Category Archives: Conservative Catholicism
I have written very recently about the two priests who have, in a relatively short period of time, left the priesthood for a woman *in the same parish*.
It says something about the present state of the Church that it appears that several of my readers have checked very accurately that the priests in questions have not left the priesthood because of falling in lurv with.. each other.
I do not think that this is an exaggerate reaction. I think that it reflects, in the end, a drive to the progressive perversion of the priesthood that we all see happening, albeit in different ways and perhaps – if we are lucky – only through blogs and headlines.
In other words, it seems that many of us have, how should I put it.. that feeling…
Realistically, there is no way that, as I write these lines, the number of perverted priests is not at the maximum of the last several centuries and, very possibly, at a level only seen before in the times of St Peter Damian. Tragic as this is, it also reminds us that, whatever we see happening to our beloved Church, it has likely already happened before. What is different now is that the disease appears in an extremely violent form, a form which in some way has never appeared before; but the disease itself, the Church already knows.
Yes, we have had heretical Popes in the past. Yes, we have had homosexual priests in the past. Yes, whenever you have to deal with homosexual priests, you will have to deal with paedophiles, then most of the latter come from the cohorts of the former. All this has, alas, been experienced before.
How do we react to these times? In the same way our ancestors reacted to the evils of their times.
Prayer and penance. Penance and prayer. A militancy that is as outspoken as prudence allows. The strong desire to never give up our truth. The firm, ferocious intention to die in the religion our forefathers followed, no matter how mad the people (and the priests, the bishops and the popes) around us become.
Look, at this point I have no illusions anymore. I am preparing myself for Francis II “Che”, Francis III “Elton” and, if I am very, very unlucky, Francis IV “Caitlyn”.
“This is madness, Mundabor!”, you will say. “This will never happen!”.
Let’s hope so.
But if the Cardinals are of the same strong fibre and manly disposition as Cardinal “Kitten” Burke, when Francis IV announces that he wants to undergo a hormone treatment, will there be a real reaction? I think that, as per today, we would only have some kitten-like meowing and posturing, followed by… nothing. There is no saying, at this point, what kind of evil the Cardinals would not leave unpunished. It’s good that Francis is too cowardly to test it.
Past periods of Church crisis have gone on, at times, for many decades, or for centuries. We have no right to expect that this time be any different. In fact, as in the past there was, broadly speaking, no betrayal of God that reached the scale of what we have witnessed with the Second Vatican Council, it is not unrealistic to fear that the level of madness that we will see in the next decades will, also, reach an unprecedented scale; then a bigger offence must perforce cause a bigger punishment.
Still, my situation is as binary today as it ever was for everybody else in the past: I will either be saved, or damned. There is, in this, no difference at all with all ages past. Whatever the challenges we are faced, we are given the graces to overcome them.
Pope Francis IV, as he undergoes hormone treatment, still has no power over my salvation.
This is the news of two priest in the same Italian parish, deciding to abandon the priesthood for the (questionable) joys of married life when you should, actually, be a priest.
Basically, it is the decision of living a lie because the truth of one’s choice was hard to bear.
Wait, have I written “too hard to bear”? No. The decision was made , and the two priests had decided to dedicate their lives to the priesthood. Sorry, “father”, but at that point, if you are a man, there is no going back. Do you have any doubt? Pray more. Are you tempted? Fast more. Whatever happens, keep your vows and stay at your post. This is what you promised, as a man, to do.
What grated me most, in the article, was not the fact, enough shameful in itself, of a parish that seems to work as an incubator for the abandonment of the priesthood. It is, once again, the failure of the bishop to offer any leadership.
A bishop who states that he “respects” the “free decision” of the two to betray their vows devalues the priesthood, makes the sacrament cheap, and makes it appear like a temporary life choice that can be discarded when the circumstances change, leaving Father Quitter with the perceived right of being “respected” for his “free choice”; and, oh, isn’t it all so ro-o-o-mantic?
I don’t know: perhaps the two priests though they were Protestant Pastors? Perhaps the Bishop has forgotten what the sacrament of Holy Orders is?
How about a comment along the lines of: “The decision of Father X and Father Y is shameful, a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of Christ. However, given the circumstances, I have chosen to defrock the two rather than having such black sheep within the fold, possibly giving scandal, and certainly unable to inspire their sheep to sanctity”, or something along those lines.
I wonder what is next: a nice little “farewell to the priesthood” party – with the priest and his future Signora and the usual accompaniment of boring, sugary speeches about lurv – so that the parishioners can wish him all the best? Will there be a gold watch, I wonder?
What is happening to us? What is happening to the Sacraments? How much has remained of the Catholicism of our forefathers? Which Bishop would, 100 years ago, have chosen the same words as Bishop Cancian now?
Food for thoughts.
Actually, food for prayer and penance, too. Today I will pray the Lord that my Catholicism never (again) becomes so dull that I feel no sense of shame (for him) and scandal (for the others) at a priest abandoning his post.
We will see whether these marriages become beds of roses. Given the circumstances, I am inclined to think, rather, of beds of thorns.
It was only a small number of years ago (in 2003), that the Presbyterians had their first officially sodomite “bishop”. I can easily imagine that, at that time, a “trannie bish” would have ben unthinkable to the very people who, actually, supported Robinson
However, once you go down the road of “affirming” perversion, where do you end?
Let us see the stages: first “specially ordered” freak show guy in 2006; first mutilated “priest” allowed to remain “such” in 2007; first officially enrolled freak show guy in 2012; and now, in 2021, the 2006 freak show guy is the first “freak bish”.
The link is posted only because, otherwise, you might not believe anything in this blog post; and I must confess that I, myself, who have zero esteem for our proddie non-brothers and non-sisters (also because, these days, you just don’t know) in the faith, had to do a double take and stop at the enormity of the situation.
Also please note – in a further piece of evidence of the degeneracy of modern times – that the author of the linked article, who is very supportive of the novelty, refers to the freak show guy (or girl; whatever that person is) as if they were two people. Which is strange because even a schizophrenic guy, or gal, is, in fact, always only one person.
There was a time when I, in my naivete and inexperienced, was actually angered at such news, because I thought that they would be harming the faith and leading people astray. In the meantime, though, “such news” have become so outlandish that I am persuaded that, rather, they serve to help the good people to stay away from such organisations; it being, at this point, evident that only a person whose heart and mind has been deeply, deeply corrupted can accept this senseless parody of Christianity as the real thing.
Make no mistake: him, and her, and they, and them, and xir, and all that rubbish, will go straight to hell unless they manage to get their pronouns right before they kick the bucket.
I have just written about the obvious justice of hell.
Honestly, this one here is another great example of it.
How many times have we seen it? “Progressive” priests and prelates (what I think about their motivation is here) organise a schismatic event in that most schismatic of Countries, Germany. The homo event is promoted by the Diocese. How many people show up? Frankly, it was clearly only the perverts and their closest accomplices.
This must be atrociously embarrassing, at least for people who are still capable of embarrassment. In fact, it is the natural consequences of Catholic thinking still being, in some way, still present among Germans.
Consider this: the Germans are an extremely, atrociously gregarious people. They don’t really “do” independent thinking. They will, as a whole, go with what other people think, or with what they are told by people they see as in a position of authority. The inability to accept a position that makes one isolated in the group is quite scary, and – besides having been encouraged since the time of the Denazification – has a strong tradition in Germany. Your average Georg Zimmermann has a very, very strong dislike for being, on a hot issue, the only one with a contrary opinion in the room; which is what, for example, would greatly please many Italians.
So, let us look at the ingredients here: the German government, the local parish, even the local Diocese tell you that perversion is good and must be supported if you want to be a good Christian/good human/part of the group. Still, German Catholics refuse to take part to this game. If you have lived in Germany, and know how scarily gregarious Germans are, this gives you all the measure of how much Catholics must feel betrayed by their own priests and Bishops.
Now please mind this: whilst both the parish priest and the bishop might well be homosexuals themselves, in Germany there might be a simpler explanation for this pandering to the public opinion: the notorious Kirchensteuer. These prelates might, as a rule, simply be looking for a paying public for their impious, godless circus, thinking that by being godless more people will want to pay the price of admission. However, it can also be easily said that a priest, or prelate, that reduce himself to such a state is clearly giving Satan a huge opening, and who knows where that will end; in many cases, methinks, it ends in sodomy.
Still, what we keep seeing is this: that even the atrociously gregarious German Catholics refuse to follow their “betters” (the civil and religious authorities) and do not collaborate with the worst of the anti-Christian propaganda pushed by both.
I don’t know how long this will go on. But boy, it is good to see that, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, the homo agenda of the German Bishops is going absolutely nowhere.
The pertinent question, then, is not whether an empty hell is something desirable—which it obviously is—but rather whether it is something “possible to obtain,” given what we know about human freedom and man’s proclivity to sin.
This statement appears in this article, dealing with the “dare we hope” hoax.
Let us leave the hoax of the empty hell aside. Let us focus, instead, on whether it is desirable that there be an empty hell. Is it desirable – even more: obviously desirable – that hell be empty?
Well, if you ask me: obviously not.
Let me first make a statement that is, I think, pretty much unquestionable. It is our job, whilst here on earth, to try to conform ourselves to God’s will. Once it is evident, and a certainty of the faith, that God considers an empty hell something wrong, why would I think differently? Who am I to decide that it would have been obviously desirable that God had done things differently from the way he did them? Am I getting something right, that God has obviously missed?
Look: call me ignorant, or theologically inadequate, but I am fully persuaded that whenever the Church shows me the truth of something willed by God, it is not my job to decide what my preferences – obvious or not – are. It is clear – actually, obvious – that whatever God has established and willed is perfect in its own way, and could not have been done in any way better.
Yeah, man. I know. We can jokingly say that we wish that fornication wasn’t a sin, or that tiramisu were good for your health and prescribed by the doctor. But we say it in jest. We know that whatever God has established is good and holy. In some ways, we even understand why; and, to stay by the example, the poisonous effect of fornication on marriage, carried out both before and after said marriage, is too evident to even discuss it, if we only stop for a moment and think seriously about it.
When we are serious about it, we know that everything that God has made is good and holy, and that this includes hell, even if – quod Deus avertat! – we, ourselves, were to merit to land down there!
Do you think that the saints, in heaven, think that it would be “obviously good” if hell was empty? Do you think that their full alignment to God’s will makes an exception when it is about their own relatives and friends who have merited to be sent the other way? What do the saints think, “God is such a nice guy, but that thing with Hell was a tad too much, if you ask me”?
This cheap “goodness” at the expense of God is not really good, though it is certainly cheap.
Plus, let us stop and reflect on the desirability of hell, even in what our little minds can understand.
If hell were empty, would not any infinitely grave atrocity (like the infinitely grave offence to God caused by, say, a life of mockery of Him and a death in the refusal of Him) end up in another God’s mockery, inasmuch as the sinner could boast that he ate his cake and had it, and that he mocked God by escaping the Divine punishment he himself has merited?
And if hell were empty, what values would all our sacrifices have? Isn’t the fear of the Lord such a fundamental part of our (God-willed) way of being Christians? If we all end up in Paradise and our good life only makes a difference in our degree of beatitude, why would not only any fornicator, but any child rapist be worried?
Are you the one who will say to the raped child that he should not for a moment think that his rape would deserve – even if the rapist dies in perfect hate for and mockery of God – anything less than heaven for his torturer? It seems to me that this cheap good-ism leads to absurd consequences, and this is what even my little mind can readily understand. Imagine how much, of the goodness and wisdom of hell, my little mind can not even begin to fathom!
No. It is not desirable that hell be empty. It is not desirable that hell be empty because we know that God has willed that it be not, and we know that there be nothing less than desirable in what he has willed.
If we can wish that God had done things differently, where does it end? Should we wish that God had not condemned sodomy? Should we wish that God had allowed concubines to have access to the Sacraments? Do you see the permanent rebellion that this thinking encourages?
Hell is right as it is.
Because God did it so.
You know that feeling, when you read about powerful prelates espousing some strange, distinctly non-Catholic cause, and something inside you knows that things aren’t right?
Yes, I mean those powerful Bishops and Cardinals. The “concerned” ones. The ones who speak “for the poor”. The ones who are always ready to espouse the easy causes.
Then you remember the curas villeros in Argentina, who disappear in the dirty slums of Buenos Aires to get the most disgusting sexual favours from all sorts of desperate perverts. At that point, you start to connect the dots, observing that the advocacy for the “downtrodden” can, very easily, hide a predatory desire for people either already totally corrupted, but which the “social work” gives easy opportunity to approach; or else, the ability to attack the vulnerable and to blackmail them because of the important position the powerful “social worker” slash priest slash prelate has in that already very corrupt environment; a position that can be the difference between, say, getting a decent job or remaining destitute.
There seems to be a common theme, is it not. A lot of these “social workers” appear to have had different motives than simple social work. How many of those corrupted curas villeros has the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires protected? How many are, like that archbishop, zealous apostles of the “social work” of the priest themselves? What is it, that these powerful men are hiding?
Could it be that all that social preaching is just a huge covert operation to allow an entire mafia of perverted priests and prelates to protect each other and climb the ranks of the Church through the net they have created; some of them, in time, becoming powerful and continuing to serve the same mafia-style organisation of which they are part, to which they have been linked all their lives, and which could destroy them if they stopped working for the “group”?
Am I being a conspiracy theorist here?
I don’t know.
I might be right.
I might be wrong.
But then I read this, and I know what to think.
On 2 May of the Year of the Lord 2021, Father Z published a blog post about St Catharine of Siena. I will try to link to the article here, but it seems not to work.
The blog post is, like every other one of the same author, very interesting. It would appear that this saintly woman “travelled widely” and “was enormously influential”.
How does this, pray, square with the usual feminist narrative of women who were treated, more or less, like dirt, and certainly as radically “inferior beings”, before “emancipating” themselves? Well in one word, it doesn’t. Letting aside the issue of the travels (which already demolishes a good part of the narrative), it is the fact of her enormous influence that gives the lie about the role of the woman in the pre-emancipation age. This would never be possible if Catherine had been considered, qua woman, unable to exert influence. You will find no child, bar Jesus, able to exercise such “enormous influence”; and even Jesus chose to exercise his influence later in life.
It appears clear that the, undoubtedly, very manly and very “patriarchal” Christian society of the time was extremely ready, eager even, to be influenced by a woman who was also – besides being woman – very young!
Watch with me the feminist edifice of lies crumble in front of your eyes, leaving behind a huge cloud of smoke and debris everywhere.
It is extremely wrong, and the result of the stupidity of our times, to make women’s position and human dignity directly related to her voting rights, or to her ability to parrot men in this or that activity. It is like thinking that cats will be inferior to dogs until they are finally allowed to bark.
Intelligent women have always been influential. However, their influence was exerted in a different way than the one proper of men, and was used (when a good, positive one) in perfect harmony with the special graces that God has given specifically to women. It appears, as we read in the blog post, that men of the past perfectly understood this. I wonder how many men, today, can think with the same lucidity; though they have, no doubt, smartphones vastly exceeding the computation ability of their ancestors.
Also, it is not known to me that St Catharine of Siena, who was “enormously influential”, ever used her influence to advocate for women’s vote, or women’s emancipation, or the right of women to become part of the Imperial armed forces, or priestesses, or deacons, or lectors at Mass. It is, in fact, not known to me that this saintly woman ever thought that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the societal structures of her time.
But no, we are to listen to Hillary Clinton and (*if* she is a biological female, of course; which is said in jest, but not so much…) Michelle Obama. They clearly know better than St Catherine.
Modern Western societies are deeply, deeply intoxicated with feminist poison. Yes, even many males who think themselves conservative. They might think of themselves in that way, but every quisque de populo in a factually independent, largely self-administered city (“Comune”) in Italy in, say, the XII or XIII Century, would have actually laughed at hearing these people defining themselves as manly, or even “conservative”.
They would, in a word, laugh at people with such smart phones, but unable to get the basics of the God-given order themselves.
The attempt to completely destroy the integrity of the vote on a National scale might be doomed to fail, as Senator Manchin appears to have put another nail in this particular coffin. It’s not the first time he does it, and I can well imagine that his position allows others (like Sinema in AZ) to stay in the shadow without being forced to speak against it, if they want to save their job.
Simply put, the Democrats’ hold on the Senate is, at least in some matters, much weaker than the 50+VP official position makes it look.
You know that I, like many in Europe, look at the United States as a luminous example of Western Civilisation and a Country that – still – can teach liberty to everybody else. But there is no denying that this liberty – and, in fact, the very way in which America sees itself – has been under constant, massive attack since Michael Brown at least (very possibly, since Occupy Wall Street; which was different, but equally Marxist), and that this is going to stay with us for some years.
The main issue, as I see it, is education and his cascading issue, language. The Country has allowed a cabal of Marxist to take control of vast part of the education system in the US. In time, this has created a wave of nutcases that are, already, numerous enough to cause trouble. In pure Marxist style, these people do not – in their vats numbers – openly support Marxism (some do; Black Lives Matter before they got smarter is a point in case). What they do, is supporting proxy causes that they can then use to push a covert, Marxist agenda. They use language to push their agenda. They take horrible things and give them a new facade.
Every time that you hear words like “racism”, “social justice”, “oppressed”, “reparations”, and the like, know that these words are pronounced either by a closeted Marxist or by a person to dumb to understand he is working for them.
How have conservative reacted to this? Very badly. Actually, as stupidly as they could.
In their pathetic, effeminate efforts to look “nice”, the milquetoast Conservatives (that is: the majority of them) ended up adopting their enemies language, at which point they make their victory in the issue inevitable. To make a point, “civil partnerships” and so-called same sex “marriage” have started to win when conservatives have started to say “gay” instead of homosexual, sodomite, deviant, or the like. “Perv marriage” doesn’t really sell well.
If you adopt the language of your enemy, you adopt his underlying ideology. When that happens, you will have to cede terrain one bit at a time.
Let us go back to Senator Manchin. He can oppose the prospective legislation because there are enough people calling it a fraud. If Conservatives were to start saying “I hate voter suppression, but…”, this would, in time, be the end of this battle, too. You don’t espouse the narrative of your enemies because you want to look understanding or inclusive. You counter it from the first centimeter, and never give up one inch of ground.
Conservatives need to ban from their vocabulary words – when used in the sense of the enemy – like “gay”, “Lgbt”, “voter suppression”, “of color”, “gender”, “transgender”, and many others.
Gay means debonair, happy. LGBT means assorted perverts. “Voter suppression” means “attempted ballot fraud”. “Of colour” means “non White”. “Gender” means a language tool, or sex. “Transgender” means “transsexual” or “freak show”, and so on.
When our side starts using the language of their opponent, we lose. When they don’t, and call a spade a spade, there is hope.
Banish from your vocabulary any word meant in the wrong way and only use it in the proper way.
“You seem very gay today, Mark!”
“I am not gay!”
“You mean that you are not a sodomite? I know that!”
Let’s take back our values, one word at a time.
Have a look at the video below. It shows a fight at an airport terminal, fittingly outside of the shop of “Urban Decay”
It appears no charges will be pressed. I assume that there was criminal activity involved, or that none of the attackers were White whilst all of the victims were, as they say, “of colour” ( = non-White to you and me). But it’s just me, and you can correct me if I am wrong.
What I want to point out here is that it was some time before someone intervened. A huge guy on the left actually does, and on the right not even the personnel seems to want to intervene much. At least one personnel of the airport seems to be White, which makes it perfectly reasonable for him, in the Country of the Chauvin Trial, to happily look at the events, lest he be accused of having mistreated some drug addict who then sues him whilst he gets prosecuted and given to the woke mob as breakfast.
I do *not* blame anyone who did not intervene, particularly if White.
The modern Samaritan would have to pay much attention to how he handles the wounded man; the way he tries to help him would be closely scrutinised by lawyers, and by the Anti-Samaritan woke mob. His choice of transport, the time of his decision, and the way he handles the wounded man during the transport would be, if the wounded man were to die, extremely closely examined by all sorts of wrong people: lawyers chasing money, journalists chasing headlines, Marxists chasing mayhem, and looters chasing goods.
In modern time, the Marxist Mob would, in case of tragedy, blame the helpers (particularly if White) at the airport for “killing” or “maiming” the, likely, drugged or criminal poor boy, who “couldn’t breath”, was a “gentle giant”, Obama’s wished-for son, a man with a “brilliant future”, one who wanted to just discuss some things with his friends, and one who (attacker or attacked) did not even ask the Samaritan to do anything. Hey, we were discussing stuff like we always do in the ‘hood, why had the guy to put himself between me and my homies? No’ what Im say’g, dog?
Just a few days ago, a White policeman shot a Black “girl” (let me translate this for you: a monstrously violent, clearly out of control, typically obese young, brainless woman of easily 200 pounds, possibly much more) who was, in her blessed innocence, about to stab another girl, probably to death. This almost became the next woke crusade, and only the extremely compelling evidence that the White policeman actually saved the life of the attacked girl (for which I have not noticed any woke personality thanking him!) forced the idiots, captained by a hugely talented retard called, for not very clear reasons, LeBron, to backpedal pretty fast. But hey, we live in such times that the woke mob goes for the lynching, rioting and looting even with the video evidence squarely against them. Imagine what times are coming!
It’s hard to be a Samaritan nowadays. Particularly if your wounded man might be involved in criminal behaviour, or if the Samaritan act involves helping a potentially criminal victim from his certainly criminal “friends”.
I do not blame those who did not intervene. I would not do it myself, either.
These are hard times for Samaritans.
This is a new, but very promising youtuber I was alerted to by Whatfinger News.
I think she deserves some support and publicity for the work she is doing.
I add to the video a simple observation: if “Luther” ate Caribbean food, there would be no lack of leftists decrying the “stereotype”.
As to the UK, I would say that whilst the Country in general has nothing similar to the race baiting that is going on in the United States, it’s not for the BBC’s lack of trying. Rather, the Country has a fairly practical, no-nonsense outlook about the matter, the higher education system has not been entirely corrupted yet, and too many people call a spade a spade for race baiting to seriously work. In fact, you can say that, whilst the US is witnessing an increase in Marxist-oriented people, the United Kingdom, which has known Marxism from much nearer, is slowly but surely getting away from it.
And yes: amazingly, in a Country without a past of slavery or (Democrat) Ku Klux Klan, Blacks in this country have a jail population percentage that is a multiple of their general population percentage.
Most police is unarmed.
It’s not easy, down here, to start the discussion about “systemic racism”. People know that the reason of the disproportionate presence of Black jail inmates is the disproportionate readiness to violence among Blacks, fuelled by an army of baby mamas incessantly producing the criminals of tomorrow, and paid by the taxpayer because Christianity was not good enough. These are facts of life that observant people – people with a job, a mortgage and a dog – get very fast, because they do not allow political correctness to shut their eyes and numb their minds.
Enjoy the video.
For the series “this is that”, another couple of examples of total deformation of the Christian message promoted by Marxists and Socialists (including Francis) in order to push their agenda. Both example come from a horrible, fake Catholic publication not graced with a link.
The first is the Beggar Jesus, a statue of several year ago who has now spawn a series of follow-up statues. This is clearly meant to make people of simple mind and lazy formation think that 1) they have to give money to the beggar stretched on the park bench, or 2) that the beggar in question is Anonymous Jesus, back on earth on a mission from God, or such like.
Reality is, very obviously, different. The beggar is, usually, as different from Jesus as you can imagine. In most cases, it is easily observable that he is: 1) a drunkard, 2) a drug addict, 3) a lazy ass, 4) a madman, or 5) a combination of two or more of the above. Here in the UK, “mad beggar” does not stay around for very long; therefore, 4) is only a temporary situation, and you mostly deal with the other varieties. These “gentlemen” (and, at times, “ladies”) beg from you money for their vices, because the food issue is taken care of by the Church and countless charities. In fact, in London, last time I looked, 50% of the food donated to food banks went to waste for lack of people willing to eat it. But hey, Marxist will use anything and everything to subvert the traditional order and morality.
Therefore, they will let you know that beggar = good, and you = bad.
Check your work privilege, you commuting pig….
The second is the Illegal Immigrant Angel. Yes, my dear reader. Straight to you from the “this is that” Commie Theatre, we now have the Illegal = Angel comparison. Why a criminal trying to illegally enter a foreign country should be equated to an angel is something only a person deeply perverted in his sense of elementary decency (and, probably, perverted in other things, too) can fathom. As for myself, I frankly can’t, because it’s so gratuitous. If an illegal immigrant is an angel, then a bank robber is also an angel (Robin Hood anyone?). At this point, even Salvador Allende can be an angel, and I don’t know how many people have lived who were such bastards as that one.
No doubt, there will be those, among the easily impressionable and Low IQ crowd, who fall for this easy emotional trap; particularly when they watch CNN and other subversive outlets. The problem is, it’s difficult to fight against the combined might of low intelligence and emotionalism. Those people want to do what makes them feel “good”, and the rubbish from the MSS is just the food they crave. Therefore, you only have to cry “Black Lives Matter”, and you will soon buy several houses at north of a million dollar each.
“This is that” is here to stay.
There are just too many idiots around.
Helen McCrory had just died of cancer, aged 52. Your prayers are, I am sure, appreciated by the angels in heaven.
One of the most famous actresses in the UK, and married to an even more famous actor (Damian Lewis), her death is very sudden, in the sense that very few people knew, and the news was kept from the public until the moment of death. Her young age makes this even more worth of a reflection or two.
The first reflection: modern “science” and the “miracles” of medicine do not allow anyone to escape his appointment with his Maker. Not even if a lot of money is available. One day, we will be called, too. That moment has been already set in stone. Every day, we march towards it.
The second reflection: I do not know whether the lady died at peace with the Lord, at least in the sense in which anybody can know, or hope, that anybody died at peace with the Lord. But I notice this: whether she was Christian or not, this does not seem to interest anybody, nor does it seem that she was interested in letting other people know. Religion has just flown out of the conversation. People die, they’re gone, everybody says how “courageous” they were, but they’re… gone.
It’s like saying that Rin Tin Tin was courageous. Look here, pal. The issue here is whether Mrs McCrory had an immortal soul, or not. If she had, forget “courageous” as there are other issues at stake now. If she (absurdly) hadn’t, then everything is absurd and meaningless, even “courage” at the end of an absurd sting of existence allowed to us, in this absurd perspective, to try to perpetuate our DNA.
The third reflection: apart from some Catholics, no one seems interested anymore in knowing in which state one’s soul has likely departed from this vale of tears. I think the milquetoast “Christians” have this bizarre idea that everybody goes to heaven, unless he is Stalin, whilst the Atheists prefer to blather about “courage”; something very strange, by the way, seen that undergoing three years of chemotherapy is seen as “brave”, but refusing to undergo it is “brave”, too. Everybody is so brave, and left the world such a better place. One wonders how the world has not become paradise on earth yet. Oh wait, I know why. But they don’t.
Fourth reflection: the chariteees. It seems that nowadays if you are not involved with a charity you are a selfish bastard. Charity work is the way irreligious people, and certainly a lot of atheists, define their own “goodness”. Even when the charity is serious, and not just a part of the immense, corrupted, charity machinery currently thriving in this Country, it does show a completely earth-bound thinking. Inevitably, not only was McCrory involved with a couple of charities, but this is seen, if you read around, as the other quality defining her (besides being, of course, an actress). “Wife and mother” is purely a factual event, that we don’t talk much about because very much, you know, old school. “Actress and charity worker” (which means: power woman and oh so sensitive) are, today, the defining traits of the deceased.
I do not know what Mrs McCrory thought about her immortal soul. If she believed in God, sin, and the like, it would have been very good not to keep this private as a help to others who might be in the same situation. If she did not believe in anything of that, well, I am sorry to rain on your parade but 400 years of charity work would not save her from hell, and the tributes that will now pour in are but a hollow, horrible theatre enjoyed by Satan alone.
A famous actress dies at 52, and it seems this is no encouragement to some serious reflections anymore.
But hey, famous and oh so good. And so courageous.
It seems to me that, if she had the real courage, it was the courage of looking at eternity in the face and make sure that she enters it reasonably prepared.
Strangely, this type of courage is not considered anymore.
“There is a huge problem in the Church. Active homosexual activity by priests and the secrecy of this sin must be revealed, and the holy priesthood must be restored to what Jesus said it ought to be,” Vasek said.
“The dark, secret cover-up of homosexual behavior has been under the radar for many years. Now the darkness is coming to light,” he added.
These are the words of the whistleblower in the sordid story of Bishop Hoeppner, who was just removed from his job.
The long, detailed article is quite interesting.
I do not know whether Bishop Hoeppner was a “conservative”, as V II bishops go. It seems to me that he has all the marks of the leftie. Still, I do not think he is justifiable in any way.
The information we have up to now shows that, whilst Hoeppner does not seem to have that horrible affliction himself, he wasn’t shy in covering those who had; actually, several of them. What also grates me a lot is the admission, from the Bishop, that he knew he was breaking the rules. Quote:
Bishop Hoeppner admitted in the deposition he understood himself to be violating Church norms, but said he did so to maintain confidentiality.
Well, Frankie blathers so much about clericalism, now he has found a real example of it. That the Bishop also pressured the whistleblower to recant his accusation might or might not be true; that he though he could go out of his way to defend several homosexual priests and put him in a position to offend again really shows the arrogance of these people.
You might say that some of the episode had happened many years before. I ask you who, of you, believes that a homosexual priest with a past of abuse (and be that in 1815) can be “reformed” and stay at his place, happily cured after a pretend session with some counsellor.
My humble take: he may or may not be reformed, and I am being extremely generous here. Still, the priestly office will have to go.
The only way to free the Church from the scourge of homosexual priest is to get rids of all priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. It does not matter whether the episode was 3 or 300 years ago. “Homo” must mean “you go”.
A priest who is afflicted by such a terrible deviancy should not have been a priest one day in his life. Therefore, to say that the priest has been spotless for 29 years (if you believe that, I have a bridge on sale) is still admitting that the guy has been a priest 29 years too many. Still, we have here a Bishop (possibly, one who calls himself a conservative one; I await more info) not only not incensed that this tainted priesthoods happened, but (with variation) going out of his way to allow this to happen for longer.
This is why we have this tragedy within the Church. Not even Bishops are horrified. Best case, they are incurably naive, unforgivably arrogant and utterly unfit for the job. In the worst case… well, you know what the worst case is.
I am awaiting to see the further developments of this story. But I still wonder: for one who gets caught, how many have behaved exactly in the same way? How many are behaving like this today? How many people, every Sunday, go to mass and receive communion from a priest of whom his very Bishop knows he is homosexual and, as such, simply unfit for the priesthood?
There must be no understanding for Bishops who cover homosexual priests, with or without allegations of abuse.
Homosexuality makes a priest unfit for office. That’s all there is to it.
This swamp needs to be drained, and I don’t care how many (in case) “conservative” bishops need to go down for this.
“Mercy is made tangible, it becomes closeness, service, care for those in difficulty. I hope you will always feel you have been granted mercy, so as to be merciful to others in turn”.
This is a tweet sent out by the Evil Clown himself.
It’s difficult to find a single word that is right.
Firstly, the usual “this is that”. Mercy “becomes” something that it is not, namely a) service and b) with an obvious social work tinge. In Francis’ atheist world, everything must be deformed, and forced to serve his social justice agenda.
This is bad enough, but what follows is worse: the encouragement to the faithful (I am, here, wildly assuming that there are faithful who read Francis and take him seriously) to commit a huge sin of presumption, assuming that mercy is always extended to them, no matter how adulterous, sinful, or evil they are.
This is no Christianity. This is a UN religion made of slogans, and stupid ones at that, meant to make people feel good even as they are indoctrinated to the new “good” their own masters want for them: socialist thinking.
Read again the text of the tweet and you will clearly see that there is nothing Catholic in it. It is something that a politician or a new age writer might have written. It is something with which a TV show host might try to look good.
It is something you might find in a fortune cookie.
This is, in reality, what we have. The fortune-cookie pope. Catholicism-free, with a total lack of shame, and wanting to show you (the Catholics) his longest finger every day.
Keep assuming, Frankie dear.
You will see how that ends.
Instead of trying to remember the exact issues on which Hans Kueng held heretical positions, it is easier to just think of a controversial one; then you know that, on that, he most likely dissented from the Church. Kueng was, in a way, the parody of the dissenting theologian. Monty Python could have drawn inspiration from him.
The man has now died, and it is difficult to think that, in his last hours, he has changed his mind and recanted all of his many heresies. If this was the case, the matter should be widely publicised, so that everyone knows what this “brilliant thinker” himself thought about his entire work as a theologian when it really mattered.
If, as it is far more likely, the man has not repented, well then the guy is in hell, and no two ways about it; no doubt, in the company of many of his colleagues of the roaring Sixties and Seventies.
Mind my words here: it is uncertain whether the man is in hell, merely because it is uncertain whether he has repented. But if he hasn’t, it is certain that he is now rotting in hell. Not to believe this means not to believe what the Church teaches. God’s mercy operates, in Salvation matters, whilst one is alive. When a man has kicked the bucket, God’s mercy will certainly give him, in hell, a lesser punishment than he has deserved; still, He will not allow a man like Kueng to mock him eternally.
Kindly spare me the “heart in the right place” appetizer, the “de mortuis nil nisi bonum” steak and the “how can you be so cruel” tiramisu’. When a pig dies he does not become a lamb. He becomes pork. And when the pig is full of toxins, the public must be warned to stay away from those sausages.
Dead Kueng, if unrepented, is not one tiny bit better than living Kueng; and both of them are, in a word, shite.
I have long thought that he lost the faith decades ago, and – like many others – embarked in a huge ego trip as a result of that, his ego being the most precious thing remaining to him after losing the faith. I can, in faith, not think that an intelligent man (which Kueng certainly was) may delude himself into thinking that Christ is our Lord and Savour, but he allowed the Church that He founded to betray the faithful for 20 centuries, until the likes of Kuengy boy came out and told us what He really meant. This is something that an intelligent, rational man would never think, or say.
No. Hans Kueng lost the faith, and started worshipping… Hans Kueng. When this happens, there are a lot of issues allowing one to look good with the world, and feel quite a special one: papal infallibility, women’s “ordination”, “peace”, abortion, contraception, and many others controversial topics will stay open in front of such a man, and will only await for him to edify a monument to himself among the applauses of the heretics, the atheists, and the conformists.
Hans Kueng met his maker, and the thought makes me shiver. I think it’s fair not to deny to him, bad as he was, your “eternal rest”.
But if he has not repented, I cannot imagine a prostitute, and be she so hardened, that was judged by Her just Judge as harshly as this one.
Let this be your leading thought when you read about him in the worldly press.
Every First of April, when I reflect on what to write for April’s Fool, I am confronted with the increasing difficulty of writing something wittily absurd about Francis.
We have now come to such a level of absurdity in real life, that every joke about the next impossible stunt that Francis could be mocked with is very, very difficult to find. The man is such a factory of absurdities that the reality of his pontificate has long surpassed anything that could have been considered a joke only a few years ago.
In the last weeks only, we had “clericalism is a perversity” and the openly homo man appointed to a Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.
Both of them would have made for excellent April Fool’s stunts only one year ago, and both of them would have been impossible to think, and no joke to be seen anywhere, until 2013.
Imagine the April Fool’s line “Pope Francis appoints homosexual man to commission meant to protect children”. Just one year ago, it would have been so hilarious you would have split your coffee over the keyboard! The other one, “Pope says clericalism is perversion”, would have been an excellent mockery of Francis favourite Marxist play, “this is that”. Impossible, of course, and therefore so funny…
Alas, with this guy reality has gone far beyond the joke a long time ago. I discovered that it is, in fact, not easy to make fun of a clown.
The matter is, though, not a very funny one, even if we try to take these things with some sense of humour in order to protect our liver. Each one of Francis’ heretical, perverted, or Marxist stunts is another whip lash against Christ. In fact, it is not easy to picture Francis happily whipping Our Lord, like the Roman soldiers so brutally did in reality, and as realistically rendered in the movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. Only, the Soldiers weren’t Christians, Francis is actually supposed to.
It always incenses me when, after the latest stunt of this monstrous individual, some follower of the religion of niceness writes some inane comment about it not being nice to write these things about a Pope.
Today we remember Christ humiliated, flagellated, and crucified.
Do you care for Christ? Do you care for the Church? If you do, I bet you will be very angry!
If you don’t, I question your love for Christ and His Church.
I am awaiting, like everyone else, more details on the story. However, it appears that the Italian edition of the Corriere della Sera had news about a Carabinieri raid in a so-called “sauna” just outside of the Vatican. The news previously reported (I could read the article myself, yesterday night before going to sleep; the article has now disappeared) clearly mentioned the arrest of several high-ranking officers of a “Foreign Entity”, among them the one of an 84 years old Argentinian Citizen whose domicile was given, rather revealingly about the “Foreign Entity”, as the Casa Santa Marta.
All information now gone. Nothing in the Corriere’s English version. All other Italian outlets also silent.
I smell a rata here.
The article in Italian I have read (but, foolishly, did not save; I must have had some confidence in journalistic integrity!) mentioned the arrest in connection with (IIRC) massive quantities of cocaine, illegal immigrants used as male strippers, and a disquieting collection of huge dildos made available for rent to the “patrons” of the “establishment”.
I do not want to make accusations before all facts are known.
However, I wonder how many 84 years old Argentinian Citizens are living in the Casa Santa Marta right now.
I know what you’re thinking.
But, perhaps, a friend of the same age? It’s possible, but he would have to be a priest; a priest, presumably, still active at 84. Possible, yes. But, difficult. Or someone whom “our guy” keeps in the Casa Santa Marta even if he is not a priest. Also possible. But then again, if the mysterious Argentinian had been just a friend, would the article have been made to disappear so rapidly?
We have preguntas that need respuestas here.
I don’t want to say anything more. For now. But I know what you’re thinking.
I am not really shocked; but, let me be clear here….
neither are you.
Mr Pentin has a detailed article about the way the German Bishops are defying Church doctrine and try to make their own protestant “mini me” church of Heresy at home, whilst pretending that they are still Catholic.
The issues are many and all of them known. What, however, struck me most in the article is the revealing statement of Bishop Baetzing (the leader of the heretical movement). The statement is framed as follows:
Bishop Bätzing said he was “convinced” we are living in a “time window in which we can really change something,” and that “we have to use it.”
It seems clear enough to me. The Bishop is saying that as long as Francis is in power, they can and should push as hard as they can. If the man kicks the bucket (which, at his age, can be any day), you don’t know what happens next.
It seems, to me clear enough what is happening: Francis is culpable of either direct or indirect complicity with these heretics, by either sending signals to them that they should push their agenda forward and nothing will happen to them, or by refusing to do anything after the Germans have decided to give it a try and push anyway.
This is another example of how Francis acts against the Church. It is not only what he does, it is what he refuses to do.
Some observer might even comment that Francis did not feel strong enough to contrast Ladaria on the CDF answer to the “dubium” (he is evil and of mediocre intelligence, but not entirely dumb: he knows that he is still on time to die humiliated and deposed, in a Jesuit cell, forgotten or despised by everyone, and not one journalist in sight! He will, therefore, avoid going into waters that he deems to hot for his liking). Therefore, what he does now is to take every occasion and every pretext to oppose the people he hates (that is, my dear readers, all of you).
I suggest that my readers are not discouraged by what they read daily on the Catholic “press”. It behooves every one of us to take a bird’s eye approach and evaluate the events of these years from a broader perspective. Twenty of forty years of such a mess will likely be forgotten when, in 800 years, the Church is still going strong and all his opponent of today have long become dust.
This Baetzing guy will be totally forgotten in I don’t say 800, but possibly 8 years. Francis will be remembered, if he does, as one of those “bad Popes” people actually know nothing about besides the fact that they were bad. What, I think, will be remember is that, in the XX and XXI century, there was a people of great turmoil and of great corruption, like the Church had never been before, and from which the Church recovered, as always, in the Lord’s good time. Same as we, today, only vaguely care to know the details about the big mess in the X and XI Century. Even the Western Schism is, today, but a note in Church History.
This will, I think, help to put the Baetzing guy, and all those like him, in the proper perspective.
A man goes on a mad rampage in Boulder, Colorado, and kills ten people. One of them, a policeman who died trying to protect the public. A Catholic, and father of seven. This is seven orphans and a widow now, in addition to all the other suffering the man has inflicted.
The Catholic father of seven, and all the other victims, have died. The mass murderer will live a long life, surrounded by the care of social workers, keeping the right to see people, likely to “see” women (mass murderers never have scarcity of women wanting to sleep with them; don’t ask…) , and rant at pleasure against racism or inequality if he wants to.
This man should be hanged.
When you have freed yourself from all the debris that political correctness and institutional do-goodism have deposited in your brain, you will see that capital punishment makes deep sense, that it is just right; you will, instinctively, see it as the natural, obvious, common sense punishment for murder.
Then you will remember that this is, in fact, what the Church has always believed, and what she has practised at all times as long as the times were, well, Chrstian.
God will, in His own time, establish perfect Justice. But this does not mean that we should not call for justice on this earth. The hurt for what has happened in Boulder is exacerbated, in all right-thinking minds, by the institutional, built-in injustice created by the rampant do-goodism of these godless times.
Pray for the father, for the widow and for the orphans, and, in your charity, help them I you can.
But also pray for a world where real Christian principles, and not their sugary deformations propagated by the enemies o Christ, are followed and lived.
A truly excellent blog post from Father Z moves me to some reflections I would like to share with you.
The theme of the post seems, on the whole, very clear to me: effeminate priests go after the TLM private masses in St Peter because .. they don’t like the manliness of it all.
One part stands out:
At times I teasingly refer to the FFLF, the “Female Fun Limitation Factor” which I picked up from a radio host of my native place. The FFLF is defined as that effect produced on one or more males having fun together – maybe being noisy or doing something a little risky – when a female, of any age, asks in that special tone of voice, “Do you really think you should be doing that?”, and in all its variations including The Look and other non-verbal signals. The FFLF suppresses.
Well I had to stop and think here.
I have lived in three Countries.
In Italy, at that time, there was no FFLF that could be seen in public. Any female effort at “FLF” would have had to be worked out, more or less patiently, in the kitchen. God forbid, a man is seen by his friends as being remote-controlled by his wife! Mind: I am sure that such female efforts were underway, here and there, all the time. But I am also sure that they were difficult endeavours, destined to failure with all but the weakest of husbands. As to The Look in public, that was, how should I put it, beyond the realm of the thinkable.
Years later, I moved to Germany. Germany was, for an American, surprisingly “traditional” in its outlook. You would, in fact, be surprised at the sheer number of Germans who work in the big city but live in a small village, with all the consequences this brings. It wasn’t Italy, though, and I could clearly see that men were far less masculine, and women could, oftentimes, be more assertive than it’s good for them. It was in this Country that I heard, with horror, what to this day remains, to me, pure abomination: a young father telling me how proud he was that he could be a stay-at-home father so that his wife could pursue her career; this way, centuries of Patriarchate could be, what… what exactly?… Shown as the proper way of living?
Still, a lot (not all) of German women knew better than to give an open show of FLF; because the village is small, you know, and your man shouldn’t look like a beta boy in public.
Then I moved to the UK, and here I saw that things were even worse than in already emasculated Germany. Atrocious expressions like SWMBO (“she who must be obeyed”; the cringeworthy, embarrassed admission of one’s own lack of trousers), or “happy wife, happy life” (ditto) were exchanged among grown men as if they were something smart to say. In this Country, the FFLF factor is absolutely massive and all-pervasive. As I write this, millions of grown, adult men – who often are the only earning spouse – discuss with absolute nonchalance, with their male friends and colleagues, the necessity to get their wife’s permission to buy this or that toy for themselves; the fact that they a) make the money, and b) have already decided that this is something that can be done, is clearly set at nought. Here, men publicly advertise their position as beta boys and working bees of the queen bee at home.
I can’t put in words how I despise them; and I seldom lack words.
So, coming back to Father Z’s beautiful phrase, I could not but avoid thinking this: that if the cultural environment in which we live came back to put an end to the FFLF in everyday life, and outside of a church setting, those little bitches in the Vatican would have a much more difficult life, too.
One can dream, eh?
For now, I would be happy enough if every one of my male readers would make an inner resolution to:
1) for the rest of his life, never again say SWMBO, “happy wife, happy life” or such like embarrassing, cringeworthy turns of phrase. Not even as a joke.
2) for the same duration, never accept any show of FLF, much less The Look, from both their wives and the wives of their friends. (Trust me: “Do you really think you should be doing that, Mundabor?” said no woman, ever…).
I suggest, instead of the usages of soy-plagued XXI Century America, the use of perfectly valid, life-affirming expressions like “me Tarzan, you Jane”, “happy husband, happy life”, and the immortal “go back to the kitchen, darling”.
We have trouble in bigger things, because we have forgotten the basics.
Yesterday was a good day for Britain.
You will ask: “How so, Mundabor, if there was a big riot in Bristol?” Well, it was a good day for two reasons:
- Why the riots happened, and
- How the Country reacted to them
The riots happened because of a new piece of legislation increasing the powers of the police in certain circumstances and generally limiting the ability of subversives to disrupt the lives of decent citizen. Make no mistake, this is the result of the mess caused by Extinction rebellion and BLM, whose UK ripples also saw statues toppled and other Marxist shenanigans this side of the Pond. The new legislation makes it more difficult, and punishes with jail sentences up to ten years, “wild cat” stunts of unemployed idiots and even more stupid university students who, say, block underground trains, or the like. Again, this cuts the legs of extremist Marxist organisations like Extinction Rebellion, Antifa, and BLM. You will now have to mobilise a very, very hard core criminal to make him risk 10 years in jail for a virtue-signalling stunt.
Rather predictably, therefore, the protest ended up in riots, as Marxists are very apt at having the violent taking over this kind of exercise, and hoped to start another “spring of love” here in the UK, Seattle-style. Apparently, the mess happened live on TV. Apparently, the police had a poor show (as you expect from very possibly the most emasculated, PC police force in Europe; and so badly funded that, apparently, they were even short of the horse mounted troops they would have needed), again live on TV. An embarrassment, for sure.
However, this is not the US.
When some Extinction Rebellion idiots jumped on top of underground trains and blocked the traffic some time ago, they were taken down and given a sound thrashing by the very white collar people you see around in London every day. Whatever you say of Londonistan (and I could go on for a while), there are still a lot of people around the UK who have a no-nonsense approach to life, and will not be #metooed, or BLMed, or Extinction Rebellioned by these cretins. Rather, those wanting to push subversion under their nose will have to deal with them on the spot.
In short, there is no fertile ground for this kind of actions. You can’t take an entire Country hostage with your “racism” narrative. People really do not care if they are called “racist” or “fascist” when they reject insanity. They are, also, much better at smelling a Marxist because of their long experience with them, something which the American Citizen must still learn. This is exactly why the Government promoted the new legislation, and why yesterday riot’s were a total flop for the subversives.
Also, in the UK there are cameras everywhere. I suspect that, as happened with the riots in London, a methodical man-hunt will now start and will lead to the arrest of those (directly) responsible for the street violence; and no, it will not end with immediate releases because of some Soros-backed prosecutor refusing to do his job.
Learn from your former Masters, America. Stop drinking the Kool-aid of “racism”, environmentalism, and all other excuses used to push a Marxist agenda.
Wake up, smell the coffee, and get ready with that police baton.
The same as in the UK, the population will be on the side of decency.
This note precedes an article published in a once Catholic magazine (no link):
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this piece had a reference that appeared insensitive and inappropriate in light of recent events in the United States which the XXXXX deplores in the strongest possible terms. Readers are also cautioned that this series of Improbable Hagiographies offers: Scandalously irreverent and theologically imprecise briefs on heroines of the faith, written by a recovering Protestant agnostic seeker with practically no training and exactly zero filter.
I do not think that the readers of the magazine have, on average, half the fear of the Lord of the average reader of this forum. However, it is not difficult to imagine that, among them, there must be a number who, actually, care. They must have wondered what on earth “scandalously irreverent and theologically imprecise briefs on heroines of the faith, written by a recovering Protestant agnostic seeker with practically no training and exactly zero filter” have to do with a Catholic magazine.
I have, predictably, not read the article, as I am not interested, at all, in what way exactly a person who is not part of my faith (or of any faith) wants to help me progress in mine.
However, at the end of the article there was another note: the author of the piece is, we are told, the founder of a secular pro-life Feminist organization.
Ye gods! Feminist, too? I know “feminist” is interpreted according to convenience nowadays; but, whatever kind of feminism this here is, Catholic it is not. Why? Because it’s feminist, Dr Watson!
I make an easy prediction here: every publication which keeps playing with “modernity” and thinks it “cool” to publish un-catholic, scandalous material from faithless people with zero filter may discover, one day, that these games were fatal to its existence.
Anybody who wants to read this stuff can do it, nowadays, literally everywhere else.
It really bespeaks a desire to make itself superfluous and go bust.
I miss Kayleigh McEnany. Not only was she very easy on the eye, but she had a very agreeable mixture of integrity, competence and assertiveness.
Alas, in the Age Of Dementia we have to do with Msss “circle back” Psaki; who either does not have answers she is supposed to have, or invents facts that aren’t there.
One example, and a very bad one, is here.
Msss Psaki, you don’t put words in the mouth of a Pope that he has not said. Not only is the Pope the head of the biggest religious organisation on this planet, but he is, also, a Head of State. Also interesting: Psaki has put her fake news also in the mouth of Dementia Joe, as she said that “he would say that.. (add here fake news)”. Therefore, even Biden, next time he remembers who is his wife, should be angry at her.
Mss Psaki has some apologising and some explaining to do; and frankly, I wonder whether she should not “circle back” to whatever she was doing before the current job. She might say that, as she has a President that calls the head of a nuclear power a killer – something which, if Trump had said it, would have caused savage calls of 25th amendment and hysterical fear mongering that the guy is dragging us into a nuclear war – her fake news are small change compared with the challenges of dementia. However, I can confidently say that Ms Psaki does not suffer of dementia, and that said dementia cannot be taken as the new bar of acceptable behaviour by White House officials.
We will see if and how the White House correct Ms Psaki. If yes, this will be an embarrassment that they had better not repeat anytime soon. If not, it will be further confirmation that the arrogance of these people really has no boundaries.
However, one compliment I must pay to Msss Psaki: she has managed to make Francis appear even worse than he already is.
This isn’t easy, at all.
Let us play a little mind game.
Let us imagine that an angel would appear to me, in the middle of the night, and would talk to me along the following lines:
“Greetings, Mundabor. You are not dreaming or having hallucinations. I come from above. I have been tasked to tell you that, as per right now, you have three minutes to make a choice between the following two options: the first is that you die now, and you are assured to avoid hell. The second is that you live another 40 years of the happiest and most fulfilled years on this earth, and you are not assured to avoid hell. Kindly choose now, because I have a lot of visits planned for tonight and I am behind schedule aleady. The time starts (takes out a big, heavy, old-style hand chronometre) now“. Tic, toc……
I am not likely to ever receive such a visit. But if I were to, I am fairly sure that I would say to the angel that I am ready to go, and it is so very nice of him to stop by. Then I would go, frankly not caring of how long or painful my purgatory will be, because the certainty of heaven one day is infinitely more important than any duration of purgatory, and infinitely more valuable than any discount I could, in theory but without absolute certainly, have merited in the residual 40 years of life.
What about you, my dear reader? What would you choose? If you say “I would choose the 40 years of happy life, knowing that they would give me a very solid hope of meriting salvation, something I did not have before the angel showed up anyway”, I would say that you are not setting your priorities straight. The guarantee of the attainment of the Supreme Goal makes any other hoped for, or possible, or even extremely probable achievement (not my case anyway) utterly and completely worthless compared with the risk, no matter how small, of losing everything. This reasoning would, in fact, emit a strong odour of presumption. Still, I can’t avoid thinking that a lot of V II, “heart-in-the-right-place”, “God-is-lurv” “c”atholics would choose the second option, “so they can benefit humanity for 40 years more”; thus showing that to them, hell is a risk barely escaping the realm of the theoretical, and one they can very easily and confidently avoid.
Why, my dear readers, do I tell you all this? Why, firstly, of course, to remind you and myself of the only thing that, in the end, counts in life. Secondly, to remind you of what a blessing it is when we are told that we are about to die. A blessing and privilege, this one, that many generations before us fully appreciated and we, the not-so-smart users of extremely smart phones, seem to abhor entirely.
The three minute test would, I think, easily separate the Catholics who takes their salvation seriously, from the protestantised ones who think their salvation a factual “given”.
Salvation (or lack of it) is, at the end of everything, the final of the last four things and, therefore, the only thing that makes all the difference.
It is healthy to remind ourselves of this, even if the angel does not show up.
The CDF has, today, made known the answer to a Dubium, whether homosexual so-called “couples” can be blessed.
The answer is, of course, “no”. It is still full of PC, inclusive, milquetoast language. But in the end, yes, it is an undeniable “no”.
One sees with I do not say satisfaction, but a certain sense of half relief that at the Vatican they have not become all completely insane. Instead, insanity remains, for the time being, confined to merely dozen of the most important aspects of Catholicism, from the Pachamama scandal to the oblique, wink wink green light to the sacrilegious abuse of Holy Communion, to the persecution of sound Catholics, to the sellout of the Church in China to a communist dictatorship, and so on until tomorrow morning.
Let it not be said, therefore, that the stating of the obvious is something for which the appalling FrancisChurch should be praised. Rather, let it be said that not even the appalling FrancisChurch desires to be sacrilegious and heretical all the time.
What will be interesting now is to watch what kind of reaction this complete and utter banality and stating of the obvious will cause among the perverts and their friends, aka “progressive Catholics”. Methinks, Francis already knows what favour he will do them next, in order to appear like a “middle of the road” guy (being pro pervert half of the times probably counts as “middle of the roads” among the Polllyannas) and get more praise from the mainstream media.
In fact, yours cynical truly cannot but think that this answer to the Dubium has been released exactly in preparation of the other event. I could be wrong, of course. But in the case of Francis, thinking badly of him is just being realistic.
In fact, the most appalling reflection in all of this is that in this day and age, the Vatican makes headlines merely for stating that two and two is four.
It tells you a lot about the state of the Church in the Age of the Socialist Popes.
It is Friday afternoon in Europe as I write this, and the calls for Andrew Cuomo’s resignation are increasing by the hour, to the point where it seems that, very soon, no-one will want not to be on record asking that he steps down.
I can’t imagine he will survive this, but the more he resists, the more he damages the party; therefore, and as far as I am concerned, he should sit very tight on his armchair for another day or two, dying the death of thousand cuts.
The Dems are following the usual playbook: the woke agenda. The hypocrisy is stunning because the same rules were not applied to Cigar Bill or to Two-Finger Joe, but it is clear this is a convenient way to get rid of the guy, whilst looking as much woke and as least incompetent as possible.
Cuomo is not only responsible for thousands of deaths, which might or might not be the result of grave negligence, at least initially. More gravely, he has lied to the public and to legislative bodies about the extent of the deaths. This is exactly what the Democrats want you to forget. If they were to go down that road, I can imagine that very unpleasant questions, and very inconvenient truths, would emerge about the dealing of a handful of Democrat Governors, including Governor Wannabe Tranny in Michigan.
Cuomo will, I think, fall. He is now a huge kidney stone in the middle of the already poisonous Democrat organism, and the stone is so big it could soon block the gallbladder. The Dems seem to have decided that they need a flush now, lest things get ugly in 2022. This, obviously, just in case they can’t keep stealing elections forever.
Do I have any sympathy for Cuomo? No. Latest term abortion bastard posing as vaguely Catholic does not deserve any.
Do I think that the accusations are true, in those cases at least in which they would appear grave enough? I don’t care one tiny bit. Provided he’s gone, I am happy.
Do I think that he should be entitled to due process and a fair investigation? Most certainly not, as he himself asked for resignation of people in his exact position in the past.
Am I worried that this is, in the end, another victory for the extreme left, who will try to replace Cuomo with someone worse than him (remember Cynthia Dixon, the dike?)? Actually, no. I hope that the “squad” terminates many other prominent careers inside the party, and that this leads to an internecine war with many, many victims. Liberals kill their own with relish, and prominent Democrats have tried to incorporate the Squad instead of opposing them. Now they will all pay for it, and I hope they pay dearly. Make no mistake, the Squad is now circling around every Pelosi and Schumer of the world, waiting to get rid of them with the right excuse and cowering them to submission in the meantime.
Go away, Andrew, and hope you stay away from jail; which, as you have realised by now, might not be a foregone conclusion. Your career is about to be late-term aborted, and your candidature to the President is officially as dead as Disco.
To think he got an Emmy.
Sic transit gloria mundi, Andy boy.
May Chuck and Nancy follow you very soon.
It has been suspected that the Chicom government released the virus on purpose, in order to paralyse the West and wreak havoc in our economies.
I do not think this theory stands up to reality.
The Virus struck in China first. YouTube videos showing people collapsing on the street were making the rounds for weeks before the alarm was sounded. The first doctor who alerted the population was forced to recant. Thus, the virus was left free to spread among the Chinese by the very actions of their own dictatorial Government. No-one shoots himself in the arm hoping that the bullet’s overpenetration hits his enemy.
Also, the Chicoms acted, when they finally decided to act, in an absolutely brutal, undemocratic, and repressive way: locking everybody at home. These measures were unheard of in peace times in the West. It is fully irrational to think that the Chicoms would paralyse vast parts of their economy in the hope that the West becomes just as illiberal as they are, and does the same.
No. Whilst I have little doubt that this virus went out – through a typical communist regime blunder of the kind that gave us Chernobyl – from a Chicom bacteriological war laboratory, it seems impossible to me that they would predict, or even have a faint hope, that the West would transform in an immense experiment in repression.
The sad reality is, the ravaging of our economies that followed the pandemic is all of our own making. It is, sad as it is to say this, the result of a society who has lost the will to fight against adversity, and seems now prevalently composed of old people scared of a disease, and young people scared of life.
In fact, we need to notice this: the unprecedented curtailing of the most elementary freedom was, in most cases, not imposed on the Western populations. It was, as a whole, enthusiastically accepted and thoroughly invited by them, with even the categories most affected, like pubs and restaurants, jumping on the “caring” bandwagon and exposing their stupid “protect the NHS” flags outside of their own empty, lifeless premises.
This “pandemic” has revealed the great fragility of Western Democracies, where freedom is not valued, provided one gets a fully irrational sense of security. Particularly in Europe, we are growing old, and weary of freedom.
We are also full of atheists: which, in my eyes, goes a long way in explaining the stunning willingness to sacrifice one’s freedoms so that one might be less afraid of death, for now.
But death will, unavoidably, come. It will come for every one of the old people refusing to look at it, and it will come, it is to be feared, for every one of those Democracies who have lost the desire to defend their freedoms, because they have lost the hope of the life to come.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
The above is from the Ecclesiastes. Which, as Pope Francis might have known at one time, is part of the Bible. Which, as Pope Francis might have learned around 1962, is the Word of God.
Now, with the basics firmly im place, let us examine the “introduction” to the official prayer that the Evil Clown recited in Iraq. No, I haven’t even read the prayer itself. I had enough after the introduction.
If God is the God of life – for so he is – then it is wrong for us to kill our brothers and sisters in his Name.
If God is the God of peace – for so he is – then it is wrong for us to wage war in his Name.
If God is the God of love – for so he is – then it is wrong for us to hate our brothers and sisters.
This must come from some kindergarten; or from some Jesuit seminary run by perverts. It tries to impose on the intellectually challenged a pseudo-logic of the notorious “do not judge”-kind. It is the parody of Christianity so loved by those who hate Christianity.
Once again, Francis is saying it very plainly: he hates Christianity. Then if you consider, say, the Crusades wrong, and the idea of killing in the name of God abhorrent, how can you not come to the conclusion that Christianity is all wrong, and has always been?
The answer to this is very easy: Francis has gone full steam down the road of the Church-haters, and he has done this, very obviously, for decades. Now that he is (however unworthily) pope, the man cannot resist the temptation of dishing all his hatred on your dish, and demand that you eat it. I am afraid he will be disappointed.
You eat your excrement, Francis.
We will have nothing to do with it.
The news reached me today that the rather disgraced Cardinal Wuerl is receiving 2 million dollars a year for his “continuing ministry”.
Boy, how I would like a “continuing ministry”!
How hard does the Cardinal work for the 2 millions? What do all the people whom he employs with such a budget actually do? Or does it fritter everything away with expensive flights and hotels? Or perhaps does he spend the money in other ways, like the infamous Cardinal McCarrick (an old acquaintance of Wuerl, shall we say….) used to do? I have only found about one or two “retreats”, which he could have done pretty much on his own, possibly without even the need of a personal assistant at, say, 250 dollar a day.
It also emerges that this is not money donated by, say, some association of wealthy Friends of Horrible Cardinals, for the exclusive use of our guy. No, this is money that the Archdiocese of Washington could have used any way they please. Instead, they have gone to finance the “continuing ministry” of a retired, rather disgraced guy.
Honestly, I think that pious heads should piously roll.
Heck, if the guy is so eager to work, could he not have asked to be assigned to a parish and continue his work there, at a net saving of probably 1.96 million a year and with many, many more documented hours of “ministry” than what we can see now?
This “poor church for the poor” isn’t half bad or, apparently, half poor.
It seems that 2 million dollar of the faithful are treated like pocket change, to keep some old guy (little) occupied. It seems that it pays to be friends with the humbly powerful and the piously wasteful. Or, perhaps, that it pays to know an awful lot of things, so that those who want to appease you and prevent you from disgracing a lot of people with you prefer to fund an extremely cushioned retirement, sorry, continuing ministry. It could even be (thinking out loud here) that the Cardinal is merely a conduit for bribes paid to others, as a compensation for horrible “services” rendered other, more simply, to keep their mouth shut without the risk of Clintonising them.
I think that Catholics should demand that every cent of this is accounted for, justified, or restituted, and those responsible for this sent to some obscure parish to work for a change.
But hey, what do I know?
I am no friend of paedophiles.