After the latest alleged remarks of the Bishop of Rome to his Czech bishops concerning the latest fad of the young people – a Mass that has been in existence pretty much for the entire history of the Church – the observation was made that this remark does not change anything in Summorum Pontificum, and if and when Francis wants to abrogate it he will be able to do so in the open.
Very, very true.
True, in fact, in the same way in which Hitler's incendiary propaganda concerning Danzig did not change anything in the situation on the ground; or in which when you have the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe and even the Kriegsmarine at your disposal you can, without the shadow of a doubt, invade Poland any day you like.
The issue with most of what Francis says is not whether it introduces legal changes; he mostly doesn't. In fact, as far as I know even almost one year after his unprecedented Maundy Thursday Mass liturgical abuse he has not changed the canon law dispositions governing it. The huge issue with Francis is the mentality this endless string of off the cuff comments, liturgical abuses, beach balls on the altar, and general “who am I to judge” senselessness clearly indicate: a Pope managing the feat of being in almost complete disagreement with almost all his predecessors almost all of the times, and showing the understanding of Catholicism of a poorly instructed 15 years old boy in a hormone-induced delirium of omnipotence and world-changing zeal.
Exactly in the same way as the problem with Hitler was, in the first place, Hitler, and was very evident from Hitler's way of thinking and talking, the problem with Francis is, in the first place, Francis, as seen in the countless examples of his thinking and talking.
Furthermore, with both of them (Hitler and Francis) the problem is not whether they can, but whether they should. Hitler's ability to invade Poland says exactly zero about the righteousness of such an event; therefore, to say “Hitler can invade Poland” (or “Francis can abrogate Summorum Pontificum”) is not relevant in this context. Yes, he can. And yes, it would be outright evil if he should do it. May I be worried that Hitler might, one day, invade Poland? He waited six and a half years, by the way, and if you want an equivalent of the Ruhr occupation, I think the occupation of the FFI will do admirably.
My impression is that, should Francis one day… invade Summorum Pontificum – which I do not think he will ever have the guts to do, choosing the Jesuit way instead – there will be many voices simply pointing out that… he can; as if this would change the evaluation about the merit of such a decision one bit.
This is, be the way, the same trick used with stupid voters all the time:” why worry about same sex marriage, it has not been voted yet”; promptly followed by “it is a done thing now and there's nothing to do, so stop clamouring about it”.
Francis is the Bishop of Rome. He can, so to speak, certainly invade Poland. He will, I think, very probably never do it.
But I will not wait for him to do so in order to be scandalised by his incendiary talk.
And it came to pass the most outrageously evil faggot of them all dared to say in public what goes through his mind.
His extermination fantasies may, in a way, be hidden behind a thin veil of “darker moments”, but there is no way of denying people who aren't freaking Nazis would not have such thoughts in their most suicidal moments of darkest depression.
The man is, very simply, pure evil, and Gaystapo at work. His concept of a “dangerous idea”?
“Population control: there's too many Goddam people on the planet. [Audience applauds like lunatics]. You know, I'm pro-choice, I believe that women should have a right to control their bodies. Sometimes in my darker moments, I'm anti-choice. I think abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years.”
Whilst it is clear there is nothing good in Dan Savage (his guardian angel must be crying all the time, and who can blame him) it is obvious that there is something good in these bouts of unspeakable, abominable cruelty, said by a sober man, in public, and in front of the media: they show to all those who have eyes to see and ears to ear how fundamentally evil these perverted homosexualists are.
Make no mistake, this will not be the end of Ms Savage's public career. Many are those who belong to Satan and will be snatched by him in the end. But it will at least be a warning among the stupidest of those who still want to have a shot at salvation.
To my knowledge, it is not known that Hitler or Himmler or Goebbels had such thoughts, not even in their darkest moments. It goes to show with what kind of bastard we are dealing here.
The Gaystapo is out to get you. Fight them before it's too late.
An old letter has resurfaced, in which the worst first lady ever takes a stance on child killing that would make Heinrich Himmler shiver.
You can read the letter here. Please note the woman (“lady” is, I am afraid, too much) does not even accepts the use of the words “partial birth”, which she evidently considers too politically incorrect as it reminds one that someone is being born, and there is a life at stake. Birth is clearly not a worry here; “legitimate medical procedure” is the expression of choice. With this reasoning, if the law allowed for old people to be smashed to trees like new-born kittens, this would be a “legitimate medical procedure” to her.
As the concept of “birth” must be kept away from the reader’s mind, the woman prefers to use the words “so-called partial birth abortion”. Not really a birth, then. An unwanted excrescence, more like.
I think “late term abortion” is the expression she is looking for. Funny, that. I can imagine people like her 1) advocating the right for the mother to kill the baby in the first, say, four weeks after birth and 2) calling it “very late term abortion”. The logic is exactly the same.
I wonder if even Nazis went so far as to perform abortion up to the very point of birth. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. It certainly stretches things even for your average Nazi doctor.
Also, it is true that horrible experiments were conducted by Nazi doctors in extermination camps and elsewhere, but it is time to notice all this was made on the sly, without telling the German population.
Michelle Obama does not seem to have this problem. To her, a child can be butchered when half come to light (actually, as far as I know even when come to light altogether; they just leave the baby to die of cold, and still call it “late term abortion”) and this is something that can be said very openly and written in promotional literature, taking pride in the matter.
Seriously, Hitler can’t hold a candle to this woman.
Beautiful collection of instructive quotations from the mother of all feminazis: Margaret Sanger.
Choosing only some of the many pearls available on http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm , I would mention the following ones:
The genocidal baby-killing machine
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
The eugenics Hitler forerunner
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
The racist terminatrix
On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
The insatiable whore
A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11
The anti-Christian insatiable whore
On marital sex:
“The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,” Sanger said. (p. 23)
Isn’t it remarkable that whilst Hitler (a rather moderate man compared to this nutcase; a man, for example, who to my knowledge never thought Blacks should be exterminated) is universally reviled (and rightly so, let me add for the avoidance of doubt) this astonishing, breathtaking piece of shit should be seen to this very day as an “iconic figure for the American reproductive rights movement”*?
Obviously, Hitler took some of the agenda of this woman and put it into practical effects. But in fact, Margaret Sanger did it too, and planned parenthood has killed many more people than Hitler would ever have done.
Interesting, the female is the creator of the word “birth control”. You see, if you want to be free to do something atrocious, you must first give it a nice sounding name. “Reproductive rights” is another example. Perhaps Hitler should have defined the Holocaust in terms of “rights”, or “control”? How about “human cleaning rights”, or “racial damage control”?
The world is understandably hard to you if you lose a world war and stage a holocaust in the process. Less understandably it will treat you rather kindly if you are pretty much the same with breasts, but a feminist.
*Wikipedia. In this case, I don’t think the statement can be doubted.
This blog post is, alas, the twin brother of the one explaining to you that Nazi nanny cares for your milk. It truly beggars belief that the very same department spending so much energy to effect abortions and prevent pregnancies be obsessively “concerned” about the health of those to whom it was benevolently granted not to be aborted (there was a screening, probably; and one was found to be fit enough for the nation).
That the same Nazi department should think of imposing you how much fruit to eat and at the same time plan a genocide of unborn babies is not really a contradiction: it is the expression of the same Nazi mentality.
In a Nazi world, what seems absurd to us becomes natural. Nazi Germany allowed abortion (only country in Europe) but was obsessed with physical strenght and health.
Nazi HHS does pretty much the same.
The linked blog post appropriately comments:
To answer your question, no. There is no end to what liberals think they know better about. No limit.
This obsession with knowing everything better, making everything differently and creating a new humanity with it was, by-the-by, just another Nazi pet.
I have written a couple of times about the similarities between Nazism and the modern secular societies.
In the Europe of the thirties, one could have legally aborted only in one country: Nazi Germany. At the same time, euthanasia was practised only in one country: Nazi Germany again. And who was the only country making experiments on humans and so obviously and massively concerned about eugenics? Yep…
Curiously, if we except the Bolsheviks Germany was the only traditionally Christian country in Europe not implicitly accepting Christian values as the basis of society.
It seems that old Adolf has some admirers in Spain, where there are people able and willing to decide that a life is not worthy of being lived anymore and can therefore without any moral scruples – nay, with the feeling of being, actually, good – be terminated. The Nazis called this Lebensunwertes Leben, literally “life not worthy of life”. Basically, there’s one chap (or two, or three) who sit there like minor gods and decide when the moment has come to take the tube away. “Sorry ma’m, we are on a budget”.
I do not know how they say Lebensunwertes Leben in Spanish (something sounding like “Zapatero”, I presume), but it seems to me that both the mentality and the effects are exactly the same.
If you have any doubt about the astonishing acting qualities of the Swiss actor Bruno Ganz, you only need to see “The Downfall”, the oppressive and depressive but so utterly human film about the last days of Adolf Hitler and the people in the bunker. Ganz is absolutely breathtaking, leading you to suspect that he was, in a way, more Hitler than Hitler was himself (I had the same impression, it must be said to preserve par condicio, of the great Helen Mirren in “The Queen”).
Ganz conveys the desperation, the hoping against all hope, then the realisation of the approaching end and the atmosphere of Goetterdaemmerung with such clarity and beauty, with such fanatic identification with his character, with such complete realism as to lead you to think whether such a movie would have been possible at all with any other actor than himself. The man was, in fact, so good that a vast number of parodies have been created and put on youtube, all based on his stunning performance.
Why do I mention Bruno Ganz?
Simply because by reading of Archbishop Conti’s sortie against the Tridentine Mass I was instantly reminded of Hitler’s bunker, and of Ganz/Hitler ranting with all the rage of impotence.
This is, my dear readers, what it is all about: the rants of an old guard, of people who in the meantime hear, feel and smell defeat from every part of the front line, whilst the traddie front likes the smell of Universae Ecclesiae in the morning.
Granted, changes in the Church happen far more slowly than world wars, and it would be too optimistic to say that trendy bishops are already living their April 1945. They aren’t yet. But you can compare Summorum Pontificum with the D-Day and Universae Ecclesiae with the fall of St. Lo and the resulting opening of the Falaise Gap that allowed the Allied to start their march towards Berlin.
Fairly soon, then, Bruno Ganz could be asked to impersonate a trendy bishop desperately trying to save what has remained of liturgical dances, altar “girls” of, say, 67, clownish celebrants, and extraordinary ministers, whilst his adjutants tell him with faces of purest stone that one after the other all bastions of resistance are falling and the Tridentine Mass will soon – when his successor is appointed – conquer the Cathedral.
Bruno Ganz would be, of course, just the man for the job. But thinking of it, Archbishop Conti wouldn’t be a bad candidate, either.
He is rehearsing already.
Interesting article on LifeSiteNews about Graf Clemens Von Galen, Bishop of Muenster, Germany.
Galen had the gut of being openly critical of Hitler’s euthanasia plans (oh, how history repeats itself…) in a time when thousands of Catholic priests were already toiling and dying in concentration camps (a circumstance, this, which is never remembered by the anti-Catholic nutcases); and in wartime to boot, when he could have been liquidated even more easily than in peace time. The claim that he expected martyrdom is, for everyone who knows a bit about Nazi Germany, completely realistic.
It didn’t happen. This time, Hitler felt that he couldn’t afford an open confrontation with a high prelate and backed down in the way he generally used to do it (that is: making in a hidden way what he wouldn’t consider prudent to do in an open one).
I have written already about the pathetic show of the UK bishops (and not only of the UK ones) about abortion. This courageous man of God provides a beautiful contrast to their behaviour.
Mind, though: I am not asking from our Bishops for martyrdom, or concentration camp. But if only two generations ago, amidst the most terrifying of circumstances, bishops had the courage to say the Truth out loud, I don’t think it is too much to ask that a tiny fraction of this courage be found in today’s Western Europe, with no martyrdom or concentration camps in sight.