Reblog: The Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants

Mundabor, Self-Portrait, 2016

 

 

Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.

Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.

But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.

However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.

But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one’s own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.

How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.

Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.

When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.

I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.

This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world’s or his battle’s outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.

One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren’t like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God’s grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.

In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God’s grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.

Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.

May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reblog: The Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants

Mundabor, Self-Portrait, 2016

 

 

Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.

Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.

But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.

However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.

But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one’s own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.

How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.

Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.

When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.

I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.

This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world’s or his battle’s outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.

One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren’t like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God’s grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.

In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God’s grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.

Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.

May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants

Mundabor, Self-Portrait, 2016

Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.

Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.

But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.

However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.

But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one's own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.

How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.

Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.

When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.

I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.

This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin's Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world's or his battle's outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.

One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin's Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren't like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God's grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.

In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God's grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.

Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.

May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!

M

 

 

The Smart Way To Run A Blog

As a special Thanksgiving gift, Yours Truly has decided to share his not inconsiderable experience in blogging matters. So there we are.

When I started writing this blog I decided that the smart way of doing it was to limit interactive battles to the mere minimum, and devote the time to my little space on the Internet instead; at least as much as my fiery nature can manage.

Since then, I have been insulted many times, by many people, very publicly: from homosexual journalists to frustrated bloggers, and from failed seminarians to outright nutcases. Add to that a lot of atheists and perverts, but those I do not even count as worthy of notice.

Whenever I detected something of the sort, what I did is to look for the commenters who supported the attacker and ban them from my blog (yes: there are people out there who will praise you on your blog and insult you elsewhere; that's how much they love to see their nickname on the Internet). Then I make a knot on my handkerchief, and remember the episode at the appropriate juncture. Then… well, that's it, really. But trust me, I have a long memory, and the knots on my handkerchief are rather strong ones.

This way of running the blog has several advantages: it avoids the never-to-bed-and-you-know-you-have-to-work-tomorrow internet evenings; it avoids giving more ammo to atheists who then mock us for attacking each other; it saves vast amounts of adrenalines; it avoids making of the blog something self-referential, and it allows to dedicate the time to the blog topics instead, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

Let me stress this particular point again: the savings in adrenalines are vast.

From blogger to blogger, I must say this to you: it's the smart way to go. I know it out of quinquennial blogging experience. Mind, it does not mean that I will leave an attack unpunished. I tend to leave very little unpunished. It means that, as smart people used to say, est modus in rebus.

We Catholic bloggers should learn from the Church. The smart one, I mean. The one before John. Those churchmen did not leave much unpunished, either. But they knew how to do it in the proper way. This was, of course, before the advent of the Age of Stupidity, but you get my drift.

The temptation to get into that Twitter brawl or that Facebook row can be big in the moment. But if you pray and write a blog post instead, whilst on the Internet others are attacking you from several places you will be the winner, big time.

In addition, with advancing age I have become less confident in my ability to teach idiots to think, or to induce reprobates to save their souls. Idiots will not think, because they're idiots. Reprobates will not save their souls, because they're reprobates. All others (those who are neither idiots nor reprobates) do not profit from inter-Catholic Internet quarrels. They profit from a blog passionately written about issues different from the blog author having been offended.

If you are a blogger, my suggestion to you would be to never link to the wrong sites – you bring traffic to them – but to deal with the matter at hand – or with the person at hand – in a general way: this and this is wrong, or: if Grima or Pollyanna tell you this and that you do not believe them, and the like. No traffic to them, and education of the reader. When the reader then meets the condemned attitude, he will know why it is wrong. If the reader never meets it, so much the better. You never bring traffic to the wrong sites in order to show that they are wrong.

I have followed these rules fairly strictly these five years. It has helped me a lot. It has also avoided to make of this blog – written ad maiorem Dei gloriam – a platform for my personal grievances. If anyone insults you on the net, let it stay on the net, for the permanent shaming of those who so insult you; and answer in due course, and without any haste, in the matter itself.

Of course, it is very human to want to react and respond to those who insult us. It is human and it can be even right, as we know how nasty liberals and fake Catholics can be. But it might bring little advantage in the end. The reader will remember the blogger who has not reacted long after he has forgotten the thirty who did, no matter how right they were to react.

I am not suggesting to take the high road. I am suggesting to take the smart one.

You will look, and live, so much better.

M

 

Shame On You, Father Rosica!

This one is, at least, tasteful...

Father Rosica has, in a not entirely unpredictable development of the recent events, made public that he does not intend to sue the middle-aged, quisque de populo blogger behind the (excellent) Vox Cantoris blog. Find the entire text on the blog itself.

I do not belong to those who say “oh Mundabor, your side has won, why insist with the accusations?”

I am fully persuaded that if Father Rosica had to backpedal and swallow a public defeat and humiliation it was not because he has suddenly seen the light, but because reality caught up with him, and taught him it was better to enter in damage control mode. There is no trace whatsoever this particular bully had a change of heart. There is no word of apology to Mr Domet. There are even lies and accusations which, time allowing, will be the object of another post. There is, furthermore, the continuation of a threatening and bullying behaviour as the parties were discussing; a threat that was ended only when the determination of the other side to engage in open battle was made evident.

Shame on you, Father Rosica! Shame on you, Father Rosica! Shame on you, Father Rosica!

Then there is the scandalous matter of Rome’s reaction to Mr Domet’s intervention. This should, time and will allowing, be the object of a third blog post.

What is important to notice here is that Mr Domet is now free from this Damocles’ sword hanging over his head, and can go on blogging undisturbed. I hope he will continue to blog about Father Rosica with the same enthusiasm. I will certainly not lose sight of this very, very peculiar prelate.

This time, the bully got a lesson. Hats down for Mr Domet.

———

And now for the bigger picture: was this, then, a “war on bloggers”? I never thought it was, and I am more and more persuaded of it after the most recent events. This was simply the very stupid act of an extremely vain man, who thought he could silence a blogger evidently uncomfortable for him with the threat of financial ruin. Despicable as this is, I would not read in the vain stupidity of one man a general plan that, even if it had been conceived by some six years old child at the Vatican, would not have had any possibility of success anyway. Not even, mind, if all the planet’s bloggers were to reside in Canada; the more so as most of them, or at least their blog, reside in the United States. This “war on bloggers” was, I believe, never there in the first place. No, the stupidity and vanity of one man are the reason for all this mess.

This was the senseless act of a man whose boundless arrogance caused him an obvious loss of the sense of reality; a man who perhaps had already used his dirty trick – let us say it once again: the threat of financial ruin, for which I still have to read one word of apology to Mr Domet – with some other small blogger in the past, and now thought he could use the same measure again.

The way Father Rosica has decided to get out of the worst of the mess in which he has put himself is not less despicable than the behaviour that put him in that situation in the first place.

A bully then, a bully now. But this time he is a bully with a bleeding nose, and a swollen lip.

Serves you right, Father Rosica.

M

 

 

The Blogging Weathervane

The Blogging Weathervane is a very sensitive guy, or gal. He or she goes with the time. He or she is flexible, caring, appreciative. He (henceforward, “he”) is such a good contortionist that he could work in a circus. He is never angry, but devout Catholics truly drive him to distraction. He assaults them. Then he apologises. Then he does it again. And again. And again.

The Blogging Weathervane never said, during Benedict’s pontificate, that faggots have special “faggot gifts” that they can give to the Church. He never criticised Benedict as insensitive for not supporting communion for adulterers. He never wondered why JP II never received a Trannie in a “private” audience. He never thought out loud whether God would, when seriously displeased or offended, do more than slap a sinner on the wrist. He thought it normal to try to convert people to Catholicism. He was always in tune with the official Vatican song of the week.

Turns out, he still is. He always is.

The Weathervane will explain to you that the black of today is the same as yesterday’s white, only a bit different. A more personal white, perhaps. A tad off-white at times. But still the same colour. Does this shock you? Oh, you have some work to do, buddy boy…

The Weathervane can be told to his face the Blessed Virgin might have thought she was deceived and will blame the translation, the lunar phase, the locusts, and the evil in bad Catholics, but never the Pope.

The Weathervane is morally mobile. He (or she, remember?) adapts. When the Pope slaps the Catholics, he blames them for reacting to the slap. Don’t they understand he makes money out of his writing, ahem, they must read more deeply and understand what the Pope really said?

The Wearhervane will adapt to anything and everything. When the scandalous first draft of the Relatio post disceptationem comes out, he will complain the language is not sensitive enough to “the gays”; then will shut up about, ahem, her blunder as a huge scandal unfolds.

The weathervane (not only blogging weathervane; commenting weathervane, too) is electively deaf, blind, and stupid. If the Bishop of Rome receives a Trannie and his “lover”, whom the Teannie about to “marry”, he says to you that there is no evidence the Pope has not taught doctrine to them. Applying the same logic, if Francis were to be found in a “gay” sauna surrounded by twelve homos there’s no doubt the Weathervane would tell you he was having a catechism class there, there’s no evidence to the contrary, and it is shocking for you to even entertain malicious thoughts.

You got to give the Weathervane credit for one thing: his inability to see anything wrong in the Pope is matched by a great talent for finding fault in those who criticise him. Unchristian, he will call them. Uncharitable. Rigid. Obsessed. Unable to understand the “language” of the Bishop of Rome. How bad they are! Didn’t Jesus always express himself in the most gentle and sensitive of ways? (Uh? No, wait… I’ll come back to you on that…).

Still: pity the weathervane. He may well be paving his (or her) way to hell. He is certainly preparing for himself a very harsh punishment even if he escapes the ultimate one. He will not be allowed to make Truth comfortable for himself and remain, bar repentance and penance, unpunished.

Being a weathervane is a very bad investment with mediocre immediate return and the certainty of eventual bankruptcy. Reading certain blogs around (“Patheticeos” first; there are others) one wonders whether they ever think of it. I honestly don’t think they do. The stats are still fine, and many still are those who flock to them in such of another fix of Catholic opium.

It’s hard not to be weathervane. The wind puts a constant, cold pressure on you.

But it’s the only way.

M

 

Speaking Of The Dead

Hhmm… what shall I say about Salvador Allende?

 

They say one should always speak well of the dead. Strangely, you never see the rule applied to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or Hitler.

Personally, I follow the rest of the planet and interpret the precept as a guideline asking us to be charitable in our assessment of the human – and generally rather private – weaknesses of the quisque de populo. But there is no doubt in my mind that the rule does not apply to public heresy or public scandal when the person in question was a clearly public figure, because in that case the scandal he gave in life will continue to work its evil after the man’s death.

I have heard it said in my native Country that when a pig is slaughtered he does not become a lamb, he becomes pork. Death in itself is no cause of any improvement. A heretic who dies is but a dead heretic. If he was dangerous in life, he will continue to be dangerous in death. He might even become more dangerous, because once he has kicked the bucket his writings and ideas might acquire a vague aura of prestige, making of him a sort of brave precursor, a sorely missed member of a supposedly glorious avantgarde of oh so beautiful, progressive minds. Rahner, Tyrrell, Martini, and pretty soon Küng are all points in case. But this also applies to non-religious, like public militant atheists, terrorists, and the like. The small list at the top is a point in case.

And yes, of course we pray for the dead. I have said my “eternal rests” even for Bin Laden, and do not regret doing so. But this does not change the quality of the man one bit, nor does it make any difference in the danger he still represents.

The ugly truth is that a bastard who dies is a dead bastard, and many are those considered bastards to such an extent as to merit hell. There’s no escaping the cold logic of the fact. The bastard may now be six feet under, but his ideas will continue to float around like extremely stubborn germs. There is, therefore, no reason whatsoever to not keep calling the dead bastard in the appropriate way, at least until the dangerous germs he left behind are dead and “buried” in exactly the same way.

Furthermore, it is particularly in the case of these public bastards that the public must be alerted to their very probable final destination, and warned about the equally probable consequences of following them. There is no world in which the death of a heretic makes following him less heretical. Rebellion has such a nature, that it does not stop with the death of the rebel. Therefore, the rebel must be exposed as such and publicly vilified not only in life, but also in death. If anyone thinks he does not deserve such a harsh treatment, he may want to consider not rebelling in the first place.

Truth is no respecter of enemies. Shame in life and after death must be the lot of those who willingly choose to defy Truth.

Let your gentle words apply to the poor devil, with his human miseries and his sinful weaknesses.

The public friends of the devil, and their open scandal, have no right to such dangerous regards.

M

 

 

 

 

 

Caveat Emptor

Let the buyer beware

(I know… I know… Chaff is seen as “good” today… Still…)

Everytime the Pope says something enormous, you see a predictable and at times rather funny phenomenon: the Pollyannas reckless abandoning themselves to loud praise of the Bishop of Rome, and then being caught in off-side by the dismay of the Catholic world at the very event they had so highly praised. It goes to show how Catholic some “c”atholics think.

Sadly, I notice that every now and then someone we thought on our side slowly, or not so slowly, proves to be on the fence at the very least. I also notice that at times Pollyannas who had, in the past, uttered a mild criticism tend to revert to full Ray Charles Mode, as they are conflicted between the fear that their readers will go away if they criticise the Pope and the fear that their readers will go away if they don’t.

There were two recent examples of this; one predictable, the other less so. Names will not be made, and I ask you not to make them, or hint to them, on the comment box. Where it can be avoided, I think that this blog should not be a window for inter-Catholic (however intended) strife, but rather for education and warning to the reader. I will endeavour to tell you how to recognise a good apple. When you go to the Saturday market, I trust you will be able to recognise the bad apples yourself.

The first example was the blogger who tried to explain to us how wonderfully enriching the papal interviews are. The article itself is, unwittingly, rather hilarious; but even more so are the comments, with an army of true blue Catholics asking him if he is joking and making other more or less salacious, and always correct observations on the matter. Apparently, a lot of punters recognise the bad apples all right, and do not hesitate in politely telling the stand owner that his ware is inedible and good for the pigs. 

The second example is the other blogger who tried to downplay and normalise away the scandal and shock caused by The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH), in a Pollyann-ish effort that belies both his knowledge and his intelligence. Basically, it is an implicit invitation to wear some very robust blinkers in order to avoid having to see what this papacy is doing. Add to this the downplaying of the scandals themselves, and the attempt to attribute them largely to differences in communication style with his predecessors, rather than to differences in thinking, teaching, acting, I would say almost breathing, with them. This is clearly offensive to the intelligence of his… intelligent readers.

Whenever the Bishop of Rome says or does something enormous, take the time to search the blogosphere and read what Titius, Caius or Sempronius have written on the matter. Give particular importance to what they have written before the scandal erupted (it always take some time). Look at the difference between those who are concerned with the desecrations happening at that joke of a Jumbotron Mass, and those who see in it such a wonderful experience. This is the best way to see what kind of apples you are being sold everyday.

Caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware”. The quality of the merchandise will decrease dramatically in the next months, and who knows what kind of market will remain after October if TSHTF.

Now, more than ever, it pays to be an attentive customer.

M

 

 

Now, More Than Ever

Father Blake has the usual interesting reflections about bloggers becoming less active of late, and concludes that, faced with the present Pontificate, many may prefer to scale down the activity.

I have not noticed any dramatic decrease in the blogging activity of the bloggers I follow; but the bloggers I follow tend to be a rather tough bunch, certainly not inspired to be silent by the barrage of heresy they are now confronted with every day. On the contrary: the heretical bullying of our Bishop of Rome and of the other prelates is met, in case, with clearer words.

Oh, if I had had a blog like theirs when I was lapsing from the Church. Oh for people around me ready to make clear to me that the bunch of idiots now running things are but a momentary flatulence in the digestive process of a Church that will expel all these heretics out of Her bowels, and will let them fall in the deep of the canalisation and, from there, in the mouth of Satan, where they belong. Oh for people ready to call a heretic a heretic, and an idiot an idiot, and a clown a clown, irrespective of their wearing the habit. But most of all: oh for brave people making very clear to confused Catholics that Truth can never change, and those who tamper with it will, bar an always welcome but not very probable repentance, pay the most horrible price for their insolence. Truth is an immense block of granite. The likes of Bergoglio and Baldisseri are merely stupid teens in Beavis and Buttheads style; they scratch at it with forks and dirty it with spray paint: thinking, in their arrogance and stupidity, that they will make any permanent change to it. Beavis and Butthead against Christ The King, that’s what it is. The outcome is all too predictable.

I read the reaction of Cardinal Baldisseri to the poor Italian priest expressing himself in an extremely soft way about public adulterers, and wonder when the likes of Baldisseri will own allegiance to Satan overtly, as they do it covertly, but with such rage, now.

These people have now become so shameless in their bullying, that of all times this is the one that should see blogging activity increase, not decrease.

Picture the usual halfway formed Catholic – or Christian – unable to understand what is happening, not well formed enough to mount his own reaction, and with the nagging suspicion that there is, in the end, no difference between the Church and a political party, ready to shift “priorities” as the mood around them changes. And therefore, no Truth. And therefore, very probably, no God. One blog, one blog only can make a huge difference in such lives. Then, they will say to themselves, I am not alone. Then, there are many like me. Then, there is a lot to learn and read, many other blogs like this perhaps! Perhaps books, and fora, and conferences! Then, Truth has not died!

Oh, how I yearned for information like the one I hope to spread with my blog; how would I have delighted in a call to battle with my fellow soldiers, rather than calls to be a nice neighbour who never kicks the cat, loves peace, sounds at all times like a man of questionable virility, and never forgets to water the plants.

True, we all had the Gospels. True, self-evident Truths were as self-evident then as they are now. But for most people, including myself, it takes the clarion call to discover the one and the other; it takes the place where one can go and be told: “we are not in the business of appeasing here; we are in the business of fighting for Christ. You will lose friends and acquaintances, you will be considered a very strange man and a hypocrite; you will be belittled, provoked, perhaps worse. But the Truth we fight for, it has already won; and may we, with God’s grace, avoid going down the canalisation, and in the mouth of Satan, like those stupid grown teens”

Now, more than ever, it is the right time to blog. Now, more than ever, it is the time to find harsh words against the Jezebels who prostitute themselves, and dare to prostitute the Church, to all kind of evil; against the army of prelates now competing with each other in becoming the willing accomplices of prideful adulterers, and shameless sodomites. They do it so that their own popularity may be increased, so that they may have a life of privilege and power, uncaring of a God in Whom they do not believe. But He looks at them, and will deal with them at the time He has appointed.

Some of them will repent, but the rapidly soaring tone and scale of the attack should leave no doubt in the mind of sensible people about the scale of Satan’s offensive. The 13 March 2013 marked the start of this offensive, and now we see the military operations in full preparation for an almost unprecedented, all-scale attack, that might well start in October and, let us make no mistake here, is coming to us in any way,without fail, unless the Lord calls an end to this madness first.

Love for the Church requires, it demands from us a righteous anger in direct proportion to the attack moved against her; the minions of Satan daring not only to confuse with weasel words, but – as in Baldisseri’s case – to openly attack with great virulence obvious expressions of Christian orthodoxy, and good priests trying to do their job, must be openly confronted, and presented to the confused, but hopefully thinking Caholic readership as the traitors, the bullies, the friends of the Enemy they are.

Whenever you read about one of them, reinventing Christianity for the sake of their own popularity, think of it: they are but temporary flatulences in the digestive process of the Church. The Church, accustomed from the start to deal with toxic waste, will expel them from Her bowels all right, like so many before and after them; to end up down in the canalisation, and in Satan’s mouth, where they belong.

Mundabor

 

 

“Protect The Pope”: On The Matter Of Obedience

Obedience as weapon: Padre Pio.

After the shutting down of “Protect the Pope”, I think it might be useful to write some reflections on the matter of obedience.

A Deacon, say, writes a blog saying “I am a deacon in the Diocese of X”. In this case, he is “spending” the name of the diocese and the prestige and sacredness of the Holy Orders he has received (a Deacon is, let us remind ourselves of this, ordained). As a Deacon, he owes obedience to the Bishop. Not a blind one, certainly, and not obedience to every whim of the Bishop. But certainly, when the Bishop instruct him to do something – or not to do something – that is directly related to both his activity as a deacon and the diocese presided by the Bishop, the Deacon in question should, in my eyes, seriously reflect whether he really does not want to comply.

Now, if Deacon Nick had run his blog without spending his title, it would have been, in my eyes, different. If the bishop can't tell the deacon what he has to discuss at the pub with his friends, as “Nick”, he should also not be able to tell him what to discuss on the Internet with his friends, as “Nick”. In this case Deacon Nick could, I think, have legitimately replied that his own freedom of expression, particularly when the expressions are orthodox, is nothing upon which the Bishop has any say. But this is obviously different. This is someone writing in his role of ordained man, incardinated in a diocese, and who owes obedience to a bishop.

I am not a canonist, but I think Deacon Nick could have only done one of the following:

A) inform the bishop he will continue to blog, as this is his private exercise. No mention of deacons anymore, of course, unless perhaps and for some time for the clear statement the blog reflects his private opinions and is nothing to do with the diocese or his ministry as a Deacon. If the bishop wants to drag him in front of an ecclesiastical tribunal, welcome. The blog will report everything as it happens.

B) Go to court against the bishop to obtain the removal of the order (which I suppose was given in writing, and under exercise of the bishop's authority) to stop blogging.

C) obey the bishop's order.

Now: a Deacon of all people should reflect very attentively whether A or B are really wise courses of action. Is a blog so important that it justifies a very public conflict between a deacon and his bishop? Well yes, it might be, if the Deacon thinks the order to stop blogging is a scandal that must be made public, and fought against. But the Deacon can also legitimately decide that he will fight with Padre Pio's (and countless saints besides) weapons: silence, obedience, and prayer. If the Deacon obeys to the Bishop, the latter carries the responsibility of whatever results from his order. Let God, who sees everything, give the Deacon the premium for his obedience, and the Bishop the punishment for his insolence. If it is God's will, not one but ten new blogs will be born out of this outrage, and countless blog readers will be motivated to search the blogosphere for other authentic voices, and grow in faith as a result. We must not make the mistake of thinking this matter lies, so to speak, entirely in one or two persons' hands. Dio vede e provvede. God sees and provides.

Obviously, there are cases in which disobedience is or may be the only sensible way, or the most sensible way: say, when the preservation of the Mass of the Ages is in danger, or – I add – an excellent religious order is being trampled by an unconscionable Pontiff. In these cases we have to do with the Mass, and the Mass is more serious than any blog, and take precedence before the obedience to any Pope.

But honestly, there is no scarcity of orthodox Catholic blogs. Many more will be created. Again, God can give back ten times what was taken away. Obedience should, as a reasoned choice born of faith in Providence, always be respected.

It is, therefore, not fair to say that Deacon Mick is waving the white flag, or in a way “chickening out”. Rather, I think he has decided that he will put his obedience in the hands of the Lord, and He will do with it what He thinks appropriate: rewarding, and punishing, in His own good time.

Blogs like Deacon Nick's, or mine, are but grains of sand in the great scheme of things. The Lord can decide to sacrifice them – and to sacrifice much worthier things than a blog; perhaps through the allowing of an injustice – so that in the end more good may happen.

In these matters, it is always useful to remind ourselves of God's lavish abundance, a way that to our scarcity-accustomed minds may seem wastefulness. Billions of billions of suns, and accessory planets, just to give us a glimpse of His might. Schubert was dead at not even 32. Mozart at 35. Bizet before becoming 37. Mendelssohn at 38. Chopin at 39.

St Theresa of Lisieux, a Doctor of the Church, died at 24.

If God has decided the world could do without St. Therese of Lisieux when she was only 24, methinks we can relax at the thought of the Catholic blogosphere having to live without “Protect the Pope”, or this little effort.

All those who, then, suffer this loss may do worse than wondering whether, perhaps, they might start writing their own blog. At times, unpleasant events bear great fruit. If I had not been banned from “Homo Smoke” I would never, ever have come to the idea of blogging myself. I allow myself to think that it was a wise decision and, I hope, a meritorious one. But you see here how Providence works.

Deacon Nick will, then, be a non-blogging Deacon again, and my thanks to him for his sterling work and for the example of obedience he has now chosen to give. May God reward him and his worthy wife for their effort, time, and pain.

We, the non-deacons, will continue to blog and, perhaps, to blog more numerous and more motivated than before.

God works in mysterious ways.

But most of all, God isn't fooled by Bishop Campbell's religion of niceness.

Mundabor

 

Of Soup, Pie And Fettuccine.

The bully's favourite soup.

I have no objection to censorship, if it is done within a settled legal framework; that is, by a qualified Censor librorum who, if he withholds a Nihil obstat, gives and is required to give precise reasons for doing so. I would have no criticism if the system were not only restored, but extended to the blogosphere, and, of course, to clerics and laics who write columns and editorials in 'catholic' journals! But it has fallen into disuse. My apprehension is that a public and canonical process might have been replaced by something furtive; that a bishop (or whatever) might act resentfully but covertly because of views which are doctrinally orthodox but which don't suit his personal agenda. Or that censorship might function as an informal, unminuted, understanding within an Inner Circle that X is 'off-message'; with subsequent disadvantages for X. In other words, I fear that what, at first sight, looks like a libertarian advance (the disappearance of formal Censorship), might in reality be simply a Bullies' Charter. As I have written before, I regard Dogma and Law as the safeguard of ordinary Catholics, both lay and clerical, against Arbitrary Power.

This comes for Father Hunwicke's blog. Father Blake has already written his comment on this, but I feel I should add my thoughts on the matter.

Firstly, I understand Father's concerns: when official control is substituted for unofficial suggestions to shut up, a huge door is open to, well, episcopal bullying. It grates me no end, for example, that in the matter of “Protect the Pope” the bishop asked Deacon Nick to stop blogging, without any public explanation of why a bishop asks a very public blogger to stop his very public blogging activity. Basically, it simply cannot be excluded Deacon Nick was requested to, ahem, “pull a Werling” and just be silent, losing his face as the bishop saved his. Fortunately, when Deacon Nick informed his readers of the fact he did not just state that he had decided to, but that he had been requested by the Bishop to, well, shut up; which in turn caused the many mails to the bishop; which in turn caused the press release with the notorious words I have already mentioned on this blog, and which put bishop Campbell, erm, rather in the soup.

Father Hunwicke's fear that “a Bullies' Charter” might be advancing is, therefore, entirely justified. Imagine that: you are a blogger priest, or a blogger deacon, and the Bishop summons you and tells you to stop blogging and not to tell your readers who has asked you to do so, in order not to foment “division” and “disharmony”. What now, skipper? When you add to this that that particular blogger has been asked by the bishop to stop blogging (call it as you want: that's what it is) because he was being a brave Catholic blogger, you get the picture.

Having said that, Father Hunwicke's censorship proposal is in my eyes entirely unfeasible. The huge number of blogging priests out there would cause an unmanageable administrative work and cost only to control what is going on; it would obviously be completely unrealistic to think that every blog post receives a previous nihil obstat, but it is not realistic to think that every blogger with holy orders receives one before starting to blog, and is monitored afterwards. This as we write the year 2014; but what might happen in the year 2024 or 2034 makes the idea of either previous control or institutionalised monitoring even less viable. Besides, if a nihil obstat is necessary for a new priestly blog, it would be very easy to put sand in the mechanism by just “delaying” approvals for new priestly blogs; there's no urgency to give approval to your blog, Father X; there are enough already of those.

Moreover, many priestly blogs exist exactly to provide a voice outside of the mainstream Vatican PC information. Would an excellent priestly blog like Traditional Catholic Priest obtain the coveted nihil obstat? I doubt it. What about Father Rodriguez? Or Gloria TV? Would we ever know that such and such an initiative was proposed and rejected, and why? You wish. It would be covert bullying instead of overt one; but in the end, much of a muchness. I do not doubt the likes of Nicholson and the other chap with the sword would obtain the Nihil obstat, but as Nicholson and his ilk are part of the problem we would be on square one.

This, only considering the blogs run by priests or deacons. If we extend the policy to the immense world of blogging laymen, the idea becomes utterly outlandish; besides the fact that most lay bloggers would react to the request of the bishop to stop blogging with a smile; if they are in a good day, that is. Hey, the bishops – and now the Bishop of Rome – are the main reason why they are blogging in the first place, so it would be like asking a physician to stop curing bubonic plague because there's an epidemy going on.

What to do, then?

My idea would be – and this is also what is going to happen, volens nolens – that everything continues as it is; that blogger priests blog because they are priests who feel they should blog and this is perfectly in line with the new evangelisation mantra, and that bishops stop them if they feel the blogger priest should be stopped; which unavoidably will – unless the priest does not even want to say that he was requested to stop blogging – be subject to public scrutiny, possibly involving not only bishop Campbell, but bishop Heinz and bishop Baxter as well.

Obviously, a priest or deacon can blog anonymously, de facto if possibly not de iure. The old and lamented Kreuz.net blog – forced to close by the German Gaystapo – was certainly the work of priests, and of excellent ones at that. But again, those must have been priests who needed that their bishop does not know they are blogging, lest the V II thought police intervenes.

The fact is, though, that by the grace of God we live in a time of atomised information sources, and this seems destined to increase in the foreseeable future. No bishop, no censor librorum, no Pope, not even the US secret services will be able to shut down this flow of information. The control of this tsunami of ASCII characters will be left to the reader, who will pick among the bonanza of sources those he find most worthy of his time. The reader will decide if he finds, say, Campbell's soup or the Deacon's pie or Mundabor's fettuccine to his taste, and there is no way anyone else can change this.

In short, this means that the best way for the bishops to prevent the spreading of bad blogging is by encouraging the spreading of sound Catholic instruction. This will in turn automatically filter away the bad sources, and reward the good ones.

Unfortunately, the spreading of sound Catholic teaching is exactly what bishop Campbell wants to prevent; which in turn means what we already know from the start: to wit, that bishops who try to stop bloggers are embarrassed by the bloggers making the job they are supposed but refuse to do: feed the sheep with sound instruction, fight heresy and heterodoxy, and care for the salvation of souls.

I prefer Mundabor's (or Deacon Nick's, or Father Z's) healthy homemade fare, and thank you very much.

Mundabor

 

Catholic Bloggers And Unfaithful Priests.

Bad priests don't like it very much...

I read around of an otherwise unknown to me, but apparently respected priest launching a torpedo or two against “Traditionalist” Catholic bloggers, for the reasons you can easily imagine.

I allow myself here to express a couple of thoughts, which may or may not meet your approval.

Firstly, let me say my blogging activity – provided you want to call me a “Traditionalist” blogger; which is fine, though I am certainly not one of those who refuse to attend Novus Ordo masses – is first and foremost the result of the astonishing cowardice I have in the meantime elected as the main feature of the V II clergy. Whilst countless people like yours truly do not miss an occasion to risk losing even a dear friend rather than compromise on our allegiance to Jesus, it is rare to see a priest able and willing to even risk the one or other harridan in his own parish declaring that she is “hurt” by his being Catholic.

Whilst everyone of us must do his best, it is first and foremost the job of the priest to make himself unpopular so that he may save souls. The priest is also the one to whom a degree of unpleasantness – or worse – in the pursuit of his profession can and must be asked in much greater measure than to a layman. Why? Because he is a priest, period.

Blogs like mine – and countless others – are the result of the genuine suffering and righteous anger of many sincere Catholics who feel that the post V II clergy are culpable of dereliction of duty in the gravest of ways, and possibly in an unprecedented manner in the history of Christianity. Our elementary religious feeling simply rebels at seeing so much – I must say the word, because I find it appropriate – brown-nosing to the world, going on at all ecclesiastical levels since the beginning of the Sixties. This, and nothing else, is what leads us to blog. I for myself would not even dream of being here at 11pm writing this angry blog post, rather than sitting with a good book, a glass of Porto and Schubert in the background, if I knew the clergy are doing their job. If they did, blogs like ours would be of no interest for the reader even provided we were – which would not be my case – willing to write them. People would, very simply, follow the events in the Catholic world through the interviews, the homilies, the books, the blogs, the calls to battle of the good clergy themselves. If we had a halfway decent clergy, every church would resound of their rage against the abominations and godlessness of our times, and the parish magazines would contain long lists of locally, nationally and internationally excommunicated politicians. Instead, the pulpits – if they are still used – are generally used for convenient waffling about peace, luv, social justice, & Co.

We talk and write, because our priest and bishops and popes don't. Our blogs are read, because good Catholics have pretty much nowhere else to go.

Secondly, most of us are not priests. We do not pretend to be what we aren't, and we do not demand – nor would we have any right to – that our words are listened to with particular attention or deference because of some role that we have. Mostly, we are angry laymen fed up with the ravaging of Christianity whilst the main concern of the clergy seem to be to encourage illegal immigration, or to pursue a populist agenda of the stupidest sort. As a result, each and every reader who happens to land on our blogs is forced to evaluate it according to the quality of the arguments therein contained, rather than the position of the one making the argument. The explosion of traditionalist Catholic blogging seems to indicate the arguments of the bloggers aren't bad. Alas, they can't be silenced with Clericalist arguments, because these aren't unknowing peasants. Too bad, uh, Father Grima?

Thirdly, many bloggers and commenters – like myself – are totally anonymous. Not even my mother knows that I write a blog. Absolutely no one this side of heaven, though I am sure the Blessed Virgin is aware. If I were to get knocked down by a bus, or a flower vase were to fall on my head, this blog would stop suddenly, and no one would ever know why. No friend can ever compliment me saying “I have read your latest blog post, great!” I will get no kudos from anyone in flesh and blood, someone who knows who I actually am. Many others do, in their own way, the same. Thousands, as I write, blog and comment and quarrel and stay up late at night for no other reason than their love of God and their suffering at seeing Christianity wiped out from the West; all this whilst our utterly, utterly disgraceful Pope tells us it's good that Catholics are now a minority in Italy, because they can be the leaven and blabla and blabla. Heaven, the bread was already leavened! One can't destroy a Catholic culture with fifty years of cowardly nonsense and then say it's all fine, because the destruction allows us to build one! Such is the stupidity of our clergy, and such is the reason why so many blog, or comment, or read, or symphatise. A priest who can't understand – and be glad of it – that countless people stay in front of a monitor at night because they love the Church and thirst for sound words they don't hear from the pulpit is a priest unworthy of his habit. Many of those, I am afraid. The majority in the West, I can safely say. But no, for the bad priest it is not he who has completely failed. Those who are bad are the critical bloggers, and their readers.

Which is why many others besides yours truly sit here blogging or reading or commenting until too late. Gratis et amore Dei. Often without even our friends or relatives knowing. And all this should come from… what exactly? Vanity? Greed? Boredom? Or perhaps, simply, Catholicism?

It would be high time a couple of priests and bishops and the occasional Pop bishop of Rome understood the utter failure of the clergy to halfway decently transmit and defend Catholic values is what caused the explosion of conservative Catholic blogs. Thanks to the technical developments of the last decade, the bloggers are simply doing – as well as they can – the job the clergy has systematically refused to do since the beginning of the Sixties. Not to understand this means not to understand much, at all.

Let the clergy start being Catholics again, instead of a bunch of effeminate idiots waffling about the “joy of giving witness” whilst Sodomarriage becomes law, abortion is considered normal, fornication a bodily function, and contraception a human right. Let them start being unpopular, and hated by the world, rather than the usual slightly high-pitched chaps who are “always so nice” with their relentless message of universal salvation and quiet complicity with every sin or outright abomination under the sun. Let them be savagely attacked by the same atheists newspapers and journalists they now go at such extreaordinary lengths of nonsense and even heresy to please.

Let them start doing it. You will see, when this happens many bloggers will do like myself.

They will switch to a good book.

Mundabor

 

Vince’s Farm: Archbishop Nichols Good, Blogs Bad.

Vince’s World: a transvestite reads the bidding prayer at the so-called “gay Mass”, Soho, London. Rainbow flag included.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols truly is a piece of work. It makes me cringe that such an unworthy, petty man be at the brink of getting a red hat (which he will at some point, I am rather sure).

This man has been, in the controversy about so-called same-sex marriage, conspicuous for his almost total absence and – coherently with his general way of life – his cowardice with the power by not taking any undue risk with the Vatican. This makes sense, since Archbishop Nichols is a friend of sexual perversions, as abundantly proven by his open support for scandalous so-called gay masses.

The man is always all to happy to confuse the Faithful provided this keeps him in the nice circles. The head of the Society For the Protection of the Unborn Children rightly thinks he endangers the soul of his children.  Just try the “Nichols Challenge” to see if I am exaggerating it.

In short, the man is a walking disgrace, and utterly unworthy of his habit.

Unfortunately, this very unworthy man is also regularly criticised by the authors of Catholic blogs. Why? Because he is a heathen. 

If you think that the Archbishop would take this is as occasion for some serious reflection about whether, perhaps, he is doing the work of the Devil, think again. Rather, he thinks the blogs are the problem; or, as he himself put it, he think his critics should “hold their tongue”.

In his latest homily, also published on the internet site of the Archdiocese, he was on record with the following words of foolishness:

Pope Francis understands this in practical terms. He has already identified two kinds of behaviour that destroy love in the Church. They are complaining and gossiping. He is a practical man. He knows that we live in a society in which complaining and gossip is a standard fare. They sell newspapers and attract us to blogs because we love hear complaints and to read gossip.

Firstly, notice the unspeakable cowardice of hiding behind the finger of Pope Francis’ words in order to twist his message. The Pope has said “do not give in to the temptation of gossiping”, and the Archbishop translates “the Pope has said you must not read blogs that criticise me”.

In fact, it is very clear this utterly shameless man is aiming his broken sword at orthodox catholic bloggers regularly pointing out to what a disgrace he is. How he managed to hide behind the Pontiff to  criticise his critics is indicative of what a person he is. 

The Archbishop is, methinks, angry at the bloggers because by relentlessly exposing his cowardice, double tongue and complicity in sodomitical behaviour they have, up to now, prevented him from getting the red hat he so evidently covets.

If I were in his shoes, I would be more worried about another type of promotion or demotion. After all, he isn’t the youngest anymore.

Mundabor

On Money-Making Bloggers

Among the poisonous comments I receive (you don’t see them, but I do; and they grow with the growth of this blog) there are those of people who are acidic not only with me, but with other bloggers as well. These comments invariably come from people accusing me of not being “charitable”, showing those who love to always have “charity” in their mouth are, as a whole, a rather nasty bunch.

One of those nasty messages recently accused me of not attacking (yes, he accused me of not attacking) a well-known blog, noticeable inter alia for its rather entrepreneurial approach. The relevant blogger would be, I was told, guilty of actually making money out of his own blogging activity. I think two words here are in order.

The little effort you are reading now does not bring any money. But this is not because I am against it. I am, in fact, not against money at all. The simple fact is that firstly the money it would bring would ne negligible; secondly that it would be very difficult – perhaps impossible – to do this whilst preserving anonymity; and thirdly, that I have no intention of making the time investment to learn all the technical details of owning and running my own blog for the very meager income it would bring me. The beauty of WordPress, Blogger and the like is that one can start writing without having to do with any of that stuff, but at the same time – and fairly enough – without getting any of the very limited revenue one’s blog could have generated. On the rare occasions when you see WordPress advertisements on my blog, it has nothing to do with me and I do not see a penny from it.  Again, fair enough, and I thank God for the existence of free blog platforms like WordPress and Blogger. 

Still, a big blog can certainly be a source of revenue, and this is the point where the Liberation Theologians are divided from the Catholics. Money isn’t dirty; there is no harm at all in earning money in an honest way; actually, being entrepreneurial is good, because it furthers the common good as it helps one’s wallet; it is not for us to question how much money a blogger makes more than how much money an accountant makes; if the blog is very well made, it might even give us the possibility of promoting further Catholic causes (the coffee from the monks, say, or the advertisement from the Catholic university). If, then, the blogger in question becomes a millionaire because of it (not likely), we should see in this a further triumph of Catholicism instead of envying the blog owner. 

Why, then, such animosity against people who earn money from a blog? I can see only three reasons:

1. Because they are failures. They aren’t faring well, so no one else is allowed to. If anyone does do well, then he must be wrong, and they think they have the right to be envious, and nasty. 

2. Because they are closet socialists, or communists. Money is bad, so you shouldn’t really have anything to do with it. If you do, then as little as possible, and only because we live in an evil world. If you stand out from the crowd with an excellent blog that is also excellently run, then you are targeted as a representative of that most dreadful disease: capitalism.

3. Because 1. and 2. are present at the same time. I think this is the most frequent case.

This could be, obviously, furthered by the wind of “Franciscanism” that has been blowing for a couple of weeks, bringing to us unpleasant whiffs of stinking Liberation Theology and stale pauperism of the Seventies, though I must say the enthusiasms of the “let us all be poor so I do not feel inferior” crowd will have an unpleasant awakening  very soon.  Still, we must fight against this mentality with all our might. 

This, again, from one who invests an awful lot of time and effort without having ever seen a penny from it; confident, as he is, that Padre Pio looks, and perhaps even likes what he sees; and that on that fateful day the Blessed Virgin might well, in Her maternal goodness, add an intercession for him, a wretched sinner, and for those he loves most. Still, make no mistake: if in addition to the hoped heavenly reward  I were able to get an earthly one, I would do it. I would do it like a shot. Therefore, never ever consider this blog “better” or “purer” than the ones with the advertisements, because in that case you have rather the wrong concept of what is good, or pure. 

“Ah, but you see, Mundabor; some of these bloggers are… priests!”.

Some priests have a vow of poverty, generally when they are also members of a religious congregation. Most priests, to my knowledge, haven’t. Always as far as I know, priest also can, say, inherit a fortune, and the fortune remains theirs. Granted, it is expected from a priest that he keeps a standard of living that refrains from extravagances and inappropriate luxury, but this must be seen in the context of the relevant situation. Popes live in luxury all right, and most bishops and cardinals fare rather well compared to the vast majority of us. This has always been so, and the wisdom of the Church has never found anything to object; unless, of course, the luxury becomes ostentatious, or otherwise inappropriate.

If I trust a priest, ipso facto I trust that his relationship with money is a healthy one. Still, I do not see why I should suspect that he is greedy more than I should suspect that he is, say, a glutton. You read people’s blogs and you form an idea of who they are and how they think. Then you think them decent people (sinner as we all are) or you don’t. It’s as simple as that.

I invite everyone of my readers to salute every Catholic blog showing a sense of healthy entrepreneurial spirit and to consider making their purchases (of books, or coffee, or whatever else) through them. When they click this page, I invite them not to consider me in any way, shape or form “better” because I don’t. My blog is very tiny for monetary considerations, and I would consider anonymity a higher good than even a regular income stream if this blog were big enough for it, which it isn’t.

I am, probably, also not entrepreneurial enough.  But this is, most certainly, not a good trait in itself, and I frankly admire those who make an effort even if it brings them a tiny monetary reward. 

Mundabor 

Michael Voris And The “Nice” Bloggers

I cannot say that I always agree with Michael Voris. I remember an extremely questionable “vortex” about homosexuality, another about the best form of government for a Catholic country, a third (very recent) holding a rather extreme (though by no means isolated) view about how many people are saved; and if I must say it all, I also confess to a strong dislike of his post-68 style of dressing; things like jacket without tie, or jacket over casual trousers…but I digress.

Very often, though, I agree with what he says. Take the video above for example, a passionate defence of Truth over convenience, and proper instruction over “niceness”.

False charity doesn’t work and whilst most priests still don’t get the message, most bloggers do. Blogging is – in most cases – not their profession and the reason they blog is that – be they clergy or laity – they want a message to be spread, that they see not sufficiently talked about. Their blogging is the reaction to the utter failure of the professional clergy – collectively seen, and with the usual exceptions – to do a proper job.

This mentality has, in the last half century, sent countless faithful to their grave with a gospel of “niceness” at all costs and “celebration” as absolute centre of their spiritual life whose usefulness in the economy of their salvation can only be described as tragically inadequate.

No, blogs don’t have to “be nice” and come to that, priests don’t have to be it either.  What they must be is truthful, crystal clear, assertive, uncompromising. It is not a surprise that the call to more “niceness” would apparently come from the same “establishment” (to use Voris’ words) that has, through its lack of truthfulness and love for harmony at all costs, caused the explosion of Catholic blogging  in the first place. By calling for a non-divisive approach, they show that they still haven’t got the message that the Church is divisive, because the Church is in opposition to the world.

There is, I am afraid, no escape from this. The very moment you open your mouth and say that you’re a Catholic, you must know that you have no other choice but fight or appeasement. It must be so, because human nature is so. Being a Catholic – and saying it – means being unpopular among many, being vilified at times, being considered “uncharitable” by those who have made of niceness a religion, being considered “divisive” by those for whom inclusiveness comes before Truth. But it also means doing your duty, being a small but willing soldier of Christ, helping others to know the Truth, and avoiding becoming accessory to other people’s sins. Whoever has told you that to “fight the good fight” meant to “celebrate the inclusive celebration” was wrong.

Most bloggers will continue not to be very “nice” I am afraid. At least until the clergy will continue to be it.

Mundabor

The Nanny, The Police And The Catholic Blogger

We are all aware (or better: we should all be aware) of the fact that the secular society tries – with increasing energy and a more and more aggressive behaviour – to ban Catholic thinking. This is a disease common to lefties the world over (they have it in their genes, I suppose), but it is particularly evident in the formulation of legal heresies like the “hate crime” and all it is being used to justify.

We are informed from the “hermeneutic of Continuity” blog that steps have been undertaken to allow the police to block whatever site is – according to the judgement of said police – used to “commit crimes”.

Whereto this can lead is easy to see. In a world where political correctness is at a premium over the old activity of thinking, almost everything controversial can be considered “hate crime” and the removal of relevant pages be asked of the police without any need to have this view upheld by a court. This is the wet dream of Heidi’s governess and of all those like her and a poof, lesbian, and every other pervert’s paradise.

If this goes on, the pressure will be on the police to act according to the wishes of all those who consider themselves “victims”. Catholic thinking and in particular catholic bloggers will be a very obvious target.

It is astonishing that a country so proud of individual liberties as to even refuse the obligation to carry identity cards can tolerate such an intrusion of what would be a true police state into his right of freedom of expression and information.

If anyone knows of Internet petitions meant to put an end to this madness please let me know and I will give publicity to the fact as soon as possible.

Mundabor