There is a lot of talk about the “recognition” of the SSPX as a Catholic organisation from the Argentinian Government, and with the obvious help of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. Personally, everything seems very straightforward to me, and nothing to get anyone excited.
Bring a Catholic, non-profit organisation obviously gives a legal status in Argentina. Whether it is about tax treatment, or the issuing of visas, or who knows how many other things, being recognised as Catholic has a bearing on your legal status as seen by the Argentinian Government.
The SSPX would obviously never say “we aren't Catholic”. Just as obviously, no archdiocese which does not want to cause a huge uproar – and big trouble with the Vatican, very possibly – would say to the Argentinian Government “they aren't Catholic”. Besides, I imagine that rules of Catholic decency and common courtesy do not allow for this kind of under-the-beltline bickering.
Result? The Archdiocese says to the Argentinian Government “why, we have internal disagreements; but of course, of course they're Catholics”.
Again, I would not want to be the Archbishop who has to explain to the Catholic Press why the SSPX are allegedly “not Catholic”. He would lose face before he loses the argument.
Therefore, the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires has done the only thing it could reasonably expected to do: confirm the reality on the ground.
Of course this is no canonical recognition, something that is nothing to do with how a Government sees you. Of course the SSPX is not now the obedient subject of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. What has simply happened is that the Archdiocese has had the common sense of recognising the reality on the ground: the SSPX is a Catholic organisation, and not less so because of unresolved issues.
There's nothing more than this, I think. It all seems very straightforward. Nothing very exciting has happened.
Unless it be this: that those outlets – not the Vatican – who described the SSPX as schismatic might have some explaining to do. But the latter weren't much fazed by facts beforehand, and will not be swayed by this further occasion for a reality check now.
The SSPX is Catholic. Dogs bark. The sun goes up on the East.
The Football World Cup will be, then, decided on Sunday between Argentina and Germany; exactly as in 1986 (when Argentina won) and 1990 (when Germany did).
I will support Germany. This is clearly against my patriotic football interest, as Germany would reach the up to now lone Italy at 4 victories, with only Brasil at 5. Argentina has “only” two victories (1978 and, as mentioned, 1986), so they would still remain behind us.
Still, I think that the German squad has showed the planet how to play football, and even without the glorious day in Belo Horizonte I think they would, on the whole and from what we have seen up to now, clearly deserve to win in preference of a rather lacklustre, if at times brilliant, Argentina. Plus, they do not tattoo themselves like savages and do not carry hair like they are the Mao-Mao.
Coincidentally, this match also… matches the Countries of the Pontiff Emeritus and the Pope (I don’t like at all the “two Popes” rhetoric; one is Pope; the other was, and keeps a title, like, say, every former “Primo Ministro” or “Presidente della Repubblica” in Italy).
I think of the strange coincidence of this (which amplifies the other one: Argentina against Switzerland, with the cartoons with the Pope on one side and his Swiss Guards on the other…), and would like to point out two things: one sporty, and one religious.
1. The Germans would never, ever boast of a World Championship won with an unfair and unsporting behaviour, and call it “the hand of God”. Never, ever. But then again I look at Bergoglio, who thinks Jesus deceived his disciples, and understand how he, and too many of them, think.
2. If Germany wins, Benedict will probably stay silent, or will – like the kind of gentle, self-effacing person he is – express a word or two of satisfaction only if really pressed by the media.
If Argentina wins, I shudder at the thought of what might happen: from the Pope dressed in footballer attire, to an Argentine trikot on the main altar of Santa Maria Maggiore, to a deluge of “selfies”, to improvised and not-entirely-sober video messages to the Argentinian people, nothing can be said to be below the abysmally low level of this man.
Let’s support Germany, then.
If not for love of their football, at least for fear of the “selfies”.
I have written some days ago about the Argentinian lesbians now about to have “their” child baptised in the presence of the satanical Mrs Kirchner. The “confirmation” of the dykes was also announced.
Some press sources now state the confirmation will not happen, and one of the dykes has spoken with the press about it without authorisation. This means, I think, that the priest has tried to avoid being punched on the nose by the dyke saying vague words like “we'll see if you both are ready”, and the dyke has thought as they are obviously ready, it's a done deal. Anyway, I can't imagine even a dyke inventing two confirmations without any reason to do so.
Therefore, the situation appears – if the news was no April Fool's joke: online publication is 31 March, perhaps for print publication on the 1 April – to be as follows: the two “parents” are deemed to be unfit for confirmation, and therefore unsuitable to ground a solid hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. Of the – as far as I know – three godparents, one is Mrs Kirchner who is there merely as attention whore, another is a friend of the “family”, of the third I do not know anything.
How can one, then, be so naive as to think that the child has any realistic chance to be raised in the proper way?
Will Mrs Kirchner regularly visit the couple to teach the child Catholicism? What kind of Catholicism would that, pray, be?
Will the “friend of the family” go in the education of the child frontally against his own conviction, as one who is “friend” with dykes living in sin clearly has no problem with what they do?
Will the unknown third godparent, assuming he is orthodox, be allowed to teach the child something as blatantly in contrast with the dyke's “morality” in their own home? If you believe this, there's nothing you can't believe if you want to.
If anything, in this absurd matter the news that the absurd confirmation of the two dykes will (might) not take place highlights even more the absurdity of baptisms given not only for the asking, but clearly serving an homosexual agenda; either because those who consent to it are perverts themselves, or because they are so uncaring for Christ that they would simply do everything that advances their own popularity.
But what we are really seeing is something different: a perversion of Catholicism, fuelled from the highest place, in which “seeking the Lord” is the only requirement. Strangely enough, Mafiosi aren't allowed to go on and hope in Salvation if they “seek the Lord”, but dykes and fags can, no questions asked.
This thinking is so secular, you know it has Francis written all over it. For a Christian, though, wilful murder and sin of the Sodomites belong in the same ballpark; and one could even add that most Mafiosi go through life without ever executing, ordering or witnessing a murder – the Mafia is not a street gang in Los Angeles or Naples – whereas sodomites tend to have an extremely high number of sodomy acts with a multitude of perverts like them.
But no: in Francis' new religion there is no place for Catholicism. Bring on the dykes, there's a good photo-op for the likes of Francis.
Beware of the wolves.
In the land of boorish populism, Pinocchio masses and Tango masses, (you will see a familiar face in both I am afraid) it was only a matter of time before this here happened: two lesbians having their own child baptised and being confirmed themselves.
Now, I have already written about the fact that a priest is supposed to baptise if, and only if, he thinks that the child has a reasonable, well-grounded hope to be raised in the Catholic faith. Say, two Jews are thinking of conversion, but they want their offspring to be baptised and raised as Catholics in the meantime. I never got a problem with the fact that Felix Mendelssohn and his siblings were all baptised before their parents converted to Christianity. In that case, it made sense to do so, and there was more than solid ground to believe the children would be raised in the Christian (if, alas, not Catholic) faith. But this here is beyond belief.
Firstly, one must ask how well grounded is the chance that a child will be raised in the Catholic faith if the people he lives with are the very epitome, and very publicly so, of all that the Church opposes. This is as if Stalin would have asked for his son to be baptised; with the difference that in Stalin’s case one might have hoped the mother of a child was a closet Christian; no risk of the sort here.
Secondly, one must ask what kind of demented – or rather, perverted – priest can allow two lesbians to stand in front of the altar and the congregation and state that they believe everything that the church believes and profess everything that the church professes and pretend he believes what they say.
There isn’t much to say here: this is how the Church of Bergoglio sanctions abominations under the disguise of “mercy” at all costs; only in isolated cases at the beginning, and more and more frequently in future, so that if this disgraceful papacy is allowed to continue it is not at all unthinkable that in five or ten years time such exercises will be the norm, and every fag and dyke in the land will feel authorised to be extremely incensed should a priest deny the baptism to the child, or the confirmation to them.
For the record: I think such a baptism is madness. It would be a madness even if the godfathers were Catholics of unimpeachable credentials; but in this case the godparents seem to be friends of the “family”, so they are perverts by association, full stop. That one of them is supposed to be Ms Kirchner already says it all about what is going on here.
The sacraments only have sense if they are given in conformity to the sense and function they have. If everyone should be baptised just because he is born, then I wonder why Francis does not proceed to a declaration of Automatic Universal Baptism of All The Unbelievers In The World Upon Birth and be done with it. At that point, you can give communion to every public adulterer because of the hope some sacramental grace may flow from the desire of the adulterer to receive communion, and give give the sacrament of confirmation to, say, avowed lesbians (I know, it’s absurd; just making a point here… I hope…AAARRRGGHHH!!!)
You will say: “but Mundabor, this is not how it works. You just can’t give baptism automatically to everyone”.
I know, it’s not how it works.
Exactly this is the point.
If you have ever wondered how it is that in South America Protestantism advances and the new generations are more attracted to it than to the religion of their fathers, you will certainly be confused by this, a moving witness of Catholic fervour and staunch orthodoxy during the Holy Hour.
Note the reverent posture, the respectful way the faithful are dressed (with the shoes denoting, as everyone knows, the real mark of the well-dressed man), the extreme richness of the Main Altar and the total participation clearly visible in the pensive, profound expression of these pious Catholics. This is the embodiment of sacredness, a monument to everything that is most authentically Catholic.
With such force and purity of faith; with such unquenchable thirst for Truth; with such irresistible desire for Christ, how can it be that the Catholic church in South America suffers under the advance of the Protestants?
A mistery, really….
The sad reality of cowardly bishops all too indifferent to the trampling of Catholic values is exposed with beautiful regularity on the Catholic blogosphere. Distressing as these news are, their diffusion is a meritorius work as the renewal of the Church is herewith helped and encouraged. Oportet ut scandala eveniant.
This has now become normality. We live in a world where Nancy Pelosi has the effrontery to call herself an “ardent Catholic” and to relentlessly put forward an abortion agenda without fearing any excommunication.
Thankfully, this is not always the case. There are still shepherds (few and far between, I admit) able to use harsh words to bring their sheep in contact with the brutal reality of the great discrepancy between Catholic values (that is: God’s law) and the secular mentality. This has happened in South America, where the recent approval of so-called same-sex marriages from the Argentinian Senate led to strong reactions from senior clergy both in Argentina and in Peru. CNA reports that the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, calls the legalisation of so-called same-sex marriages “a war against God”.
A war against God. Just imagine what would happen if such expressions were used here in Europe! The scandal of the secular classes would know no bounds and those who do not believe in God in the first place would be among the angriest.
Still, we can’t put all the blame on the secular society. Such claims would appear so astonishingly harsh in Europe, because the European shepherds meant to make them have relinquished their role a long time ago. Christianity has been considered by them, for now many decades, something you just don’t talk about or do so in very vague and uncontroversial terms – like “peace”; who doesn’t like “peace”? – whilst utterly avoiding the controversial issues they are supposed to care for in the first place.
Democracy will not give Catholics everything they want, but a self-professed abortionist should never be allowed to pursue her agenda and call herself Catholic at the same time. In some countries unpleasant legislation will be passed, but this shouldn’t happen without an open, hard fight.
Some Argentinian, Brazilian and Spanish bishops are now beginning to show the way. They are beginning to affirm Catholicism when Catholicism is uncomfortable rather than harmless consensus. They are right not only from a religious point of view but from a political one, too.
In a democracy, you pander to the interests of every minority which manages to get loud and obnoxious enough. The ugly truth is that vocal minorities are perceived as being ready to make their own votes dependent from having their way, whilst the lazy majority is seldom ready to switch alliances because some minority got soon forgotten concessions. Therefore, politics become the art of the pandering to minority interests. Take Muslims and deviant minorities. They have mastered the minority game and are now ruthlessly milking their “angry minority status”, creating the appearance that they are united (which they aren’t) and that the minority members aren’t largely indifferent (which they are).
Catholics could easily do the same. Five million Catholics could easily scare every Prime Minister into obedience, if they were led by courageous bishops looking for a fight instead of shunning it. The argument that the vast majority of Catholics are basically not so engaged does not stand: this is the case by every other minority, too.
We need to import to Europe the courage and clear words of Bishop Bergoglio; we need to make expressions like the one he used more often heard, and more seriously considered; we need to create a climate in which the mere idea of touching Catholic interests is seen as rather stupid.
To do this, we need brave bishops.
This illustrates all the scale of the problem.