Wait A Little Bit Longer

Look at this article and observe the picture at the top.

Never have I seen Francis so fat. If you compare this picture to the man who was – disgracefully – made Pope eight years ago, you would think them two different persons if it was not for the insufferable smirk.

I look at the picture. and I tried to put myself in the shoes of his knees. There is no way two 85 years old knees can carry a man of such vast proportions.

Francis says his diverticulitis has come back; this is no surprise looking at his vast circumference. You fight diverticulitis by living of fruits, dried fruits, and (most importantly) vegetables. If you keep eating meat, you will keep adding problems. I don’t know how much refined carbs he heats, but those won’t help him much, either, particularly with all that insulin clearly swimming in his blood.

Francis has now gone to the hospital again; however, this time this looks like a respiratory infection that is not Covid (how could it? Come on: science…!!!), and which will keep him a couple of days out of combat.

I wish we could be spared his presence during the Holy Week; but I think I am being too optimistic.

Still: time is on our side.

The Church is never in a hurry, and she has buried countless kings and emperors.

I am sure she can bear to wait a little bit longer on this one.

We Lose Because We Are Weak

US Bishops

The US Bishops have released a document against self-mutilation because of “gender” madness.

If you read the text (I did in its entirety, but the link does not work) you see that the bishops say, in principle, all the right things. You are the sex you were born with, you can’t presume to get another sex, etc. Of course, they quote the Evil Clown.

Still, the document is gravely deficient, in that it is a) too sensitive and b) silent on the causes of the madness.

The language of the entire document is so timid it makes you cringe. There isn’t one paragraph in it that you would call forceful. It is as if the Bishop, once they have to speak, had decided to lower the volume as far as possible, lest they get heard and accused of “phobia”.

This is not the attitude of shepherds. It is, in fact, not even the attitude of believers. A shepherd needs to reassure and confirm the sheep. A document of this sort should be a strongly worded, proud document of firm proclamation of logic and faith. Instead, the documents claims to understand the “real problems” and “real suffering” of the gender madness bigots.

If you put yourself into a corner, you will be pummeled in it. The Bishop either don’t get it, or don’t mind being pummeled.

If a madmen comes to me and tells me he is an elephant trapped in the body of a man I don’t tell him that his is “real suffering”, much less that he has a real problem. I tell him that he needs medical help, because he is very, very unwell.

This is not what the Bishops do. They first implicitly espouse your point of view, then proceed to tell you that you are still wrong, for reasons they would so much avoid telling you but, unfortunately, must. This is, then, a big “fail”.

The roots of the issue are also completely ignored. The Bishop seem to pretend that a guy can “get” this “real problem” like one gets a cold.

Poppycock.

This level of bigoted madness can only exist if a person has allowed Satan to camp into his own mind, make a huge tent, and reside there permanently until almost every vestige of sanity has gone.

Gender theory is the work of Satan. Until you say this, you haven’t said anything.

The Bishops don’t say it. It looks like those bigoted madmen are all “ill”. It looks like: hey, I know you got a bad disease, but your medicine isn’t the right one. Problem is: a flu does not send one to hell, gender madness does.

Do the bishops know it? If they know it, why they don’t say it?

Or is it so, that they don’t believe it in the first place?

Ah, now I think I understand….

Journey Into A Perverted Mind

“Take heed, o you who are faithful to your husbands!!”

One must say that Frankie is in great satanical form these days. On Friday (you will be able to find the link on the internet) he had another exercise in “this is that”, where he uses childish comparisons to sabotage the faith. Explaining to us that a lot of stuff that he does not like on earth “is hell”, he clearly implied that the “hell” of, say, poverty, inequality, you name it, is the only hell that needs to concern a human.

The outrage cause him to, actually, talk about humans who go to hell; but, this being the godless cretin he is, he decided to send an awful lot of good Catholics there. Let me quote:

“I go to church, I go to Mass, I am married, married in the church, and these people are divorced, sinners,” he asked, “Is your heart like this? (If so,) you will go to hell.”

Francis

In a world that is being taken over by freak shows, the consolation of a good Catholic life brings a guy to hell. Note here, that the poor married-in-the-church-Catholic will still hope that the sinner dies at peace with the Lord. There is no hint of such an attitude in Francis. If your heart is like this (now), you will go to hell. It’s like watching an extremely cruel, petty child throwing a tantrum.

It does not end here.

These Catholics will go to hell because, though they live the sacramental life, “they have no room for God because they feel no need for him,”. There is no mention of hell for all those who feel no need whatsoever for God (like his late buddy Scalfari and all those like him), say so openly and give scandal, live filthy lives, and do not even live the sacramental life. No, in Francis’ world your avowed rejection of God leads to automatic salvation (because meeerccyyy), but dare for one second to take some comfort in your following the rules, and the guy will send you to hell before you can say “wheelchair”. This is a Thunberg level of cretinism.

It does not end here.

Continuing subversive statement made in the past, Francis continued to expand (the way a man with the intelligence of a toddler could) on his idea of “automatic absolution”, asking his priests to “please forgive everything, forgive always.”

Well, Francis, you genius. Can’t your little commie brain understand that, even with your absurd absolution criteria, the presumptuous guy who actually goes to confession (as the good Catholics Francis hates all do) still has a much bigger chance of salvation than the atheists, the filthy faggots, and the utterly evil trannies Frankie is so fond of?

How likely is one of the above mentioned pervs and atheists to die thinking that he does not need God? How many are those in percentage of the population? Does Francis pose himself these little, pesky questions before he basks in his – this, really, presumptuous – mass condemnation of decent Catholic people?

The conclusion of all this is as as follows: Francis has

1. an utterly perverted mind, and
2. A very stupid one at that.

Again, it’s like seeing an evil child trying to be smart.

The Synodal App.

I wonder what hides in his phone…

It is known that there are, out there, mobile phone apps meant to facilitate “casual sex”, which I mean to signify people meeting for the only purpose of having sex. Unsurprisingly, a lot of this is driven by homos, for the simple fact that, irrespective of the sexual appetite of men, it will be extremely difficult to find women willing to engage in this kind of exercise. Therefore, these apps look like, largely, the preserve of sodomites. Still, one must also say that the level of horniness and brazenness of a heterosexual male using such apps goes way beyond what normal people would consider normal.

As it now turns out, a number of priests and seminarians have been exposed as using such (let us say it once again: largely homo-focused) apps.

Now, imagine this priest or seminarian, pretending to wanting to be a man consecrating his life to God’s service whilst being so obsessed with sex – and, likely, perverted sex – that he uses an app to find a way to satisfy his lust. What kind of priest will this be?

I tell you what kind of priest he will be: he will be the feminist, social justice, priesthood equality, ecu-maniacal, inter religious dialogue, Francis revolution kind of guy. This, if he is not all out as a Father Georgina type.

Put together enough of these disgraceful individuals, and you have a “synodal path” or, rather, the “Synodal app”. There, I have explained the way the church is going with the help of an app.

How do we get out of this? By ditching Vatican II.

Same as all other problems that plague the Church, the abandonment of proper liturgy and proper doctrine is at the root of this one. In fact, we might flip this coin and say that there is only one problem (the abandonment of proper liturgy and proper doctrine), and all the ailments of the Church come from there.

I am not a saint by any means, and cannot claim any realistic hope of going straight to paradise when I die. Still, the idea of using an app for “casual hookups” is quite disgusting even to a layman like me. The idea of a seminarian or even priest using such devices is simply revolting. But hey, the guy will be at the altar next Sunday at the latest, saying “peace be with youuuu” in a likely somewhat shrill voice.

V II and everything in it needs to be exterminated, and strong traditional doctrine robustly taught in seminaries, propagated among the faithful, and defended among the public.

You do this, you will see that priests are made of the right stuff and you have no hooking app issues.

Francis Encourages Illegality, But Complains About Its Consequences

Lead provider for traffickers

It has been official for a long time, but it bears saying it again:

this guy is stupid.

“May these voyages of hope never again turn into voyages of death,” [the evil clown] said.

Stupid guy (I keep liking “il cretino gloriosamente regnante”) is apparently not aware of a handful of things. Let us see if I can try and open his eyes on this.

1. There are traffickers because people who want to do illegal things ask for their services.
2. These people, who ask traffickers for their illegal services, are the instigators of criminal offences. They are not even accomplices. They are the driving force.
3. They are, therefore, not innocent.

In fact, Francis should slowly realise that people like him, who keep encouraging people to try to get to Europe illegally, share the moral responsibility for tragedies like this one.

In this tragedy the culprits must be searched among those who plan a criminal offence and carry it out, those who facilitate it with their technical means (e.g. boats), and those who encourage the first and act as lead providers for the latter (the bleeding hearts like the Pope).

Therefore, let me rephrase the phrase for the benefit of this clown:

“May stupid leftists never again encourage people to become criminals and carry out their crimes to their deaths”.

Meet “Il Cretino Gloriosamente Regnante”.

Meet “Il Cretino gloriosamente regnante”, the gloriously reigning cretin.

It appears that everybody, literally left, right and centre, hates Francis. Why? Because he is a hateful guy, of course.

Petty, vindictive, childish, astonishingly ignorant, lying without shame (“soon, soon!”), and arrogant to the point of comedy, Francis manages to alienate even the Regressives within the Vatican. He has, obviously, brought all this to himself, because I do not know any other public figure enjoying it so much when he angers other people. It’s not only the boorishness, which is very marked in the man. It’s the special arrogance of doing whatever he knows will incense people merely to make a point, that is: to show that he can.

The linked article also points out to an aspect I had never reflected about: even the Regressive priests are angered at Francis’ constant insulting and berating of priests.

Then there are the bishops and cardinals, who have to watch the same total lack of decency, manners, and respect for common sense.

This all makes sense, of course. If you have followed Frankie for a while, you know all that is reported in the linked blog post can only make absolute sense. But I would like to add an additional point.

The Cardinals who have elected Bergoglio deserve all the manure that is now lavished on them. The Bishops who see incompetence promoted have, for too long, shut up when Francis was being incompetent to the point of being a danger for souls. The Regressive priests are getting a well-deserved prescription of the medicine they themselves spread around.

What goes around, comes around. You can’t betray your mission as priest, bishop, or Cardinal, and hope that the problem will not come back to bite you. It is, in fact, amusing and not a little consoling that those who have chosen to be part of the problem now discover that they, themselves, have a problem.

The moral is this: the push for a good, Catholic Pope must come from the very bottom, from the parishes, from the pews, and go up the hierarchy until things change.

You will not get to be all V II without getting a taste of your own medicine.

Social Justice Leads Away From God

Frankie boy (or rather, his ghost-tweeter) has made a tweet on social justice. Even some people who call themselves catholic think that he is right in that. They are wrong.

Social justice is a very dangerous construct in itself. In fact, nothing is as likely to lead someone away from God as infatuation with social justice. Unavoidably, these social justice apostles end up thinking that the world is fundamentally wrong. From there to atheism, the step is short.

It is God-given that there be vast differences in prosperity and even opportunities at birth. That one is born from a rich father in London and another from a poor father in a Colombian peasant village is not a bug, it’s a feature. To think otherwise means, once again, to think that God is not Provident, and His Creation fundamentally flawed. Then we need a Karl Marx to remedy it.

We thirst for justice, not for social justice. We don’t want to make everyone equally endowed with God’s graces, because it is God who decides which graces He endows you with. What we strive to achieve is that, in the use of the graces he has been given from God, a person is not hindered by injustice, that is: by the arbitrary and abusive stifling of the development of the graces God has given him.

Francis’ mention, in his tweet, of inequality as the first cause of poverty is another proto-communist stunt which, again, reveals the socialist mindset. Corruption and communism cause poverty, not inequality. Societies that give ample opportunity to everyone (think of Germany, Switzerland, certainly the United States) are all marked by vast inequality.

Jesus never said “blessed are those who thirst for social justice”. He never had the slightest problem with some people being very rich, whilst saying to his disciples that poverty is part and parcel of the human condition; still, he praised the woman fighting against the judge’s corruption and injustice.

Here’s the thing: this is a vale of tears, and it is exactly supposed to be it. God will give to everyone exactly those graces that are good for him, according to a Providential plan that we are unable to see fully. To some he will give intelligence, to some beauty, to some wealth, to some a strong will, to some a good heart, to some a strong faith, and so on. He will make the peasant in Peru be born, live and die in poverty, so that , after a life in prayer, he may spend eternity near His Creator, and he will make the socialite be born, live and die in prosperity, so that, after a life of corruption and godlessness, she may, after meriting hell, give witness forever of God’s justice. Or the exact contrary, as the case may be. Poverty is not a sign of sanctity, either.

Still: in the comparison above, who had the better deal? The Peruvian peasant. Infinitely so.

Justice is about giving to one what is due to him. Not about giving to one the same that has been given to another. W

What God has given to another, is not due to you.

And it’s not for Francis to say how much you should have.

“El Lupo” And Hypocrisy

He is having a real crisis right now…

I remember the time when popes spoke little, but when they spoke they knew what they were saying, and their words were not casual. Even Paul VI, a very bad pope by any standard, was the kind of guy who would measure every word.

It started going downhill when JP II got all emotional when going out of planes, with his long, slow, elaborate “look how I kiss the earth” play that meant exactly nothing (unless signalling some sort of fashion-pantheism, though I am sure the man did not mean that) but made everybody feel sooooo good it became a media sensation. Benedict had a much soberer style, but we all know now that he did not have the cojones to play his part for very long. Los Lupos clearly won.

Enter Frankie Boy, the Humble Heretic himself. Frankie does not care for any kind of reflection, because he is not capable of any. He will enjoy his scandals and rejoice in his doubts.

It takes a particular kind of stupid, and a very evil one, to say, as the pope, that , “a faith that does not put us in crisis is a faith in crisis.” Last time I looked, Faith was not only a great grace, but something actually meant to take us out of every spiritual crisis and put us in a position to face every earthly one.

Francis, of course, wants to play intellectual, or pretend he is a brilliant spirit; he likely thinks his mediocre play with words will impress people, from which alone you understand how terribly ignorant and vapid this man is. I actually even doubt he had any clear idea of what he wanted to say, and merely repeated what some, likely perverted, Monsignor wrote for him, possibly after visiting the homo bath house. Still: however you turn it, this is just stupid.

True faith will never put anyone in any sort of crisis. On the contrary, faith is the greatest source of security and strength. What “faith” is, then, this man blabbering about, that it should “put him in crisis” and, at the same time, be something good, desirable, and worthy of boasting about?

It is, of course, the pretend faith of the hypocrite; of a person, that is, that has faith only in social justice, or environmentalism, or rubbish like that. It is the self-congratulatory celebration of one’s own socialist rebellion to Christ’s entirely anti-socialist views. It is the, again, self-celebrating “doubt” of the man who asks, thinking himself smart, “if there is a God, why social injustice, oppression, and poverty?”. That such a “crisis” can only come from lack of faith escapes the limited intelligence of this guy.

Francis always wanted to be Scalfaro, without having much of the latter’s shrewdness. Plus, at least Scalfaro was not a hypocrite, though if he is in hell, which I consider very likely, it does not profit him much now. Still, Scalfaro had this “free thinker” aura around him, which Francis envied so much. I am pretty sure he felt pretty good with himself as he put this last noose, Judas-like, around his neck, for a day now not really long in coming.

An additional motivation I suspect in the man. Francis might have had only a vague idea of what he wanted to say – apart from the word play sounding smart to the shallow, and making him look some deep thinker, at least in his fantasies – but I think that he knew his words would have angered Catholics and decided to say them for this very reason.

Dear Catholics: Francis hates you, and he spits in your face every time he can.

It’s a real tragedy most of you have not noticed it yet.

Parce Sepultis. But Not Too Much.

My cat will not be able to teach him Catholicism now…

Parce Sepultis, they say in my native Country. However, when the sepultus is a public figure who has given great scandal, I would say that the matter must be looked at differently. Firstly, because we must fight against scandal, and secondly, because we must expose those who spread it, be they dead of alive.

The latter ( that is: dead) is the case of Bishop O’Connell, who was shot dead in his bed by the husband of a woman working for him. Quite the surprise, begorrah!

Day of the Lord, cometh, and thief in the night all come to mind.

O’Connell was, as it is by now printed everywhere, a serious heretic. He was a guy to whom my cat could have thought Catholicism, with great advantage for the bishop, but not without dangers for the spiritual health of the cat. He was, in short, radioactive.

The circumstances of his death are, shall we say, strange. As a rule, homicidal husbands of his female “coworkers” do not happen to find themselves in the bedroom of a bishop. Stranger things happened at sea, you will say. But this was not at sea. This was in a bedroom. Methinks, there was something that had to do with the bishop’s private life.

Why do I say this? Could this not have just been a home invasion gone bad, where the victim recognises the invader who stole the house key (but why did she have the key?) from the wife, etc? The problem, you see, lies in the fact that the man was clearly a heretic.

As I have often stated in this little effort, in case of a heretical priest, or prelate, the first place to look for the cause of his heresy is below his waistline. They know that they are unworthy priests, and they seek validation, approbation, and the courage to look at themselves in the mirror exactly the way this man did: promoting the normality of sexual perversion, blabbering about female ordination, and being on record that Francis “gets it”; which, really, says it all.

Bishop O’Connell “got it”, too. But it was a bullet in the chest, sent his way by, as it is very reasonable to assume in case of a “progressive” bishop, either his lover, or the husband of his lover.

Will we ever know the truth? Possibly, but not assuredly. A “progressive” bishop is a great asset for the all-conquering California Democrats. They, too, “get it”: the discovery that O’Connell was either a sodomite or, at his age, a bed athlete will seriously damage that particular brand of circus Catholicism. I will, therefore, not bet my pint on a serious investigation. Remember, this is a Country where elections get brazenly stolen, and laptops cancelled from official existence.

Then there is the personal aspect. Whether shot in his sleep, or not, this looks like a very rapid end. One doubt that an inveterate heretic like this tool (now late tool) would muster the presence of spirit for a perfect contrition. This means that, as I write this, the late Bishop O’Connell might well be in the company of a great number of V II Bishops, hating them greatly and being hated back with the same energy. If he is there now, I wonder if he still thinks that Francis “gets it”?

But we don’t wish him hell. We wish him purgatory. I am happy to say I managed, with great effort, to say three eternal rests for him.

Parce Sepultis.

And let’s hope his successor is a Catholic.

Preaching The Collapse

“Darn! What if my girls grow up and makes this guy feel excluded?”

We are told that only 35% of US Catholics consider very important to pass their faith to their children.

Well I never…

Let us why this is, however, what the Vatican II Church herself goes preaching.

First: proselytism is bad, remember? This comes from Fat Clown himself. Who are US Catholics to judge him?

Second: how many couples who are raising children are, in fact, of mixed faith? If the parents have decided that there should be two truths, which are both OK, why would they change their mind when educating their children to the faith? Tell me again: how many homilies in the matter have you heard in the last 10 years?

Third: eee-cuuu-men-ism!!! We “promote” the “dialogue” and we “meet” the “other”. We have a pope (small p) celebrating Luther. We are, therefore, told, from the fat guy at the very top, that we shouldn’t be “rigid” about these things. Guess what? We won’t be.

Fourth: inter religious stuff! If even being a Muslim or a Jew isn’t a big deal, as apparently Jesus, dying on the cross, has canonised everyone who does not attend a Latin Mass, how can it be of any noticeable importance if one happens to be Catholic or not?

Fifth: the “abolition” of damnation. If an “eternal punishment” is outside of the “logic of the Gospel”, as, again, Fat Clown himself writes, why would anyone have any big interest in religion – any religion – at all? Eat, drink, fornicate, abort, and be merry! You’ll make it in the end, “everyone at his own pace”. If that’s not inclusive, I don’t know what is!

Sixth: inclusion. If being “accepting” of the other is very important, as so many prelates tell us: would it not be better to raise your child outside of a famously non-inclusive religion? One that will put Little Johnny in a difficult position with his “gay”, “non-binary” and even “transitioning” friends? Plus, will he not risk persecution at work, or the loss of opportunities?

I could go on, but I think you get the gist: the collapse of church attendance is preached the V II Church herself. The (very moderately) “faithful” are merely receiving the message that the Church has been relentlessly broadcasting from the pulpit, the newspapers and the magazines, the radio and the TV, even from papal airplanes!

You reap what you sow.

You sow unbelief, you reap Francis and his bunch of happy bastards.

Bishop Scheiße, And How To Counter His Poison,

Cardinal Müller has just told that tool Bätzing that he should have chosen a different career. Not every day, but by now fairly often we hear of (largely) catholic Bishops and Cardinals criticising some of their peers who, clearly, either have no idea what Catholicism is , or actually do have it but, sadly, hate the Church because of reasons of their own, generally linked to loss of faith, or to some perversion or other.

It seems to me that all these criticisms, if it remains at that, are nothing more than a fig leave with which Catholics are supposed to be reassured that there are still (broadly) Catholic Bishops around, whilst those very “broadly Catholic” Bishops intend to do absolutely nothing that is practical and factual in order to put an end to this state of things.

I will call this the “Dubia mentality”. First I emit some faint rumour. When nothing happens afterwards, I still do nothing, but I am fully satisfied that I am now seen as a champion of orthodoxy. It’s a nice life, really, enjoying all the perks or the Cardinal’s or Bishop’s life without having to do the hard part, that is: the real conflict.

When an individual like Bätzing blathers his heretical stuff (believe me, many a time I have renounced writing about it because the anger made it impossible to write about these pieces of shit without calling them much worse than “pieces of shit”), a Bishop or Cardinal commenting about it should not limit his disagreement to the criticism of the words; he should, instead, demand practical consequences from the behaviour, like the condemnation as heretic and defrocking of the offending prelate.

Of course, this will not mean that Francis will, overnight, stop being an enabler and protector of heretics. However, and very importantly, it will make it more difficult for him to continue his work, as it is evident that he is bringing the Church towards civil war.

Oportet ut scandala eveniant. When a bishop (a piece of shit like Bätzing, or some other piece of shit) comes out with some heretical statement or mentality, the scandal should be heard worldwide and consequences for it asked very loud.

Instead, we have all these polite prelates politely pointing out that Bishop Scheiße should have become a plumber, and it ends there. This allows the above mentioned Bishop Scheiße to keep doing damage, as it is abundantly evident by now that Francis broadly covers them and encourages them in their work of demolition, whilst pretending to be just a tad more on the “conservative” side, or actually slightly less heretical, than them.

It will never work. Pressure is exerted through massive outrage, and request for consequences. The request will stay in the air, will colour every discussion, and will unavoidably etch itself in the Catholic consciousness. Plus – and this is a not small bonus – the heretics will get to realise that Francis will not live forever, and an unexpected turn of events could see them smashed on the street, without a roof or a job, and unable to pay for the services of male prostitutes as some of them, no doubt, so much loved to do.

They Were Mistranslated

I must confess, I wasn’t aware of it until now.

It was only today that I opened my eyes.

I have, on this day, discovered the source of all the machismo that has plagued the world for so long. Of the mysoginy, the discrimination of women, the violence against women. Of the whyyyte sup-pre-ma-aaasseeee!

I now know why, and how, and when. I have to admit, I have been blind. I know, now, where the fault lies. I know who the culprit is.

He has caused so much suffering. So much hate. So much oppression. He has caused women to be considered second-rate for sooo long! He is at the root of all ray ciss mm; he is the creator of the dreaded Whyte Supremacyyy!

It was Saint Jerome!

Think with me, if you please.

The so-called Church of England has announced the creation of a commission to examine eliminating or toning down God as Father. Of course, Referring to God as a “he” has been a discrimination against wymyn, which was foundational to their oppression, for two thousand years. The Church of England (so-called) are really, really nice people, so they must be on the side of the Angels! In one word: they must be right.

Now, follow me closely: it was Jesus Himself who referred to God, many times but especially in the “Our Father”, as Father. Jesus is God. Therefore, this looks like God saying he wants to be thought of, and adored as, an omnipotent father figure.

Will I, therefore, blame Jesus?

No, I cannot do that. Blaming Jesus means not being Christian, and I want to be such an inkkk luuusive, femmm iiiinn iiiiist C-C-C-Christian! I cannot accept that God Himself was, well, wrong! Still, I will never doubt that I am right!!

How to get out of this situation? I thought long and hard, even if I realise now that both these words, “long” and “hard”, are symbols of male oppression!

I think I will blame the author of the Vulgata himself! You see: if Saint Jerome had properly interpreted the true s-s-s-s-spirit of Jesus’ words, he would never have adopted such a preposterously sexist translation for Our Person’s Words. He would have, instead, translated the word with Parent instead of Father!

“Our Parent, who are in heaven, hallowed be their name…”

See, how easy it is?

If St Jerome had been more considerate of the s-s-s-s-scientific meaning of Jesus’s words, he would have used a gender-neutral translation at the very least! I

In fact, as Jesus was clearly a “He”, I think s-s-s-s-science will soon conclude that, as a result, God might well be a she! Look, the Hindu do the same, and they are sooo kind to the cows!!!

Look: I do not want to advocate for Our Mother here, though I think that She would not be offended, at all! I am just saying that we need to understand the implicit bias of the male official translator of the Bible into Latin.

He was a male! All Apostles were! They had no access to the proper gender awareness and micro aggression seminars! They were, unavoidably, the product of an oppressive society!! Who knows, we might soon discover that there were, in fact, 24 apostles, of which 12 were women!

Look, I am just being logical, scien tttiii fiiiic here! No way would They (=God) allow such a blatant discrimination to happen! I am sure the wymyn wrote better Gospels, too! All the sensitiviteee, with none of the machismo!

There. I am persuaded now. It cannot have been any other way.

Thank Them, I realised all this in time….

On The Catholicity Of Catholicism

This is not about Africa, pal…

There is a chap here complaining (yes: complaining ) about African Bishops who happen to be Catholic. Let me quote him:

“There are many African bishops who are very comfortable celebrating Mass in Latin. They want to restore some imaginary past glory of Catholicism in Africa”.

First of all, congratulations to the mentioned African Bishops for being not only Catholic, but properly instructed. I doubt that many of our trendy, post-Faith Western Bishops would even be able (forget willing) to celebrate a Mass in the Tridentine rite.

But the issue I have is not even that: it is the very dumb quip about the “imaginary past glory of Catholicism in Africa”. Here, we see a grave issue with understanding Catholicism in the first place.

Catholicism is not regional, or tribal, or African. Catholicism is universal. It’s in the name itself!!

The glory of Catholicism that these worthy Bishops are clearly itching to encourage is not ethnic, or racial. It is the glory of Catholicism qua Catholicism.

In addition to that, the author of the dumb statement should be aware – and the more shame to him if he isn’t – that the issue of glory, beautiful and worth pursuing as it is, is not the main motivation of the proponents of the Tridentine Mass. What speaks for the Tridentine Mass is its character of most authentic, most deeply Catholic expression of the Liturgy, deprived of the protestantised deformations of the Novus Ordo; deformations which, unavoidably, end up deforming the faith.

Those Bishops clearly know it. This guy doesn’t. He thinks that the “glory of Catholicism in Africa” is their motivation. He does not understand the Tridentine Mass and the love for Catholicism of those who love it. He thinks, even concerning the Faith, in tribal terms.

This guy is active is a teaching position in some university. I wonder how many, like him, belittle and wilfully ignore vital aspects of the Catholic faith, like its universality and the absolutely central role of the Sacrifice of the Mass within it.

We need to start getting more critical of those who are supposed to teach us, and demand of them that they understand what they are talking about or, alternatively, stop sabotaging the Faith.

Snake Oil In A Stylish Bottle

One of the things that make my heart boil is the use of wrong, but good-sounding comparisons to advance an argument that is obviously wrong. Such a behaviour is a lie, it is a fraud masquerading as sensible reasoning.

Take, for example, the heretical claim coming from this Baetzing guy.

He tries to mask his poison behind a facade of common sense logic. The problem with that is that there isn’t any and he is willingly deceiving you.

No, Mr Holmes. The Church has no physical organs. It cannot ever die because it is Indefectible. Jesus has said nowhere that the teaching of the Church need to change or the Church will die.

On the contrary, the message of Jesus is extremely clear on the immutability of truth. If you love me, keep my commandments. There is none of that “change or die” rubbish in Catholicism. Truth is true forever, God – who is, as this genius should know, immutable – does not fashion a new truth for those who don’t like the old one.

This Baetzing guy, whatever his sexual tendencies (and I allow myself to have my suspicions here, because this level of deception shows that Satan is strong with him) is lying to his sheep, selling them snake oil in a stylish bottle.

Truth does not change. I knew it at six, this miserable con man tries to look smart at sixty and looks, to every proper thinking Catholic, like the fraud he very well knows he is.

This guy, and everybody like him, needs to be defrocked, because he is nothing to do with the One True Church.

Let him become a Protestant, and then he will be able to blather clever-sounding, but extremely stupid slogans as much as he likes.

Understanding Bloggers, Card. Roche edition.

Cardinal Roche has a problem with those Catholic bloggers who keep defending the Traditional Latin Mass. He admits, however, that our work is effective and influences Seminarians.

I think a couple of reflections are in order.

Thank you, Cardinal Roche, for your involuntary compliment. At times, I receive comments containing nothing but insults. Being told that I, in my little effort and together with many others, am effective and influence seminarians truly made by day. If I die today, I hope those at the Pearly Gates have the link.

But let us reflect a bit more. Traditionalists blog are, mostly, one-man-bands written by pensioners, housewives, or accountants at the Fish Administration. None of them (apart from Gracida) is a bishop. Plus, their audience tends to be very conservative, that is: exactly the kind of people who do not listen to everybody who wakes up one morning and decides to have his own doctrine explained to the people. Therefore, the Cardinal should start to wonder: 1. Why these blogs are so numerous and 2. Why conservative people would believe what they write.

The answers are very simple. The blogs are so numerous, and have so many followers, exactly because the problem of the New Mass is easily recognised in light of Catholic liturgy and theology.

Were this not the case, there would never be a numerous cohort of bloggers about this issue, nor a robust readership for their effort. As it is, both are in rude health.

The issue is, therefore, exactly the contrary of what the Cardinal states, to wit: a small bunch of insignificant Bishops and Cardinals dare to go against what an immense army of predecessors of theirs have defended, and demand that Catholics believe not in 2000 years of Catholic teaching (and hierarchy) but in what this soon forgotten Roche Guy tells them to believe.

It does not work. Of course it can never work. The sheep in the pew will always be easily duped by the priest talking about “joy” and “peace” and other easy slogans, but those who care (including serious seminarians) will always be a much tougher nut to crack.

Therefore, the Cardinal can be assured of our continued effort and influence of Seminarians; particularly if he has sone evil move in his sleeves, which is now being heavily rumoured.

This is the Church, not a sect. It does not change if its leader changes, it does not care for “the spirit of the time”, it does not pledge unalloyed allegiance to any human.

We have a sure way to understand what is going wrong, and that is Catholic doctrine, not the rants of a number of angry bloggers.

Pope About To Be Catechised

“Always these obnoxious people with their Catholicism!”

High time, you will say. I will agree.

It’s never too late, either. Even in his Mid-Eighties, the man might be forced to acknowledge some simple truths that he tried to escape all his life.

The occasion? His planned visit to South Sudan.

South Sudan criminalises homosexual acts, including so-called same sex marriage. Of course, so-called same sex marriage has the acts of sodomy built-in. It should, therefore, be punished as a criminal offence rather than simply not be recognised. It’s all very simple.

Now, when Francis flies down there, he will have to make a decision: if he recognises that the Government of South Sudan is merely punishing acts of sodomy, he will have to realise that this is in line with Catholic tradition and say so, because journos will likely ask. If he, however, states that such acts of criminalisation of sodomy are acts of criminalising homosexuality, he will ipso facto admit that he is at variance with Catholic faith and tradition.

I think the Government of South Sudan very well realised that the latter is the case. Therefore, they give him fair warning and very obviously state that they are willing and ready to teach the guy a thing or two.

I’d love to see Francis corrected openly and frankly by a Government. It would be another important signal, all over the world, that truth can’t change and two plus two remains four no matter how bad your math teacher is.

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.