Category Archives: Traditional Catholicism
It’s good to watch videos like the one above. They tell you there are still Catholics around. Actually, they tell you there will always be Catholics around. To paraphrase St Athanasius, the heretics may occupy our churches, but we will keep or faith.
In this matter of so-called communion for adulterers, there are a couple of things that always give me a light case of nettle-rash. Not saying they are both happening in this video. I just want to get this out of my system.
The first is describing the teaching of the Church as if had been created, or at least clearly affirmed for the first time, in Familiaris Consortio. I think I will scream next time I read that Familiaris Consortio is mentioned in this regard. As evidence of what the Church teaches, Familiaris Consortio is neither here nor there. The prohibition of communion for adulterers is based on the constant teaching of the Church, it is based directly on the words of Our Lord and has always been considered part and parcel of the Depositum Fidei. If, therefore, Familiaris Consortio introduced a novelty, then this novelty could be a heresy or a quasi-heresy like several other novelties introduced in V II-times encyclicals. If (as it is most certainly the case) JP II based his very words in Familiaris Consortio on the constant teaching of the Church, then it is this last element that must be constantly stressed, as it is infinitely more decisive than what one of the at times very bad, and at all times more or less questionable, V II encyclicals states.
Let the V II people try to explain everything with documents of the V II era. We should simply ignore them. Everything that is right and has a solid foundation in Catholicism can be explained without mentioning them, and everything that cannot be founded in pre-existing Church teaching is very probably wrong and in any way never to be trusted unconditionally. The only innovation not suspect of heresy or watering down of the faith introduced by V II I can think of is the invitation to the faithful to denounce heresy. But this is a logical consequence of the rise in education and literacy. Educated laymen were never requested to shut up when confronted with heresy.
Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated. If JP II alone can be the foundation of Church doctrine, than Francis can be it, too.
For this reason (and this is my second nettle-rush trigger), the mention from the man in the video that Francis might, in theory, announce a “change in discipline” is just plain wrong. Discipline cannot contradict doctrine. Therefore, Francis could never change discipline in such a matter. The only thing he could do is to proclaim heresy. This is something that I would like to see stressed more in the public discourse. Truths are immutable facts that can never be changed by way of “discipline”. They can only be attacked by way of heresy.
We are in a de facto schism, in which the Pope willingly allows cardinal to contradict cardinal and bishop to contradict bishop in matters that every child old enough to know what “adultery” is would understand without any difficulty.
Francis and Satan observe this happening without any meaningful reaction, and laugh.
At least for now.
I very much liked this post appeared on One Mad Mom. I invite you to read it in its entirety. It is beautiful to see that in the midst of the stupidity of our times, there are still an awful lot of Catholic mothers who understand the very basics of life, basics which obviously escape the rich wife of the many, many billions.
The blog post also allows me to spend two words about this strange phenomenon of the modern times: bought and/or married prominence.
The First lady wasn’t elected President. Her husband was. Melinda gates isn’t a successful entrepreneur. Her husband is. She literally bought he public space by way of marriage and sinking an awful lot of money earned by her husband in more or less (often: more) satanical activities.
This idea that we should listen to someone (who, like in this case, may well be the perfect cow) because she has married someone who was, or has become, extremely rich and/or extremely powerful is just plain dumb.
Let her write her own blog if she wants, by all means. Let her express her opinions freely like everyone else of us. But prominence by way of the husband is clearly off.
I have barely started to breath again now that I don’t run any (big) risk of seeing pics of the former First Trannie, always a menace to my digestion.
But I really would like a world in which prominence is earned, not married or bought.
Father Gregory Baum, at 93 still an indefatigable agent for Satan, has just admitted to decades of sodomy.
He has, also, said that he preferred to conceal his perversion in order to better work to undermine Church teaching as a V II peritus.
Father Rosica, whom many besides me suspect of being a first-class fudge packer, has expressed himself about this disgusting parody of a priest in the following words:
You remain a faithful, deeply devoted Catholic, love Jesus, the Church, the Eucharist
I’ve certainly admired very much your theology, your writings but also your love of the Church, your love of Christ, and you helped to keep alive not only the spirit of the Second Vatican Council but also the authentic teaching of the Council
One wonders whether Father Rosica will now have a word or two to say about sodomy in general and sodomy in a priest in particular. This is a priest for whom he carved a prominent role on his TV station, so he can’t really dream he will be able to shut up and get away with it.
These, my dear readers, are the “peripheries” of the Church.
They smell of sheep, they pack fudge, and their rectum is severely damaged.
When even the most unCatholic of Francispapers starts complaining about Francis being “divisive”, (please don’t click on the linked Tablet article! It gives them money!) you know they are very much afraid of being caught on the wrong side of a nuclear conflagration.
Mind, it’s not that the Tablet wants Francis to become Catholic. They are merely uncomfortable with the pace at which the demolition is going on, making the work of the Evil Clown far too overt even for his own allies!
I seem to read a subtext in this: “The old man is becoming more and more imprudent in his old age; the cowardly silence of the Cardinals and Bishops is emboldening him too much! If he goes on in this fashion, he runs the risk of altogether ruining the work of demolition we have so strongly supported by letting the entire thing explode in his hands!”.
Dear heretics at the Tablet, let me tell you what is happening here with an Italian saying: “il diavolo fa le pentole, ma non i coperchi”, “the devil makes the pots, but not the lids”.
The satanical influence of this Pontificate must show itself in some way or other for everyone who has a Catholic heart and a desire for Truth. Yes, the Lord could still allow a more subtle satanical influence, which is what the Tablet is calling for; but in His goodness, He has given us at least this consolation: that in the midst of such confusion we can at least very clearly see who is wrong and who is right.
The desire of the Tablet that the Pope be more subtle about his subversive work is understandable from their heretical perspective. However, the devil will never make the lids of his pots. There will always be a way to recognise deception, because The One who is The Way has decreed that he be always recognisable as such.
This consolation we at least have, and we will always have: that there will always be a way to recognise a heretic. Let us be glad that as God inflicts on us a decidedly deserved punishment, He does it so in a way that allows us to very easily see who is on the right side. He has not abandoned us. He will never abandon us.
and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The question is: will you abandon Him?
The Tablet will not get, as long as Francis lives, the subtle heretic they wish.
They will have to make do with this stupid boor instead.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio (a FrancisCardinal with the t-shirt) has, bizarrely, deserted his own press conference on occasion of the launch of a heretical booklet ‘splainin’ why the Church was wrong for 2,000 years, but heretics like himself and the Evil Clown are right. This is bizarre, but still understandable in view of the barrage of questions the heretical Cardinal clearly did not want to answer.
Even more bizarre, and outright absurd, is the rumour circulated by gay operatives of the Vatican that Coccopalmerio’s press conference would be the way the Pope answers the Dubia.
The Dubia are made exactly so, that either the Pope himself or someone who officially claims to speak for him with his authorisation (say: the head of the CDF stating “the Pope authorises me to answer in the following way”) can be considered a valid answer. What gay operatives in the Vatican allege the statements of a Cardinal should be considered counts exactly zero point zero. If Coccopalmerio is the signatory of an answer explicitly, officially authorised by Francis, then Francis (not Coccopalmerio) has answered. If the man is just spreading heretical statements, his statement cannot count as the Pope’s answer more than any other statement of any other Cardinal not officially qualified by the Pope as the answer to the Dubia.
We should never allow Francis’ gay Troops to state that (cough) hey, in a way, I mean, you might say, pretty clearly, that Francis has answered (in their sense, of course) when he hasn’t. Nor can Francis call himself out by just not answering. An answer is due and expected, and this answer must come from him. If the Pope refuses to answer, then clearly this silence condemns him and as such he must be condemned by whatever Bishops and Cardinals are still afraid of hell (not many, I gather). But really, what must not happen is that Francis is allowed to get away with having his own faggots stating he has answered without taking the responsibility and doing exactly that.
The Dubia were formulated as they were, and the vehicle of the Dubia itself was chosen, exactly in order not to allow Francis to hide behind interviews without a recorder, third party statements, and interpretations of various kind. He must say yes or no, and this is all there is to it. Including, of course, that his silence condemns him in the most blatant way anyway.
I do not know whether the private warning to the Pope that should precede the official censure has been delivered or not. What I know is that if the Cardinals do not follow through and do not condemn Francis for not answering (meaning here: condemn him for not answering; not simply compare his silence with a reaffirmation of truth coming from themselves) they deserve to be transferred to Guam en bloc (as the rumor has it this is about to happen to Cardinal Burke) and be buried there.
Enough with Popes heretical by silence, and Cardinals bravely meowing.
Time to call a heretic a heretic, no ifs and no buts. By now even my cat understood that Francis is a commie heretic anyway.
And as to the question:
No, I am not afraid to have a heretical Pope openly proclaim his heresy. It is certainly preferable to having a heretical Pope promoting heresy in less open ways. It has been decreed that we should live in such disgraceful times. Let us look at reality in the face, and fight the good fight.
We are not afraid.
This blog post made me reflect on the fact that it has been a great advantage for the Evil Clown to come from the “peripheries”. The English-speaking press, which together with the Italian one dominates the Catholic discourse, is very far away. There does not seem to be any big interest in serious investigative journalism about The Life And Evil Work Of Bishop Bergoglio. His connections to homosexual priest (search this blog), his arrest for having marijuana in his luggage (search this blog), and his support for clearly evil bishops and cardinals (refer to the post linked above) should give a newspaper ready to pay the cost more than some hope for rich pickings.
Unfortunately, the secular press is largely interested in promoting the Evil Clown and they have no interest in bringing him down, not even for the sake of prestige and income. Meanwhile, the big Catholic press seems too much beholden to a strange concept of “loyalty” to start the serious digging exercise that is called for now. It is difficult to think that the likes of EWTN will make the conscious decision to start unearthing the excrement in the excrement-rich life of Jorge Bergoglio, sadly of Italian ancestors.
We can still pray.
It would be glorious, and a new pearl in the crown of the Church, if a brave Catholic publication would take on itself the costly work of exposing the dirt at the very top, where a man with a very dirty mind is operating every day.
Oportet ut scandala eveniant.
Only days after the Orlando massacre, the wrong vocabulary is everywhere. “Gays”, “LGBT”, “homophobia”, all that rubbish.
It angers me no end.
When will people understand (even conservative pundits) that you can never win a battle by accepting the vocabulary of your enemy?
The Libtards have created a new vocabulary to reprogram the brain of the simple. If we want to deprogram the brain of the simple, we must go back to the old vocabulary.
It’s not “gays”, it’s “homosexuals” (which refers to the sexual perversion) or “sodomites” (which refers to the acting on the perversion). It’s not “LGBT”, it’s “perverts”. It’s not “homophobia”, it’s Christian feeling and Christian decency.
This, if you write for an official publication, or if you are a priest.
All the others should, if you ask me, be more assertive than that, and assertively use language to shame wrong behaviour. Fag, Dyke, Fudge Packer, Pillow Biter, Elton, and so on. It’s like flying a flag. It does get noticed. Be ready to double down whenever necessary.
It astonishes me how many people do not understand this simple concept: words shape thinking. We can’t escape this reality. We can avoid the issue, but it will came back to bite us when we are then forced to fight with one hand bound.
Let’s stop talking the language of our enemies.
Let’s start talking the language of our grandfathers instead.
On both occasions one fact appeared clear: the Cardinal tried, in more than one way, to defend the fiction that Amoris Laetitia (and the Pope who excremented it) is not heretical, and the problems lie somewhere else; like for example Cardinals who dare to ask the Pope if he is really a flaming heretic when the man has stated to Argentinian bishops, and more indirectly on countless other occasions, that he clearly is, or bishops giving instructions to their priests to commit sacrilege because a) they are heretics, and b) they read the document for what it says.
In the second blog post I wrote the following:
Cardinal Mueller has produced himself in a triple somersault, and we would be tempted to appreciate the skill if the exercise weren’t almost entirely useless. He is doing nothing else than proclaiming his own blindness in front of blatant papal heresy, even as he indicates to the Evil Clown who the candidate for the next phase of bullying and demolition is: himself
It seems the day of reckoning might be coming faster than even I expected, as the Stalinian Francishounds have now been unleashed after this particular (and not terribly smart) German fox.
When Cardinal Mueller is kicked out (which I expect to happen in Summer, after some months of character assassination from various sources who will never mention him directly) he will have achieved the stunning performance, from a V II perspective, of causing maximum damage to the doctrine of the Church (by choosing to just shut up, though with various contortions and some bonus somersaults), his career, the reputation of his office, and his eternal salvation.
A smart man would have understood where the wind blows and, recognising an inevitable final result, would have chosen to defend the Church as stated in his job description, and to suffer the consequences he would have been suffering anyway (not talking of torture here; merely loss of one office). As a Cardinal, wearing that particular red in order to be continuously reminded of the blood many have spilled – and he is also called to spill – for Christ, there should be no better way to wake up in the morning and look at oneself in the mirror.
Instead, one seems to understand Cardinal Mueller will look at himself in the mirror and see the useful idiot of the Evil Clown: the man who was used to cover Amoris Laetitia for months, then to attack the Cardinals who had dared to be Catholic, and finally to still defend Francis whilst he performs his triple somersaults, and finally discarded when the way of his defence of a heretical Pope was not good enough for Joseph Vissarionovich Bergoglio.
The linked article states once removed from the burden of the office, Cardinal Mueller could become a vocal critic. With all due respect, this is nonsense. No one interested in not losing face could say that he has renounced to defend Christ when he was in the most important position to do so, but now feels he has to relieve his conscience when the office and the power have gone. It would look almost as stupid as it would look hypocritical.
The Cardinal is burned. Actually, he has burned himself. He deserved to be discarded, because he is culpable of the gravest dereliction of duty in a time as grave as this one.
Let’s hope the Evil Clown will substitute him with some open revolutionary heretic. It will make our job easier.
Contortion artists like Mueller are the worst that can happen to us.
If you want evidence that Cardinals are not what they used to be, look at the photo above and the linked article from the Eponymous Flower, and reflect on the following:
- Cardinals used not to use the vulgar gesture the Cardinal uses in the photo; and yes, in Germany everyone understands the meaning. It is also very difficult to think that the Cardinal might have done it “by mistake”. Look at how his second finger is carefully held by his thumb.
- Cardinals used to know what they were talking about. A man so confused that he is able to state, in front of journalists, that he “thinks” that “unanimity prevailed” should take the habit of thinking twice before he speaks. It’s not so difficult to see whether a vote was unanimous or not. Plus, it is clearly a lie that it was.
- Cardinals used to be Catholic. This one here clearly isn’t. Beside the other lie (that AL would be in sync with the two Synods) it is just plain Protestant to say that if a document clearly states something at variance with what the Church has always believed, it is fine for any Catholic to believe the lie.
Cardinals are not as they used to be.
This one is, for sure, much nearer to Friedrich Engels than Jesus Christ.
An article on the generally good (for what I can read) Crisis magazine states some rather preposterous things, like the rhetorical question whether we should have asked St Thomas Aquinas to exercise more. Once again, the Western society is so secularised that it does not even get how much it has lost the sense of faith.
St Thomas Aquinas was a great saint, and a man of extremely strong will (the episode of him being locked in a room in the family’s castle, and the other famous episode with the prostitute introduced therein to persuade him to abandon his plans to become a priest, are abundant demonstrations of it). The man wasn’t your run-of-the-mill saint, who might be heroic in fighting temptations but is often overcome by it. All we know of him tells us this was a ferociously disciplined man, and a man of both overflowing holiness and overflowing intelligence. It is simply preposterous to think that he would not have his appetite for food, or any other of his appetites, under control. Whilst the man was certainly big (as abundantly reported, in very colourful words, by one who was demonstrably very fat, G.K. Chesterton, and (cough…) very probably never met the man in person), it is plain dumb to think he would sit in front of just another real (not dumb) ox and would be unable to restrain his food intake. I am not informed about the daily diet of the man, but elementary sensus catholicus tells me this: if the man had seen a serious problem in his eating habits you can bet your last shirt he would have starved himself to Obama levels all right. Those ones weren’t the times, and that one wasn’t the man, to take the sin of gluttony lightly. In the man’s case, I can’t avoid thinking he considered his less than attractive physical appearance a blessing in disguise, a lesson in humility, and in general a help to a saintly life. Even the tale of the “ox” might have been vastly exaggerated, as in the middle of thin people you become an “ox” much more rapidly than among the “minorities” in, say, 2017’s London (ask me how I know).
Alas, modern times are stupid. People don’t understand anymore than once upon a time, people behaved (and believed) in a far more intelligent manner than today; that they had a great fear of the Lord and a very keen sense of sin; and that they might have perceived as very sinful what many later saw as venial sin or not a sin at all.
There, we already have out of the way the first platitude of the day: Saints weren’t gluttons, period. If they were big, of even fat for ancient standards (certainly much different from the disgusting accumulation of big fat waves of people unable or almost unable to walk in their Thirties or even Twenties we see today), it was because the Lord in His wisdom had decreed so, but heroic virtue can’t live together with stuffing one’s pie hole to the point of disgusting obesity.
He who tells you otherwise is destroying in front of you the concept of heroic virtue, trying to persuade you that you might be a saint in the making, or trying to make you believe sinners who actually kept sinning all their lives went straight to heaven.
Famously, Padre Pio ate almost nothing, and it was clear his rounded figure was a straight demonstration for all living around him that he was sustained by God. But Padre Pio wasn’t obese in any of the sense commonly used today. He was a well-rounded man, like a Pius IX or a JP II; and this as he was aging, again *almost without even eating*. There was, most certainly, no hint of gluttony in him, as there could be no succumbing to a deadly sin if there is to be heroic virtue.
Which leads us to the crux of the matter: gluttony.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, and many sensible people of his and of all ages, would not eat too much simply because of the sinfulness of the habit. A concept, this (the sin of gluttony), that has all but disappeared in an age which wants to justify and “scientifically” explain everything, from sexual perversion to evil tendencies to morbid obesity.
I grew up in Italy, in a time when the concept of gluttony was alive and kicking. I have seen people berated, humiliated in front of everyone because of their gluttony. I have seen ridicule, mockery and outright condemnation surround them, from children and adult alike, and I am talking of people who in today’s US would not even attract attention. I have not seen many people who were fat for half-moderate US standards, and I have seen none (zero, zilch, nada, nothing. Not.A.Single.One.) that were fat in the way millions of US and UK teenagers and young adults are fat today.
Now, sensible societies always had a sensible approach to the matter. Older people and some ugly women were allowed to verge on the fat. Provided they remained able to conduct their daily life, walk, work, go up stairs, play with their children, people were not considered gluttons. Wise men like Cicero are often portrayed as portly. Saintly men like Pius IX certainly were. Omo de Panza (man of belly) meant, in Catholic Sicily, the man’s man, the manly man. But every sensible person must see the difference between the famous actor Aldo Fabrizi in his old-ish age (pictured above; pretty much as fat as it went in those years) and people forced to go around in a wheelchair in their thirties, or who are about to massacre their knees in their twenties, because they just can’t stop eating. There has always been a distinction between a natural roundness, particularly with age, and disordered obesity, particularly at a young age. Everyone could pick the difference. Everyone understood the difference between what is reasonable and what isn’t. Everyone felt free to condemn the latter.
Don’t tell me it was “cruel”. I won’t have any of that sensitive faggot shit. It worked. Therefore it was salutary, not cruel. Now we have people dying in what should have been their prime, and after having attracted on themselves all kind of disease and discomfort for many years; but we are too stupid – or too sensitive in that faggoty way mentioned above – to tell them to **eat the Obama less and exercise the Obama more**, and in case (money allowing; no, not necessary) invest in a dietologist that might make things even better, or faster, or smarter for them. Much less we tell them gluttony is a sin. No: nowadays people with $1,000 smartphones die of junk food, gluttony and utter stupidity, but woe to the one who tells them some straight facts about life.
Let their stupidity kill them instead. Don’t you know it’s the sensitive thing to do?
No sense of sin. No common sense. No desire to improve the lot of other people if it makes us, or them, feel “uncomfortable”. It’s no surprise people seriously ask (and be it in a rhetorical way) whether a great saint should have been asked to eat less and exercise more.
We need to go back to the basics. We need to understand that 1) a strong religious feeling and 2) strong societal condemnation are extremely effective weapon in the “war on fat”, an expression unknown in those Countries who had 1) and 2).
As St Thomas Aquinas very well knew, Gluttony is a deadly sin.
That’s all you need to know.
The SSPX-Vatican agreement seems now (not for the first time, actually; and we know how it ended before) very near.
However, this time the situation is different, in that the Church is led by such a demonic, heretical, and bullying individual that some question (among them professor Roberto de Mattei) whether such an agreement is really the best way to go in the current situation.
I must say I am with New Catholic on this, and think that what is good in itself should be regarded as good irrespective of the circumstances in which this good takes place.
However, I have a number of caveats, which are the same I have expressed several times on this blog. They are as follows:
a) The agreement should be made from a position of complete mistrust, and actually utter contempt, for the Evil Clown.
b) Therefore, it should be structured in such a way that the assets and legal position of the SSPX as an institution are completely insulated from the paws of the ‘umble ‘eretic, Pope Uriah.
c) It should be (but of this I have no doubt) accompanied by the strongest desire to keep following the truth no matter what the Evil Clown says, or orders, or spits about. Finally,
d) it should be (but of this I have no doubt, either) accompanied by the firm resolution to be just as critical of FrancisChurch after the agreement as before.
The way I see it is this: you don’t refuse something good for Catholicism merely because it comes from a man who is bad for Catholicism. However, this clearly assumes that the agreement is such that the bad guy cannot hurt the good guys.
The agreement allows the SSPX to expand like a cancer in Francischurch’s body. This, my friends, is jolly good.
What advantages Francis has in inviting this cancer is in my eyes not difficult to fathom. I see a maximum of three of them.
a) Firstly and most importantly, credentials of “tolerance”, which will allow him to push his heretical agenda even further;
b) perhaps, the suppression of Summorum Pontificum and of the FSSP and other traditionalist bodies as he would claim there is, now, a legitimate outlet for Traditional concerns;
c) also possibly, the attempt to bully the SSPX into submission like he has just done with the girls at the Cowards of Malta.
I see a) as the first motivator and the only realistic aim for Francis. I suspect the agreement with the SSPX would be followed by a “mercy offensive” that would see Kasperism more or less officially embraced. However, not the SSPX would have to answer for this, but Francis. Francis can attempt any and every heresy every day, and it is not realistic to demand from the SSPX that they should reject a historic victory out of a misplaced sense of responsibility for the evil actions of other people.
The b) scenario is, ultimately, possible with or without agreement, any day. Ask the FFI. But also here, I do not think the SSPX should have a set of genitals for themselves, another one for the FSSP, a third one for the institute Of Christ The King Sovereign Priest and other ones for the Papa Stronsay priests, etc. If these institutions are ordered to disband, it is their damn duty to refuse and go the way the SSPX did in the Seventies; protecting their assets as they can, but their integrity first. Once again, you can’t avoid a good outcome out of fear that cowards will accept to be bullied. Not even sovereignty was enough to allow the Cowards of Malta to resist, and this was a protection around ten orders of magnitude bigger than any SSPX “rebellion”. Cowards will be cowards. It is not the job of the brave to be held hostage by their cowardice.
The c) is, in my eyes, completely unrealistic. I doubt there are people outside the SSPX who distrust not only Francis, but the entire V II Church more than they do. They breath it, eat it, drink it every day. A priest who accepted to be suspended a divinis the day of his consecration isn’t likely (bar something very short of demonic possession or total loss of faith) to accept to be sodomised “in obedience” by the very people against whose heresies he vowed to fight the good fight for his entire life.
Again, the SSPX are no Cowards of Malta. This is Sparta.
Heretics will be heretics. Francis will be evil, very probably, for as long as he breathes. Whatever evil deed he wants to do, he has abundantly showed he will do not only out of calculation but also out of a whim, out of spite, out of long held grudges, or out of pure arrogance, and there is no way we can rely on him to behave rationally.
He has his own motives in pursuing this reconciliation. We have ours. If this reconciliation is made the proper way (see above) I see no reason to refuse it.
By weary of Greeks bearing gifts. Look attentively into the horse. Then make of the horse a war machine against the Greeks.
We shall see who is smarter, who is Catholic, and who has the Lord on his side.
It has been reported that on the fateful election night, Hitlery Clinton lost it to such an extent that a) she had to by physically restrained when she attacked John Podesta, b) she crashed an extremely expensive bottle of champagne against a TV megascreen and c) she then started to sob ceaselessly until the following morning.
Not quite the same, but rather similar must have been the reaction of the Evil Clown on being informed, not many days ago, that the centre of Rome had been populated with around 200 posters openly mocking his clown pontificate.
How do I know this? Very simple: from Sancta Martha they informed us the Pope didn’t make a big deal out of the incident.
I had to smile.
This is a man whose rancor and pettiness shows up every time he opens that heretical mouth of his. A man who never misses an occasion to insult everyone who disagree with him. A man who remembers supposed slights many years later (it has widely speculated that his enmity with the FFI has its roots in confrontations he had with them when he was bishop in Buenos Aires).
Therefore, allow me to smile at the idea of the “serene Pope” upon knowing about the posters. He must have fumed like a chimney stack. I am inclined to think he is still doing it. I doubt he crashed any bottle of expensive bubbly (too much of a peasant for it, anyway), but I would bet my pint he must have behaved in a frightful way, not dissimilar from Hillary’s in that fateful night.
Smoke away, Evil Clown.
Every faithful Catholic must hate you, and hope that the Lord free us of your disgraceful presence soon.
Disclosure: I don’t care for American Football.
It seems to me a sparse sequence of very short plays, followed by interminable babbling, with a lot of interruptions in the middle. Then you get more babbling, and some more babbling, before you get more appeals of the decisions of the referees. And they never stop talking. They never ever stop! It drives me mad! It’s the greatest mystery to me how there could be people who prefer this endless stream of interruptions to baseball or (as you call it) soccer.
“Oh, but those two and a quarter second are very intense, Mundabor!”. Yeah, right.
[Add there all the reasons why I am wrong]
[No, I still haven’t changed my mind]
The Superbowl Number 51 (Latin: LI; but you know that) is upon us (actually: you), and I am perfectly willing to ask you to consider boycotting it, or as much of it as you can (namely: the advs and the entire intermission including Lady Whore).
The matter is not whether Lady Whore will stage some kind of obscenity, protest, or both. The matter is that the NFL has abandoned every pretense of political neutrality by ramming their own political agenda down the throats of people who, perfectly rightly, would want to keep politics out of it when they watch the interminable blabbing and endless stream of interruptions. You know all the single events, so I won’t get into the details. My aim is to get you to become angry enough to say: “stuff it, I will go for a walk/watch a movie/ do something else instead”.
If all fails and you can’t stay away from the endless babbling, I implore you to get a half hour break and cut all the part of the big intermission.
All of it. Cut the head of the hydra. Say “no” to every and any product that would like to enter your home before and in the wake of Lady Whore. They have picked the wrong product to place their ads. Then say to everyone in your circle of acquaintance that you are fed up with this (actually, do it now!), and have therefore given the thing a very wide berth.
You might say that your refusing to watch has no influence unless you are one of the Nielsen-surveyed viewers, but I would disagree. Perceptions are shaped by the bigger reality around us just as much as by the official surveys. As the Superbowl becomes less and less popular and more and more controversial, this will be “picked up” by sponsors and advertisers until the NFL feels it where it hurts: the wallet.
Even if you are a fan of the endless blabbering and countless interruptions, challenges, and referee consultations, please consider that unless the NFL’s politically correct drive is stopped you might see all the rubbish rapidly going down the food chain: college football very soon, then the local or regional series. The point will come when your son won’t be able to watch a game of his high school without some kind of rubbish protest going on.
I suggest you fight for sanity now, and walk the dog instead.
Every Roman (and most Italians) knows him, “Pasquino”, the fictional “Pope critic” (actually every anonymous poster of criticism) in the Piazza Pasquino, just outside Piazza Navona. Every Roman (and most Italians) is also familiar with the “Pasquinate”, which you might call “Pasquinades”: short, funny, rhymed statements written in Roman dialect, affixed on the basis of the statue by strictly anonymous amateur funny Roman dialect poets.
Romans now woke up to a different, modern-times Pasquinata.
However, this time the “Pasquinata” was not affixed merely on the statue; rather, several dozen posters have been (illegally; another Roman tradition…) affixed in strategic point in the center of Rome. Enough, actually, for the important press agency ADN Kronos to report the news.
Not only is the “Pasquinata” funny. It shows once again that opposition to the Evil Clown will continue unabated, and will grow more fierce as Francis keeps ravaging the Church.
Poor Francis! he wanted to be remembered from history as the Great Innovator, but he must now discover that more and more people are ruining the party.
He will be remembered as the picture in the poster instead: a boorish, arrogant, grumpy old commie hating the Church and everything it represents.
Well done, “Pasquino”!
May you find new inspiration, again and again, for as long as Francis – and, it is to be feared, his successors – play fast and loose with the teaching of the Church.