Bishop Galantino is not new to headlines of the wrong kind, and yours truly has already reported about what kind of circus article we are dealing with in this sad case.
More and more worried with out-Francising Francis – a feat not easy in itself – or perhaps sent by Francis himself to pave the way for a new “sacrilege offensive” as the October synod rapidly approaches, the man is now on record with other scandalous affirmations, which really give all the measure of the extent to which he has prostituted himself to the world.
Galantino’s willingly made points are the following:
1. The church must make everyone feel at home.
Why it should be so, it remains unsaid. Since the beginning, the Church has maintained that if you put yourself out of the home, it is much better for you to be aware of it. Shall we, now, let Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, open adulterers, open perverts and the like also feel “at home”? What is this, a third-rate hotel which rents rooms by the hour in an unsavoury part of town, or the Church of Christ?
2. There is something like “unconventional couples”.
Subversion often goes with the creation of new words to match the subversive ideology. The word Bishop Cretino Galantino is looking for is “concubines”. For now at least: as the word could, one day, be used by the same man to describe couple consisting of two men, two women, a man and a dog, or the like.
Such couples – all of them – have always existed, as human nature does not fundamentally change. It’s not that they have begun after, erm, V II… Rather, the Bishop’s desire to create new ways of saying old things is a very obvious manifestation of his desire to substitute Christian morality for a worldly one. From their fruits you will recognise them.
3. Truth must be called “prejudice”.
Someone please tell this cretin that concubines live in mortal sin, and no amount of political correctness can change an iota in the crude facts of life. The scandal is there, the sin is there. Of course people living in scandal will meet with condemnation. They will, in fact, meet with the condemnation they have deserved; doubly so, because they cause scandal.
Every concubine couple is a bomb put under the chair of Marriage. Full stop. Of course I’m “prejudiced”. I believe in God, and in the Marriage He created.
4. The exclusion of people in mortal sin from the Sacraments is “a burden”, an “unjustified price to pay”, and “de facto discrimination”.
Silly me! I thought it is the sin which was the burden! Silly me, I thought the sin sends one, if not repented of, straight to hell! Silly me, I thought the exclusion from the sacraments – until the grave scandal continues and there is no repentance – is there exactly to make the sinner aware of the very deep shit in which he has put himself! How uninformed I was! It is a “burden”, don’t you know?
This way, we discover that the Church has always imposed an “unjustified price” on public concubines, “de facto” discriminating them. Heaven, is this cretin a Christian in the first place? His is nothing less than a war declaration on basic Christian morality; a new system of (non) values in which “discrimination” and “not making people feel at home” are the new mortal sins, and – if at all – the only ones remaining. It is obvious even to a retard that if one admits the gravity of the sin, he must approve the harshness of the sanction; and that, conversely, lamenting the latter means to negate the former. But we don’t live in logical times. We live in the “age of mercy”.
We must pray that Bishop Galantino repents – better said: starts believing in God and repents -. Let us pray that he comes to his senses and says it out loud. It’s never too late. Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia, “God forgives many things for a work of mercy”.
Let us hope and pray, for him and the countless sheep he is trying to lead astray. If he should not, let us reflect that he will die in his rebellion to Christ and go to hell, where he – in this case – belongs not one but one thousand times; together with all the other like him, prostituting themselves to the world, and whoring their way to damnation for the sake of power and popularity.
The heretics of yore, burning at the stake, had it much better than this little slut. They had a massive, massive chance of repentance as all the illusions of fame and recognition, of power and glory, or simply all the delusions of an arrogant mind were confronted with the imminence of their ignominious end.
Not so for the modern heretics. They are in positions of great power, and are greatly applauded. The Pope himself promotes and protects them. A Pope to whom, too, the stake would be a blessing, if a heretical Pope could be blessed in that way.
From their fruits you will recognise them. But from their appointments you will recognise them, too.
Boy, Dante would have a lot of fun with these two.
Read on Rorate Bishop Galantino’s passive-aggressive interview, in which he says he was oh so hurt at how “aggressive” some Catholics were (“people who say they pray they rosary”, the cretin goes on to say) , and then proceeds to take the usual emergency exit of the whiny secular bishop: it was not my fault, it’s the press’ fault.
Now, what is that I find so disgusting in this man’s behaviour?
1. The interview could have been corrected immediately. Actually, even before the uproar, which always take some time to develop. Little coward did nothing. As always, the first headlines were those of the world, praising him for his approach truly worth of Francis. He did nothing. He discovers now, around one month after the fact and after having been ridiculed the world over, that the interview does not reflect his thinking.
2. It is typical of the coward – and also, by the way, of the effeminate man – to react with a whiny, passive-aggressive attitude. He calls the reaction to his interview “an aggression which, in reality, hurt me a bit”. The bishop may rest assured: if he had been made the victim of the same aggression an unborn baby receives in those clinic in front of which the “expressionless people” pray, he would be a bit more “hurt” than from some headlines in newspapers and blogs. He should thank the Lord that he is – unworthily – a bishop, and cannot have his ass kicked all the way to the next train station among the, ahem, very expressive laughter of the present, as he would undoubtedly deserve if he were, say, a priest. Instead, Bishop Girlie goes on record with saying to us how hurt he is from a couple of headlines. Go figure.
3. The bishop now pretends to have said exactly the contrary of what he has said. Astonishingly hypocritical. Not a word of apology, then, for furthering a massacre by which more than 100,000 babies every here are not “hurt a bit”, but murdered in his own Country.
No. He simply tries – in pure Francis style – to have his very words of yesterday forgotten today. Very aptly, Marco Tosatti makes him notice that enough is enough. Verba volant, scripta manent.
Let us reflect, though, why all this happens.
It all happens because going to the newspapers with revolutionary, fully unCatholic or positively antiCatholic slogans has now become the favourite summer fashion, and every little nincompoop like Galantino feels he has something to earn – in notoriety, which all these people crave, and in brownie points with the Unholy Father – by showing himself oh so progressive.
It is Francis who caused all this. It is Francis who keeps giving the bad example. It is Francis who is every bit a hypocrite as this Galantino; ultimately, it is Francis who has to answer for the climate of stupidity and demolition that is now everywhere.
I am glad to see that resistance to the madness is now gradually becoming more spread, but I am under no illusion that the vast majority of the oxen will continue to be led by the nose by Francis and his little minions, like this despicable little caricature of a bishop. Which is why Francis will, for the time being, continue to sow confusion and revolt (Lio, I think he calls it); and why there will be no shortage of little faggots trying to get their moment of popularity, though throwing the toys out of the pram whenever they discover the reaction is not entirely what they had hoped for.
Francis says 2% of the priests are pedophiles. His “guesstimate” is vastly exaggerated, but it probably reflects the quality of the people he has around him.
The percentage of faggots must be astonishing.
This morning, those of you who have attended a NO Mass have listened (or will listen) to the parable of the wheat and the tares.
As I was intently listening (the priest had an extremely loud and theatrical voice, full of zeal and passion; a very effective Gospel reader) I could not avoid making the following two reflections:
1. The reading is, in the present situation, very consoling. It is clear that we must face the abundant tares currently present within the Church, and accept that the field will be a mess until the harvest is imminent. The enemy has planted so much tares within the Church that countless Bishops, Cardinals, even the present Pope clearly belong to the tares rather than to the wheat. The tares are so abundant that they cannot be estirpated without seriously damaging the wheat harvest. More crucially, God will not get rid of the darnel before His appointed time. The Galantinos and the Veras, the Maradiagas and the Kaspers, and even the Bergoglios are the tares sowed by the Enemy to ruin the harvest. Like the tares, they are everywhere in the field. Some of them will, hopefully, repent. It is very realistic to think that most of them will not. The latter will, in due time, be gathered and burnt.
Let us say it once again: God will not cleanse the field for us before His appointed time. We must live with the damn tares. This is God’s will and God’s plan. Thinking of impending end of the world are, with great probability, nothing more than a pious hope born of the refusal to accept that the field has always had an awful lot of tares. The world was always meant to have a lot of tares, and the Church has never be deprived of them. Unfortunately, in this age the seeding of them has been particularly effective, and the darnel is now everywhere. It’s a very messy field. But in essentials, it is how the field has always been.
2. I doubt Bergoglio reads the Gospel other than to try to extract some of the stupid, populist, socialist, childish, or simply unintelligible nonsense he regales us so often with. I know he very probably does not believe in God, does not think he will stand in front of his Judge, and does not care a straw about doing his job as a Pope is expected to do. But I do wonder: if Francis were – perhaps after drinking a grappa too much – to make an effort to read the Gospel seriously and try to understand what it really means, how could he not be shocked at the parable?
It is clear to everyone with a brain to Dalai Bergoglio damnation is a very remote possibility; an event from which he clearly excludes all those who are “in good faith” and “seek the Lord”; actually, an event from which he is happy to exclude even those who do not believe in the Lord, at all (which makes sense, and squares perfectly with the extremely strong suspicion he does not believe in the Lord himself). In Bergoglio’s world, hell must be something reserved to “Pelagians” (that is: devout Catholics), “judgmental gossipers” (meant are again: devout Catholics), mafia bosses, and … well, no one else, really. There is, in fact, no need to even convert anyone to Catholicism, because Christ has already done the job for pretty much everyone.
In Francis’ field, the tares are very sparse, and mainly made of devout Catholics.
How would, then, this probably tipsy Bergoglio react, if he were to really pay attention to what the parable says? How would he explain the obviously huge quantity of the tares? How could he deny that the tares are so abundant that they cannot be uprooted without destroying the entire harvest?
Now: the usual Bergoglio would probably tell you that Jesus was just being cunning, and was deceiving his disciples so that they do not no bad things like, say, going back to Judaism (no, wait! This can’t be! Buddy Skorka is Jewish and perfectly fine where he is! please pick another example, will you?…). But tipsy Bergoglio, who for a moment forgets his own rubbish thinking and tries to really understand what Jesus says with the parable, must be simply terrified.
No worry, though. The event is not very probable.
We all know when Bergoglio is tipsy he is more likely to grab the next smartphone around and send a “video-selfie” to a so-called “brother bishop”, than to read the Gospel and try to get some use from it.
Read on the usual Rorate the extremely strong article written by Antonio Socci, with a no-holds-barred criticism of the disgraceful Bishop Galantino, Francis’ own new Secretary of the Italian Bishop’s conference.
Whilst – as Rorate points out – Socci is not a Master of Orthodoxy, nor a Paladin of Tradition, I find the article very interesting not only because it is well-written and factually accurate, but most notably because the bunch of idiots now running the Church begins to be treated with at least one part of the contempt and ridicule they have richly deserved for betraying Christ’s Church.
The bishop in question, Galantino, has now after the atrocious sniping of the “expressionless face” of those praying in front of abortion clinics, forgotten all decency again, and I quote:
“We want to apologize to the non-believers because many times the way we live our religious experience completely ignores the sensibilities of unbelievers, and we say and do things that very often don’t reach them, but rather vex them.”
I will not offend your intelligence telling you all that is wrong in the words of this heathen. I will point out, though, that Galantino has, no doubt, wanted to make himself beautiful in the eyes of Francis. Strong reactions like Socci’s one not only signal the growing impatience of sound thinking Catholics with the continuous barrage of outrageous nonsense now administered to us, but they also show with great clarity that if the head of the Bishops’ Conference and clear protégé of the Pope can be criticised in such a way, the Pope himself cannot lull himself in the impious hope that whenever he says “black is white”*, the press will swallow it whole.
Everytime that the confrontation goes a notch higher – and the confrontation has just gone two, or three notches higher – the Unholy Father gets nearer to the same criticism. It is as if he could hear the shells from the cannons of sound Catholicism now falling increasingly nearer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
There will, of course, always be those who contract the Voris Disease and decide to become selectively blind; but in the same way as Voris’ criticism of everyone but the Pope merely exposes his own selective blindness in not criticising the Pope, the harsh – deservedly harsh; less harsh than he deserved – treatment of Bishop Galantino will train many to think in the right Catholic way; and when they start doing so, the army of those who see all the irreligious incompetence, boundless vanity and shameless populism of the Bishop of Rome will grow. At some point, the scandal will, Deo volente, explode fully in the Pope’s face, and will put an end to his dreams of boundless popularity at the cost of Catholicism. If you ask me, this will be the end of this phase of extreme enmity with Truth, because in my opinion Francis has no investment whatever either in Christ or the Devil, but merely in himself.
Kudos to Socci, then, who paves the way to a new tone in the way the press deals with Judas like Galantino.
Mundabor is slowly, but clearly, on his way to becoming mainstream among the sound thinking Catholics.
* post scheduled.