Category Archives: Bad Shepherds

Francis, The Homos, And The Strawman

Frankie Boy has, once again, made an ass of himself trying to look all modern and worldly.

Homosexuality is not a crime, he says. But it is a sin, he says.

He is wrong on both counts. The ignorance of this man never ceases to amaze.

The crime thing is a straw man argument. I do not know of any Catholic Country (when such Countries still existed; V II saw to that that they don’t anymore) which criminalises homosexuality, that is: which trials and puts someone to jail for the mere fact of being a pervert.

In fact, I am positive that Catholic Countries traditionally only punished the act of sodomy, not the condition (that is: the sexual perversion) of homosexuality. You see: a condition is not an action, it is not something you do, it is something you are. May it well be that, say, the homosexual has sinned many times on his way to festering his perversion into the “born that way” fantasy; still, the law never punished the being, but always the doing, the acting upon the perversion. Similarly, the Church would call a homosexual that does not act upon his perversion still a pervert, but not – in this at least – a sinner.

In fact, I am pretty sure that another fact stays: that in Catholic Countries the act was, generally, only made a criminal offence when scandal was given. This means that the homo who took every care not to advertise his horrible condition would not be liable to criminal prosecution for the mere sinful act. This was so, if memory serves, even in the Papal States!

Francis does not know what he is talking about. But he knows that he wants to look all modern and understanding, even as he thrashes those horrible people, the Catholics.

Mission failed, Frankie boy.

Next time you want to insult Catholics, at least try to inform yourself beforehand.

Where Francis got his fantasy of the “crime”, he should say. If this is something that applies to Islam he should say that, too. He doesn’t.

Francis is clearly using a huge strawman argument here, likely in order to make the social order of our Catholic past past Catholic look bad.

I think he is not just merely, as we say in Italy, “giving air to his teeth”. No. Not him. Rather, Francis is deliberately trying to sabotage Catholic culture. That he fails in that, too, is due to the embarrassing ignorance this man continuously displays.

The same goes for the “sinful” stuff. Here, it seems to me that there is not only crass ignorance at play, but rather the refusal to accept the reality of sexual perversion, because “who is he to judge”.

This must, also, be seen in the light of Francis’ home-baked theology, that there is no sin a priest has no obligation to absolve for, even if there is no contrition and repentance. Therefore, homosexuality is now “downgraded” to something God will automatically forgive; so hey, keep sinning and say to your confessor “I have sinned, father, and I will sin again”. It’s all fine, saith the Francis. You are just a sinner like everybody else. You will be fine, because an eternal punishment is not in the logic of the Gospel. Plus, who are we to judge?

Failing The “Joy” Test

I keep reading about this thing with the “joy”. It looks like the church is a joy dispenser. You are Catholic, you have joy.

Here. Have some joy.

It wasn’t so when I was growing up. “Vale of tears” was more frequently mentioned than joy. In fact, people expected a lot of stuff (not only life in general, but parts of it like being in a marriage or having children) as something that, actually, will require sacrifice and cause suffering, possibly suffering extremely difficult to bear like the loss of a child. The downplaying of the sacrifice and suffering of life causes all sorts of issues, like people (and I have heard that more than once) losing the faith because of a horrible bereavement (like the above mentioned loss of a child).

They promised me joy. I got immense grief. Something’s very wrong here.

But let us stay on the joy part and let us charitably assume that all those priests who never mention the vale of tears mean, by joy, the serenity that comes from a robust hope and a solid trust in the proper working of Providence. Let us imagine that this “joy” is what causes a Catholic to walk through life knowing that Christ is in charge and will properly care for His sheep. In that case, I must lament that I have seen nothing of it during the p…p….p….ppppandemic.

Most priests have not only run to give in to the panic. Worse than that, they have amplified it, positively encouraging the sheep to obsess about it, and to keep obsessing when the world had moved on lest they look “uncharitable” or not obsessed enough with the fantasies of their sheep. I remember many months in which only myself and, at most, a couple of others dared to attend without a mask, when the world out there had largely got rid of them. This went together with the invitation to stay out of Dodge if you are single, so the family near you would not think you are intent on killing them because of your silly, selfish desire to do something as trivial as attending Mass, or with the constant parish newsletter reinforcement of how horribly, horribly bad the situation was.

“Please stay safe!!”

Thanks, I prefer to stay sane.

If all these people had had the “joy” that is so often mentioned, they would have taken sensible, reasonable precautions, but they would have gone on with their life, knowing that Providence arranges everything beautifully and going to Mass is more important to them than worrying about germs.

There was, at least in my neck of the wood, nothing like that. Those joyful people proved, when tested, extremely prone to shitting their pants, big time, and Father kept telling them their trousers can never be brown enough.

There isn’t much “joy” in going around with a diaper around one’s mouth, constantly worrying about germs, and thinking that your survival, or the one of those near you depends on a thin piece of cotton that will not stop a fart, but should suddenly stop a virus.

This “joy” stuff, as it is currently practiced, is quite pernicious. It gives people the wrong outlook on life, and does not equip them to deal with difficult times. It is, also, largely emotional and not adequate to cope with the reality of life, in which we need to constantly have in front of our eyes not only the reality of suffering, but the value and purpose of it, and the need to pray so that we get, of it, only the strictly necessary.

Still: it will not be a walk in the park. It was never supposed to be.

Sacraments And Language In The Time Of Francis (Part 2).

Horrible details are now emerging about the controversial December meeting of Francis with the seminarians, about which I have already reported.

We have now detailed news about:

1. The language he used, and

2. The “duty” of forgiveness.

It seems that, on that day, Francis might have had a couple too many fernet.

’The priest, the seminarian, the minister must be ‘close’. Close to whom? To the girls of the parish? And some of them are, they are close, then they get married, that’s fine”.

What a vulgar joke about a priest’s mistress, more vulgar because from a priest, most vulgar b3cause from the pope.

Just as gravely, several occurrences of “f” word really show the guy is a first-class boor. Try this:

“fucking careerists who fuck up the lives of others”

I have left the entire words, because I want this man’s vulgarity to be known in its entirety. No, don’t tell me “we don’t know”, or “it’s all rumours”. It is now confirmed that several, basically identical reports of the meeting exist. The guy was either at his boorish best, which is extremely grave, or he was drunk. Frankly, I don’t know what is worse.

The forgiveness part is, also, now confirmed verbatim.

From the linked article:

“if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all. We can never deny absolution, because we become a vehicle for an evil, unjust, and moralistic judgement”.

If you listen to Francis’ newly minter religion, a priest always has to give absolution, irrespective of even repentance and sincere proposit of not sinning anymore in future. If he doesn’t, he is judgmental and moralistic. The dirt that must reside in the mind of this man does not bear thinking

The gravity of this is immediately apparent. It makes one wonder what Francis thinks that Christianity is in the first place. This seems like the kind of thing that makes absolutely everything about religion useless, because if a Catholic has a right to absolution even without repentance, then it seems difficult to see why anybody else should be refused heaven. Plus, if the sacraments are a mockery, then the entire fabric of religion is a mockery, too. This is the kind of stuff a Pope who has long lost the faith – if he ever had it – would say.

Mind, Francis had already given hints of his attitude, and I remember him one mentioning that a faithful might say in the confessional “I will sin again” and still get absolution. But this is more explicit still.

Honestly, I think he might well have been drunk, or at least more than tipsy. I think it because I think that Francis was the same boor every day of his pontificate, but it is now the first time that he uses such language in an official occasion.

That the scandal was great is shown from the fact that, one month later, the story is still around. With right, people are now demanding from the Vatican an official explanation and an official reiteration of Catholic doctrine.

I also allow myself to say that this, once again, confirms a pattern of vulgarity I have already highlighted several times. Remember the Italian “c” word in St Peter’s square? As I often stated, this kind of word does not “escape” a person unless this person is accustomed to use it. A person, and he the Pope, who is able to repeatedly use very vulgar words in front of his own seminarians is, exactly, a person for whom the use of heavy profanities has become so normal, that he will use these utterances – either because propelled by alcohol, or by arrogance – as a matter of course.

If it wasn’t, at least in part, alcohol, then it was 100% arrogance. It was the sober, coldly evil – and childish at the same time – attitude of thinking “I will do this just to show you I can”. This is, again, vintage Francis.

May the Lord free us from this scourge soon, and inspire the Cardinals to give us a successor who at least tries to remedy as much of the damage as he can.

The Punishment.

Yeah, let’s drink….

The Bishops you have appointed eagerly embrace the heresies of the day. The Cardinals you have appointed shut up when confronted with open, manifest heresy.

Your successor does exactly the same of what you wanted to do, but he has all the energy you never had. You thought he would listen to you, but he certainly doesn’t. In fact, he is at pain to always make clear how different he is from you.

The wave of conversions and vocations that your actions have spurned is gone. Your greatest “achievement”, which you never had the guts to properly enforce, is openly fought against, and you have to see with your own eyes as the attempt at total demolition become public.

Perhaps you thought, in some more honest hour, about how much you could have done, had you decided to die at your place. Perhaps you thought, when your conscience assailed you during sleepless nights, that an 85 years old should not be worried about what he can do for his health as much as what he can do for Christ.

Perhaps you bitterly regretted your step. Perhaps you begged God for forgiveness, for fleeing for fear of the wolfes. Perhaps you understood that those long years watching the demolition of even that little that you did right were a punishment, the amply deserved punishment for the sin of cowardice, for abandoning the post in the hour of the enemy’s assault. Perhaps your tears were bitter, and your sorrow sincere.

But then, why did you praise to the skies the work of your successor? Why did you give not only one, but at least two interviews in which you openly approved of the work of your successor; a circumstance the more humiliating, as your successor never made a mystery of what he thought of your work?

I understand that an open criticism of your successor would have caused a major uproar; but many other ways were open to you – from books to theological articles to interviews – to reiterate the true teaching without openly, undiplomatically pointing the finger to the one who betrayed them.

You did not do any of this. You swam with the flow.

Again.

It is easy to say “Jesus, I love you” on the deathbed.

It is far more difficult to show this love in deed, when it hurts.

May you be, one day, in the company of the angels. May the Lord have given you the strength to sincerely repent of both your desertion and your complicity with the work of your successor. May we all, one day, rejoice together in the company of Christ.

But if the 10 years-long punishment hasn’t opened your eyes, I frankly don’t know what would, and what would allow you to die a very eloquent, highly intelligent, very prayerful deserter.

The Funeral: Two Takeaways

“They overcooked my Porterhouse Steak again….”

I had the opportunity to watch a short fraction of the funeral of the Pontiff Emeritus. Two things, of this event, struck me the most.

The First: Francis’ girth.

It seems to me that the man keeps getting larger. The camera footage from the side, as he theatrically held his head near the coffin of a man he certainly never liked, and very probably never esteemed, showed a man shockingly different from his 2013 version. It was also fairly clear that that stick/crutch he held is now indispensable if he wants to move on his own, and that the sciatica-induces limp is now quite pronounced. I can’t say he looks healthy. Of course, fasting would, as widely reported, be of great help in treating his fatness-induced issues of sciatica and general mobility. But it looks like oh so spiritual Francis prefers to feast instead.

2022 Francis compared to 2013 Francis: double the fat, same heresy content.

What shall I say: “soon, soon!” ?

The second: the sermon.

I have not listened to the homily/sermon, but reports indicates that Benedict was, as a whole, ignored, apart from some obligatory, very short references. I would call this a last slap in the face of the German Shepherd from his successor, the Argentinian Bouncer.

You would expect a sermon to focus on the dearly departed, extolling his theological stature, gentle mind, towering intellect, shepherd’s zeal etc. If the sermon is, however, completely about other issues, you can safely interpret this as Francis’ desire to show you, on the last worldwide televised occasion, how high (or low) his consideration for Benedict is. This is, I am afraid, classic FrancisBoor, and will go down in history together with the empty seat at the concert and the mocking of those praying the rosary for him.

So, not much news from this funeral.

Here’s hoping I will, soon, be able to write about another one; one which, hopefully, will lead to an improvement from the dismal situation we have today.

Pray For Benedict, The Tragic Pope Who Fled For Fear Of The Wolves.

The earthly journey of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is now coming to an end. The latest I have heard is that he can still assist to mass, but if his condition is called “serious” we all know how this is, most likely, going to end in the next few days.

The legacy that the man will leave is, if you allow me to be so blunt, a total failure (in execution, but most likely not in intention) with the addition of Summorum Pontificum; a measure, the last one, in which Benedict also managed to fail as he was spectacularly AWOL when the most difficult part (the enforcement) came.

The report on the homosexuality in the Church, which he himself commissioned, and on which he, once again, refused to act, is the other, tragic, pole of his Papacy. I consider the latter the most grave failing of his Pontificate, even worse than his very weak defence of Summorum Pontificum. But there are other issues about which I prefer to speak now, when he is still alive.

Benedict was, if you ask me, the controlled opposition to the dominant V II HomoChurch. Having flirted with heresy himself in his youth (as always in his life, as a moderate heretic, a position of sub-zero risk in the Church of those years), he progressively recovered – in a journey that went on for decades and completed, if it really completed, only when he was Pope – a more orthodox understanding of his place in the great scheme of things. But he never was the guy who would do anything forceful.

Those Cardinals who made him Pope (yes, my dear readers: it’s the Cardinals, not the Holy Ghost, who elect the Pope) evidently knew very well that the man depicted in the secular press as a (ahem) German Pastor eager to defend the Church was, in reality, an already old, already frail man, with less desire for battles than he had ever had in his life, and with an extraordinary propensity for being manipulated, ignored, or openly disobeyed without any consequence. They knew very well that the guy was, again, controlled opposition, giving a facade of austerity and seriousness whilst the Homo Party went on undisturbed. The result was the extraordinary admission of being afraid of fleeing for fear of the wolves. Something which, as it is abundantly clear now, the man actually did.

And a man of the power apparatus Benedict, as expected, was. His appointments of bishops and cardinals were atrocious. The German Shepherd was the obedient lapdog of the dominant groups within the Vatican. The problems we have now are also caused by almost eight years of such appointments.

The weakness of character (which should have advised him to simply ask the Cardinals to pick someone else) was his greatest weakness. Vanity was the second.

It was, if you ask me, vanity – however he might have called it – that led a Pope fleeing from the wolves, and likely obsessed by his fear of being remembered as such, to stress that he was not actually fleeing by – and this is not casual – clinging to the title and the pomp. How much better for him would have been to request to be sent, with the title his successor would deem fit, in some monastery in the extremely beautiful corner of the planet where he was born, and to live there a life in prayer. But no: the failure of his Pontificate, the actual absence of the balls required to simply do his job, had to be hidden behind a veil of gravitas, keeping the title (in a way common, in Italy, to Professors, and which Benedict knew perfectly well) as he was relinquishing the job. A Professor who retires is called Emeritus to allow him to get the honour of the position when he does not have the job anymore. Benedict invented for himself a way of doing exactly the same himself. The issues that this engendered are well-known and, whilst they are totally unfounded, it cannot be said that Benedict made things easier.

Now, let me come to the main event: the fleeing.

If you look at my blog posts of those times, you will see that I had given the man the benefit of the doubt, thinking – very rationally, if you ask me, and avoiding the sin of detraction – that he had decided to resign because he knew that he did not have the physical strength to keep doing the job, something also influenced by the sad spectacle offered by the last years of John Paul II. I stay behind everything that I have written at the time, and consider it, to this day, the most logical reading of the events.

I changed my mind about it – and persuaded myself that the man was, actually, fleeing all the time, and a water carrier of the “progressive guys” all his life – when I saw the unconditional approval Benedict gave to the obviously heretical pontificate of Francis. This, my friends, is not the behaviour of a man who is strong in spirit, but decides to leave the office so that others may continue his work with the necessary energy. This is the behaviour of a yes-man who will do whatever it takes, even with approaching judgment, in order to be seen as an obedient wheel of the apparatus. This is the guy who will never, ever rock the boat.

Ratzinger was never a leader. In typical German fashion, he was born a follower. The job offered to him in 2005 was the possibly most unsuited to his character and inclinations. He could not have changed his character, but he could, and should, have recognised that he was absolutely not cut for the job. Whatever excuse he gave to himself (“the will of the Lord” and such like), let me tell you that, is you ask me, vanity, again, was in play.

A career as a theologian based on heresy-light. Then a pontificate as a fake hard guy. Then a post-pontificate (in itself a problem) marked by complicity with evil.

This is the legacy of Joseph Ratzinger; the man who always managed to do it safely, comfortably wrong.

He is, now, very near to that terrible moment, the moment that awaits all of us. I will pray with all my heart that he may die at peace with the Lord, as I wish for myself and, my dear readers, for all of you.

Immense Gains.

Yes, Frankie. Wrong career…

Yesterday, Argentina has won the Football World Championship. Congratulations, and all that. They are half-Italians after all, so they had good football (soccer) genes to work with.

Their goalkeeper has, upon winning a goalkeeper-related trophy, proceeded to make an extremely vulgar gesture with it. Not only was this extremely vulgar, but also shockingly stupid considering half the planet was watching. I haven’t seen the video as I never follow prize giving ceremonies my team has not won, but I understand that the antics was checked live on tv, in front of, likely, a couple of billions. Stupidity and arrogance mixed together in a deadly cocktail.

And then it dawned on me: this must be something not necessarily linked to a person, but linked to a mentality, an attitude. Evidently, the Argentinian boor has to be a very special kind of boor; someone who boasts of his coarseness and wants all the world to see it, rather than the usual variant in which the coarseness is clearly there, but it is not boasted about.

This very public coarseness must be at the root of the unbelievable arrogance of Francis.

“How can he do this?” – we have asked countless times when seeing him insulting the Blessed Virgin, separating children’s hands joint in prayer, or just not showing up at the concert. “Does he not realise he will look stupid in front of everyone?”

Perhaps he does. Perhaps he doesn’t.

But he will do it anyway, because this is the kind of boorishness that, in his “cultural” environment, people like him will boast about.

Seen from this perspective, all becomes clear.

Francis should have become a professional goalkeeper instead of a priest.

No improvement in footballer’s behaviour, of course; but what an immense gain for the Church!!

Hating The Church And Showing It: How Francis Behaves When The Cameras Have Gone.

If you look at this article on Gloria TV you will see two dominants themes: the vulgarity and the dislike for Catholicism.

The first issue has been dealt with often on this little effort. We do not know exactly what expressions Francis would have, on this occasion, used that are considered vulgar. We know, however, that very vulgar expressions can even “escape” from his mouth when he speaks in public, as in the case of the famous Italian “c” word I wrote about in the past.

The matter is this: a guy who expresses himself in an extremely vulgar way involuntarily in public, is a man who expresses himself all the time in a vulgar way in private. In this case, Francis had no cameras around and was free to talk in his native language. I am not surprised that he would be perceived as a boor, as he so clearly is one.

More important, though, is the second aspect.

Francis had a short speech written for him. The speech was, as you can see from the link, beautifully Catholic. Francis must have read it shortly before “delivery time” and must have been so angry with its Catholic content, that he decided to ditch it altogether (there was, clearly, no time to prepare something alternative, probably because Francis’ favourite trannies had all remained in Italy).

I think that this attitude, this behaviour is, in fact, boorish in itself. A Pope has carefully crafted speeches exactly in order to be able to perform his duties at his best. Thinking that a short Q & A with an obviously uneducated, rambling, confused guy can be a valid replacement for solid Catholicism is, exactly, the mark of the uneducated guy, besides showing the lack of respect for his audience Francis has so often exhibited.

Still, this is not about class, or knowledge. This is about the obvious fact that Francis decided to ditch the speech exactly because its Catholic content was such a nuisance to him. I also suspect Francis must have been not a little angry after discovering that he had been ambushed with a Catholic speech. Short-tempered as the man clearly is, I can picture him very vividly as he gets into the impromptu “chat” in that kind of mood that makes his natural boorishness really pop out and, in order for it to get out to the press, he must have been really efficient at it.

Still, it is not about the manners, or the tone, or the class. Were he a saint, or at least a good guy, nobody would complain about the manners.

Padre Pio slapped people in the face and threw his sandals at his distracted pupils. But Padre Pio loved Christ and His Church with every cell of his body.

Does Francis?

Bullies in Belgium.

Belgians are, according to a horrible magazine, running to “de-baptize” themselves (something they can’t really do; but the diocese will make a note of their desire to un-sacrament themselves, so it’s black on white when they die…) in droves. Their already very bad church attendance is also going down faster than Hunter Biden’s cocaine high.

I have written recently about post-couf Mass attendance. However, I also wonder: how is it that the anti-Catholic stance always seems to be more virulent where the Church is already massively lacking in charity, because trying to appease the world?

The answer to this is, I think, very simple: the world cannot be appeased.

There is no universe in which the local church takes the cowardly approach, and is not made to pay for her cowardice. In fact, I think that the Lord, in His wisdom, has decreed that this be expressly so, in order for the local church to be punished for not doing her job.

The article in the horrible magazine hints (perhaps out of anti-catholic spirit; perhaps just out of available information) that this desire to (try to) un-baptize oneself might have to do with the issues surrounding sexual degeneracy.

Say: young woman believes herself a lesbian, introduces her parents to her wannabe spouse, and the parents of the two dykes are now, suddenly and after a life of calling themselves Catholic, incensed that the luuurrv of their daughters cannot have a stamp of approval by the local church. How dare they, think the parents: One Love, and all that rubbish. As we live in an age of virtue-signalling, they then proceed to (try to) “un-baptize” themselves so that they can boast of this great feat on Facebook, harvesting the approval of their circle they so ardently crave.

Mind you here: if the Church in Belgium had been savagely thundering against abortion, sodomy, and euthanasia (the latter has now become a Belgian passion, like chocolate and waffles), then it would not be so expedient to seek (wannabe) “un-baptism” as a virtue signalling argument. Why? Because the virtue signaller seeks the approval of the mass of his friends. A brutal confrontation would make the argument simply toxic. Virtue signaller doesn’t like toxic. He prefers easy. His little Ukraine flag is there exactly because of the virtual certainty that all his friends think the same way.

In Belgium as elsewhere, the church needs to up the ante and massively raise the level of confrontation. This has a great effect and often works very well on this life (it always works well in the next). Why? Because, clearly, Christ wants it so, showing us countless examples of local churches picking up the fight and doing greatly in it, and local churches trying to avoid the confrontation and being crushed, but more slowly.

Nobody respect someone who makes an argument he is embarrassed of. On euthanasia, sodomy, and even abortion, the church counter-argument is so full of appeasements, so cowardly in its explanation, that it is not surprising at all that it gets rejected outright.

The Church in Belgium is like the boy who, fearful of a fight, ends up being the bitch of his bully.

When confronted with a bully, never try to appease him.

You are always, always better off picking up the fight.

Actions And Words: On Post-Couf Mass Attendance.

Western catholic bishop, 2020.

Catholics are not coming back to church after the “pandemic”, at least in the USA.

Somehow, I struggle to be surprised.

All over the West, Catholic bishops were at the very forefront of the movement to restrict the religious liberty of their own faithful.

As so often in these disgraceful times, they sent to their sheep an extremely powerful message: worldly cares always come before Christ.

Of course, this was not said that way. When you think that Christ needs to sit at the back of the bus, you always need to look good to those you allow to sit at the front. But seriously, no one bought the “care for the elderly” stunt.

If the Bishops had thought that Christ comes first, they would have told so, first to their sheep, and then to their political class. They would have threatened to raise hell if the elementary religious freedom of being able to attend Mass had been curtailed. They would have excommunicated Catholic politicians imposing such a tyranny, and they would not have cared for what Francis says, because…. Christ comes first.

All this has not happened. The people in the pews, already confused by utter lack of proper instruction, have – confusedly, but clearly – received the message: if Mass attendance was unimportant then, why would it be important now?

Nor do the parishioners really think that, by stopping mass attendance, they are risking hell. They were never told that when they were attending. Instead, they heard all that drivel about the “joy of Christ”, making Mass look like a happy-clappy celebration of the oh so holy, and oh so nice, communiteeeeee in attendance.

Guess what? These people are now reflecting that, as they are so holy and nice, they don’t need to do something which, in fact, not even their priests and bishops consider so important.

Excuses will never be in short supply. The one will say that he prefers to sing his praise to the Lord whilst hiking over beautiful hills. The other will say that he can spend the time he was wasting in traffic talking to his son about the joooooy of Jeeeeeesus. A third will simply reflect that, if Mass attendance had been so important, the bishop would never have been so fast in telling everybody to stay home.

From the perspective of these poorly instructed people, they are not reasoning badly. They are merely building on the half lies and unspoken truths they have been exposed to for many years, and to the attitude of their pastors when they were tested.

Actions speak louder than words.

One would think a bishop knows that.

In Season And Out Of Season: About Christianity’s Decline In Great Britain.

There have been articles recently stating that Christians are now less that 50% of the British population. It is, of course, nonsense. Christians are likely less than 10%, even including the lukewarm ones, and they are rapidly decreasing. Millions of official Christians are atheists; mainly, they are Anglicans, waiting to die.

We are now in the Christmas season, and you see absolutely nowhere a link between Christmas and Christ. It is done in order “not to offend”.

The same happens in absolutely everything else. Christianity is offensive. You are still allowed to say that you are Christian, but this might, in the next years, be challenged via the so-called “hate” legislation, which is proving a real cancer for the Country. Of course, Muslims haven’t much to fear from it. They have both machetes (very few) and victim status (all). They will likely be fine.

Why I say all this to you? Do I think that the so-called Church of England can reverse her decay? Of course not. Anglicans cannot, but Catholics still can.

There is still enough critical mass in England for Christians to go on the offensive. However, in order to do that it is necessary that the Church in England remembers what her role is, and acts accordingly.

You seldom hear of a controversial homily; when that happens, the bishop will be very fast in apologising; when you hear a Catholic bishop in the public sphere, it is normally concerning social issues.

Of course the Country dechristianises itself. Christianity is not preached anymore. At least it is not preached in everything that makes it specifically Christian, in all the matters in which Christ offends the world.

Every time you hear a homily, or a prelate on the radio, you know you will hear words chosen exactly for their lack of controversy. Even when they choose (and they are a minority) to voice a mildly Christian point of view, the priest or bishop will always be very minded to soften the blow and, therefore, unavoidably neuter the message.

If a talk about sodomy needs to begin using words like “compassion” and “inclusion”, you have lost already and it would have probably been better to shut up in the first place.

Paradise is not really inclusive, and in hell there is absolutely no compassion. In fact, not even the blessed souls in paradise have any compassion for the damned. The damned have obtained what they have deserved. That’s it. Every form of “sadness” for the damned is simply not compatible with the unimaginable (to the human mind) happiness the souls enjoy in paradise; a happiness that is fuelled by the constant knowledge that everything is exactly as it should be, and no damned soul is allowed to disturb this perfect harmony in the least degree.

In paradise, no mother has any sadness, and therefore any compassion (that is: the ability to suffer with another one), for her damned son. Let that sink in.

Does any bishop tell you that? If he does, does he think it? I doubt, because if he did, his interviews and newspaper articles would look very different.

The decline of Christianity in the UK is not the fault of the many atheists. They are doing their (literally, damned) job. It is the fault of the Catholic clergy who are not doing theirs.

It would be so easy, so easy! Believe you me, there is a quiet, desperate search for answers all around me. There is a spread, but barely expressed desire for a solid grounding, a solid meaning, a scope in life that goes beyond promiscuity, divorce, financial ruin (for the male) or desperate search for intimacy (for the female), old age, decay, nursing home, death, cremation, and utter disappearance.

Brits want, like every human, to confront themselves – at the very least, they long to be forced to confront themselves – with the main issues of life, beyond the stupid virtue signalling that is such big part of the modern, vastly practiced religion of goodism. But they never have anybody willing to give them what they confusedly feel they need. When they listen to a supposed Christian voice , they hear the same rubbish they hear everywhere. It’s not easy, here in Blighty, to get a rooting in the faith unless you already have one, or are, out of your own, God-willed volition, determined to get one for yourself.

The emasculated Church in England has completely neglected the Christian message. The Protestant Mickey Mouse outfits actually mostly hate it, or are embarrassed by it. The BBC (almost no day without some article about some “good pervert”) have taken over the role of educators and moral guides. Nobody challenges the atheists and the worldly without telling them how good they still are, and how many points of common they think there are with Christians.

Let me put me bluntly: you can’t try to find points in common with the enemies of Christ. It is fully irrelevant that, in their own stupid way, they want “a better world”. The problem is exactly that they don’t want Christ and His commandments in it.

We are called to be Catholics in season and out of season.

To my knowledge, not one single prelate, here in England, is up to the task.

This is why Christianity declines .

Francis’ Multiple Own Goal (Plus: What Do The Russians Know That We Don’t?)

One and a quarter man.

Francis gave an interview to a Jesuit magazine. it means the interview was read, re-read, vetted by likely several people, and then agreed in its final form. Unless, that is, Francis’ papacy is now so reckless that not even that happens anymore.

The guy who apologised to the descendants of the savages in Canada, now scores a multiple own goal of the most unsavoury sort.

Let us see it in detail:

“When I speak about Ukraine, I speak of a people who are martyred. If you have a martyred people, you have someone who martyrs them. When I speak about Ukraine, I speak about the cruelty because I have much information about the cruelty of the troops that come in”.

Ah, the good old vomiting of Western propaganda. The unquestioning relaying of Goebbelsian public manipulation with outright lies, as seen in Krematorsk and Bucha (and, soon, in Kherson!). Congratulation, Francis: you are now Number One Dummy of the Western propaganda. You are Forrest Gump without the innocence. You are, just, plain stupid.

Generally, the cruelest are perhaps those who are of Russia but are not of the Russian tradition, such as the Chechens, the Buryati and so on.

This is utterly from the Clown Manual. Firstly, Francis is saying that all components of Russian army are cruel, some are merely less cruel than others. Then he proceeds to decide which ones have the right to feel more or less Russian, and concludes that the non-stereotyped Russian (like the Chechens or the Buryati) are actually worse than the others. This is fourteen-years-old casually racist propaganda level.

Someone please explain to this man that Russia is a multinational entity, and people of different cultures and traditions, and even religions, identify as Russian just as fiercely as the Slavic founders of the state and deeply resent being considered second-rank Russians. This explains to you (but not to Francis) why the Chechens have provided such a large number of volunteers; people who are, by the way, being universally admired on the battle front.

Certainly, the one who invades is the Russian state. This is very clear.

More fourteen years old logic. There is nowhere in Catholic doctrine that says that a country cannot invade, for the right reasons (think of the Crusades!). In this case, Frankie Boy conveniently forgets the 14,000 people, (thousands among them women and children, going about their life, walking in the park, or coming back from the grocery store) senselessly murdered by an 8 years long campaign of mass killing, explicitly and indisputably targeting civilians, without Francis or the West ever saying a word. When, finally, Russia decides that the time has come to put an end to this shame (mind here: Putin certainly would have wanted to do it earlier, but he simply had to be ready), Francis’ IQ70-logic stops at “who has invaded whom”.

This is Fort Sumter all over again, with the aggressor forcing the other to act, and then playing victim.

Sometimes I try not to specify so as not to offend and rather condemn in general, although it is well known whom I am condemning. It is not necessary that I put a name and surname.

Yeah, well, actually it is, Frankie dear. You did not condemn Zelensky, who was elected on a promise to put in place the Minsk 2 Agreements and then made a complete U-turn, continuing and intensifying the shelling of poor Donbass civilians.

——-

A final observation: Maria Zakharova, speaker for the Russian Ministry of defence, replied to Francis with the following words:

“This is no longer Russophobia, it’s a perversion on a level I can’t even name”

Hhhmmmm….

Is it me, or Mrs Zakharova is, here, saying something along the lines of “we know something about this guy we are now, actually, tempted to reveal?”

Why, otherwise, this accusation of perversion on a level that cannot even be named? I read Zakharova on the Telegram Channel of the Russian Foreign Ministry every day, and I can testify that she does not throw the word “perversion” around casually.

It seems to me, in fact, that this choice of words (thrown is the “I can’t even name” if you need corroboration) is not casual at all.

If the Russians were to tell the world something that Francis does not want the world to know, and coincides with what many actually suspect, they would greatly help the cause of traditionalism and help the Church to free itself from the filth now pervading Her at every level.

Reverence, Expanded

My post of last week about reverence has caused many reactions, which showed me that the issue is more pressing than your average Novus Ordo, V II, “let’s have an applause for Mrs Jenkins, who always greets everyone at the entrance”-priest would like to admit.

However, reader Michael Warning pointed out to something that, I think, needs reflection: there are Latin Masses that are disrupted, too.

I only ever experienced one of these masses. I did not find it as disrupted as your typical NO mass (by far not), but certainly, it was more disrupted than I expected it to be.

I noticed this and could only – sadly – reflect on this: that you can’t bring Sodom out of Lot. Unless there is a work of education of the faithful on the deep meaning of reverence at Mass, and on the fact that a disruption is still a disruption even if it is caused by a child, chances are that, among the young couples attending to a Latin Mass, there will be those who still struggle to grasp that “reverence” thing, and have no cultural instruments to understand that, in the end….

no, it is not OK.

It has been, in saner times, a constant praxis of the Church that children should only be in church when they can behave and cause no disruption (this will, of course, depend from the degree of maturity and self-control of the single child). Also, it has been a constant praxis of the Church that, if there is no possibility to leave a child at home when attending mass, there is no mass obligation for the person who minds the child.

So, if papa and mama want to attend the Latin (and not only Latin) Mass but have a small, noisy toddler, or a baby, and there is no reasonable way to park the child by grandma on a Sunday morning, the mother can and should well stay home with the child until such time as the child can attend mass without disruption (perhaps, at times, papa could stay, though I wonder how many Italian mamas would like the arrangement…).

How do I know all this, you will ask?

As to the second statement, I have it from a homily at a Latin Mass.

As to the first statement, I have it from frequent, lived, personal experience. In fact, I distinctly remember the many times in which my art-loving, but not churchgoing parents would not allow me to enter a church they were visiting (papa would go first, then he would get out and it would be mama’s turn), explaining it with the fact that I, a mere child, was not disciplined enough to enter the church. Later, when I was old enough to be allowed to enter, I was still forbidden to do so in days in which I was restless or noisy. This was because, even for my agnostic father, it was not OK that it would enter the sacred space of a church and even only cause a risk that the place, – mind, ***outside of mass*** -, be sullied by my unruly behaviour.

I also happen to remember ( I remember a lot of things of my early childhood; then I struggle to remember what I ate for breakfast…) that no one of my cousins was allowed to enter church, either; the village church of our early childhood being, for us, an inaccessible, magical place full of mystery and, in fact, tremendously awe-inspiring (and note here, my aunt and uncle did go to Mass!).

These things did not happen out of my father’s strange idea about reverence and, again, my father was agnostic and not at all church going. This can only have happened because of a concept of reverence that was deeply embedded in the Italy my parents grew in, something that was cultural before even being specifically religious. Today’s behaviour is what 50 years of happy clapping, guitars in church and aggiornamento do to people.

Mind, there were certainly exceptions and, perhaps, different regional sensitivities (in one of the Don Camillo movies, you can hear a baby crying during the homily; perhaps it was done for effect…); you can also say that I was raised strictly, and so were my cousins, and you would certainly be right; but yes, reverence was a big thing, no doubt about it.

When sanity comes back, the return to proper liturgy will have to be accompanied by a work of reeducation of the faithful; reeducation to, well, sanity, then it is a mystery to me how people can even chit chat in church before the mass starts. The naturally reverent Latin Mass will help a lot; but, on its own, it will not do the trick, because what is going lost is the sensus catholicus and the deep reverence that contributed to the Latin Mass in the first place.

The Everyday Degenerate

Father Georgina had already selected his hearse…

The Evil Clown has received Father Georgina once again. This time, he was allowed to witness the cringeworthy, effeminate ways of the “man” for a full 45 minutes (or so Georgina says).

It is very obvious at this point that the guy just can’t be without his fix of perversion for long. In fact, you would say that, to him, being near to people as obviously degenerate as Georgina has now become an addiction that needs frequent doses of filth.

Francis once said that the so-called “gays” don’t go around with a sign saying that they belong to the so-called gay mafia. However, it seems he can detect them all right, anyway. He would need to be totally blind, and even more stupid than he is, not to notice that there is something fundamentally wrong in this extremely creepy, disquieting guy he keeps receiving.

But then again Francis is a guy who makes a point of receiving freak shows from the tranniedom of the extreme fringes of Italian societies every week (I have written on this; look it up), so a circus tool like Father Georgina must serve as an appetizer to him.

To say that Francis is worthy of being despised is to put it too mildly. A red-pilled Catholic should see in him a very direct, physical attack of Satan against the Church.

The smoke of Satan has entered the church, not from some fissure, but from the main door. A big barbecue is now going on. Faggot priests and trannies are participating, laughing out loud. Francis is looking at them, smiling, and trying to get out of the lewd spectacle all the excitement his old body and old lewd mind can get out of it.

Nothing happens, unless God allows it for His own providential reasons. God has allowed this man to be made pope. One day we will see the mechanism at work in all its (again: providential) beauty.

For now, it seems evident enough that this guy has become a cautionary tale for everything that is to do with Vatican II; and the mor ehe – and, I am afraid, his successors – go on with this, the more a solid, sane, healthy Catholicism will grow exactly as a reaction to him.

As to him, he wrote in one of his Excrementations that an eternal punishment is not in the logic of the Gospel.

Let him experience for himself, if he were to die unrepentant, how logical the statement was.

Meanwhile, don’t be (too) upset for the antics of this tool and his effeminate minions.

Providence is at work. Every moment.

Nil inultum remanebit.

Christianity Is Supposed To Hurt, You Dumbass.

Bishop Browne in his free time.

Bishop Ray Browne of Kerry, Ireland, has apologised for one of his priests, who is culpable of actually doing his job.

Father Sheehy, the priest in question, expressed basic Catholic truths: mortal sin unrepented leads to hell, sodomy is a mortal sin, etc. Really, basic stuff. I knew this stuff when I was in kindergarten. In kindergarten, I was man enough to accept it.

It seems this was, however, too much for some of the most obdurate inveterate sinners or perverts in the pew. They were, wait for it, “hurt”.

What does the bishop do? Apologises for his priest’s Catholicism and dares to say that Catholicism does not represent the Christian position. According to him, if some pervie is “hurt”, Catholicism needs to hide in some deep hole.

Bishop Browne is a Catholic-free space, an arrogant supporter of perverts, and an ass to boot.

Catholicism is supposed to hurt, you dumbass!

When was the last time this ass read the Gospel? If he had done so once or twice in the last fifty years, he would know that Christ hurts, shocks and admonishes an awful lot. And yes, you dumb joke, this represents the Christian position to 100%.

This bishop needs to be defrocked, stat. He is an offence to Christianity. He is a pagan priest of the cult of niceness masquerading as a shepherd. He is just the way Satan wishes a bishop to be. A toxic donkey.

Not only does he not know Catholicism, but he does not even have the humility and basic decency of trying to, at his very old age, learn the basics of it. No, it must be the basics that are wrong.

I don’t know who stinks of reprobation more here: the supposed “faithful” who dare to complain because a priest preaches the basics, or a bishop who actually completely forgets what Christianity is all about (hint for the bishop: avoiding hell, *****not***** preventing a fag from feeling “hurt”!) and actually sides with Satan, openly, profusely, unapologetically.

Boy, you read this guy and you understand how things must have been in Sodom, where, no doubt, everybody was “inclusive”…

What a cretin. What a joke. What an unspeakable ass. What a fraud.

It’s people like him who cause lukewarm faithful to lose the faith. It’s people like him who make people stay away from the One True Faith. This guy needs to repent, or he will spend eternity in some very, very dark hole, together with all the people he did not want to be “hurt”.

Idiot.

Cretin.

Dumbass.

Servant of Satan.

Christianity Is Supposed To Hurt, You Dumbass.

Bishop Browne in his free time.

Bishop Ray Browne of Kerry, Ireland, has apologised for one of his priests, who is culpable of actually doing his job.

Father Sheehy, the priest in question, expressed basic Catholic truths: mortal sin unrepented leads to hell, sodomy is a mortal sin, etc. Really, basic stuff. I knew this stuff when I was in kindergarten. In kindergarten, I was man enough to accept it.

It seems this was, however, too much for some of the most obdurate inveterate sinners or perverts in the pew. They were, wait for it, “hurt”.

What does the bishop do? Apologises for his priest’s Catholicism and dares to say that Catholicism does not represent the Christian position. According to him, if some pervie is “hurt”, Catholicism needs to hide in some deep hole.

Bishop Browne is a Catholic-free space, an arrogant supporter of perverts, and an ass to boot.

Catholicism is supposed to hurt, you dumbass!

When was the last time this ass read the Gospel? If he had done so once or twice in the last fifty years, he would know that Christ hurts, shocks and admonishes an awful lot. And yes, you dumb joke, this represents the Christian position to 100%.

This bishop needs to be defrocked, stat. He is an offence to Christianity. He is a pagan priest of the cult of niceness masquerading as a shepherd. He is just the way Satan wishes a bishop to be. A toxic donkey.

Not only does he not know Catholicism, but he does not even have the humility and basic decency of trying to, at his very old age, learn the basics of it. No, it must be the basics that are wrong.

I don’t know who stinks of reprobation more here: the supposed “faithful” who dare to complain because a priest preaches the basics, or a bishop who actually completely forgets what Christianity is all about (hint for the bishop: avoiding hell, *****not***** preventing a fag from feeling “hurt”!) and actually sides with Satan, openly, profusely, unapologetically.

Boy, you read this guy and you understand how things must have been in Sodom, where, no doubt, everybody was “inclusive”…

What a cretin. What a joke. What an unspeakable ass. What a fraud.

It’s people like him who cause lukewarm faithful to lose the faith. It’s people like him who make people stay away from the One True Faith. This guy needs to repent, or he will spend eternity in some very, very dark hole, together with all the people he did not want to be “hurt”.

Idiot.

Cretin.

Dumbass.

Servant of Satan.

Taisez-Vous, Monsieur Macron!

“You are always such fun, Emmanuel!”

Monsieur Macron has, together with others, given a great show of virtue signalling at some religious gathering or other I can’t even be bothered to identify.

Besides insulting the Patriarchate of Moscow (but not the one of Kiev; the first is manipulated by its government, the second, mysteriously, not…) Monsieur Macron has said that peace in the Ukraine would be tantamount to justify aggression.

I would really want to know what his plan is.

Even those who (wrongly, if you ask me) consider Russia’s intervention in the (former) Ukraine unjustified, still have a moral duty to look at reality hard in the face and start reasoning as to where we go from here.

The four new regions are now Russia, as they were for most of the time since the creation of Novorossiya. This fact is the huge elephant in the room of the dreamers with other people’s lives. Do not let me even get started on the Crimea. But no, it is perfectly useless to talk about that.

Forget Crimea. The Russians will nuke Macron’s cul before they leave Donbas, or Kherson. Get over it. This is the reality you live in now.

This simple fact must be understood, just as one needs to understand that the football game has ended and he has lost. It’s done. There is an outcome. Your hopes are history. There is a new situation on the ground.

The only uncertainties now are not whether Ukraine will “win”, but how many people will die before they lose, and whether there will still be a country called Ukraine after they have lost.

Macron and his merry band of incompetent (or corrupt) dreamers, comfortably sitting in their palaces without any risk of being conscripted today and go up in the air next week, do not even have the luxury of time. Stalin’s Russia had the resource to fuel a war indefinitely, but the Ukraine has become an amputated failed state, begging the West every day, loudly, shamelessly, like the obnoxious beggar at the entrance of your underground station.

There is no universe in which the Ukrainians keep being hacked forever, whilst Europe and the US keep paying forever, all the while making their economy crush and their citizen suffer, forever, under the boomerang effect of the “sanctions” they have so stupidly introduced. At some point it will be no more soldiers, no more money and weapons, no more brainwashing in the West, or no more Ukraine, whichever comes first.

Macron might not realise it, naively believing that Putin will be deposed and Russia will, overnight, paint its hair metallic blue and start singing “Imagine”. He might. More likely, Macron understand perfectly what is what, and he just doesn’t care.

Let more soldiers die. Let more civilians be displaced. Let the danger of a terrible escalation go on. Let the Ukraine be literally hacked to pieces in front of his eyes.

He will stand there at the lay pulpit, talk of impossible piece conditions, and feel good with himself. Meanwhile, reality will march on, and will be most harshly felt not in the splendid palaces of Western Europe, but in the cold, dirty trenches of Ukraine.

This game is so cynical it makes me sick. I know I should keep my sadness in check, as those who die are largely those brainwashed to die willingly. Still: it makes my blood boil that the brainwashing goes on, so that a bunch of corrupt or incompetent little prostitutes of politics can keep playing their game.

Macron has spoken to Putin for many hours on end. He probably knows him better than every other first-line politician in Europe. He should be the one who warns the others about the steely determination not only of Putin, but of the Country standing behind him.

But no. He does not even have the decency to shut up.

Ukraine will be hacked to pieces. I almost hope for him the last brainwashed Ukrainian soldier, upon being torn apart alive by a Russian shell, will still have the energy to utter his last, dumb words:

Merci, Monsieur Macron.

Meet Lewd Old Francis And His Weekly Trannie Show

shut your mouth…

I have called Francis a lewd old man many times.

However, not even I was ready for the revelation that the guy wants his own tranny show every week.

It really boggles the mind: being introduced to tranny prostitutes every week in order for his old, lewd mind to be, in some perverted way, titillated by the view of freak shows. I doubt even Hunter Biden can be as lewd as that.

Either this guy is a proper, proper faggot, or he is a perverted old swine. Tertium non datur.

Normal, decent people have a sense of horror, shock and disgust when they see one of these freaks. This is because they see Satan at work, in a particularly disgusting way. Happily, the event is, for now, very rare. Still, it is so soul-scratching that I have written about such episodes more than once, and also recently.

Francis is, clearly, different. His completely depraved mind wants a weekly titillation and dose of perverted excitement. It is not clear to me what he will do with the images etched in his brain; but most certainly he will use them for all the lewdness he is, at his age, still capable of. Boy, this guy must have faggot magazines under the bed!

Kindly, do not give me the old V II trope of meeting the sinner where he is, or of the evangelisation work. There can be no evangelisation when one is giving scandal. In fact, the exact contrary is here the case. There is no intention whatever of leading the freaks to normality. They are, in fact, told that they are ok as they are. I would not be surprised if they appeared in front of Francis in drags. I would not be surprised if this happened, in fact, on Francis’ express wish.

One understand more and more why this guy hates the Church so much. One who has such rot in his mind must perforce hate every concept of purity and every organisation, or devotion, promoting it.

He hates the Church, the Tridentine Mass, the Rosary and, in short, all of us, because he likes trannies. He must hate the Church with a particular passion, because he knows that he scrounged an entire existence out of Her. Remember his separating the hands of the boy in prayer? Isn’t it, now, extremely clear why?

In one thousand years, when this crisis has been almost entirely forgotten, this guy will be remembered, by people who don’t know his name, because of the lewdness of his behaviour. Just as we today say “Renaissance Popes” to signify worldly instincts and strong corruption, our descendants will say “pervie popes” to mean the popes of the Age of Francis; of whom, make no mistake, we are going to get more, unless the Lord takes this burden away from us.

I have written, only a couple of days ago, about the “listening people”. Well, I think Francis is exactly the way God punishes us – and deservedly so, collectively speaking – for this kind of “listening”.

Satan is calling. People are listening. Niceness to everyone is the new Creed. And I wonder: will any Cardinal, will any Bishop call for the end of this scandal? Don’t bet your pint.

Niceness and inclusion are the new religion. All this inclusion leaves one out: Christ.

No wonder you end up with an old lewd man desperately trying to get some erotic excitement – or whatever substitute he can find for it – out of perverts in drags.

“Listening”, Or: The Rigid And Hateful Blog Post

Brutally “homophobic” saint. Wasn’t “listening”, apparently…

When I was a little child, I was taught my prayers, and the Commandments. I was taught about heaven and hell, the serpent and the apple, Noah and the Ark.

When I grew up I grow more acquainted with the concept of sin. As temptations came to become a part of my daily life, I already knew what Christianity said about them.

Nobody, not as a child or as an adult, ever, taught me to “listen to the Spirit”.

The fact is: there is nothing to listen. What there is to do is learn and obey. Everybody knew it.

Where I grew up, people accepted Christianity, or they refused it. When they sinned, they knew they had sinned. They did not stand up, their ear in the wind, trying to “listen” whether, from some faraway cloud, someone would tell them that Christianity is what they wanted to hear. Even sinners had, in those days, a fundamental, basic honesty. Even Atheists were not expecting that the Church changes her teaching.

You get it, or you don’t. But you don’t try to create your own “Chinese knockoff” brand of Catholicism.

That fundamental honesty is, clearly, absent from the mind of those people promoting and celebrating the ever-synoding synod on eternally-synoding synodality.

These people lack even the basic, fundamental honesty of the atheist who simply answers “no”, but has at least the basic decency of not trying to change the question.

Not so for the “listening” people. They think that, for some mysterious reason, the Holy Ghost managed not to be heard, for two thousand years straight. A remarkable feat of incompetence, this, that the Listening People are all to eager to, finally, correct.

I picture them all in circle: silent, standing, listening. Christianity is, clearly, not up their street, but they don’t want to admit it. Rather, they listen, and wait for the wind (or the extremely incapable at communicating, but suddenly so eloquent, Holy Ghost) to finally, finally tell them all they wanted to hear.

Ssssshhhh…..

Listen……

Fornication. Adultery. Homosexuality. Sodomy. Abortion….

Can’t you hear it…?

It’s all fine now! The “Spirit” has spoken! Praise the Lord!!!

Ah, how liberating! The “Spirit”, finally, found a way to be heard! All those people of the past, the great saints and the great martyrs, and all those who lived and died in the old, antiquated, rigid faith of yesteryear…. they were good people, really….. But they just weren’t listening! From Francis (the good one) to Padre Pio, and from Augustine to Thomas, they were all barking at the wrong tree, because they weren’t “listening” and the poor “spirit” was unable to make them do it!

Thank God, we now have the Special Turbo Discernment with FrancisBooster, which allows us to really, really get it! Sixty generations were wrong, but we are most undoubtedly right! If you don’t believe it, you must be a rigid Pelagianist!

This, and much more, these idiots call listening.

I call this, and all “listening”, subversion, and a shameless, overt one at that. I call them faithless and, very often, worse than that. I call them unrepentant sinners, and tools of Satan. I call them perverts, because it takes a special evil energy to want to sabotage what God Himself has established.

I hate Communists. I hate abortionists. I hate the woke troops with the green metallic hair. I hate the tattooed prophets of environmental doom.

But the “listening” people, I despise them the most.

There is nothing to listen.

There is only to learn, and obey.

Kicking The Can, Francis-Style, Or: The Synod Is Sinking.

One can see why he is having problems…

The Synodal Synod on Synodality has been synoded to 2024, postponing of another year an already, ahem, optimistic timeline.

I do not like to indulge in pessimistic conspiracy theories along the lines of “Francis will wait one year more and try to completely subvert Catholic doctrine”. I think, rather, that it is far more likely that things are as they, in fact, look.

Postponing is very seldom a sign that things are working. In fact, it is most often a sign that things are not working. In this case, it was obvious to Stevie Wonder that the synod on synodality was not working at all. Hence, I think, the kicking of the synodal can down the road.

Francis is around 85. At that age, and in his conditions, you don’t really look with optimism at your 10 years plan. In fact, the day of the Lord can knock at his door any time. Postponing what he really cares for is not a luxury available to him anymore.

The sum of these two very obvious facts tells me this: Francis does not see – at least for now – an outcome that would allow him to brag and play “great innovator”. in fact, he sees the situation getting out of control and he himself looking like a cretin in the middle. Therefore, he postpones. If things improve, he can always shorten the wait. If things keep going badly, he can still postpone some more. If he dies, problem solved.

Truth is: this synod is a disaster. In the West, only an extremely tiny minority of people has any interest, and they are exactly the old Caucasian witches everybody else mocks. This means that there is no trust in Francis, none whatever, and this synod is taking the shape of a huge boomerang. In Africa, the participation is much higher, and they want nothing in common with the above mentioned witches. In Countries like Germany, the situation is so out of hand that Francis is seen not as the Great Innovator, but as the Big Brake. Basically, nobody likes this guy, and the bomb he has triggered is now clearly threatening to explode in his hands.

Francis will use the next two years to try to defuse the big African problem he is clearly having. He might also try to get a bit more participation from the mainstream Catholics, who – bad instructed as they are – are clearly ignoring this synod as a dangerous stunt made by a guy they don’t like, and don’t trust, for reasons they are afraid to even ask. At the same time, he will try to persuade the Feminazis (of both sexes) from ze Cermany that he is on their side, and they just need to tone it down a little. But most of all, I think he will keep discerning and discerning, until he dies and has to deal with much bigger problems than German witches (of both sexes).

I can imagine the old, bitter guy complaining in vulgar Argentinian words about the ingratitude of those he wanted to help, and the rigidity of those he wanted to shaft. Still, as things are now he does not want to pay the price of a big conflict with neither of them. Hence, the postponement.

We shall see how this pans out.

Still, my preferred solution is that the sudden death of this tool puts an end to the general embarrassment.

Understanding The Context

I was rereading one of my theology books, and a phrase was quoted there about the Four Last Things, stating something along the lines of “in the end, we will be judged by love”.

I had to stop a moment, and almost gasped, as the impression that that phrase made on me was to immediately remind me of the plethora of perverted priests, bishops, and nuns who go around seeding such statements.

Of course, I (almost) immediately overcame the unpleasant impression, realising that the original statement (like countless others of the sort) was made by a Catholic and meant to be understood by his Catholic audience according to Catholic doctrine; which, undoubtedly, all his readers implicitly understood.

Not so today. Today, “love” is one of those words your average German bishop can use meaning adultery, fornication, or even horrible sexual perversion.

The last one of such cretins (most likely, worse than cretin) was a German Bishop who demanded that we consider sodomy an expression of “lurv”. Mind, these faggots will normally be more subtle than that. They will paint in front of the gullible this assumed idyllic “faithful” relationship (meaning: a perverts commits a sin crying to heaven for vengeance exclusively with the participation of another stable accomplice), and will call it an expression of lurv. This is the exact opposite of Catholicism. This is Satan working through a bishop, or priest, or nun, or theologian, and enjoying the openness and brazenness of it.

Everything (particularly Catholicism) must be understood in the proper context. The abysmal state of Catholic instruction makes it easy for perverted prelates to smuggle their lies under the pretence of Catholicism, nor can we trust on normal Bishops (meaning: not perverted) to openly attack and rebuke, en masse, the perverted ones, demanding that they be removed from the priesthood.

Therefore, it will be up to us, the faithful, to instruct ourselves, drawing from the immense material available.

There is, in the absence of valid guides, no other way to learn, propagate and perpetuate our wonderful Catholic heritage, out of love of Christ and neighbour.

Because in the end, we will be judged by love.

Social Gospel?

Even he is bored by his own drivel.

I have been informed that the Social Gospel (so-called) has been a thing in the United States for about a century now. It seems to be a mild form of Liberation Theology, with a lot of the whining and the bitching but without the communism and the violence.

Well, let me be very short about this.

The Gospel is social. Christianity (better said: Catholicism, as intended within the frame of proper Catholic doctrine) gives you the framework for all the social recipes, all the social justice, all the social whatever you may desire.

You know what they say, that every time you make the word science be preceded by an adjective, it’s a clear indication that it is not science anymore (social science, political science, etc.). I think the same can be said about the word Gospel, and this “social” Gospel seems exactly the same to me.

There is no such expression in Italian. There has never been. Either Italians never understood the Gospel, or there is something smelling of rotten fish here.

As to the strange social construct mentioned in the title, I would love to know how many of its original proponents had lost the faith or were, even, sexual degenerates, as it is my conviction – proven by solid facts on countless occasions – that those two conditions are an extremely powerful fuel to every kind of deviation from the Gospel to the something gospel, where the word something signifies any kind of fake apostolate because one is very uncomfortable with the authentic one.

We are Catholics. When we are properly instructed, we have all the social doctrine we need, and we don’t need any social doctrine that is not there.

I would suggest a daily effort to save one’s soul instead.

This is, in fact, the most social thing one can do for both oneself and society.

Wrestling

Pope Francis is, here, seen not wrestling

Pope Clown has made another one of his interventions, in which he has invited the faithful to “wrestle” with God.

Mind: in a different context, this might have a sense of its own. If St Catherine of Siena had spoken of such “wrestling” (I don’t know whether she has), we would immediately understand the broader context of this, that is: a context of total submission to God’s will.

However, we live in the time of Francis, when the context is diametrically opposed to obedience to God, an opposition incessantly promoted by Francis himself. Therefore, it seems to me that the Evil Clown’s words have a subversive potential which, in another time, they would not have.

Your average, garden variety Catholic nowadays lives in a state of constant wrestling with God, in the sense that he either thinks that he is right and God is wrong or, hopefully in most cases, that somehow the Church was always wrong then and he and God are right now. All those people who add to “I am a Catholic” that fateful little word, “but”, are doing just that, all the time.

The idea of prayer is not wrestling, it is accepting. It is, when you ask, an asking that must come from a position of perfect obedience, or total acceptance of whatever humiliations, troubles, or pain the Lord has seen fit to let us have, for reasons which, whilst unknown to us now, are surely for our good.

Thy will be done. Full stop.

XXI Century “wrestling” (no doubt, the one Frankie has in mind) has nothing of it. It suggests, rather, the rebellion of the one who cannot accept what Christ says about his homosexual son, her divorced and remarried daughter, and their unbaptised nephews.

It’s the wrestling that opposes to God’s law my own law. It’s the wrestling that makes one decide that his lurv for the adulterous wife of another must be god-given, and therefore infallible and sacred. It is the belief that “muhh conscience” trumps what the Church says.

It is easy stuff. It makes one feel pleasantly rebellious, but righteous at the same time. It is quite after the spirit of the age.

My suggestion is: never wrestle with God.

You will lose every time, and will run a serious risk of ending up barbecued for eternity, together with countless other wrestlers.

Poor Lazarus And Socialist Francis

Clearly, Francis did it again.

In the mind of this man, everything needs to be instrumentalised to further a socialist, or commie, agenda.

He has, in one of his latest bloviations, taken the story of Lazarus and the rich man and has profited from it to blather the usual stuff about worldwide redistribution.

The guy had, for once, not started badly. Yes, the rich man has forgotten God. Yes, our dignity does not depend on the things we have. Yes, Lazarus was, whilst suffering, still safe in his love for God.

But then Francis, being Francis, forgets that he is supposed to be catholic and launches in quite hefty tirade.

“the injustices, the inequalities, the unequal distribution of the earth’s resources, the abuse of the powerful against the weak, the indifference to the cries of the poor, the abyss we dig every day generating marginalisation,” cannot , he said, “leave us indifferent.”

It is very clear from the words above that Francis thinks that the unequal distribution of the earth’s resources is supposed to be an injustice (in fact, it is a subspecies of it).

Ah, well, no.

The world’s resources have always been unequally distributed; the poor will always be with us; Jesus never condemns the rich man, or Joseph of Arimathea, or Nicodemus, for the fact being rich. It means that Jesus never saw a problem in the earth’s resources being unequally distributed.

Who sees a problem in this? Typically, people who don’t believe in God. If you don’t believe in God, inequality is not a God-given way to teach humility to the poor and generosity to the rich, it is a fundamental flaw of the only life people will ever live; for socialists and communists, inequality is, as they say, not a feature, but a bug.

Francis speaks like them, because he is one of them. However, in view of the job he has, he pretends to go along with Catholic doctrine before he releases on you his Socialist Bomb. He does it, actually, all the time.

He the same of those trolls on political sites who start their message pretending to be on the right side, and then – when they have your confidence – veer the message in a different direction, and when they are finished only attentive readers have understood what was the plan all along.

Besides: has Francis been listening to the full story?

27 He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Francis can blather about socialism as much as he can.

It is very clear that he is not listening to Moses, or the Prophets, or Christ.

Vomiting Francis Out Of The Church

“That unbearable, pesky Viganò!”

Archbishop Viganò has given a brilliant interview concerning, inter alia, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.

Viganò’s central point is very clear: the new mass has to go. There can be no compromise on this, as the new Mass is the rotten fruit of a rotten mentality.

I was pleased to read the Archbishop’s words, because this is something this little effort has been saying for many years now: no accommodations, no compromises, no “new new Mass”, no “revised Tridentine Mass”. The past must be the future, period.

It seems to me, also, that what is happening is something yours truly had also predicted at the time of Traditionis Custodes: the attempt to kill the Tridentine Mass will cause more and more sensible Catholics to go for the jugular of the V II thinking and ask for the abolition of the Novus Ordo instead.

If you allow me a strong comparison, you can equate Francis issuing Traditionis Custodes to Hitler invading Russia. When that happened, the only possible outcome was that either the Third Reich or Russia would cease to exist, as what was before “merely” a big problem had now become an existential threat for the attacked.

Francis is, in the end, just another Adolf – not anywhere near as smart, but with a comparable spirit of rebellion to Christ – trying to fagocitate the Mass of the Ages and, with it, Traditionalism. Like Adolf, Francis is discovering that he has bit more than he can chew. Granted, Francis will die without the help of a Walther PPK, but I doubt that he will die in a much more optimistic mood than the one of Adolf on that 30 April 1945.

At least, Hitler knew that the Soviet Union was a purely human construct, perishable like everything that is man-made. But Francis seems, in his stubbornness and hatefulness, too dim to understand that the Mass of the Ages is not the work of man, and he will not be able to destroy it more than he would be able to install a communist government in Russia.

Viganò also makes another point I have often made: this crisis is there exactly to awaken the faithful and allow them to see the evil that has infiltrated the Church. Without this awakening there can be no course correction, in the same way as the one who does not know he has ingested something poisonous will not try to induce vomit before the problem gets worse.

And this is, in fact, the issue.

Francis and the mentality he carries are poison that has been doing damage for far too long.

It’s time to vomit both of them out of the body of the Church.

Borat Meets A Clown

In Kazakhstan there is a world meeting of “leaders” of “traditional religions”.

It sounds so good, doesn’t it? “Traditional”, like a tiramisù recipe. “Religion”, meaning everybody is very pious. “Meeting”, which makes everything oh so inclusive.

These exercises are all very misleading. I mean, they might make sense if you are, say, a Buddhist (and are, therefore, misled), but they certainly don’t make any sense for a Christian.

All these soi-disant “people of god” engage in self-delusion, when not outright self-celebration. They want to look as if they were, as a whole, part of the “right” category of people. Again, this is an unChristian perspective.

There is only one Church.

There is only one Truth.

There is only one Saviour.

When this is understood, all the rest falls into line. Let me spell it for you: all other religions are false religions, and all Christians who are not Catholics are wrong in a variable degree of objective wrongness and subjective culpability.

There, see how simple it is? When things are seen from the right perspective, this Kazakh meeting becomes a meeting of wrong people wanting to keep souls away from their Saviour, or from His Church. It cannot be any differently, because truth does not change with the latitude, or the climate, or the “spirit of the time”.

The spirit of the time put the “meeting” ahead of Christ. The exercise obviously flattens everything toward a minimum common denominator: we, “traditional” “religious” “leaders”, believe in something.

What is lost in all this is exactly what is most important of all: Christ.

I like chocolate ice cream. You like vanilla. The guy over there prefers strawberry, and the fourth one nougat. Let’s have a meeting!

Now, all this would be sufficiently scandalous if one Christian organisation (say: a small, ridiculous, dying outfit like some Quacker or Methodist sect, provided they still exist) decided to signal virtue and take part in such an exercise. But it becomes, undoubtedly, the devil’s work if even the One True Church, represented by the Successor of Peter, takes part in it and contributes to this utter de-Christianised “let’s sing kumbaya together” exercise. Choosing to focus on what “unites us” is exactly to choose to ignore what divides us; and what divides us is, exactly, Christ.

For Francis to choose that his knee is not well enough for the Ukraine (no criticism from me here), but is good enough to fly the other side of the planet to preach, in fact if not in words, religious indifferentism, is quite in line with both the church-destroying thinking of V II and the church-hating stance of the Clown Pope.

A clown pope Who flies to Kazakhstan and makes, in the real world, the fictional Borat look very good.

Male And Female He Created Them

One of the most surprising things for those in our church who bar transgender people from the sacraments, and try to negate their existence, will be meeting the many holy transgender people in heaven, already participating in the heavenly banquet, the last finally made first.

Father Georgina

I don’t need to tell you where this quote is from, because there is no prize for guessing that this is, in fact, out of the degenerate and disturbing mind of Father Georgina.

This is wrong in so many ways it is difficult to know where to start.

A so-called “transgender” (to me and you: a *man* so possessed by evil that he thinks he belongs to the other *sex*;, or, alternatively, but much more rarely, a *man* so raving mad that he thinks the same) is the very epitome, the most disturbing visual evidence of what rebellion to God does to a *man*.

This man (let us imagine, for a moment, that this particular freak case is a man thinking he is a woman; there probably is the opposite madness, too, but I think it’s more rare) cannot bring himself to accept the very first, most elementary characteristic of his physical being: that God made him a man.

This rebellion becomes, then, so extreme that this man goes to an extraordinary length to try to excise, eliminate, eradicate the very (physical) essence of what he is. From hormone treatments, or rather poisoning, to silicone implants, to amputation, this *guy* will take shocking steps to maim and deform himself into a freak show, battling all his life the most evident way God made him.

Male and female He created them.

Someone should inform Father Georgina.

It does not end there, of course. How many of these people are, in fact, prostitutes for people with extremely perverted tastes I don’t know, but they must be many. I wonder what Father Georgina makes of that. Our fault, I suppose. Strange, I thought God forces no one to commit evil. But then again you must, in order to believe that, believe in God in the first place.

Where it often really ends is, of course, in suicide. I don’t know exactly how such statistics are compiled, but the figures, that you can easily find around, showing that a staggering number of these people commit suicide (say: 80%), is another indication that, when Father Georgina dies, he will discover he is, indeed, in the company of a lot of trannies, but not quite in the place he told us they would be.

Suicide is, is in the end, the most evident and definitive form of rebellion to God. That a person whose rebellion has already gone to the point of amputation and disfiguration should end his rebellion with self-destruction is only the natural end of the trajectory. Not only is the obsessive evil driving these *men* naturally inclined towards such end result; but, in fact, this end result is actively promoted and suggested to the conscience of the disfigured *men* by the very devil, who wants to secure the prey for himself as soon as may be, lest – which, rarely, will also happen – the so disfigured man should, by God’s grace, wake up to his madness and recover sanity.

If a trannie can so easily rejoice in heaven, then why not a Satanist? In what is the rebellion to God of a Satanist less definitive, life-transforming, actually life-informing, than the one of a trannie?

No. It does not work that way. Bar repentance, such a radical rebellion must end in radical punishment. Every trannie who, able to think for himself, dies in the persuasion that he is a member of the other sex, and therefore obviously and openly rebelling to God, must end where all such rebels end. There is no way you can turn this on its head, as it would be tantamount to making a mockery of Christianity itself.

It’s repentance or hell. It’s dying at peace with Christ or hell. There is no exception for obsessive perverts.

But no, we are asked to believe that heaven is that inclusive place where everybody gathers after death (or suicide), and where, it is implied, we discover that we were wrong, together with 2000 years of Christianity.

I don’t know what toys this man has at home, but I don’t think they are model cars.

As for me I will have Christianity, thanks.

Harsh News And Word Salads

How often did he say it in two hours? Aaarrrggghhhhh!!!!

Bishop Barron has commented on the comments to an interview he gave to a famous blogger-live interviewer.

Two hours of the stuff. I will pass, thank you.

The words of the Bishop are as follows:

Without a doubt, the most common negative reaction was that I was speaking “gobbledygook,” or tossing an unimpressive “word salad,” or “using lots of words to say nothing at all.” Much of this critique was focused on my opening exchange with the interviewer. Lex asked me very simply, “Who is God?” I responded, not sentimentally or piously, but rather in the technical language of philosophy. I said that God is ipsum esse subsistens (the sheer act of being itself), in contradistinction to anything other than God, in which essence and existence are distinguished. I went on to clarify the meaning of these terms in the manner of Thomas Aquinas, attempting to be as precise and technically correct as possible. To be sure, there are many ways to talk about God, but I chose, with Lex’s audience in mind, to use a more intellectual approach.

Good Lord! And then they say we are in a crisis! With Bishops like this one, we would be in a crisis if the entire population had an unquenchable thirst for the religious phenomenon (which is, most clearly, not the case)!

Yeah, pal. People who are listening to a Bishop talking about God are certainly yearning for your “intellectual approach”. Grand. So smart.

If you ask me “Who is God?” I do not answer with St Thomas Aquinas. I know that my audience, and everybody come to that, is not interested in philosophical definitions; they are interested in the crux of the matter, that is: the Four Last Things. My answer would be along the lines of:

“God is the Omnipotent being who made you, me, everybody, and everything else. He is the One who has given to you rules about how to live this life. He is, also, the One who will reward you forever if you have made a serious effort to please Him (we’ll discuss this in the next two hours), and will punish you forever if you haven’t, or if you have worked against Him, denied Him, despised Him, or worshipped a false god. He, and His judgment of you, are the only assured things in your life, and by far the most important ones. Nothing is as important as Him. Mind my words today, because one day, without fail, you will be reminded of them!”.

The following answers would have been along the same lines: there is a reality that atheists are trying to ignore, but that will catch up with them with absolute certainty. It will not count in their favour that they did not believe, or that they believed a false god. Mock Christ now, pay the price later, and so on. Yep, it goes for the Muslims, to likely 99%, too. Yep, the same applies to Jews. Yep, let us not even talk about Hindus at alia. Yep, it’s harsh. Focus your mind now, then.

Two hours of that, and I assure you the term “word salad” will not appear anywhere.

I don’t know if St Thomas Aquinas would have agreed with this answer. What I am sure of is that no one of my listeners would have accused me of saying gobbledygook, or producing word salads. In fact, I can assure you that, whenever I touch the issue with non-believers and infidels, I give them such a spoonful of my medicine that “gobbledygook” is the last thing they think of it!

Caveat for the “don’t get me wrong”-types out there: I lost friends, and I am proud of it. I have been laughed at in my face. I have been belittled, mocked, and insulted. Still: I don’t think I have ever been considered one who “uses a lot of words to say nothing at all”. Newsflash: it’s because I don’t.

But why does the Bishop answer in that way? For the same reason for which he goes on with his word salad for two, surely interminable, hours: the desire not to be the guy with the harsh news.

The modern, V II Bishop is affable, accultured, always appropriate. He will (try to) impress you with his Aquinas. He will bloviate for two hours in such a humorous, intelligent way. But at the end, no one will go to sleep, that night, thinking “I hate that guy’s self-assured, judgmental, hom-mof-fobeek attitude; but boy, I’d like to have his certainties! What if he is, in fact, right?”

There is a reason why bishops are called “shepherds” instead of “philosophy professors”.

Someone should inform Bishop Barron about his job description; because he seems, to me, rather confused.

Francis, The Case Study

“Love me tender”, Vatican edition

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate were persecuted by Francis based on zero point zero evidence. The order, and its founder, were slandered and dragged through the mud for all the planet to see. Francis would care not one bit for evidence, or for a shred of decency.

This buddy of his, Cardinal Ouellet, is so fond of harassing women that he gets a class lawsuit against him. What does our own wannabe hero does? He orders a preliminary investigation, in charge of which he puts a close buddy of the Cardinal. The close buddy obviously decided that there’s nothing to see here, end of story.

At least, this Frankie-protege’ (literally) is not a homo. But hey, several other friends of Francis clearly appears to be. Think of Zanchetta, the buddy Francis couldn’t wait to make a bishop. And of course, we all think of Archbishop Paglia and the homo-fresco he commissioned to a homo-painter. Or of Monsignor Ricca, the guy with the Montevideo Lover, and the lift (or “elevator”) story whose details I don’t even want to know. Or of father Georgina, the man of whom everybody tries very, very hard to make us believe he is straight (and when you see a video of him, the game is up).

You will, hopefully, forgive me for thinking this: that Francis has no decency or shame; that he sees his position purely as a way to protect and reward his friends and those who have advanced his career; that he has an extremely alarming number of “friends” who are clearly bent (heck: one would be extremely alarming!); that he does not care for what Catholics think of him, because he despises Catholics in the first place; that he ruthlessly mocks, and clearly can’t stand, any traditional expression of Catholic piety and religiosity (those who pray the rosary for him must be mocked, and a boy with his hands joined in prayer is too much for him to bear); and that he ruthlessly persecutes those who dare being too Catholic, and too openly so: the Traditional Latin Mass obviously fills such a man with horror; the FFI I have already mentioned.

If you have forgiven me until now, I think you will accept my conclusion: that God has allowed an evil man, a man who clearly appears destined to have a very prominent position on the wrong side of eternity, to be made the Pope in order to show us that when you tamper with the holy traditions of the Church and sabotage her doctrine, you will get a Pope that is the visual representation of this deformity. This, I think, God has decreed that we will have to endure until He gives to bishops, cardinals and faithful the grace to finally shout that enough is enough, and to go back to sanity.

Francis is the symptom of the disease called Vatican II. Sadly, those who see this are a clear minority, with the others happy to sing diabetes-inducing hymns in church, identify Catholicism with niceness, and largely remove from their consciousness everything that Francis does. Their priests clearly help them in this because, hand on heart, I have never experienced a Pope so little mentioned from the pulpit than this embarrassing case study in the power of the devil.

Until the Great Awakening happens, I am afraid we will have to deal with Francis II, Francis III, perhaps Francis IV, and countless other cases of FFI, Ouellet, Zanchettas, & Co.

Pray, fast, and do penance.

This might go on for a while.

Pope Celestino Ratzinger, Explained

He was never a strong beer: Pontiff Emeritus Benedict.

As Benedicts approaches the grave, and after I received a comment on the other blog post from the reader Aqua, I would like to say two words on how I see the position in which Benedict has put himself with his abdication and his strange choice of title.

Benedict is a very well educated man. He is, also, very grounded in the Italian cultural environment. He knows that in Italy – other than in other Countries – to be a Celestino is another way of saying to be a coward. It really is a language usage well spread among the educated, who know their Dante.

Benedict knows his Dante, and he knows his Italians. He did not want to be a Celestino (though, let us be frank, he actually is). Being quite a cerebral guy, and wanting to abdicate without looking like a coward, he decided to keep the title Emeritus, using another language usage that every Italian knows from, say, university professors.

A Professor Emeritus does not have the job anymore. He is retired. But he has not run away. He is simply too old to keep doing his job, but he keeps the dignity of the office, which he does not want to be seen as simply discarding.

In Benedict’s very intellectual world, this makes him a guy who – like the Professor – does not cowardly retreats, but decides to simply pass the baton to a healthier, stronger Pontiff; who is then, clearly, the Pontiff, exactly in the same way as the Professor Emeritus does not have the job anymore, it’s the new guy who has it.

Why does Benedict does all this? Why does he just not abdicate, takes a title he already had (Bishop, Cardinal, Priest!), and asks a monastery of his choice to host him for the rest of his life? At the root of it all, I think the answer is: vanity, and concern for his legacy and reputation.

However, a guy like Benedict would have some excuses for his vanity. He likely reasoned that, upon becoming a Pope, he was not a cardinal anymore. He had the title of bishop, but without a diocese. He could have been Father Benedict, but again I think he was just too vain for that. Plus, all these titles, and the correspondent attire – purple, or black – would have reminded him every day that he has abandoned his post, for fear of the wolfs.

This is not what a Benedict does. A Benedict makes excuses for his lack of courage – like he did in his eight years as Pope: not going decisively against the homo lobby, allowing Summorum Pontificum to be largely neglected, and appointing horrible bishops all the way for the sake of a quiet life – and finds ways to justify his dereliction of duty. Hence the white tunic, the Emeritus title, and all the mess that ensued.

It must be said that, if the new Pope had been Pius XIII, nobody would be talking of Benedict now, unless to remember what improvement the conclave brought.

I have often made the comparison – known to everybody in Italy because of Manzoni – between crock vases and iron vases. Benedict is a crock vase all right. But he is a very intelligent, learned, cerebral crock vase, who will find one thousand excuses not to be the iron vase that is, actually, written in blood letters in the job description of a Pope.

Ultimately, Benedict failed in this as he failed in so many other things as a Pope.

He should know by now that he will forever remembered, in Italy and elsewhere, as a Celestino.

%d bloggers like this: