Category Archives: Traditional Catholicism
The legal structure of the United States never ceases to surprise those who come from different legal systems. Compared to every European Country, it is, in many issues, rather atomised due to the existence of 50 States, each with their own very extensive legislative powers. This is why, even if Roe vs Wade were to be reversed (it will be one day), the battle would only be half won, as many States would run to implement State legislation allowing the killing of babies. It is only when the Supreme Court declares abortion not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, that the legislative powers of the States will be neutralised.
The same happens with the phenomenon of “sanctuary cities”. In Europe there are no “sanctuary cities”. The concept itself is foreign to the legal system. If, say, the Italian region of Lombardia decided that, within its territory, illegal immigrants are welcome and the local authorities are ordered to disobey or to obstacle law enforcement, people would start going to jail pretty fast. It is obvious that this does not happen in San Francisco or Los Angeles, where – the way I understand it – the battle against sanctuary cities is fought with federal lawsuit and with the threat of withholding federal funds, not by sending the FBI to simply arrest people (legislators, and enforcers) for subversive activity.
It works, fortunately, both ways. I am following with interest the phenomenon of the “sanctuary counties” in Virginia, vowing to defend the Second Amendment rights of their citizen against the tyrannical attitude of their own State legislators. The most recent development I have read about is the one of the eleven Texas cities banning abortion. The linked article is interesting not because it indicates a way to get around Roe vs Wade (it is obvious that the legal ground is extremely shaky here; which, if it was not the case, would allow for the vast hollowing of every unwelcome judicial decision in States like, say, California or New York), but because it moves the battle against abortion to the public opinion via the courts.
It is clear to me that this lawsuit is not meant to result in a victory. It is meant to result in a discussion. It is meant to, as they say in today’s parlance, “raise awareness”. It is the expression of a local, pacific revolt of decent citizen, choosing to fight through the courts against the iniquity of a Constitution willingly and unashamedly bent to the will of the leftist mob by politically motivated activists.
If you think that cities can decide to not follow Supreme Court precedent, you can keep dreaming at your leisure. But if you think that these initiatives amplify the discussion about the evil of abortion, you might be on to something.
Still, the way towards an abortion-free United States (which, make no mistake, will in time result in an abortion free Western Europe) does not go through “sanctuary cities”. It goes through sound judicial appointments both in the higher courts and in the Supreme Court.
In 2020, just as in 2016, it is vital that Trump be reelected in November, and that a working majority in the Senate allows the President to keep doing the excellent job of appointing dozens, at this point actually hundreds of sound thinking judges.
Look at the age of the Supreme Court Justices, add to Breyer and RBG the diabetic Wide Latina and realise that Trump’s second term can be, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, just as explosive as the first; actually more so, if the great, 72 years old Clarence Thomas felt sure enough of the soundness of his successor to resign, allowing Trump the appointment of another judge like him, but 30 years younger.
Like 2016, 2020 is an extremely important battle in the war for the defence of the unborn.
Please hammer the concept in the head of your tepid relatives, or colleagues, or friends, whenever they start moaning that Trump is not nice enough, and his tweets are oh so unkind.
I am late to this party; but the party does not want to end, and it might be useful to spend a word or three on this.
Some Bishops reported that the Evil Clown was “displeased” that James Martin, aka “Martina”, used the meeting of the two months ago to promote his sodomitic agenda. Others deny or disagree.
In my view, the truth is in the middle; or rather, both sides are right.
Francis will say what his counterparts want to hear. This is what he always does and will always do. A man able to say “soon, soon!” to the parents of a persecuted FFI friar will obviously not have any qualm in saying to visiting Bishops a couple of words that makes them believe that he is actually not actively helping Martina to push his agenda. This makes the poor nincompoops happy, and avoids the awkward moment for Pachamama pope.
The real news in this is not what Francis may or may not have said. It is the fact that, after seven years of speaking out of three corners of his mouth, there should be any Bishop who gives any importance to what this evil man blathers.
A short internet search will reveal to everybody that the meeting between Pachamama and Martina happened on the 30 September. The alleged conversation with the Bishops happened in February, which means that the Bishops and Pachamama Guy were talking of something that had happened more than four months before.
You would think that, if the matter had had any relevance to Francis, he would have made known his opinion before February? Even if Francis expressed his disapproval in strong term to the Bishops, what value does this have, if this disapproval is four months late and expressed in private conversation? It would clearly mean that Francis himself does not attach any importance to anybody exploiting him for his purposes.
Make a mess!
Francis is a born liar. He lies just as easily and automatically as you breath. He does not attach any value, or dignity, or manliness to his words. To him, a man is as good as his Socialist credentials. It is really dumb to believe that anything that he says in a private conversation would have any value to him. If you were to say to Francis that the earth is flat, he would answer to you that there might be some merit in what you say, just to avoid the awkward situation. Why wouldn’t he? He lies about everything anyway!
This is the guy who boasted of lying to his mother, who was sending money to him, about studying Medicine whilst he was paying his studies in the Seminary (which, by the way, tells you a lot about the lack of Catholicism in the allegedly oh so pious home of Mother Bergoglio). If one is able of lying to his own mother about what the money she sends him – and, no doubt, the fruit of her sacrifices – is being used for, what would he not lie about? If he is able to even boast about it, what does this say about the attitude of this scoundrel?
I report less and less about what the man says in his almost daily heretical exercises in bloviation. The fact is, once you understand a guy is – as the common parlance goes – full of shit, you cannot give any value to any word he says, period.
Francis is – besides being a heretical pope, who would have been deposed and trialled for heresy a long time ago if our Bishops and Cardinals had some testosterone in them – a compulsive liar with no self-respect, no decency and, quite possibly, homosexual tendencies. How any Bishop can give any value to anything he spouts is beyond me.
Francis is a cancer that has now spread to the very limbs of the Church. To excise this cancer will require the amputation of one or more limbs. But this does not make this amputation less necessary, if we want to avoid that the cancer, albeit never terminal for the patient, keeps spreading everywhere for who knows how long.
The Bishops and Cardinals need to move and force this guy to retract everything (it would be a long retractation), or be deposed and trialled for heresy. This should be the daily issue of conversation among them.
What the old, lewd liar might have said to some of them is really neither here nor there.
The news reaches us today that, if elected, Bolshevik Bernie will only appoint to the Supreme Court justices supporting infanticide barely masked as abortion.
In simple terms, this means that he would likely be able to get, if not the rabid baby-killing machines he eagerly supports, some vaguely “moderate” (for him) pro-killing justices, who would be invariably supported by the Judas Republican Caucus consisting of Senators from, say, Utah, Main and Alaska.
Heck, Bernie could even go nuclear and appoint utterly bonkers Justices without Senate approval, with recess appointments; an imprudent move, very likely, and fraught with questions about its legality, but perfectly in line with the man’s attitude, character and utter inability to compromise.
Also, in case of an improbable victory, Breyer and RBG would likely resign immediately (or she could die of her own anyway), and perhaps even the diabetic Sotomayor, aka wide Latina, could decide to resign. This could be a triple whammy, either compromising the court for decades or, in case of succesful recess appointments, making the 2022 election entirely about the Senate, but without presidential race connected to it.
This goes to show that the battle is never won and, with all his successes in judicial appointments, we need both Trump and a solid Senate majority (ex Judas Republican Caucus) in November.
Let’s hope and pray that Bernie does not get his way. Let us not be complacent. Let us work for Trump and sanity with our friends, colleagues and relatives.
The battle is not won yet, and Bernie could do a lot of damage even as Lame Bolshevik.
The Nevada Caucus results are out, and it is clear that it will be between Bolshevik Bernie and Mini Mike, with more than a hunch that a lot of grassroots Democrats are really, really angry at a billionaire wanting to buy the presidency and being (up to now at least) so pathetic at it.
Bolshevik Bernie has, among his many delirious policy points, a federal law that would enshrine abortion rights in law. Let us set aside for the moment the constitutional feasibility of this, and let us reflect on what this means for the American people.
It is fair to say that Sanders’ is the most brutal attack on the unborn ever committed by a Presidential candidate. He really goes all the way out.
The current frontrunner of the Democratic Party really, really hates babies.
A person claiming of being “proud to be Jewish” promoting a yearly Holocaust. Go figure.
Mind, it is not that the other candidates are much better; in fact, it is only now that some people on the left probably begin to regret moving the needle of the party so much to the left. The “moderate” candidate, Ueber Bitch Amy Klobuchar, voted against both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and, if memory serves, attacked the latter viciously. If these are the “moderates”, give me Sanders every day. At least the danger is made very clear.
Bolshevik Bernie hates unborn babies really a lot. Klobuchar will gladly sacrifice them to get elected. All the others are in the middle, which means babies will still have to die. Whoever gets the nomination, this was the most baby-killing candidate troop the United States have ever seen.
If Bernie gets the nomination (we need to wait for Super Tuesday; but I think Nevada was a good indication of the raw energy that will be mobilised against Bloomberg), his extremism even in the matter of baby-killing needs to be a constant issue among Catholic journalists, assorted pundits and humble bloggers. I know, it will likely play second fiddle to the obvious danger the man represents for the economy and the freedom of those who have not been aborted. Still, it cannot be neglected merely because other parts of the man’s utterly bonkers platform catch the imagination of the public with more force.
We need to attack Battleship Bernie with the Catholic submarines, torpedoing it all the time to November. Trump and the GOP will attack it with the aircraft carriers USS MAGA and USS KAG, hopefully disposing of the danger.
But we need to do our job trying to move some of those who tell themselves believers to stay away from this toxic man in November.
There is a thought that has been floating in my head for years. Today, I would like to share it with you, and ask what you think.
It has been my experience all my life that people who are disillusioned with something -like, say, elections- are not easily persuaded to abandon their scepticism. They will want to, first, be persuaded by facts without them doing anything; and they will, once confronted with facts, change their minds and act accordingly.
It is my conviction that, by all his success, exactly this happened to Trump during his glorious 2016 run. He did move to action a number of people who had been disillusioned and had not voted for a long time; but – crucially – the numbers were relatively minor if compared to the untapped potential that still remained after the election.
I remember thinking, in the early hours of that glorious day, that a victory in 2016 would go a very long way to procure a victory in 2020, because the great mass of “doubting Thomases” would be aroused to action and to support Trump exactly where it counted – and will count in November – the most: that is, among the formerly disillusioned non-college educated voters in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Do not expect these voters to march to the polling station in November because they are against abortion, or think a wall indispensable, or like Trump’s North Korean policy. Expect them to go to vote in November because, for the first time since Reagan, someone really cared for their jobs and families, and they have tangible evidence of it.
Granted, many eternally disaffected and professional complainers will still stay home instead of going out in the cold, as complaining is likely what they do best and hat gives them most satisfaction in life. Still, I think that there is a big army, a huge, still untapped potential out there, particularly in the Rust Belt, ready to join the Trump Train in November. The polling organisations will, like in 2016, not be able to detect them, because these are not people getting vocal on social media or interested in talking to pollsters; but their votes will be real and, I think, largely unexpected again.
This, unless grumpy guys in the Rust Belt are different from the same guys in Italy; which I very much doubt, because nature does not change with the passport.
I do not see these people polled. I do not think many pundits are interested in them. I suspect that they think that Trump will have difficulties in keeping that constituency, much less enlarge it. But I at my age might know more of human nature than a 24 years old analyst of artificial statistical data; particularly then, when such analyst is afraid to see the signals he has in front of him.
If what I think happens, then it’s game over for Bloomberg, Sanders, or whoever else should make it. It will be a big win, and a lot more liberal tears.
The Lord acts in mysterious ways, and He might choose to let factory workers pave the way for everything the “educated” urban crowd hates.
Starting with sensible judges, and babies in the womb.
In a piece of good news that will not fail to please the readers, the Gay Scouts of America have filed for bankruptcy. What this means, is that they will now begin to sell the silverware (they have a lot of that) to deal with the many sexual abuse charges they are facing.
They will, of course, re-emerge from bankruptcy at some point as a new organisation, and I bet the legal framework is more complex than the newspaper article mentions. Still, the new organisation will be, as things stand now, also doomed.
These people allow weird things, like having boys who think they are girls to join them. This is in addition to allowing homos within their ranks, after which they are suprised that it rains sexual abuse charges on them.
Most homos like young men. Deal with it.
Similarly, “boy” means “boy”. To allow a boy who thinks he is not a boy to join the Boy Scouts is like admitting to a seminary a young man who thinks he is a girl (or, come to that, an elephant, or a Ming vase). What other things these people do I have no idea, but I am sure the details are quite disturbing. I am curious to know whether the Girl Scouts allow boys who identify as girls, or the Boy Scout girls who identify as boys.
Confusing? It’s because they are confused themselves.
Henceforward, the Gay Scouts will be an organisation for the offspring of liberals who insist in confusing their children as much as humanly possible, perhaps because they think that growing them in a “tolerant” environment will help the parents themselves get away with all the selfish stuff they do (infidelities, divorces, remarriages, addictions, etc.). If you are a marijuana-smoking swinger, with a divorce behind you and actually liking the fact that your second wife really likes the milkman, the Gay Scouts might just be the right place for your boy; particularly, of course, if you have encouraged him to “identify as girl” just in order to go for the safest option.
The simple fact is that, besides the obvious impiousness of the PC stuff, it never pays to get away from common sense. A boys’ organisation is either a boys’ organisation, or it is useless. Going away from the simple facts of life is like hoping that water will suddenly start falling upwards.
The Gay Scouts are desperate. Desperate people with no faith do desperate, stupid things. It really is amusing to see how dumb they are.
Keep your boys away from the Gay Scouts. There’s nothing good left in them.
It seems to me that there are two parties inside the Democrat party. One (let us call it Donkey 1.0) is the party we have learned to know and hate in the last twenty or so years: baby-killing, perversion-affirming, gun-controlling, eco-panicking, tax-and-spend type of guys. The other (Donkey 2.0) is the same, with the addition of Marxism.
Donkey 1.0 and Donkey 2.0 don’t really like each other. Actually, the hate each other almost as much as they hate Trump. More importantly, they see themselves as not compatible with the other. Which is, in fact, perfectly reasonable if you consider that Donkey 1.0 has an abundance of Billionaires among its supporters, of which not one, but two are actually vying for the top job; whilst Donkey 2.0, which sees with hostility and resentment the very existence of Billionaires, is largely fuelled by champagne-sipping actors feeling “virtuous” between two cocaine benders and by the vast number of envious, resentful people once – and rightly so – called the Undeserving Poor.
Donkey 2.0 was kicked in the … ass in 2016 already, when the party establishment rigged the rules to make Hillary prevail on her way to glorious defeat in November. They are, therefore, positively angry, and ferociously determined to not let it happen again this time. This does not faze Donkey 1.0 a bit, with an unlimited amount of money to spend and no lack of Greta-angering private jets to coordinate their movements; but then again, Bernie and Fauxcahontas (yes, she is still in the race! It’s difficult to let those private jet flies go!) don’t disdain a private jet ride, too.
It seems to me that in this simple reality (two parties, united by the same baby-killing zeal and desire to control your life in the minutest detail) lies one of the most important keys to understand this race. The leaders of the two parties will, likely, compromise at some point (remember: Bernie graciously accepted to be set aside in 2016 and supported the very woman who had rigged the game against him, thinking of his necessity to remain in the graces of the party!). Still, I doubt that the respective grassroots will do the same.
Les us say that Bloomberg wins the nomination, buying all opposition and promising the Bernies of the world one house here and one well-paid charity job there. In my eyes, there will be no amount of public display of (fake) affection that will move the People Of Marx to enthusiastic support of a Billionaire who will, very clearly, have nothing to do with Marxism. Nor should you think that, once deprived of their economic revolution, they are going to be happy with environmental madness: it is clear to them, and to everybody else, that climate panic is about total population control, not the environment. The result of this will be a handful of millions of votes missing from Bloomberg’s tally. This spells, bar an astonishing amount of complacency from the other side, a clear defeat.
Even worse will the Donkey fare if it is the Bern who carries the day. After all the toning down of Marxism has been done and the fake support of the Democrat Establishment has been promised, a Bernie run would be seen with terror by many of the decades-long supporters, whilst a vast number of Independents will run to the ballot and will not be able to wait to vote for Trump. Bernie would have a difficult run if the economy were bad. As it stands, the economy is so good that this would be just suicide.
I do not see how this situation can be remedied. The reality on the ground clearly indicates that these are two parties under the same (circus) tent. No artificial statement of unity, of which we will read many after the Convention, will change a iota in this.
Sanders, together with AOC and the virtue-signalling, champagne-sipping actors, has destroyed the Democrat party, splitting it right in the middle with its poisoned ideology. When even James Carville and Chris Matthews are terrified of you, you should really think how electable you are.
The Tale of Two Donkeys is, alone, an important key to understanding this election. A successful President running on a very strong economy, and on promises kept, will do the rest.
Do not ever become complacent. Still, I invite you to savour this race to the full until November.
Let’s party like it’s 1984!
Ahh…the eternal optimists, who always make “trends” out of every event, are now wondering whether the Excrementation constitutes Francis’ “Humanae Vitae” moment. How I wish I had their innocent, naive spirit!
Look: Paul VI was no hero, but at least he was Catholic! He allowed an awful amount of rot to fester, but his active participation to it was, if certainly scandalous in his and in any time, rather minuscule when compared with the almost daily barrage of Catholicism-free nonsense coming from the Humble Pachamama Pope!
It is obvious that Paul VI used HV to say “the nonsense stops here”, drawing a line in the sand in the matter of contraception. Nothing of the sort happens with the Amazonian Excrementation. In the latter case, Francis stops short of ratifying the nonsense concerning viri probati, deaconesses and the like (I do not even want to investigate what other rubbish is there, as I am sure that there is an awful lot), but he actually recommends the heresies of the Final Document to everybody, as if they were an acceptable source of debate and inspiration!
Francis is not saying that the debate ends here. He is saying that he actually wishes for it to go on! That he has no nerve to push his nonsense farther is merely a result of his inveterate habit of having two tongues, and of his innate propension for cowardice. It’s pressure from outside, not courage from inside.
This is not Francis saying “stop!” This is Francis saying “go on!”. The difference is fundamental.
Never lower your guard. Never think that Francis is backpedaling, much less converting to Catholicism! He is, and remains, a clear and present danger for the Church.
But he is, and remains, a little, cowardly, petty old bully.
Stay vigilant, and keep the pressure on the man as much as you can in your little sphere of influence.
You put together millions of us and, as we have just seen, it works.
The latest Excrementation, which stopped short of the Nuclear Holocaust which, by this pope, we were authorised to fear, allows in my eyes to have another example of the way Francis thinks and operates.
Francis has no shame, or faith, or decency. But with all that, he will only do that which he thinks he can get away with. As with the first synod on the family, or the SSPX, he will always stop whenever he sees a realistic danger to get seriously hurt. In parallel, he will only act (say: Amoris Laetitia) when he is very confident that he can do so with impunity.
It seems that this time, at least concerning the “deaconesses” and the “viri probati”, he did not trust himself to push heresy as hard as he would have liked to. The book that Ratzinger would not have written, if he had known the controversy that it would generate, might have played a role. More likely, private warnings from a number of bishops and cardinals played a more important part, then Francis would walk over a whining, crying, frail Benedict with a tractor, if he thought he can do so with impunity. Sarah, he would not even notice.
We see, from all this, how – in the end – easy it is to force this scoundrel to at least shut up. And we see, in the same way, how atrociously cowardly most of our bishops and cardinals are, who – at the very maximum, and certainly in not very great numbers – manage to stage some resistance only when Armageddon appears near.
Twenty Cardinals would be enough to have Francis hide under the bed. The four Dubia Cardinals alone would have put an end to any official antics after their own very public censure. Really, we have been needing, all these years, no more than a handful of cardinals, or a couple of dozen bishops, to give Francis a much-needed Humble Pacifier. They were, in seven years, not to be found.
What we have now is a heretic can kicked down the road. Francis will give it further kicks himself if he thinks he can, and leave things to some Tagle or other if he cannot; because this one, my dear readers, is not motivated by any sort of religious zeal, but by hatred for the Church and a petty desire to feel important as he inflicts damage to the faithful he hates.
The way with Francis is to make him feel that popes have been deposed already and could be deposed yet. It is quite remarkable that hundreds of prelates should be afraid of an adversary so evidently mediocre, so obviously ready to cave when he does not feel sure of the outcome.
Our Cardinals (first) and Bishops (second) bear a great part of the responsibility for the last seven years. Then facts show again and again that Francis is a paper tiger; a little, old, petty lewd man bent on angering and insulting everyone as long as he can get away with it.
Francis is a paper tiger; but even a paper tiger can try to look strong if all he has to deal with is a bunch of kitten.
I have now made my homework on the text.
I wish I could share the optimism of those who see in the text of Querida Amazonia a stop to the mass ordination of married priest. However, I think that Mr Verrecchio has, from what I have read up to now, one or two very sensible arguments. I am a bit in the middle, as I will proceed to explain.
What follows is paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Excrementation. Emphases mine.
2. During the Synod, I listened to the presentations and read with interest the
reports of the discussion groups. In this Exhortation, I wish to offer my own
response to this process of dialogue and discernment. I will not go into all of the
issues treated at length in the final document. Nor do I claim to replace that text
or to duplicate it. I wish merely to propose a brief framework for reflection that
can apply concretely to the life of the Amazon region a synthesis of some of the
larger concerns that I have expressed in earlier documents, and that can help
guide us to a harmonious, creative and fruitful reception of the entire synodal
3. At the same time, I would like to officially present the Final Document,
which sets forth the conclusions of the Synod, which profited from the
participation of many people who know better than myself or the Roman Curia
the problems and issues of the Amazon region, since they live there, they
experience its suffering and they love it passionately. I have preferred not to cite
the Final Document in this Exhortation, because I would encourage everyone to
read it in full.
So: Pachamama Francis is *not* officially endorsing the heretical Final Document. His exhortation is to be read as a response to it, which clearly (as far as anything with that cretin can be “clear”) means that the response of the Pope has higher authority than the document he is responding to. I note here that Francis is clearly not ratifying the decisions of the Synod. Therefore, I think that Can. 343 does not find application.
However, Pachamama Francis is not slamming the door on the heresy. In fact, he encourages us to read all that manure. He does not endorse the heresies, but he does not want the discussion to die.
To me, the meaning seems clear: “I do not have the balls to ratify the Final Document, because you never know what could happen afterwards. But I hate the Church and all Her institutions. Therefore, I refuse to close the debate and I actually encourage fake Catholics to “make a mess”; what I could not destroy today could well be destroyed tomorrow, no?”.
We can accept as uncontroversial that the document, in itself, does not endorse either mass consecration of married men or – which would be impossible anyway – sacramental deaconesses and other such rubbish. Still, the issue is not that. The issue is in the fact that Francis has refused to close the door on the subversives, clearly showing that he is on their side, but he does not see it as feasible – or prudent for his own job security – to officially endorse their theories.
Therefore, we remain in a state where we are invited to read, and therefore to debate, the unreadable and not debatable.
Trust this cowardly subversive to put a bomb in his document, so that he can continue to wreak the Church whilst maintaining the desired amount of plausible deniability. The bomb is still there, armed, waiting for a Pope able and willing to make it explode. Francis is willing; but, for the moment, he does not feel able.
What a little, cowardly piece of work this guy is.
Once again, we have to endure the spectacle of a Cardinal professing allegiance to the very man at the root of the present scandal and confusion, ” pulling a Burke” and trying to be Catholic whilst professing great loyalty and vicinity to Pachamama Pope.
Cardinal Sarah’s so vociferous protestations of allegiance to Francis is the perfect picture explaining why we are where we are: because the heretics wreaks havoc, whilst the Cardinals profess allegiance to them.
Like Burke before him, Sarah seem to believe that there is something in Francis’ water, or in the air around him. This something creates strange and inconvenient situations; for which, however, Francis is never to blame. There must really must be something wrong in the pizza over there.
Nor is this limited to Cardinals.
All the Benedict fanboys over there, living in a dream in which the old man is kept “prisoner”, do not behave much differently. The obvious complicity of Benedict with Francis, minus one or two meowing promptly downplayed when it becomes clear that they displease Pachamama Boy, must be due to every possible evil influence, but Benedict himself; a man who communicates who knows how many times with cardinals and publishers but is now, mysteriously, evidently kept prisoner, like a horribly wrinkly Rapunzel, by some evil archbishop or other.
I have abandoned hope that the solution will come from men. There is just not enough of those among bishops and cardinals. The solution, when it comes, will come out of Divine Intervention, with the powerful intercession of the Blessed Virgin.
It seems clear to me that God is showing us that the Vatican II movement is a betrayal of God and His Church, and that He is putting in front of our eyes, with a just but terrible majesty, what happens when we betray.
One day, I am persuaded that the generations of the newly found sanity will not see a picture of heresy in Francis, but a movie of rebellion beginning with John XXIII and going through all the other Popes, until the unavoidable consequence of Francis III, or Francis IV, or whoever he will be, until God puts an end to this madhouse.
I am curious to see how Cardinal Sarah wants to put an end to abominations, when he himself is at pain to remain in the graces of Pope Abominable. Nor will it be of any use, then he will be set aside like, say, Müller before him.
Francis does not tolerate any “loyal opposition “. No leftist evil man ever does.
Cardinal Sarah has pulled a Burke, and I am ashamed of the clergy that God has allotted to us in this shameful times; clergy, mind my words, who are the direct consequence of the rebellion most people in the pews have gladly supported.
We keep hoping, and praying. We will die without seeing a solution on this earth. But we don’t need to. The day of our death will mark the end of confusion, and the entry in a world of perfect mercy and perfect justice.
This mess might go on for who knows how many decades yet. But we, we must only stay strong and keep being faithful for the time allotted to us. Seen in this way, it is easier to see the way forward: fidelity to our last breath, no matter how many evil Popes succeed Pachamama Guy.
In the last year or so, I have noticed a word used fairly often by the Left: “dehumanising”.
They use it every time someone describes one of their own in some time-honoured, typical fashion, for example calling him “ass”, “donkey”, “cow”, “bitch”, or the like. So, if I say that Nancy Pelosi has the brains of a hare – or, much more spontaneously, that she is a cow with the addition of Botox – I am “dehumanising” her. I am, or so they say, preparing the ground for the alleged Nazi behaviour of Trump supporters, who – so goes the theory – are depriving their opponent of their dignity of human beings as a prelude to putting them all in ovens, or something like that.
If you think this is totally deranged, reflect that a prominent members of the Leftist Cult has declared – quite officially, and not joking in the least – in the Senate, that, if Trump is not stopped, he could give Alaska to the Russians in exchange for help by the next election. I know, I know….
Well, I am more than somewhat surprised that the accusation of “dehumanising” human beings should come from exactly that corner.
These are people who support the right of a mother to kill her baby up to the moment of birth.
Let us sink that for a bit, and let us reflect of who is “dehumanising”: me for calling Pelosi a cow, or them for killing babies in the womb.
Pope Francis has made an(other) “impassionate appeal” for globalist wealth redistribution, condemning tax cuts as, in a word, “sinful”. In Francis Commie World taxes can never go down, only up, and they will never be high enough.
I thought this guy was supposed to be about the message of Christ, the protection of the doctrine of the Church, eternal salvation, stuff like that. I thought the poor would always be with us. I thought we were supposed to be poor in spirit. I thought Jesus had some very rich friends. I thought the Church condemns Socialism and Communism.
This guy has not a shred of faith in him. He is as much of an atheist as a door handle. He is a bitter, resentful, lewd old guy who has lived an entire existence evidently scrounging from the organisation he hates the most on the planet, with the possible exception of the United States of America.
Go away, Pachamama Pope. Resign already and disappear somewhere in Venezuela, where you can’t do any damage that has not been done already. Remove your disgusting, scandalous presence from the reach of decent Catholics who, actually, love the Church.
But wait: your resignation would leave, irrespective of the title you choose to take, two former Popes! Not good! I remember the Three Tenors, and I still shudder!
I suggest you do something better, and more clear-cut.
Do us the favour and die. I wish you salvation, and hope to embrace you in heaven one day. I have just said the best three Hail Mary I could muster for you. I sincerely wish your immortal soul all the best.
But as it is now, kindly do all of us a great favour and die.
We will have challenges after you. We will have them, largely, because of you and the horrible Cardinals and Bishops you have appointed. But we will face these challenges in prayer and with faith, knowing that God will sort this out one day.
But you, you old faithless, lewd, Commie scoundrel, you have done enough damage already.
Series 2 of the “Impeach Him!” reality TV show went to an end yesterday, with the brutal rejection of the Democrat machinations by all Republicans Senators but one, the well-known Senator Judas from Utah (I think he writes as Pierre Delecto, too).
The TV show achieved abysmal ratings, vastly disappointing its creators in the Democratic Party. It never gained traction, and as the episodes went on it was clear that the public was not only not interested but, actually, positively hostile. Even the mass media hostile to him must admit that Trump’s popularity reached a new high during the impeachment show. What they don’t tell you, is that Trump likely achieved this new high in popularity, at least in part, because of it.
I followed the last episode of Series 2, live, yesterday evening. I enjoyed every minute. Not even the strident whining of Chuck Schumer managed to make me angry. In fact, I found his warnings about the impending end of Democracy As We Know It quite amusing. Thank you, Mr Schumer, for this bit of entertainment! We all know that the (mediocre) comedian blood runs in the family.
The Producers of Series 1, revolving around Russia, and Series 2, revolving around the Ukraine, must now decide whether to start Series 3 of this shameless reality show. The end of Series 2 hints at such a decision: the screenplays have decided to create another TV fantasy and have Trump end Series 2 as King. Therefore, it stands to reason that Series 3 has been already approved, the casting is going on as we speak, and production will begin as soon as practicable.
However, the producers of the show need to reflect on this: whilst Series 1 could attract a certain audience for a long while and managed to keep the public entertained, Series 2 – which was much shorter to boot – had the public bored, annoyed, or even enraged rather fast. Therefore, Series 3 constitutes a great risk. It could do much more damage than the already disastrous Series 2, as the public decide that they really have had enough of bad reality TV shows of this sort.
I, for myself, wish for Series 3 to start soon (It could start very soon: Series 2 first went on air merely days after the end of Series 1!), as I think that it would greatly help Trump’s reelection prospects, which are excellent anyway. In a strange way, I think it might be ghoulishly entertaining to watch. I am, I must confess, getting accustomed to it as I can barely remember a time without this TV show (heck, I think Obama was still President!).
Alas, it does not help to promote sound legislation on infrastructure etc. and will more or less paralyse the legislation activity; but hey, I don’t think the Producers of Series 1 and 2 will give us the sensible collaboration that would be necessary, so I had better enjoy the entertainment they can clearly give us.
The next weeks, perhaps days, will likely tell us whether Series 3 is going to get approved.
It is amazing to see how much The Producers do not care for viability or commercial success. They seem to love the show as a welcome escape from a sad reality (for them and their cult followers; the rest of the Country is in an excellent mood) and they might well have developed a dangerous addiction.
It might be very, very fun to watch.
The suicide of the young priest, Father Evan Harkins, has been keeping me occupied for a while. A suicide is always shocking, and a suicide generally leaves – whatever rubbish some V II priest may have told you – very little hope that the person who committed it escaped hell, for the reasons we all knew when we were three and a half year old, before political correctness utterly ruined our sensus catholicus. I will, therefore, remind everyone that the “heart in the right place” argument, so easily used to play God and feel good at the same time, must be expunged from the Catholic mind.
The sad case of Father Evan Harkins, however, might really be different.
Read here the absolutely terrifying letter written by a religious who witnessed several cases of people treated with the same medicament. The most terrifying period of an otherwise terrifying letter:
Yet another Sister fell into deep depression after being prescribed an anti-depressant for the relief of headaches. After she had been taking it a couple of days, she felt so depressed and suicidal, she walked out of the monastery down the road, with the overwhelming yearning to just end her life.
I realise the medicament given to Father Harkins was a reaction to severe, likely life-threatening, digestion problems, which demanded a robust countermeasure. However, I cannot avoid thinking that there is something seriously wrong with a medicament that can cause such suicidal instincts in those who take it. At the very least, it is fair to say that cases like the one of Father Harkins and the other ones mentioned by the Abbess should be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate authorities and regulators; at the very least, one would think that a thorough and serious warning about the potential side effects and, perhaps, mandatory medical supervision should be linked to the cure. I am approaching sixty years of age, and I did not even know that medicines with such brutal side effects exist in the first place. Truly sobering reading. I am, of course, not God and therefore do not know, but I truly hope that this goes as “not being able to understand what one is doing”, helping our poor Father. Lord, have mercy on him, and on us all.
However, you would rightly accuse me of becoming soft in my old age, if I were to engender the impression that this is just another “let us make our own fluffy religion” post, like you read almost everywhere nowadays. There can be no doubt that in case of suicide – of someone that is not insane, etc. – the probability of hell is just very high; so much so, that the Church thought it appropriate (who would dare, in the West, to do it today?) to prescribe that there should be no burial in consecrated ground, and no requiem mass. It did not mean, of course, that the suicide was in hell. It meant that the hand of cards was bad enough that the Church deemed a scandal to just send the signal that the deceased is quite OK, because “he had his heart in the right place”, and such stuff. For the record, pretty much everyone has his heart in the right place, and every professional assassin loves his children and pets.
I am also told that Hitler was always extremely nice. It gives one food for thought.
Pray for poor Father Harkins. Hope with a sensible, rational hope that a merciful God had mercy on him.
But please, do not nourish the narrative of a God looking at suicide now in a different way than the Church always told us He does.
Two remarkable took place last Friday. The first is Brexit. The second is the vote on additional witnesses in the Senate, all but assuring Trump’s victory in the impeachment battle.
In both cases, the Prophets Of Doom have done all they can to terrify the voters and tell them that, unless they do what their “betters” say, Britain and, respectively, American Democracy are in danger. Turns out they looked, as every prophet of doom always does, very stupid.
In Britain, trains are running and motorways are flowing just as every other day. People go about their business in the usual way. The economy is robust. Free Trade agreements are about to start being negotiated. As always, there will be challenges. As always, people will cope with them.
In the United States, the Trump Train appears all but unstoppable, and only a great dosis of complacency or sudden death or disease can now prevent a great victory in November. There were no signs of impending revolutions over the weekend. It seems Americans have decided that, Democrats notwithstanding, democracy is working just fine.
Honestly, can’t wait for the next Impeachment run, possibly based on Trump’s motorcade speeding. It will be fun to see the Dims shoot themselves in the foot, again.
The prophets of doom are losing ground, fast. They have simply abused the argument, which was never one in the first place. The common sense of the hard-working normal people is not so easy to eradicate. It is the same, by the way, for the impending EnviroDoom, which is not gaining any meaningful traction in normal people’s behaviour.
Keep screaming, Prophets Of Doom.
We will keep winning.
I have received this message and I thought I would publish it:
You need not publish this comment. It’s simply a personal information, and also a request. First the information: I hadn’t heard about the Kobe guy before he crashed, but what I’ve read these days about his commitment to support the perverts’ lavender lobby isn’t quite to be expected by a Catholic man. It’s more like the stuff of a Pelosi hag or what not. I report only hearsay, I haven’t investigated the whole thing. So feel free to ignore the info if it happens not to be reliable.
The other thing is a request: after I was sacked from “Catholic” University in Belgium for speaking against abortion, I found a job at a small pro-life group in my country. We have a monthly letter sent to people supporting the good fight in both French and Dutch. I happen to like the manly measure you suggested about how to deal with the abortion issue properly the other day. A bit harsch, maybe, but the world is a tough place, so it’s an option worth considering. I’d be glad to translate that little article from you into French and hand it to my boss, to see whether he’d consider publishing it and sending the message through the mail to our supporters here in Belgium. He might refuse because, you know, sensistive matters etc., but I say this is definitely worth a try. If people feel a little outraged it means they’re not quite dead yet and still able to react, so…
By the way, a Mass was said for you the other day, as I promised. A traditional Mass, it goes without saying. And I’m keeping the promise of one Hail Mary per article, too. If you want to answer my request favourably, you can simply mail me at
Well, I must say the one or other tear might have escaped my eye here.
This is guy who loses his livelihood for speaking in favour of the unborn, whilst working at a supposedly Catholic university, and not only prays for me every time he reads me, but also has a Mass said for me, and a TLM one at that.
If I ever manage to get to heaven, I will find the likes of this gentlemen (I prefer not to publish the name, not knowing if this is desired) much higher in graces and accomplishments than myself, then my blogging here does not even begin to approach the level of dedication to the Christ, sacrifice and steadiness in the face of and persecution that this gentleman is enduring.
Be assured of my prayers, Sir!
I invite all of my readers to pray for this gentleman (you don’t need to know the name, of course) and dedicate to him your rosary of today as I will do.
My readers in the United States are, I think, not so much aware (for lack of lived experience) of the level of stealth and less stealth persecution that has been going on in Europe for several decades now, with countless personal tragedies (doctor and nurses above all, but in other professions, too), loss of job, loss of house, that people have to endure for wanting to be Christian in Countries that restricts more and more not only their ability to practice their faith, but to speak about it.
Speaking of which, of course everything that I publish can be translated (and, in fact, I see this happening routinely) in other languages, and spread in whatever ways the reader finds convenient. I have, I must confess, no desire for martyrdom and have, up to now, managed to navigate the XXI Century without persecution (at the cost of some professional choices that were prudent, but not anything approaching sacrifice or outright persecution); but I think that I can write well, at least for someone who is not mother tongue, and think that this might be useful to much better people than me.
Dear readers, pray for this gentleman today, and remember the many who, without any fanfare and proclaims, or any defence from Church authorities, suffer for Christ today, in the middle of the oh so advanced and allegedly civilised Europe; where people are euthanized and countless children aborted, but the phones are so, so smart.
P.S. I wish Kobe Bryant salvation, as I do even to Pope Francis. I am, however, not expecting him to be a sterling defender of Catholic values. He was a churchgoer, which certainly will have helped him in his all-decisive moment. But yes, we don’t know the state of his soul, and we don’t know the degree of rebellion that might have been present in his heart. Still, I really hope he made it, as I do of everybody else, even darn Francis The Pachamama Scoundrel.
After my first post on Kobe Bryant, I have been informed that his name apparently means something that might be Christian, or might mean something else i some language. Well, let us spend two words on it, shall we?
Firstly, I have not invented that Mr Bryant was called after the beef. I have read it around from professional journalists.
Fake news? Maybe, but when one is called Kobe, I think the journalist in question can be forgiven for it.
Secondly, and most importantly, the point I made is that the guy went around all his life without a recognisable Christian name. Whether his name meant tortoise, or Jakob, or “He who goes to Mass every cloudy Wednesday afternoon with a smile on his face” is fully besides the point. As the name is given to give testimony of one’s Christian name, it should be recognisable as such.
If I call my son “Lamborghini”, and have to explain to the world that it means “he who prays a lot in the morning” in some obscure African dialect, I have obviously failed in giving testimony of my Christian faith. Rather, I have either chose the name “Lamborghini” because I like fast cars, and want to attach to it some obscure Christian meaning, or – at the very least, and without a doubt – I have indulged in this damn habit of our times of thinking that common names are not good enough, and I must give my son a snowflake name before raising him telling him all the time what a unique, wonderful snowflake he is. We all know this happens all the time, and we all know that the obscure Christian meaning, if any, is obviously not the reason why the name was given; then the first duty of a name is to make the person with that name recognisable (as a person and, in this case, a Christian).
The problem with the word Kobe is not whether it means beef, or cat, or John The Baptist. It is that it is not recognisable as a Christian name and therefore does not give witness of the Christian faith.
Therefore, the point stays; and the blog post, too.
The helicopter is flying in what appears to have been thick fog. The pilot is apparently not flying instrumental, but with visual aids (motorways, and such). He lands into a thick bank of fog. What can happen now is that he gets disoriented. He thinks he is flying in a certain direction, but he is flying in another. Therefore, he may fly into a hill without any warning, without any emergency.
I have tried to replay the scene in my mind and, if things have gone in this way, it seems difficult to think that there has been any warning whatsoever. Like emergency sounds, some seconds of panic, the kind of stuff that makes one recommend his soul to the Lord. We will likely know more in the coming days, but what might have happened is that the impact was just at full-speed, and without warning. This could be just one of those cases of sudden deaths, with no possibility whatever to get some extra preparation before one’s judgement.
Kobe Bryant was, thankfully, a churchgoer, and he had attended to Mass on the early morning of that day. Whilst we don’t know the state of his or his daughter’s soul, I would say that one would be justified in not being all too worried. I do not know anything about the other victims.
Worried, I was saying, compared to whom? To all our friends, acquaintances, even relatives, who do not have any sort of religious life, and whose spiritual dimension consists in believing that there “must be something”; after which they proceed to make their own religious and tell you why they, who have a very confused idea of the things in heaven, have a clear private religion concerning the things on earth.
Besides the sacramental life, in the last years I have taken the habit of saying a properly made act of contrition at least once a day, often more, as age advances and I reflect on the rapid way some of my relatives left this vale of tears. It could happen to me and to you. It could happen to a wealthy sport legend on his way to his destination via helicopter. It could happen to anyone of us, in the most improbable of circumstances.
As always, things are done well that are done by habit.
A daily act of contrition, recited as well as we can, does not take much time and can be performed pretty much everywhere.
You never know when the habit might prove of great use.
I read, like everybody, about the tragic death of Kobe Bryant, and said my prayers for all people involved. But I need to get rid of a little rant.
Kobe? Like the.. beef? Really? I thought it was a nickname. But no, he was called after a quality of beef!
I read he was raised in a Catholic family. Where I grew up, it would have been inconceivable to call a child after a type of beef. I don’t say Catholics, but not even a militant atheist would have done it!
Christianity – and Catholicism – should not be something that we “do” one hour a week. It should be something that walks with us, it should be what we are. Therefore, it behooves every Catholic – particularly in these times – to have his children named in a way that makes them recognisably Christian, at least in their general cultural outlook.
Yes, it is certainly right to mourn the tragic death of a sport superstar, particularly when other 8 people are also dead. But I wish there were more people around complaining about this further sign of the decadence of Christian culture in the West, and pointing out that, if Christianity is what they are, it should be reflected in the way they are called.
I am terrified at the thought that the priest who baptised him might have allowed “Kobe” as his baptism name. More likely, he had a baptism name (say: Luke) and an official first name (the beef). But again, where I grew up the first name and the baptism name were, actually, synonymous. Which is just as it should be.
I missed the time when this kind of behaviour was punished with endless mockery. Alas, the times are too effeminate for that, and the unwillingness to defend Christianity in the way Christians call their own children is then, in time, reflected in the unwillingness to fight the many other challenges to Christian culture, from promiscuity to contraception, and from abortion to sodomy.
If he had a real Christian name, I hope that his tombstone will carry that one. Mr Bryant presented himself to his judgement with the name Christ knows him from.
Forget the beef, and the potatoes.
I have just seen a moving picture, and I would like to share it with you.
The link to the article is here.
Look at our beloved Francis, basking in the warm support of Reverend Gonzalo Aemilius, his new secretary.
The Reverent is impeccably dressed as a priest, in a traditional cassock and – to show reverence to Francis – dark brown shoes. But just because he is so impeccably dressed, you don’t need to think that he is a desk man; a boring, cold apparatchik, who loves to work in some obscure bureaucracy role. No!
This man has worked with “street kids” in – I suppose – the streets of Uruguay. This is sooo good!!
I invite the readers of this blog – who all know better than to be judgemental about our Sweet Peter on earth – to reflect that, whilst some priests working with “street kids” in the poor quarters of Buenos Aires, and knows as curas villeros, could, according to several reports, use their position to seriously abuse vulnerable poor children, the same can certainly not be told of Uruguayan religious working with the same street kids. We all know that Uruguay is different, and no priest would, over there, ever try to use his role to engage in homosexual acts with children and minors, away from the eyes of his bishop, or from the scrutiny of decent faithful.
Rather, please focus on the posture and attitude of the cassock-wearing priest. His warm, smiling attitude is indicative of full support, both physical and spiritual, offered to the Holy Father.
Francis, who is seen almost giggling, and clearly enjoying his little, innocent “magic moment”, understands the spiritual vicinity of the Reverend, and signifies by his expression all his satisfaction at this budding bromance.
Oh, how many battles will be fought together! How many discussions about the many qualities of the street kids will be held! How many fashion tips will be exchanged!
Pope Francis The Humble has been such a gift for the Church.
It is beautiful to see that he is, now, also in almost direct contact with street kids.
I think that soon after his departure, he will be canonised by the new Pope. Particularly, if the latter turns out – as we all hope – to be a progressive like Tagle, or Cupich, who both understand what the church needs to remain relevant in the XXI Century.
Please look at the picture again.
Isn’t he so, so very happy?
A horrible blog aggregator (no link!) has the usual stuff about “helping people where they’re at” (no idea where the usage comes from. Blacks? If I had written it at school, it would have been marked a mistake). As always, things are complicated, we are detached, we seek simple solutions for complex problems, etc. Oh, how peace and love, dialogue and understanding would help!
I would like to offer, here, my two cents. Feel free to be offended. I would be very happy to live in your head, totally rent free, for a while.
Contrary to the opinion of many wannabe philosophers, the solution to most problem *is* simple.
Nazism was destroyed by just… physically destroying it.
Communism crumbled when it was aggressively tackled, and forced to choke under the weight of the challenge.
Saddam Hussein ceased to be a danger when he was invaded. His sons ceased to be a danger when they were terminated.
The Brigate Rosse started to be defeated when the Italian Government started to, actually, be willing to kill them.
It works every time. You kill the enemy, and the enemy is suddenly not a threat anymore. As to the multiplication of the enemy always promised by the Cucktelligentsia if you get tough (be that Islamic or Italian terrorist, just to make two examples) *I have never seen it*.
A dead terrorist does not magically transform himself in a propaganda wonder. He transforms himself into a corpse. I have never seen corpses killing people. I have also noticed that the willingness of people to die as “martyrs” is way, way below what the prophets of doom keep telling us.
Therefore, I present to you
Mundabor’s Quite Astoundingly Efficacious Recipe Against Abortion
1. Brutal legislation
2. Brutal enforcement
3. Brutal communication
Abortion is murder. Make legislation treating abortion as murder, enforce it just as you do with murderers, and don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Headline: “woman jailed for 28 years for murdering her own baby; doctor gets 35 years; boyfriend who procured the address 21”.
Also, forget all sociological analysis, and focus on… repression. I have been around the block enough to know that, whatever leftists say, repression works.
To those who give the trite answer that baby murder will continue to happen, but this time illegally, I reply that we will never obtain the complete disappearance of criminal behaviour. Murder still happens. Terrorism still happens. But it happens on a small scale, compared to what would happen if the behaviour were just legal. If (say) 900,000 abortions all over the USA (or, say, 110,000 in Italy, or 130,000 in the UK) are treated like murder, someone will still risk 20, 25 or 30 years in jail to abort. However, they will be few and far between. You need a lot of money, and a vast criminal energy, to make people defy *that*.
I saw the effect of enforcement in so many societal changes that I have lost count. I remember the time when, in Italy, it was common for a restaurant owner to declare a lower income than any of his waiters. Nowadays, the restaurant must be really doing bad, and the enforcement against tax evasion is so brutal that, last time I looked, not even the cleaning lady could be paid in cash.
It works. If one is smart enough to adopt harsh legislation and to dedicate enough energy to enforcement, it always does. Mussolini eradicated drunkenness from the Country. Yeah, you still had the occasional drunkard. But no, he changed the landscape on that. It wasn’t made with dialogue and understanding, or an army of social workers perpetuating the mutual dependency.
What is your real priority: the end of abortion (as far as practicable) or just looking good, and sweet of heart? If it is the first, start supporting harsh measures, and no mistake.
Yes, it means sending to jail – inter alia – the mother. The threat of a very long jail sentence will clear the mind uncannily, and a baby will thank you.
Most problems have simple solutions.
From the answer people give to them you are generally able to gauge how really interested in the solution they are.
Every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting.
Who said this:
- Pope Francis
- Donald Trump
- The Bern
The answer is below. No prize for guessing.
What times we live in! As the Lord punishes us with a clearly heretical Pope who, by the way, insists in not wanting to die and at least give us a new shuffling of the cards, hope comes from the most unsuspected corners.
A man of whom no one, the day Francis became Pope, would have imagined he could become President of the United States – a sinner, for sure; a brash man; but with a big, big heart – is giving the unborn help in many ways (judicial appointments; constant attention; participation to the March for Life), showing himself to be a new Ronald Reagan of sort, showing up on our side on this most controversial of subjects. This, without caring for the effect of his taking side in States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin; and this, in the year in which his political destiny is on the line.
Follow the link and listen to his beautiful words.
I suspect that Mike Pence and Kellyanne Conway have played an important role in this behind the scene, then it is difficult to me to think that the likes of Ivanka are on the front line on the issue. But most of all, I think that Providence is at work, and that God is giving us a hero as he punishes us with the villain Pope we, collectively speaking, have deserved as Catholics after sixty years of Vatican II madness.
Not since Ronald Reagan had I seen anything like this, and I never thought I would
When you wake up in the morning, I suggest you say a prayer for President Donald Trump.
Archbishop Chaput was long considered, by the naive proponents of the V II Church Of Milquetoast, a “conservative”. After his announced departure from Philadelphia, Francis very recently appointed his successor. This man, named Perez, is universally considered a liberal and supporter of FrancisChurch.
You would expect that Chaput, the first Archbishop of Philadelphia to not be made Cardinal in a long time, would either elegantly shut up about this appointment, or limit himself to the usual diplomatic words, like wishing his successor a fruitful work etc.
Instead, Chaput goes on record with this .
We see here the V II Cuckchurch at work. Obedience to the earthly boss come before obedience to Christ. This obedience must be shown publicly and in very clear terms. The approval and celebration of everything that Francis does is the new doctrine. It is like the Chinese Communist Party.
Wasc Chaput never a real conservative? Was he merely playing a more moderate role in the FrancisTheater? Was he told that, if he behaves and is a good cheerleader for The Francis, he might still get that red hat? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps, and more probably, he is just another Benedict, so eager to please the powers that be, no matter what, because he thinks that loyalty to heresy is, in some strange way, the thing to do.
Chaput has been a disappointment for many years, and his social view far more aligned with Francis than any bishop has any right to. But it is so sad to see this constant abject servitude to Francis, this unedifying boot licking spectacle from people who, at least, were not suspected of siding with Francis’ open heresies.
Chaput unconditional, enthusiastic approval of the appointment of his liberal successor is just another example of the deterioration of the higher echelons of our clergy, of the universally spread view that Francis must be praised in absolutely every circumstance. It makes me sad, and it persuades me more and more that even very many of those bishops who appeared to have a sound basis of Catholicism in them consider themselves obliged to stretch their arm, and cry “heil Francis!”, with the best of the liberal troops.
And no, I might be wrong, but I think Francis will not give him his red hat, either; not before his 80th birthday and very likely, if Francis is still alive, not after that. His gesture will be remembered as a sad capitulation, when a dignified reserve would have been very easy and would have been understood by everyone.
Sad. So sad.
This one once had potential.
The machine has swallowed him whole.
Rorate Caeli has an article from Prof. Roberto de Mattei about the strange situation of the “two Popes”. I invite you to visit the site and read the excellent article yourselves.
I would like to add to it my own two cents.
I do not think that Benedict confuses the papacy with the Episcopacy. The man is, if you ask me, far too smart for that. I also think that, when he abdicated, Benedict did not have in mind a Bishop Emeritus, but rather the well-known figure of the Professor Emeritus in the University system; that is, a title that indicates the persistence of the role and of the attached prestige in the relevant person, without any reference to sacraments.
Why Benedict did this is evident enough to me: a man deeply rooted in history, and extremely informed about the Italian cultural environment, Benedict wanted to eat his cake and have it, which is what he has done his entire life.
Bishop Ratzinger wanted to look progressive to “revolutionary” V II thinkers, but still appear conservative to the solid faithful when he was a theologian. As a Pope, he wanted to look like the Pope of the Latin Mass to us decent Catholics, whilst proceeding to countless progressive appointments and not only tolerating, but promoting inter faith rubbish to appease the progressive lobby.
Is it surprising that the same Pope wanted, when the time came, flee for fear of the wolves, whilst still appearing like he is doing his job?
Hence, the University-derived “emeritus” title. With it, Benedict wanted to tell us: “See? It’s not that I do not want to be Pope anymore. It’s that I simply do not have the energy to do it!”. Once again, Benedict seeks the easy way out of a conflict, whilst paying attention that he still looks good. Yes, like he did with Summorum Pontificum, which he promulgated to please us and then allowed to largely remain lettera morta to please the other side.
Ratzinger is deeply embedded in the Italian culture, and he did not want to bear the mark of the Celestino Quinto; a man who can be canonised, but is still not popular in Italy, where he is still considered (via Dante; who does not mention him explicitly, but makes sure you know whom he is talking about) the very embodiment of the cowardly Pope. This, however, does not mean that he wanted to do his job. In a word, the Benedict who abdicated was, actually, pulling another Ratzinger stunt.
I begin to think that an element of vanity crept in. Perhaps he wanted to be sure that he would be allowed to live within the confines of the Vatican, enjoying its gardens and astonishing beauty, and many of the same priivileges of before the abdication, without the hassle of actually having to have harsh confrontations with people. Perhaps the white habit was important to him, because it helped him to lie to himself and not feel like a Celestino. Perhaps he thought that the next Pope would be sound, thus allowing him to stay out of the theological fray.
Alas: as it often happens, Benedict had to discover that his plan with the cake did not really work. As his successor descended into an abyss of heresy, Benedict once again felt that he had to say something to appease sincere Catholics (eat his cake) whilst still professing great admiration for Francis (have it). Hence, the book; which, once again, he thought he could co-publish without need for any harsh confrontation.
Sadly for him, the confrontation came anyway, in the form of an extremely irate Francis and an extremely hard lobbying Gaenswein.
Trust Benedict, at this point, to do what he always did in life: cave in, and flee for fear of the wolves.
There are very simple explanations for Ratzinger’s behaviour, and they all have to do with the Celestino issue, that is: with Benedict being one, but without wanting to appear one.
This is, by the way, more and more corroborated by the facts that are emerging now. When Archbishop Vigano’ reveals that in 2011, when he was still in charge, Ratzinger candidly admitted to him that he was aware that Gaenswein kept hot issues away from him, without proceeding to instantly fire the guy, Vigano’ tells us that this man was a puppet of much stronger people than him, and unwilling to steer unpleasant confrontations, even when he was officially in charge and could have ordered whatever he wanted. Is it a surprise that this man was an object of pity and contempt even for his own butler, the one who caused “Vatileaks”?
It all seems very linear to me. Start seeing Ratzinger from the Celestino perspective, and it all becomes very logical. It becomes also more and more credible in light of the behaviour of the man whilst he was Pope, as Vigano’ has so openly exposed.
This one is a Celestino all right.
He is merely very particular that he should not appear one.
Once again, the Great President took it on himself to expose the myth of the Religion Of Doom and tell the planet that the dangerous fantasies of its priests aim at the total domination of the world population.
This was not only very beautiful and eloquent in itself. It was more beautiful, because the attack was carried out in the very lair of the Globalist Wolf. A wolf cosily sipping champagne and flying private jet, I admit, but a wolf nevertheless. How about this:
These alarmists always demand the same thing – absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.
Trump is expressing – in his usual, robust way – what many thinks. He speaks for the hard working, no-nonsense people.
He is also a powerful voice against atheism, then the fantasy of a world about to self-destruct because of the number of souls living in it, and because of the “effect ” of too much of two of its most common components (carbon and oxygen) is a blasphemy, beside being dumb beyond word. If these people believe in God (which they don’t: and why no-one ever asks little Greta, or rather her father, about that?), they must believe in some dumb creator, extremely poor at planning, working with second-class material, unable to make a house for His creatures they would not destroy not with apocalyptic wars, but simply by living. The godlessness is on par with the stupidity.
Imagine now if Hillary had been elected. The activism would be deafening, at least in words; and the action, whilst relatively limited, would still cause great damage to the world’s economy.
Trump went to Davos like a voice of reason preaching to the inmate of the madhouse; and he did it not so that the madman get sane (the real madmen won’t; those who stand to profit from the Madness Economy have no interest in changing), but so that the sane recognise the madhouse.
Thank God for this great man.
I have published very recently a short post about my satisfaction with the events in Munich. I would like to expand on this with a couple of personal considerations.
I do not think that it is necessary to #unitetheclans. We are all united in Christ, and it is from Christ that we get our strength. We do not need to become a counter church and in fact, such an event would be very dangerous as it would really, really lead many to schism.
Also, we do not need a charismatic lay leader, a Joan of Arc taking the lead and being followed by a faithful army. The heretic are not wreaking havoc because they are better organised. They are wreaking havoc because they are in power.
The resistance to heresy is not doing poorly. It is doing wonderfully, and I think that in centuries to come – and, of course, in heaven – this will be duly honoured. In fact, this resistance has managed to become of common knowledge among tepid Catholics and even heretics because of their untiring defence of orthodoxy. We don’t need a supreme commander because we don”t need to invade the Vatican, and for what we need- the return of sanity at the moment God appoints – we are doing quite fine.
We should welcome the Munich initiative. We should welcome every other initiative of the sort. We should welcome every rosary crusade and dissident interview. We should welcome any bishop who dares to say the truth. The one thing we should not be concerned about is having a Resistance Supremo, or a Resistance Party. Let everyone fight for Christ as he knows best. I think this is what is expected from the Laity now.
And the Clergy? The Clergy has largely abandoned us. When God wants to send us a new Athanasius, he will appear. For the moment, it looks like we haven’t deserved him. But in the fourth Century the Laity did not wait for Athanasius, either.
This time is no different.
I read about the event in Munich and I was, actually, pleased.
If the #unitetheclans stuff is important to you, you will be pleased to see that several groups were involved. No, not everybody was informed. Honestly, I would not be offended by it.
The organisers will have had their reasons to make of this an event restricted to certain groups. The fact is, they were and are under no obligation to have all the world participate. Some would have organised this in a different way, and they are free to organise everything they want, and invite whomever they want.
The event was a success. The Archdiocese was surprised, Archbishop Vigano’ made an appearance, the Catholic world is talking about it.
I am not sure it is wise to complain because one was not invited.
If anyone talks about egos colouring the event, I would wonder about his ego. Was it so important that everybody is there? Trad Catholics don’t want to be a counter church. They don’t need to be monolithic. What they need to do, is to voice their disapproval. God in Heaven, who sees them all, will one day cause the effort of them all to come to fruition.
I am thankful for this event and would like to express my gratitude to all those who have taken part.
In another day of quite astonishing revelations, we were informed by Archbishop Vigano’ that in 2011 (that is: when Benedict was still Pope), Benedict candidly admitted to Vigano’ that Archbishop Gaenswein prevented him from reading an entire dossier.
The mind boggles at such weakness, incompetence, or outright corruption.
Benedict was in charge in 2011; but apparently, he was just the little coward he is now. He knew that people near to him kept very important information from him and, instead of firing Gaenswein in 3 seconds straight, he did exactly nothing. Romulus “Augustulus” appears like a giant compared to this one.
I do not see any alternative to one of these scenarios:
- Benedict was so incompetent and weak, that he could not bring himself to get rid of an obviously traitorous and scheming subordinate. This is a pathological weakness, a real inability to function as an adult man.
- Benedict lied to Vigano’, stating that he had not received the dossier because he knew that Vigano’ has contacted him to request action; and Benedict wasn’t, and isn’t, a man of action.
- Gaenswein has some terrible secret on Benedict, which allows him to remote-control an obviously quite remote-controllable man.
- Gaenswein and Benedict have some horrible secret together.
The tale of the Benedict “prisoner in the Vatican” is clearly absurd. The man can quite obviously freely communicate with Cardinals and publishing houses ad libitum. There is absolutely nothing that indicates that he be restricted in his communications. He would be able to alert the Cardinal, or whoever else, of any coercion on his person in absolutely no time. Also, a person kept “prisoner” is not allowed to co-authors entire books, which could be harmful to his jailers.
Similarly, kindly refrain from the legends about Benedict’s life being in danger, or the homo mafia wanting to kill him. With a very old, frail man living the other side of the garden, the possibilities for foul play are endless. Still, after almost seven years the man is still alive and kicking. This is quite a disaster as a murder squad.
No, the latest revelation abundantly shows what an astonishingly ineffective man Ratzinger always was, how easily controllable and manipulated he was when he was the Pope.
In my eyes, this puts his famous statements when he was elected in a quite sinister light: the man knew that he was weak, and would flee in front of the wolves; but he also was too weak to refuse the job in the first place.
What a tragedy, and what a failure.
Pray for poor Benedict. There are a lot of people in the Vatican worse than him.
But I doubt that there is another one so pathologically ineffective and weak.
Reality taught the “Vatican Bizarro World” a good lesson today.
Ignatius Press said that they will print and market the book as joint authorship Cardinal Sarah/ Pontiff Emeritus Ratzinger. Why? Because these are the facts, the reality on the ground, as evidenced by several letters of Cardinal Sarah and all the internal correspondence of the publisher.
So, why all the ruckus? To look like the idiots they are, all three of them.
Francis, who has allegedly put Benedict/Gaenswein/both under pressure to “recant”, looks like a perfect nincompoop: the clamour around the book only helped to make known to more people that Benedict actually published a book going against Francis, and approved every part of it.
Gaenswein looks like an idiot, for making claims destroyed by… reality in a matter of hours. At his age, you would expect that he knows better than to lick Francis’ boots for the sake of a smokescreen, so soon dissolved.
Benedict looks like… a Benedict. A guy that tries to talk tough, and then shuts his mouth when it is clear that his tough talk actually puts him in a difficult spot. At 94, you would think his fear to be poisoned is quite limited. Actually, at 94 one could almost “hope” to be poisoned for the faith. Very “cheap” martyrdom, if you ask me. Not pleasant, I agree. But a Pope should actually embrace the possibility.
I am still awaiting Benedict’s statement that he is nothing to do with Gaenswein’s initiative. My suspicion is that I will wait forever. This makes Benedict an accomplice of Francis and Gaenswein, both of whom he clearly put before Christ and His Church.
I would like that someone would explain this to me: how is it that when Francis does not correct anyone (say: Eugenio Scalfari) attributing outlandish stuff to him, we all consider Francis responsible for what he has not corrected, but the same metre never seems to apply to Benedict? Why must a man so obviously “there” with his head (though obviously very frail physically now) be exempted from avoiding scandal to be spread in his name? He can communicate at anytime with anyone, apparently?
In the end, reality always wins. In this case, Francis’ “spitted-flecked nutty” made three people look bad, but did not change the legal and factual reality on the ground.
Refreshing, for once, to see a publishing house publicly – if implicitly – rebuke two Popes and an Archbishop. It will teach them to take reality more seriously in future.
As for Benedict: boy, what a shame. At his age, and clearly in full possession of his faculties (read the letters to Cardinal Sarah), he offers this show of betaness.
Sad. So sad.
If Catholics had been told, 100 years ago, that, one day, a Pope would try to have his authorship of truth removed when the truth turned out to be offensive, they would have considered it the circus trick of the year.
This is now a circus we have to live with every day.