Bad Vibrations From Francis
Francis must have listened to the Beach Boys too much, because he seems to think that there is really something like “good vibrations”. In a pope, this is quite the disgrace.
Atheists “send” “positive thoughts” because they want to show you that they care for you, though they have no faith. New age (that is: very old) guys might send “good vibrations” because they think that this mysterious non-divinity, “the universe”, will relay the message.
Christians pray for the people they love because, their lives being centred in Christ, they believe in heaven providentially helping those they have been providentially inspired to pray for.
Heaven is central in the idea of praying. It is nowhere in the alleged “sending” of these “thoughts” or “vibrations”. The Christian praying for his dying friend is really helping him. The atheist sending good vibrations to his dying friend is helping only himself (to feel good with himself).
Francis, being an atheist, does not get all this. More importantly, he does not get (or pretends not to get) that a pope encouraging atheists to “send” him whatever it is that atheists can(not) “send” him is, in fact, encouraging them in their atheism and validating them in their unbelief.
Again: prayers work and are useful; happy thoughts do not work and are useless (unless for the wannabe happy-thought-postman to feel good with himself). Good vibrations only apply to motorcycles, old pickup trucks, and stuff like that.
Francis is fully devoted to this unbelief. He wants you to know, at every step, that he is fully in synch with their own way of thinking. He wants to let them know that they are quite fine in their atheism, and that he has no intention to make any attempt at conversion.
Everybody is wonderful in his own way, particularly if he barks for social justice, or thinks that God’s creation can be endangered by farting cows and car exhausts. These are the ones Francis likes the most.
There is no cell in this man, not one, that believes in Christ.
I am very much afraid that he will die in his unbelief.
Let’s see what good “happy thoughts” and “good vibrations” will do to him then.
In Season And Out Of Season: About Christianity’s Decline In Great Britain.
There have been articles recently stating that Christians are now less that 50% of the British population. It is, of course, nonsense. Christians are likely less than 10%, even including the lukewarm ones, and they are rapidly decreasing. Millions of official Christians are atheists; mainly, they are Anglicans, waiting to die.
We are now in the Christmas season, and you see absolutely nowhere a link between Christmas and Christ. It is done in order “not to offend”.
The same happens in absolutely everything else. Christianity is offensive. You are still allowed to say that you are Christian, but this might, in the next years, be challenged via the so-called “hate” legislation, which is proving a real cancer for the Country. Of course, Muslims haven’t much to fear from it. They have both machetes (very few) and victim status (all). They will likely be fine.
Why I say all this to you? Do I think that the so-called Church of England can reverse her decay? Of course not. Anglicans cannot, but Catholics still can.
There is still enough critical mass in England for Christians to go on the offensive. However, in order to do that it is necessary that the Church in England remembers what her role is, and acts accordingly.
You seldom hear of a controversial homily; when that happens, the bishop will be very fast in apologising; when you hear a Catholic bishop in the public sphere, it is normally concerning social issues.
Of course the Country dechristianises itself. Christianity is not preached anymore. At least it is not preached in everything that makes it specifically Christian, in all the matters in which Christ offends the world.
Every time you hear a homily, or a prelate on the radio, you know you will hear words chosen exactly for their lack of controversy. Even when they choose (and they are a minority) to voice a mildly Christian point of view, the priest or bishop will always be very minded to soften the blow and, therefore, unavoidably neuter the message.
If a talk about sodomy needs to begin using words like “compassion” and “inclusion”, you have lost already and it would have probably been better to shut up in the first place.
Paradise is not really inclusive, and in hell there is absolutely no compassion. In fact, not even the blessed souls in paradise have any compassion for the damned. The damned have obtained what they have deserved. That’s it. Every form of “sadness” for the damned is simply not compatible with the unimaginable (to the human mind) happiness the souls enjoy in paradise; a happiness that is fuelled by the constant knowledge that everything is exactly as it should be, and no damned soul is allowed to disturb this perfect harmony in the least degree.
In paradise, no mother has any sadness, and therefore any compassion (that is: the ability to suffer with another one), for her damned son. Let that sink in.
Does any bishop tell you that? If he does, does he think it? I doubt, because if he did, his interviews and newspaper articles would look very different.
The decline of Christianity in the UK is not the fault of the many atheists. They are doing their (literally, damned) job. It is the fault of the Catholic clergy who are not doing theirs.
It would be so easy, so easy! Believe you me, there is a quiet, desperate search for answers all around me. There is a spread, but barely expressed desire for a solid grounding, a solid meaning, a scope in life that goes beyond promiscuity, divorce, financial ruin (for the male) or desperate search for intimacy (for the female), old age, decay, nursing home, death, cremation, and utter disappearance.
Brits want, like every human, to confront themselves – at the very least, they long to be forced to confront themselves – with the main issues of life, beyond the stupid virtue signalling that is such big part of the modern, vastly practiced religion of goodism. But they never have anybody willing to give them what they confusedly feel they need. When they listen to a supposed Christian voice , they hear the same rubbish they hear everywhere. It’s not easy, here in Blighty, to get a rooting in the faith unless you already have one, or are, out of your own, God-willed volition, determined to get one for yourself.
The emasculated Church in England has completely neglected the Christian message. The Protestant Mickey Mouse outfits actually mostly hate it, or are embarrassed by it. The BBC (almost no day without some article about some “good pervert”) have taken over the role of educators and moral guides. Nobody challenges the atheists and the worldly without telling them how good they still are, and how many points of common they think there are with Christians.
Let me put me bluntly: you can’t try to find points in common with the enemies of Christ. It is fully irrelevant that, in their own stupid way, they want “a better world”. The problem is exactly that they don’t want Christ and His commandments in it.
We are called to be Catholics in season and out of season.
To my knowledge, not one single prelate, here in England, is up to the task.
This is why Christianity declines .
Pies In The Sky, 1752 vs 2022
A French peasant, circa 1752, is living a bitter life, deprived of faith and sick from the injustice that can be seen all around.
His neighbour, also a poor peasant, has a solid faith and lives a serene life, watered by his hope in a better one to come.
It is a big paradox of the universe that the most important thing of this life it’s actually not in it, because it is what happens when this life ends.
Some, unable to understand – or better said, to accept in serenity and obedience – this simple fact of life, did all they can to ruin this life before completely destroying all hopes of happiness in the next. Others, who had that serenity and obedience and, therefore, understood, created a better life for them on this earth before an inconceivably happy one in the next.
What does this tell us? A Believer is not deciding to suffer now, so that he may live better later. A believer is deciding to embrace now whatever suffering is sent to him, and make of it fuel for serenity in this life, and happiness in the next.
How bitter it must be to be an atheist, both in 1752 and today. To see some born beautiful, rich and happy, and other deformed, poor and resentful.To see everything that does not work, and believe that there is no second dimension in which everything works out right, and a sense is made of every injustice. To live, perhaps, in strict contact with iniquity, and knowing that at the end of it there will be no consolation and no justice, only a meal for worms.
Is it, today, so much different from rural France, circa 1752? Today is not rural France in the middle of the XVIII Century, but many a young software engineer in San Francisco or accountant in New York must feel not very differently, when he realises that he is, like countless of his pears, working 50 or 60 hours a week in a qualified job, but still living hand-to-mouth with no possibility in sight of even buying a place to call his paid home in retirement; a destiny which, in fact, has more than a passing similarity with the one of the peasant; a peasant who certainly worked less, had no student debt, possibly owned a small cottage, and had a lot of time for his family, friends, and simple leisure activities.
The new proletariat is, or so it thinks, well educated and very intelligent. It thinks of itself as intelligentsia, cultural elite, spearhead of a new world. But it is still that: proletariat, useful cogs in a huge machine that does not even allow them to buy a place they can call their own. Only, the new proletariat has no prole (can’t afford them anyway), no faith, and no quality of life. Their existence is, often, dominated by the constant apologies to someone they have offended, the terror of being considered racist or cut off from their acquaintances’ social media, the excruciating choice of which flags to put beside their profile, and the constant bitching about what goes on in some remote part of the planet or, for the most advanced, about what is going to happen with the planet itself. For the Modern Peasant, being miserable is an entire way of life.
So we see that the situation, compared to 1752, hasn’t really changed, only the angry people are way more, and they likely live a much worse life. There are, also, the happy ones. But, particularly in great cities, they seem to be a minority. Bitterness, resentment, fear, and insecurity (about the future of the planet, their own future, even their own sexual identity!) seems to be the mark of the 2022 atheist.
Miserable then, and miserable now. But now there is a Twitter handle, a rainbow flag, a collection of pronouns, likely one or more abortions, and the same quiet desperation of walking toward nothingness. As to food, entertainment, free time, and friends: the 1752 peasant guy probably wins hands down.
Meanwhile Good Peasant, 2022 Edition, lives a serene life in the Lord, hopes for better times but has no illusions on humanity’s improvement, lives in serenity, suffers in faith, and dies in hope.
Then as now, he gets a better life down here.
And he gets the pie in the sky, too.
World War Trans
This Tucker Carlson video (you can start from 2:30) has the receipt.
This is something I have written for a while, and the video above gives the most evident official confirmation of this. For one who says it, thousands think it.
These people are in the US Government, Legislative and, likely, Armed Forces. This is what happens when you allow the madness of gender ideology and support of perversion to take roots in the corridors of power.
It starts with “what have they done to you”, it ends with “you must be destroyed no matter the cost to us”.
We need to realise that the enemies of Christ are good at religious wars. We can see clearly in the example of this guy, a guy of Jewish origin and, from what can be seen, as atheist as they come (or as confused as it is convenient to him).
By the by, guy can already boast of a suicide in the family: something that is, on Wikipedia, promptly excused with “depression” but, where I come from, gives you no excuses. The sin of the fathers also come to mind.
But hey, don’t notice me.
I am just a Christian with traditional social values.
Meet Atheist Activist
I read an article purporting that conservatives are happier than liberals. The reasons addicted were several, and marriage and religion played an important role. I don’t know about marriage, but I would like to add my thoughts on religion.
Let us take two guys, Atheist Guy and Christian Guy. Christian Guy is the guy we all know. We can leave him aside for now, but keep him in mind as a contrast.
Atheist guy believes that he was born because of a bizarre combination of coincidences, that have no rhyme and reason and merely, in a sort of statistical freak case, happened. As a consequence, he believes that all the human feelings and experiences – like falling in love, believing in lurv, and the like – are but the consequence of that other statistical freak, his own DNA, trying to keep living and perpetuate itself.
Atheist Guy, who thinks the fact that Earth is inhabitable is the result of another freak statistical case, is terrified that this might end at any time. Too many cows farting, too many cars around, too many aeroplanes around the Skies, and all this will end! Boy, there is enough to have your day utterly ruined by breakfast time!
Nor does Atheist Guy have any consolation in sight. If he was born relatively poor, as most people are, he will see the immense difference in born wealth around him as a sick joke of that Statistical Freak, his DNA. The same if he is, say, ugly, or physically disadvantaged, or in any way less privileged than others. One is born rich, smart, and beautiful. Another is born poor, dumb and ugly. There is nothing behind it but the sick joke of one’s DNA. What a cheering, consoling thought!
His problems, though, do not end here. Aware that, at some point, his heart will cease to beat and he will be just as gone as the fly captured and eaten by the spider, Atheist Guy will feel a desperate thirst for purpose and meaning for his – that much is clear to him – fundamentally senseless existence. He will, in a way, try to cheat the obvious absurdity of his entire Weltanschauung with a fabricated, man-made religion. Now, he has something vaguely resembling a purpose; still a self-deception, of course, as every Atheist who stops and thinks must realise; but a pleasantly numbing one and, in any way, everything he’s got.
Plus, Atheist Guy still has a mighty reproduction urge and, absurd or no absurd, he will look for ways to satisfy it. Virtue Signalling is, clearly, the way, a clear mechanism for the Male of the Species to procure copulation opportunities for himself (he is, of course, fully aware that this is his DNA working on its own project; but he is horny anyway, so he doesn’t care).
The Atheist Activist is, by now, born. Every man-made cause will be good enough, and will provide for another little flag to add to his Twitter profile. From inequaliteee to cliiiimate chaynggg, and from ge-yn-der stuff to cow advocaceeee, Atheist Guy will do all he can to show that he cares, without ever stopping to think that, if he thinks it through, the only thing he cares about is for his and other people’s DNA to keep manipulating everybody and perpetuating themselves.
Atheist Guy will become a Celebration Master. He will celebrate every life of which he knows it is, if he thinks it through, just as absurd as everybody’s else. He will be the cheer girl for every wrong cause. He will, in fact, hate those pesky Christians and their judgmental belief, because he will see that they have that kind of quiet, unassuming, fundamental serenity forever denied to him.
It does not end here. Having expunged the concept of sin from his consciousness as superstition, Atheist Guy will likely drown in a sea of filth. From drowning in porn, to taking drugs of various degrees of addiction, to non-judgmental approval of any and all perversion, to the forced approval of everything he is not supposed to be judgmental about (his buddy screwing his wife; other guys screwing his wife; other guys’ wives screwing his wife; and his wife taking him to the cleaners when she decides to be his ex-wife, because patriarchy), our guy will have his head so full of filth and PC rubbish that he will soon not even know what human orifices are for, or that a guy born with a little friend is actually a male. The flags, meanwhile, will keep growing in number, rotating away when they have served their purpose, and some New Great Cause beckons.
I could go on for a long time, but you get the drift.
That one would need to even make a statistical survey to prove that religion, common sense and mental sanity are the only way to a purposeful, fulfilled life truly is beyond me.
You don’t need any survey.
This stuff is under your eyes all the time.
No wonder they treat us like imbeciles. Many of us are.Kate R.
Thus writes reader Kate R. in a recent comment, and I think that she is right. I would like to also expand a bit and explain what I think is the real problem.
Dumb people have always existed. Mediocrity in everything has always been the guiding star of most people. Thinking has always been a business for which only a minority was ready. If you read books written in past ages, mocking the so-called “wisdom” of the time, you can have a good idea of what I am talking about. If you love Italian literature, Leopardi’s Zibaldone and Manzoni’s immortal I Promessi Sposi deal with the issue with brutal, but amusing, frankness.
However, there are two elements that differentiate this age from all ages that preceded it. They are the fact that 1) Modern Cretin has a university degree, and 2) Modern Cretin had no religious upbringing.
Once upon a time, a peasant knew he was a peasant. He could have thought that he possessed his own degree of smart thinking, with which he tried to impress the other peasants; but deep down, he knew that he did not know jack of pretty much anything beyond, perhaps, a modicum of technical/professional knowledge.
Also, yesteryear’s peasant lived in an environment that gave him, without even having to carry out the complex task of thinking, a whole set of predetermined, inescapable rules, pretty much all of them inscribed within a rigid Christian framework.
Therefore, a mediocre brain born in 1693 had two great advantages when compared with the mediocre brain born in 1993: he knew he was dumb, and he knew how to get to heaven.
This is not really happening anymore, and it is certainly not happening among the urban heathen populations of the XXI Century. They have acquired (like their peasant, or fishmonger, or blacksmith ancestor), a technical knowledge allowing them to work in their professional environment. But their brain doesn’t really know how to work properly. They feel educated and smart, though, which was not the case for their ancestors. You only need to tell them what “science” says, and they will swallow it hook, line and sinker, because doing otherwise would make them feel, well, exactly like their uneducated ancestors. They will believe in global warming, but will not believe in a Creator, and will be too dumb to simply grasp how infinitely illogical and, in a word, plain dumb both positions are.
Nor will they have the safeguard of a religion telling them to shut up, pray, and get on with the program of working towards Salvation. They will make their own rules, they will make of their own little, arrogant, dumb selves their own personal gods, and they will feel good and very sophisticated in the process.
This is the situation we are living in today; but today’s peasants are far easier to manipulate than yesteryear’s ones, because they can be easily allured with “science”. The woman who wants to be free to kill her baby in the womb will not stop for a moment – because she is *dumb*, and because she is *faithless* – and think that an abortion is killing her own baby in the womb. She will, very simply, await some stupid slogan like someone telling her that some evil man wants to threaten her “body”, or wait – if particularly dumb – for someone telling her that it is “science” that a baby in the womb isn’t really a human being…. et voila’, you have another dumb woman supporting abortion as she sips her $4.25 latte with her “sexually curious” female friend, possibly talking about marijuana, favourite bed practices, and vibrators. The same applies, of course, to their male friend, very stupidly hoping to get a piece of the action by wearing some senseless t-shirt with “the future is female”, or something like it, and not even understanding that women find such a behaviour pretty much as sexy as a drunken beggar vomiting on his pants.
This, my friends, is the reality of the Imbeciles of the XXI Century.
They are many, as they always were.
But this time, they are far more dangerous.
No, Emanuele. If Your Father Died In His Atheism He Is Most Surely In Hell
We are truly living in the age of the delicate violet.
It is as if any notion of manliness had gone away together with the last vestiges of Christianity.
Truth is now taboo. Being sensitive violets is all that counts, and this obligation to poisonous sensitivity at the expense of Faith encompasses everyone and everything. Even children, who are in the age when truths is most easily absorbed and imprints itself most clearly in our consciousness, must not be spared. No, their faith must be perverted at a very young age, courtesy of the Evil Clown.
It is not difficult to say to a young orphan that if his atheist father died in his atheism he is most certainly in hell. It is an “if”, not a “when”. It preserves the faith – for the good of the child second, and of the Faith first – and encourages him to pray, as every Christian should, for the soul of his father; in the hope that one day he might discover that his father did not, in fact, die in his atheism.
What was done to this child is cruel. He was inoculated with the germ of atheism, and the Pope himself was the one with the syringe. What unbelievable rubbish, what atheist nonsense, what negation of Christ for the sake of… what? Of not making a child cry? Poppycock. For the sake of spreading atheism among all Catholics. Then if Francis is right, Jesus is a liar, Christianity does not make any sense, and Christ died on the Cross for those who deny and insult Him to the last, like the evil robber on the Cross.
What a nasty piece of work this man is. His hatred for everything Christian has now become totally unhinged. It is as if he wanted to show us that the more we criticise him, the more heresy he will spread, just because he can.
Besides, this comes from a man who has just released an Apostolic Excrementation going on and on about the evil of Pelagianism, but is obviously too thick to understand that to maintain that a man goes to heaven without faith, simply because he is “a good man”, is as Pelagian as a heretic can be.
Every hen loves her little ones. Stalin loved his daughter. Goebbels loved his family. But human love without faith does not merit heaven, then he who rejects Him Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life cannot claim acceptance by Him because of lesser, and utterly natural, and by the way God-given, good traits in his character. Works without faith do not save.
This unhinged, evil man must be exposed for what he is: an atheist subversive only interested in showing to the liberal and atheist crowds, whose approval he craves, that he is one of them.
Die soon, Francis, and may the Lord have mercy on you. Though for some reason I have the impression that your pit will be the deepest in hell.
Shall We Ban Atheist Hate?
And it came to pass it turned out the Texas shooters was not a church member, much less involved in the congregation he massacred.
No. He was an atheist whose family attended there.
I wonder why we should not apply to this the same hysteria and illiberal hate the so-called Liberals apply to everything they don’t like.
Taking example from their unholy crusade against everything Confederate, I now suggest that Christians begin to:
- Declare Atheists Godless Supremacists
- Demand that all monuments to known atheists be removed
- Demand that school classes teach children about Godless Supremacism and its violent nature
- Demand that every expression of atheism on social media be declared hate.
- Create the Christian Lives Matter Movement. Make of it a very vocal, bullying, violent organ agit-prop tool.
- Cry “Discrimination!!” at every turn.
- Organise marches against Godless Supremacists. Violence justified by the desire to fight hate.
- Demand that all churches of whatever denomination allow and encourage the carrying of arms in church, in order to react to attacks from Godless Supremacists.
Nothing strange, really.
I am merely taking one episode and making it a tool in my crusade, attacking head on everything I hate , lumping all atheists together with an extremely broad brush.
Which is what they do all day.
“Fun” Before The (Expected) Oblivion
The United Kingdom is a heathenish, Christless Country. People's concerns are largely material. When they call themselves “spiritual”, they usually mean how beautiful and profound they feel they are. There are exceptions, but what I have described is the norm.
This heathenish thinking extends to the time before death. Every now and then you read of “brave” people who, once told they are going to prematurely kick the bucket, decide to “do something”. Normally, this something is linked with “fun” (the Paris alcohol binge), or with something “they wanted to do” (the exotic travel) or with someone “they wanted to meet” (a spiritual giant of our time like, say, an actor).
It is as if their spiritual (and otherwise) dumbness would want to cling to them until death, not even the announcement of the end to come being enough for a much-needed realignment of priorities. It is, in fact, fair to say that in an age in which fun and self-centredness are a religion, people who focus on those on their last stretch are considered examples worthy of following, as if they were the pious faithful of our time. A great waste of immortal souls, sadly, as the announcement of his impending demise is the last massive opportunity for, say, an atheist to send his brains into overdrive and (with God's grace) start working on his salvation until there's time.
Nor is there any warning, anywhere, of the judgment to come. People who die positively unable to think – and to publicly say they do – about their judgment are called “courageous”, when all generations before ours would have called them foolish. But hey, they launched a hashtag that made an awful lot of people of every conceivable degree of stupidity feel good with themselves. Isn't it wonderful?
And by the way: is it surprising? Nowadays even the Pope tries to make you march to your death without thinking of judgment; unless he suggest that you become a member of the Communist Party perhaps, because Jesus was kinda lika sorta Lenin, no?
The way we die is a very good indication of the rest of our – infinitely long – existence.
In a heathenish time, you see these indications all the time, whilst the press applauds.
I was a lapsed Catholic. Moved by the obvious disinterest which priests around me showed in Catholic values and Mass attendance, badly catechised, and surrounded by a more and more secular world, I started to lose the habit of thinking with the Church that had been rudimentally transmitted to me as a child. Slowly, other things went out of the window, due to the influence of the secular values when one stops seeking the nourishment only the Sacraments can give. I preferred to consider abortion a terrible evil I would not have the courage to avoid, and preferred to leave it at that. I refused, or rather neglected, to think rationally about the necessary consequences of being a Catholic. I was the socially conservative version of the Cafeteria Catholic. I was disgusted by fags; but mainly only out of common decency, rather than of deeply felt religious values.
In all this, never one day, never one minute did I lose the faith in God. Feeling abandoned by the platitudes of the V II Church and not yet acquainted with Traditionalism (a movement I really discovered only in 2005, thanks to the Internet), I spent countless hours with “do it yourself” exercises, with up to seven different Bibles on my table, trying to understand and deepen the faith about which I felt so strongly, if confusedly, and which made me despise the secular priests of questionable virility I saw around me and on TV, and the shallow rhetoric of poverty and social justice that had nothing supernatural in it.
Faith is the biggest grace I ever received, and never losing faith for one second is, in itself, a grace in the grace. I feel as if a good God would patiently wait, through my Years Of Stupidity, until I finally found the fountain of pure water, Catholicism as it was always intended and had never been taught to me. Coherent, logical, manly, as beautiful and as hard as a diamond.
I confess that I suffer of “excessive doctrinal security”. I could, if it depended on me, depose Francis, defrock him, and send him to die at the stake without flinching; and I would be ready and proud to be called at my own judgment there, on the spot, whilst the Argentinian’s corpse is still burning, and the smoke still rising high in the Roman sky.
Faith is a grace, that I have obviously not deserved. But I think it my duty to make use of it, and help others along the way.
And I want you to see it, this faith. I want you to feel it, I want it to jump on you unexpectedly, like a lion. You may disagree with me, hate me, mock me. But my faith, you will not be able to deny or even ignore.
It is a grace. Fully undeserved. Given to a wretched sinner, concerned about his own salvation more than it’s comfortable to him. Given to him, I think, so that he may use it to help others.
However, even if I had not been graced with a strong faith, and had gone through periods of doubt – something up to now always spared to me, but common to even many saints in form of perceived distance of God from them, or of punishing spiritual aridity – never would I dare to present my doubts, my trembling and wobbling faith, as something desirable, or that makes me more “complete” than the one who never had such doubts.
“Never doubted God? You’re missing something, my boy’!”
Who would be such an idiot as to express himself in that way? Someone without faith, of course. Someone who cannot avoid thinking in totally secular terms, and likes it, and wants you to think in the same way. Someone who thinks so much in terms of moral relativism and pensiero debole, that he boasts of his own lack of faith.
Someone, in short, like this one.
Pope Francis The Atheist
If an Atheist became Pope, he would not advertise his atheism around. He would be, even if of low intelligence, certainly smarter than that.
If an Atheist became Pope, he would have – as all atheists do – his own bespoke “morality”, made of earthly, more or less childish things like social justice, environment, vapid “niceness”, and the like. Therefore, what this Atheist Pope would do is to promote his worldly, atheist values behind a thin varnish of pseudo-religious talking. Jesus would become an illegal immigrant, we would have to kneel in front of the poor, the environment would become a vital issue, not being a SJW would become a sin. Everything in Christianity would be perverted to serve this wordly agenda.
If an Atheist became Pope, he would continuously downplay the supernatural, and do what he can to demolish the faith of the sheep entrusted to him. He would say that the Blessed Virgin might have felt angry at the foot of the Cross. He would hint that there might have been nothing miraculous in the multiplication of fishes and breads, and make of it a “miracle” of wealth redistribution. He would cintinuously promote a God Of Environmental Socialism. He would attack even the basis of Christianity. Eternal condemnation would suddenly not be in the logic of the Gospel. God would give you a slap in the face at most. God's Justice would be totally eclipsed or confined to Mafiosi, for all others Mercy would be unlimited, unconditional, unavoidable.
If an Atheist became Pope, he would – like many atheists nowadays – hate Catholic morality, and love the self-centred “me, me, me”, self-made religion of niceness in which no one can judge anyone, and woe to you if you dare to criticise, because criticising is bad and if you do, you show what cruel, godless, merciless, egotist, self-centred, enemy of the poor, whitened sepulchre, pelagian, coprophagist (continue here for another twenty minutes) you are. Adultery would be the new morality, and Catholic morality the new evil. Adulterers would be “good” when they live in public adultery, and they would even be told that not having sex may harm their children. Confession and Communion would be raped and prostituted to this new world religion. He who opposed all this would be mercilessly slandered, because… who is he to judge. He would look for the approval or perverts. He would bask in their approval of him. The enemies of the Church would be his chosen friends.
If an Atheist became Pope, he would do what every atheist already does in a smaller scale: deify himself. However, being the Pope he would do so on a vast bigger scale, soaking in the flattery of countless cowardly clergymen, feminists, perverts, liberals, atheists of all sorts; that is: of the people he likes. Catholics' criticism would peeve him, of course. He would insult them all the time in retaliation.
If an Atheist became Pope, he would try to undermine Catholic identity in any way he can. He would talk a lot about ecumenism. He would participate in Jewish ceremonies. He would approve any sort of “good intentioned” heathenism. He would invite Muslims to hold on to their Korans. He would, of course, celebrate an Heresiarch like Luther, and ask the Proddies for forgiveness for a bad Church trying to preserve truth and orthodoxy against madness and error.
If an Atheist became Pope, he would not care of the damage he inflicts on the Papacy he hates. He would not even care about how Catholics – whom he hates – will remember him after he has gone, or how reviled he will be in centuries to come. Being Atheist, he would be both persuaded that when he dies nothing of him will remain, and satisfied that atheists will like him – as far as Popes go – in every century to come. Certainly, he would try to subvert the Church as much as he can, for as long as he can after he has gone. But in the end, he would not be concerned of what happened when nothing of him has remained. He would,mor course, have no fear whatever of eternal punishment.
And the moral of this little story is?….
An Atheist has become Pope.
The Atheist And His Car
An Atheist comes back to his car after a day of hard work. He goes out of the train station and confidently walks towards his vehicle. Instead of which, he founds an empty space.
You would think the Atheist would simply consider that the molecules composing the car have casually rearranged themselves, in a random manner, and the car has returned into nothingness out of a fully uncaused, spontaneously happening re-arrangement of matter exactly in the same way as the universe (of this the Atheist is fully persuaded) formed itself in a casual, random arrangement.
Interestingly, the Atheist is (cough…) highly unlikely to think in that way. He is all “random arrangement of matter that was already there somehow” when you talk to him about how the World was created, but he completely abandons his theories when he lives his daily life.
Upon not finding the car, the Atheist will think that there must be a reason – a real reason, a cause that created the effect, not a “random rearrangement of matter” – for the car not to be where he left it. He will reason that with all probability, someone has caused the car to be removed; and that if something else had happened – say: a natural force, like a hurricane – then this force would logically not have applied selectively to his own car, but would have operated according to universally recognised laws, which for example state both that there should be devastation all around him, and that hurricanes have not changed their ways on that particular day.
The Atheist is, in this, thinking logically. He knows that if there is an effect there is a cause, and that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. He knows that cars do not vanish in thin air, because he knows that the forces that keep his car from vanishing in a random matter are at work all the time. He also knows, incidentally, that that very car did not casually appear on the planet one day out of nothing; firstly because he knows that nothing comes out of nothing, and secondly because he knows that only a proper cause (the production process) can cause the desired effect (the car).
The atheist knows that there is a cause for that empty space; he knows with absolute certainty that the car is there because someone – say: the police, the parking administrators, or a thief – took it away. He knows that he lives in a world of cause and effect, and of eternal, immutable, inescapable laws of physics. If no natural force or human action had caused the car to be removed the car would still be there, because the car could not create out of nothing the energy necessary to move, or an autonomous will to remove itself in the first place.
Not only this: the atheist would mock and ridicule you for seriously saying to him that perhaps the car just developed a will (which I would, if I could keep a straight face without bursting in uncontrollable laughter). If an entire universe simply happened without anyone wanting or causing it, simply at random, – with all its extremely complicated laws, and its unimaginable immensity – why would such an infinitely smaller and less complex thing, like a Volkswagen Golf, not simply happen to develop its own will, create its own petrol, and decide to get its kicks on Route 66?
The idea is so stupid, that the Atheist would reject it outright. He would not believe that a thinking man can be so moronic as to think in this way.
Which reflects, very accurately, my own thinking whenever I hear an Atheist producing himself in an explanation of why the world with its astonishing vastness and complexity, and the matter composing it in the first place, exist at all.
Laudato Si vs Anni Sacri
Pope Francis’ just released disgraceful encyclical has, among its extremely numerous vices (see an excerpt of them in my Francis Papers page above, just scroll to the bottom), the one of being strongly influenced by atheist thinking.
Worse (even) than this, Francis has already given more than a hint (actually, he has screamed from the rooftops, only not in encyclicals yet) that an atheist can be saved by following his conscience (see here and here).
The Bishop of Rome, unhappily reigning, wants you to believe and profess that atheism can be perfectly fine not only for salvation, but as a general way of thinking. Francis has no qualms whatsoever with people claiming to be “good without God”; he even asks them to send him “good thoughts”, or the like (alas, this time no link…).
This is today, in the Age of Sodomy.
But how was it before?
We only need to look back 65 years and we find a wonderful encyclical of the great Pope Pius XII, Anni Sacri. The encyclical is very pithy and can be read in its entirety in a short time, so I encourage you to do it. There are no great discussions about why the atheist is logically wrong (remember when Mr Smith bought a new watch?). The letter is entirely devoted to the necessity for the bishops to fight against the atheist mentality within the families and in the public sphere.
The Pastor Angelicus would not even dream of telling you that an atheist can be saved in his atheism, is he “follows his conscience”. This is the thinking of an atheist or a very confused deist. he says instead (emphases mine):
As you know, once religion is taken away there cannot be a well ordered, well regulated society. In this point lies the urgency to spur on priests under your guidance in order that, especially during the Holy Year, they spare no efforts so that souls entrusted to them, with their false prejudices and erroneous convictions cast aside, and hatreds and discords settled, may nourish themselves on the teachings of the Gospel and thus participate in Christian life so as to hasten the desired renewal of morals.
You can’t found a societal order on anything else than Christ. Those who think otherwise must change their mind. Unless they get to understand the truth, they will be spiritual starving individuals.
There are other very interesting points touched in the encyclical, that are – that cannot but be – completely opposite to Francis’ Castroite Weltanschauung. But this here seemed to me the most relevant: those who Francis considers good guys helping him to do what is really important (not Christ, no; redistribute income and have a world government that tries to prevent you from using the aircon) are to the Pope of Fatima a veritable poison of society, one that every bishop and priest must do his best to extirpate.
How the times have changed. What a sad joke the papacy has become.
“Good Without God”?
Every now and then, you hear or read around about people claiming to be “good without God”.
I think the expression does not make sense. Let us see why.
In order to be considered objectively good, a man would have to comply with standards of goodness that are both objective and immutable. They must be objective, because otherwise this alleged “goodness” degenerates into mere self-appreciation. They must be immutable, because if good and bad change with the time goodness becomes mere conformism to accepted rules. This, at least, in what concerns the basics and the fundamentals; not, of course, the particular mores of this or that age, or region.
God is Goodness, and Goodness is based upon God. Take God away from the equation and you will not find any instance of objective Goodness anywhere, merely senseless emoting.
Christians, and particularly Catholics, have a set of fundamental rules they cannot dispose of or manipulate in any way, at least if they want to be truthful and refuse to lie to themselves. These fundamental rules are objective, because fixed once and for all in Church doctrine; and they are immutable because coming from God, Who cannot change. God, Who is Goodness, tell us what Good is. Neither God nor Good can ever change. Therefore, Goodness is – in its fundamentals – immutable and eternal. This is the only way it can work.
I am unable to find anything of the sort among atheists of every colour and shade. They define their goodness upon the fact that they have decided, for themselves, that they are good according to their own private metre of goodness. It's like saying that you are intelligent because a jury formed by you, you and you has unanimously decided that you are.
What is, then, this “goodness” they claim? Merely the fact that they like themselves. Which isn't difficult, I dare say, and something most people who aren't self-hating perverts manage without any problem whatsoever every day of the week.
Three abortions? What a heroine of reproductive rights! Anarcho-bully? Ah, a shining example of “fighter” for “change”! Enviro-terrorist? Look, look how he heroically fights for our future!
This is a game in which you get to decide if you are a winner. An emotionally-driven nonsense with no base in logic. The triumph of smugness and self-adoration.
But then again atheism has no logic, and makes no sense. It does not surprise that it should attract those who are unable to think logically.
And now please excuse me. I am not one of those “good without God”, but one of those “wretched sinners with Him”.
Therefore, my time is now better employed with prayer.
Mr Smith Buys A New Watch
Mr Smith just bought a new watch. His new purchase is a mechanical watch, a very fine work of Swiss craftsmanship. As he walks out of the shop with his new supertoy on his wrist, he can’t but think of the hundreds of tiny little parts, working together to create a little marvel of engineering: a machine able to accurately measure time without the use of any electric, electronic, or other help but the pure mechanical movements of the parts it contains. A work of beauty, and a mechanical wonder.
Mr Smith thinks of his little marvel as he walks. He does not doubt in the least that this machine is a manufactured product. It does not occur to him to think that the parts of the watch created themselves out of absolutely nothing, and – after having created themselves in this most absurd of ways – absurdly found themselves combined, by sheer coincidence, into the sophisticated machine he now proudly wears on his wrist; he knows it is not so, as he listens with childish but manly wonderment to the fascinating tiny movements coming from inside it.
No, Mr Smith does not think that his watch created itself by itself, out of nothing, by pure multiple coincidence, out of tiny parts equally created from nothing and marvellously put together, in some mysterious way, by the working of non-yet-existing chance, and made of non-yet-existing matter, through non-yet-existing physical laws. Even if he did not know that the watchmaker actually exists, he would consider the above mentioned reasoning utterly absurd. From nothing comes nothing. It’s blindingly obvious.
Nothing happens by itself, without a force or energy or work making it happen. Mr Smith knows this perfectly well. An effect must have a cause that originated it. The watch exists because skilled watchmakers created it, assembling hundreds of tiny pieces they crafted themselves on those wonderful tiny watchmaker’s benches, out of material that was already there, by applying a carefully planned master plan to every tiny part they have crafted. With this work, all the parts work in a complex but very efficient harmony. Without this work, the watch would simply not have come to existence. Mr Smith knows all this. ‘Course he does.
Mr Smith also knows that his new, fine watch cannot go on forever out of its own being. Its functioning requires energy that must be provided to the machine if the machine is not only to exist, but to work at all. He knows that the energy is given to the machine by winding a tiny spring by means of a little wheel or, as in his case, by letting a tiny, but extremely sophisticated rotor wind up the spring through the energy provided by Mr Smith’s own movements. In both cases, energy must be provided. In both cases, a provider of energy (himself) will provide the indispensable force necessary for the movement of the machine. In any case, there would be no movement without the energy required for it. Mr Smith knows all this. ‘Course he does.
All this is, then, perfectly clear to Mr Smith. He will explain it tonight to his five years old, as they sit at the living room table and papa explains to his sons the wonders of a mechanical watch. His son will, though only five years old, have no difficulty in understanding the basic concepts: the watch was crafted, which is why it exists; and the watch needs energy, without which it would not tick.
When his son is a bit older, papa will explain to him another basic concept: the universal application of the Laws of Physics. He will explain to him that light travels at the same speed all over the Universe; that the Law of Gravity is equally valid on the Moon or on Mars, and regulates the very structure of the Universe. At some point, though, he will have to explain something strange: that the planets all move without anyone “winding the spring”. He will, then, “explain” to his boy that, just like the watch, the planets are not able to generate the force necessary for their own motion. But unlike the watch, they (erm; cough) move.
“Why do they move?”, will the child ask. “Oh, they just do”, Papa will say.
“But who provides the energy, papa? How can they move without being, erm, wound up?”
“Erm, uh, well… they move! They just do!”
Poor, poor Mr Smith! He buys a fine mechanical watch, and he understands everything of its way of functioning. He knows the basic principles of physics, and he has studied at school that an inanimate body can only move if an energy is applied to it.
He knows all that. ‘Course he does. He considers all this basic knowledge. But he is utterly unable to use it. His intellect has grasped the watch in its intimate essence. He looks at the starry sky in a warm summer night, and knows very well what it is that he is seeing. He even knows that all those tiny light points obey in the end to the very same laws as his watch. But can he apply his knowledge beyond the watch? No, he can’t. He just does not get it. Better said, he refuses to do it.
Mr Smith is an atheist, you see. He knows all the rules. He merely refuses to apply them, if this is inconvenient to him.
When Mr Smith’s car was towed away for wrongful parking he saw an empty parking bay where his car was supposed to be. He did not think that the molecules of his car must have casually rearranged themselves in some strange way out there in the ether, for reasons no one knows, using energy come from no one knows where, out of blind casuality without any purpose. No! It was the thieves, or the road enforcement! Never the atoms casually rearranging themselves! Funny, isn’t it?
Mr Smith knew ( ‘course he knew…) that if the car was not there, it was because something or someone that is not the car had applied an energy to the car sufficient to remove it from its place: the towing truck, or perhaps a thief, or in extreme cases a flood or hurricane, all can do it. But out of itself, and with no energy or intervention, the car would not move, or change, or do anything.
Mr Smith is very logical in his daily thinking. He applies his knowledge with wonderful coherence. The world he sees around him perfectly squares with his own knowledge. It all makes irrefutable, inescapable sense.
But when Mr Smith looks above in a beautiful, warm, starry Summer night, he suddenly stops thinking. Basic logic, laws of physics, and the law of causality are suddenly suspended for reasons about which he never thinks, about which he refuses to think.
He believes in Gravity, and does not see it. He knows all of the workings of his watch, which nowadays he can’t even really open. He sees a documentary on Mars and the entire thing makes perfect sense to him. He learns about the vastness of the Universe, and knows the same rules apply to it as to his watch.
Still, he believes that the universe, for some reason, created itself out of nothing. The Universe, for some reason, created the energy for its movement by itself. The Universe, for some reason, arranged itself in a way infinitely more sophisticated than any conceivable watch, out of sheer luck, starting from a state of non-existence out of which, in force of some non-esistent event, suddenly a Universe existed, comprising an immense variety of life forms, and a vastness beyond imagination.
His tiny watch could never do it. His own car could never remove itself out of existence. Without energy, both of them would simply stand still. But the Universe, to which he knows the very same rules apply, escapes all of them!
Pity Mr Smith. His watch tells him every day that there is a God, and that this God must be clearly omnipotent. The starry sky positively shouts it to him. He has all the knowledge he needs. He considers himself a logical, mature, thinking man, with an inquisitive mind. And still, he is blind.
Mr Smith has blinded himself out of pride. He has refused to think when it was so important, and at the same time so easy, to do so. He is in great danger of paying a very dear price for it.
Pity the man: too deaf to listen to his watch, too blind to look at the starry sky and make 2+2, too arrogant to accept anything higher than himself. And he knows it all. He has all the knowledge he needs. His own child is very near to it. He would only needs a cool reflection, and the required dosis of humility. He refuses to provide either.
Pride is the sin of Lucifer.
Pity Mr Smith.
And it came to pass yours truly was informed – by looking at a poster – of the existence of “memorial gardens”.
I have looked in some search engine what it is, and it soon became clear enough: a memorial garden is a place where people go to remember their loved ones who have left this vale of tears. With some space for them, perhaps a plaque on it, perhaps some ashes. What is, then, the difference with a Cemetery?
I can only imagine one difference: a memorial garden is something absolutely a-religious. In short, something for atheists.
A cemetery, you see, is full of crosses. One is constantly reminded of the great hope of a better life awaiting, one day, those who have departed this world. How annoying must it be to the mind of the atheist, who hates to be reminded that there is a judgment, and one without appeal!
Let him, therefore, do something different, and travel on a Saturday morning – Sunday is, clearly, meant for grocery shopping – in a pleasant garden, where his beloved former partner or parent or relative will be thought of in a soothing, pleasant, utterly relaxing environment. Thus pleasing first, second and last the one who does the thinking.
These atheists are, I am told, exactly those who consider Christians people who believe in fairy tales.
A believer can walk in a cemetery, look at the immensity of the sky above him, at the organised beauty of life unfolding under his eyes, and rationally understand the necessity of the existence of God. What he sees above, and what he knows of the above, is what makes sense of the tombs and monuments around him. A cemetery is not the parody of anything else. It is the real thing, and it truly makes sense.
The atheist is, on the other hand, supposed to be a rational man. Still, not only he refuses to see what every perceptive child understands – that such a huge and hugely organised universe must have a Great Chief In Charge – but he lacks the guts to look at the consequences of his conviction against the faith. He needs some balm for the coldness around him: therefore, he builds for himself a senseless parody of a cemetery, deprived of any logic but his own self delusion.
Look, atheist friend. You believe that your parents are gone. Either they were burned in an oven like they do with waste, or they were put under the earth for worms to go to work at them. In both cases, what they have become is, pretty much, fertiliser. And yes, that's that, folks.
What sense does it make, then, to have a “memorial garden?”. Wouldn't any old nice park do the same? And what use is this revelling on the atrocious reality of the atheist? Fertiliser them, and fertiliser him, at the end of a life that makes no sense at all and is the very epitome of mad, or rather blind, casual injustice. Feelings of filial or parental love which, as the atheist must recognise, are but evolutionary mechanisms the human species, as every other halfway complex animal, evolved to protect itself from an hostile environment. Feeling of sadness for their departure which, as the atheist must recognise, are also but the way The Great Mad Life Machine, which actually – he must recognise it – doesn't even exist, forces him to love others and spend money on them; money which could, otherwise, be spent on gambling, drinking and whoring without the shadow of even an uncomfortable moment.
“This is my business”, says the atheist. “If I enjoy walking around in a memorial garden, what's it to you?”
It is a lot to me, dear peripatetic atheist. It shows that you, who claim the command of logical thinking, are but an emotional child, lost in a big world you cannot even begin to understand, and terrified of it; a world you cannot bear without surrounding yourself with exactly the soothing feelings and pleasant lies of which you say Christians and other believers are the willing, gullible victims. You are looking for pleasant feelings, because you are afraid of the unpleasant truth: that you will die and end up in an oven, or as worm food, and nothing of what you have said or done, alone or in company, for or against Christianity, good or bad, useful or useless, has, or ever could have, any meaning at all. Any meaning, I mean, that does not come from the fantasies of a child, fancying he loves a world which will devour him without a shred of an emotion.
Your mother is ashes now. So is everyone you knew before you discovered you wanted to be the Great Decider yourself, answerable to none but you. And all this does not make any sense, there is no glory or beauty in any of it. Your mother loved and nurtured you out of the pure instinct of making litter until she died, like every other animal. Your love for her is due to the same mechanisms. No one is ever good or right, or even heroic and selfless. Nature has made it all. All your hopes and aspirations, your passions and loves, your oh so humanitarian desires show only one thing: you are duped; you are the slave of your own DNA, used by it for the sake of its own perpetuation as you get discarded and thrown in the compost. This is all you will ever be good for.
Therefore, my dear atheist, abandon this emotional and childish nonsense of the “memorial garden”. It is, in your perspective, as senseless as everything else. Reflect, rather, on your own utter nothingness: an absurd joke of coincidence living among other jokes of coincidence, and living a short existence towards the pure nothing as they search some small comfort, and try to reproduce for reasons they actually can't fathom (which is why they, in fact, contracept massively).
It is better for you to recognise the brutal reality that dominates your thinking: you are the slave of your DNA until the day you die.
At which point, you will be only useful as fertiliser.
I don’t know what to make of this.
It seems too warped even from the perspective of the interviewee. A mockery of Satanism. A kind of comedic denunciation of any cult. An attention-seeking device.
Satan is, by definition, evil. No one in his right mind would choose evil over good. More to the point, no one would, if mad to such an extent, think that his position can become in any way popular among the public.
This satanism theatre is, more probably, an atheist’s plaything to mock Christianity, enjoying the scandal they cause among Christians and getting name recognition in the process.
Take the project to erect a Satan statue. What meaning can it have, if not a mockery of organised religion? Who would proclaim evil good, and good evil? And if it be so, why would the proposers of such a theory not proceed to give allegiance to… good, once ascertained that it is… evil? And so back, and forth, in a mad ping-pong?
No. The organiser of such stunts says himself he “was” an atheist, and it is very obvious to me he and his followers all are. Then if they believed in Satan, they would as a consequence believe in God; and noone in his right mind would choose eternal suffering.
Satan is, by definition, the Father of Lies. He works through subtle deception, not open approval. The most evil people generally think they’re good. Pol Pot, Lenin and Che Guevara no doubt felt they were true philanthropists. Nowadays even Angelina Jolie thinks she has some higher calling. Others, like Stalin, were simply not afraid of punishment.
No. I don’t buy this one. I think this is nothing more than a twisted form of attention-seeking atheist wannabe comedy.
But notice this: by not believing in Satan and using him as an anti-Christian vehicle, this people … make the work of the devil.
Satan, the Father of Lies, deceives them into believing he obviously does not exist, and uses them for his purposes through this means. He mocks in a twisted way the unbelief of those who mock Christianity, and lures them into his net by leading them to believe there is no net at all, and they can have a great time making a mockery of it. These people think themselves very bright and very funny guys (and, possibly, gals); but there are no smart guys – and no smart gals – in hell. There are only people too clever by half, thinking themselves so superior to those superstitious people, and who were too in love with their own intellect – or whatever was in its place – to humbly accept their allotted place in the great scheme of things.
Therefore, these “satanists” are being had at their own game. Whilst mocking, they are being made a mockery of. Whilst thinking they are playing a subtle game of deception, Satan in playing the same game to them. Whilst feeling so smart, they are being very stupid. They are flies who have decided they are too smart to believe in the existence of the spider as they fly toward the net.
Which, in turn, would be funny. If it wasn’t so serious, and so unspeakably tragic.
Francis Is Very Difficult To Be Pleased… By Catholics.
It appears that our oh so merciful Bus Passenger In Chief is not easily pleased… with us Catholics.
If you are a lukewarm Catholic he will call you a number of names, among them lazy ass (he will not say that, talking of sloth instead; but everyone gets the gist) and he will make clear to you how much you must move your backside at once. Even going to Mass every Sunday will not be enough; because you see, the same man not worried that people die in their atheism feels the need to read the Leviticus to you if your Mass attendance isn't spirited enough.
You would think, then, that being an orthodox Catholic is something that might please the man: a zealous defender of the Faith not only punctually attending to Mass at least every Sunday, but doing it with love for the Lord and His Church; the same love which prompts him to be a vocal defender of the Faith outside of the church building, and an all-round decent Christian chap. But no, he does not like them, either. He does not like them at all. He calls them all sorts of names, questions their sincerity, mocks their way of praying, despises their desire to give a good example and to be seen as living a Christian life. In Francis' world, good people are just hypocrites.
So, if you are zealous you are criticised, and if you are lukewarm you are criticised too. If you are very bad, you will be just fine, then God only wants to forgive you, ah, uh, no?
What must one do, then, to get Francis' sympathy? I think I know the answer: you must be an atheist, a homosexual, or anyone else who doesn't give a fig for Our Lord and His Church and is very sinful but has a social agenda. If you are such a chap he will immediately put you among the excellent people,like the “good Marxists” he loves to praise; he will please you in every possible way, give you interviews, invite your journalists in the Vatican for one of the many cover stories, and will suddenly – which he does not dream of doing with both the zealous and the lukewarm – adopt the “who am I to judge?” attitude.
Smell of sainthood, and Francis will call you a hypocrite. Smell of s…heep, and you will be his hero.
We must realise that this is the thinking of one who really, really dorsn't care a straw for Christ, Catholicism or the Church. To him, they are merely accessories to a social ideology that is his true religion, and to which his allegiance goes. When you realise Francis ticks in this way, you start to understand much more of what he goes around saying.
And the most infuriating thing is that this man is either so stupid or so arrogant that he does not care in the least for a minimum of coherence in what he says. The “who am I to judge” guy is the most obnoxious, petty rompiscatole of the planet in the minutest things, for example criticising people if they don't smile at him in the right way, and adding further indelicate remarks like telling to people they must not “smile like flight attendants”, or to nun that they must not “be old maids”.
Francis shoots every day with the crap cannon, and says things that would have everyone else constantly ridiculed, and the butt of worldwide jokes in no time. He is so superficial, so fond of platitudes, so full of his third-rate intellect that he wouldn't survive a debate I do not say with a Bishop Fellay, but with every smart and well instructed boy of fifteen. You listen to him and wonder how on heck this man was allowed to become a priest.
But he is the Pope and, most crucially, he tells to the world what the world wants to hear; what the world, in fact, delights in hearing from a Pope, one who should be a great spiritual leader and is content with being the main attraction in the secular circus that praises him.
Come all in, ladies and gentlemen. Today our main clown Francis The Merciful will produce himself in his main number, the feat that has made him famous worldwide: bashing Catholics as he exalts Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and Socialists of various shades of red. You, young woman, are you an atheist? What about that gentleman over there? And you, that lady with the veil, you must surely follow the Koran?
Come on in, dear ladies and gentlemen!
I assure you, you will be pleased.
“Did You Ever Notice…”
With kudos to the Traditional Catholic Priest.
The Popes That Are Not Coherent Are Giving Scandal
From one of Francis’ continuous stream of public homilies (one hopes La Stampa’s translator is better than the one of the Official Vatican News service).
“A Christian is a person who “thinks like a Christian, feels like a Christian and acts like a Christian. And this is coherency in the life of a Christian. Someone can be said to have faith, “but if one of these things is missing, he is not a Christian, there’s something wrong, there’s a certain incoherence.”
Eugenio Scalfari is a person who thinks like an Atheist, feels like an Atheist and acts like an Atheist. Well, I must admit there’s a certain coherence in that. This must be why Francis did not feel the need to say one word of disapprobation to him.
The moral? For Francis, woe to you if you are a weak Christian. It is far better to be a coherent Atheist.
“And when there is no Christian coherency, and you live with this incoherence, you’re giving scandal. And the Christians that are not coherent are giving scandal.”
And where there is no Christian coherency, and a Pope lives with this incoherence, calling Proddies “brother bishops”, hobnobbing with Atheists to whom he promises salvation if they follow their conscience whilst berating Traditionalists and orthodox Catholics every forty-five minutes, he is giving scandal.
If you find yourself in front of – imagine! – in front of an atheist and he tells you he doesn’t believe in God, you can read him a whole library, where it says that God exists and even proving that God exists, and he will not have faith. But if in the presence of this atheist you bear coherent witness of Christian life, something will begin to work in his heart. It will be your witness that that he will bring this restlessness on which the Holy Spirit works. It’s a grace that we all, the whole Church must ask for: ‘Lord, [grant] that we might be coherent.’”
If you tell this Atheist he can be saved if he follows his conscience, he will simply not care a straw for the way you live. Particularly if this involves things like no fornication, no abortion, no divorce, and no contraception.
This Time, Ann Coulter Is Quite Right
Ann Coulter's statement that if the Pope believes you don't need to be Catholic he may as well work as an anchor for some TV outlet is quite right.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Jesus will certainly admit, in the last moment before death, some unbaptised, and certainly a greater number of non Catholics into that Church outside of which there can be no salvation; but this is subject to very strict criteria, chief of which is Invincible Ignorance, and it certainly requires an uncommon amount of stupidity – or else, Jesuitism – to think this “escape hell” card is something one can confidently expect. Two thousand years of Catholic tradition, and the clear mandate of Jesus Himself, show this beyond doubt.
If, therefore, someone believes that belonging to the Only Church is some kind of nice, “joy bringing” accessory whose lack does not stay in the way of salvation provided one is a good chap of more or less humanitarian attitude, he has no business being the Pope.
The Atheists’ Pope
The Pope is liked by 70% of the atheists.
A joke, you said?
“No”, or (according how you read the line above) “quite”.
The strategy is working. At least for the atheists.
The Dumbest Of Them All.
From the starry sky to the working of viruses, this world shows an astonishing degree of coherent complication. This complication is present absolutely, and I mean absolutely everywhere around us, to the extent that the most sophisticated technology still couldn't reproduce the miracles happening in a small plant, or in a blade of grass.
Even today, in the century that has decided it is fine for a man to “marry” another man, no technology can recreate the miracle of natural hair, and when someone wants to have a transplant he must take his own hair from somewhere else and have it planted on his head. His own hair, mind; not some hair made by DuPont.
Similarly, no technology has allowed to create anything similar to one of the most astonishing among the countless miracles of nature: the human skin. No sophisticated military technology will be able to give you a new synthetic skin if your natural one is gravely harmed. The astonishing ability of the skin to self-heal is something every child can observe and, in fact, admire.
The sun, the others stars and the immensity of the universe, the hair, the skin. You can add whatever you want to it, the list would be practically infinite. Everywhere around us, the smallest and most banal things have a degree of sophistication unknown to the most advanced R & D departments of this world, and the biggest go beyond what we can even normally imagine.
It we were able to really see it, this world of wonder clearly present in the vastness and harmony of the skies, and still very visible in the commonly observed animal and vegetal kingdom around us, would show itself to us even in the realm of the very little, of the very small particles with an extremely high degree of sophistication. Your white and red globules perform wonders every day, though you don't see them. No effort of technology would be able to replace your eye. Apple itself would never be in a position, no matter how much money they threw into it, to give you something as seemingly insignificant as a new pancreas. In fact, Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer, which goes to show the little human cells in his body were still stronger than all the money medical research – and a tycoon fighting for his very life – can throw at them; therefore, the tycoon will have to die of them at 56 even if he has “CEO, Apple Inc.” written on his business card.
Everything in creation shows an amount of sophistication unknown to human achievement. Still, whilst human achievement is the result of the continuous effort of countless generations, all this – the Milky Way and the plants, the eye and the pancreas – should have been created by… coincidence, and at the same time – which is even more absurd and even more stupid – something should have been created from nothing.
Let me think. If an atheist comes back home and find it devastated, he does not think that the devastation was born out of a strange, rare, but still thinkable sudden and coincidental rearrangement of cells. He knows perfectly well that the door is broken because a force was applied to it; that the safe has been taken away because intelligent beings carried it out; and that there was a planned intention to break in his home in a certain way and at a certain hour, spend so and so much time looking for certain particularly desired loot, and go away before the police arrives.
It you were to tell the atheist “perhaps your safe has rearranged itself in a perfectly casual way disappearing in the ether, and the sudden rearrangement has caused all the mess in your house” he would not consider your theory for a split second. He would rather answer: “are you drunk? Safes do not casually rearrange themselves into the ether! There are laws of physics governing this! Safes do not appear and disappear in a home unless someone bring them in, and takes them out!”.
Well, exactly. There are laws of physics, and of logic. Both are universally observed. They say that nothing comes out of nothing, that there is an agent force behind every action, and that if something isn't it cannot also be, and vice versa. Safes do not magically appear out of nothing. Universes do exactly the same. They are also wonderfully coherent, these universes and the laws that regulate them, and of ubiquitous application. Not casual at all, then.
It is surprising to me that people you would otherwise call intelligent do not get such simple things. It's as if they had decided to suddenly become completely stupid. And the greatest stupidity is that they are unable to apply to God the same logic they themselves continuously apply to the reality they see around them, and would never question or tolerate to see questioned in every other circumstance. Alas, people don't study logic anymore. Nowadays, even the basic notion that nothing comes out of nothing is more than they can grasp. But hey, we have retina screens on our toys, so we must be living in an age of intelligence and progress.
Of course, at the root of the problem is not sheer stupidity, but pride; the pride that will be, unless they repent and see the light, the atheists' fall. Pride seems to have an easier game with somewhat intelligent people, but I have seen it work on stupid people to great effect, too.
Still, there can be no excuse for refusing to see a reality as big and evident as the Universe, and the foolishness of this must be in direct proportion to the consequences attached to it.
Which is why atheists are, however smart at making retina screens, in the end the dumbest of them all.
The Marlboro Pope
The “Francis headline of the day” is, as we are reliably informed,
The Church has to bring Christ to everyone.
Fine; but, thinking in Francis' terms… why?
Has he brought Christ to Scalfari during the interview? Has he even made the attempt? Has he not called – whatever sophism you may try to use to hide this simple truth – exactly this very same attempt to bring Christ to an atheist, who is in most need of Christ's mercy, a “solemn nonsense”?
Further: if Francis is persuaded that an atheist can be saved by merely following his conscience – no, he still has not disowned his words; seriously, he hasn't – what is the reason he can adduce to make other people accept the “Diet Christ” brought to them? No premarital sex, no contraception even in marriage, no drunkenness, no adultery, obviously no remarriage, no abortion, mass attendance, penance, prayer, conflicts, and a lot of other nos? Why should anyone accept them, if he can get away with doing what he pleases with the benediction of the humble, look-at-my-old-car Pope?
The ugly truth is that Francis has been saying, for now almost eight months, that Christ is an option. Christ is, if you ask him, merely the – in his opinion, mind you; but who is he to judge? – more scenic way, better truth, and more joyous life. The man who says the Church can't be a glorified NGO makes of Her exactly a glorified NGO. In his mind the way is extremely broad that leads to salvation, and this way does not need I do not say Christ, but not even the acceptance of a god whatsoever, like a Hindu in invincible ignorance might believe.
He insults those who pray by rote saying they don't believe in God, but when he has in front of him one who really does not believe in God and doesn't even say prayers by rote he is very fine with it. Ah, if everyone only followed his abortionist conscience, what a better place the world would be!
Therefore, if you listen to Francis the Church must bring Jesus to the people as if He were a medicinal herb, or a new kind of aspirin. Necessary for salvation? Of course not. Should I try to convert other people? No, no, no! What about proselytism? Solemn nonsense…
Francis merely markets an option which he considers, in his humbleness, the best. He had no gut then to say to an atheist that unless he repents he will go to hell; he has no guts now to tell the world Jesus is no option, least of all for those who openly refuse Him. In short, Francis promotes Jesus like the Marlboro Man promotes cigarettes. This means, for him, that the church according to Bergoglism isn't an NGO. Oh no.
Come to where the “joy” is. Come to Bergoglio Country.
Please say three Hail Marys, rigorously learnt by rote, for this confused man.
Yes, you can count them.
“We Never Had It So Good”
“We never had it so good”, said the Bishop of Rome verbatim to assembled religious.
Let us put these words in the proper historical frame.
Admittedly, the Church is faring well in Africa and Asia. Amidst violent intolerance and persecution of various kind, the Church – even the weak, mediocre Church of post V II times – is certainly advancing at a notable pace. I cannot say how orthodox the new converts and the local faithful are, but it is fair to assume on average they take Christianity far more seriously than their European counterparts. In the US the situation is certainly better than in Europe, but clearly nothing to write home about. The situation of Catholicism in South America is too well-known to waste time describing it.
Directing our attention to what I think can fairly be called the historical heartland, Europe, we note the following:
Mass attendance has greatly sunk, stabilising now at a dismally low level. The average age of the churchgoers is not encouraging at all.
Catholicism has lost its grip on Southern Europe. In the last fifty years alone abortion laws have been introduced almost everywhere, divorce has been established, sodomy laws have been abolished, and Catholicism as State Religion has disappeared. A similar, often more brutal process of de-Christianisation has taken place in those countries already weakened by Protestantism.
The crisis of vocation has led to a veritable exodus from the priesthood, and to the almost total stop of new ordinations in the “mainstream” orders. Again, the situation has stabilised in the West at a low level, and there are justifiable questions marks concerning the average quality of the vocations, let alone the quality of the instruction.
Catholicism is not taught anymore. Most baptised people couldn't point out to what it is to be a Christian, and would be unable to notice a substantial difference – much less, to say in detail in what it consists – between them and their, say, Chinese and Indian non-christian friends. A vague and undetermined good-ism is their religion, and if pressed they wouldn't be able to define Christianity in any other way than with nonsensical platitudes like “do no harm” and “do not judge”.
We see the consequences of this every day. Catholic instruction in continuous decline, Catholic values also in retreat, abominations called “alternative lifestyles”, sodomites mysteriously supposed to be “happy people”, and a genocide of unborn babies as daily, almost unnoticed occurrence.
All over the West, including the periphery (South America), either Christianity has all but been reduced to irrelevance (say: the Nordic countries), or is on its way to irrelevance – like in Great Britain -, or it is obviously and rapidly eroding in its core traits (Germany, France, even Italy), or in addition to the usual problems is being strongly challenged by Protestant communities, who make massive inroads among those who still take Christianity seriously (think of Brazil).
Francis spoke to an Italian audience; an audience of religious who must perforce have this erosion of Catholic values in front of their eyes every day. There is no chance Francis would, or could, just ignore their situation speaking of the Church with them. Nor did he, as he could have done, point out to the successes of the Church in some parts of the planet, whilst obviously mentioning the great difficulties in traditional Catholic territory.
No, Francis did not do it. His enthusiasm is unqualified. It is not even the fruit of hopeful optimism, the expectation of a turnaround to come. It is the celebration of the situation as it is now.
Now let us reflect on his words in the light of what we have learnt of this man in these last six months. Is he so blind, or so utterly gaga, that he cannot see the huge societal changes that have completely ravaged traditionally Christian – and Catholic – societies in his own lifetime? Has he forgotten the time when abortion was the preserve of Nazi Germany and Communist countries, divorce a taboo in all Catholic ones, sodomy universally considered an abomination akin to pedophilia and incest, the churches full, and a strong Christian spirit at the root of all Western societies, even those prevalently Protestant?
Can you believe that? I cannot. Truly, I cannot.
My reading of Pope Francis' words is a different one. His religion is not made of rigid defence of Catholic values, evangelisation, Catholicism as State Religion – demolished by the Vatican itself, by the way -, abortion as murder, sodomy as abomination, mass attendance as obligation, & Co.
His religion is made of inclusiveness, tolerance, and dialogue. He clearly believes that only the very worst – if any – go to hell. Conversion to Catholicism is not important to him. Not even conversion to Christianity, in fact, is, though no doubt he seems to believe it would add a lot of “joy” to the life of people now discovering they can't fornicate and abort at pleasure anymore (which is true in the ultimate sense, but not in the sense in which “joy” would be understood by the recipients of the message). He is fully unconcerned about the crisis of vocations; so much so, that when he sees empty seminaries and convents he thinks not how to fill them with seminarians and religious again, but how many people could be put there.
He is also fully unconcerned that the country with the biggest number of Catholics on the planet is about to introduce abortion; so much so, that he travels there and doesn't make of it I do not say the only theme of his visit – which would have been utterly justified – but not even a secondary one. He is fully unconcerned about sodomites in his entourage, and even allows himself arrogant jokes of extremely questionable taste about this alleged gay lobby members not having their own ID; but he is “concerned” when the faithful… count their rosaries; the rosaries they pray for him.
His respect for the laws of the Church is well seen at the liturgical abuse he committed himself on Maundy Thursday – yes, it's a liturgical abuse even if the Pope commits it; a Pope can change the rules, not ignore them ad libitum – and his understanding of religious reverence is also well seen at the football shirt and beach ball he left at the altar of the Blessed Virgin in Santa Maria Maggiore. As to his liturgical views, the Pinocchio Mass tells you everything you need to know. From one who authors a book together with a Jewish buddy of his who supports so-called same-sex marriage, frankly it would have been difficult to get much better. From his Lex Credendi you can clearly imagine his Lex Orandi, even without the YouTube videos.
This is Francis' Lex Credendi, then; and at this points, the pieces fall into place.
A person thinking in this way must, in fact, think that Church never had it so good. Never have there been so many “non-judgemental” Catholics around. Never have there been so few conservative “Pelagians”. Never have so little rosaries been prayed, much less counted. Never has the fake parody Francis smuggles for Catholicism been so vastly followed. Never has Catholicism been so “inclusive”, uninterested in evangelisation, indifferent to the murder of countless babies, blind to perversion, accepting of every behaviour under the sun, not fearful of hell, forgetful of the commandments, & Co, & Co.
Truly, Francis' fantasy church never had it so good.
“Can I Still Become An Atheist”?
The fallout of the senseless letter of the disgraceful bishop of Rome also has his funny side.
In an excellent blog post, Patrick Archbold asks if he can still become an atheist.
Pope Francis has told us that all that is needed for atheists to get to heaven is to follow their own malformed consciences. I really wish I knew this earlier. I would have avoided a lifetime of difficult Truths in favor of my conscience. My old unformed conscience, it turns out, was fairly forgiving of many things. That seems much easier. It may be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. But it is easier still for an atheist to get to heaven.
How can you disagree with him? As I have already written, Francis thinks there are two ways to obtain salvation (one for the atheists, one of for the Christians) and it is clear the atheists get by far the better deal.
Whatever they can agree with their conscience, it's fine. Out of experience, I agree with Mr Archbold many of them will not disagree, in conscience, with pretty much anything of whatever they do.
What an easy life, and what a sinful one. All this now inclusive of Francis-approved feel-good feelings and a promise of heaven (if there is one), always courtesy of Francis.
Some days ago a poor chap wrote a difficult comment about his own situation. Divorced from his own wife and living with a new partner in pre-awakening times, he got near the Church again through the work of the Society of Saint Pius X, and was confronted with the objective grave sinfulness of his situation. Imagine the conflict, and the praying and growing that will be necessary before the courage to take a hard decision – the only possible decision bar some unexpected death; and he appeared aware of that – is attained.
I answered to him mentioning, among other things, the situation of millions of people who reject even the thought of new relationships, because that's what the life of a Christian is.
But hey, if Francis were to be right – which he isn't – the thing to do would be of course to suggest to the man that he… loses his faith. Then he will only have his conscience to guide him, and everything will be fine again, with papal approval.
Again, this is a new religion that Francis want to shovel down your throat so that has it easy and enjoys a life of humble popularity.
If he is very stupid, he might also think this will help the Church. Hey, this “Jesus” product doesn't sell well anymore. Let's change the product so it is better accepted by the markets.
To put it with Mr Archbold again:
“So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. No no, stay. Just kidding.” “
If you ever thought this pontiff was smart, you have no more excuses now.
Cunning, yes. He denies hell here and refuses to condemn sodomites there, and does it in a way that makes of him the pet of the liberals but does not upset the useful idiots of the Catholic camp, or the gay lobby.
This way, Catholics become more and more confused, whilst he become more and more popular. All this without risks, as an army of clergymen hasten on a daily basis to explain why what the entire world has rightly understood as heretical is, in reality, orthodox; though it is unfortunately that the entire planet is too stupid to notice.
It works for Francis, certainly.
But… is it smart? No, it isn't, nor is he. His lies have very short legs, and he will discover the day he dies how short they are. Perhaps he thinks the same rules he applies to the atheists will apply to him, too…
But still a fool.
Francis Sanctifies Lenin, Pol Pot, & Co.
St. Augustine refuses the book of vices. Francis would ask whether they are committed in conscience.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mk 16: 15-16.
Given that – and this is fundamental – God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.
Pope Francis, Letter to Eugenio Scalfari.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The phrases above frame the content of this blog post: Francis has, once again, denied Jesus’ message concerning atheists. This time, he is even more brazenly heretic than in the past (I have reported), but it is clear in Francis’ world Jesus’ brutal message – the message Christianity has propagated these 2000 years; the message that makes evangelisation so necessary – has no place.
Being a Jesuit, though, Francis is subtler than that. He first repeats the Christian message and then adds a new religion for the sake of the atheists, and of his own popularity.
Let us see in detail the working of a Jesuit mind from the text of the letter, published in its entirety in an excellent English translation on Rorate Caeli.
The question here is “the Church’s attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus”, and more specifically “if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.”
Christianity has a clear answer for that, and it is in the – again – unmistakably brutal words of Jesus mentioned above. If you refute Jesus, Jesus will refute you.
There is nothing here about conscience. Jesus is not a matter of conscience. Christianity is not a matter of conscience. Salvation is not a matter of conscience. Truth is not a matter of conscience. Salvation depends on being accepted by Jesus as worthy of salvation, which cannot be separated from a more or less imperfect, ignorant, even very lazy – and at times yet implicit – desire to be saved by that Jesus from whom only one’s salvation depends.
Consequently, Francis’ answer to Scalfari should have been very short and very easy, along the lines of: ” Dear Dr Scalfari, the Gospel is very clear about what will happen to you if you die in the refusal of Christ. What you believe, or not believe, “right” or “wrong” is simply neither here nor there. Similarly, your “conscience” is neither here nor there, because you aren’t God, Jesus is. Think of this now, and pray the Blessed Virgin much that she may help you to pass the hurdle the day you die; because as you think and write now, I would not bet my pint that you would”.
An answer along these lines would have been very orthodox and very charitable. It would have gone around the world in a matter of hours. It would have been a most powerful testimony of the hour awaiting all of of us, when the Rex tremendae majestatis, and not a journalist, will decide what is right and what is wrong.
Still, an answer along these lines would have destroyed the liberal reputation of Francis. His popularity among atheists, perverts, and assorted anticlerical activists would have been in tatters. He could not allow that.
Therefore, as a true Jesuit, he mixes the waters. He explains some of the Catholic truths – so it cannot be said he is not being orthodox – but then, practically in the same breath, completely ignores them and invents, out of some masonic fantasies of his, a second religion, applicable to atheists and very convenient to him.
Read again his words above. The first part is fine: God’s forgiveness is stronger than every sin, if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart. Francis has made his homework, so to speak, and has appeased the Catholics. Now that he has done the running with the hare, he can do the hunting with the hounds. Mysteriously, from the basic Christian concept that perfect contrition leads to the remission of sins a new religion is born, through the use of the perfectly illogical words “given that God’s mercy has no limits”, with which everything he has just said about the necessity of contrition is completely forgotten. The new religion has as its fundamental tenet that “the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience”.
Whatever this is, this isn’t Christianity. This is, very simply, a new religion; a religion in complete and utter opposition to the words of Jesus mentioned above, and by which the words “let him be accursed” are more than appropriate. I cannot imagine a past epoch of serious Christianity when such an astonishing phrase from a priest or a bishop would not have attracted the entire Inquisition on Francis, and death at the stake would not have appeared a very concrete possibility. Blessed times, sadly gone.
Read Francis’ words again. And again. This is a Kindergarten-cum-Freemasonry wannabe religion, by which every atheist relates to God according to his own conscience and is saved through this means; because hey, he does not believe, does he now?
There is here, of course, a huge non sequitur, as Francis jumps with utter lack of logic or reason from the necessity of repentance to the sufficiency of “obeying one’s conscience”. Not only the two aren’t related, but they are in mutual exclusion. If obeying my conscience is sufficient, there is no need whatever for contrition. If contrition is necessary, my thinking what is right “in conscience” will never equate to contrition.
Pope Bishop of Rome be such a nincompoop as not to get these simple things? Yes, of course he can! John XXII believed for many years that there is no beatific vision before the Last Judgment! They are heretical Popes, is all. Popes can be heretical and in fact have been heretical. They will simply not proclaim any dogma contrary to Christian teaching. If they should try (the operative word here is “try”, as opposed to “succeed”) then ipso facto the sea would be vacant, because opposition to Christian dogma is not something you can put to a vote, or that would need so and so many cardinals or bishops to be effective.
Back to our disgraceful bishop. How does Francis, then, avoid being exposed as openly heretical besides relying on the usual blindness of his not very well-instructed “this is the Pope so the Holy Spirit must be wanting heresy” crowd?
By being a Jesuit.
If you read the letter in its entirety, you will see that Francis has a two-railway system, by which the believers follow rules of Christian behaviour because it is oh so extremely joyous to live a life which prohibits a lot of rather savoury things, and those who do not believe can blaspheme, fornicate, contracept, abort, yeah, stage a Holocaust or a genocide provided this is what their conscience tells them.
In Francis’ new religion, Lenin and Pol Pot are clearly in possession of all the credentials to be saved, because there can be no real doubt about their complete atheism and their following their conscience. For others – like Hitler, who was said to be a believer, though obviously in his own way – it is more complicated, because apparently he did believe in some Nazi God. Still, if he followed his conscience, how can Francis deny to him, too, the “get out of jail card”, if it is true of the conscience that “listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil,” and “the goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision”?
What the hell is that? This is hell at work, that’s what it is.
But how does Francis come to these astonishingly heretical conclusions? It would appear, from not only this letter but other – and already reported – interventions of him, that to him hell isn’t really a realistic option.
If you read the letter in its entirety, you will find some traces of clear orthodoxy – for example the repeated affirmation that there is only one Truth, and this Truth is in no way subjective, and is Jesus Himself -. But this is an orthodoxy without a leg, or a body without a head, because to this orthodoxy Francis does not attach any real consequence (as in: he that believeth not shall be damned), but creates a second, in my eyes clearly masonic religion, with which according to Francis Jesus would help those who, as He said Himself, would otherwise be damned.
If you remember my blog post titled “Rehab”, you will recall that Francis is on record with saying:
“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest”.
This letter sings the same song: we are so joyously Catholics, but we do not need to really convert others, because it is not necessary. How can it be, if following one’s conscience can be enough? We are all brothers, and God’s mercy will reach all of us.
In this very letter, we find other hints of this new religion. Take this paragraph (emphases mine):
And it is then – as the Roman centurion exclaims, in the Gospel according to Mark – that Jesus is paradoxically revealed as the Son of God. Son of a God that is love and that wants, with all of himself that man, every man, discovers himself and also lives like his real son. For Christian faith this is certified by the fact that Jesus rose from the dead: not to be triumphant over those who refused him, but to certify that the love of God is stronger than death, the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin and that it is worthwhile to give one’s life, to the end, to witness this great gift.
It is worthwhile to give one’s life to “witness a great gift”, but this gift cannot be very great if Salvation can be attained without it. Still, for Francis the ones die joyously to give witness, and the others go to heaven by killing them – or aborting, murdering, or committing holocausts or genocides – in accordance with their own conscience. Extra Ecclesiam Omnia Salus.
This is a Christianity presented as nothing more than an optional, whilst Freemasonry – I keep coming back to this, because this letter has disquieting analogies to Freemasonry, where everyone picks and chooses his own relationship with his “supreme being” and tailors it exactly to his needs, without having to give account to anyone; hey, in the end… “who am I to judge?” – is the parachute for those who, in conscience (Hitler again!), refuse the option of Christ.
Note the other statement: Jesus did not rise from the dead in order to be triumphant over those who refused him, but to certify that the love of God is stronger than death, the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin. There is nothing here about this forgiveness being conditioned. If contrition doesn’t work, conscience will have to intervene. As an atheist, one does not have to convert, simply to use his conscience. Chocolate (Christ) or vanilla (conscience). Pick your flavour. God saves you anyway, because “God’s mercy has no limits”.
This letter, which I think will remain in infamy in the history of the Church, would give many more arguments of discussion, as from it emerged a deeply, deeply confused man with the theology of an eight year old unable to come to term with the harsh reality of damnation and desirous to save everyone in some way whatever. However, I have already surpassed the 2000 words, and I think I have abused of your patience for long enough.
Still, when the eight year old tries to “save humanity” you can forgive him for playing God, because he does not understand the consequences and the reach of his error. Though I am sure my grandmother would have slapped him anyway.
When a Pope (even if he does not call himself that way) confuses Catholics in such a way, and confirms countless immortal souls in their atheist complacency, I dare to say it is an entirely different matter.
Pray for the Pope.
And if you can, pray for a new one.
Humility, Wisdom, Homilies.
The first mark of the wise man is that he pays attention before he opens his mouth, and does not talk of things he doesn’t know. Even those who are not wise will, if they have some humbleness and fear of the Lord, at least pay attention that they do not give scandal.
Our Pope Francis does not have a perfect command of Dante’s language, though one must say he knows it well. He wants to have a public Mass and a homily every day. This is a lot of work, but is perfectly doable if one knows what he says, let alone has at his disposal the human resources available to a Pope.
Pope Francis does not want to publish the homilies in their entirety, because they are supposed to be spontaneous and informal (and, cough, the rambling must be atrocious); but he does not want to keep them unpublished either, for reasons unknown to me but which must have to do with the idea whenever the Pope opens his mouth the gold coming from it must be made available to the planet, lest Creation should suffer.
One would think that here only one of two would apply: either the Holy Father’s homily are important, and then they should be carefully revised beforehand, and in case written by others from starting points given to them by the Pope; or they are just short reflections among friends, and then they should remain among friends lest something wrong comes out of them. Wisdom requires that a Pope pays great attention to what is publicly attributed to him, and humility requires to consider the world doesn’t need to read whatever the Pope thinks or says on a given moment; particularly when it’s wrong.
This does not seem to be the case. Apparently, the world must know whatever word comes out of the Pope’s mouth on a rather daily basis, but no one – least of all the Pope – seem to be willing to put some serious effort, either directly or by delegation, to do it right. All the publicity, but none of the homework. Nice.
I fail to see where is the wisdom, or the much-vaunted humility in this. A clearly lacking theological formation, coupled with the idea that whatever the Pontiff says must be made known to the world, seem to be the main ingredients of this strange, and at times scandalous, situation; a situation which is made worse by the obvious fact that the Pope either doesn’t realise the mediocrity of his theological knowledge, or simply doesn’t care and thinks such need for orthodoxy is a thing of the past, unnecessary in the new age of Pinocchio masses.
I have learned to mistrust anyone who doesn’t take the liturgy seriously. As I have often written, if the Lex Orandi is lacking you can be sure the Lex Credendi will not be better. In this case, though, we have a more serious problem: an allegedly humble Pope who a) cannot find in himself the humility to recognise he gives scandal; b) doesn’t want to spend the energy necessary to avoid it, and c) doesn’t even have the humility to say “let’s keep this private, then”.
I fail to see any wisdom, or diligence, or humility in this. I can’t think how this way of thinking will not cause further confusion and utter scandal down the line, particularly considering there seems to be from the side of the Holy Father no awareness at all of the enormity of what he says, or any interest at all in stopping it if he is aware.
If you ask me, someone near to him should speak to the Pontiff and clearly say to him he must either have his homilies written (or reviewed) by competent and utterly sound theologians, or keep them altogether private. We cannot go on with a Pope that might throw a theological (and heretical) bomb every day that God has made without gravely confusing the Catholics, and making a joke of the teaching role of a Pope.
Pope Francis And The Confused Mind.
The more I read him, the more I am persuaded that we are punished with a Pope that doesn’t know very much what he thinks, but seems determined to say it anyway.
Things have come to such a level of confusion and embarrassment, that most recently a Vatican spokesman, Father Rosica, had to clean some of Francis’ mess, and to say very clear those who die in their atheism will go to hell.
Obvious, you will say. Christianity 101. Every child of six knows it. Well, apparently some doubts about whether the Pope’s understanding of Christianity is as good as a five years’ old are justified enough to force Father Rosica to intervene. The brutal fact is that the Holy Father expresses himself in such a confused way you never know whether the problem is in his utter inability to express himself properly – which should be reason enough not to improvise – or, more worryingly, in his inability to think soundly.
Recently, the Pope told us that Christ died even for atheist, which in itself is true: antecedently, Jesus died for everyone; but this does not mean everyone is saved, then subsequently Jesus saves some and condemns others. Therefore, Jesus died for the atheist doesn’t mean those who die in their atheism escape hell. To think so would mean to completely reinvent Christianity, transforming it in a sugary new age cult in which not even believing Jesus is our Saviour is necessary to save us.
“Do good”, says the Pope to the atheist, after talking of Salvation; “we will meet there”, and you don’t understand whether it means “we will have at least some common ground, hoping you avoid hell repenting of your atheism by the efficacious grace of God”, or whether he means “we will meet in Paradise, because don’t you know, nowadays works without faith suffice for salvation”; which last is, I assure you, just the way it sounds and can’t be what the Pope meant merely because the scale of heresy would be too much even for a South American Jesuit, much less a Pope.
So much so, in fact, that Father Rosica had to intervene and explain to the atheists – the Christians already know – what is what. Now when someone is forced to explain the very first truths of Christianity because as the Pope explains them they seem the opposite, you know a Jesuit was made Pope.
It is difficult to know what goes on into the mind of this man. I have always been of the opinion that when people think clearly, they speak clearly and, conversely, when they are confused in the way they talk is because they are rather confused in the way they think. “Chi parla male, pensa male”: he who talks badly, thinks badly. I do not think the Holy Father should be an exception, because he isn’t an illiterate south American campesino.
My impression of the Pontiff after reading the excerpts of a couple of dozen homilies of his – which is a lot to understand how a man thinks – is that this is a man not in possession of clear thinking, possibly never formed correctly in the first place, and constantly oscillating between the will to talk straight and the seemingly irresistible desire to please the audience and make everything “easy”, which actually means “convenient”. This is, by the by, the first mark of the Vatican II priest.
This here is also a Jesuit, meaning that to him ambiguity is a way of life. Before reading Pope Francis, you know already he will either run with the hare or hunt with the hounds, and the only uncertainty is which of the two is going to be on the day. The banality of much of what he says is the result of this way of thinking, and it won’t be long before millions discover they have to do with an intellectual Pygmy.
This isn’t pastoral, or even decent. It sows confusion to the point of forcing his officials to explain the obvious. It can’t be right, and must be amended if the Holy Father is to avoid making an embarrassment of himself.
It would be enough to be conscious of his (obvious) limits and prepare drafts of his homilies beforehand, that he would give to someone like Father Rosica or Bishop Gaenswein to ensure they are sound; but it is very obvious the humility necessary to do so is just not there.
Unless something substantial changes, we must prepare ourselves for a very sad Papacy. I blame Pope Benedict; not for resigning, but for choosing the Cardinals who then picked, rather predictably, one like the majority of them.
Militant Atheists Good For Something After All
Rick Santorum thanked one of the biggest atheist organisations in the country (apparently there are several of them; Satan is having a laugh…) for putting huge images of himself on billboards, complete with Christian quote.
Santorum is not the only beneficiary of the action. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have also profited from the unexpected free advertisements, and we are told even the Pontiff Emeritus had the same honour.
The reaction of those so honoured are generally very positive. Santorum is clearly hoping the atheist campaign goes on, but it is highly amusing a certain Robert Jeffress, pastor of a mega church based in Texas (like Santorum's billboards) saluted the attentions of the atheists with the rather pertinent observation that every day they are attacked by atheist organisations must be considered a good day, then it shows they are doing something right.
Of course, to pay ads for Christians was not the original intent, and all the billboards invite the readers to “go godless instead”; the billboards were rather meant, we are told, to “expose” the Christians as “bigoted” and “backward”; but you can see here what the unintended consequences were.
I would be personally curious to see what impact analogous billboards targeting Islam and Muslim personalities would have instead. Would the recipients thank the generous billboard-donors so heartily? And what about the personal security of the initiators of the initiative?
I begin to understand why liberals want to ban weapons.
They'd be shooting themselves by mistake all the time…..
You must be logged in to post a comment.