I have read somewhere today that the Evil Clown has invited the faithful to silence during Mass, because when one is silent one can “listen to his heart” and, more importantly, “to the Holy Spirit”.
I will gloss over the inanity and banality of the words, probably inedible by a smart child of five. What I would like to point out is the subversive message hidden behind the stupid platitudes.
If I can claim to have the ability to oh so emotionally connect to the Holy Spirit, it might not be long before I claim to “recognise” a message that goes against Doctrine. Being thus persuaded of the goodness of my heart and my Direct Line to the Holy Ghost, I can easily persuade myself of the legitimacy of pretty much everything, like living in adultery and even daring to sacrilegiously present myself at the Communion Line.
What Francis does – in that stupid, sugary, childish way of his – is to encourage his (un)faithful to the very epitome of the sin of Pride: thinking that, in the end, I know better than God.
As you laugh about the arrogance of this man and the travesty of Catholicism he peddles to the Reprobates, please reflect on the many similar ways in which your local priests might try to smuggle the same impious message.
Reality check: I cannot listen to the Holy Ghost like I listen to music, nor can you. The Trinity speaks to me through the Church given to me for my salvation. The Bride talks to me every day through her beautiful, bimillenarian message.
Do not listen to Francis. Francis is an ass, the only thing you can learn from him is how to become unbearably stupid, supremely boring and diabolically subversive. Listen to the Depositum Fidei instead, and learn to know and love Church teaching. Therein, not in your own delusions, lies the Holy Ghost.
At times I struggle to see whether the Evil Clown is using figures of speech of his native Country, is talking the first nonsense that comes to his mind, or is just drunk.
The latest comparison between the people of Spring and the people of Autums is such an occasion. The stupid comparisons the – possibly drunken – man makes to insult us all mean the same thing: adulterers, infidels, perverts, and misfits of all sorts are the good guys. We, who try to live a Christian life and condemn those who give scandal (and even want to be right in doing that), are the bad guys, the (this is another one) chillies in vinegar or such like nonsensical comparison.
I love aceto balsamico, by the way, and make frequent use of it. For everything there is a season, even vinegar, and the season might actually be Autumn.
Someone should take the grappa bottle out of the man's hands.
Pope or no Pope, this one is now way past the point everyone else would deserve to be bitch slapped, big time.
Cardinal Tettamanzi is not among us anymore. Where he is, God knows. However, there is something that even we can know.
If Catholicism is true, everyone who dies unrepentant of wilful grave sin goes to hell. The metre for what is sin does not reside in his own conscience, but in the Truth that God established. Therefore, believing ourselves the most ardent followers of the Lord will be of no avail to us, if our actions and our entire ideology go against this Truth and, therefore, against Our Lord. Methinks, Luther might have died believing himself the greatest Christian since St Paul. You know where he is now if he did.
Cardinal Tettamanzi is a prominent (both because a Cardinal, and because of his own particular sins) representative of the generation that betrayed the faithful in the most cynical way since the Church was founded. Whether he considered himself “charitable” is neither here nor there now. Whether he adhered to and defended the Truth is – unless he seriously repented before death – everything that counts.
You could put it in a more cynical way and say that if God allows a generation of traitors, opportunists, cowards and outright sellouts to save themselves en masse, then Francis is not far from the Truth; he is, in fact, much nearer to it than all those generations of Catholics warning us of Hell since time immemorial. If even the greatest generation of traitors ever to sell their faithful leads to almost general salvation, we as normal pewsitter are really, really safe and hell does not need to bother anyone whose nickname is not “Stalin”.
However, we know from the teaching of time immemorial that we, the normal pewsitter, are not safe at all. Therefore, the likes of Tettamanzi must be in the greatest danger of eternal damnation, all of them, to the last slimy traitor.
Even among the bad, Tettamanzi was one of the worst. The successor of Martini in Milan, he was the more cautious version of his predecessor, a bit like a strong poison diluted in water. His leftist leanings were so obvious that Comunione e Liberazione (a then powerful, wannabe Conservative organisation) could not stand the man. He was invited to the Sham Synods even if above the standard age of 80, and punctually leant his support to sacrilegious communion for adulterers. The picture is clear then: another sellout and Judas of the worst sort.
Do I wish him salvation? Individually, poor bastard, I do. But he belongs to a group at very great risk of salvation, so we only need to switch our brains on to know that the probability of damnation of the likes of him is very high.
Unless, that is, Catholicism has lied to us for 2,000 years…
and Francis is right.
I have already published a blog post about the talk given by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the 5th of December.
Bishop Schneider states the following:
A pastoral accompaniment and discernment that does not communicate to the adulterous person, the so-called divorced and remarried, the divinely-established obligation to live in continence as a sine qua non condition for admission to the sacraments, exposes itself in reality as an arrogant clericalism, as there does not exist any clericalism so pharisaical as that which arrogates to itself rights reserved to God.
We see here a theme mentioned very often: that what is clearly a scandalous adulterous relationship is fine if continence is given (and, I add, necessarily made public).
I always found such affirmations “off”, and – perhaps because of the times we live in – more than a tad stinking of Vatican II. According to this thinking, it appears that two old people could live together in what appears to be, for all the world, an adulterous relationship, with the addition of the obvious fact that they have no sex and they, duh, admit it. But you see, I though the adultery consists in the way of life, not in the accidental circumstance than one or both the adulterers happen to be impotent, or not interested in sex. This, leaving aside what must be, in very many cases, the obvious provocation of the couple who is in an age where sexual activity is to be assumed but tell you the “brother and sister thingy” because hey, we don’t want to give scandal, do we now?
I have asked before, and ask again, help from my readers in finding statements supporting this “brother and sister thingy” before the age of Vatican II. I never could find any, hence my detecting the pungent smell of V II.
Interestingly, in the already linked interview Bishop Schneider also states the following:
One of the most ancient and unequivocal testimonies of the immutable practice of the Roman Church of rejecting adulterous unions by way of the sacramental discipline–unions of members of the faithful who are still linked to a legitimate spouse in a matrimonial bond—is the author of a penitential catechesis known by the pseudonymous title of the Shepherd of Hermas. The catechesis was written, in all probability, by a Roman priest at the beginning of the second century, as indicated by the literary form of an “apocalypse” or account of a vision.
The second dialogue between Hermas and the angel of penance who appears to him in the form of a shepherd, demonstrates with admirable clarity the immutable doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church in this area: “What, O lord, will the husband do if his wife persists in this lust of adultery?” “Separate from her and the husband remains on his own. If after having left his wife he marries another woman, he also commits adultery.” “If, O lord, the wife, after she has been abandoned, repents and wishes to return to her husband, will she not be restored?” “Yes, he says, and if the husband does not receive her he sins and becomes guilty of a great fault. He should, instead, receive the one who has sinned and has repented. . . . Because of the possibility of such repentance, the husband should not remarry. This directive applies both to the wife and to the husband. Not only is there adultery if one corrupts one’s own flesh, but also the one who acts similarly to the pagans is an adulterer. . . . For that reason it was ordained that one remain alone, for both the woman and the man. One can repent . . . but he who has sinned must not sin again” (Shepherd of Hermas, Fourth Commandment, 1).
See? Second century, and no brother and sister thingy to be seen absolutely anywhere. “Remain alone” cannot mean anything else than “remain alone”. The point is also forcefully made that every spouse must be ready to readmit the other in the family life. It seems difficult to reconcile this with what we hear today: the children would be oh so horribly traumatised, and the like. Did they not have children in the Second Century?
It seems clear to me that what is required is that no alternative family is created, period. No “brother and sister” thingy, and no “let’s think of the children” thingy. It is not clear to me what part of
For that reason it was ordained that one remain alone, for both the woman and the man
I have not understood.
Once again, I am grateful for every authoritative statement in this regard from pre-Vatican II times. As it stands now, it seems to me that the matter is not being appropriately dealt with, and that it was exactly this “brother and sister thingy”, together with the bringing of children into the equation, that created the slippery slope that ends up with…
Kasper and Francis.
The news reaches us from Rorate Caeli that a) the apostolic exhortation following the Synod will be released within march, and b) the main contributor will be the not at all manly chap you see in the photo above.
Fernandez is known as liberal beyond the point of heresy, and his publications and interviews have already caused scandal in the past (I might have written about it, if I had the time). Of course, being one of those chaps who hate everything of Catholicism he is very thick with our very own Francis, and it is therefore no surprise the Evil Clown has given him the task to write the lurv-fest manifesto.
Now, the damage will be noticeable, but still contained if the apostolic exhortation will limit itself to the usual rhetoric about lurv. Much worse it will become if Francis will dare to insert in it statements in obvious contrast with Natural Law (and the reported link states it will, barring intervention from the CDF as this is an official Vatican document). Much, much worse will this become if Francis goes to the extreme point of introducing actual, concrete measure measures facilitating, the sacrilege of communion for adulterers or any form of benediction of perverts’ “couples”, or the like.
Three months ago I would have told you that, if the last scenario were to occur, all hell would break loose. This after Francis had been successfully stopped by an unseemly and not very brave, but undoubtedly effective “rubber wall” at the Synod.
Now, I begin to have my doubt that this would happen. Since the end of the Synod we have assisted to events (like the “world religion light fest”, the “world religion FrancisVideo” and the communion sacrilegiously given to Protestants in the Vatican to mention only three, and I am still neglecting the new rules about the washing of the feet at Maundy Thursday’s Mass) that have caused nothing like the minimum amount of clerical scandal and opposition that would have allowed me to sleep well. I know, none of this is magisterial in the proper sense, but when all you see is silence from our Bishops and Cardinals then you wonder whether these people are picking their battles, or picking their nose instead, as Francis continues with a relentless barrage of heresies and blasphemies.
I wish I could be more optimistic. I normally am. But the aftermath of both the light show and the video (not to speak of the sacrilege in the Vatican) have frankly scared me. Methinks, the decision of Francis to allow the Proddies to receive communion (as I write this I have news of one, yes, one bishop condemning this) might have been the result of his feeling emboldened by the lack of clerical flack after the previous events.
We will see what the future brings. We stay strong in the faith, then Francis isn’t the faith, merely an evil clown. We accept this Pontificate as God’s punishment for the immense presumption of wanting to remake the Church in the image of.. man ongoing since 1963. We resign ourselves to die in an age of confusion, but to die without any confusion at all in our hearts and minds. We keeping fighting the good fight; a fight which, as we all known, is already won, no matter what the appearances in this vale of tears.
The Catholic Truth is as shining now as it always was. Alas, now it is shining by contrast with heresy, but it is shining still. She is still there, unaltered and unalterable by any evil pope, or any of his less than manly minions.
Stay strong. Pray more. Do penance. Begin to recite the daily Rosary. Pray frequently to St Michael. Defend proper Catholicism whenever and wherever you can (smartly and prudently) do so. Keep battling.
Old asses die, and become glue. This particular old ass might well have a much worse destiny.
It appears the “apostolic excrementation” of the Evil Clown might be published within the first quarter 2016. I have often stated th following two concepts: a) Francis will certainly not dare to introduce heretical novelties, unless he thinks he can get away with it, and b) the man is such an arrogant ass that he actually could think that he can get away with it.
Please understand this: any and every attempt at subverting doctrine would unavoidably state that the step of the Pope is encouraged, authorised or otherwise sanctioned by an already existing document, providing the Church with either a precedent or a pretended “consensus'. Francis would never be so stupid as to say “and now I give you FrancisNovelty”. Rather, he would claim that he is merely developing on something already existing.
Two documents come to mind for the purpose: Familiaris Consortio and the final Relatio of the Synod. It is, therefore, absolutely vital that the Catholic world reiterates that such a precedent is not contained in any of those or in any other document, and that any heresy that should come from the Evil Clown would have to be answered by Francis and by Francis alone. It is, of paramount importance that prelates from all Continents state that both the above mentioned documents cannot be manipulated to promote heresy, and the latter will not be accepted.
It is extremely dangerous to attribute to the final relatio, or to Familiaris Consortio, a meaning they do not have. May this be motivated by a sincere desire to help the Church, the fact remains that in this way it becomes easier for Francis and his minions to exploit the narrative you are yourselves helping him to fabricate or, rather, are actually fabricating for him.
Goethe said it with an expression well known in Germany: die Geister, die ich rief / werde ich nicht mehr los, or loosely translated “the spirits I have called, I can't get rid of them anymore” (poetic translation: “The spirits I have cited / my commands ignore”).
Pay attention to the spirits you cite.
Pity Pollyanna. She is having a horrible time. First the Synod weeks, and the obvious pressure from Francis to have the Bishops embrace heresy. Then the bitchy rant at the final address. Then the Hen-Goddess new religion and, unless I am forgetting something, another Scalfari impromptu-interview.
Pollyanna is devastated. She had told you the man Scalfari was very old, and sooo unprofessional he would not even use a recorder. Old, half-commie, atheist gaga! Who would trust him?
Turns out, Francis does! Again, and again! Actually, it seems Francis trusts the man every time something extremely heretical should be attributed to him, minus the smoking gun! The atheists who get saved following their own conscience, the reprobates who are destroyed rather than suffering in eternity, and now the ways to be paved to allow adulterers to receive: all come from the trusted pen, and the switched-off recorder, of the old gaga to whom Francis keeps coming back!
Pity, pity poor Pollyanna! She must be suffering as atrociously as the adulterer who won’t give up adultery, but want to receive communion!
Sniff!! Pass the Kleenex, fast!
As the Year Of False Mercy is approaching, I took pity myself, and have decided to help Pollyanna keep deluding herself. This, I find very charitable, and the height of mercy.
I therefore suggest to Pollyanna the adoption of the following lines:
1. Francis hates Scalfari. Francis’ is a cunning plan to expose Scalfari’ mendacious assertions. I mean, Francis a heretic? Who would believe that? (Here Pollyanna must laugh out loud, undeterred from the fact that no one else around her does).
2. Francis is meeting Scalfari again and again because he wants to convert him. This is also why he is such thick friends with every heretic in red or purple. What a cunning strategy!
3. This interview never took place. Nor did the other ones. Lombardi is an accomplice of Ms Chaouqui in trying to expose and demolish Francis’ papacy, saying the interviews really took place. They didn’t, I’m telling ya! Francis is simply too good to humiliate Lombardi! His goodness is being abused by evil people! Bad, bad wolves all around! We must protect the Pontiff from them! (A lot of emphasis on these phrases, please. Exclamations galore. It discourages thinking).
4. Francis wants to initially cause scandal, and appear a heretic. When Catholics stand up for Truth, Francis will intervene and say: “see? You got it now! This was the best way to let you understand the beauty of orthodoxy!” Oh, the ways of the Lord! The Ho,ply Ghost is working for us through Francis as I speak!
5. Francis wants Satan to believe he (Francis) is on his (Satan’s) side. This way, Satan will become complacent, and will start making a lot of mistakes. At this point, Francis will launch a huge attack against heresy. I am sure of this. No, really. My cousin’s best friend is persuaded, too. And boy, he is smart…
6. Francis is infallible. Always. Therefore, he cannot be wrong. Don’t be a bad Catholic. We follow Peter!
7. Francis makes us uncomfortable. This is good. It means that we need to reflect on where the Church is going. “Do you still not get it?”
8. The Holy Ghost must have great surprises in store for us. This is so exciting!
9. I am sure Francis has everything sorted. He is the Pope. He knows best. Who am I to judge?
10. Don’t be so angry. “Be like a little child!”
Well, I have done my best.
It required a great effort. It comes handy I love Kafka.
But no, it did not work.
Pollyanna simply cannot be rescued anymore.
We live in unbelievable times. Therefore, I will have to explain the obvious lest someone has missed it.
The Church has, with St Paul, always believed that adulterers are not allowed to receive communion.
As this is what the Church believes, there are no instruments at disposal of anyone by which they could say that this has been changed.
If the Archangel Gabriel were to come down from heaven this afternoon, shortly before dinner time, and tell you “Good afternoon. God above has just told me that adulterers can now receive communion”, of course you would not believe him.
If a pope – I obviously do not mean this unspeakable ass; I mean a solid, orthodox, pious, prestigious pope – were to wake up one morning and say “God has appeared to me, and He has told me adulterers can now receive communion”, you would immediately call him a heretic, no matter how good he appeared until the evening before.
If a pope – any pope; see above – were to write twelve encyclicals, eighteen papal Bulls, thirty-four motu proprio and ninety-seven apostolic exhortations declaring that adulterers can receive communion and implementing several measures to have the novelty enforced, you would call the pope a heretic, all his documents heretical and not to be believed, much less obeyed, and all those who obey him in this heretics and traitors.
The simple fact is: truth can never change. Therefore, adulterers can never receive Communion.
You might, in the future, hear all sorts of strange stories. For example, if the Evil Clown issues a document following this Synod, he is most certain not to explicitly say that adulterers cannot receive communion. He is also most likely not to repeat in it the Athanasian Creed, or the Our Father.
Guess what? The Athanasian Creed will still be in place, and will not be tacitly abrogated because Francis hasn't mentioned it. The Our Father will still be in force as both prayer and dogmatic statement, because he is both. Communion for adulterers will still be forbidden, because this is what the Church has always believed.
It is astonishing that I have to write such obvious blog posts.
But somehow I think it might help in the times we are about to face.
One of the most disquieting traits of our time is the tendency to look at concrete, everyday situations without a general view of what is right and wrong. This attitude is typical of children – who can't understand why the dangerous dog should be put down – and shortsighted, when they are in good faith, adults – who can't understand why a murderer should be executed -.
The right answer is always the logical, not the emotional one. The dangerous dog should be put down because the interest of safety comes before the child's desire that the dog may live; similarly, the execution of the murderer should be carried on so that elementary needs of justice and deterrence may be satisfied, even if the crying girlfriend of the assassin is on TV all day telling us what a sweet, good-as-pie, misunderstood man he is. The child, and the girlfriend, will plea for mercy. But it is false mercy that puts others in danger, and takes away from criminals the fear of their own destruction.
Logic must come before emotions. Laws – both legal and moral – can't be bent to accommodate feelings. Lex, dura lex, sed lex. During the reign of Blessed Pius IX there were hundreds of executions, in a State with a population of merely a couple of millions.
This obvious reasoning applies also to the Sacraments; the more so, because the things of God are so much more important than the things of man.
Marriage, it is said, is in bad shape. We have in front of us the suffering of so many who have made a mistake. Should we not have mercy, and spare them?
Marriage is a sacrament. Once validly contracted, it stays. Whatever suffering the marriage causes, the once chosen bond stays. If the wife goes to bed with the entire regiment, she is still the wife. If the husband become violent, or alcoholic, he is still the husband. His becoming violent afterwards is nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with his having married before. The once validly celebrated sacrament stays. Hitler didn't stop being baptised because he became the Fuehrer, either.
If you're married, you're married. “But if he has become violent, then it means that he did not intend to marry me” must be among the most stupid things that can come out of the mouth of a human being.
The man wanted to marry, which is why he did it. He could take this decision because he could think. He was considered an adult able to make his own decisions: drive a car, enlist in the army, buy a home. All decisions which have a big influence on his life, or can be deadly to others. Still, he was considered able to make them. No one doubts this.
If a soldier rapes a girl in an occupied enemy village his superiors do not say “evidently, you never wanted to become a soldier”. He still is very well a soldier, which is why he will be court martialled. The decision, once validly taken, stays. An adult is, by definition, one who is able to make his own decisions and will answer for them. Retrospective rearrangement of a taken decision is neither here nor there. If you validly bought a house and discover the mortgage is too big of a burden, you can't just make your decision null and void because “you didn't really know what you were doing”. Was the house legally purchased? Yeah? Then it's all yours, my boy…
Therefore, any argument aiming at persuading you that the church should be “flexible”, “merciful”, or whatever else, and ignore the reality of a decision once validly taken in order to pretend the decision was never there in the first place is not only factually and logically flawed, but radically sacrilegious. It is very obvious that the current climate encourages spouses to lie about the bond they once freely chose; the recent “simplifications” go even further down that road, encouraging a narrative in which the spouse is a victim (of his or his spouse's “inexperience”) and therefore, implicitly but clearly enough, authorised to lie.
This isn't mercy, this is a fraud, and a sacrilegious one at that. God will not be fooled. At seven, a boy can theoretically send himself to hell. Imagine an adult trying to fool God about his own marriage. Congratulations, Pope Francis. You have just made the devil a huge favour.
Mrs Pious Adulterer will, we have said, insist that she could not make the choice. But ask her whether she would be ready to consider null and void the purchase agreement of her house because, ten years later, the seller discover he wasn't “mature enough” to make such a decision, and see what she answers.
The same person who would be insulted at your implication that she should be incapacitated – because obviously not able to buy or sell cars, houses, heirlooms, and the like – will eat you alive if you tell her that if she was able to make an important decision like buying a car or a house, the more so she was able to make the obviously far more momentous decision to marry; a decision taken almost always very formally, very solemnly, with great pomp and ceremony, in front of all relatives and friends, and with all the attached, well-known emphasis on this bond being “forevah and evah”, and now suddenly discarded like a bad joke.
“Me? Promise? Solemn? Oh no, I wasn't really serious, you see!”
“What do you say? Incapacitation, guardian, protecting me from myself? You b@st@rd!!!”
There are rumours (also reported by S. Armaticus' and Father Z's blogs) that the Synod will be structured in a different way than the 2014 debacle. No relatio post disceptationem, no general discussion after the small group meetings and, most importantly for us, no official document with at least a pretence of doctrinal value at the end. Instead, the small groups would give their reports to the Clown, and he would simply give the usual, fluffy, nonsensical, and frankly stupid speech at the end of the, at this point, fairly useless proceedings.
We do not know if the rumours will be confirmed. If they are, it seems to me Francis has taken his decision: rather than go to battle and be defeated, he decided to avoid the battle in the first place.
One understands the reasoning. Any kind of general discussion would lead – from what has transpired in the last months, and what Francis must perceive even more clearly behind the scenes – to a brutally clear reaffirmation of Church doctrine on marriage, with the implicit threat of openly defying the heretical Pope if he dares to open his heretical mouth. It goes without saying that the leaking to the press of the statements of the orthodox bishops would be savage even if the Clown were to order secrecy. He would be brutally exposed, and he knows it very well. Not all fools are idiots. Not to that extent at least.
Add to this that most of the participants have learnt a thing or four from last year, and must now trust Francis less than they would a Palestinian used cars salesman. Francis tried the big surprise last year, and still got one on the nose in a matter of hours. This year, there will be a lot of clenched fists waiting for him from the start. No, the bishops and Cardinals owning the fists will not put it in that way. But my reading of the last eleven months is that this is exactly what will happen.
I do not trust the man one bit, though, and when I read the news the first thing I thought is that Francis would announce that there would be no official, “doctrinal” document at the end, and then suddenly vomit one prepared with his own buddies beforehand. But I think I am just being a tad paranoid here. Francis could vomit such a document every day if he wanted to; he does not want exactly because he knows what would happen to him afterwards. His only reasonable chance would have been to show at least a semblance of “consensus” behind him. Failing that, he is toasted.
Nor am a I afraid that Francis could try to rig things at the last minute calling a “simple majority” vote on controversial issues or texts. The Church does not work that way, and it is no coincidence last year's synod considered “rejected” those paragraphs that did not get 75% of the vote. As the Church is, qua definitione, forbidden from proclaiming any “new doctrine”, no position with a mere majority of bishops could cause more than a schism at the most, but it would have less than zero chances of being seen as anything even remotely approaching validity from any orthodox Catholic. If Francis dared to do such a thing he would be destroyed, and he knows it very well, too.
Lastly, let us reflect on who the man is: a Jesuit of mediocre intelligence, with some skills in intrigue-making. but with nothing approaching both the stature and the attributes necessary to so openly defy the Church. This is no Antichrist. This isn't even the False Prophet. This here is a mediocre Peronist with an utterly embarrassing lack of common intelligence, and a crass vulgarity that betrays the boor at every step. In any non-religious position he would be covered in ridicule day in and day out. Only the white habit protects him from the worst. Even on this blog, I hasten to add.
If the rumours are confirmed, it would seem this synod is going to be aborted.
In this, I am all pro-choice.
As the days of the Synod approach, we know that two main points are on the heretics' agenda: adultery and sexual perversion.
Some very interesting contributions have been written to the effect that the adultery issue was meant to be the Trojan Horse for the “laundering” of homosexuality. I personally have the following views on the matter:
1. As numbers go, adultery is a far more pressing issue for Father Heretic than sodomy. Among the nominal Catholics in his parish there will easily be 50 public adulterers for every public dyke or sodomite, and whilst fags have relatives who may well “symphatise” this is no less true for the adulterers. Basically, if the German Pater Haeretisch wants to garner consensus and Kirchensteuer-money around him adultery beats sodomy hands down. Adultery's laundering is also, undoubtedly, his main economic interest.
2. However, Pater Haeretisch may well be a pervert himself, and in this case the matter of sodomy will touch him in a rather more striking way, the usual conflict of the sodomite – the knowledge that he is wrong, dirty, and a pervert – being amplified by his supposedly being a man of God. One can imagine for many of these Pater Schwulette the issue is more pressing than even the Ka-ching of the parish tills.
3. The one aim does not negate the other. Adultery is, grave as it is, a sin that still goes with nature. Sexual perversion is, as going against nature, a completely new ball game. There is no imagining that the laundering of sins against nature would not achieve, a fortiori, the result of laundering sins according to nature. Even an atheist immediately recognises – though he may not admit it to you – the substantial difference between the two situations, because sins that go against natural law are etched in the conscience of every man however big his effort to conceal it.
Therefore, at the Synod we will have a highly explosive mixture of issues which touch the wallet of the heretics and issues which torments them. They have Francis on their side, but Christ is against them.
How thus battle will end in the end, you already know. But we want it to have an end, actually, sooner that “in the end”.
We must continue to denounce adultery as well as sodomy; the faggot priest as well as the avid or simoniacal one; the sins that go with nature as well as those that go against it.
Francis and his army of clowns will not prevail. Not in the end but, preferably, not in October either.
Father Z informs us that a new book, authored by eleven Cardinals, is about to be published. The book aims at combating the “protestantisation of the Church”. I can imagine that the matter of communion for adulterers will have a prominent space, but it is clear that this book deals with a more general topic, and it is meant to help recovering authentic Catholicism at least in matters of Catholic morals as opposed to this “inclusion” madness, but hopefully also dealing with issues concerning the liturgy, the other sacraments like Confession, and the Catholic life.
More in general, though, this book clearly has its gun sight aimed straight at one person: Francis. It is obviously published in preparation to the Synod, and the defence of Catholicism on a broad front cannot but be another implicit, but clear demonstration of growing restlessness at the broad attack that Francis has launched against the Church in the way it thinks, operates and prays.
I do not remember books authored by multiple Cardinals as a Church tradition. We now have two in a little more than one year. Whatever anyone should tell you about this being about the rediscovery of Catholicism etc, this can only have one aim: to present a solid wall of Orthodoxy to Francis and his army.
Not coincidentally, the same article reports that another book is in preparation, exclusively authored by African Bishops and Cardinals. This will be fun, too.
Francis has clearly decided to launch a Big Heretical Offensive in October, which is why the blog post on the Rape of the Church is still pinned at the top of this blog. But he must know that he will never prevail, and will have either to abandon his satanical plans or to push forward towards a nuclear conflict from which he will, even if he survives it as pope, never recover.
Perhaps nothing of this will happen. Perhaps Francis will die before the Synod begins. Perhaps he has already decided blabla is good enough for him, and he will use the upcoming Year Of False Mercy to spread more heretical practice and thinking without an open confrontation. We don't know.
But there are more and more people who are sending clear signals that they will not shun the fight, however painful.
Let us pray for the Cardinals and Bishops who do their job and speak out for Truth. And let us hope we will soon have a new Pope, who thinks and act like a Catholic instead of like a socially envious, not very intelligent Castroite.
I can’t hear anymore all this talk of the new ways how the Church must include, or integrate, or let feel welcome all kind of, obviously, unrepentant sinners.
What exactly did the Church in the time of St Pius X do that was wrong, and why?
Were there, in those times, no adulterers? No children born out of wedlock? No sodomy? Don’t make me laugh!
No. There was a massive amount of sin, because human nature is, after the Fall, automatically predisposed to sin.
Were our forefathers, then, “insensitive” to the “plight” of the adulterer? You bet they were! They were very sensitive to the danger of damnation, and had therefore no time for the rubbish of those who aren’t. If you believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell all the rest follows; if you waste your time talking about “new ways of accepting them” you simply do not believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell.
Think of it logically instead of emoting like a seventeen years old girl, and you will realise that there really is nothing in the middle. Every talk of “new” acceptance means an acceptance that does not include: 1) admission of grave sin and grave scandal, 2) repentance, and 3) amending of one’s way and putting an end to scandal. Therefore, any talk of “new” acceptance means making people more comfortable on their way to hell. Crucially, though, it makes the other pewsitters feel good and sensitive. Sensitivity is the opium of the small “c” catholic.
What did St Pius X do, exactly, that was wrong? Can you give me exact details? Did he not know that the child of the adulterers would feel bad? Of course he did! But you see, the likes of that great Pope were infinitely more interested in the salvation of souls than in the comfort of children! The Blessed Virgin in Fatima makes the children very uncomfortable, and does not give them any of the sensitive rubbish of the modern times!
Nor can you say that in those times such adultering couple and their children were rare. Firstly, and insofar as this was the case, they were rare (or less frequent) because the “insensitive” rules were openly preached and brutally enforced by a strong Church or, among the Proddies, by strong Christian feelings. Secondly, such situations were, actually, very common whenever Christian rules did not arrive, or where they were despised; the slums of (Protestant) Victorian London are a rather striking example of this.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t uphold Truth, and preserve “sensitivity”. You will never save souls by adapting truth to the sensitivity of children. I was told the brutal truths of hell when I was four. I am sure it did not harm my soul one little bit. Of course it would have hurt me to hypothetically discover that, say, my parents were living in sin. But then again this “hurtful” society created children whose parents were not living in sin! Conversely, it is this stupid sensitivity and fear to hurt anyone that creates the adulteries, the scandal, and the children born out of wedlock!
Was Pius X, then, not inclusive? On the contrary, he was very inclusive of the repentant sinner! Did he feel any need of “new” ways of including adulterers? No, it is very obvious the great Saint did not feel any need for them at all! Was he, then, unaware of how unpleasant it is to be born out of wedlock, or to be condemned by your community for living in sin? Of course he was not!
I could go on, but I think I have made the point.
There is nothing wrong in the way the Church has always done things. There can be no way, no way whatsoever, they were wrongly “insensitive” and we must find “new ways” to accommodate any sensitivity that was wrongly neglected before.
Let us realise that all this rubbish talk of finding new ways is the direct consequence of the loss of the fear of the Lord. If the fear of the Lord were still there, the priorities would be arranged differently.
Disagree with this, and you must admit that the Church was “not inclusive” or “not welcoming” in all her past history, all the way up to the enlightened Peron Generation: where air conditioning is evil, God scolds you but does not slap you, and it is necessary to “raise hell”.
St Pius X did nothing wrong. His Church was inclusive in the right way, and it was so out of real charity and love for the salvation of souls. Whatever harshness this charitable mentality caused was the unavoidable consequence of the harshness of the simple truths about salvation and damnation.
It is our generation that does not know what fear of the Lord is, and therefore forgets real charity and sinks in an ocean of diabetes-inducing talk of welcome and inclusion.
Get your priorities straight. The rest will follow from there.
The story in short: a powerful “Catholic” lay organisation claims Church teaching in matter of adultery and sodomy must changed, because… they prefer it that way, and the Evil Clown agrees with them.
The young bishop of Passau, Oster, makes something very Un-German: he speaks out, all alone, against the evil. The usual attacks ensue. But this time, five other Bishops (all of them, apparently, fairly young) speak out very clearly, thank the Bishop of Passau for his words and firmly take place beside him.
Results? The front has broken. Actually, it's clear now that there has never been one, and only the German desire to appear “unite” and not be seen as fomenting “division” could lead to the explosion being delayed until now. The German heretics, claiming a situation of “emergency” and opening threatening with schism, have now completely, completely lost face if a couple of days were enough to have six of the twenty-seven German bishops very officially opposed to the Kasperites.
Mind: that six have spoken does not mean that twenty-one side with heresy. It simply means that one letter was enough to give the lie on the heretical claim of a German “special need”, and to show to the entire world that even in the hotbed of European Heresy there is no compact front against Catholic teaching, at all.
It's a complete loss of face. I am very confident other bishops will speak out for Christ in the next weeks; but even if this were not the case, the six bishops have caused utter and complete devastation in the camp (as in-camp) of Kasper, Marx, & Co. What they can now claim is, at most, that heretics are a majority among German bishops. Fat chance to win with that.
The dream of a compact wall demanding a different “pastoral” treatment for the German sheep is all but gone. Kasper & Co. stand now openly refuted, and possibly in the next weeks openly humiliated, by their own bishops. What a sad end. What an inglorious way to go to hell.
I start to think that October might go down in history as a very clear reaffirmation of Catholic truth; because if you know Germany, you know that group thinking is very strong there, and the marching out of line fully against the Country's grain. That exactly in Germany one bishop's initiative should be enough to let the supposed hive mind collapse in a matter of days tells you a thing or two about what must be brewing elsewhere.
Marx and Kasper should get the stake, and the stake is what they would have had in times which value truth more than niceness. I doubt my suggestion will be adopted – there would be the need for the one or other legal change too, you see… – but it certainly is the punishment these two, and their main helpers, have deserved.
Which leads us to the Evil Clown: the man who started the entire mess by openly praising Kasper's “theology on his knees”, and will now prudently distance himself from the position he has done the most to further.
Francis is obviously on the side of heresy. He has pushed it, and continues to push it, every way he can short of an ufficial declaration of allegiance. Every Catholic with some discernment knows he is on their side. But as a Jesuit, Francis will find a way to throw his allies under the bus, and deny he ever wanted anything else than… socialism, enviro-mentalism, and cheap publicity for himself.
For the German heretics, it's now 1944. It's not sure they will lose, but the situation looks clear enough.
Impressive declaration of Cardinal Pell in Rome, on occasion of the March for Life: the Synod, says the Cardinal, will “massively endorse the Tradition” of the Church, as reported by Newsmax.
Now, it is not uncommon at all that a Cardinal would predict no attempts at changing Truth. Truth can't be changed anyway, and you would expect the vast majority of Bishops and Cardinals – open heretics excepted, as in the case of many in Germany – to say nothing else.
What impresses here is the use of the adverb “massively”. The Cardinal has been on the front line of this unbelievable controversy, and it is difficult to think he is not constantly in contact with other Bishops and Cardinals about what is going to happen in October.
Therefore, I think that only one of two is happening: either the Cardinal is the target of willed misinformation aimed at inducing the orthodox prelates to lower their guard before the Nuclear Explosion, or – far more probably – the exact contrary is actually taking place: the Bishops will not accept any surprise and will greet the Synod with a massive call for the upholding of Truth. This will make it impossible for Francis to come out with surprise initiatives, and will leave him fully exposed in any attempt to cross the line of orthodoxy.
It is, obviously, far too early to say that this battle is won; but with God's grace, there are now signals that things at least appear to be going in the right direction.
Francis isn't so stupid that he does not know even a Pope is powerless when he attempts to change doctrine. He can, of course, throw a lot of smoke bombs around and truthfully persuade the enemies of Christ that he is on their side. But the attempt to bang his head against the granite wall of the Depositum Fidei in the hope the wall gives way is a different matter altogether, and would most certainly end up with a broken skull at some point.
There is no way to avoid the nuclear confrontation if Francis is set on it. But one wonders how detached from reality a man – and be him the Pope – must be to make such decisions.
We must keep praying. We must remain cautiously optimistic in the final victory of Christ, but without being overconfident as to what will happen. The Cardinal does it very smartly, contributing to the creation of a climate in which no dissent is allowed, and every bishop is expected to stay the course. Five more months of this, and I can hear the boos and public calls of “heretic” if Kasper & Co. dare to make a move. Which, in such a scenario, they might not dare at all.
We must keep praying for a positive outcome of this bally exercise in stupidity called the Synod on the Family. And for the rapid end of the Pontificate that gave us the stupid exercise in stupidity in the first place.