This is the last episode of many in which conservative voices have been silenced by the progressive media.
Like Diamond and Silk, Mark Dice is expressing perfectly legitimate opinions in a perfectly reasonable way. But exactly this is the problem for the Nazis running Twitter, Youtube and Facebook: if you have ideas I don’t like, you must be excluded from the public discourse.
It is high time the US legislators (I have no hope that anything may happen in Europe) realise the threat to our freedoms emanating from these organisations, which are quasi-monopolies (and factual monopolies) in the space in which they operate. They must be broken up just in the same way as past monopolies. They are infinitely more dangerous than any monopoly of the past because they do not impact merely the way you spend, but the way you think and the way you vote.
We can’t allow these companies to lord over one global platform each. There must be enough choices for the consumer to choose his own vehicle or social expression, and there must be legislation protecting the freedoms of the citizen when they enter such spaces; then Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, and actually the entire platform on which they operate, cannot be seen as “private spaces”, but as a public domain in which the freedoms of the individual cannot be infringed.
I hope that president Trump realises this soon and become the promoter of effective legislative action, making of this a constant issue in the public arena until the electors force their representatives to act.
Break them up. If we don’t act now, this could be the nightmare of the next decade or, perhaps, generation.
A bizarre news hit the internet yesterday. The Dutch Bishops have not celebrated, as is their custom, the anniversary of the election of a Pope. The explanation given for this is even more bizarre: no time.
The Dutch Bishops taken together are, as we all know, a bunch of heretics. They should have all the interest in the world to support Francis. They should be cheerleading for him day and night.
Instead they have, literally, “no time for Francis”.
Whilst it is difficult to know what is going on here, one can make a reasonable hypothesis: that Francis has made such an ass of himself that even those who are, like him, on the side of the demons prefer to keep their distance.
It’s like being a South-American Dictator that is such an embarrassment to his own generals, that they try to distance themselves from him even as they enrich themselves under his rule.
Admittedly, there might be other explanations (from sheer laziness, to virtue-signalling because they are so busy “helping the poor” to, methinks, unwillingness to cancel the meeting at the Gay Sauna). But realistically, the one I have mentioned above seems the most realistic.
A heretical Pope despised by his fellow heretics gives the measure of this man’s epic failure.
The “Sodomy is hell on Earth” Reblog
Via the always interesting (even if not always agreed with) Barnhardt blog, a shocking story about the real world of sodomy; courtesy of Joseph Sciambra, a former sodomite willing to expose the astonishingly sordid world of those people whom the world calls, utterly madly, “gay”.
Some preliminary considerations are in order. Whilst I do not doubt Mr Sciambra’s good faith and sincere repentance, I must warn my readers that they are not reading an orthodox Catholic. The word “gay” is used profusely – not in the sense of the dictionary -, and the subtext of the story is an attempt of explanation of “what made him do it” which has only one answer: Satan. Whilst Mr Sciambra reaches the same conclusion in the end as also showed by his comments and other writings, do not expect the same clarity of thinking and writing you find…
View original post 372 more words
We are truly living in the age of the delicate violet.
It is as if any notion of manliness had gone away together with the last vestiges of Christianity.
Truth is now taboo. Being sensitive violets is all that counts, and this obligation to poisonous sensitivity at the expense of Faith encompasses everyone and everything. Even children, who are in the age when truths is most easily absorbed and imprints itself most clearly in our consciousness, must not be spared. No, their faith must be perverted at a very young age, courtesy of the Evil Clown.
It is not difficult to say to a young orphan that if his atheist father died in his atheism he is most certainly in hell. It is an “if”, not a “when”. It preserves the faith – for the good of the child second, and of the Faith first – and encourages him to pray, as every Christian should, for the soul of his father; in the hope that one day he might discover that his father did not, in fact, die in his atheism.
What was done to this child is cruel. He was inoculated with the germ of atheism, and the Pope himself was the one with the syringe. What unbelievable rubbish, what atheist nonsense, what negation of Christ for the sake of… what? Of not making a child cry? Poppycock. For the sake of spreading atheism among all Catholics. Then if Francis is right, Jesus is a liar, Christianity does not make any sense, and Christ died on the Cross for those who deny and insult Him to the last, like the evil robber on the Cross.
What a nasty piece of work this man is. His hatred for everything Christian has now become totally unhinged. It is as if he wanted to show us that the more we criticise him, the more heresy he will spread, just because he can.
Besides, this comes from a man who has just released an Apostolic Excrementation going on and on about the evil of Pelagianism, but is obviously too thick to understand that to maintain that a man goes to heaven without faith, simply because he is “a good man”, is as Pelagian as a heretic can be.
Every hen loves her little ones. Stalin loved his daughter. Goebbels loved his family. But human love without faith does not merit heaven, then he who rejects Him Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life cannot claim acceptance by Him because of lesser, and utterly natural, and by the way God-given, good traits in his character. Works without faith do not save.
This unhinged, evil man must be exposed for what he is: an atheist subversive only interested in showing to the liberal and atheist crowds, whose approval he craves, that he is one of them.
Die soon, Francis, and may the Lord have mercy on you. Though for some reason I have the impression that your pit will be the deepest in hell.
And it came to pass the enviro-nutcase who, yesterday, reduced himself to a crisp bacon was, also, a homo. Which, in the New York context, realistically means a sodomite.
This prompts us to the usual consideration concerning the so-called “gay” “lifestyle” (which, to you and me, means a life of sexual perversion).
Firstly, we note the high rate of suicide. Our hopefully future convert friend Pukeko has a link, in the other blog post, under the comments, showing an almost 20% probability of at least attempting suicide. I can tell you from memory that all sorts of psychosomatic diseases are also increased. It is, finally, well-known that homos hate themselves, and other homos, with a passion, which translates in the most absurdly self-harmjng behaviour, from an extremely sadistic double suicide pact including castration, as happened in Germany, to the massacring of 50 other homos in a homo club, as happened in Florida, to the astonishingly self-loathing death by burning oneself alive as happened in Brooklyn. I also remember a case in Italy of a murder after an elaborate torture of many hours, and no prize for guessing the rest.
Also, one notices the narcissism, the utter self-centredness even in death. The Florida and the Brooklyn guys really wanted all the world to know. They may hate themselves to death, but they still want to be acknowledged in life (this tribe is strong among actors, politicians, jobs offering a stage) as well as in death. Again, it must be a desperate attempt at validation from people strangled by the hate of themselves.
This is sad, so sad. But it should also be a cautionary tale. These stories should be used by sane people to educate their children concerning the miserable life of the fairies, and to explain to them how Satan, after using their perversion – which is nothing else than a willed rebellion to innocence and wholesome thinking – to get a foot in the door, then proceeds to make the lives of those people a veritable hell on earth, hoping to persuade them to deserve the real hell in time, and most safely by suicide.
I have posted here on this blog some time ago the shocking link of Mr Sciambra, describing in vivid detail the sordid life, the dirt, the self-loathing, and nog least the homicidal hate for the others like him, of your average “gay person”. To those who pay attention, the facts match and mirror Mr Sciambra’s quite shocking assertions.
Still, expect the truth of what happened yesterday to be downplayed or instrumentalised by the God-hating Press, who will do all they can to try to portray this human wreck as a sort of unfortunate hero victim of his big, big, generous heart.
Who knows how many of those God-hating journalists actually belong to the same parish as their new hero, Mr Crispy Bacon.
Some time ago an enviro nut case in California committed a strange enviro-activist-protest attack and suicide, and I remember wondering how many of those nutcases were going around in California.
Turns out New York does not want to be left behind, with a lawyer (apparently a prominent figure in the demonic realm of so-called “gay rights”, which also prompt me to wonder whether environ-mentalism was the only trouble of this guy) choosing to suffer a horrible, public death by burning himself in a Brooklyn park.
Firstly, let us say that the probability of such a guy avoiding hell is so microscopic, and the way of his death so offensive to Christians, that I will not even say an eternal rest for this idiot. The Lord’s will be done. That’s why there is a hell after all.
Let us also reflect on the mental processes of these people: this guy was so dumb that he did not even realise that his stupid, selfish, satan-inspired act would actually help normal people understand what kind of nutcases we are dealing with here. And by the bye, his horrible suicide actually caused a lot of pollution. I hope he had the decency to at least offset the CO2 (forget all the other poisonous gases and substances) before burning his useless self to death in an impressive staging of the very hell awaiting him.
Thirdly, this one was no lone wolf, but a professionally functioning person inserted in a working environment. It’s like watching those documentaries about Nazism, and wondering how otherwise normal people could have such selective derangement. This is what brainwashing does to otherwise sane people. Satan at work. Disquieting.
I am now awaiting more news, because the stink of homosexuality is strong in this one, and the way of choosing such a painful, self-inflicted death reminds me of other self-loathing, world-loathing, Christ-loathing homos putting an end to their sad existence in a most atrocious manner.
“Show me a happy homosexual and I will show you a gay corpse”, pretty much says one of Tom Wolfe’s characters in “The Bonfire of the Vanities”. Even atheists like Wolfe, if they are perceptive, get the gist of the homosexual world.
This sad nutcase might, or might not, have been a homo. But he certainly was a professional bleeding heart so far away from God as Obama is from Trump.
His death goes to show, in the most brutal of ways, what happens when we forget God and become the high priests of our own religion.
I gather from some corners the impression that the problem with Francis’ legitimacy resides in the way Benedict resigned; or rather, following the argument, not resigned. I think this is a false problem.
There can be no doubt that Benedict himself: 1. Wanted another to be selected Pope and 2. Regards him as the guy in charge. Therefore, to claim that Francis is not Pope because of this is like saying that the man did not know what he was doing and we can decide for ourselves what his position is. You can as well maintain that Edward VIII never abdicated because, say, he was threatened with forced removal from office.
Those more in tune with Italian society, however, understand very well what Benedict – who has lived in Italy for many decades now, and knows the ins and outs of our cultural environment – wanted to do: avoid being called a Celestino. Which latter thing is, canonisation or not, an insulting concept many Italians are acquainted with from grade school, courtesy of our greatest poet (who, smartly, never called him by name; but as they say, intelligenti pauca ).
I simply take people at their words, and Benedict has given such support to Francis that there can be no doubt about his intentions.
Also, and perhaps more importantly in this matter, the way of Benedict’s abdication has no bearing on the way Francis behaves. There is no reason to believe that Francis pontificate would have been any different if the Conclave which elected him had been triggered not by Benedict’s resignation, but by his death, on exactly the same day. You would have had the same Cardinals and the same procedure. Conversely, you can rest assured that, had the Conclave resulted in the election of a perfectly orthodox, heroically Catholic Pope, absolutely no one would, now, be questioning his legitimacy.
Francis’ legitimacy problem is not a function of his election. It is a function of his behaviour. He is a legitimately elected Pope who has, through his innumerable heresies and scandals, deserved to be deprived of his office in the way Church tradition and common sense allow: with an imperfect Council triggered by either Bishops or Cardinals declaring the man self-deposed and electing a new one. And all this does not require in the least any questioning of the legitimacy of his election.
Benedict’s supposedly erroneously abdicated papacy is a false problem. The real problem is Francis’ very real scandals. We don’t need Benedict to remedy those; nor, very frankly, would he want to.
I read around the (certainly welcome) invitation to call an Imperfect Council to depose the Evil Clown. I wholeheartedly support the idea, and I have written many times from this modest outlet that this is the way to go; then volens nolens, Francis is Pope, and we can’t escape this reality by just wishing it away.
We even have the precedent: when Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to pagan gods, there was no solemn, expensive, long-winded Ecumenical Council to decide whether to depose him; on the contrary, the bishops that could be gathered in accordance to the circumstances (in a ferociously persecuted Church, and therefore with even more limitations) gathered to do what it had to be done. I can’t imagine that many people spent much time reflecting whether such a course of action, for which there was no precedent, was appropriate or legal in the first place. It had to be done, full stop.
Today, we have the same circumstances: a Pope sacrificing daily to the altar of worldly culture: not denying he has denied that the soul of the damned suffer eternal torment, attacking the Sacraments, defending adultery, insulting everything that is Catholic, and on and on and on. Therefore, the thing to do would be to call an imperfect Council with the bishops that can be gathered, put the guy on trial and call him deposed, and let the Lord sort out the details of the battle He certainly called us to fight. A variant of the same, and a much faster one at that, would be that a credible number of Cardinals takes the initiative for the bishops, as the Cardinals are the ones who elected the Pope (which wasn’t the case in the time of Marcellinus, because there was no College of Cardinals yet) and they could therefore be the ones who, faced with manifest heresy, take him down.
The problem with this is – as I write this and barring an extraordinary Divine Intervention – the utter and complete absence of the commodity necessary to do such a thing, that is: the orthodox Bishops and/or Cardinals.
Out of my mind, I know of only a couple of non-Cardinals, non-SSPX bishops who have forcefully protested against Amoris Laetitia: Schneider and Gracida. Then I became aware of a faint meowing of four Cardinals, paper tigers all of them, who proceeded to wet their lips, but folded when they had to whistle, and two of those were surprised by death in the midst of their betrayal.
It is, therefore, difficult to think that – bar a divine intervention – such an event may take place.
My take on the future is rather a different one: that Burke and others have decided that the most convenient thing to do (for them) is to shut up and wait for Francis’ death. After which, you can be certain that everyone (and Burke first of all) will discover that they had been great heroes during Francis’ pontificate, and will demand that we pay tribute to their paper tiger orthodoxy. Burke in particular seems fully intentioned to threaten with a formal correction until Judgement Day or until Francis dies, whichever comes first; thus reaping all the advantages of mock “resistance” whilst actually giving none.
No, this bunch of Cowardinals and these fearful Bishops will not give us any imperfect council. What they will give us is the indecent spectacle of their silence and cowardice, which they will then, when the day comes, smuggle to the Pollyannas as “prudent” behaviour.
Imagine the Bishops in the time of Marcellinus deciding to just wait for his death! Mind, being persecuted and forced to hide they would have had a much, much better excuse for their silence! But those were Catholic Bishops, with the fear of the Lord and willing to do whatever it takes; not spoiled functionaries and politicians living in comfort, and at times in splendid palaces, putting their own power and privileges before everything, and most certainly before Christ and His Church.
The years we are living will go down in history as the most disgraceful era of the Church, bar none, making the Renaissance Popes (who were, all of them, Catholic!) pale in comparison.
Bar a miracle, I can’t see any sensible opposition to Francis coming from this disgraceful bunch of pussycats.
I keep reading, here and there, exhortations to criticise Francis in a gentle way. I would like to say a word here in defence of myself and of the growing number of bloggers who don’t.
I have never criticised Benedict in any way even remotely as harsh as I do with Francis. With all his faults, in Benedict I have seen a Pope like the world expects to see. Therefore, the normal rules concerning the criticism of the Pope applied.
Francis’ one is, however, no normal Papacy. He has, himself, blown away every rule concerning the way a Pope should think, speak and behave. It is, therefore, very fitting that the reaction to such an assault on Catholicism be countered in a way that matches the assault: with unprecedented harshness. If you nuke the Church, expect to be nuked by those who love Her.
Those who, like me, call the man various names (none of which libelous, because all of them very accurate), like “idiot”, “ass”, “boor”, “cretin”, and the like, are merely describing a state of fact, and are alerting their readership about the dangers of, actually, not seeing the facts on the ground because of the reverence due to the office. It is fitting – nay: it is necessary – that simple faithful from the pews open the eyes of other faithful in the pews in a candid and determined way. Be your yeah, yeah. There is no time in which this is more necessary then when countering this satanical individual.
Nor can I (and most others, I am sure) be accused of being prejudiced against the man. This blog archives all my posts, and a bar on the right hand side allows you to search old posts by month. Feel free to search my old posts from March 2013 and onward, and see how slow I was in introducing my readers to vocabulary including “Evil Clown”, “ass”, and the like.
No Pope is a porcelain doll, and this one here is rather made of another material. The respect for the Papacy cannot prevent a blogger from stating the facts about the man who, more than anyone else in history, has insulted the office.
Then there is the obvious matter of elementary sensus catholicus. What kind of Catholic, I wonder, is the one whose blood does not boil at reading and listening Francis continuously insult the Holy Trinity, Christ, the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, and everything Christianity stands for? Is politeness, to you, more important than Christ? Truly, sometimes I have the impression that to many out there politeness, like Democracy, has become a fake religion underlying the true one, and whose rules must be followed first.
Granted, not everyone can express himself in the same way we pewsitters do. A priest running a blog, a professor at some theological faculty in his public utterings, or a journalist writing for a big newspaper or magazine are simply factually not allowed to express themselves in the way we do. But this makes it the more important that we, the simple pewsitters, who do not have to answer to an editor or a bishop, do what they cannot do and, very probably, say what they themselves think.
You have a very imperfect knowledge of how the world goes if you think that the implosion and utter loss of face of this Pontificate is due primarily to the polite disagreements of scholars and the soft criticism of this or that blogger priest. This is simply not how the Internet, or communications in general, works.
Francis has lost face because we, the Catholic people, have started saying it like it is, without the filters of the traditional mass communication media. We have just demolished his narrative. In time, this explosion of popular discontent became impossible to ignore for those very magazines and newspapers who had tried to insist on the usual, sugarcoated, ultimately fake representation of the situation on the ground. We, not they, have always represented the situation on the ground, and our scandal and outrage could freely express itself through the Internet. Paul VI was politely criticised for fifteen years by the same journalists and scholars and (rare) bishops, and his papacy got away with all his antics with nothing more than a couple of scratches. This time is different. We, the people, have a sensus catholicus much better than that.
It has happened to Catholics what has happened to Trump supporters: they have emerged as a powerful, vocal force for change exactly because they have refused to bow to the usual rules of polite non-communication. And they have been picked up by the traditional media when it has become impossible to ignore them any longer.
Francis makes my blood, and the blood of many of us, boil. Not because of personal animosity against the man (he has never spitted me in the face, or tried to touch me inappropriately), but because of what he is doing to Christ and His Church. I will not be silent, and I will not sugarcoat the scandal the man is creating.
Let him who thinks that being polite to the Pope comes before saying things as they sadly are stay away from this blog, and from the many others which choose to expose the satanical energy emanating from this Papacy in the same way. They will have to click away a lot, and will discover that they have closed themselves in a bubble of politeness that is, ultimately, a fantasy world compared to the very real outrage this pontificate is causing.
My yeah will be yeah.
Francis is a heretical, ignorant, lewd, socialist old boor whose ignorance is only surpassed by his arrogance. The sooner he dies, the better it is, and we should all pray for his painless death and his substitution for a Catholic Pope.
After yesterday’s post, today I will continue with a short exposition of some more disgraceful statements in the latest Papal Excrementation. The list is by no means exhaustive.
If you take it with the right spirit, it will be fun; at least inasmuch as having a clown as Pope can be fun.
Paragraphs 35 to 62
Too long to quote. Clearly, the only two heresies Francis tried to grasp whilst in seminary were Gnosticism and Pelagianism, as he mentions them again and again like the ignorant man who has read two books and plagues everyone with them, thinking himself learned. Here, Francis repeats the same insults he has been throwing at us these past five years: Catholics are heretics, Francis is the Anointed of The God Of Surprises. There is not even a feeble attempt to explain how immutable truth can contain surprises. yes, Francis is just that stupid.
Pots And kettles
If we are constantly upset and impatient with others, we will end up drained and weary. But if we regard the faults and limitations of others with tenderness and meekness, without an air of superiority, we can actually help them and stop wasting our energy on useless complaining (72).
Coming from him, this is simply hilarious.
“Hasta Siempre, Comandante!”
True justice comes about in people’s lives when they themselves are just in their decisions; it is expressed in their pursuit of justice for the poor and the weak. While it is true that the word “justice” can be a synonym for faithfulness to God’s will in every aspect of our life, if we give the word too general a meaning, we forget that it is shown especially in justice towards those who are most vulnerable: “Seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Is 1:17) (79).
It really seems that to this man, everyone who isn’t poor isn’t entitled to justice. Once again, the man reminds you that in Catholicism there is just no place for anything that is not, in some form or other, social justice activism. Insulting quotation shows that the devil can quote the bible, but Francis has helpers who do it for him.
Old Maid (Or Worse)
[…] The world of gossip, inhabited by negative and destructive people, does not bring peace. Such people are really the enemies of peace; in no way are they “blessed” (87).
I’ll never know why this man is obsessed with gossip, something vaguely creepy in a male. However, I am told that homos are specialists in exactly that kind of thing. One wonders.
The bishops of Canada made this clear when they noted, for example, that the biblical understanding of the jubilee year was about more than simply performing certain good works. It also meant seeking social change: “For later generations to also be released, clearly the goal had to be the restoration of just social and economic systems, so there could no longer be exclusion” SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION OF THE CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Open Letter to the Members of Parliament, The Common Good or Exclusion: A Choice for Canadians, 1 February 2001, 9 (99).
The Bishops of Canada are those who gave us the Winnipeg Statement, which alone suffices to discredit the entire breed for all times. But notice once again the idea that the main worry of a Christian should be his striving to become a good Socialist.
More inequality, say I. It teaches humility to the poor and charity to the rich. Enough with the “inclusion” rubbish. The poor will always be with us.
The Great Seamless Garment Bomb
101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.
102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ”, with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude”.
These two long paragraphs are straight from “Seamless Garment For Dummies”. I do not share the worries of some commenters on my blog. Reading this document it is obvious that, by its very inclusion in it, Francis has destroyed the “seamless garment” argument even in the eyes of the three people and two stray cats who might, in good faith, have seen some merit in it. I am actually glad that Francis chose to include it in what can only be called another theological suicide letter.
A similar approach is found in the Old Testament: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex 22:21). “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:33-34). This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad (103).
The explanation of why the stranger should be allowed to enter illegally is not given to us. The explanation of why we should not be able to choose which strangers we want is also absent. What this amount to is: “if you are not willing to be invaded by Muslims, you are a bad Christian”. More quotes out of context.
God Used To Be Wrong, You Know
True enough, the biblical authors had limited conceptual resources for expressing certain realities, and in Jesus’ time epilepsy, for example, could easily be confused with demonic possession. Yet this should not lead us to an oversimplification that would conclude that all the cases related in the Gospel had to do with psychological disorders and hence that the devil does not exist or is not at work.
This is the blasphemy anticipated in my former blog post on the matter. What it says is that, as “the biblical authors had limited conceptual resources for expressing certain realities”, we can conclude that some of the cases of demonic possession mentioned in the Bible were cases of epilepsy.
The expression “This is the word of the Lord” means nothing to this guy. Already the concept of the “limited conceptual resources” referring to it is plain insulting, but this is more than that: this is an invitation to give the sacred texts a modern, psychological interpretation, provided you don’t “oversimplify”. This is where all the rubbish about Jesus “overcoming his prejudices” and such like blasphemies come from.
Possession is possession, you idiot.
A Papal Warning
167. The gift of discernment has become all the more necessary today, since contemporary life offers immense possibilities for action and distraction, and the world presents all of them as valid and good. All of us, but especially the young, are immersed in a culture of zapping. We can navigate simultaneously on two or more screens and interact at the same time with two or three virtual scenarios. Without the wisdom of discernment, we can easily become prey to every passing trend.
Translation: “don’t read Catholic blogs. They rubbish me all the time”.
Which, dear reader, we will most certainly continue to do.
The official English Text of the new Apostolic Excrementation is out, and it makes for more than a laugh. At this point, I think this old cretin is only good for laughter, as I can’t imagine there is anyone on this planet who is not in mortal sin who really believed he is worth anything as a religious, much less as Pope.
The main traits of the documents are as follows:
- Extremely long, as befits a man never tired of hearing himself talking.
- Extremely secular, as in “devoid of any serious notion of what Catholicism is”
- Full of insults to both God-fearing Catholics and, actually, contemplative religious orders (same as 5).
- Self-referential, with Francis quoting Francis like there is no tomorrow.
- Last but not least, insulting to Jesus and, therefore, blasphemous (I will not get to discuss this today, but take it from me).
This despicable work is the product of the wicked mind of the Evil Clown, aided and abetted by people who share his complete lack of belief in Catholicism.
I will start here the analysis of some points one founds when he starts to swim in this lake of shit. No doubt, many will found others. Further blog posts may continue on this. But make no mistake: once again, this is the work of the Devil.
I suggest that you completely avoid the topic with friends and family, as it is better that this disgraceful document is ignored. If you are asked to comment on it, shoot with the Gatling gun and leave your interlocutor in no doubt as to where Catholicism resides.
1. I like to contemplate the holiness present in the patience of God’s people: in those parents who raise their children with immense love, in those men and women who work hard to support their families, in the sick, [….]. In their daily perseverance I see the holiness of the Church militant. Very often it is a holiness found in our next-door neighbours, those who, living in our midst, reflect God’s presence. We might call them “the middle class of holiness” (Par. 7)
Atheists do all these things, too. It is quite normal, actually it is the standard situation to work hard to support one’s family, love one’s children to bits, or to be sick at some point or other in our lives. Francis, who does not believe in God and has no idea of what the life of grace is, seeks holiness in purely human behaviour. Every atheist who loves his children is holy, every old man who is sick is holy. Nor can you say against this that Francis has restricted this holiness to “God’s people” as in: faithful Catholics. This can’t be, because five years of militant secularism showed us that to this guy “God’s people” are actually exactly those who are *not* faithful Catholics. The very reference to the “middle class” is telling.
2. […] in times when women tended to be most ignored or overlooked, the Holy Spirit raised up saints whose attractiveness produced new spiritual vigour and important reforms in the Church. We can mention Saint Hildegard of Bingen, Saint Bridget, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint Thérèse of Lisieux. […] (Par. 12)
This is Feminist Francis at work. The times he mentions were times of great religious feeling and very robust Catholicism. There were also times in which were women were held in high esteem in their role as women. nor were they prevented to give an extremely important contribution to the religious spirit of their times, as Francis himself admits making a number of examples (to whom I add the most astonishing episode of a very young woman who rose to the very top: Joan of Arc). The problem with Francis is that he is so drunk of secularism that he does not see the virtue of those past times, and calls their ordered lives and well-aligned priorities “times when women tended to be most ignored or overlooked”. You read this man and believe that jesus must have ranted every day against the “Patriarchate”.
3. To be holy does not require being a bishop, a priest or a religious. We are frequently tempted to think that holiness is only for those who can withdraw from ordinary affairs to spend much time in prayer. That is not the case. We are all called to be holy by living our lives with love and by bearing witness in everything we do, wherever we find ourselves. Are you called to the consecrated life? Be holy by living out your commitment with joy. Are you married? Be holy by loving and caring for your husband or wife, as Christ does for the Church. Do you work for a living? Be holy by labouring with integrity and skill in the service of your brothers and sisters. Are you a parent or grandparent? Be holy by patiently teaching the little ones how to follow Jesus. Are you in a position of authority? Be holy by working for the common good and renouncing personal gain. (Par. 14)
Another positively creepy long statement. It may well be that a person becomes holy in the midst of persecution and with no priest in sight; but normally speaking, in order to become holy I certainly need the sacramental life to provide me with the Church exists in the first place. The normal case should and cannot be the one where the faithful is accompanied by his priests and bishops, and with the prayers and assistance of religious, on the path of holiness. Therefore, the paragraph smells of Protestantism, another trait commonly seen in Francis and, therefore, clearly the intended message here. In addition, we notice that severla of the examples of this paragraph do not mention the Catholic life. The outlook on holiness is, once again, merely worldly: caring for spouses and children, working hard, being a good boss constitutes holiness. Yes, here and there there is a sprinkling of Catholicism (the grandparents, the religious), but these look like later additions to a secular building. This is another trait of Francis’ bloviations: a solidly worldly foundation with some quotation here and there to feed the pigeons.
4. It is not healthy to love silence while fleeing interaction with others, to want peace and quiet while avoiding activity, to seek prayer while disdaining service. Everything can be accepted and integrated into our life in this world, and become a part of our path to holiness. We are called to be contemplatives even in the midst of action, and to grow in holiness by responsibly and generously carrying out our proper mission. (Par. 25)
27. Could the Holy Spirit urge us to carry out a mission and then ask us to abandon it, or not fully engage in it, so as to preserve our inner peace? Yet there are times when we are tempted to relegate pastoral engagement or commitment in the world to second place, as if these were “distractions” along the path to growth in holiness and interior peace. We can forget that “life does not have a mission, but is a mission”. (Par. 26)
This is a real bomb. It amounts to a severe downplay and even open rebuke of contemplative life, something not surprising in a man who clearly has no idea whatsoever of the spiritual life. Socialist Francis does not see any use i na life devoted entirely to prayer and contemplation, because it takes the person making such a choice away from the fight against “inequality”. This is another common trend of Francis’ writing and talks: if you are an activist, you are a good guy; if you aren’t an activist, you aren’t. I can, here, not avoid imagining that Francis has been invited, by people with more brains than himself, to excise this part, and has flatly refused like the stubborn ass he is. It takes a real Commie to either not understand the uproar these paragraphs would cause or to not care for it.
This is a very long post already, and I am only at around one sixth of this disgraceful document. I will not eat this manure in its entirety. I might write more blog posts on the one or other anti-Catholic statement therein contained, but I trust that this presentation already gives a clear idea of what we are confronted with here.
Stay away from this rubbish.
It is, once again, the work of the devil.
The Laudato Si’ Reblog
Pope Francis’ just released disgraceful encyclical has, among its extremely numerous vices (see an excerpt of them in my Francis Papers page above, just scroll to the bottom), the one of being strongly influenced by atheist thinking.
Worse (even) than this, Francis has already given more than a hint (actually, he has screamed from the rooftops, only not in encyclicals yet) that an atheist can be saved by following his conscience (see here and here).
The Bishop of Rome, unhappily reigning, wants you to believe and profess that atheism can be perfectly fine not only for salvation, but as a general way of thinking. Francis has no qualms whatsoever with people claiming to be “good without God”; he even asks them to send him “good thoughts”, or the like (alas, this time no link…).
This is today, in the Age of Sodomy.
But how was it before?
View original post 358 more words
The latest papal Apostolic Excrementation is about to be inflicted on us, and I wonder what the best attitude towards it might be. It is not reasonable to hope that, for once, Francis let Catholics do their work and limited himself to signing the document; I also doubt whether, if this were his intention, he would be able to even recognise and select Catholic writers. So, what to do?
First option would be to simply ignore the thing, and focus instead on sustained fire against the Evil Clown’s almost daily heresies. This would have the advantage of contributing to the fast descent of this, no doubt, atrocious document into the rubbish bin of papal history.
The alternative would be to focus on the document itself for a few days, as I did for Amoris Laetitiae. However, AL gave a completely new meaning to the word “excrement”, such that ignoring it would have been not only impossible, but counterproductive.
One feels the temptation to just ignore the man’s statements, hoping that this would result in the damage being reduced. But the simple fact it, the damage caused by such a Pope as Francis is too big to be ignored.
No, I will have to delve into the huge landfill that is Francis’ mind and reemerge, smelling of sheep, to tell the world out there what abominable stinks emanates from everything this man does.
After which, I will reward myself with something edifying from the Popes of the past, like the beautiful Casti Connubii.
And whilst I do so I will dream, Everly Brothers Style, of a Catholic Pope.
Cowardinal Burke strikes again.
With absolutely no sense of shame after he has refused to follow through with the Dubia, an initiative of which he was the undoubted front man, Burke has the insolence to complain again about Pope Francis as if he were a quisque de populo rather than a Prince of the Church, and actually evading the obvious elephant in the room, the question about his sustained inability to whistle after wetting his lips, in a very public way and amid worldwide cheers.
Every interview with this individual should have no other question than this one: when is the man going to proceed to the solemn and public correction of the Pope, now made clearly unavoidable by his absence of any answer to the Dubia?
Cowardinal Burke is a fair weather “conservative” always ready to make himself beautiful in interviews, and unable to fight the good fight whenever it may cost him something more than the mild inconvenience of having to move his office from this or that utterly splendid palace. And what grates me most is that is does not even have the dignity and decency of, at least, being a Cowardinal in silence, like many of his colleagues. No, this one wants your applause whilst he avoids doing his job.
The Dubia were posed in September 2016. Heavens, that’s more than one and a half year ago! Two of the Cardinals have managed to die of old age (and may the Lord have mercy on them!) before finding the guts to act. This one here keeps meowing, but it’s clear that he has no intention of acting whatsoever, either.
Most infuriatingly of all, Cowardinal Burke keeps repeating that it is right to criticise the Pope, even publicly, for the good of the Church and to avoid confusing the faithful. And what he keeps saying that it is right and the thing to do he keeps not doing!! It’s unreal!
Cowardinal Burke is trying to be a hero on the cheap.
He blabbers, you applaud, everything is fine.It’s not going to change.
God forbid, he were to lose another splendid office.
The Comment Sissy Reblog
On the blog “Southern Orders” there was the usual exchange of comments about the Novus Ordo on occasion of the latest scandal (yours truly reported), when the usual Comment Sissy showed up (nickname: “anonymous”; you never know which “anonymous” is “anonymous”) and said the critics of the Novus Ordo were uncharitable, un-this, and un-that. There had been no vitriolic comments, merely a very mild sarcasm.
A good soul, nickname “Templar” (nice one, by the way) intervened with the following words:
I grew up in New York, the Priests from my parish lived exactly 7 doors down from me and our interaction with them was daily and very personal. They were mostly Irish and Italian, most cussed like sailors (refraining only from taking the Lord’s name), used acerbic wit to cut down many a sinner, and wouldn’t back down from a fight if it came to it.
Good Bye good men.
View original post 407 more words
This priest died suddenly in the Vatican. 29 years old.
Eternal rest, and all that.
But this is not the reason for this blog post.
Good Lord, what a fairy!
Are these the priests of today?
I’d say not. These are probably the priests of today who ends up in the Vatican.
Yes, I am being judgmental.
Yes, I don’t care that he has just died.
As long as we have priests like this guy, we will continue to tank.
The Bubo Reblog
Let me say my two words about the situation we are in, and the conclusion we must, logically, reach for ourselves.
I agree: Francis hates the Church.
I agree: Francis is a heretical Pope.
I agree: the crisis we are living in unprecedented.
Does this, then, un-Pope the Pope?
Things are what they are. We can’t create a parallel world because we don’t like the situation we are in. This would be just as naive as going around crying “not my President” after Trump’s victory. Trump is the President all right. Francis is the Pope all right. There is not even even an alternative pretendent not gone out of a cartoon.
If Pope Francis were to come out as a pedophile and celebrate black masses he would still be the reigning Pope pending his death or deposition, exactly in the same way as the heretical Honorius was still…
View original post 616 more words
The lunacy of many leftists activists was, yesterday, exemplified by the Vegan “animal rights” activist who went into YouTube offices and wounded four people before killing herself.
Waiting for details, but it is likely that no one of the fairies in the Youtube office was armed. Therefore, this one here could have been another massacre, because of the sheer absence of the “good guy with a gun” before the police shows up. In this case, the massacre was avoided. But raise his hand who wants to wait for the police whilst there is someone in the office shooting around.
The woman shows, from what can be understood up to now, all the signs of mental imbalance of your average leftist bigot out there. She wants pig to live, she does not care if humans (including herself) die. She also wants to make a living on Youtube, which, as I understand, not so many manage, particularly when your specialty is vegan food and other activities for, typically, angry women ignored by men. The idea that Youtube may discriminate against, of all things, a female vegan enemy of the U.S> Marines is quite funny.
And anger was strong in this one. Living in California, complaining against “discrimination”, marrying all sort of leftists causes (the one with the U.S. Marine corps is almost funny) and being not-very-successful professionally (see screenshot: $0.10 for one month of viewings), I am not very surprised that she ended up killing herself in a bout of feminist rage. One wonders if California is not breeding a small army of these homicidal nutcases, because the law of probability tells us that in a state where this kind of derangement has become socially acceptable there must be a lot of biatches like this one, going around and waiting to make, perhaps, a massacre.
Please let the female have your Eternal rest, if only for the sake of her poor guardian angel.
One thing we can say for sure.
Pigs are very, very sad today.
There is an article on Antonio Socci’s blog that got me thinking. The article was published yesterday, April Fools’ Day, and when I read it I thought of an April’s fish; particularly for the use of the Italian adjective, “farlocco”, normally a jocose way of saying “fake”, or “pretty dumb”, and would have caused a smile after the announcement of the “fish”.
However, I write this on the afternoon of the 2nd, and the post is still up there with no “Fish” whatsoever.
The article is long and smart, but the part that interests me is Socci’s assertion that a non-Italian Cardinal got very angry, contacted other Cardinals, then contacted the Pope and, also on behalf of those other Cardinals, let him know that his statements exposed him to the danger of being deposed.
This would be, if confirmed, quite the bomb. However, yours truly observes the following:
- What kind of Cardinals are those who ran to the phones for a quotation in an atheist newspaper, but do nothing for an entire encyclical signed by the Pope? It seems unlikely that the Cowardinals would shut up (even the four, after some meowing) following the official proclamation of an alternative morality, but would be suddenly up in arms for the quotation of a 94 years old in an atheist newspaper. Unless…
- Unless even Cowardinals are humans, and some of them might even believe in God, and be afraid for their eternal destiny; hence this short outburst of reason; which, by the way, was put to rest when the Vatican denied not even that Francis might believe in heresies, but merely that he would say so openly to a journalist. Still…
- … the perhaps most interesting fact is in the rumor itself: this is a Pope who might have been called by a Cardinal more or less kindly threatening him with deposition, and the facts makes headlines, and no one finds it absurd or the fruit of fantasies. This Pontificate is so discredited that rumors of threats of deposition are seen, whether true or not, as perfectly realistic.
How the humble have fallen!
There are on the Remnant some beautiful reflections of Michael Matt about death in general and John Vennari in particular. You will hear in the video that Mr Matt has also suffered a very recent bereavement, and I am sure you will want to join me in my prayers for his sister.
Today I would like to add some reflections of my own as an unworthy addendum to what has been already said so well.
I am not a complicated guy. I am not the “doubter” guy. I believed in God before even knowing His name. There has never been a day I did not believe in God. Faith, to me, was never something conquered. It has always been there. What was not there was proper instruction, and when Providence finally led me to give this proper instruction to myself every piece fell into place, and every capital question in…
View original post 585 more words
First of all let me say this: it was great fun. It was a nice way to add to the joy and general merriment of the greatest feast known to Catholicism: Easter. I would obviously have refrained from this is April 1 had fallen on a Good Friday. But as it was, it was quite a good occasion to have a laugh and draw a lesson or two.
The post had to be shocking, but it could not be too obvious; therefore, I had to strike a balance between shocking surprise and utter impossibility. I also wanted to throw some bait in the mix, and see how my readers would react. If you enjoyed the fun yesterday, I hope you will enjoying reading this. If you didn’t, you need to lighten up and look at the calendar more often. In any way, I think I have thrown so much sugar in this that any reader had at least the possibility to stop and reflect.
There were many clues to yesterday April’s Fool. Let us see them one by one.
1. The sugary picture.
Come on, folks. Such senseless, effeminate nonsense is really not like me. It’s the kind of rubbish you find on your average one-world-cretin’s Instagram or Facebook page. I am pretty sure many of you spotted the fishy post at first sight.
2. The violent husband.
It has come to my attention that in this country, every middle-aged woman seeking a new man to take care of her children and ageing ass always had a violent husband. Yep, no exceptions, at least not in my experience. I see this not only in the female colleagues who suddenly talk to you about their violent ex husbands, but also in the male colleagues now in a relationship with a woman who has divorced… a violent husband. The latter tend to belong to that type of guy who seems to have “FOOL ME” written in capital letters on their good- hearted foreheads. Then there are those middle-aged women who, on knowing I am single, try to bait the fairly attractive, fairly manly, exotic-talking Italian red fish with the sob story of the … you get it.
There evidently is, in my estimation, an epidemic of domestic violence in this rather civilised country, possibly due to strange substances in the tap water. It’s just astonishing. Or perhaps this is the way dumb men are lured into adultery and fornication with ageing, manipulative bitches. One of the two, anyway.
3. The Possible “Annulment Play”
I have left the door ajar on this, because I wanted to see how many would suggest the “Catholic Divorce”. I am proud to say that almost nobody did, which is a great testament to the sensus catholicus of the readers of this little effort.
No, folks. It’s “for better or for worse”. If your husband becomes an alcoholic, then you have an alcoholic as a husband. To try to delude yourself that perhaps you never wanted to marry the guy and hope that the referee gives you an easy way out (which will require you to, pretty much invariably, lie; to yourself first, and to others after that) is not a solution. I hope reader “Billy Chickens”, to my knowledge a new commenter, is not a Catholic. Either way, I suggest he stays very near to this blog.
4. The “perspective of my heart”
This one was, actually, huge. This blog lives and breathes out of the basic concept that truth is unchangeable, and that compared to that my feelings, my “perspective”, my “discernment” and all other circmstances (aren’t the children adorable? The little, trusting creatures? Do you want to make them…. cry? C.r.y.? C-R-Y??!!) simply disappear into nothingness. I have, here, introduced the “concrete circumstances of the case” and baited my readers to a process of “discernment”. Most of you, dear commenters, have refused to take the bait; actually, it appears the thing did not even cross the mind of many of you.
You made me proud. Catholicism lives in this place, all right.
5. “When they’re near me, it’s so delicious. They’re the answer to my wishes”.
Not musically inclined? A pity…
Still, I think some of you might have had something whistling in their ears….
6. “Love is God”
This was, my dears, the very big clue; or, rather, the nuclear bomb I charitably threw in the mix in order to avoid the one or other of you having a heart attack. It was also my last way to let you look at the damn calendar!
“Love is God” must be the most atrocious, satanical lie ever devised. It is also a staple in “inclusive”, Presbyterian-style “churches” for lesbians and sodomites. It is purest nonsense. It is completely incompatible not only with Christianity, but with every form of organised religion. It is a licence to create a completely bespoke, diabetes-inducing religion of “feelings” whose only rule can only be the complete absence of any rule. If, my dear reader, you were still taking the bait after reading “Love is God”, kindly don’t blame it on me.. 😉
In general, I can say this: that the known commenters have reacted in a properly Catholic way, whilst the questionable answers have generally come from readers I did not remember and were, possibly, not at all acquainted with the, erm, rather assertive nature of this blog (subtitle: “Catholicism Without Compromise”).
But it was fun and it was, I think, instructive when read with this “companion”.
Let us soldier on, my dear fellow warrior ants.
We are not the kind of people who fall for the sob story, and the lie of “discernment”.
[EDIT: APRIL FOOLS’ DAY EDITION!]
I profit from this day to make an announcement that I have wanted to make for some time; not finding, alas, the courage to do so until now. I ask all my readers to take the news in a charitable way.
Some months ago, I fell in love. I fell in love as desperately and as intensely as I did not remember doing since my early Twenties, in the sun-drenched Italy of my youth, at the very dawn of the Eighties. It was (and is!) a life-changing, excruciating, devastating and exhilarating experience.
My love was (and is!) reciprocated. She is a wonderful being. Sweet, feminine, caring, nurturing. She has kept a youthful innocence even after the scars (emotional and, in part, physical) a violent husband left on her. Her two children (7 and 5) are the joy of her life and, slowly, of mine.
I tried to resist. I told myself this could not be. I thought that the Devil was tempting me. She is married in the Church, as a Catholic. Her husband still lives and, whilst he is a functional alcoholic, he will likely live for a long, long time. My world fell on me with the weight of the Dome in St Peter.
I prayed and prayed some more. I told her I could not see her anymore, several times. Still, I found myself unable to resist the challenge.
Slowly, very slowly, I started to see things from another perspective; the perspective of my heart.
Can a love so pure, so inspiring, so uplifting, be sinful? Can such an ecstatic union of two bodies (her one, very beautiful; a hymn to Creation itself) be mortally sinful? And what about the children? They look at me with their innocent eyes, and I can see I am the father they always wanted to have, and their little immortal souls deserve. When they look at me in their loving, trusting way, I cannot but see Christ’s blessing descending on me in a wave of bliss. Shall they be punished for their alcoholic father?
When they’re near me, it’s so delicious. They’re the answer to my wishes.
I tormented myself for long (for too long!) with this matter. And then it dawned on me.
Love is God.
If it’s pure, how can it be sinful? If it’s joyful, how can it not be from God?
Now, I am at peace. I do not feel dirty anymore. I feel that Jesus smiles on me, and approves of my abandoning myself to Love.
I have not had the nerve to present myself at the Communion table yet. I am praying and praying, hoping to understand what I should do about it. The diocese near the one where I live is led by a bishop who has expressed himself in favour of Amoris Laetitia. I am now torn, and in the middle of the stream. Old Mundabor would never dare. New Mundabor (the one kindled by love) begins to understand he should not be so judgemental.
Love works in mysterious ways.
At time, love may change a cantankerous, middle-aged, passionate but often more than mildly acidic blogger like me.
I might stop writing this blog. I might stop going to church. I might have fooled everyone, including myself, these last eight years. But I now know love.
I ask you to pray for me, and to celebrate love with me; then Love is God, and I can see it very clearly now.
The Annihilation Reblog
The umpteenth interview of the Evil Clown with Eugenio Scalfari is another scandal not only for the obviously heretical statements allegedly made by Francis (statements which the Evil Clown will not, as happened in the past, deny or recant, thus assuming full responsibility for them) but also for the unbelievably arrogant, and ignorant, language used by Scalfari himself.
It is stupid beyond belief to say that Francis has “abolished” hell, or purgatory, or whatever God has created. Francis cannot change one iota of truth. Christ, the King, will make sure he becomes aware of that. Scalfari, who does not believe in God, is mocking Christian belief in the breath as he propagates Francis’ heresies, and the two seem quite fine with the whole exercise.
Apart from the often mentioned heretical statement of Francis about the non existence of souls in hell (which, let me be clear about this, show that he…
View original post 101 more words
I come somewhat late to this party, but I want to add my two cents to it as it seems that shaming the Evil Clown is a fitting way to honor Our Lord on Good Friday.
This unbelievable nincompoop has managed to shoot himself in the Marxist genitals once again, and this time promptly for the Triduum, by chatting with his godless friends, Eugenio Scalfari, about heaven and hell; or rather, the fact that the souls of the damned would be annihilated.
Now, in itself this is nothing new: the Francisfantasy about the annihilation of the damned has already been reported by Scalfari and was not denied by Francis in the past. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Scalfari is lying. In fact, Scalfari’s credibility – not only on this occasion, but on all the preceding ones – is also made unassailable by the incontrovertible fact that Francis keeps talking to him, thus giving him a clean bill of health concerning his integrity. No sane person can have any doubt that Scalfari does not misrepresent Francis, and this is the reason why the latter keeps “chatting” to him.
What is new this time is that, after a huge earthquake erupted, the Vatican was forced to deny that this is what Francis told Scalfari.
Now yours truly wonders: as this is not the first time (from memory, at least the second) that Scalfari publishes something like this, why all the ruckus now and not then?
My answer is: firstly, because this time it happened during Holy Week; and secondly, because Francis is now seen as “fair game” by headline-chasing newspapers; newspapers who do not care anymore whether what they publish damages their narrative of the “modern Pope”, simply because the man is a joke anyway.
Therefore, this time the heretical statements of the Evil Clown have caused an atomic mushroom, and those crusaders for truth, the Vatican Press Machine, had to try to limit the damage.
Sorry, Father Rosica & the other girls: the damage is done.
The entire world laughs at the spectacle of a Pope so stupid, so vain, and so embarrassingly incompetent that he must be corrected in front of all the world in order to try to stem the tsunami of laughter heading towards the Vatican.
Keep going, Francis dear. Be your own warning against yourself, for all faithful Catholics to see.
We salute your immense stupidity as the best antidote against your heresies.
The Pope who, first after the middle Ages and Renaissance, uses methods of open intimidation and condones – nay: promotes – corruption is the one who dares to call us “mafiosi”.
If you think that Francis is not actually calling faithful Catholics like that, you haven’t been attention in the last five years. Francis uses his many public utterances for the relentless smearing and insulting of all those who criticise him.
In the latest months this has obviously included a wider public than us – as the guy has managed to even be implicated in the cover-up of the responsibility of bishops abetting paedophilia -, but generally, it is fair to say that we remain his first and favourite shooting target.
As is often the case, Francis forgets in today’s rant what he has said yesterday. Only some days ago he was waxing
lyrical effeminate about this strange god who just can’t avoid forgiving everything to us no matter what our sins; but those who are today’s targets of Francis’ bile will “end badly”, which can only be a reference to the lack of said forgiveness, i.e.: hell. The old, lewd guy is clearly looking for new ways to insult us, and he has now escalated to “mafiosi”, probably because he felt that way on the day. I consider it a promotion, and an insult to wear with honest pride (the good, not the perverted or the presumptuous one). To be called a “mafioso” by Lewd Francis is like to be called “deplorable” by Crooked Hillary.
Francis lives in a contradiction-indifferent space. He does not show any interest today in what he has said yesterday. He does not seem to understand that after the age of, say, seven, a boy is expected to show some coherence in what he says. He seems to see the Vatican as a huge pram, out of which he can throw toys with almost daily frequency in the presence of journalists.
I make an easy predictions: many mafiosi, even among those who are in hell, will suffer less than this disgraceful caricature of a Pope if he does not repent.
And I will not even call him “pope mafioso”. The man is such dirt that it would almost look like a compliment.
The Homo Mafia Reblog
One of the assertions that leave one most speechless is the strange idea according to which when things are dirty they cannot be cleaned because… they are dirty.
“How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? There are so many of them!”, some people say. If there were any truth in such statements, nothing would even improve and nothing would be ever done to remedy wrong situations. In this perspective wrong situations can’t be righted, because they’re wrong. Another of my favourite ones is “How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? They do not go around saying they are homosexual!”. Ah, blessed ignorance! Terrorists didn’t go around saying they’re terrorist, either, and the mafia being extremely secretive hasn’t prevented countless mafiosi to be put in jail.
I answer to this that when there’s a will there’s a way, and in my experience a rotten situation…
View original post 801 more words
A stupid wannabe catholic site has an article where the author has consulted a “theologian” about hell. No link. You are welcome.
The problem the author had is whether blessed souls suffer because some whom they loved on earth are in hell. Well, Sherlock, they are called “blessed souls”, so you have the answer right there. Apparently, what I knew in Kindergarten is now beyond the pale for these people.
The “theologian” answers the author with the usual stuff about the blessed being, you know, blessed. However, he drops a bomb immediately later stating that hey, we don’t even know whether there are any people in hell at all.
OK, Einstein. So Jesus has lied to us, and several thousand years of Judeo-Christian tradition have been all a misunderstanding. Mama Jesus could hardly suffer anyone being in hell, because there is no happeeeee endiiiing for them, you see.
What satanic rubbish.
I have not finished the article as it seemed to me that I was wilfully covering myself with dirt, so I have spared myself – and you – the imposition of reading more rubbish with all the related medical implication (like the adrenaline surge). I should by now be accustomed to the idea that there are so-called “catholic” sites out there making the work of Satan; but hey, it drives me mad every time.
One cannot avoid thinking that, unless they repent, both the author of the “article” and the “catholic” theologian will meet one day in a very hot place, and will tell each other “damn, there is a hell”….
I do not know what the Divine Plan for these rubbish sites is. It can be that Satan is just allowed to seek whom he may devour through them, and there can be little doubt that the way of such “experimental catholicism” is the way to hell. In other cases, one can hope that distracted or agnostic readers will stumble on these sites and, in time, will discover the existence of the real Catholics on the Internet; after which, the original, accidental gateway will be remember with embarrassment, as a painful encounter.
The Spring Reblog
It’s Spring, and this year it is a somewhat different Spring.
After four years of devastation, in the next months things might come to a head. This year we might finally have meowing Cardinal kitten, or even – if we are extremely lucky and the Lord assists us – the one or other kitten producing himself in somewhat vaguely resembling a roar. Come on, it’s Spring! Let me daydream a bit…
Getting a bit of distance from the daily business, however, we can see this: kitten or no kitten, this Papacy is unraveling like the South American corrupt, incompetent, boorish, actually stupid dictatorship that it is. This is clear enough with or without meowing kitten.
The Cardinals may speak, or more probably won’t. The devastation may continue, or not. The next Pope could a tragedy like Tagle or someone more Conservative like Piacenza, probably among the best or least worst…
View original post 48 more words