I think I should say a word or two about the mounting controversy about the Bishop, The Trads, and The Saintly Switchboard Operator.
First things first: Bishop Stika is The Gayest Fool Of All. He is (I have already written this, but repetita iuvant) a Christ hating Bishop.
Stop for a moment and reflect on what must happen in the mind of a Bishop who goes above and beyond the already cowardly attitude of his Bishops’ conference and gives a public order to deny communion on the tongue. Really, we are talking here of stuff who would not have been believed, would have been considered an absurd, and not even funny, joke only two generations ago.
What we have here is a Bishop who self-appoints himself as the ultimate health expert and pretends to “protect” his flock from this most dangerous practice, the reception of Our Lord as this has always been practiced in the history of the Church before the Age Of Effeminacy. It really is beyond stupid, it goes into the realm of outright insult to the Sacrament. The fact that the Bishop pretends not to see it (I think he does it very well) goes to show what an irrelevance Christ has become in his eyes, and how great is his need to signal virtue and to show how very aligned he is with the current madness. What do I say, aligned? He wants to show that he is better than everybody else!
Truly, this is of Satan, and no discussion allowed.
Still, what I want to discuss today is a trick used by liberals, women, and more or less gay bishops all over the world: the deflection. The Bishop complains that the angry trads have insulted his own telephone operator, who is so saintly and has just lost her husband! What cruel Nazis these trads are!
Give me a break.
Firstly, the saintliness of the operator is nothing to do with the facts at hand, and is merely an emotional handle to make people look bad, or worse than bad. It is certainly wrong to abuse anybody on the phone who is innocent of denying communion on the tongue to faithful Catholics who actually care for Christ and the Sacraments. But this is wrong irrespective of the saintliness of the person abused. This is a deflection.
Secondly, I very much doubt that said, saintly switchboard operator said to the person or persons on the phone, “my dear Sir, can you please kindly consider that I am not only a saintly person, but have recently lost my husband?” Consequently, the sad bereavement of the saintly operator should really not be part of the conversation. This is, also, a deflection.
But the third, and most important, deflection is this: the Bishop should have addressed the matter at hand, instead of throwing mud on his critics by lamenting an episode totally unrelated to it. We all know there will always be the occasional intemperate person, and we all know this controversy is not about that.
This deflection and accusation of rudeness is, by the way, the passive aggressive stuff often seen in women: “blablablabla HE WAS RUDE!!! blablablabla”. The issue at hand is not addressed; but hey, you are supposed to lose, because you hurt her feelings.
Bishop Stika is doing exactly this; albeit, being born with, at least physically, manly attributes, he needs a saintly switchboard operator to get his desired deflection.
In my eyes, Bishop Stika should do the following:
- Get real for a moment and reflect that people who are angry at him, and perhaps even people who – wrongly, of course – abuse the saintly receptionist on the phone, do so because they love Christ, His Church and Her Sacrament vastly more than the Bishop will ever be able to understand, and his behaviour makes their blood boil.
- Get real again, grow some figurative balls to go together with the physical ones, announce urbi et orbi that he has made a mistake, and make clear that his diocese will henceforward follow the guidelines of the Bishops’ Conference, without any of that gay, virtue-signalling stuff. He lives in Kentucky, for crying out loud. There will be no liberal revolution.
But no. It had to be the effeminate “y’all are so, so, sooo rude” non-answer.
Let us say, you are a Bishop who hates Christ, for reasons known to you and, possibly, to a restricted number of other men only.
You are obviously terrified at the idea of masses resuming more or less regularly, and faithful Christian receiving on the tongue, as even the Bishops’ Conference of your own Country says you should be allowed to do.
What do you do?
Why, you show yourself oh so concerned for the health of everybody, of course! This allows you to create rules that no one else has and a fuss without precedent, which then makes it easier to justify banning Communion on the tongue.
You might release instructions like this one:
- The faithful who present themselves for communion on the tongue will be denied communion.
- Those who want to receive in the only way allowed (the Protestant/ V Ii one) get the following instruction: “Once you leave your pew/chair you will proceed single file (maintaining 6 feet apart) to the distribution point,” Stika wrote. “Immediately before you reach the distribution point you will remove your protective face mask placing it in your pocket and sanitize your hands with 70% alcohol-based sanitizing gel/solution (which will be on a small table directly in front of the distribution point). “Standing on the floor-marked X (or kneeling at the 6-foot marked locations along the communion rail), you will extend your arms and hands toward the priest/deacon with the palm of your non-writing hand facing up and completely flat supported by your writing hand,”
You will, of course, look like a total fag, which will possibly not displease you at all. Still, you will achieve your trifecta of virtue signaling, antagonising the true faithful, and enmity with Christ.
“But Mundabor, Mundabor!” – You might say – “This is too dumb even for satire! No bishop would be as thick as that!”
You would think that, wouldn’t you?
I have bad news for you: read here.