of the things he says are outrageous. This is not the first time he does that and, if you scour this blog, you will find several other posts with me commenting on Benedict going (almost) full Francis fanboy. Today is no exception: to portrait Biden as “good Catholic”, “personally against abortion” and without a clear position on “gender policy” is either demented or very, very evil, so let’s hope he is demented.
I have given, at the time, all the good will to Benedict that could reasonably be given to him. I have written many times that I thought that he did what he, in good conscience, thought best for the Church, thinking (in his naivete) that a stronger and decidedly Catholic Pope would take his place.
With the years, I have started to grow some doubts. A Pope who resigns because he does not feel strong enough to be a good Catholic Pope does not repeatedly praise a horrible, decidedly un-Catholic Pope. At the very least, an ashamed and dignified silence would have been in order. But no, the man has given now several interviews in which he tries to persuade the Pollyanna Crowds that Francis really is what the Church needs now. Again, it’s either dementia or it is inexcusable.
This is, also, an interview to the Corriere della Sera, not one of those chats with the also very old (97 in April) Eugenio Scalfari. There is no way the Corriere pulls a stunt and simply distorts Benedict’s words like they are the CNN. It is also unthinkable that the man knows that he is misrepresented, and never says a peep. Stop defending him because he is old, or because you love to think this guy is still in charge.
Benedict is either gone, or he is part of the problem. May the Lord have mercy on him when he (pretty soon, judging from the pictures) will stay in front of Him.
Honestly, I would not want to swap my chances with his.
From Father Hunwicke’s blog, I read this quote of Bobby Mickens:
” … it’s not clear what Francis actually does want. And not just on his birthday, but on many things. … Oh, he’s written and said a lot. An awful lot. But that doesn’t mean he always reveals what he’s really thinking. And, at times, he says things that are hard to square with things he has said and done at oher times. In a word, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is somewhat of an enigma. He rails against clericalism, yet he can also be as clerical as anyone.”
Well I think I can help.
Francis is not an enigma.
He is just plain stupid. And childish. And Arrogant.
Think of Francis from the vantage point of his most evident traits: hate for the Church, childishness, arrogance, stubbornness, and total lack of profundity of thought. Put all of this in the blender, switch on for 30 second, and what you must perforce have is, well, him.
The over-rationalising punditry try to construe a system in Francis’ actions, but this is just the same as wanting to unlock the deep meaning and life philosophy behind the tantrums of a spoiled child. Francis is not interested in coherence. He does not care for the opinions of people he despises. He has no philosophy beyond what pleases him on the day. Therefore, all his contradictions and gaffes and provocations and factual blasphemies do not follow a pre-conceived project.
With Francis there is no plan, only a pram.
Look at him in this way and, suddenly, everything he does and says makes perfect sense. His petty revenges, his hatred for Christ, or his contempt for faithful Catholics do not follow a planned strategic plan. No person with a brain would create a long-term plan and have such a stupid, contradictory, utterly embarrassing, and totally self-defeating one.
Imagine a child of twelve given absolute power over the Church, and you are pretty near to a full understanding of what is happening. Add a life of scrounging and resentment, and you get even nearer. Throw in the mix a long life, also marked by defeats and “exile” in unwanted positions, and you will get nearer still (the twelve years old would canonise chocolate and declare spinach heretical; Francis is smarter than that).
The contradictions, hypocrisies, countless embarrassments of this men are an enigma only to a person who wants to explain them away! Francis lies like you breathe. He clearly does not believe in life after death, and is not intelligent enough to care for the way he will be remembered. Does a very obnoxious twelve year old stop and think how he will be remembered if he dies today? No, he doesn’t. What he cares for is his gripe for the day, and how he can be obnoxious to others now. Tomorrow, he will have a new gripe, and a new way of being obnoxious. He will not care for any coherence today with his actions of yesterday. He will only care of what he can get away with. Francis is that child, with the addition of a peculiar mark of shamelessness, apparently due to Argentinian heritage, according to which being caught lying is a sign of smartness.
Every time that I read about these people trying to figure out Francis, I have this image in front of me of a piece of dog’s excrement, in the middle of the walkway, with influential journalists and pundits all gathered, in a neat circle, around it, pensively smoking their pipes.
How is it that that thing stinks, they wonder? How can that object have that peculiar shape? Isn’t it baffling that the object would have that particular consistency, and likely texture, that makes it so difficult to understand what is going on with it?
Gentlemen, open your eyes: it’s brown, it stinks, it has the appropriate consistency and form. It’s a piece of shit, period.
Francis isn’t difficult to understand. He is, actually, extremely easy.
You merely need to apply common sense and basic life experience.
I always get an adrenaline spike when I read articles like this one.
The immediate issue here is the fact that Bishop Theurillat “resigned” (read: got the boot) around 5 years before the appointed time. The man had implied that the Church has to decide about wymynpriests.
Still, the article linked states that the usual Francis stated:
“On the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the final word is clear, it was said by St. John Paul II and this remains.”
JP II did not pronounce any final word on the ordination of wymyn. He never could. The final word is given by the Depositum Fidei, not by this or that Pope.
Reading the words of the Evil Clown, it looks like the question might still have been open before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; alas, JP II spoke, and that was that. Sorry, folks. It has happened now. If JP had said something different, then… but no, it didn’t happen.
Francis likely says this because to him, everything that came before V II is wrong unless confirmed right by a V II source. Therefore, he sees the prohibition as rooted in John Paul, not the Depositum Fidei, of which I think he barely acknowledges the existence (cfr: Amoris Laetitia).
Alas, we Catholics see it differently: J P has merely reiterated a last word that was there from the beginning of Christianity. He has purely reminded Catholics of an existing reality.
This is not a trivial matter. No Catholics should be led into thinking that a V II Pope can reshape doctrine according to his liking anytime he feels like it. Of course, Frankie boy wants you to think that, but it is simply not the case. Please remind any person, when the occasion arises, about this fundamental traits of the Catholic Church.
As to the Bishop, I wonder why he was given the boot. Was it the matter of the wymyn alone? It could be, but honestly, orthodoxy isn’t particularly high in the Evil Clown’s priorities list. It can also be that Francis disliked the man. It can be that there are other matters we know nothing about.
Whatever this is, wymyn ordination is not a matter settled in 1984, whatever the Evil Clown wants you to believe.
I have long searched for the link, but I couldn’t find it. IIRC, in a recent article Archbishop Vigano’ stated that it is fine, if one is persuaded that it is for the good of the Church, to pray for the death of the Pope.
I am tempted to say: you read it here first.
Many years ago, in fact.
However, it is not even so. I have not invented anything, nor do I want to. It has been a long-standing tradition of the Church that it is perfectly legitimate to pray for the death of a Pope who is considered a grave problem for the Church. I remember, on this, that the opinions of theologians differ on whether a good Catholic has the faculty or the duty to pray for such an event, but this does not impact the argument I have been making (I have never told anyone that he must do like me, and pray for the speedy departure of Francis from this vale of tears). Still, as for myself, I most certainly do. Also, in accordance with Tradition, I pray for his painless death: predictably, you can’t wish Francis that he may die of anal cancer and I am (obviously) fully on board with this. If the Lord makes him die peacefully in his sleep, I will consider it a great grace, and may Francis’ “awakening” in the next world be on the right side (difficult, but hey..).
Mind: in a courageous act of quasi-V II sensibility, I even pray that the Lord that He, in His goodness, may free us of the Franciscourge unless he resigns; however, the Three Popes would be quite a spectacle (I never liked the Three Tenors; I saw The Three Amigos too many years ago, but I certainly did not consider it memorable; and Benedict does not seem intentioned to check out yet), one that I would very much like to avoid. Therefore, I’d say that if the Evil Clown kicked the bucket today everything would be copacetic in Mundabor’s world, and I would not even make an effort to cry.
Once again, we see a phenomenon that is becoming more and more frequent: in the total absence of statements containing even traces of Catholicism from the Vatican, Catholics take their Catholicism from elsewhere: that is, from people who – fallible as we all are – are considered better able to teach us sensible Catholicism than that bunch of sissies (or worse) currently in power.
The bad news in all this is: when Francis is gone, don’t bet your pint on his successor being much better. It will very difficult to be worse. It will not be easy even to keep on par. But only Divine intervention will allow us to get a Pope that will condemn, or even make us forget, his predecessor.
Still, I invite you to pray for a new chance, in the hope (long shot, I admit) that God may put an end to our deserved punishment for too many years of Vatican II madness.
The new encyclical letter, Tutti Frutti, has been issued some 10 days ago now, and the most notable consequence of it is that it has not made any wave whatsoever.
Francis has reduced himself to a state of such irrelevancy, that his excrementations are rapidly becoming good for nothing more than the increase in consumption of toilet paper, as the man does not even manage to make good Catholics angry.
Why is that? Let me count the ways:
- Francis is a broken record. Whatever he publishes, you know it will be the same stupid, waffling nonsense as ever. Environment bla, peace bla bla, consumerism blablabla, and so on. In the meantime, this has become older than Biden.
- Francis is consistently Catholicism-free. If Francis mixed stupid waffling with some useful, Catholic insights, the faithful might give his excrementations the time of day. But he doesn’t, so they don’t. And in fact, a man capable of useful Catholics insights would not go on waffling about the environment, or social justice, in the first place.
- Francis has chosen the worst possible time. At the moment, the entire planet is looking towards the US, where a man is stealing the show from everybody, Francis not excluded. Ill or healthy, funny or angry, rallying or tweeting, Trump always has everybody’s attention. It will not stop until November. Francis should have known this.
Not for the first time, it seems to me that this man is desperately looking for the attention fewer and fewer people are willing to give him. Like Greta Thunberg, he is disappearing from the radar screen and, like Greta Thunberg, he is just a cretin to whom the world has given its attention for far too long.
They tell me this is what old grumpy men do, and what old fairies actually do even more.
Remember Ruth, Francis.
You might be in her company soon enough.
Pope Weasel regaled us – during a recent Angelus in front of the usual three dozen curious who did not want to spend for Ripley’s Believe It Or Not – with a bit of his wisdom:
In addition, in these weeks we are witnessing numerous popular protests all over the world – in many parts – expressing the growing unease of civil society in the face of particularly critical political and social situations. While I urge the demonstrators to present their demands peacefully, without giving in to the temptation of aggression and violence, I appeal to all those with public and governmental responsibilities to listen to the voice of their fellow citizens and to meet their just aspirations, ensuring full respect for human rights and civil liberties
This is, at the same time, ambiguous and subversive, in the same way as Francis generally is.
On the one hand, Francis restricts his appeal to the just aspirations of the bunch of communists, anarchists, paedophiles, and others who are now manifesting. In theory, they could have no just aspirations (being a bunch of communists, anarchists etc.) at all, and everybody could be happy.
In practice, it is obvious that this is, for as far as a man like Francis would dare to go, an endorsement of the victimhood so much in fashion nowadays among the above mentioned categories.
“I am not saying that being a Communist is officially good”, Francis implies, “but please listen, listen, listen to them!” In this, there is an implicit judgment that white-on-black racism is still a factor (fake news), that the police needs to be reorganised (more fake news), and that Capitalism has somethign fundamentally wrong in itself (fakest news of all).
By the bye, I am awaiting Francis’ strong, definitive condemnation of “cuties”.
Will I get it?
I can’t find the link anymore, but I am so angry I will write about this anyway. Some clergyman (possibly a Bishop) published an image of the Blessed Virgin and Child… with a mask.
This is wrong – actually, repulsive – in so many ways.
First of all, at least from a logical point of view: The Child is God, besides being Human. He will not infect anyone. He cannot, CAN NOT, be the source of any disease He does not want to spread. The God that raised Lazarus from the tomb cannot be put on a par with some child who could be in danger of either infecting or being infected.
Secondly: the Blessed Virgin. An image suggesting that the Blessed Virgin fears contagion, possibly at the hands of her own Holy Child, is nothing short of blasphemous.
Which leads us to the main point: the abuse of the Christian religion to further a worldly agenda. The reason why we immediately perceive such an image as “off” is, most likely, not directly related to the Divinely bestowed qualities of Our Lord or of the Blessed Virgin. It is the immediate, obvious feeling that Christianity – and Catholicism in particular – is being gravely abused for an ideology that is nothing to do with it.
This Bishop has clearly lost the faith. He has likely been accustomed for many years now to mix Catholicism with some empty, godless, social-justice, feel-good stuff. This has gone so far, that he will not hesitate to put the Blessed Virgin and Child in a mask, likely thinking, in his godlessness and lack of faith, that he is sending out some “positive” message.
He is sending out the message that he is an idiot who has lost his faith and should be removed, that’s what he is sending out.
Please correct me if there is no Bishop involved, and I am grateful for any link.
Still: whoever did this may feel good breathing in his damn mask; but when he dies, he might have bigger problems.
This very recent article from Breitbart once again shows everything that is wrong with Nincompoop In Chief.
The guy mentions, pretty much in this order:
- Social Concord
- Respect for our common home (what’s this: a Condo?)
- Bringing people together
- Shortening distances
- Providing necessary information
- Opening minds and hearts to truth
- Building bridges
- Defending life
- Break down walls between individuals
- protecting the welfare of others, from individuals to the “human family”
- overcome racism, injustice (he already said that) and indifference
- give voice to the plea of those in need of mercy and understanding
There is not one of these aims, not even one, that is not intended by Francis (as the article makes clear) in a purely secular way.
The most striking example is the phrase about the welfare of others “at every level” (point 11), where I thought I had finally found a reference to providing to the spiritual needs of people: you know, Christ. I was, very predictably, wrong. “At every level”, for this clown, does not mean both the material and the spiritual. It means both for the individual and the “human family”, obviously a substitute for the love of God.
Obviously, Nincompoop In Chief could not avoid giving his indirect, but clear enough support to Black Lives Matter; who, being damn commies and enemies of Christ, are very much after his liking.
The guy just won’t do his job.
And the worst thing is: he wants you to notice it.
I have seen a couple of days ago the pathetic images of Frankie’s Angelus (I think) in St Peter’s square, and a tweet stating “nobody here”, or words to that effect. Some of the present were kneeling when the man gave his benediction, probably incurring his displeasure as members of that most hated of organisations, the Catholic Church.
It must be depressing, for a guy so eagerly pursuing the limelight, to find himself so terribly ignored, and he (however unworthily) the pope. It must be a blow to his irascible, grasping, aggressive ego every single time.
In case he wonders, I will help him to realise why he is so ignored, and how could he becomes as irrelevant as he is now.
Firstly, he is stupid. In his more than seven years in charge, he was never able to exhibit any form of subtlety. He is like a child who was told by his parents not to brag, but will let his poor school mates know that he has the expensive new bicycle; because he doesn’t do thinking.
Secondly, he is arrogant. The way he has proceeded to mock Catholics, persecute catholic orders, smash himself at the center of the discussion around how good and modest he is, has alienated to him many people who would otherwise have been naive and gullible enough to believe he is a halfway decent human being. The episodes are too many to count; the empty chair at the concert will likely be remembered forever. Plus, the mockery (“Soon, soon!!”), the interviews to Scalfari, and all the rest.
But the real issue, and the real undoing of Francis’ “popularity”, is the third: the do-gooder arena is, literally, the most crowded space on earth. In an age where every producer of rice, shoes, or cars, and every distributor of everything under the earth, needs to let everybody know – whether they want it or not – what caring, sensitive, effeminate bleeding hearts they are, Francis becomes only a very small voice in the huge, planetary choir. Nowadays, everybody plays with wheelchairs as he did, they just do it in a slightly different way.
Note, here, that Francis doesn’t do the wheelchair thing anymore. When he saw that it did not bring the desired results any longer, he let the shtick die. Quite like him, I would say.
Plus, Francis has an additional problem: in the Age of Stoopid, there will always be people who are more stoopid that Francis will ever be allowed to be. The Bleeding Heart Movement has come to the point of criticising, self-censoring, killing rice products, movies, names of US States, even skin whitening products! Not even the Most Heretical Pope On Earth can match this level of wokeness! Francis has been completely out-wokened, out-demented, out-communisted, and out-bleeding-hearted by the very corporations he so likes to chastise.
What shall he do now? Decry Michelangelo’s Pieta’ as a symbol of racism and have it repainted in black? This is not happening.
And there you have him where he is now: just another stupid old guy looking like dog #5000 barking at the moon.
Congratulations, Frankie boy.
You have managed to look (because you are) irrelevant, selfish, and stoopid at the same time.
There are many times when the Evil Clown really, really sounds like a so-called Archbishop of Canterbury. Which makes sense, if you consider that he struggles in seeing the differences between a Catholic and an Anglican.
Typically, an Anglican prelate will be concerned with stuff that have nothing to do with sin. Fornication, abortion, sexual perversion, concupiscence in general will be no problems to him. But so-called social justice, the so-called health of the planet, and other issues like that will be what is preeminent on his mind.
Francis is the same. I can’t remember one single time he condemned fornication, cohabitation more uxorio, and the like. He tells us not to “obsess” about abortion. But the old nincompoop keeps babbling about… the earth.
He also does not miss a “world religion” date. Dates that are fully unknown and irrelevant to Catholics (like earth day, which apparently happened very recently) are very important in his calendar.
Then, the usual drivel.
The earth was, we were told, wounded already five years ago, when he wrote his satanic Laudato Si (a document, mind, he seems to be the only one remembering). In these five years, we are told, the earth has bled, copiously; it has stumbled; it has cried for help a lot, and is now in urgent need of recovery in an intensive care unit. Only, no one seems to notice, apart from retarded adolescents, environmental nutcases, communists and assorted enemies of capitalism, and one heretical pope; who is, actually, a mixture of all that, and very possibly also retarded or at least demented, with the only exclusion of “adolescent”.
Francis loves to sound modern, “eco”, hip, “with it”. Perhaps it makes him feel younger. It surely makes him sound stupid.
What we have here is a sort of Archbishop of Peterbury, so far removed from Christianity that he does not even care to hide the fact. His fake references to sin, which are fairly rare, are never meant to condemn sin qua sin; they are, in fact, always meant to do something else: condemn Capitalism, or Catholic orthodoxy, or just wanting to be a decent man.
But if you stink of sheep (or of your own, male secretary), this is fine with him.
This is why the world is sinking in a pit of fornication, contraception, abortion, and perversion, but this guy is worried about the “bleeding” and “wounds” of the earth. Bleeding and wounds which, as always, are due to the “greed” of us, evil capitalists.
I think I will reflect very attentively on Francis’ grave warning. And then I will go out, driving around in my car.
Just for the fun of it.
I will call it “earth day celebration”.
One of the differences between Trump and Francis is – besides the fact that Trump is, actually, a decent human being – their twitter account.
Trump writes his tweets himself, and they are overcharged with his robust spirit and love for saying it like it is. Francis evidently has some kind of homo monsignor writing platitudes for him, and literally shitting five or six Dalai Lama wannabe pieces of crap every day. These tweets are pure new age hot air, as you will soon discover if you can stomach a fast perusal of his account.
Of course, this causes all sorts of trouble, of which Francis is fully aware; but do not think that this dissuades him from having his homo monsignor writing them! On the contrary, I am sure he enjoys the idea of riling up Catholics with them!
The tweet below is a textbook example:
There is possibly not one idea in this tweet that is not contrary to Christianity.
We don’t need the Holy spirit to give us new eyes, in the sense in which Francis is obvious intending the phrase here, that is: change our mind about what the Church believes. The Holy Spirit (I prefer “Ghost”, because I am fussy like that…) does not need new instruments, or a new strategy, or new actions of any sort, in this XXI Century. Human nature never changes, and our challenges are perennially the same. If it were not so, we would need a new Gospel every hundred year or so.
Humanity is, also, not one. This is new age, one-world drivel. We have an individual soul and this soul will go to his individual judgment. The outcomes of the individual judgments are infinitely different. Therefore, there can be no “oneness” in humanity more than there is oneness between the eternally damned in hell and the eternally blessed in heaven.
“No one is saved alone” is the last piece of blasphemy. Yes, Frankie dear, there is more than one saved, and the Elect certainly work together, and do together God’s work, to collaborate with God and merit His salvation. In this sense, their work certainly is a collaboration for, and in, Christ. But this is not what Francis means. Francis means that “we are the world, we are the children” (remember that most stupid of songs?), and we are like a cooperative where we need to lick the reprobate’s boots and adhere to their agenda if we want to be saved ourselves, because “one”.
Thanks, but no, thanks; and you go to hell without me, Frankie dear.
I do not read the tweets of the homosexual monsignor. But make no mistake: Francis answers to heaven for everything that the fairy in question writes, because it is written in his name, with his authorisation, and with his acquiescence.
One days, this tweet will make good comedy reading, and will be good for a laugh. At the moment I do not have the necessary distance, and prefer to pray that this scoundrel dies soon.
The Pittsburgh Diocese is going from 152 parishes to 106 in one go. It’s the usual story of slow death and decrepitude. No link, because evil publication.
My first reflection: what about starting to consolidate Dioceses instead? With all that they cost in personnel, PR, press office, and assorted people running around their corridors, perhaps this could be a good example?
Say: every Diocese which has lost 25% of the parishes it had 20 years ago will be merged with another one. The bishops in surplus will go back to being useful (one wonders if they ever were) and work as parish priests (one wonders if they ever did). If this plan were to be implemented, it’s not unlikely that the number of dioceses in the US would be cut in half, with great savings that could then be used for things like, say, restoring churches to their pre-VII splendor, start celebrating Tridentine Masses in them, and see how that goes.
The second reflection is that the Virus will, obviously, accelerate the trend of the live Mass on streaming. After the US Bishops have told their faithful that Mass is something they go to only if absolutely 100% safe, you can be assured that the slightest hint of the beginning of a cold will be used to decide that one does not have to attend; this, whilst the televised/streamed Tridentine masses of the Traditionalist orders keep increasing the number of viewers. No, the live streaming does not satisfy the Sunday Mass obligation. But hey, if I might have a cold? How can I condemn the 96 year old I am sure I will have sitting near me to an “early” grave? Has the Bishop not told us all that safety comes first?
The US Bishops, and not only them, have hoisted a petard under their own cathedra. They have told us that Mass is basically superfluous. If even the Mass is superfluous, how useless are they? And if the idea starts to spread that a very bad Mass does not have to be attended, how will the Bishops prevent the rapid increase of Tridentine Mass attendance via streaming? That is like the Internet: universally present, easily accessible, and basically unstoppable.
Prohibit your own Traditional Orders from streaming their Mass, and the SSPX will get this cake all for themselves! Voris will be so savage, he will eat his new platinum wig!!
We might be about to live interesting years…
I could not believe my eyes when I saw the video above and (in case you can’t play the video) Father Martina in the same screen as the “Fox News” writing.
Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that the people of Satan will take the side of Satan. The issue I have today is with those who give them a platform.
Why on earth is Fox News interviewing this effeminate tool in the first place?
I would understand if MSNBC would do the same; but still after their liberal drift, Fox is supposed to represent (and still get their money from) a certain mindset, opposed to fake Catholicism, effeminacy, and monstrous deformation of Catholicism.
A liberal news outlet might think that this man (I am being generous here), having some official function within the Church, can speak for Her. But the likes of Fox News must know that this man cannot speak for Catholicism, whatever his official rank, and should have looked elsewhere for their interviewing needs.
Millions of people, out there, are either generically Catholic or non-Catholic Christians: is this face the one that Fax wants to present to them as speaking for Catholicism? have they done their research, even one bit, before inviting him? Why have they not looked for one of the thousands alternatives to present a different angle, from a local parish priest to a bishop to anybody else who is not this guy?
This, millions of casual lookers and generic Christians look at this and think that Catholics are, by and large, against the reopening of their churches. They also think that their average testosterone content have gone down dramatically in recent decades.
Fox, wake up.
This guy represents Catholicism like he represents manliness.
You should know better.
Really, Francis has no shame.
You can say what you want of the late John Paul the Not-So-Great, but sympathy with Francis’ SJW causes was not one of his shortcomings.
If Francis had a shred of decency, he would push his Socialist message without trying to hijack his predecessors, however faulty they were at times in their understanding of Catholicism.
But Francis has no decency at all; and he either does not see that everybody else sees it, or else he sees it and he does not care. This is the attitude he has always had: the arrogance of lying to your face, realising that you understand it, but still doing it, because he is the pope (small p, out of respect for the decent ones).
When I first read, years ago, of the alleged habit of some Argentinians of lying openly, shamelessly, and boast of it, I thought it was one of those exaggerations that people create when they describe a stereotype, or a character trait, in too vivid a colour. In time, the repeated, arrogant statements of this man have persuaded me that there must be something in it; because if this were not the case, a man like Francis would exercise at least some prudence in spreading his lies.
Does it work? Er, well, no!! But again, I think Francis is long past caring whether something he wants to say works; whether he is believed by decent people or not; whether he is considered a honest guy or a first-class scoundrel.
He can bark, therefore he does. He abandons himself to his hatred for us, and spits us and our religion in the face, hoping to rile us even more as we see how shamelessly he lies. He probably enjoys the anger that follows. It makes the petty tyrant in him feel satisfied, contented, alive. He will very likely lie to you, insult you, and provoke you to his last day.
I have stopped a long time ago to be seriously angered by this guy. One day he will die and go to his judgment, and so will everyone of us.
As I think of how horrible his own last days promises to be, I resolve to make mine good enough to get to the right side.
The man has no shame, but he should not get (much of) your attention because of it. Consider him one of those disgraces that stay with you, in some ways or other, no matter what: like a flies, or a mosquitoes.
This particular mosquito will stop harassing you soon enough.
I am informed now, via Vox Cantoris, that the Evil Clown invites me to fast today. I wonder, when was Thursday a day of fasting?
Oh wait! This is another ecu-maniacal initiative of this stupid guy! What he would not do to dilute the Christian message and accustom you to think that there is one big community of “believers” all over the planet!
But you see, Evil Clown of my boots: if faith is not the true one, it is simply evil! Therefore, your invitation to Catholics to pray together with infidels (something that we cannot do! Not even together with Proddies, come to that!!) is nothing more than a scandalous invitation to consider all religions (the true one, and all the others) as pretty much the same thing!
Thanks, but no thanks, not-so-dear Evil Clown.
Today, I will pray for your death instead.
In fact, I will “implore God to help Humanity overcome this time of evil popes and lack of faith”, by taking you out of the game and to the presence of the Rex Tremendae Majestatis in which you, very obviously, do not believe.
There. Thank you!
And as to the fasting, today I will feast both at lunch and dinner (the joys of lockdown, you see), in honour of this day.
Look, it has already happened that the public authorities show hostility to Catholicism. In the end, the children of Fatima were detained in 1917 (August, if memory serves) exactly in order to prevent them from seeing the Blessed Virgin appearing to them!
This time, though, things are fundamentally different. It is not only that 3,500 soldiers have been mobilised, just days after the 1st May celebrations were allowed! It is that all this happens with the consent and complicity of the Bishops!
When Pius XIII becomes Pope, I hope he does not allow a single one of these world-worshipping little cowards to stay in charge. What we are witnessing is the almost complete emasculation, the almost complete (so-called) church-of-england-isation of Holy Mother Church; and truly, only Her indefectibility will save Her from the extinction to which, otherwise, this bunch of spineless homos would condemn her.
I don’t know what is next. Very probably, the Bishops applauding the arrest of those who might dare to show up, soldiers and all.
I really wouldn’t be surprised.
Let us say, you are a Bishop who hates Christ, for reasons known to you and, possibly, to a restricted number of other men only.
You are obviously terrified at the idea of masses resuming more or less regularly, and faithful Christian receiving on the tongue, as even the Bishops’ Conference of your own Country says you should be allowed to do.
What do you do?
Why, you show yourself oh so concerned for the health of everybody, of course! This allows you to create rules that no one else has and a fuss without precedent, which then makes it easier to justify banning Communion on the tongue.
You might release instructions like this one:
- The faithful who present themselves for communion on the tongue will be denied communion.
- Those who want to receive in the only way allowed (the Protestant/ V Ii one) get the following instruction: “Once you leave your pew/chair you will proceed single file (maintaining 6 feet apart) to the distribution point,” Stika wrote. “Immediately before you reach the distribution point you will remove your protective face mask placing it in your pocket and sanitize your hands with 70% alcohol-based sanitizing gel/solution (which will be on a small table directly in front of the distribution point). “Standing on the floor-marked X (or kneeling at the 6-foot marked locations along the communion rail), you will extend your arms and hands toward the priest/deacon with the palm of your non-writing hand facing up and completely flat supported by your writing hand,”
You will, of course, look like a total fag, which will possibly not displease you at all. Still, you will achieve your trifecta of virtue signaling, antagonising the true faithful, and enmity with Christ.
“But Mundabor, Mundabor!” – You might say – “This is too dumb even for satire! No bishop would be as thick as that!”
You would think that, wouldn’t you?
I have bad news for you: read here.
Follow the link to the Mass of the Evil Clown, held in the House of Sodomy.
The money quote is, as recognised by the outlet itself, this one:
“In recent days many people have lost their jobs; they have not been re-employed, they are working illegally … We pray for these brothers and sisters of ours who suffer from this lack of work “.
In one phrase, one can isolate everything that is wrong with this guy. Let us go in order:
- Francis’ preoccupations are never spiritual, they are worldly. When he pretends to be interested in soul, it is just an excuse to push his worldly agenda. So he can say that the poor are exploited, or he can say that those who exploit the poor will go to hell (notabene: the God of Mercy does not help the class enemy…). In the end, though, it is always the same message of social justice warrior in white.
- Francis complains about circumstances he has contributed to create. A Pope reminding the faithful that no one does, but God has decreed so, would encourage quite a different climate than the present inordinate panic. But hey, Francis is the enemy of capitalism, as is a sustained lockdown. Still, he never misses an occasion to whine.
- Francis is confused, because he does not think straight. As long as the lockdown is not consigned to the dustbin of history, it will not be possible to say that anyone is not re-employed. People can’t be re-employed when it is not legal for their employers to actually make them work. But hey, these subtleties are too much for Karl Francis.
- Francis conflates several issues, in order to subtly helps two causes of his at the price of one. In this case, he puts together the unemployed and those who work illegally. That illegal work is something that takes away jobs from honest people, he does not stop to reflect. In Francis’ world, you as a law abiding citizen have no rights.
He does do all the time. It really is all he knows. And why does he do this? Firstly, out of social hatred and social envy, as befits a Commie. Secondly, because his social grievances help him to look good, which he clearly craves above all else in his old age. Thirdly, because having lost the faith decades ago (if he ever had it, of which I doubt) the constant pounding about social issues helps him feel good. Pretty much everybody wants to feel he is doing some good. Every Stalin can look, in some moment of lucidity, at his cruelty and say to himself “I am changing the world, I am making it a better place”. Exculpation and excuse at the same time, social issues are what allows Francis to feed his ego whilst he thinks well of himself.
You will notice this pattern at work all the time. Think of this blog post the next time you read about a homily of his.
More likely than not, you will be able to make exactly the same considerations.
One of the most pernicious side effects of the Chinese Virus has been the sidelining of the religious experience, with the consent, complicity and active collaboration of great part of the Catholic clergy.
Punctually, the bill for this disgraceful behaviour is presented to the faithful. If Mr Pritzker, the Democratic Governor of Illinois, has his way, it will be a year before church building function normally again.
The Governor obviously hides behinds “the experts”. “Hey, it’s not me – he is almost saying -. I loathe these abortion-hating people; but I would not dare to go against them if it were dangerous for my career. However, the Catholic Church has been very zealous in approving the closure of their own churches, and the social marginalisation of the Mass for just as long as we want. Why would I not profit of such a brilliant situation as this one”?
And in truth, how has anyone expected this to go any differently? These are people who never allow a crisis to “go to waste”, and this crisis can certainly be milked for all it’s worth to help detach from the Church countless faithful; particularly after it has become clear to politicians of all colours that the Catholic clergy themselves seem intentioned to do just the same!
It’s open season on the Church, say many US Bishop. How is a Democrat Governor supposed not to shoot? Do you think someone in favour of killing babies in their mothers’ wombs will suddenly have a religious experience when he sees that the churches are closed, and his enemies locked at home?
Obviously, this poses an obvious and very unpleasant question: why would the Catholic higher echelons support their own marginalisation? The answer is, in my eyes, very saddening but also very evident.
It is because they hate Christ and His Church themselves. It is because they are either perverted, or in an illicit sexual relationship, or atheists. It is because they hate themselves for having to lie every day about their nature and their lives. Granted, the attempt to escape the contradiction by diverting the attention of their parishioners to topics like “poverty” and “social justice” may make them feel better for a while, which is why so many do it (if you want to know a priest who has lost his faith, look for a priest concerned about “social justice”). Still, by all their talk, they still know that, in the end, they are hypocritical scroungers living at the expense of an organisation they hate, but with no balls to out themselves as Church haters and seek a new life.
All these despicable individuals (starting from the Evil Clown, down to most bishops and, no doubt a great number of priests) have jumped on the Great Crisis Bandwagon, allowing them to get some relief from their duties, feel good with themselves as they pretend to “protect” their faithful, and harm an organisation they hate. They will, make no mistake, be in no hurry to get back to normality again. It’s for your safety, you know.
This crisis has shown this: that, generally speaking, our clergy has become the enemy of our religious freedom, and of our sensus catholicus before that. They want to make of Catholicism something you practice when people who don’t care a straw for Christ say it is “safe” for you to do so. They want to make the Church and the Sacrament as irrelevant for you as they are for them.
We need to wake up to this assault and denounce the bishops and priest who keeps blabbering about safety instead of doing their job.
Enough with the enemies in our midst.
I do not want to link to the hideous website, but it appears the Evil Clown has, semel in anno, said something quite right: a good shepherd is distinguished by his flock.
Quite so, Father Castro, quite so!
This is why the shepherds of the V II nuChurch have been steadily losing ground in all Western Countries, whilst the small but dedicated orders of Traditionalists (all of them, but particularly the heroic troops of the SSPX) keep thriving.
It is part and parcel of human nature to, in time, detect the phonies. It was, therefore, unavoidable – if very sad – that millions of people realised that the priest talking to them in a slightly too high-pitched on the Sunday was not a man of God, and could not give them the nourishment they wanted. The amount of people who have – sadly – abandoned the Catholic Church, or at least Catholic liturgy, by keeping a solid, if vitiated, faith – think of Sarah Palin, or Mike Pence – is a testimony to that.
In fact, I wonder how many of these people have abandoned their attendance to Catholic Mass simply in order to keep a faith they were afraid of losing; something, mind my words, very wrong from a theological standpoint, but very real from the vantage point of a poorly catechised Catholic.
Pope Francis can’t even get the people to see him as a tourist attraction in St Peter. He has failed even as a curiosity object and popular “moving landmark”. That he dares to make such comparison shows that he likely does not even read beforehand the homilies others write for him, or he would have asked that the subject be changed. Unless he is really so dumb that he does not understand what an indictment of his work his very words are.
In the meantime, the SSPX keeps thriving (sorry, Mr Voris: you lose), Francis keeps blabbering, and the faithful keep suffering. But the truth of the matter is this: that the bad shepherd will only be allowed to scatter their sheep as long as the Lord allow them to. in the end, not one sheep will be lost that is supposed to go back to the fold.
Francis’ diabolical hate for the Church is infinitely sad, but ultimately useless.
I normally don’t like to intervene in inter-Catholic squabbling. My reflection on this is that the anticlerical element will use everything it can to smear Catholicism as a whole, claiming that we are a bunch of sectarian fanatics.
In the case of the (new) attack of Church Slandering against the SSPX, I have not intervened for the additional reason that doing so would make it look like the accusations of Church Slandering have some merit and deserve to be discussed; which they haven’t, and don’t.
However, once the SSPX issues a statement on the issue, I think it proper to call your attention on it. The statement can be found here. There is nothing to add.
As a last observation, I would like to inform my esteemed readers of a policy I have: whenever one slanders the Society, he is banned either immediately, or after a warning shot. For the future, I think I will dispense with the warning shot.
The use of the word “schism” in connection with the SSPX will also likely get one banned, then life is too short for people with little understanding and a big mouth.