Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
The recent words of the Unholy Father concerning Evolution would, perhaps, justify some words. The problem with that is that the topic is absolutely vast, and not apt for a blog post. I will, therefore, limit myself to expressing some of my thoughts on the matter.
“Evolution” is used in many and confusing ways. I mention today three which, in my experience, are the most commonly found:
1. The idea that species evolve.
Today’s cat is different from the cat of many years ago. Japanese are, on average, 20 cm or more taller now than they were before WW II. The smartphone evolves into, say, the Sony Z3. The Porsche 911 evolves in the “991” iteration currently on sale. An awful lot “evolves” in life, and it is clear that this is in God’s plan. The human body himself evolves from a tiny and defenceless being into a strong being…
View original 1,163 more words
Courtesy of Father Z, the first three paragraphs of the statement of the USCCB, released by Archbishop Kurtz:
Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history,the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.
The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.
Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.
The statement is beautifully written, and so un-Franciscan in its concise and pithy way. Particularly the first three paragraphs are, if you ask me, impressive coming from US bishops.
This leads me to talk about the huge problem represented by… the US bishops. There are few examples on the planet of Catholic bishops who have more consistently abandoned the teaching of Our Lord, and tried to appease everything and everyone. There are few other nations in which the bishops have, to such an extent, preferred to focus on easy demagoguery (on immigration issues, say) rather than administering to their flock the hard, but salutary, medicine of Truth. I do not remember Cardinals from other Countries marching on a debauchery feast together with debauched perverts openly proclaiming their own perversions. There aren’t many Countries whose Cardinals go around saying they have “no sense of shame”, and “good for him”, about an idiot “coming out” with his own perversion.
Dolan isn’t the only one, obviously, and the amount of rubbish coming out of the mouth of these wolves exceeds by far Dolan’s vast frame. But Dolan is the most representative face, and therefore will have to stand as example for all the others.
The US clergy have betrayed their sheep so systematically, so ruthlessly, so shamelessly that the few paragraphs of censure now released sound extremely hollow. Not only they had it coming, but they contributed to this mess every step of the way.
If the US bishops and cardinals think that, when their hour comes, they will get away with it because of a couple of press releases they will, I think, be very surprised when they die. And one wonders, even today, where the excommunications are, and in how many other period in history people of such power attacked Christianity with such virulence whilst professing themselves Catholics, and they are not excommunicated. I am not only talking of judges here, but also of senators and governors at the very least.
These here are crocodile tears.
And one has to wonder whether the crocodile is crying at all; or, rather, secretly smiling as he shows his tears.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I generally do not indulge in such rhetorical questions, but this time the question doesn’t appear very rhetorical.
For you non-Americans, the story in very short format. In 2000, the citizens of California vote in a referendum a proposition (“Proposition 22″) to ban homosexual so-called marriages. In 2008, the California Supreme Court strikes down the referendum decision because “unconstitutional”, that is: the court decides that the people are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count.
The citizens of California then proceed to held a second referendum on Election Day 2008 to have homo-marriages banned (“Proposition 8″) and give it a majority for the second time; this time the approved proposal is that the ban be inserted in the Californian Constitution so that the judges of the California Supreme Court will not be able to play God or to decide that they are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count, again
View original 708 more words
As the Supreme Court of the United States published its long-known satanical decision about sexual perversion, not a few foreigners (like me) are left to stun how the most powerful democracy in the world can leave the most important decisions in the Country to nine men, or women, or dykes; this, after allowing homosexual judges to attack voter-sanctioned constitutional amendments without recusing them, seen that they did not have the modicum of shame necessary to recuse themselves. More than thirty US States voted in favour of basic reason, and decided it to be enshrined in their state Constitutuion. Nine judges walked over all of them, both the voters and the Constitutions.
The repercussions of this will be, as expected, vast. An army of lemmings will now decide that to join the bandwagon is the only thing to do, and we can expect the Constitutional courts of other European countries to follow down the same perverted lines in the case where they have not done so. One can only hope the respective legal systems will be more resilient to judicial ingerence than the US.
prepare yourself for a tidal wave of Satanical stupidity. When I open my WordPress page this morning there was a rainbow band at the top. Frigging idiots. Google hasn’t “reacted” yet, nor has Yahoo, but I do not doubt when they see others trying to garner some feel-good feeling from this they will not be slow in following.
We must pray that God’s punishment to us (in this life; I can’t even imagine in the next one) may cease soon, and sanity restored.
I expect Pope Francis’ next encyclical to be devoted to endangered butterflies.
You know those surveys asking you for all those questions? Gender? Ethnicity? Disability? Or all those questions I have to answer if I want to go through a U.S. airport gate?
Why am I forced to answer them truthfully, and risk, say, a prosecution if I make a false declaration?
If Bruce Jenner is free to decide he is a woman, should I not be free to decide that I am Black, African, and Disabled?
“But you aren't, Mundabor!”
Well, exactly that is the point. I ain't. Therefore, to claim that I am something I am not is a lie and a fraud.
Perverts are allowed to lie and defraud. To them, reality is presented as something they can reshape at will. Decent people risk a criminal prosecution. Because they are – quite rightly – not supposed to give false representations.
They aren't. Only perverts are.
I have just written a blog post explaining that Francis is evil, but stupid too.
The man makes me the courtesy of confirming my words in the funniest of ways: he blasts those who talk too much, listen little.
I quote, and if you are at the office with a cup of coffee in your hands, put it down now.
“When Jesus warns people to beware of ‘false prophets’, he says: ‘By their fruits ye shall know them’. And here, by their attitude: so many words, they speak, they do wonders, do great things but they do not have an open heart to hear the Word of God; they are afraid of the silence of the word of God and these are the ‘pseudo Christians’, the ‘pseudo pastors ‘.
Can you believe this guy?
Now, I am not saying Francis is describing himself: he is not a false prophet, does not do great things, much less wonders, and everyone with a brain sees what a dimwit he is.
But that he should go around shooting himself in the foot in this way, without even noticing, is hilarious.
Pity St John The Baptist. The poor man did not have the fine insights of prime Judas like Baldisseri, Kasper, or Francis.
If he had had, he would have understood that the situation was simply “irreversible”. Look, They say, it would have been ideal if Herodias had remained with her husband. But clearly, there was now a new situation of which St John had to take account; a new reality to which he should have reacted with compassion and sensitivity. Then there was a child, in her teens; a very delicate age, in which separation from the father can lead to lifelong scars.
Where was St John’s compassion? Did he know anything about inclusiveness? Had he ever heard of mercy? Why did not prepare a path for Heros and Herodias? Why this cruel exclusion?
How could St John ask Herodias and Herod Antipas to… just split? Destroy a new family? Destroy a new reality? With a child in it?
I cannot imagine what would happen to St John today. He would probably be beheaded by Michelle Obama (she needs only one hand for the sword) after Barack Hussein Obama has played for her the dance of the seven faggots (a gender-neutral celebration of diversity), in front of an audience of screaming feminists, lesbians, and assorted man-pussies.
Now as then, the motivation behind the justification of sin is the desire to sin, to cover sin, or to profit from it.
God will not be fooled.
I cannot avoid imagining that Herod, Herodiades and Salome, upon knowing of Francis’ and his minions’ last push, commented “this is a bunch of people we will get to meet rather soon”.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
“What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now”.
We are, probably because of too many movies and novels, accustomed to think of the evil man as a man of uncommon intelligence. Whether it is The Joker, or Doctor Moriarty, we quite naturally link a great evil attitude with great gifts turned bad.
It does not have to be so. History shows us that a lot of people are evil without being smart, actually often being the contrary of smart. In Italy everyone knows the history of Masaniello, but you do not need to search so far. The newspapers are full of idiots who want to do evil and show how stupid they are in the process, from the one massacring people in church to stoke racial hatred to the one robbing cigars and threatening the shop owner in front of a camera and then proceeding to walk in the middle of the street with the cigar box well in sight, and then again attacking an armed policeman and thinking…. no one knows what. Many other examples could be made.
No. Very often, evil is stupid. This is actually much more common than the other case, then there aren’t many Goebbels or Stalins around.
Francis is a great example of this. He never run a country, or a party. His ascent to the Papacy came without having absolutely anything to show for himself besides running down, as much he could, a Seminary and a couple of dioceses. Incompetence and stupidity are – together with his great hypocrisy – the one true mark of his career.
This man simply isn’t smart. Actually, this man simply is a nincompoop. He is very uneducated, but too stupid to even try to hide this from the masses. No, he must tell you how much “power” air conditioning has instead, and that our extremely clean Western Countries are a “pile of filth”. He just reveals himself like the uneducated cretin he is; but, being an uneducated cretin, he does not notice it.
Francis is your typical pub rant champion who thinks how to redo the world, and has barely an idea of how to use knife and fork. He is one of those resentful old men people sincerely pity, or heartily despise, or both. Alas, some reckless Cardinals made him Pope, because he came from such a forgotten corner of the planet that his misdeeds weren’t noticed.
But his being uneducated and stupid does not mean he is not evil. He is not retarded, so he still knows what he is doing. His motivations are clear enough. The ideology driving him has been made manifest many times.
Evil, uneducated, and stupid.
That pretty much covers it.
Every one of my readers certainly remembers Pope John Paul The Not-So-Great kissing that blasted Koran, instead of burning it.
That disgraceful episode had, at least, two extenuating circumstances: the Pope was clearly not compos mentis, and the Vatican officials tried to hide the act of a man now clearly gaga from the world. Alas, the Muslim side couldn't believe their luck, and ran to leak the photo. V II happens.
I see no extenuating circumstances in the Evil Clown kissing a Valdensian bible. Whilst a Valdensian Bible is not a Koran, it is a heretical book, and there can be no doubt that the kissing of heretical work is offensive to God.
In addition, even a Patheos blogger and my cat understand that this kissing was not the act of a man who is “not there with his head”, but the deliberate act of celebration of a Protestant attitude as expressed by their heretical texts. Francis is, as always, promoting heresy and trying to put into your head that it's perfectly fine to have a preference for vanilla, strawberry, or stracciatella if you don't like the Catholic Chocolate. Hey, we are all united by our love for ice cream! Ah! Uh? No?
John Paul II was clearly gaga when he kissed the Koran. But Francis is the very epitome of a Papacy gone gaga. A Pope not missing one occasion to sabotage Catholicism, and reproaching Catholics for believing in Catholicism at the same time.
I stop here.
They say one should not grossly insult the Pope.
I read around that 2015 could be the name of the “gender neutral” name. This are names that do not say whether the poor baby is a boy or a girl. This will give a substantial contribution to the confusion of the poor boy, or girl, and make him an easier pray to sexual perverts, particularly because a boy, or girl, raised in such an environment is not very likely to grow in the midst of sane people: manly men and feminine women.
The parents rejoice. “My son is questioning at the moment. We are very excited to see what comes out”.
A way even more promising to pervert one’s child is, though, the direct embracing of sexual perversion.
A boy called “Loretta” will have a direct attempt to make of him a pervert made on him from his youngest age. He will not remember being called anything other than what he is not, from his youngest age. When asked a school, he will be trained not to say what he is. His little friend will be considered no more than an option, basically an embarrassment.
Apparently,the actor Ryan Reynolds is attempting that on his own child. The man and his wife/companion/whatever have not been directed to any doctor. It is not known to me there are any initiative to take the child away from them and give him in adoption to normal people.
Perversion of one’s own child promoted and celebrated. This is the world we live in.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
The Traditional Catholic Priests has one (actually, two) posts about St Athanasius.
St Athanasius did not declare the Pope deprived of his office. He did not start any “Athanasian” church. He did not care about precedent, either.
St Athanasius did the Catholic thing, and kept doing what had always been done to the end; irrespective of how mad, or weak, or evil the Pope of the day was.
We look today at those years and see a coherent development: Satan tries to destroy the Church. Faithful Catholics react. Satan loses.
However, in those times things were certainly not so linear. For many years, actually a couple of decades, vast part of Christianity must have looked like a nuclear wasteland, the air full of Arian nuclear fallout. It was, certainly, not so easy in those days to believe in the Indefectibility of the Church as we do now.
We do now…
View original 266 more words
In times past, the son of an adulterous relationship was called a “bastard”. Unpleasant as this was for the young person in question, the custom had an obvious social control function: very simply, it made it much less than desirable to be born a bastard.
Was the bastard “guilty” of his parent’s sin? No, he wasn’t. They had sinned, not him, if we exclude the original sin which affects us all. But the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons, and the bastard will have to accept this like everyone else. The sin of the parents created a disadvantageous situation for the son. It had to be so, if Christian family had to be protected.
The bastard was also – in many Countries, like Italy – either excluded or partially excluded from the inheritance. Was this fair? It certainly was it in consideration of the higher interests at stake. It was so, because the need to protect the Christian vision of society was considered more important than the private drama of the poor boy or girl, however unfortunate his own situation.
Now, in this as in the other matters just discussed (the son of the scandalous adulterers) the attitude changed when the priorities changed. When God’s rules were the priority, there was no discussion about these matters. But when the West began to de-Christianise, suddenly the destiny of the illegitimate son was seen as “cruel”.
Lose sight for the priorities, and all the rest will crumble.
As Christianity retreated from First Priority to Great Embarrassment, the rules had to change. The child is illegitimate, but he must be made a legitimately illegitimate child. He will share equally in the inheritance, thus compromising the patrimonial integrity of the family and taking away the idea that it… pays to be born in a proper family. He must also not be called “cruel” names, thus obliterating the sin and placing another huge bomb under the stool of Christian society. The rise of the bastard (around half of the children currently born in the UK as I write this) is largely the result of the decline of Christianity.
All this PC thinking hides a de facto Paganism, in which Christian rules are seen as an impediment. When Christianity is seen as cruel, the rules must be bent to accommodate them to the new religion: inclusiveness; at this point, Christian values can be stuffed. They are the impediment. Popes and other Kasperites will run to invent a new vocabulary of fluffy heresy to persuade us of what no generation of Christians ever believed.
At some point, is it a surprise that these new Pagans will see it as “cruel” that the adulterers and the open fags do not receive communion?
Lose sight of your priorities, and everything else will crumble.