Blog Archives

[REBLOG]: “Catholic Answers” Has Lost The Plot

Catholic…. What?

Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past – but repetita iuvant – they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an “ask an Apologist” question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like “good suicides to go heaven” and the like.

Today, out of sheer boredom, I clicked the page once again, to see what’s going on. I use “predestination” as search item and find a couple of threads that make your blood curl, with the usual sensitive posters (they are generally women; further proof God is rightly spoken of in the masculine) clumsily trying to avoid hard truths and tapping in the dark about what they “feel”, or “imagine” rather than doing what sensible people would do, that is: read a couple of sensible books first, and in case find a very good (means: not a wishy-washy V II one) priest later.

Still, this is a difficult issue: predestination is probably the most inextricable mystery of Christianity, up there with the Trinity, and a degree of confusion is normal, though once again a good book or a good theologian is vastly better than trying to concoct a solution among blog commenters.

Then I went on the “ask an apologist” section, where in the past I generally – but not always – found sound “Catholic answers”. The first (and only) post I read was this one.

In short, a woman has a perverted sister who “married” (not!) and her husband – one is glad there are true men around still – says to her wife the perverted woman is not to set foot in the house again. Not when he himself is there – obviously – and not when he is not there too – also obviously; then it’s a matter of principle, not of presence -.

The wife writes to “dear Abby”, and what do you think the “apologist” answers? Something along the lines of “he has no right to give you orders, you are his accomplice with your submissive behaviour, I suggest you speak to a marriage counsellor; with your husband if you can but alone if you must”.

What is this, a Catholic Forum or Cosmopolitan’s letters to the editor? To suggest that a third person be put between man and wife? After the head of the family (read my lips: head-of-the-family) has taken a perfectly reasonable decision about the scandalous reprobate he does not want to have in the house he (read my lips again: he) has the duty to lead? Really? What do these people think a marriage is, a democracy? There are Christian rules about how a marriage works; Christians have applied them for 2000 years with great success; it appears for “women’s liberation theologians” isn’t good enough.

For heaven’s sake, it’s not like the husband is alcoholic, or violent, or a lazy good-for-nothing married in a moment of Samaritan excesses (some women have that; though I think low self-esteem plays a far bigger role). This is a perfectly sensible, reasonable man confronted with the smoke of Satan wanting to enter his home, and he takes a perfectly reasonable decision about how he, the person responsible for the spiritual welfare of the family, is to deal with that.

Or do you think the feminist “apologist” would remind the wife that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the husband? A wife with the blessing of a man who knows he will have to answer to Jesus about the way he led his wife, and takes responsibility for it, has been graced with a good husband indeed! But that third parties would come to the extent of suggesting another person is put in the middle is really beyond belief.

Tra moglie e marito non mettere il dito (“do not put your finger between a husband and a wife”), says the wise Italian. The Catholic Answers apologist puts an entire counsellor. What a feminist nutcase.

This so-called “apologist” needs a very good rapping before she is kicked out, and I truly hope she is never allowed to instruct Catholic women preparing for marriage. She should also be informed that even today, even today such an outlandish “answer” (all, but a Catholic one) would be considered the answer of a feminist bitch by every sensible woman living in traditional Catholic countries, where – I can assure you from endless, and continued experience – this “let’s put a third person in our controversy” mentality is just not there, and would be considered the result of an acute bitchiness attack and controlling mania.

I do not need to mention here – because every woman with some brains knows it; apparently not the case by some female “apologists” – that women perfectly well know how to deal with disagreements within the family; and have far more effective (as in: smartly feminine) ways to influence their men, insofar as it can be done, or the intelligence to let it be, when it’s clear it cannot.

I am truly stunned. Where I come from, the answer to disagreements is never “put a counsellor in the middle”, but along the lines of “he is the man you wanted to marry: now let it work” or “try to change his mind if you can, with sweetness and prayer and patience; and accept his decision if you can’t, because this the way it goes”. Apparently, it’s now the counsellors who run Catholic families. Pathetic, and so stupid.

I really must say it, but if this flippin’ American mentality has infiltrated the minds to the point where such rubbish is even suggested in a Catholic Forum, by a so-called apologist, you in the old U S of A are in a very, very bad shape indeed.

Catholic Answers might well be the most clicked Catholic site on the planet. The damage they make with their blasted “American Feminist” mentality can hardly be overestimated. These people do not even know what makes a real woman, but they spread their rubbish on the Internet on how to run – or to break – a marriage.

I was always surprised when I left Italy and these colleague in Germany told me “Italian women are so feminine!”. Why, of course they are, thought I. They’re women, aren’t they…

I began to understand, later, what was meant by it, and it seems to me the problem is not limited to Germany.

Fight against feminism and bitchiness, even when it is in disguise of “Catholicism”. If you want to see real women in their environment, try to spend some months in a traditional Catholic country and see how those among them who have been properly raised – still the vast majority, even today! – live, embrace and enjoy their womanhood.

They live far happier lives, too.

Mundabor

Hatchet Job On The Sly

"I want to be Ms Arnold's cat".

“I want to be Ms Arnold’s cat”.

 

 

 

The name Michelle Arnold might not tell much to you; but when I was alerted to this article, it rang a bell with me.

Is this not the same woman who suggested to a wife that she disobeys to her husband and puts a third party “counsellor” between them?   Yes, she is…

Now, the same woman who has no qualms in putting other people’ s marriages in jeopardy, and in encouraging wives to disobedience to, actually, blessedly Catholic husbands, finds it oh so bad that certain priests – actually, one certain priest – invites donations on his blog and sells articles through it.

Still, this woman doesn’t have the brass balls of the Tablet journalists, who attack that certain priest without any qualm. Rather, she goes around him in circles like an overweight hyena; not saying, but implying; not making the name of any particular priest, but suggesting him; not writing of him, but rather of others. 

This is not the first time this particular priest (defined as “the” celebrity priest, so you know that yes, it is he who is meant) is attacked by the “c”atholic press or bloggers, though in this case the attack is meowed rather than roared. Not gently meowed, mind. Meowed, rather, like a very bitchy, overweight cat would meow when she hasn’t eaten.

In the past, I have defended that certain priest (Father Zimmermann, or Zuckerberg; or perhaps Zeckendorf; I forget …) from attacks against him openly, and would do so again if he were to be openly attacked again. But as the fictional bitchy cat hasn’t even dared to openly show her claws,  I will do the same like the good bitchy-cat chasing fictional Catholic Dobermann I am.

The, ahem, non-attack moves on two, ahem, non-fronts.

1. Beware of star priests. Look at Father Corapi!

Yes, some priests have qualities Ms Arnold will never have. Such is life. Yes, this will lead to temptations, and those of them who are vulnerable or particularly heavily attacked by Satan (can’t imagine this will ever be the case with Ms Arnold) will be at risk of falling in Satan’s trap. That’s life, too. I notice here that my last information is that Father Corapi has gone back to his monastery and is undergoing a period of punishment and penance. Very frankly, I do not want to “duckduckgo” him to see if this is still the case, because yes, I liked the man, and I like to think that he is on his way to redemption.

But be it as it may, yes: there are dangers in being very, very good that the very, very mediocre will never experience. Actually, anonymity is a very good way to avoid these problems. But then if you are anonymous, some bitchy cat will accuse you of just being anonymous…

2. Look at the warning signs, which I give you because I am smart.

At least one, actually more, of these “criticisms” (some of them very stupid, like “how open is he to criticism”? Go figure…) are directly aimed at Father Zimmermann, or Zuckerberg, or whatever. The message is clear enough: “The “star priest” that shall not be named is a bad one, but I can’t tell you who he is because I will have a bunch of Dobermann chasing me in no time. Forcing me to skip a meal. Which, you must know, I truly hate”. 

Tellingly, not one of the warning signs is the only one that people should pay attention to: does the star priest teach anything contrary to Catholic teaching, tradition and common sense? Because you see: if he does, he will do a lot of good to a lot of people even if he ends up (God forbid!) in hell himself; if he doesn’t, he can be “Father Theresa” in his private life and live in a cave, but he will be a rotten priest anyway.

The only measure of orthodoxy is orthodoxy, and this is also the only measure of the goodness of a priest’s preaching, or of a blogger’s blogging. I never enquire about the private life of a priest, and am content with a blogging priest not being openly sinful. I know privately they all are, as we all are, though hopefully in lesser ways than Ms Arnold or I. But you see: it is not sinful at all to sell articles on the internet, or to ask for donations, or to have legions of fans. These perks are generally deserved. What is really bad is when a blogging priest: a) gives scandal, or b) undermines the faith.I have supported Father Corapi as long as he was orthodox, and have censured him when he started to give scandal and talk like an egomaniac on cocaine. But I have not cancelled one single quote of him from my “quotable Catholic” page, and hope the day he dies the good he did to me and many others will be taken into account.

Talking of giving scandal and undermining the faith, the Bishop of Rome does both. Day in and day out.

I sense Ms Arnold isn’t really upset.  

Mundabor

 

 

Where Catholicism Goes To Die

political_correctness

Zero tolerance for less than catholic behavior”

These words run at the top of the top post pretty much at the very top of “Catholic (wrong) Answers”. Small “c” in the original.

In case any of my readers would not know what kind of shop this is, you can read more here.

The explanation for this Giuliani-style attitude runs as follows:

Insulting Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Orthodoxy or any other faith is a behavior in conflict with the Magisterium. The Magisterium has not given anyone license to speak for Catholicism in any manner other than charitably and respectfully. Therefore, any form of speech that is not in keeping with the form of speech used by the Magisterium cannot be tolerated as morally upright, even if one is defending truth. How others speak about Catholics does not mitigate our moral responsibility.

Let us see some concrete examples of wrong behaviour, then:

“… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434:

Is calling Islam the “abominable sect of Mahomet” “uncharitable” or “not respectful?”

If not, I will make a couple of blog post on the matter immediately. At Catholic (wrong) Answers, they will be happy indeed. Very charitable.

If yes, I am sorry, Your Holiness. You are banned. We have a zero tolerance policy for “less than catholic” behaviour here. You are a bad, bad Pope! Where's your moral responsibility?

“He (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the Contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly.”- St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4.

“Doctrine of the greatest falsity”. May I say this, Miss?

“Brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching”. Charitable?

“[Mohammed] perverts […] the Old and the New Testaments”. How does this square with the Magisterium, Miss? I thought St Thomas was good at it?

Oops. Sorry, Miss… My bad. Apologies. Please allow me to make amends…

Shame on you, Thomas boy! Dumb Ox, you! Any form of speech that is not in keeping with the form of speech used by the Magisterium cannot be tolerated as morally upright, even if one is defending truth. Didn't you know it? (Is it good so, Miss?).

There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist.

St John of Damascus.

I say! Watch your mouth! “Superstition”? “Forerunner of the Antichrist?” Haven't you read Evangelii Gaudium, man? The Magisterium has not given anyone license to speak for Catholicism in any manner other than charitably and respectfully!

———–

Well, I could go on.

You get the gist.

St. Thomas Aquinas, St John of Damascus, Pope Eugene IV and countless others are (cough…) not allowed to post on “c”atholic answers, the place where Catholicism goes to die.

Zero tolerance, and all that.

Beware of sanctimonious, pansy “c”atholics.

They are the bitchiest of them all. But only with Catholics, with the capital “c”.

Mundabor

 

“Catholic Answers” Has Lost The Plot

Catholic…. What?




Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past – but repetita iuvant – they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an “ask an Apologist” question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like “good suicides to go heaven” and the like.

Today, out of sheer boredom, I clicked the page once again, to see what’s going on. I use “predestination” as search item and find a couple of threads that make your blood curl, with the usual sensitive posters (they are generally women; further proof God is rightly spoken of in the masculine) clumsily trying to avoid hard truths and tapping in the dark about what they “feel”, or “imagine” rather than doing what sensible people would do, that is: read a couple of sensible books first, and in case find a very good (means: not a wishy-washy V II one) priest later.

Still, this is a difficult issue: predestination is probably the most inextricable mystery of Christianity, up there with the Trinity, and a degree of confusion is normal, though once again a good book or a good theologian is vastly better than trying to concoct a solution among blog commenters.

Then I went on the “ask an apologist” section, where in the past I generally – but not always – found sound “Catholic answers”. The first (and only) post I read was this one.

In short, a woman has a perverted sister who “married” (not!) and her husband – one is glad there are true men around still – says to her wife the perverted woman is not to set foot in the house again. Not when he himself is there – obviously – and not when he is not there too – also obviously; then it’s a matter of principle, not of presence -.

The wife writes to “dear Abby”, and what do you think the “apologist” answers? Something along the lines of “he has no right to give you orders, you are his accomplice with your submissive behaviour, I suggest you speak to a marriage counsellor; with your husband if you can but alone if you must”.

What is this, a Catholic Forum or Cosmopolitan’s letters to the editor? To suggest that a third person be put between man and wife? After the head of the family (read my lips: head-of-the-family) has taken a perfectly reasonable decision about the scandalous reprobate he does not want to have in the house he (read my lips again: he) has the duty to lead? Really? What do these people think a marriage is, a democracy? There are Christian rules about how a marriage works; Christians have applied them for 2000 years with great success; it appears for “women’s liberation theologians” isn’t good enough.

For heaven’s sake, it’s not like the husband is alcoholic, or violent, or a lazy good-for-nothing married in a moment of Samaritan excesses (some women have that; though I think low self-esteem plays a far bigger role). This is a perfectly sensible, reasonable man confronted with the smoke of Satan wanting to enter his home, and he takes a perfectly reasonable decision about how he, the person responsible for the spiritual welfare of the family, is to deal with that.

Or do you think the feminist “apologist” would remind the wife that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the husband? A wife with the blessing of a man who knows he will have to answer to Jesus about the way he led his wife, and takes responsibility for it, has been graced with a good husband indeed! But that third parties would come to the extent of suggesting another person is put in the middle is really beyond belief.

Tra moglie e marito non mettere il dito (“do not put your finger between a husband and a wife”), says the wise Italian. The Catholic Answers apologist puts an entire counsellor. What a feminist nutcase.

This so-called “apologist” needs a very good rapping before she is kicked out, and I truly hope she is never allowed to instruct Catholic women preparing for marriage. She should also be informed that even today, even today such an outlandish “answer” (all, but a Catholic one) would be considered the answer of a feminist bitch by every sensible woman living in traditional Catholic countries, where – I can assure you from endless, and continued experience – this “let’s put a third person in our controversy” mentality is just not there, and would be considered the result of an acute bitchiness attack and controlling mania.

I do not need to mention here – because every woman with some brains knows it; apparently not the case by some female “apologists” – that women perfectly well know how to deal with disagreements within the family; and have far more effective (as in: smartly feminine) ways to influence their men, insofar as it can be done, or the intelligence to let it be, when it’s clear it cannot.

I am truly stunned. Where I come from, the answer to disagreements is never “put a counsellor in the middle”, but along the lines of “he is the man you wanted to marry: now let it work” or “try to change his mind if you can, with sweetness and prayer and patience; and accept his decision if you can’t, because this the way it goes”. Apparently, it’s now the counsellors who run Catholic families. Pathetic, and so stupid.

I really must say it, but if this flippin’ American mentality has infiltrated the minds to the point where such rubbish is even suggested in a Catholic Forum, by a so-called apologist, you in the old U S of A are in a very, very bad shape indeed.

Catholic Answers might well be the most clicked Catholic site on the planet. The damage they make with their blasted “American Feminist” mentality can hardly be overestimated. These people do not even know what makes a real woman, but they spread their rubbish on the Internet on how to run – or to break – a marriage.

I was always surprised when I left Italy and these colleague in Germany told me “Italian women are so feminine!”. Why, of course they are, thought I. They’re women, aren’t they…

I began to understand, later, what was meant by it, and it seems to me the problem is not limited to Germany.

Fight against feminism and bitchiness, even when it is in disguise of “Catholicism”. If you want to see real women in their environment, try to spend some months in a traditional Catholic country and see how those among them who have been properly raised – still the vast majority, even today! – live, embrace and enjoy their womanhood.

They live far happier lives, too.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: