Search Results for nichols
Those who know their Church history know that corruption on a huge scale to gain the vote of Cardinals was certainly not a historically rare event. And if you care to travel to Viterbo during your next stay in Rome you will see, still standing, the palace where in 1271 the Cardinals were first locked and fed only with bread and water, then had even the roof removed so that they felt, ahem, gently encouraged to make a decision. The decision was not considered invalid. Nowadays, we bicker about the number of valid votes in any one day.
If the election of a Pope were to depend on corruption or undue pressure not taking place, the entire history of the Papacy would have to be rewritten, and one wonders by what gymnastics any modern Pope could be claimed to be the Successor of Peter in the proper sense. And if this is true – and it most certainly is – for corruption, just imagine for the – which leads us to today's issue – “canvassing”.
In addition, it must be said that – humans being usually prone to communicating with each other – the one or other preference can be communicated in one thousand and one ways. If Cardinal Murphy O'Connor likes Bergoglio, well clearly
he is an idiot he likes Bergoglio. If we were to consider any expressions of esteem for a colleague to constitute “canvassing”, then no human communications among Cardinals should be allowed at all before the Conclave begins. Yet, we all know that these expressions and communications convey exactly the desired meaning: he who is such a good Cardinal, can certainly be seen as an acceptable Pope.
“But Mundabor!” – you might say – “this was a concerted effort! This isn't just a Cardinal talking to another Cardinal at dinner!”. This may or may not be what has happened. But I cannot see how the terrible sin committed by these Cardinals (a sin which would cause their excommunication) could or should invalidate the election. Not only the present rules for the election of a Pope explicitly say that this is not the case, even if such a behaviour should take place; but reason and common sense shout it altogether, so that even if the rules penned by JP II were not to explicitly include such provision, the same conclusion would have to be reached anyway, out of sheer common sense.
Not for the first time I must warn from getting overexcited. The Papacy is not a fantasy land where everything works in the right way, and at three cardinals canvassing the election is put into doubt. Heavens, how many Pope would have been invalidly elected? Fifty? Eighty? One hundred?
Let us, therefore, not get excited again about the recent “revelations” of “canvassing” Cardinals. Even if true, it would not affect the validity of the election in the least. Common sense says so, Church history shouts so, even JP II's (and current official) rules say so!
For worst or for even worse than worst, Francis is the Pope. He was elected by Cardinals whose average integrity and faith left much to be desired anyway. We already knew that characters like Nichols, Danneels and Kasper were allowed to participate, so it's difficult to see how any recommendation coming from Murphy O'Connor would negatively influence any decent Cardinal, or how any non-decent Cardinal would not be influenced by the above mentioned chaps once the Conclave has begun.
Socci's book, all the Sedevacantist theories, and now even the questions of “validity” linked to the alleged “canvassing” are, if you ask me, a flight from reality. It amounts to an attempt of dreaming oneself out of a situation that is so tragic because it's so real. And this dream has no resemblance whatsoever with the earthly Church as she has lived, breathed, corrupted, and fornicated these two thousand years.
Francis is Pope.
To hear today at Mass the pathetic message of Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols assuring us that at the Synod Francis has not been defeated by the Bishops reminded one strongly of Comical Ali (I am informed in the US he is known as Baghdad Bob).
It was surreal. It was like being told by Dr Goebbels that the battle for Stalingrad had not been lost, as the newspapers want you to believe.
Nice try, Your Disgrace.
We will stay by the facts, though.
Not-so-strangely, we are informed that another conservative bishop, Oliveri from Albenga-Imperia, is now being targeted by the Unholy Father. The Bishop is known for the following:
1. Friendliness to the FFI.
2. Successful seminary, with 10% of the faithful in Liguria but more than 50% of Seminarians, attracting them from outer dioceses because of the quality of the formation.
3. First Pontifical Mass celebrated by a Bishop in communion with Rome in the Traditional Rite after Summorum Pontificum.
A rather successful Bishop, then, as V II bishops go; but one with two unforgivable traits in the mind of Francis: Catholic, and friend of Catholic Friars.
As already seen in Paraguay with bishop Lovieres Plano, the accusation that seems to be floated is of a certain leniency in welcoming priests with a past of (accusation of) misconduct. Accusations which in both cases are, mind, not personal accusations and are, therefore, no accusations at all, but merely excuses.
Yours truly is frankly getting tired with this. I reflect that:
1. The Church who is oh so welcoming of every freakin' pervert should be also welcoming of every priest seen as fit to do his job. If a priest is seen as not fit to do his job, he should be defrocked in Rome, instead of being used later for Papal purges. As Francis would say: do they go around with the “misconduct” ID card? A bishop will look at the circumstances and make a decision. If he is a good bishop – conservative bishops generally are – he will make honest decisions to the best of his ability. To throw the cross on them afterwards is disingenuous and hypocritical, because on average the favela-friendly bishop must score much worse.
Besides, if this is the standard John Paul II should have been posthumously condemned already, much less beatified and canonised.
2. Last time I looked, 95% of the priests accused of misconduct against children were historically found innocent. I do not know how things stand for other accusations; still, I can't avoid to suspect that it is exactly this 95% that will be now used – perhaps not here, as Oliveri has been bishop a quarter of a century already, which is a lot of apples among which Francis can pick the bad ones, but elsewhere – to throw around accusations against bishops.
3. Once again, a Bishop with a very successful, Catholic Seminary is being targeted. This also starts to become extremely transparent.
4. Once again, Francis goes Jack “Shining” Nicholson on the friends of the FFI, whom he clearly sees as his enemies.
Please do not say “oh, but the bishop has made mistakes!” Pretty much everyone makes mistakes, and those of Bergoglio, Kasper, Nichols, Marx, & Co. would have been, when Christianity was taken seriously, amply sufficient to burn them. Nor has Cardinal Danneels, one of the most scandalous examples of “bishop covering up for pedophile priests”, suffered so very much during this Pontificate. The tale of Francis The Enemy Of Perverted Priests just does not work: look under whose roofs he lives!
Francis is here, very probably, merely being his usual self: a petty, vindictive old man who hates Catholics and Catholicism. He is now angry at the disobedience of his own bishops – who have chosen, in brutal contrast to Michael Voris, to obey Christ instead – and wants to take his little revenge on one of the bishops on his certainly well-nourished black list.
Bad luck to him. But I want to see how he can get rid of many of his enemies in this way without causing an uproar that will let the Synod look like a kindergarten squabble; and he needs to get rid of thousands of them, with every bishop he targets increasing the level of resentment from his bishop.
At some point – preferably, very preferably, now – the bishops will have to stand up again and publicly denounce the persecution of sound Catholic bishops and the intimidation of all the others. This Pope can only be stopped by a very public uproar, led by prestigious Cardinals or Archbishops, openly warning from this man's not only methods, but mentality. If he is left unchecked he will start deposing Catholic bishops right and left, and appoint the likes of Cupich in their stead, until he has changed the very perception of the Catholic Church all over the planet. And whilst he will never be able to change any point of doctrine – nor, I think, very willing to try again after the recent experiences, at least ias long as the Bishops stay strong – he will certainly be able to change a lot in the perception. He is doing it already, albeit for the moment with the extremely questionable and certainly unwanted result of being seen as far on the liberal/left/dissenting side of his own bishops.
At one bishop a week he will go nowhere. But even at this pace, it won't be long before another huge outcries rises from the very roots of Catholicism. Does he realise this? Did he only want to punish another bishop with two Bergoglian mortal sins (the FFI, and the Catholic seminary), or what he has in mind is a slow but constant persecution of all strong bishops pour encourager les autres?
We shall see.
I suggest to the Bishop that they prepare for battle. Possibly starting from now.
The beautiful words of appeal to ceaseless resistance you read in the title were once uttered by a famous Italian prosecutor – in his farewell speech at the moment of retiring – in the face of spread corruption and intimidation from the powers that be; and, particularly, from the power of… one man.
I am reminded of them rather often, particularly when I see the Catholic troops – of which there is, on the Internet, an awful lot – submerge the false prophets and sowers of error under a tsunami of well-earned reproaches.
First, the “Patheos” blogger selling strange motivational courses was forced to close his combox following the tidal wave of well-earned criticism to his feel-good, inclusive, bit oh so fashionable rubbish. Shortly thereafter, the Gluttoness suffered the same fate. Thirdly, the inordinate rant of The Most Petulant Child In The Kindergarten, a priest with a squeaky voice called Father Nicholson, is the last one forced to shut the door to Catholics. As far as I know, all three of them earn money from their blogs, and are therefore financially interested in controversy. That they are forced to curb a source of earning in order not to lose credibility as Catholic writers altogether really tells you something about their standing among sound Catholics.
But resistance is alive and well, and still kicking strongly. The Catholic laymen on the Internet are giving an example of militant orthodoxy that utterly shames those who should, in fact, be their shepherds. As most pulpits stay silent, an awful lot of keyboards are getting very, very vocal.
One is reminded of the time of Athanasius:,when, as Michael Davies – and before him John Henry Newman – remind us, it was the laity who fought against heresy with a determination that was nowhere to be seen among the clergy at large.
Keep up the good work, brave Catholic men and women. Keep going to the Internet and valiantly defend the Truth. It costs time, effort and adrenalines; but all your efforts and sacrifices – and loss of friends, and mockery, and hostility of various kind – will be as many deposits on your heavenly deposit account, and bear a very rich interest one day; the day when, if you are in any way like me, you will be in the greatest need of it.
As our ranks become thinner – they will one day, I am sure, as the tireless rhetoric of easy “mercy” carries away all but the most solidly instructed and most solidly motivated – we must become even more vocal. As we are more and more insulted, we must grow in stamina and readiness to give battle. Be under no illusion that dark times may end by themselves, or that TMAHICH will magically go out of fashion. TMAHICH belongs to the world, and the world will never stop to love his own. In Francis’ case the world is loved back, with a passion.
But you, my dear soldiers of Christ, never forget the words calling us to action. No matter what TMAHICH throws at us, what we must do is, and remains, the same:
Resist! Resist! Resist!
This undoubtedly makes for some reading.
What a difference with “who am I to judge?”-Francis or “we are more nuanced”-Nichols.
And it came to pass the Dyke- and Liberal-plagued Supreme Court of the US ruled that if a company is “closely held” (which means that a maximum of 5 individuals control 50% of the shares) it does not have to comply with the contraception mandate.
I am awaiting further news, but I would say this is a lot of companies, not necessarily small (some, in fact, might well be very big). Good news, and actually the freshest breath of air I could draw in many months.
But I wonder whether this is not merely a blip, a short pause in the relentless assault of the Gaystapo to our freedoms and, more importantly, to Christianity.
This is, if I understand correctly, a 5-4 decision in a court already employing, for life, a scandalous dyke. What did not happen in 2014 could, then, well happen in 2024, or even in 2019. Actually, it could happen rather easily as long as the US electorate keeps giving to itself every four years the choice between a 100% cretin and his best imitator.
This time we got 5-4 lucky, at least in this matter, but unless there is a reverse in this damn “who am I to judge”-mentality and the Catholic clergy starts to bite already, it is only a matter of time until the tsunami of the heathenish,ignorant feel-good masses submerges everything on its way.
The battle is, first and foremost, a religious and cultural one. Without the deterioration of Christianity in the US in the last fifty years the contraception mandate would be unthinkable, as even those who are not Christian would share a set of value in the light of which they live and understand their own freedoms. Not so in a Country which sends a dyke to the Supreme Court, and perverts are allowed to “celebrate” their own perversion in the lewdest of ways (they are perverts, so what else can you expect?) without any problem from the public authorities or the police.
In order to effectively fight this battle, we need a hierarchy made of people who believe in God and are afraid of Judgment. It is obvious to me, from countless examples of their behaviour, that too many of our Bishops and Cardinals, starting from Mr “who am I to judge” himself, do not do either. To them, the clerical habit means a job for life, a life of privileges, and a huge stroke to their ego. They will, like Pope Leo X, “enjoy it” while it lasts. What happens after them – in 20, or 30, or 50 years – obviously does not concern them in the least. When they're gone they're gone, they think. So: stuff the church and the let me enjoy the limelight, or at least my quiet life of privileges.
The trumpet is calling the troops to surrender. It's not easy to fight in these conditions.
When will this end? It will end, I think, when the Lord in his Justice decides that we have been punished enough for the insolence started in the Sixties, both from the laity who think they knew better and from the clergy who wanted to be their “friend”.
From where I stand, I see this insolence increasing within the Hierarchy, growing by leaps and bounds as the stupid headlines of last year become the Catechism Of Mercy of this year. With ugly regularity, bishops and Cardinals try to outdo each other in a mad race of Modernism, all of them regularly quoting Francis as their “”inspiration”.
The Instrumentum released in preparation of the October Synod contains phrases of open, proudly shouted Modernism; a Modernism that is now not even concealed, but dares to show itself in the open, fuelled by the many cretinous statements of a Pope so much in love with himself that he will not even stop three seconds to think of the implications of what he is about to say.
Do not think, therefore, that the good news from Washington is the beginning of a new phase. The Catholic hierarchy is still shooting at the Catholic troops, shelling them with their Modernist cannons like it's 1915.
As long as the hierarchy is so obviously making the work of the Devil, our efforts will be meritorious – and certainly a duty of every sincere Catholic – but they will not be able to stem the tide of madness. Things will only begin to change when the Lords causes good and sincere shepherds to get in the positions of influence replacing the atheist, prostituted generation of the Nicholses, the Dolans and the Bergoglios.
This 5-4 ruling is, in fact, no more than dusk that can be seen at the end of the tunnel. But in the times we are living, I'll be happy with whatever light I get.
The news some days ago had the story of the married history teacher who “seduced” a boy of thirteen. “disgusting” was a recurring adjective. I had no intention of reading the details, but I am inclined to believe the boy was grown to rather a man, as to my knowledge ephebophilia is rather the preserve of homosexuals than of married female history teachers.
Be it as it may, one wonders how a Country that finds this behaviour disgusting largely tolerates, or even “celebrates”, sodomy.
One of this weekends, an open air festival will take place in London, dedicated to the open celebration of sexual perversion. I have not heard any meow from Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols yet, or from his colleague in Southwark who might also be responsible, or from any other prelate who should also feel responsible. If any meowing took place, it was made in such a way that it was not heard where it's uncomfortable.
And so we go on, with heathen immorality being pushed down the throat of the stupid masses, whilst our bishops and cardinals talk of social issues, or of the “joy of being a Christian”, and the Pope gives the example by being the most cowardly, and the most subversive accomplice of perversion of them all.
One can't escape the impression after Francis, “Quisling” Nichols, & Co. all die they will have more company with sodomites than they bargained for. But wait! Francis said I shouldn't say this! It's so “judgmental!.
So let me repeat it:
One can't escape the impression after Francis, “Quisling” Nichols & Co. all die they will have more company with sodomites than they bargained for.
I announce, today, to the stunned world the unbelievable apparition of Mundabandal. I ask that you take my words seriously, because if all goes well this will really change my life.
Some years ago, in a place the Blessed Virgin asked me not to disclose, I was stealing some apples at the supermarket (as you do) when a huge chap appeared to me. I am persuaded he was the Archangel Gabriel, because he said his name was “Gabriel”.
Gabriel told me the Blessed Virgin had an awful lot to do for the time being so she could not be there, and even he was rather pressed for time; but he would have a chat with me every now and then, from angel to man, because there were things I needed to know.
He visited me several times. He always had the habit of forcing me to dance the Macarena or the Moonwalk, which went surprisingly smoothly. After that, he always forced me to kneel in front of him. This, I found strange in an angel, and very arrogant; but hey, if this angel seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? Lastly, the angel had me talking in languages no one understands, but everyone who listened to me was highly impressed.
Well then: the Angel told me, among many other things (I intend to write a book about it; no, many, actually…) the Prophecy of the Three Victories: Spain would win three big football tournaments in a row!
“It can’t be!”, said I, “they have never won anything!”. “Shut up, you little human!”, he answered. He was very big, so I decided to pull a Nichols and just be “nuanced”…
After the Prophecy of the Three Victories, he made various further prophecies:
A) There would be a lot of bicycle and car accidents. Some earthquakes. The one or other aeroplane tragedy. This has come to pass.
B) There would be an economic crisis. This has come to pass.
C) There would be war in the Middle East. This has come to pass, too.
D) There would be a Great Miracle, during which I would receive a great blessing: a completely new nose. The nose would be there so that I can understand that the Great Miracle has occurred. But the entire world will know that a great miracle has taken place, so there would be no need for that. I didn’t ask the Angel about this, because I didn’t fancy another forced Macarena session.
E) After the Great Miracle, the World will suddenly see the light, and I will become Pope with the name Pius XIII. He told me to start selecting my newsagent, cobbler, and favourite Rabbi from now, because you never know when the need for them may arise. My objection that whilst I am a bachelor I find it a bit far-fetched to be elected Pope was answered with the words:”shut up, you little human; we have just made it with a night club bouncer”…
After that I was forced to kneel in front of the angel again, who then rewarded me by giving me various objects, particularly rosaries, blessed by the newly-ordained Blessed Virgin (I wasn’t informed of the fact, but Gabriel was getting angry again, so no questions asked…).
F) The Angel also told me no one will believe me initially. The Bishops will criticise me. I will be considered a liar, a charlatan, and an idiot wanting to earn a quick buck. All already foreseen, you see!
One day the Blessed Virgin herself appeared to me. She said: “Nice shirt, Mundabor! I like your style!” I answered: “Thank you, ma’am! John Lewis. Summer sale. Very good value, you must know”.
Then we chatted about the weather, and the football, and all that. At some point she gave me a dozen rosaries blessed by her very self (she is a priest now, remember), and a kind of Baby Jesus hologram in HD 3D. “What is this?” I asked. “It’s the virtual Baby Jesus!”, she said, “you can hold it, but you cannot touch it; it has a form, but it has no weight; a wonderful party trick, nicht wahr? And by the by, Padre Pio liked you a lot. Before he died he told me: “that Mundabor, what a fine chap! Can you send him my love when the time comes?” ”
I asked her to say “Hiya” to Padre Pio for me, and asked if she can tell me how to produce the Baby Jesus HD 3D thingies. One could make a fortune out of them. The perfect Christmas gift, in every department store by Advent, at only £99.99. No batteries needed. Environmentally friendly, too!
She said no. It would offend the Muslims, with whom she has a very special relationship. You can’t have everything, I guess….
Well, now the world knows. I expect it to act accordingly. A donation button is going to appear soon. Make use of it, lest the rest of your days be dark (one of the supporters of another apparition told me this; it must work with the stupid, then…).
My plan of action is as follows:
1) I will start a magazine, write several books, and hold seminaries. I hope to travel a lot giving conferences, too.
2) I will shamelessly kow-tow to Islam by saying that “there is a very special relationship between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Muslims”. It will keep a lot of trouble away and hey, she told me so herself. I had some doubts about the orthodoxy of all this, but Michael said: “shut up, it’s fine…” and threatened to force me to dance the Tango with Nancy Pelosi…
3) I plan to enter a seminary. Then I will leave it and marry an adulterous woman. Then, with the money earned from the apparitions, I will move to the United States. San Diego or Los Angeles will be just fine. Better climate, you know. Please use the donate button and remember me in your will, or make a big donation because I ain’t a spring chicken anymore and can’t wait for you to kick the bucket. Thanks.
Of course, my dear followers, a lot of people will criticise me. They will slander me saying I am merely an idiot, or a deluded man, or rather one who profits of other people’s credulity.
But do not believe them. This is all in the prophecies!
There. You know everything now.
The button is on the top right hand corner.
Just above the Blessed Virgin.
This morning, Vincent “Quisling” Nichols had a diabetes-inducing homily presumably read in all the churches unhappily under his jurisdiction; the homily explaining to us a lot of things about Pentecost and marriage, whilst avoiding to say anything of that which absolutely had to be said.
I was awake during the entire homily (at least, I think so) and I could not detect one single word directly aimed at so-called same sex marriages. Rather, there was a lot of waffling about how good it is when people marry, and the sun shines, and the cows graze happily in the green fields of England. Apparently, the Cardinal’s way to fight against vice is to talk to Catholics about the beauty of the Sacraments. Imagine Churchill opposing Nazi Germany by simply extolling the virtues of British democracy…
Cardinal Quisling’s strategy is therefore as follows: when so-called “civil partnerships” are approved by law, he says Catholicism is not against it (scandalous sodomy is obviously not a problem to him) but you see, we should pay attention not to call it marriage, because well, that wouldn’t be good; no, the Church wouldn’t really approve…
When it is proposed to institute so-called same-sex marriages, Cardinal Quisling mounts a very faint resistance, which does not include any very open, very hard, clash with the heathen government of the Gay Chameleon, but rather operates only on Catholic pewsitter: “please send a mail to your MP; if you can; unless it’s too much effort….” . This saved face with the Catholics, whilst being the obedient servant of the world was clearly the order of the day, and the plan from the start.
Now that the law is introduced, Cardinal Quisling is extremely fast in accepting the status quo. Next year is General Election Year, and no word of resistance, or repeal, from him. No debate, no opposition, no denunciation. To Cardinal Quisling, that’s the way it is, and it’s fine with him. Absolutely. No doubt. But how beautiful it is, when Catholics marry…
There was, in one word, no trace of that hell on earth that is the only read on why Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has the job of running a (big) diocese.
Instead, we get to hear the most insipid, innocuous waffle ever come out of someone determined not to anger anyone, but particularly determined not to anger the enemies of Christ.
This, about the militant part; the part, I mean, which wasn’t there.
There was also an ominous reference to the October Synod, and whilst I obviously haven’t recorded the words, there was an indirect reference to the problem of how to deal with the “challenge” of people who are coping with the “failure” of their marriage.
Last time I looked, the real problem wasn’t the failure. A failed marriage is a big problem, but does not exclude from communion; public, continuing adultery does.
I do not recall hearing the words “scandal” or “adultery” this morning; which is strange, considering Quisling could effortlessly extract marriage out of Pentecost.
My impression was rather that Cardinal Quisling implied that something should be done for the poor adulterous souls. Hey, nobody’s perfect, right?
The problem of adultery is, thus, being quietly removed a bit at a time; the “suffering” is in the foreground; put it that way, one who is in favour of letting the “suffering” continue is let to feel like he is drowning kitten, or massacring baby seals.
This Quisling is quite a dark soul. A wolf in sheep’s clothes. An agent of the enemy. A first-class Quisling, and a first-rate Wormtongue. In short, he is an utter and complete disgrace.
It is a chilling thought to reflect that either him, or one every bit as bad as him, could very well be the next Pope.
Pray for the Church. That she may be freed from these people. And that the punishment The Lord has sent us may be removed from us soon.
A new Gallup poll informs us the majority of Americans now agree with institutionalised sexual perversion.
It is not surprising that many more or less militant, but obdurate atheists would espouse the cause of the perverts. What would be surprising in a sane world is that, no doubt, an awful lot of people who call themselves Catholics do pretty much the same, either openly dissenting or finding tortuous ways to to allow back in from the window what they state it should, actually, in theory, and if we are really strict, stay out of the door.
We see this attitude everywhere. Many pewsitter liquidated the argument of sodomy with the reflection that hey, so sodomy is a sin, but aren’t we all sinners? Others seem to think God makes some people homosexual and, unaware of the blasphemy, proceed to condone homosexuality as such in their mind. Other still profess to believe what the Church believe, but then fill their minds and their mouths with the dirty thinking and the perverted vocabulary of the aberrosexual: “gay”, “homophobe”, and “same sex attraction” will be among their favourite words, and in everything they will let you know how allegedly Catholic, but also how aligned with the world they are.
This Pickaxing of the Faith is nowadays so diffuse that it does not cause any surprise. Which is natural, as the good-ism now reigning excludes the idea of being ever against any sin. A priest whose only message consists in “God loves you” will implicitly deny any obligation to follow His commandments.
Most of the clergy are not different. Our satanical Cardinal Nichols goes on record saying he is fine with “civil partnerships”, provided one does not call it marriage. Evidently, for this man is not the behaviour that counts; merely how you call it.
Nor are Cardinals who are supposed to be on our side much better: Cardinal Bagnasco proceeding to give communion to a most disgusting Trannie and banner of the Italian homosexualist movement – a man dressed in rags as he received, just in case some Pollyanna would think he was, oh, perhaps, just oh, gone to oh, confession and oh, repentant! …. – not only insults Jesus and His Church’s Sacraments, but gives to the perverts an aura of normality, implying – or perhaps, God forbid, even believing! – that a scandalous Trannie working for Satan every minute of his life may not be in mortal sin, and may therefore be allowed to receive.
The culprit numero uno is, though, with all certainty the Destroyer himself. A Pope who goes around with “who am I to judge?” slogans and is perfectly happy to be identified with them is Satan’s most useful tool in the perversion of the very mind of your average Christian, and even of your average Pewsitter.
Perversion is becoming mainstream. The Pope himself and very many Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests all happily work on this, hiding perversion behind the fig leave of “mercy”, or whining with the pervs whenever they complain about “bullying” and “homophobia” against anyone who dares not to espouse their disgusting ideology and lifestyle.
The single man who is giving the biggest contribution to this normalisation of sexual perversion is, without the shadow of a doubt, Pope Francis. May the Angels, whom he considers inferior to man, observe his actions and give witness of them in Heaven.
Francis was very probably never a Sodomite, but he clearly is their most efficient weapon and, volens nolens, their best ally by far. He certainly is the most important single driver of the Gallup poll mentioned above.
I do not know whether Angels cry to heaven for vengeance also for people who publicly promote and normalise sodomy, rather than only whenever an actual sin of sodomy is committed. That would be an interesting thing to know, because if there has even been a Pope making the Angels cry to heaven for vengeance, it may well be this one.
I have no objection to censorship, if it is done within a settled legal framework; that is, by a qualified Censor librorum who, if he withholds a Nihil obstat, gives and is required to give precise reasons for doing so. I would have no criticism if the system were not only restored, but extended to the blogosphere, and, of course, to clerics and laics who write columns and editorials in 'catholic' journals! But it has fallen into disuse. My apprehension is that a public and canonical process might have been replaced by something furtive; that a bishop (or whatever) might act resentfully but covertly because of views which are doctrinally orthodox but which don't suit his personal agenda. Or that censorship might function as an informal, unminuted, understanding within an Inner Circle that X is 'off-message'; with subsequent disadvantages for X. In other words, I fear that what, at first sight, looks like a libertarian advance (the disappearance of formal Censorship), might in reality be simply a Bullies' Charter. As I have written before, I regard Dogma and Law as the safeguard of ordinary Catholics, both lay and clerical, against Arbitrary Power.
Firstly, I understand Father's concerns: when official control is substituted for unofficial suggestions to shut up, a huge door is open to, well, episcopal bullying. It grates me no end, for example, that in the matter of “Protect the Pope” the bishop asked Deacon Nick to stop blogging, without any public explanation of why a bishop asks a very public blogger to stop his very public blogging activity. Basically, it simply cannot be excluded Deacon Nick was requested to, ahem, “pull a Werling” and just be silent, losing his face as the bishop saved his. Fortunately, when Deacon Nick informed his readers of the fact he did not just state that he had decided to, but that he had been requested by the Bishop to, well, shut up; which in turn caused the many mails to the bishop; which in turn caused the press release with the notorious words I have already mentioned on this blog, and which put bishop Campbell, erm, rather in the soup.
Father Hunwicke's fear that “a Bullies' Charter” might be advancing is, therefore, entirely justified. Imagine that: you are a blogger priest, or a blogger deacon, and the Bishop summons you and tells you to stop blogging and not to tell your readers who has asked you to do so, in order not to foment “division” and “disharmony”. What now, skipper? When you add to this that that particular blogger has been asked by the bishop to stop blogging (call it as you want: that's what it is) because he was being a brave Catholic blogger, you get the picture.
Having said that, Father Hunwicke's censorship proposal is in my eyes entirely unfeasible. The huge number of blogging priests out there would cause an unmanageable administrative work and cost only to control what is going on; it would obviously be completely unrealistic to think that every blog post receives a previous nihil obstat, but it is not realistic to think that every blogger with holy orders receives one before starting to blog, and is monitored afterwards. This as we write the year 2014; but what might happen in the year 2024 or 2034 makes the idea of either previous control or institutionalised monitoring even less viable. Besides, if a nihil obstat is necessary for a new priestly blog, it would be very easy to put sand in the mechanism by just “delaying” approvals for new priestly blogs; there's no urgency to give approval to your blog, Father X; there are enough already of those.
Moreover, many priestly blogs exist exactly to provide a voice outside of the mainstream Vatican PC information. Would an excellent priestly blog like Traditional Catholic Priest obtain the coveted nihil obstat? I doubt it. What about Father Rodriguez? Or Gloria TV? Would we ever know that such and such an initiative was proposed and rejected, and why? You wish. It would be covert bullying instead of overt one; but in the end, much of a muchness. I do not doubt the likes of Nicholson and the other chap with the sword would obtain the Nihil obstat, but as Nicholson and his ilk are part of the problem we would be on square one.
This, only considering the blogs run by priests or deacons. If we extend the policy to the immense world of blogging laymen, the idea becomes utterly outlandish; besides the fact that most lay bloggers would react to the request of the bishop to stop blogging with a smile; if they are in a good day, that is. Hey, the bishops – and now the Bishop of Rome – are the main reason why they are blogging in the first place, so it would be like asking a physician to stop curing bubonic plague because there's an epidemy going on.
What to do, then?
My idea would be – and this is also what is going to happen, volens nolens – that everything continues as it is; that blogger priests blog because they are priests who feel they should blog and this is perfectly in line with the new evangelisation mantra, and that bishops stop them if they feel the blogger priest should be stopped; which unavoidably will – unless the priest does not even want to say that he was requested to stop blogging – be subject to public scrutiny, possibly involving not only bishop Campbell, but bishop Heinz and bishop Baxter as well.
Obviously, a priest or deacon can blog anonymously, de facto if possibly not de iure. The old and lamented Kreuz.net blog – forced to close by the German Gaystapo – was certainly the work of priests, and of excellent ones at that. But again, those must have been priests who needed that their bishop does not know they are blogging, lest the V II thought police intervenes.
The fact is, though, that by the grace of God we live in a time of atomised information sources, and this seems destined to increase in the foreseeable future. No bishop, no censor librorum, no Pope, not even the US secret services will be able to shut down this flow of information. The control of this tsunami of ASCII characters will be left to the reader, who will pick among the bonanza of sources those he find most worthy of his time. The reader will decide if he finds, say, Campbell's soup or the Deacon's pie or Mundabor's fettuccine to his taste, and there is no way anyone else can change this.
In short, this means that the best way for the bishops to prevent the spreading of bad blogging is by encouraging the spreading of sound Catholic instruction. This will in turn automatically filter away the bad sources, and reward the good ones.
Unfortunately, the spreading of sound Catholic teaching is exactly what bishop Campbell wants to prevent; which in turn means what we already know from the start: to wit, that bishops who try to stop bloggers are embarrassed by the bloggers making the job they are supposed but refuse to do: feed the sheep with sound instruction, fight heresy and heterodoxy, and care for the salvation of souls.
I prefer Mundabor's (or Deacon Nick's, or Father Z's) healthy homemade fare, and thank you very much.
Louie Verrecchio has another stellar image that I thought I would reproduce on my blog, besides suggesting that you visit his excellent effort.
As I am by the topic, I would like to make a couple of reflections of my own.
There is in all – also espoused by the Bishop of Rome – talk of inclusiveness in various form – from the inter-religious dialogue to the horrible things committed in the name of peace n luv – the underlying thought that faith in Christ is not necessary for Salvation.
Francis himself says so openly when he allows people to think Atheists can be saved, and also behaves not really better when he sends his wishes to the Mohammedans for the beginning of the Ramadan. But the same is true for all those others – from “Quisling” Nichols visiting Hindu temples, to, well, Cardinal Bergoglio taking part in Jewish ceremonies, to the Assisi rubbish in all its forms – who play the same game for the sake of popularity and an easy life.
You can't have an easy life as a Christian, certainly not in our times. You will have to say it as it is and be called intolerant, uncharitable, “hurting” and obviously homophobic; or get your peace at the price of forgetting Christ and your duties to him.
Which is exactly what Francis and many others love doing, and build their careers on.
Meanwhile, Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is about to become Cardinal, and Father Guarnizo is on the other side of the planet, where his bishop doesn't risk complaints if he refuses to give communion to some frocking dyke.
Francis has, then, appointed the first squad of his demolition troops. They are the avant garde of the army meant to make Catholicism barely recognisable in the years to come. My first thoughts in casual order:
1. No US Americans.
Chaput, head of the extremely prestigious Archdiocese of Philadelphia, might have been considered. Too Catholic, perhaps? On the other hand, one can not imagine Che Guevara would, if elected Pope, have done differently. Perhaps some US observers hoped for a red hat for Archbishop Kurtz, the newly elected head of the US Bishops’ Conference. The latter won’t be waiting for long, I would say. On the former, I have more doubts.
2. Mueller makes it.
Further evidence it is good to be the text editor of a former Pope, even if you doubt (or, ahem, re-read) Catholic dogma. It is astonishing that this man manages to pass for somewhat “conservative” among the uninformed, though there are (even) worse people than him around. Mueller is a friend of Liberation Theology. This probably saved his skin when the new man came in power. At least one hopes his red hat will give him some weight in the months to come (see below).
3. No Other Germans.
This must be worth a bottle. Zollitsch, the Archbishop Emeritus of Freiburg and Head of the German Bishops’ Conference, is in the front line on the unholy battle to sanctify adultery. He is now retiring, but is clearly still very influential and very “exposed” as the main nuclear warhead of the German clergy. If he had received a red hat it would have been very bad indeed. A thought: the Germans might be just “lio” enough for Francis, but perhaps they are just too rich, too “First World”. No favelas by you? Tsk, tsk…
4. Loads of “periphery”.
Argentina, Brazil, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua. Can’t imagine there are many “hawks” among them. Poli is most certainly one of the “Bergoglini”. I will have to read more about the others. Whilst this is a relatively small sample, it seems to be Central and South America fared pretty well. I think it’s fair to forecast an increase in populist statements and enthusiastic support of Francis’ confused anti-capitalist wannabe economics from these corners.
5. Four Italians.
I’d be glad if I could trust them as being orthodox Catholics. Nowadays, who can?
6. Quisling gets a hat.
Vincent “Quilsing” Nichols also made it. Unsurprisingly. He is just the kind of enemy of Christ Bergoglio would want to promote. Of course, Murphy O’Connor is now above 80 so one could say this is “expected”. But it is also generally “expected” that the archbishop in Philadelphia makes it to Cardinal, which doesn’t happen if the man in charge appears to be a Catholic.
It is, of course, too soon to see whether Francis wants to give a new balance to the college of Cardinals, away from powerful countries like US and Germany and on to the “peripheries” of the “oppressed” poor countries.
In the next days, we will no doubt get a lot of coverage about the past statements of at least some of the new men. I don’t thing this will make good reading.
This video is forty minutes of pure Catholic teaching, as our shepherds cannot give us anymore.
The likes of Archbishop Nichols, Cardinal Woelki, and Bishop Francis of Rome could do much worse than listen to this.
They are in great need of Catholic instruction.
Note the approach of Father Rodriguez: absolute fidelity to the teaching of the Church, and no “respecting of persons”. Splendidly, he quotes Pope Francis exactly to explain what Pope Francis is not doing. Please also note he does not read Francis through Benedict a bit.
This is truly, truly good. Don’t miss it.
Read on Rorate the report of a pseudo mass in a pseudo catholic (small c is de rigueur) church in the once to 40% Catholic (now 1% mass attendance) Netherlands.
What is most shocking of this event is not only that the group is not formally excommunicated (as far as I know, they do not have to be), but the fact that in the Netherlands things are so confused that, say, an uninstructed person confusedly trying to approach the Church might confuse these clowns for real Catholics, and one wonders how very different the Catholic mass must be, at least in places.
The Netherlands have a long tradition of schismatic mentality, when not outright schism. If you have read iota unum you will certainly remember the pages devoted to the Dutch Schism, and have an idea of whose spiritual sons the current Dutch bishops are. The mess of the Sixties continues to go on, in a somewhat milder form, to this day. After my experiences in Bruges, I do not doubt over there in the Netherlands you can find everything from the halfway reverent to the outright sacrilegious. I do not see much improvement in the next years, particularly with the disgraceful papacy with which we all are being very obviously punished.
Rorate also mentions another interesting fact: the tendency to move the Novus Ordo towards the “right” by some Anglo-Saxon priests trying to mix elements of the Tradition in their Novus Ordo masses. I have myself assisted to a Novus Ordo Mass which, whilst advertised as a standard mass in English, had so many parts in Latin you could not avoid thinking the celebrating priest was paving the ground for the Traditional Mass, biding his time until he could do without incurring the wrath of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols. He’ll have to arm himself with patience, I am afraid.
Still, the freedoms allowed to a Novus Ordo celebrant – both the licit ones that are allowed, and the illicit ones that are made possible – will continue to make of a Novus Ordo an unknown entity and a known risk: in some places it will be very reverent; elsewhere it will a mess, a disgrace, a desecration or, in the worst cases, a fake; in all cases, it will be vastly inferior to the Mass of the Ages.
At some point in the future, the Church will recover sanity, and will ditch the Novus Ordo. The future generations will, methinks, consider the introduction of the new Mass (I mean the introduction itself, not the abuses; then the abuses are nothing else than the unavoidable product of the mentality that gave us the new Mass in the first place) the maddest thing the mad Sixties produced.
Unfortunately, the Sixties are, for now, still full in power, joyously driving the barque towards the shoals amidst stupid old bishops jumping around like demented idiots to the tune of some very faggoty dance master.
The first World Youth Day held under a Pope Bishop of Rome who wasn’t a bishop at the time of the Council shows the V II disease has now reached a new, more virulent form. Whilst former Popes had been formed in pre V II times and at least knew what they were demolishing, an entire generation below them was going out of seminaries with an extremely bad formation. The bad formation did not prevent them from climbing the Vatican career ladder and, in time, some of those confused social worker priests of whom the faithful wondered who on earth thought them fit for the habit became bishops; some of the bishops, cardinals; one of the cardinals, Pope.
True enough, in the meantime traces of sanity manifest themselves at the roots: priestly instruction is probably better now than it has been for decades; vocations are increasing, and are certainly less plagued by homosexuals looking for sodomy partners than it was before; a growing number of young priest is either able or willing to celebrate the Traditional Mass; among the faithful, a small but determined nucleus of duri e puri (“hard and pure”) has been forming, and they are young. It’s not all bad.
Still, if we consider how these generational matters proceed in waves, we haven’t much to rejoice. As the old wave of traitors of proper Catholicism was dying out, a new wave of very badly formed, popularity-seeking, not too infrequently perverted nincompoops was forming. This wave is now reaching maximum height, and it is the one who has swept away the Church with its idiocy. Bar a supernatural intervention, we are going to stay under water for a long time, as it will now take decades before this disgraceful generational wave of bad entertainers dies out, and makes place for the following wave of at least more mixed talents.
Bishop Bergoglio discovered, or thought he discovered, his vocation relatively late, and if memory serves received Holy Orders only in the second part of the Sixties. Theologically speaking, he is probably younger than his age, and at the same time at the beginning of a disgraceful wave of bad priests going out of the seminaries in the following fifteen years at least. He is the top of a very high wave, that will give us Dolans and Nicholses aplenty; at least a couple of them will, of course, become popes, though whether they will even want to be called that way is questionable.
We are now about to be submerged under a huge wave of stupidity, ignorance, and utter faithlessness, and must endure it for as long as the Lord pleases. I suggest we take a very deep breath now, because we are going to be under water for a while.
Father Ray Blake has, as so often, perceptive considerations about careerism in the Church; careerism fuelled by the “expectation” of a red hat for certain prestigious dioceses, and the custom to move bishops from A to B to C as their, erm, career proceeds.
If the system were to be frozen, a bishop would know that it is highly probable he will remain in his diocese for a long time; this would in turn allow him to start a long-term work of re-shaping of his own diocese. He wouldn't be allowed to see his diocese as a “station” towards more prestigious appointments, and would not be motivated to ingratiate himself to the press or the powers that be and appear just the ticket for the next big diocese in need of an appointment. Incidentally, if he is bad this would undoubtedly be seen in the figures concerning vocations, conversion and co. and said bishop wouldn't have anywhere to hide, nor would he be allowed to move elsewhere and endanger a bigger or more prestigious diocese (Peter Smith comes to mind; or our own Vincent “Quisling” Nichols). The contrast in results between the good bishops, those who make an excellent work in their diocese, and the Nichols would be brutal. Then, the one or other bishop could be gently pushed elsewhere for manifest incapacity; but ending down, not up.
The problem with this system is, I think, that it would work. No more easy favours for the friends of the friends; no more opportunities to hide one own's incompetence claiming lack of time to do a proper job; no more trendy prelates guffawing around in desperate search of a camera. Bad times all around.
Plus, as the conservative dioceses tend to regularly fare better than the trendy ones in vocations etc, this system would lead to conservative bishops systematically rising to preeminence; a preeminence earned by good and hard work and not by networking and by appointment.
Meritocracy? God forbid! What would happen of the trendy crowd? That would, one day, be the end of…. gasp…. Vatican II! No, this certainly can't be allowed, will our men in black, purple and red think; let us rather build fully unrecognisable “trendy” churches; let us follow the crowd on social and environmental issues; let us waste money in stupid modern art exercises; and let's be overtly or covertly approving of same-sex unions, even those of us who don't wear stilettos in private. The Church will be damaged and countless souls will get lost, but who cares…
We'll be so popular; and if you, my dear Father Smart, can say the right things and mix with the right crowd, one day the diocese will arrive for you, too.
I knew the numbers for London doctors are good (for us), but this here is a devastating blow for the Nazi troops.
In Italy, conscientious objection is over 70% among doctors, with some regions at or above 90% when counting effective objectors.
If one considers objection is highest among the youngest doctors, one has a clear picture of the Italian abortionist doctor as a more endangered species than the Panda.
Predictably, Nazi Activists are now getting nervous, and asking for legislative provisions to force the doctors to kill babies.
Keep dreaming, Adolfo...
This is one of those areas where a strong Pope – and strong clergy – can really do a lot. Again, Catholic thinking – broadly intended – still has a big traction in the country: but it must be cultivated and led to bring fruit, with an aggressive defence of Catholic values.
The article seems to praise Pope Benedict for the advancement of the cause; but I’d say the Italian clergy themselves – and Cardinal Bagnasco first – are the ones who deserve praise.
Bagnasco was the kind of chap willing to cause a pandemonium in order not to have atheist ads on buses. Compare with London, where atheists and homos advertise their own stuff undisturbed (but Christian organisations are not allowed, because it is “hate”: frock yourself, Boris…) and our Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is so nuanced he doesn’t even notice, and you’ll see what a difference assertive clergy makes.
Think of this: if your clergy are ready to put up a fight for atheist ads on the bus, what message will this give concerning their attitude about abortion?
Kudos for the Italian doctors. The vast majority of them still know what the Hippocratic Oath means.
Fairly balanced article from John Allen, the only readable journalist at the National Schismatic Reporter concerning my favourite papabile, Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco.
You can forget the last argument against him, probably added merely for the sake of symmetry and because there was nothing else; certainly, the “caso Boffo” would be either unknown or not interesting for most foreign Cardinals.
The other points are, if you ask me, very fair.
I would add an element that he has not mentioned explicitly, though he touches on it: Bagnasco has the reputation of one you don’t want to have against you. Whilst he can smile, he can stab too, as he has amply proved with his decision to defenestrate Berlusconi. This was a decision I never thought right, but which showed a man who is not too shy for a fight. The same he did in the Englaro case, or in the controversy concerning the atheist advs on the buses not long thereafter.
These were all cases where the head of the Bishop’s conference could choose whether to meow or to roar. Bagnasco chose to roar. A national quarrel for atheist advs on buses: can you imagine Vincent “Quisling” Nichols even thinking of doing it? But again, Bagnasco clearly believes in God…
We never know what Cardinals do once they become Pope; but boy, this man can bite.
I would say this is, in these troubles times, exactly what the doctor ordered.
Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. the passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
When I bet (which is rarely) I generally fix the limit at one pint, which I nowadays set at £4.
Whilst I have not made any bet on the next Pope (which I, and everyone else, could do in perfect good conscience, see above), I must say I am tempted to add one (or two) pints to the event.
Paddy Power has, as I write, here the betting page about the new Pope. Surprisingly for me, Turkson still leads the race. I am not a bookmaker, but I suspect what the people at paddy Power want is an army of people putting their three or five pound for the excitement of the “Black Pope”. I honestly think the odds are too much in the bookmaker’s favour.
If memory serves, the day Pope Benedict resigned Paddy Power had Cardinal Scola 11 to 1. I missed the occasion to bet then, because I simply forgot. A couple of days later (when they had started to read the Italian newspapers) Cardinal Scola was quoted a disastrous 11/7, basically an invitation to give them some money with which you don’t know what to do.
But today is different, with bets on three Cardinals offering interesting quotes: Ouellet at 7/1, Bagnasco at 9/1 and Scola already improving to a more inviting 4/1.
I am pleased to see “hug a heretic”/”protect-a-fag”-Schoenborn is in eight place, at a rather sceptic 20/1. Whilst the man is my nightmare scenario, I frankly do not think he has any chances in the real world; that is, outside of dissident wannabe catholic rags like the “Tablet” and, obviously, homos. A category, this one, which one would think will be totally absent from the Conclave, though recent events actually do not invite to much tranquility in this respect.
Other bets are either funny or meant to take money out of the uninformed. Richard Dawkins is at… 666/1, which is a very evident Christian joke on him (though with much truth in it). Still, if Paddy Power were to really take real money for real bets on him, this would seem to me a criminal abuse of public credulity.
Almost funnier is Archbishop Mueller at 200/1, and it’s fair to say this yogurt will get sour. Even Bono has a quote of 100/1, and one wonders how much money Paddy Power makes on bets like these, and how drunk are those who make them.
Cardinal Policarpo (already tired and emotional on so-called wymyn priests; then forced to retract but, it is fair to say, still a disgrace to his habit) is given at a sporty 100/1, and so is a funny guy some people believe to be a Catholic, Cardinal Lehmann, one of the many Germans Cardinals who lead you to doubt of the mental sanity of the Popes who gave them a red hat.
Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor is given at 150/1, but he will get zero votes as he cannot take part to the Conclave himself. Even Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, one who would have loved to see himself all in red entering the Sistine Chapel, is given better chances, though his name is clearly there because he is known by hearsay to most Brits who have no clue how his chances stand (answer: not much better than Dawkins’).
Sadly, Cardinal Burke, who is a real tough guy, is nowhere to be seen; which means either Paddy Power are scared of taking bets or, more probably, he is nowhere as far as election chances are concerned, too.
I will monitor the situation carefully in the days leading to the conclave, as the odds might also be an indication of how the perceptions have shifted. IN case of Bagnasco’s victory, it would be beautiful to have the Brunello bottle paid for by Paddy Power. Bagnasco is, among those given as papabili (again, Burke is nowhere to be… read), my very first choice, followed by Scola. I very much fear the election of Ouellet, who in my eyes would be another Pope Benedict; which, if true, would – I think – spell disaster.
At 7/1 he might be a good bet, though I am sure it would be a sad victory.
If you are sensitive about the Pope, stop reading now. If you continue, consider that I will, most certainly, not publish your comment.
The surprise decision of the Holy Father to step down is only a few hours old, but I am sure you have already read all the sugary stuff your liver can muster.
You are, I hope, not a reader of this blog because you want to read the sugary stuff. If you are, you will be disappointed; but frankly, you haven’t been paying much attention, either.
I have waited before starting to write this post, and have not “stopped” a blog post – and a very bitter one – written two days ago, and scheduled for this evening. I haven’t, because I do not think that simple facts of life change because of our emotional reactions to historical – and today was truly historical – events.
Again: if you are the sensitive type, stop now. If you continue, it’s your problem. Chiaro?
I am fully persuaded Pope Benedict was (allow me the past here) a deeply kind man, intentioned to do good, and sincerely loving the Church. The fact that he was not “telegenic” and “media effective” as his predecessor made it more endearing to me. He did not “kiss the earth”, did not indulge as often in populist gestures, did not spend half of his time traveling like a mad gipsy, or a candidate to the American Presidency. Even in his being less communicative, and more difficult to “sell”, he was more authentic to my eyes than his predecessor. He did not have a beautiful smile, and yet he dared to smile. He knew he wasn’t the darling of the masses, and wasn’t really bothered. He was also, as a Pope, generally more intellectually aware, and less prone to trust the wrong people blindly.
Still, he was a Pope with a deep, irreparable construction mistake: he was a product of the Second Vatican Council.
Like all his predecessors from John XXIII on, he never reigned, he merely presided. Like all of them, he made the bidding of the local Church hierarchies, not really caring of how badly they represented the ideas that he, as the Vicar of Christ, had the duty to defend. Like all of them, he was that kind of person no one in his entourage really fears or really respects. He was the equivalent of those weak teachers we all remember from school: good and well-intentioned chaps, for sure; but in the end, just unable to do their job properly.
He seemed to see his role as the man who is saddened when things go wrong, rather than the man who is responsible to care that things go right. He saw a string of his German colleagues abandon themselves to the most ludicrous heresies (yours truly has reported at times; many other times his liver did not allow him to touch the subject); he saw his Archbishops, like Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, defend “civil partnerships” without punishment. Oh wait, he did not make Nichols Cardinal! This must have been his idea of punishment.
He made people like this one bishops, and for one who comes to such dubious honors there are many who make less an ass of themselves, but aren’t really better. He made another, even more unspeakable tool of Satan like this one a Cardinal. He let this man confuse Catholics without uttering a word to rebuke him (only one of the very many examples you can find on this blog), and lastly, he let this man – an extremely fresh appointment – attempt the demolition of the Catholic culture remained in Italy on occasion of his very first speech in his new position. Again, there are extremely numerous episodes, I merely mention those who are most recent or most striking.
And how could one forget the relentless work of fostering and protection of heresy in Austria tirelessly promoted by this man? How could one forget that the Pontiff allowed his own Kumpeln to get away with simony? How can one ignore that those belonging to his personal circle of friends and proteges (not only, as mentioned, this one, but even this one) were allowed to confuse Catholics at every step without being bothered in the least?
True, this Pope was less naive than his predecessor; but as for protection of his own favourites he wasn’t shy, either. Cardinal Schoenborn, once his favourite students, allowed total freedom of heresy, from laser masses to Medjugorje to the protection of heretics. Mueller, his text editor, put on the fast lane to archbishop and fox guarding the hen-house; Gaenswein, his aide, made a bishop weeks before resigning.
Is it a surprise that he was so little respected, and so little feared, that even his own butler – a sincere and truthful man, apparently, if very naive himself – thought it necessary to defend the Pope from …. himself? Can you imagine even Paul VI treated with so little esteem?
Certainly, the Holy Father did something good. Certainly, he also made some good bishops’ appointments (I like Egan a lot, talking of a recent one who concern me from near). But really, one had the impression the man doesn’t really know what he is doing, he merely does what is told and comes back to his books.
Oh, his books. This was the first Pope I know of who not only loves theology, but keeps seeing himself as a theologian after he became Pope, and judging from his work almost a full-time one. His production since ascending to the Papacy is impressive. Did he really take his job seriously, one wonders? Was he Pope mit Leib und Seele, or did he consider the papacy an unpleasant chore, taking refuge in his beloved theology as soon as he could? But whilst he wrote his books, devoting to them consistent and precious energies – particularly at his age – that should have been employed in … being Pope (doing things like paying attention to whom you appoint as bishop, for example; or taking the time to rein in your unruly Cardinals; or purging a couple of religious orders among the very worst; or other unpleasant things like that) his own clergy devastated the body of Christ in France, in Spain, in England, recently even in Italy. He was, literally, writing whilst Rome burns.
He will, though, be remembered – hopefully for him – chiefly for Summorum Pontificum; which, really, not only defined but epitomised his papacy. Afraid of his own courage, or simply afraid of being Pope, or perhaps never wanting Summorum Pontificum to be really effective in the first place – which I suspect – he started the work and forgot to implement it, a bit like those people so intent in imagining their own future company they never start one. It is now five and a half years and the implementation of Summorum Pontificum is a joke if we want to be gentle, and stable or going backwards in the last two-three years. His own bishops weren’t impressed in the least at the measure, and started to boycott it – and him – with a zeal one wish they would put in the defense of Catholic values. This they did either because they got signals the Pope wasn’t interested in the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, or because they just didn’t care what the Pope did or wanted; see the above mentioned teacher.
If your own butler doesn’t respect or fear you, how will your own archbishops?
The archbishops knew their “client”, and profited from his weakness, indecisiveness and sheer hierarchical incompetence – you can say of Pope Benedict what you want, but he wasn’t born a leader of men – for all it was worth. When – in a rare gust of courage – the Holy Father dared to appoint Monsignor Wagner as bishop (auxiliary, if memory serves) of Linz, the Austrian church revolted. Promptly, the Pope caved in. At that point, it was clear who is (not) in power.
I will, today, renounce to describe you some less savoury aspects of the Pope’s personality; aspects about which I have written, but do not think it appropriate to write today. It has to do, mostly, with the way the SSPX was treated, but again I will not write about this today.
The kindest thing that can be said of Pope Benedict is that he is a kind, gentle man of studies, who failed – yes, failed, and failed badly; look around you, with homosexuals advancing everywhere under his watch, and nothing near the hell on earth he should be making for every elected politician – when he had to really rule people, really take decisions, and run a complex organisation like the Church. He could simply not do it, and preferred to take refuge in his books and studies instead, hoping to be an halfway functioning “Vatican II” Pope and do what he could with the character and inclination God had given him. It didn’t work out.
But I really do not think this is the whole truth. The whole truth is that Benedict has failed because he is a Pope of Vatican II, and was destined to fail like all the Popes of Vatican II were destined, are destined, and always will be destined to fail.
In the simple world I live in, a papacy is not measured by the number of books one has written; or by the increase in Kirchensteuer-money; or by the crowds waiting for one at the airport (look at the “triumphal” England visit; two years later we are talking of so-called same-sex marriage, and most Catholics just don’t give a fig). The way I see it, a papacy is measured by the number of brave priests and bishops thundering against the perversions and madness of our times; by the number of Cardinals bravely promoting the faith in the face of open dissent, hostility, hatred, or loss of income; by the number of vocations, the activity in the seminaries, the assertiveness of religious orders truly devoted to Christ, and the constant defiance of secular thinking at all levels.
Nothing of this, I am afraid to say, was to be seen during Pope Benedict’s pontificate. Like his predecessors, meowing was the order of the day, whilst rapacious bishops and cardinals continued to rape the Bride of Christ every day. All this has happened under his watch, and of all this he is responsible. Then if one is in charge, he is also responsible.
And here I come to the last aspect, in which I pay to this Pope a last compliment among the not many I have paid him from this minuscule blog.
All the Popes of Vatican II are failures – bar JP I of course; probably for lack of time – but Pope Benedict has the immense merit of being the first one who has realised it and has drawn the consequences.
Obviously, he saw the great offensive Satan is launching all over the Western world. Obviously, he saw his sheer inadequacy at being a match for such an attack. Perhaps, incidents like the one with Paglia – a man of colossal incompetence and sheer stupidity and lack of faith, appointed by him, and mocked by the entire thinking Catholic planet at his very first public utterance in his new role – has persuaded him that he really wasn’t even able to make mediocre choices anymore, and from now on he would have become worse and worse in his appointments as his ability to select the right (erm, less wrong) people weakens with age.
The decision the Pope has made public today is – with Summorum Pontificum – the most important and most beautiful of his career, and I have frankly – and again, with the exception of Summorum Pontificum – never liked him as I like him today, or prayed for the health of his soul like I did today, because it takes an awful lot of guts to have the courage to admit one can’t do the job; particularly then, when one is the kind of person who was never noticed for his guts. I so wish Paul VI had done the same, and I am sure many of my readers would today think so much more of him if he had done so.
I do not think one serves the Church by serving on your plate a ton of molasses on a day like this. If you think so you have wasted your time, and you are reading the wrong blog.
We are living our Dunkirk, and we cannot go on with the Neville Chamberlains of this world, no matter how well-intentioned or how much fond of writing they are.
We need a Churchill now, and we need it fast.
Dear Lord, please, please give us a strong Pope.
Interesting blog post from His Hermeneuticalness about the way UK Muslims are living the proposed changed in legislation concerning same-sex marriage.
You can read the details in the article, but what I would like to do is to add, as always, some spice of my own as follows:
1. The UK Muslim community has been strangely silent up to now. It is difficult to say what is happening, but I suspect some of them wish for the Christian West to slide down the already very slippery slope of corruption and degradation, and others (particularly local community leaders) do not want to embarrass the Labour party – who are now officially on the fence after the uproar, but clearly favour the measure – who is often their political referent. If the religious communities start to wake up, though, this might get very interesting, then….
2. … whilst Catholics can be shot at without any trouble by anyone who wants to feel “progressive”, in the UK Muslims are more protected than the Panda; therefore, if they start to seriously complain about their religious freedom you won’t see many champagne socialists crying foul, bigot, and so on.
If you think their voice has no weight, think again. In 2006, an utterly idiotic legislation proposed by the Labour Government foresaw the banning of every book containing “homophobic” remarks and other “discriminatory” content. The Labour people then in power were obviously stupid, but when it was pointed out to them that not only the Bible, but the Koran would have been then officially banned, they listened and the initiative was heavily modified and, in fact, watered down to the point of harmlessness. I seriously doubt the Christians would have been enough to avoid the adoption of the measure, and am persuaded that it was Labour’s fear to touch the Muslim electorate to make them think thrice. The same happened with the several attempt to change name to Christmas, initiatives which generally fail when the Muslim community says they actually like Christmas and do not care for “Winter Lights”, or the like…
There is a problem, though….
3. … and it is that in my experience, Muslims in the London area are often rather secularised themselves, and whilst a tiny minority has a fundamentalist outlook the vast majority – at least among the sufficiently educated ones – seems not to care much. What I think happens is that the fundamentalist types reject the West together with Christianity, and the Westernised types (more or less) reject religion as they embrace the West. This isn’t good on an occasion like this, because it will limit the ability of the religious communities to make their voice heard.
Still, I hope the Muslims will start making some noise soon, then this would be one of the very few occasions multiculturalism really has some use.
Again, I do not have any hope whatsoever for next week’s vote, but the vote will, if the opponents are smart, only the start of the serious confrontation.
The machine took a very long time in moving, probably because of the little enthusiasm of most UK bishops (led by Archbishop Nichols, a man who favours and openly defends so-called “civil partnerships” and who has not been defrocked for reasons unknown to me; you might ask the Vatican…) for something as unpleasant and uncomfortable like Christianity. Still, there is some movement now, and the ferment is palpable.
Next week should be seen as the beginning of the war, not the decisive battle. There’s still much to be done, and the vote in the Lord’s may well go the way of the Lord’s reform.
Be not discouraged. Call or write to your MP and let him feel your anger. Let him feel it rather than writing the usual polite disagreement. If he dares to vote with Satan, he has lost you forever. Not if the other candidate is Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot will you ever vote for him again. You’ll say this to all your relatives, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and association members. You will never forget.
Let him know. Be assured you are not the one. Let him think if he has a brain, and be scared if he – as it more probable – hasn’t.
Nota bene: this blog post was written before, but scheduled to be published after the preceding one. The blog post before this has the latest info.
I am no friend of JP II’s papacy. If you ask me, he has supervised and administered a 25 year-long decay of Christianity, undermining the Church’s strength with unspeakable episcopal appointments and not seeing (or not caring for) the decomposition of Catholic instruction all over the West; the last phenomenon, a slow but effective cancer whose effects we are experiencing now, poisoned an entire generation of Catholics who live and go to vote with only vague ideas about what they are supposed to believe and why. As a result, Catholicism has been slowly withering in the Western world, whilst the growth in Asia and Africa and the media successes of the Pontiff (full airports, and “icon status”) lulled the Vatican in the illusion everything is, more or less, fine.
Still, looking back at JP II’s pontificate, one can see an area where his work has been, at least in words, persistent and very counter-cultural: abortion. John Paul’s insisted returning on the issue did in time leave traces, and the slogan of the “culture of death” has now become mainstream. It is impossible not to notice that the slow swing in the abortion battle was made possible also through the contribution of an honest soul who, by all his shortcoming as a Pontiff, knew how to be stubborn on issues particularly near to his heart.
In my eyes, the times are ripe for the start of a second crusade: the War On Sodomy. If a Pope were courageous enough as to put the matter square in the middle of the sociopolitical debate, we would not have to wait many years before the entire planet starts to listen.
A Pope insistently pointing out to the total opposition of Sodomy and Christianity, and to the utter and total impossibility for everyone who aids and abets or even condones sodomy to call himself a Christian (not a Catholic, mind; a Christian) would certainly cause a huge uproar among the blaspheming classes, but would inevitably attract, in due course, the attention of the Catholic masses.
It takes time before the masses move; what you notice is rather a small shift in perception, due to natural causes as generations themselves shift, and to the natural tendencies of most to follow what they think most think, confusing error with wisdom whenever the error is widely spread. In order to shake the masses from their torpor you need a kind of shock treatment, a shift of paradigm able to bring the world to attention in a relatively short time.
What we need is a roaring Church rather than a meowing one; a Church ready to give battle rather than timid counsel; a Church not shy in letting their opponents understand once she has chosen an enemy, she will go on until his complete political annihilation (Obama and Andrew Cuomo immediately come to mind). This can ,very probably, be done in the smart way without even losing tax privileges, though tax privileges should never be in the way of Christianity and I do not think tax consideration should really be an issue. Never did a courageous Church lack conversions, martyrs, and the necessary means.
A roaring Pope starting a true war on Sodomy would in time not fail to shift the public perception on the matter. This war should not only be wages with words through encyclical letters, radio and TV speeches, tweets if he likes, and so on; but more importantly it should be founded on actual actions like the appointments of only the most rigidly orthodox as bishops, the purging of seminaries from every heretical tendency, a massive cleanup among dissenting nuns and friars, and an aggressive intervention in all political debates involving Christian values. In just a few years, sodomy would soon be seen again as a disgusting, abominable perversion that is just the epitome of everything that is wrong with Godlessness, instead of a strange but very fashionable quirk of people unjustly persecuted by bigots. The narrative of the progressive citizen who “loves his gays” and feels so inclusive and tolerant works because the progressive citizen isn’t told he is an idiot bent for hell, and even our prelates seem unable to miss any one occasion to say how oh so caring they are.
What we need now is a frontal attack, not inclusive waffle.
One quarter of the English Catholic clergy signs a letter, and be assured in Westminster and Downing Hill there are preoccupied faces already. If there was an all out attack be assured the meetings at Number 10 would have as only issue out to get out of the mess and try to save face. They are scared of a couple of perverts’ lobbies, knowing the Church is out for their scalp would scare them witless.
We have Cardinals inviting enemies of Christianity to prestige dinners instead, and even when there is a reaction (see sodomarriage in England), this is too little, and with people with no credibility whatever in the matter. The best example is Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, a man already compromised with so-called civil partnership and the least fit to tell us why we should upheld Christian values.
I have written some days ago about the impressive initiative (again, no thanks to Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols) from the roots of English Catholicism, with in the end around 1,000 clergy signing a letter to David “Chameleon” Cameron asking him to stop the so-called same sex marriage initiative.
The letter is impressive because as a start it gathered around one-quarter of the clergy, but one must now slowly wonder how long will it take for the others to join and take a stance; which, thinking of some of the priests and religious I have seen in this country might well be the first time in their life.
A rather notable momentum has been building in the last weeks, and there is no doubt the initial good-ism of our stupid, unbelieving, and prostituted politicians – who hoped to make themselves beautiful on the cheap to distract the attention from the economy – has all but ceased, for now. It is now necessary to keep this going and let the pressure mount.
Alas, something tells me for a sizeable part of our clergy even the signing of a letter defending basic Christianity is too much to ask, and they will be all too happy to sit on the fence and see how this goes. It they wake up one morning with perverts’ “marriage” they will simply invite their parishioners to “give witness of their joy” or similar waffle, continuing in the Western tradition of pastoral activity made of hot air and easy platitudes.
It’s truly time to wake up.
In a rather unprecedented show of defiance of modern secular values, 1,000 Catholic clergymen have signed a letter to our honorary “gay” PM, asking him to put an end to the craze of so-called same sex marriage. The letter was strategically published on the “Telegraph” on Saturday and will, no doubt, cause more than some uneasiness among the elected prostitutes currently leading the country towards total transformation into a huge modern Sodom only waiting for the Exterminating Angel to be ordered to get on with his work (more selectively than the last time , I hope).
The event is, as far as I know, unprecedented at least for England, and puts “call me a whore” Cameron on collision course with an awful lot of Catholics; then if things have a logic and common sense still counts for something this is not going to stop at the letter writing stage.
The elements that emerge are, as I see them , the following:
1) The English Catholic clergy pays now, with steep interest, the price of their cowardice in the past. The “civil partnership” madness is less than ten years old, and geniuses like today’s Archbishop of Westminster were full of appreciative, oily, slimy, subservient “nuances” about it, uncaring even for the salvation of their own soul provided they can go on with their lives undisturbed. Make no mistake, many of the priests and bishops react now because, hard headed as they are, they have realised their lives are not going to go on undisturbed for very long if the Gaystapo isn’t stopped. The erosion of Christianity in this country is going one day to impact their daily lives and this, they cannot allow.
2) Some very harsh passages in the letter (the reference to Henry VIII, and the total discounting of the ridiculous legal protections allegedly awarded by people who think you don’t even have the right to refuse sodomitical couples a room in your Bed and Breakfast, and think a Christian has no right to wear a cross at work) show that, for once, the English clergy has been perceptive: the Gaystapo can’t be appeased, and every concession one makes to them will lead to the request for further concessions, until a priest has the choice between celebrating mock marriages in a Catholic Church or go to jail; and at that point it would clearly have to be jail, then not even Paul VI would cave in on this.
3) Still, it is revealing the initiative appears not to have started by the Bishops, but to be the initiative of priests who understand if they leave things to their shepherds they’ll all be devoured by the sodomitical wolf; as these things always take a dynamic of their own, said shepherd were not (or will not be) able to ignore the pressure and have decided (or will decide) to jump in.
So this is where we are now: a reaction from the bottom that, whilst still weak in itself, promises to become far more interesting in the future, as the ball is now rolling (no thanks to you, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols) and it appears difficult to think further pressure will not be applied. The announced approaching of 65 MPs in marginal constituencies is a thinly veiled anticipation of things to come and a clear warning there will be blood on the carpet, and this battle will cost politicians’ careers.
I have already said several times that with the usual exceptions, an English MP is a be-suited (or tailleured) prostitute. They have no fear of the Lord, no thought about their death and judgment, and mostly no religious convictions they could write on a napkin. The de-ideologised state of the country and the horrible first-past-the-post system favour a mentality of utterly shameless flip-flopping, with the MP as the servant of whatever wishes of his constituents, which in practice means the slave of tiny but organised pressure groups, like the fags. Still, what really terrifies them is getting in the sight of some pressure group that is massive and well-organised.
As stated, most of them are already scared stiff by a bunch of queens, and will do whatever the latter say as long as they think the mass of the indifferent sheep will go along and be content with some well-sounding waffle about “commitment”, “happiness” and the like. Until another group wakes up, that is, and scares the Cameron out of them.
Unfortunately, we are here far away from the determination that would be required. If we had real shepherds instead of timid sheep, an all-out fall-out would take place, and the entire Westminster world would soon understand Cameron, Miller, Johnson and a couple of other bonzes have become political toxic waste promising to destroy the career of whoever dares to even hint he might support them. “Look”, must be the message, “we are going to go against them until they are destroyed and made an example for the others, and who cares if it takes 3,000 years and a civil war. Therefore, choose your side carefully”. This is, in the practice if not in the words, the style of the Italian clergy. If they let you fall once, there will be no return in their graces: they will do whatever they can (which may be more or less, but more than you want) to make scorched earth around you, and boy they do have time!
Even Mussolini knew it, but you may want to ask Berlusconi for security.
You think the Church in England can’t make scorched earth around Cameron and his pervs? Think again. A small group of perverts has managed to almost outlaw every criticism to their so-called lifestyle. Just imagine what the weekly attacks to Cameron, Miller, Johnson & Co from a group representing millions of voters (plus the Anglicans, Atheists, agnostics, Jews and, importantly, Muslims who have the pockets full of this) would do to them.
Ah, if we had brave leaders instead of the likes of Nichols, how much could still be achieved! As it stands, his priests are forced to literally force Nichols’ hand, but he will only do as little as is absolutely necessary, and his shameless, satanic “nuanced” support for civil partnerships will haunt him every step of the way and deprive him of all credibility. It’s like having Neville Chamberlain (or, well, Vidkun Quisling) leading the charge against Hitler.
Let us pray and hope for the best anyway. The pressure is mounting, the House of Lords might stop the law, the litigation would be on an unprecedented scale, the general mess promises to be on an epochal scale and more and more MPs might soon start to think about their future and have second thoughts.
This isn’t over yet, by far.
After posting about the end of the Homo Masses in Soho, I received this very interesting comment from Misericordia:
Mundabor, I do not understand why everybody appears to be so jubilant about this news. It seems that the homosexual community who gather at Mass once a fortnight in Soho, are merely moving to the Jesuit Church at Farm Street , where before their social gatherings there, they may attend Mass at 6.30pm. So the Soho Masses will just become the Mayfair Masses! Archbishop Nichols is still giving his support to this, and in his letter to the organisers, has promised to be at Farm Street on March 3rd to greet them.
I found this comment so interesting as to deserve a post in answer.
Yes, I do think we should be jubilant about the news. We should do so for the following reasons:
1) Things have a symbolic meaning, besides having their own factual side. The “homo masses” were a scandal because they were clearly meant to be “particularly welcoming to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Catholics, their parents, friends and families”. They were, basically, a public platform for perversion under the umbrella and protection of (perverted) Catholicism, as abundantly clear in the video circulated several months ago. The ending of the Soho Masses will not end perversion, but it will end the scandal.
2) The “dating service” will continue (for now, if you ask me) in Mayfair; but again, it would be strange – and I think not even allowed to him – for ++ Nichols to forbid some (very) strange Jesuit to gather active sodomites around them, or for a group of militant faggots to go to Mass together. The suppression of the Mass certainly does not mean the suppression of those among the clergy who condone or approve or abet (or practice) sodomy. What it means is, again, the suppression of the idea that the Church can smuggle such activity as a charitable one. Take it from me, we will continue to have sodomites among the Jesuits for a while.
3) As always, no one knows the future. In theory, this decision could even spark a more vocal pro-homo activity: more playing victim, more barking, more queens in drags, in short: more scandal. In practice, it is fair to say ++ “Quisling” Nichols is now a person observed in the Vatican with a special attention, and he will not be allowed to play games on this. As a result, the (former) Soho Jesuits will be very well advised to keep a low profile, and ++ Nichols to act swiftly if they don’t.
4) We must consider how the Church works. The Church always tries to save everyone’s face. An exemplary rebuke of the pro-perversion Jesuits would have caused the loss not only of their face, but obviously of Nichols’ too. What they do instead is to throw a bone to the dog, and when the matter of principle (the existence of “gay masses” as such) is out of the table they will deal with whatever issue arises with much more freedom. We would all love to see Catholic orthodoxy openly and assertively upheld, but these are not the Popes and the Archbishops to do this. If Popes and Bishops were different, we would not have “gay masses” in the first place, and I have no knowledge of such masses during the reign of Pius XI or Pius XII.
What we have here is a Pope who thinks agnostics are good for Christianity appointing a chap who doesn’t really – on a practical level – believe in the dogma of Mary Ever Virgin to be the head of the CDF, with the latter reining in an Archbishop who thinks that homosexual couples are something good and worthy of protection provided you don’t call their living together “marriage”; an archbishop, mind, also appointed to his actual position by the above mentioned Pope.
The situation being what it is, I’d say the announcement about the Soho Masses justifies something rather akin to a very loud “yeeesss!!”, possibly accompanied by the uncorking of a good bottle. After which, of course, ++ Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will be just as bad, the sexuality of the relevant Jesuits just as questionable and the attitude of the queens just as disgusting. No one of them will disappear in thin air, but all of them might well feel the approaching of a rather cold breeze…
I have just reblogged a post of some months ago about the strange case of the two Archbishops at odds concerning the “Homo Masses” in Soho (or Sodom), London, England.
The BBC informs us today this abomination is now stopped as such masses are (says the BBC; no direct quotes)
not in line with the church’s (sic) central teaching on sexuality.
I feel like reading that 2+2=4; but truly, in this day and age these are real news.
Firstly, let me tell you that when something so beautiful happens we must be grateful to the men behind the decision, however questionable they can be in other matters.
Secondly, we must reflect whether Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has suddenly discovered the basics of Catholic teaching, or whether he has been “encouraged” to do so by his strange, irascible, theologically more than questionable but certainly unpleasant colleague in Rome.
Reading my reblogged post you will have no doubt as to what my opinion is. I must say the man might not be entirely useless after all.
Of course, this being England things are not going to be made in the right way in one go: the Catholic Herald informs us the Jesuits will continue to be the catalyst for a bunch of sodomites wanting to use Church organisations as a dating agency; or, as the Jesuits so suavely put it, “the pastoral care of the community will continue at the Jesuit Farm Street church in Mayfair on Sunday evenings”.
Particularly spicy seems to me the detail that
the church where the Masses took place will be entrusted to the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham
and I do not doubt the new priests will lose no time in causing the church to lose the bad odour it has had these six years.
So we have the proverbial two birds with one stone: the shameless parody of the homo mass is at an end, and the Ordinariate receives a church in a central position in London, optimally placed for Christian evangelisation. No thanks to the Archbishop, I am sure, but what counts is the result.
Next time you eat your yogurt, consider saying a short prayer for the man who made this possible.
Yesterday’s debate in the commons was below pathetic and at the same time indicative of the state this once great nation has reduced itself to.
Maria Miller, the minister for families who is trying to destroy them, is on record saying that “we support marriage” because “this is one of the most important institutions we have in this country”, and therefore “the Government should not stop people from getting married”.
The hypocrisy and disingenuousness of this is mind-boggling. The overweight lady simply forgets that whilst marriages obviously existed before Christianity, our understanding of marriage is deeply rooted in Christian thinking. I know that in places like Sodom people might have lived together and even called it “marriage” (they might, or might not; the Angel Maria Miller deserves hasn’t left many traces for us to investigate), but this is exactly not the point. The point is that a Christian society (in this country there are officially more than 30 million Christians; though one at times wonders where they are…) cannot understand social institutions in any other than a Christian manner, and even a non-Christian society generally has the intelligence to understand that sexual perversion is evil.
Maria Miller, like too many within her party, does not get this. She is impervious not even to Christianity, but even to natural law. We are governed by heathens without even the faintest idea of what is right and what is wrong; who do not even use that basic, elementary compass God has put in all of us, Christian or heathen, intelligent or stupid, to let us understand what is really, really wrong. But hey, she wants to be re-elected, so it must be fine.
One of the stupid assertions of the woman is that there will be safeguards to protect religious freedom, and for those who do not want to be forced to conduct such parodies of “marriage” in church. But wait, hasn’t the fat girl just said that “the government does not want to stop people from getting married” because “this is one of the most important institutions we have in this country?” What prevents, then, a future government from saying that church life is one of the most important institutions we have in this country, and people should not be discriminated against and impeded from participating to it with a marriage in church? I can see the woman sitting in Parliament and saying exactly that herself in just a few years!
And in general: what are these kind of promises worth? Have those within the so-called Church of England not been promised, many years ago, that there would not be women bishop, if you give them women priest? What of this now?
And what about the legislation about so-called “civil partnerships”? Were we not told, just a few years ago, that the institution of marriage as such should not be touched, which is why we have “civil partnerships”? How stupid can people be, that they do not get that every concession must force the next one, because if one refuses to be against perversion as such every “freedom” much chase the next “freedom”, every abuse must cause the next abuse, and Christianity must be destroyed one piece at a time?
Perverts and their aiders and abetters are eating away Western civilisation one bit at a time with the help of politicians prostituted to the popular sentiment of the moment, and most people do nothing because they are always told the next bit of Christian civilisation will remain intact. Fools. Those who support or do not fight against this measure will deserve to have their churches forcibly desecrated by perverts “celebrating” their rites. Don’t worry, it will come soon enough.
And of course I am angry at people like Yvette Cooper, the Labour witch who yesterday gave enthusiastic support to the new legislative measure (with which, by the way, every hope that Labour may decide not to support the legislation in Parliament has vanished). But you see, beside being an atheist, Yvette Cooper is not supposed to be Conservative. She is a bloody socialist, it is certainly not a surprise that she should pickaxe Christian values. But that people who call themselves “Conservatives” should do so is beyond contempt.
Make no mistake, this legislation will pass in the House of Commons without much opposition; the Anglicans will wait for the provisions meant to “protect” them before telling themselves dissatisfied but vaguely in agreement with how good the government’s aims are; the Catholic Church will do nothing more than feebly meow (Archbishop Nichols is clearly a friends of sodomy and has made everything to encourage them short of giving them open and enthusiastic approval). Do not hope for any help of Rome, either. We live in times of weak and cowardly Popes, happy to write books and tell themselves “saddened” whilst Rome burns.
It seems to escape most people that our Western democracies are becoming such pits of impiety that in comparison even revolutionary France seems a bulwark of conservative thinking. There are certainly precedents for societies which accepted sodomy as something to be “celebrated” (that’s not me, it’s Maria Miller again; she will rot in hell unless she repents), but you must go way back to the days of Sodom, or look hard at savages populations where the Word of God has never been brought. Certainly there are no past examples in countries calling themselves Christian and understanding themselves as the product of Christian civilisation. This country is about to vote itself out of the number of the Christian countries, and does not seem to notice, or to care.
The new gods are “celebration” (Maria Miller) , “equality” (Yvette Cooper) and an old profession not mentioned in parliamentary debates, but present in every word heard yesterday from the two women.
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host –
by the Divine Power of God –
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Cameron has, in the end, decided to try to get sodomarriage approved, against obvious massive opposition within his own party but clearly counting on the votes from the heathens within the Tories and elsewhere. Excluding that Cameron may ever have moral motives, the background of this move is clearly to be seen in his necessity to give the LibDems something to chew after the humiliations they had to suffer on the Lords’ reform affair. I don’t think this is politically wise, but I do not know how bad the mood is within the coalition, and Cameron – who is a political prostitute with no second in the land – has evidently decided the advantages for the coalition will be greater than the obvious opposition he will face within his own party.
In what could be remembered as an astonishing sign of stupidity – or the knowledge the party and the Country are so rotten this can now be made without problems – Cameron has also decided to go the full monty and decide sodomarriage should be “allowed” in churches, if the relevant congregation wishes to do so.
Only a very stupid man – or an Anglican – could now fail to see where this leads: what is now “allowed” will, in just a few years, be claimed as a “human right”. Think of the Bad & Breakfasts, who were “allowed” (but obviously not obliged) to have sodomites under their roof, until the Gaystapo sued their “right” to do so.
This legislation – if it passes; more below – will pose huge problems and cause years of legal controversy as surely as the night follows the day. Teachers will at some point not be allowed to dissent from a clearly heathenish ideology, and the lame assurances of the Government they will be allowed to “dissent” will go the same way as the right of B&B owners to refuse to have sodomy under their roof. The Established Church will be the first to face the onslaught of the suddenly so pious satanic troops, and the Catholic Church will follow immediately afterwards (and who shall fight for us? Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols? Ha!).
Our best hope are, at this point, the Muslims; but in order for them to make a serious move it might be necessary for the perverts to sue them for compliance to the Gaystapo; which isn’t easy, as the Gaystapo is scared of them.
Cameron uses, this time, a different strategy. He doesn’t even try to force the party to obedience as he did with the Lords’ reform, getting pummelled as a result; he leaves them “free” instead, hoping to get the measure passed whilst avoiding the worst of the internal damage. This is the same Cameron who applauded the decision of the courts to force B&B owners to have sodomites under their roof, so you know exactly how much his promises of respecting the religious beliefs of Christians are worth.
In the next months and years we will know how much the rot has advanced in this country; a country once able to fight bravely against Hitler, but now either scared of the whining of perhaps 1% of the population, or too stupid to call a spade a spade and see the abyss of heathenism it is getting itself into. Make no mistake, open persecution is what will come after it; then Satan doesn’t stop his march just because “nice” people have decided civil partnerships are a good thing, and we shouldn’t be rude.
Will, though, this measure be passed? This is not sure at all, but if Cameron manages to ride Labour MPs the numbers aren’t encouraging. The main argument against such a proposal was for Cameron that the party might have taken his scalp directly if he had tried to impose this new madness on him; but he avoids this from the start, riding the heathens of the other parties instead. The mere fact he might survive this tells you all you need to know about the rot within the Tory party; they would get rid of him on the spot if he tried the same trick on, say, European matters but seem – for now – unwilling to do the same on sodomy. Congratulations.
As I write (and yes, I write because I can’t sleep…) I see only few positive elements for us, none of them safe:
a) The House of the Lords. The probability that this law be massacred in the House of Lords is not remote. This in itself would not stop the process, but would constitute a strong obstacle to the definitive approval of the measure. Seldom are the cases of legislation stopped by the House of Lords and pushed through nevertheless. A prolonged fight might also give Cameron a death of a thousand cuts, if the public opinion reacts.
b) Opposition within the other parties. This is not probable, but possible. Dissatisfaction among Labour voters is said to be palpable, but as socialists never where good Christians it is everyone’s guess how much weight this will carry (if you ask me: not much). If the Christians within labour manage to remember what Christianity is, the matter will become more and more embarrassing for their own party leaders. Milliband & Co. are largely goddamned atheists, but they are still politicians and will have their nose in the air to see where the wind blows.
c) Open Labour opposition. This was just seen with the Lords’ reform: Labour wanted a reform in principle, but they didn’t want to give Cameron a success he could not get with his own coalition and of which he would unavoidably have reaped the glory; therefore, they have decided not to like the details, and to shoot at the Government for all they’re worth. It worked a treat.
In this case, Milliband & Co. must seriously ask themselves whom they are working for: this measures will most surely be sold by Cameron & Clegg as a coalition success, and Labour runs the risk to look seriously stupid. Labour being far more disciplined than the Tories, if and when they decide to shoot at the measure Cameron can say goodbye to his piece of legislative crap, then without Labour votes he is dead in the water in the Commons, and easily steamrolled in the Lords.
d) The courts. make no mistake, this is going to keep the courts occupied for decades, in a long battle of attrition reminiscent of the right for conscientious objection in case of abortion (eventually won; not before many years, though, or without the sacrifice of many brave doctors and nurses ready to lose their jobs at the NHS and even emigrate). This law impinges on so many pieces of legislation – as in the end it is nothing less than the attempt to re-invent the Christian basis of society – that the legal controversies will be countless. Many so-called Church of England parishes will also sue, as will religious schools, hopefully with the best Catholic schools at the head. This is going to be good for lawyers, and will go on for a very long time.
Cameron has just showed how much he has in contempt both his own party and Christianity. He might get away with the first, he won’t get away with the second.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
I like the UKIP in many ways, and I like most the fact that being a conservative alternative to the Tories, they force at least those Tory MP in “endangered” constituencies to wake up a bit before it’s too late. Still, this is a young party which has to develop a coherent thinking yet as it grows out of the one-issue grouping it used to be.
Let us take the controversy about “gay adoption”. A UKIP politician says he is against to his local newspaper in Croydon; predictably, the usual crowds starts to bark; the man tweets desperately around saying (more or less) “gay” is fine, but “gay adoption” isn’t.
If it is fine being “gay”, it really can’t be seen why such a “fine” man could not enjoy all the rights the law gives to his heterosexual counterparts. He should, then, be allowed to adopt as everyone else, and Christianity was simply wrong in maintaining that a homosexual is a sexual pervert. Those heretics and hypocrites like our beloved Archbishop Nichols could then “charitably” assume they live a chaste lifestyle, and give a child in adoption to a sexual pervert (or perhaps two? Nichols is even nuanced about “civil partnerships”…) without blinking.
If, on the other hand, the idea of some “gay” (that is: a homosexual; a man suffering from a very grave form of sexual perversion; a perversion so abominable it has been a taboo for 2000 years, up to this pervert generation) adopting is repugnant and utterly abominable, this is not because gays happen to be, say, “inhospitable” or overly grumpy, but exactly because…. they are sexual perverts!
The argument of “gayness” being fine and “gay adoption” wrong is, therefore, entirely contradictory and rather the fruit of the omnipresent fear of the Gaystapo than of reasoned thinking. The fear the UKIP people have of the Gaystapo shooting the usual “hate” and “homophobic” salvos is what prevents them from saying what they clearly think: homosexuality is a perversion. If it were not so, why would they not support “gay adoption”? How can they say with a straight face to homosexuals “you are fine, but you can’t adopt”? Why, then, can they not adopt? Will it not be because………Yes! That’s why!
We see here at work a disease much spread among politicians: the irrational fear of saying the truth. Therefore, they say half the truth, but refrain from saying the other half. Their argument remains unconvincing, because it is contradictory, and their reputation will suffer, because they will be rightly seen as pliable to the mob’s wishes.
I think this is the wrong strategy. In my eyes, the UKIP should give itself a solidly and rigidly conservative programme in all social and religious matters, and should go and harvest their votes among the disaffected Conservative voters in rural England, where people still (more or less) have fear of the Lord and believe in traditional values.
I can’t see them winning a seat in, say, Croydon any time soon anyway; but if they did, they could only do it at the price of “Cameronising” themselves, which would mean sure death outside of the London area, or a life at the fringe of the British Conservative life.
I truly hope for the UKIP that they will grow to become a seriously conservative Party, but if they keep trying to avoid the serious questions they will never be an alternative to the Tories, and their men will be forgotten as soon as the Conservative party comes back to sanity. Better be a good replica of the Tory party of Margaret Thatcher, than a bad copy of Cameron’s. That it doesn’t really work anyway we can see at what is happening to Cameron himself.
To do so, they must stop the nonsense of allowing a perverts’ group in their midst. It is a matter of common sense and of elementary dignity. If they avoid taking stance on controversial issues, they will soon be forgotten.