I am reading around some of the echoes of the death of David Bowie. The stupidest is, predictably, Cardinal Ravasi. This one is such an ass that when someone dies who has spread for several decades an aggressive anti-Christian message he does not have anything better to do than tweet some nonsense appreciative of the songs of the pervert and of his life of cross-dressing and bisexual scandal. Not only one wonders whether Cardinal Ravasi knows what it means to be a priest. One wonders whether the man is a homosexual himself. That he is an ass dressed in red, however, there can be no doubt.
Ravasi gets the biscuit. But there must be many not very far away for him. Countless fans will, as I write this, easily persuade themselves that if there is a hell – which, I am sure, many of them doubt – the man has certainly avoided it because, say, he loved some good cause – which public figure doesn't… – or engaged himself in some public and very easy battle – see above… – or even recited the Our Father at some celebration of his very faggoty singing colleague, Freddie Mercury.
Erm, no. If one does not repent of his sins, much less believe in God, he can pray the Our Father as much as he wants, it will be to no avail. If one lives a life in total opposition to everything that is Christian, very publicly doing so and even building an entire singer's career upon it, one public prayer isn't going to wash. Besides, in the confused mind of the average pot-smoking Bowie fan an Our Father at a public commemoration is something just cool, because so easily emotional. That Freddy Mercury, the person for whom Bowie said that prayer, was a sodomite to his very last hours – the ladies please look away now, but I was told in 1992 by reliable sources that the autopsy found on his stomach the sperm of one or many men, I forget the details… – did not seem to have inspired any fear of the Lord in Bowie himself as he prayed it.
The fact is that God is no respecter of persons. Being a famous singer or actor will count exactly zero, zilch, and zippo when the day of the redde rationem comes. On the contrary: a man like Bowie, who was the embodiment of scandal, will have to answer for decades of worldwide leading astray of souls.
If Bowie saved his sorry ass – which I wish him, but consider very improbable – it is not because he was famous, or good at singing, or good at acting, or a lover of kitten and daisies. It was because in his last moments he was given the grace to reject everything he was for many decades.
Fame, honour, fans, do not count anymore when one dies. It was a long party, and one wished that it could go on forever; but now the time is up, and one must give an account and be judged accordingly. There is no indication whatever that Bowie was prepared.
This leads me to the last point of today. In my opinion, the fear of the Lord of many a Catholics, and of many a blogger, is easily seen when these events occur. One who thinks that, say, you can be a public sodomite all your life and save (cough) your ass just with one or three vague public utterances of something vaguely resembling goodness obviously thinks it much easier for everyone else to be saved. This shows a clear lack of fear of the Lord, because it is obvious the blogger or quisque de populo thinks that he'll must be feared only by Pol Pot and very few others.
If the death of one like Bowie does not fill you with dread at his very probable destination, I must question your fear of the Lord. This one was a very, very prime candidate. Fame will not be of any avail to him. Actually, fame very probably lulled him in a false sense of security, and pumped his ego to the very end.
The same goes for that other bunch of perverted idiots like Elton John and Mick Jagger (the latter, by the way, an ass-buddy of Bowie himself). The world, which is stupid, praises them to the sky; but the clock is ticking, and they should take heed and wake up whilst they can.
God is no respecter of pop stars.
I keep reading Cardinals who sound as if they belonged to a different religion. Actually, I keep reading Cardinals who do show, by their own talking, that they belong to a different religion.
The latest one is Cardinal Ravasi, the Lou Reed fan, very eager to take a walk on the wild side. Ravasi reacts to Cardinal Burke's invitation to the Pope to quench the heresy, and says in his innocent ignorance of everything Catholic that no, the Pope could not do that, because his intervention it would have ended the debate. Roma locuta, causa finita, said the chap, to show us in life he hasn't been listening to Lou Reed all the time.
The stupidity of this is immense, but is the more insulting if we reflect that it comes from a Cardinal.
Roma not only used to, but has to speak – for all times to come – exactly in order to end discussions that should not have started in the first place! Heresy is not on a par footing with Truth, and the Pope is never ever to be neutral between the one and the other.
Cardinal “Lou Reed” Ravasi does not get this simple concept. He talks as if the discussion took place inside a political party. He has no idea – or does not care – about the principles involved. To him, “Rome” has a duty to encourage discussion irrespective of what is actually discussed.
This man is a Cardinal. A Church with such Princes is truly a Kingdom in serious need of repair.
Every now and then, I try to think how the Cardinals could, in that fateful day of March 2013, have picked an even worse one than Jorge Bergoglio. Martini would have been one if he had been alive, but he had already gone to his Creator – or the other way, as the case may be -. Schoenborn is another candidate, but I think Schienborn is, if every bit a sellout as Francis, more intelligent, better educated and probably more prudent.
With the benefit of hindsight, Maradiaga is also such a one, though it is difficult to see whether he would have been as spirited in leading the madness than he is in following Francis' lead, safe in the knowledge he can take refuge in the shadow of the more senior heretic.
From what one begins to hear Tegle might also be such a one, but such a young Pope was probably never in the card. Tegle is, unfortunately, already a candidate to the Sea, one day. Let's hope he ages well, or does not age at all.
Possibly, the one with the best probability of being worse than Francis – if such a feat would have been achievable, at all – must be Cardinal Ravasi, the red-hatted version of the Italian TV singing “nun on cocaine”. Not because he dances so well – I do not know; Francis does not dance, either, and he lets other people dance the Tango just in front of the sanctuary for his and their more or less pious amusement – but rather because he can stoop to such a low level of tomfoolery that should the Red Nose Pope die, you know the Hip Hop Cardinal would be a good substitute. I doubt he knows as little of Catholicism as Francis, but hey, nobody is “perfect”.
I know there are a lot of stupid Cardinals around, but Cardinal Ravasi must lead the pack.
It is questionable whether a Catholic boy of fifteen would tweet fragments of lyrics of a just deceased musician without thinking whether he is giving the wrong example. It is unpardonable if a Cardinal does it.
Lou Reed dies and our oh so pop-culture loving Cardinal does not tweet reflecting about the fact that Lou Reed now sits in front of His judge. Like a very stupid fifteen years old, he tweets words from one of his songs, dedicated to heroine. If a Cardinal absolutely wants to tweet, he should do it to evangelise and be more efficient in his work; not to shamelessly promote himself as the cool guy. These people always talk of being “pastoral”, but what they really mean is being popular and having a quiet life.
Mind, I do not doubt stupid Cardinals have not been invented in the last half century. But in former times they did not have the possibility of showing the entire planet how unbelievably childish and – repetita iuvant -astonishingly stupid they are.
Cardinal Ravasi is a Cardinal in the mould of the current Pontiff. Being popular among the faithless and loved by the masses is clearly his first priority. There could be no other reason on earth why a Cardinal would, otherwise, tweet the lyrics of a dead pop star. In the modern race for popularity at all costs, Cardinal Ravasi did not want to stay behind, and we see the results.
One must say, though, even Bergoglio would avoid being as stupid as that. When he says something stupid, it generally is because he wants to.
Keep children away from knives, and Cardinal Ravasi away from Twitter.
The Biennale of Venice is about to open and, as every two years, the usual army of cretins and perverts (often in the same person) will afflict humanity with their senseless blathering about degenerate (supposed) art.
This year, though, there is a novelty: the Holy See thought it fitting, and in the spirit of Franciscan Simplicity, to play idiot among the idiots, in an extremely childish effort to look cool.
We are not blessed yet with the visual result of this exercise, but from what transpires the money will be as wasted as you would expect it to be. The “destruction of the environment” will have a prominent place as princes of the Church brown-nose (as in: brown-nose) every brainless fashion of our time, desperately hoping to be considered hip by a bunch of degenerate cretins, who despise them anyway.
From what I read around, the Head Prince in question is Cardinal Ravasi, a man whom some even considered papabile back in March. It is obvious Ravasi did not know anything about “Franciscan Simplicity” when he decided to waste the Church's money on deaf people dancing around (note to the reader: they had to be deaf, or with some other impairment; otherwise it's not patronising enough) and such like, though I do not doubt his conversion to it was instantaneous after the fact.
Michelangelo, Raffaello and all the countless other great artists (real artists, not morons) who gave the Church and the Western Civilisation so much true beauty must be rolling in the grave; but again, they lived in times in which people had enough sense to honour and seek real art, rather than being terrified of being considered unrefined if they say the emperor has no clothes and all this so-called art is not only degenerate, but it is not even art by every sensible definition of the word. What is called “art” at the Biennale pleases the stupid who want to play intellectual, and attracts those in desperate need of a varnish of supposed coolness. The one or other cardinal comes to mind.
Nothing of this will trouble, I am sure, our hero Ravasi, who will hobnob with perverts and assorted ultra-liberal nut cases; perhaps with the pathetic excuse of the evangelisation, but in fact being clearly converted to their values, and desiring with all his might to show it.
I am aware this senseless expense was decided before Pope Francis' election, and one must clearly apportion to Pope Benedict at least one part of the blame, as it is inconceivable such an exercise would ever take place without his knowledge of, and consent to, at least the idea and the principle. Still, I can't wait for Pope Francis' criticism of the expense of 750,000 Euros for people dancing around (and such like kindergarten exercises) whilst his dear friends in the favelas live in dire conditions.
The truth is that the corridors of the Vatican have become pray to such degeneration – of thinking at the very least – that they desire to espouse and approve the degeneration of the world with the shameless energy – and expense – put on show on this occasion.
Vatican II is a degeneration of the very idea of what the Church is supposed to be. It is the novel concept that the Church and the World can be “friends” rather than enemies. But this is the thinking not of spiritual, but of worldly people.