And it came to pass that the “bidding prayers” (if they are called that way) at the friendly NO parish near you contained a sort of appeal for people who follow the religions of Abraham to fight “evil” together. Now, “evil” certainly meant here the things all those religions (the true one and the false ones) oppose: abortion, perversion, euthanasia, and the like. It is also undoubtedly true that in Countries like the UK certain things can only be achieved if Christians and Infidels fight together (the famous example is a definition of “hate publication” that would have included the Bible and the Koran, a definition then expunged from the legislative text).
However, I cannot avoid alarm bells starting to ring whenever I hear anyone, the more so a priest, in any way engendering this idea that Islam and Judaism are somewhat good in themselves, at least by association with the goodness of Christianity. Whatever goodness there is in these false religion is Christ’s Goodness, not their own. Islam and Judaism are, in and of themselves, worth exactly nothing. Worse still: they deny Christ and are, therefore, objectively evil. And of the two, Islam is by far the worse one; then it came after Christ, and it is nothing but a grotesque, sensual, violent parody of the truth.
Al Capone might have had some good feelings in himself. I am pretty sure he loved his mother, his wife and children, and probably even his dog. But you wouldn’t hear in church an appeal to fight together with a modern-day Al Capone for, say, the establishment of the new village park or children’s recreation zone. Why? Because this modern-day Al Capone is evil even when he happens to do something good, that’s why.
We live in very confused times. The laymen who have “composed” the bidding prayer suffer of this common disease, good-ism; the priest who should keep them in check – and most certainly knows better – is too weak to speak out.
It is out of this huge sea of dung that Amoris Laetitia can grow and try to prosper.
This unbelievable creature can’t avoid causing scandal even when he is too lazy to… cause scandal. The rot inside him is too strong for the smell to be contained inside even for a short while.
Vatican Radio publishes a short report on Francis’ prayer with the pilgrims from his window. His initial remarks are clearly Catholic. One understand someone else has written them and Francis is just being too lazy to go expounding on them, so he repeats them verbatim.
However, the rot will out.
The very last words of the quote give us another example of this strange religion Francis keeps peddling to more and more scandalised Catholics (emphasis mine).
Let us make sure that the Cross marks the stages of our Lenten journey, that we might understand more and more [perfectly] the gravity of sin and the value of the sacrifice with which the Redeemer has saved us – all of us.”
Redemption is confused with salvation, and the advent of the Redeemer is now smuggled for universal salvation. Universal salvation directly contradicts the words of Our Lord and makes Catholicism, Christianity, the Sacraments, the very Pope surplus to requirements. No surprise that the man goes on insulting all of them, including past Popes. This is more of that “no one can be condemned, because this is not in the logic of the Gospel” rubbish.
I have made a huge effort of charity and tried to think whether perhaps Francis has simply tried to be orthodox for once. But what I think has happened is far more simple: he is too lazy to write every little public declaration himself, too heretic to limit himself to reading them out, and too arrogant to renounce to let you know it.
Pray for the end of this Pontificate, and the return of at least a recognisable Catholic Pope.
With Paragraphs 291 to 295 we are in the part of the Apostolic Excrementation where Francis looks at those shacking up and those in not sacramental marriage (which is shacking up, too; only of a more institutionalised sort) from a Presbyterian/Anglican perspective and, like them, tries to be hip, cool, and “relevant”.
Several justifications are made for public sinners, and there is no evidence of Francis feeling that they are, in fact, living in mortal sin and endangering their salvation. On the contrary, the man approves of “commitment” and blabla, again looking at the “relationship” from a purely secular perspective. The paragraphs from 293 on (“gradualness” in pastoral care) are all inspired by the same sentiment: these good men and women are not in danger of hell. Perish the thought! Look at our committed those public sinners are! Who are we to judge?
This is, of course, heretical mentality through and through. Denial of Christ and his laws. Willful, insisted, burying of Christian morality under a wave of easy, fully secular emotionalism. The language matches the mentality: nothing is condemned, and every mortal sin is an “imperfection” of people who really, really care, but just don’t know it or, you know, can’t spend the money for a church marriage because the great party with 200 people invited comes before the sacrament. Already the fact that “irregular” is always written in inverted commas speaks volumes about the man’s forma mentis.
You can read the paragraphs (if you really want to; not something I am advocating) and immediately become aware of the diffused, ever-present faithlessness that transpires from it. JP II is also abundantly misquoted, abusing him for the edification of a system of systematic avoidance of every sanction, and of every censure, which is the exact contrary of the stated intention of the man (see Familiaris Consortio, par. 84).
The big heretical bomb, however, comes in paragraph 297, where Francis starts by fluffing about in that usual Fag Dalai Lama-way of his, but then piddles outside of the potty-chair in the most tragic of ways, leaving a stinking pool of heresy and blasphemy he insists all the world sees and celebrates:
297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Satan is speaking to us very clearly here. Francis, his Number One minion on earth, is expressing to us the following concept:
No one can ever go to hell. Hell is contrary to the logic of the Gospel. And in case you think this only applies to adulterers, well no, hell does not apply to anyone. Christianity is contrary to the logic of the Gospel, you see.
When has a Pope in the history of Christianity spoken a blasphemy the like of this one!? When has a Pope dared to insult Christ in such a way!?
Any Bishop and Cardinal who does not openly condemn this blasphemous attack to Christ’s Infinite Goodness and Justice is a very obvious, very public accessory, through silence, of this heresy and blasphemy, and if you are a Christian you can have no doubt he will rot in hell unless he repents. Yes, this applies to Burke, Mueller, Brandmueller, Schneider, & Co.
After this absolute peak of satanical blasphemy, Francis goes on explaining to us how to deal with those who not only live in sin, but even think they are right, Christ is wrong, and say so very publicly around them.
How to deal with them? Simple, says the Evil Clown. Allow them to become part of the community. Make them pray together with the others. Make them do some “good deed”. Confuse the faithful even more by having in their midst open enemies of the Church. Destroy in the faithful any sense of sin by showing them how “good” a person dead to grace is, because he is involved in “social work”. Obliterate any consciousness in them that if one dies in mortal sin, no kind of “good work” will ever save them from hell. Allow the bad apple to corrupt the good ones every day of their lives! No one must remain out. No matter how much they are in open enmity with Christ, there will always be some way of inflicting them on the faithful Catholic, that they may be corrupted buy the faithless, the adulterers, the dissenters of all kind!
When Francis opens his mouth, Satan speaks.
There is only way to understand Francis:
Reading Francis through Satan
I receive this on my combox and immediately post here:
Please keep praying for this beautiful soul and his family.
“[…]tra un mese Anonimidellacroce sarà in grado di pubblicare il contenuto della lettera fatidica che Benedetto ricevette prima di decidere di dimettersi”.
“In a month, AnonymousoftheCross will be able to publish the content of the fateful letter Benedict received before deciding to resign”
The bomb was published here. More to come in a month (means: after Easter? Or literally during Holy Week?). The motives of Benedict’s abdication were allegedly a) very serious and b) nothing to do with his health.
Yours truly reads, and reflect as follows:
- I have always thought Benedict a decent man. Therefore, I have always believed his words, that his resignation was due to his feeling he was not strong enough to keep being an effective Pope. I think we owe the man, as every man we believe decent, to believe what he says until the contrary is proven.
- I will wait to see whether something really gets published, and really confirms Benedict decided to resign because of external pressure. If it turns out Benedict is a liar (and, inevitably, a coward of stellar proportions), this is the reality we will have to live with. My estimation of the man took a decided turn south when he gave the gushing FrancisInterviews anyway. However, I greatly hesitate in believing that he could be such a horrible person.
- If it turns out Benedict was put under pressure to resign, do not think for a moment this justifies the old man, no matter what caused the abdication. There is no universe in which the resignation of a Pope because of external pressure cannot be an act of immense cowardice. It is inconceivable that, say, Pius XII would have resigned if Stalin had said to him: “either you abdicate or I start a nuclear war”. A Pope must never be strong-armed, full stop. Nor does the Church recognise the idea of a Pope resigning because he embraces some “lesser evil” to avoid a bigger one. The idea that Benedict might have resigned to protect himself I do not even want to entertain.
- If it turns out Benedict was put under pressure, I will leave it to expert theologians to decide what happens next. However, it seems difficult to me to deny that the decision of Benedict was, in any way, voluntary. It is, also, what the man explicitly stated. If a Pope abdicates because he is a coward my first take is that he has still abdicated, and he is still a coward. To my knowledge, there is no provision that says that if the Pope is a coward, the next Pope can’t be validly elected. If this were the case, we would have the rather problematic possibility that the last, say, 203 Popes were invalidly elected and we never knew it.We live in the Age Of The Kitten. An age in which people like Cardinal Burke are considered courageous. We must cope with the fact that our clergy are a bunch of girls, Popes possibly included. But this does not mean that the entire institution of the Papacy is put into question.
- It can still be that nothing comes out of this. “Fra’ Cristoforo” clearly wasn’t there, and he might not have seen the letter he mentions. Even the best can be deceived.
- Don’t be distressed. Bad Popes are a constant fixture of the Church. Many Popes in the past have been put under pressure to condemn and destroy good people or institutions (Joan of Arc and the Knight Templars come to mind). The Church has survived.
In what horribly entertaining times it was given us to live…!
Another excellent blog post from the “man with no uncertain trumpet”, Monsignor Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington.
This time, Monsignor Pope’s attention is focused on the image of Jesus that was smuggled around in the Seventies, and that still influences the Sixty-Eighters and other pot-smokers today. In those years – and whilst I was a child, I got my share of those years – Jesus was generally portrayed as a kind of a whimp, a girly boy unable to exert or project any form of manliness, a mixture of hare “krishna” follower and Gandhi with, later, the addition of a dollop of Nelson Mandela. Victimised, but as meek as a sheep; bullied, but always answering with a smile, and unable to threat or harm, this is the Jesus we had brought to us as an example. “Peeaace” and “luuuuv” were everywhere, and not a whip in sight.
Well, one only needs to read the Gospel to get a completely different picture of Jesus; a man who never said things half, and never minced words; a man able to openly defy his opponents in public, in times when conflicts were carried out rather less nicely than today, and “being hurt” had a different meaning than today; a man whose followers went around armed with swords, certainly not for aesthetic reasons; a man able to free himself from the grasp of multitudes desirous to apprehend him, which can’t have been accomplished without a towering presence and an extremely commanding, charismatic, utterly manly attitude; a man able, alone, to throw away from the temple an undefined, but certainly not little number of moneychangers out of the sheer fury of his action, and the might of his whip. On this occasion, the contrast between the calm preparation of the whip and the explosion of irresistible physical power gives a wonderful example of the manliness of Jesus’ behaviour.
No, this was no pink-shirted, manicured, anti-wrinkle-lotioned, tubular-jeans-wearing metrosexual; this was a real man, oozing masculinity in everything he did. Try to imagine the scene of St. Matthew’s conversion and tell me whether it is compatible with anything else than the most commanding authority. Then try to imagine how Gandhi or Deepak Chopra would have tried to achieve the same result, and you’ll know the difference.
You see this everywhere in the Gospels, as the words and gestures of Jesus are always accompanied by an undercurrent of sheer authority, a commanding stance, the attitude of one who knows that he will be obeyed everytime he wants. Even scourged almost to death, Jesus talks to Pilate from a position of utter power, and leaves him in no doubt as to who is boss. Make no mistake, this is no Gandhi.
Thankfully, the gently whispering Jesus of my younger years is now slowly being substituted for an image more attuned to the Gospel image, largely – I think – because of the excellent “passion of the Christ” and James Caviezel’s very manly rendition of the Lord. It will take time, though, before the Birkenstock-sandalled, tofu-eating, Cosmo-reading and Oprah-watching Jesus is replaced by, well….. Jesus.
What is happening?
The 13 of March is rapidly approaching. The day will mark the fourth anniversary of Francis’ papacy.
Why is this bad?
Because this papacy has been the most obscenely insane homoerotic, blasphemous, sacrilegious, socialist, atheist, anti-Catholic heretical circus we could, actually, not imagine.
Do you mean to say that Francis is an obscenely insane homoerotic, blasphemous, sacrilegious, socialist, atheist, anti-Catholic heretical Pope?
No shit, Sherlock!
Is it appropriate to say this of the Pope?
In the case of this Pope, it is appropriate to say this and much worse than this. Behave like a freakin’ Commie (and you the Pope!), be treated like one.
What can we do to help this situation to change?
Pray that the Lord frees us from this disgrace. Do penance. Pray the Rosary.
Denounce the disgrace of this Papacy whilst you explain the beauty of proper Catholicism. Paint the contrast between Francis and good Popes of the past. Don’t waste any occasion to explain proper, sound Catholicism. I suggest you skip V II altogether.
But this will not make any difference, surely?
It will potentially make a huge difference for your salvation. It might also touch the lives of others, perhaps in decades to come. You never know. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
And will people not call me “mean”, “homophobic”, “rigid”, and the like?
‘Course they’ll do.
What shall I do, then?
Why, double down, dear….
Shall I pray that the Pope dies?
It is not sinful at all to pray that the Pope dies a painless death, if you do so for the good of the Church. However, I’ll leave it to you. You may set your hopes on abdication instead. It’s becoming fashionable nowadays. However, recent experiences have shown death is a much cleaner cut. We don’t want to have former Popes forming a football team, either.
Will the Church survive Francis?
The Church has survived Diocletian and Julian the Apostate. She will survive Francis all right.
There is no week now without this disgraceful man reaching for a new deep from the gutter in which he has already put himself.
Once again, the immense scandal he causes is born from his being so much in love with himself, that he cannot resist “humbly” making the world new in the presence of journalists. This time, we had 80 minutes of off-the-cuff “Francis show”, and if you have already photographed the arrogance and ignorance of this man – if you read this blog, it is probably because you have – you know that 80 minutes of Bergoglio Show can’t be good for Catholicism. More alarming still, is that the off-the-cuff remarks show how this man really thinks.
The Neo-conservative press is now desperately trying to spin the immense stupidity (or evil intent, or a mixture of the two) of this man; but you can spin as much as you like, the man is a plague.
Let us see what kind of subversive bollocks a Bergoglio can spit in one single day, when he feels in good form.
1. So-called Gay Lobby.
If there is one, Francis hasn’t seen it in the Vatican ID card. Besides the absurdity of the statement, this is so gay even Elton John – an admirer of his, you must know – must see it that way.
Seriously: what a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say. What an insult to the intelligence of every sane Catholic. What unspeakable arrogance. The Bishop of Rome is here clearly being the best ally of the “gay mafia” within the Vatican. He has clearly exposed himself as their man, elected by them so that he may not do anything against them, and help them.
Please let us wake up here. First important appointment is the one of a sodomite with levers everywhere within the Vatican; when a huge scandal involves this man, Francis refuses to get rid of him; then he proceeds to downplay the whole issue, so that he can be free to help his sodomitic friends without too much nuisance. Make no mistake, Screwtape would be delighted with Francis.
Innovating on 2000 years of Christianity, this extremely confused (or worse) man wants us to believe being an homosexual is something that doesn’t stay in the way of being a priest. This shows you, better than anything else, how deeply rotten this man’s thinking is. I wonder if he would say the same of people with a tendency to screw their own mother, or dog, or niece. Either the answer is “yes” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted in all matters of sexual abuse) or it is “no” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted concerning the matter of homosexuality).
The moral of the story is that for this man, provided a homosexual is not part of a “gay lobby” (which he would allegedly not spot anyway; see the ID wannabe joke) not only can he be a priest, he can be one of his strictest collaborators, and who is he to judge?
Francis’ Christianity, and requirement for priesthood, ends by “accepting The Lord and having good Will”. Welcome, perverts the world over. The priesthood awaits you.
Satanic. Utterly and completely satanic.
Some people (like Jimmy Akin, who today makes a quadruple salto trying to defend the indefensible; I think we’ll see a lot of this in the years to come) will even try to sell you that, formally, Benedict’s explicitly stated policy of not allowing homos to the priesthood will not be touched. How can this be? If this is the example he gives; if this is the way he talks; if this is, very obviously, the way he thinks, how can this be?
Compared with this man, Pope Paul VI is merely an amateur. This here is Screwtape’s real deal.
You may or may not know that a good Catholic has traditionally had the faculty to pray for the painless death of the Pontiff if he is persuaded the Pontiff in question is a disgrace for the Church – as you can see, nothing new under the sun – .
I have a huge problem with praying for the painless death of Bergoglio, because in my naïveté something within me rebels to the idea of wishing the death of a Pontiff.
Still, the times are such that a Pope may well step aside if he finds himself in the physical impossibility of working as Pope. I have written in the past that I consider Benedict’s decision – seen in isolation – a wise one. If a Pope can’t make it, than he should not make it either, and leave his place to someone with the necessary strength.
You decide for yourself.
I start praying for the end of Bergoglio’s papacy today.
The SSPX is publishing a series of articles (five up to now) about Francis’ heresies. A sixth part will follow.
The fifth part deals with the question of Francis’ heresy: is Francis, then, a heretic? The very theologically oriented article first restricts the meaning of the word to the rigidly confined theological boundaries of “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”, and then proceeds to (unavoidably) conclude that no, in this strict theological sense the Evil Clown is not a heretic, though he is clearly favens haeresim, “promoting heresy.”
Well I had to smile when I finished reading this part (I have not read yet the other four). What the author of the articles is saying is that Pope Francis is a heretic in the popular, commonly understood sense of the word, the one used by 99.99% of the population and their cats. However, the expression favens haeresim is the proper word to be used in the strict theological context. Quite. Of course. Fine with me.
The fact is that, by God’s grace, the broader Catholic discourse is not confined to the boundaries of theological definitions, and that in common life and common sense language a person who promotes heresy is, ipso facto, a heretic.
I allow myself to say that this is not only a “popular use”, as the editor of the article says, but a beautiful expression of that sensus catholicus that moves a healthy Catholic conscience to call excrement excrement, irrespective of the many shades of brown and grades of stinkiness a trained theologian may distinguish in the material, and more power to him. If it stinks like shit, has the colour of shit and the consistence of shit, then it is Francis’ Papacy.
Therefore, it is not only unavoidable, but highly fitting that outside of theology faculties Pope Francis be called, as before, for what he is: a heretic.
Pray for the end of this pontificate and a true restoration of sane Catholicism. No more Benedicts, no more Francises, no more of this V II nonsense.
We want that old time religion. It will save you when you die.
The exit polls I read around all indicate that Trump has won the Catholic vote (no, I am not talking of the judases with the same name, and may they sink in the irrelevance they richly deserved). If you ask me, the reason for this is not to be found in his (weak) homo stance, or in his defence of religious liberty and the consequence for Catholic organisations and religious orders in case of abolition of Obamacare. Whilst these factors probably played a role in some way, I do not think they were decisive. The decisive factor was, if you ask me, abortion.
Very bravely, Trump and Pence chose to “obsess” about abortion. In time, more and more tepid Catholics were forced to confront their conscience, and decide that the unborn child was more deserving of their vote than their wallet or their personal (dis)likings.
This seems to me to confirm a concept I have often expressed in the past: most Catholics are now like scattered sheep, unable and too lazy to follow their mediocre pastors. But at some level they still know what is what, and they know that truth can’t change. Once constantly confronted with the reality of Catholic teaching vigorously defended, slowly but surely many of them start to move in the right direction.
Catholicism is unique in this: that whoever start to defend it vocally does not have to reinvent or reshape anything. It is no novelty like a “New Labour” or “Reaganomics”, that must be developed, justified, tested. It’s there, beautifully immutable, ready for use and with no need of justification. You don’t have to persuade people that it works. It is enough to inform them that it exists. It is an all-encompassing, ready-to-use religious system with vast ramifications in the economic and social sphere. It’s an all-you-can-eat buffet read for use, and available for free.
Trump and Pence used the buffet, and took from it a big portion of abortion and a side of religious freedom and persecuted nuns. And it worked spectacularly well, because shattered as they are, enough sheep were smart enough to listen to the improbable shepherds rather than to the poppycock of the “glass ceiling” and the criminal lesbian witch thinking it is enough to cry “Vaginas of the world, unite!”.
Trump and Pence chose to do exactly what Pope Francis so despised: they “obsessed about abortion” with a frankness unthinkable for most political personnel only a decade or two ago, and not frequently found even among US bishops. They exposed the cowardice and complicity with the Enemy of Francis and his socialist ilk. They showed that when a couple of willing – if imperfect – pastors show up, the sheep start to respond pretty fast.
Shame on you, Francis, lewd promoter of everything that is evil. The Trump Train rode all over you, and millions of Catholics now realise what a phony you are.
Millions now realise that even a Donald Trump, with all his much-publicised shortcomings, is way more Catholic than the Pope.
Today is the day feminists all over the world scream the usual nonsense about a fake “parity” that betrays the very essence of femininity.
Happily, this 2017 appears different from the more recent ones. Chewbacca is not the First Lady anymore, and we see timid signs of the rejection of aggressive “femancipation” calls. The new First Lady recites the Our Father at her husband’s rallies. Long may it last.
For Catholics, the matter of emancipation is fairly simple:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Hhmmm…. St Paul on the one side, the secular culture on the other side. I wonder who is right?
We live in times of pernicious mixing of secular and religious values. For nineteen centuries, Christians have felt no need for “emancipation”. At some point, though, the movement gained such traction that it became ingrained in the Western way of thinking. So much so, that even decent Catholics thought it obligatory to reconcile the differences.
It does not work, because St Paul and the Suffragettes (and their descendants) are in fundamental opposition to each other.
It is no coincidence that the Lord, through St Paul, commands different roles for men and women, at the same time as the Church has never ever denied same dignity and importance to women. There are no differences in what souls are. There are differences in the way they are supposed to work together for their own salvation and the salvation of their children and loved ones.
One hundred plus years of logical derailment have now put us in front of what happens when we ignore the way life is supposed to be organised. The shifting of the measure of dignity (from having dignity in one’s own role to only having dignity if allowed to parrot men) has engendered a rebellion that starts with suffrage and ends with sexual promiscuity, contraception, abortion, mass divorce (in the West, very largely initiated by women), mass single parenthood and, crucially, massive divorce rape of men, with the subsequent unwillingness of the latter to contract a bond that can see them ruined and deprived of house and children at their wives’ calling. The latest trend is for the emancipated, divorcing wife to immediately accuse the husband of rape and/or violence: it makes it easier to get house and children, you see.
The so-called International Women’s Day is the International Women’s Betrayal Day. It is the day when the progressive self-destruction of femininity is celebrated as an achievement, and a further injection of testosterone into Western women is demanded as fitting and long overdue. Less Our Father, more Chewbacca.
Reject the mentality en bloc. Be a counter cultural “agent for change”. Proclaim in your circle of influence the right of the man to be the head of the woman, and the right of the woman to be led by her man. Assert the utter superiority of the traditional system, that did not produce anywhere near, anywhere near the amount of utterly miserable women we see around us today.
I know that, because my life experience straddles what seem to me now two different planets: the traditional Italian societies of pre-female suffrage (represented by the army of grandfathers, grandmothers, grand-aunts, and grand-uncles I had around me as a child) and the utterly unbelievable world I live in today, a world that would have had those grand-aunts heartily laughing in disbelief at the immense stupidity and absurdity of it.
That perfectly absurd world is now everyday reality. I see all those wretches around me every day. The wrinkled colleague in her Fifties talking to you about her “boyfriend”, who at some point will abandon her like every other man before him, and with good reason. The single mother desperately looking for a companion, and giving her body to a number of sub-prime or third-rate males she will likely never manage to persuade to marry her. The young woman already sampling a number of pricks higher than her ten female ancestors together: an experience devastating and soul-ravaging in the long term, utterly unsuited to the female nature, and disqualifying her as marriage material for any quality man. Up to the most benign case, the poor mother labouring under a huge strain, and forced to have two jobs (mother and office worker) and a long commute, because “emancipation”. Enjoy that train ride, ma’am, whilst you suffer at knowing that your children see their mother at 6:30 PM. You wanted to be “independent”, n’est-ce pas?
My grandmothers and grand-aunts lived in the middle of children. They all wished to marry and be the women of one man, but even those to whom the grace of a husband and children was not given were happy in their abandonment to providence, could care for the children of the enlarged family, had time to laugh and cry and be real women rather than caricatures of men, and were an important part of a large family fabric that was all-sustaining and all-absorbing. They were fully women, and lived a life far more fulfilling than the modern office slave will ever imagine. And they lived and died in the fear of the Lord, which coloured all the rest.
I see all those wrinkled women with “boyfriend” around me, and reflect that all this started with the oh so celebrated “suffragettes”.
Who, between you and me, must have been first-class bitches all right.
Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past – but repetita iuvant – they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an “ask an Apologist” question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like “good suicides to go heaven” and the like.
Today, out of sheer boredom, I clicked the page once again, to see what’s going on. I use “predestination” as search item and find a couple of threads that make your blood curl, with the usual sensitive posters (they are generally women; further proof God is rightly spoken of in the masculine) clumsily trying to avoid hard truths and tapping in the dark about what they “feel”, or “imagine” rather than doing what sensible people would do, that is: read a couple of sensible books first, and in case find a very good (means: not a wishy-washy V II one) priest later.
Still, this is a difficult issue: predestination is probably the most inextricable mystery of Christianity, up there with the Trinity, and a degree of confusion is normal, though once again a good book or a good theologian is vastly better than trying to concoct a solution among blog commenters.
Then I went on the “ask an apologist” section, where in the past I generally – but not always – found sound “Catholic answers”. The first (and only) post I read was this one.
In short, a woman has a perverted sister who “married” (not!) and her husband – one is glad there are true men around still – says to her wife the perverted woman is not to set foot in the house again. Not when he himself is there – obviously – and not when he is not there too – also obviously; then it’s a matter of principle, not of presence -.
The wife writes to “dear Abby”, and what do you think the “apologist” answers? Something along the lines of “he has no right to give you orders, you are his accomplice with your submissive behaviour, I suggest you speak to a marriage counsellor; with your husband if you can but alone if you must”.
What is this, a Catholic Forum or Cosmopolitan’s letters to the editor? To suggest that a third person be put between man and wife? After the head of the family (read my lips: head-of-the-family) has taken a perfectly reasonable decision about the scandalous reprobate he does not want to have in the house he (read my lips again: he) has the duty to lead? Really? What do these people think a marriage is, a democracy? There are Christian rules about how a marriage works; Christians have applied them for 2000 years with great success; it appears for “women’s liberation theologians” isn’t good enough.
For heaven’s sake, it’s not like the husband is alcoholic, or violent, or a lazy good-for-nothing married in a moment of Samaritan excesses (some women have that; though I think low self-esteem plays a far bigger role). This is a perfectly sensible, reasonable man confronted with the smoke of Satan wanting to enter his home, and he takes a perfectly reasonable decision about how he, the person responsible for the spiritual welfare of the family, is to deal with that.
Or do you think the feminist “apologist” would remind the wife that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the husband? A wife with the blessing of a man who knows he will have to answer to Jesus about the way he led his wife, and takes responsibility for it, has been graced with a good husband indeed! But that third parties would come to the extent of suggesting another person is put in the middle is really beyond belief.
Tra moglie e marito non mettere il dito (“do not put your finger between a husband and a wife”), says the wise Italian. The Catholic Answers apologist puts an entire counsellor. What a feminist nutcase.
This so-called “apologist” needs a very good rapping before she is kicked out, and I truly hope she is never allowed to instruct Catholic women preparing for marriage. She should also be informed that even today, even today such an outlandish “answer” (all, but a Catholic one) would be considered the answer of a feminist bitch by every sensible woman living in traditional Catholic countries, where – I can assure you from endless, and continued experience – this “let’s put a third person in our controversy” mentality is just not there, and would be considered the result of an acute bitchiness attack and controlling mania.
I do not need to mention here – because every woman with some brains knows it; apparently not the case by some female “apologists” – that women perfectly well know how to deal with disagreements within the family; and have far more effective (as in: smartly feminine) ways to influence their men, insofar as it can be done, or the intelligence to let it be, when it’s clear it cannot.
I am truly stunned. Where I come from, the answer to disagreements is never “put a counsellor in the middle”, but along the lines of “he is the man you wanted to marry: now let it work” or “try to change his mind if you can, with sweetness and prayer and patience; and accept his decision if you can’t, because this the way it goes”. Apparently, it’s now the counsellors who run Catholic families. Pathetic, and so stupid.
I really must say it, but if this flippin’ American mentality has infiltrated the minds to the point where such rubbish is even suggested in a Catholic Forum, by a so-called apologist, you in the old U S of A are in a very, very bad shape indeed.
Catholic Answers might well be the most clicked Catholic site on the planet. The damage they make with their blasted “American Feminist” mentality can hardly be overestimated. These people do not even know what makes a real woman, but they spread their rubbish on the Internet on how to run – or to break – a marriage.
I was always surprised when I left Italy and these colleague in Germany told me “Italian women are so feminine!”. Why, of course they are, thought I. They’re women, aren’t they…
I began to understand, later, what was meant by it, and it seems to me the problem is not limited to Germany.
Fight against feminism and bitchiness, even when it is in disguise of “Catholicism”. If you want to see real women in their environment, try to spend some months in a traditional Catholic country and see how those among them who have been properly raised – still the vast majority, even today! – live, embrace and enjoy their womanhood.
They live far happier lives, too.
[REBLOG] Hillary Is After Stupid Women: Some Inconvenient Truth About The Tragedy Of Female Suffrage.
Bar big surprises (Assange is your friend) it seems to me that the remaining weeks of the electoral campaign will be dominated by the following themes.
- The MSM will keep screaming hysterically by every new tape (of which, of course, there will be several) in which Trump says something that wouldn’t be heard at the local Salvation Army chapel. All those liberals ceaselessly spitting on Christian morality will discover themselves aflame with zeal for purity in their candidates. Actually, in the candidate of the Republicans only. They will manage to impress the gullible, and I suspect that many of these will be women.
- The sane part of America – and I suspect many of these will be men – will actually react to the MSM pro-Hillary, nuMorality bombardment by doing exactly the contrary of what the media relentlessly push for. They will vote for Trump just because they can’t stand this North Korean situation anymore.
It remains to be seen how many are ready to be impressed by lies and fake indignation, and how many are those who can still think straight. However, it seems to me that Hillary’s campaign is doing the only thing that leaves them with a shot at victory: make of the campaign an emotional attack to Trump and try to capture with it the gullible females (and some not very manly men) ready and willing to be carried away by this wave of emotions. Already the fact that Trump appears to have suffered in the polls for calling a fat woman “Miss Piggy” tells you all you need to know how easily US female voters can be manipulated, how emotional this race has become. And don’t get me started about the “first female president” rubbish, which is the same as to say that a vagina gives a candidate special rights.
I’d suggest these Miss Piggy women eat less instead. But hey, I am a man, what do I know…
So, let’s come to the inconvenient part of this blog post.
It fills me with rage at this stupid age to know that, in the most crucial US election in the last decades, there is such a discrepancy between female and male voter orientation. It seems that this wave of Reprobation (make no mistake: voting for Clinton can only be a mortal sin) is mainly fueled by the female sex, who is more prone to swallow hook, line and sinker all the rubbish about the “first female President”, the “objectifying of women” and all that insignificant noise meant to cover the real issues: the fact that Christian heritage and fundamental liberties (besides the Country’s security) may well be at stake.
Women of past ages knew very well that it was better for them that only men could vote, or be a judge. It helped a lot to keep the emotions out, and preserve an ordered society. It prevented the brutal emotional manipulation of serious issues we see today.
In a society in which only males can vote you can’t get very far with the emotional appeal to the “poor pregnant girl”. In a society in which only males can vote you could never attack the Second Amendment. In a society in which only male can vote not only Trump would clean up, but you would probably have a better Democrat opponent in the first place. Instead, we have a world in which a conversation filled with reasoning and expletives any men who was not raised among girls has heard hundreds of times truly is an important part in deciding the destiny of a nation.
Women suffrage has done great damage to women. It has allowed them to hurt themselves in so many ways: with abortion, with divorce, with a stupid push for an “emancipation” that has become a double burden, with the attempt to dismantle a patriarchal society that served them so much better than making of them the toys of many men.
The extreme emotional tones of this campaign, in which the word “Pussy” (let me say it again: “Pussy”) has at least the same public echo and relevance than the real issues (security, immigration, Christian values, fundamental liberties) could never exist if only men had the right to vote. You may not like it, but that’s how it is. Even those pussified men (like Paul “Pussy” Ryan) who profit from the events to stab their own candidate in the back do so not only because of intrinsic lack of manliness, but because they are afraid of their female electorate. Ryan’s pathetic, unnatural, unmanly grovelling is the result of the sex of more than 50% of the voters.
It would be better for everyone, and particularly for women, if they were not allowed to vote. In time, this would cause a reversion to what every Catholic (that is: sensible) woman must wish: a solidly patriarchal society honoring women for their real qualities and helping them to give the best of their feminine nature, whilst stifling the self-destructive tendencies unavoidably generated by their (otherwise so beautifully) emotional nature.
Look at what three generations of female voters have done to the US, and reflect whether they have made a better world for women. A better world, I mean, not only as the world judges, but as the Lord does.
Bishop Egan has just another article of encouragement to good Catholics to be good Catholics.
There are much worse bishops than Egan, and the man is trying to at least send out a Catholic message. However, there are a couple of considerations that I think I should add to his.
Our forefathers knew (but we are too stupid to realise) that you can’t defend the family without shaming those who, with their behaviour, undermine it.
You can’t be “sensitive” to “single mothers”, wonder how you should “better integrate” public concubines in the life of the Church, and call to “awareness” for the “difficult situation” of every sort of public sinner and then be surprised that the family as an institution goes to the dogs. It is, in fact, your very sensitive attitudes that causes this.
I am old enough to remember how family was defended, when its defence was more than a lip service. Shaming of sluttishness, utter contempt for those men who dared to leave their families, and general call to act like adults in everything concerning family matters, this is how it was done.
No more. Today, the “pursuit of happiness” (intended, often, as “romantic love” in an age in which adolescence seems to extend well into the Sixties) is the new religion, and it would be considered impious to counter to it something so old and stuffed like Christian values, and expectations of decent behaviour. We don’t do “judgment” anymore.
Who knows, perhaps Mrs X was so atrociously tortured with a rusty knife by Mr X every day, that she had to leave him and marry Mr Y, who is oh so nice? How can anyone even imply that for both of them it’s either repentance or hell, and nothing else?
Who knows, perhaps Mr Z was having a strange kind of depression, which made him do a very strange thing like leaving wife and children; and now he has another wife, and little Shaoean with her; and he is sooo cute, how could you say their union is wrong? How could you call little Shaoean son of sin? Isn’t this cruel?
Who knows, perhaps young Shoshaena did not know how children are made, or thought pregnancy only happens after 18? And how can you condemn lurv? Can’t you see how beautiful the little girl, Full Moon, is? She’s all her father, DeShawn, though obviously officially there is no father; because of the council flat, you know…
Well, I know.
Mrs X is a bloody adulterous cow, and even her female friend will refuse to have anything to do with her. Mr Z is a shame to his sex and an irresponsible cretin, and no decent man will honour him with his friendship. Young Shosheana is a slut, and no decent girl will have anything to do with her. Shaoean is a bastard at least for the Church (not his fault, but hey…). Full Moon is a bastard for both the Church and everyone else (see above). DeShawn is a bastard at least figuratively. Probably literally, too.
In case you wonder, I have seen all these cases at work. If it seems unbelievable to you, this gives you the measure of how far we have sunk.
Those above were the words that made the round when family was important in actual fact. And when this happened, the social shame helped preserve the family, big time. The preservation of the institution was more important than individual destinies. You don’t want to suffer the consequences? Avoid the behaviour. The only way out of the social pariah-dom was the Christian one: sincere repentance and change of life. I have seen such cases, too.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. If you want to protect anything you must, you must condemn what goes contrary to it. There’s no other way. It’s the only way it can work.
This is elementary common sense. But we don’t live in an age in which elementary common sense is held in any respect. Rather, the continuous desire of almost everyone to a) feel good with themselves, and b) be seen as “nice” is what counts.
This is why the family is imploding, and almost 50% of the newborn in the United Kingdom are – you guessed it – bastards.