Meet Bruce Jenner, The Mad Monster Arsonist.

Bruce. No, read it again. Bruce.

Bruce Jenner has, as a former track runner, condemned the fact that a boy has been allowed to get a place in State track running competition by running among women rather than among men. Breitbart – not linked to, as they keep misgendering Bruce Jenner – informs us that the boy would, if he had run among the people of his sex, have arrived last. Among the girls he arrived second, likely deciding not to crush the opposition in order to attract less flack on himself. I wonder if he will find other boys in the State finals. I am sure there are scholarships to be scrounged with this.

Now, there is no innocent in all this. Bruce Jenner is merely a madman criticising others for giving signs of even bigger mental instability than himself. However, most others support this kind of degeneracy out of pure calculation (leftists bent on destroying every vestige of decency, assorted fags and dykes hoping to look less disordered, and boys gunning for the scrounging of victories and scholarships). Bruce Jenner, instead, had himself mutilated [edit: it appears he still has his appendages, but you get the point….] just to make the absurd point that he thinks he is a woman.

But it’s really worse than that. This is not only the kettle calling the pot black. This is the arsonist criticising the fires that others have started after him. The hypocrisy is staggering as it comes from a man who has been a driving force of the madness we are seeing today. The guy cannot decide that he is a woman, but other boys aren’t. It’s self-serving and hypocritical in the extreme.

Of course, Bruce Jenner has a clear agenda here: to make for himself a conservative reputation as the most conservative Trannie in the village.

Sorry, Bruce. You can’t be a trannie and a conservative. You can only be as monstrous politically as you are physically.

But then again, this guy is most likely merely looking for validation, desperately craving the approval he knows he does not give to himself. And in fact, what Bruce Jenner is screaming from the rooftops is exactly this: he himself does not believe, nor did he ever believe, that he is a woman.

And if he is not a woman, he can only be a monstrously deformed individual.

Sorry, just stating the facts here. As even Bruce Jenner appears to clearly see.

I do not see a happy ending in Bruce’s cautionary tale. I see a suicide with subsequent hell as the most likely outcome, and hell as a foregone conclusion, barring conversion, if he dies of natural causes.

But no, I think suicide is the most likely outcome. Satan is clearly closing in on the guy, trying to make the cognitive dissonance in his head explode.

Pray for all the victims and those persecuted by these maniacs.

Dodgers Go Full Fudgers

What the US are becoming…

Some days ago I had written, in my innocence, that of course the LA Dodgers would, upon being informed of who they are, disinvite the blasphemous group of perverts.

They don’t want to become the next Bud Light, I wrote.

Fairly reasonable, it seems to me.

Well, it turns out I was wrong: they do want to be the next Bud Light.

What this says to me is that this is more alarming than the original post. This is a deliberate woke provocation made in full knowledge of the facts by an obviously pro-pervert organisation now clearly meant to shove perversion and blasphemy down their fans’ throat.

We will see how this pans out, but it seems to me that there is now a full scale attack on Christian values and decency, probably motivated by the hope that there is “strength in numbers” and people will not have the rage or the discipline to boycott everyone that goes trannie/pervie/woke.

Make no mistake: this will end up perverting the masses, little by little, until every perversion is normalised.

Would the LA Fudgers, only twenty years ago, have dared to organise a faggofeast? Twenty years later not only they have the blasphemous trannies, but – which is likely worse – the faggofest has been entirely normalised!

If things go on this way, give it another twenty years and the trannies will be everywhere, with the p-p-professional Catholics now screaming against the invitation of the incestuous whilst not even mentioning either the faggots or the trannies.

Meanwhile, Russia becomes more and more Christian, strengthens its education system, improves its military technology advantage with the unites states, and prepares itself to give the woke West a lesson it will never forget.

One can see, once again, a clear parallel to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, killed by the debauchery and sissification of its people. The big difference is, most likely, that social processes that once took centuries now go much faster. Just look at what has happened in the “Kinzhal Vs Patriot” duel last week in the Ukraine to see how fast the cards can change in the military technology game.

Will the US recover? Sad to say, likely not. The 2024 elections will be most likely stolen and the perversion of the American society will continue apace, until a big shock comes which, hopefully, reverses the course. This shock will likely be the outbreak of armed confrontation between the mainstream and the woke troops, or a humiliating military defeat, courtesy of China or Russia, that opens the eyes about what degeneracy leads to.

But it won’t be tomorrow. Just read what Larry Johnson writes about recruitment at the CIA and you’ll see the scale of the problem.

The LA Fudgers incarnate what a vocal, aggressive, bigoted minority is doing to the once great USA.

As long as the Conservatives – or, actually, the normal people – are worried about appearing “moderate” and “reasonable”, there is no way of winning this.

Why The Mainstream Press Is Dying

The Guardian needs her to retweet…

The months since the start of the Special Military Operation have showed with brutal efficiency why the traditional press is dying. The scale of disinformation is off the chart. It is only natural that alternative channels of information (from blogs to Substack mailing list, to video channels) are now making the bigger part of the information sources of thinking people.

The press does the same old prostitution job, masked behind a fake layer of trustworthiness.

Last example: the Western press is now reporting the “six Kinzhal missiles” the Ukrainians claim they have shot down quite recently. The “fact checkers” by now (I think) employed by every newspaper will let the lie pass because, well, it is true that the Ukrainians claim the victories. But uncritically reporting a propaganda lie is not information, it’s a lie masked as fact.

Anybody who knows anything about the Kinzhal knows that the only way a Patriot missile can take one of those down is by sheer luck, “needle in a haystack” fashion. The idea that six have been taken down on the same day is bad comedy. In fact, even the idea that one has been taken down pushes very hard at the boundaries of reality.

But then again the Ukrainians had to admit a huge loss of ammo and other equipment, likely in the order of hundreds of millions of euros in value, just days ago, with a series of explosions in one single location that caused a huge mushroom-like smoke column. This was tantamount to the admission that their air defence is in dire straits, because it’s unthinkable that such a weapon stash would not be protected with the very best the Ukrainians have. So what do they do when they are forced to admit that the Russians run circles around them? They lie even more, and now want you to believe their extremely expensive, vintage missile system – which has been already humiliated by Iranians drowning in sanctions, and Yemeni fighters in sandals – can take down a Kinzhal. The Official Press is, as always, eager to help.

The mechanism is the one I have already described: modern mass media are the slaves of the narrative they think their pro-Ukrainian readers want to read. They feel obliged to do it because their revenue depends, in a shockingly big proportion, from the Ukraine fanboys retweeting, sharing and forwarding their articles. An outfit like the “Guardian” will see certainly more than half of the revenue of every Ukraine article go away, unless they keep their pro-Ukrainian customers satisfied.

Compare and contrast with the new information channels.

A two-person outfit like The Duran has no overhead costs. They broadcast from their living rooms. A guy like Judge Napolitano will interview his (smart) colonels from his home office. Guys like iEarlGrey and The New Atlas will rely only on the reputation of trustworthiness they get, and know that this will allow them to weather any emotional storm among their readers. If they chase public opinion, they will soon disappear. If they are truthful they will have ups and downs, but will prosper in the end as their non-existent overhead allows them to weather any storm, and make good money in the process.

It goes without saying that other pressures apply. In the UK, the Government pays subsidies to the traditional press. Do you think they will defy the hands that feeds them by exposing every day the monstrous lies of the British Government? Me neither.

Of course, the “fact checking” forms will be satisfied.

“Vladimir Putin, whom many say has cancer, is reportedly desperately looking for a way out from the situation in Crimea. ‘He really is contemplating suicide, but in reality, he could be killed before he can do even that’, a source familiar with the Kremlin disclosed to us”.

I am sure this will get past every fact checker. You only need to show him that it is true that some say Putin has cancer, & Co. What remains out of all this, is integrity.

It goes for everything else. “Cardinal Pell, who was accused of sexual abuse of minors before he died, was considered by some of his fellow Cardinals a devastating influence on the Church”.

It really is very easy.

In the long term, this has led – and will continue to lead – to loss of readers, as more and more realise there is no need for a propaganda outlet with a prestigious name to know what’s happening. Micro-companies with quality material will take their eyeballs, their time, and the relevant revenue.

The mass media will go, unless they change, the way of Budweiser Light.

Not that I am sad about it.

Fatness, Perversion, And Inclusion.

Do you see the connection?

I am, I think, one of the few people making a connection between the spread of fatness and the march of sexual perversion; or, more in general, between perversion and the lack of discipline and permissive attitude of which fatness is the most evident signal (a distant second would be tattoos).

I sit on the bus, looking at just another grotesquely fat young girl of, say, 21. Without knowing her, I understand the high probability that the fattie squeezed in the bus seat is in favour of so-called gay marriage, gender theory, affirming lesbians, and the like.

Why is that? Insecurity, and need of acceptance.

Fattie knows that she is vulnerable to brutal criticism. Much as she can have persuaded herself that it’s not her fault that she is a voting hippo, she still knows, deep down, that: a. She is, and b. Everybody else knows it, too. It’s like the trannie fantasy: you can pretend as much as you like that George is now Henrietta, but everybody knows the truth.

Fattie is now terrified of being excluded. Without the discipline to stay away from the fries and donuts, without parents “judging” her and teaching her discipline, without knowing what the word “gluttony” even means, and without any guidance from teachers either rotten in their brain or terrified of saying one single word, she knows she is going to remain the no-circus-ticket cannon woman.

She will react seeking all “inclusion” she can. I include you, so you include me. The mainstream ideas propagated by the msm will never be challenged. She will never dare to criticise any sexual behaviour – except when it’s socially safe: pedophilia – lest she is told about her behaviour. She will become a beacon of “inclusiviteee”.

The person without the money for the cinema will want free tickets for all.

Suddenly, nobody – unless he is Trump – can do anything wrong: tattoos, purple hair and ignoring that Georgina has a penis will become an untouchable moral imperative, because fattie knows that her very social life is at stake. In order for her to keep ingesting rubbish food, others must be allowed to live rubbish lives.

It works for boys, too; but less so, then boys are more self-assured and physical appearance is less important to them. Still, the basic mechanism will be the same.

Once upon a time, there was a received set of values, which did not allow challenges without punishment. A woman called herself a “free spirit”, the other girls called her a slut. Men would use her and throw her away. It was a system of brutal sanctions for wrong behaviour. This system of values has been dismantled, because the very guardians of the system (the boys and the girls, their parents, their teachers) have renounced to their role of social controllers. This they have done, in countless cases, because they are fat, their parents are fat, their daughters are fat, there is no priest worthy of the name around, and their teachers are fat, leftists, or terrified.

No moral values in one thing leads to no moral values in other things. It’s a slippery slope.

Our ancestors knew it. They enforced a social system of sanctions and exclusion.

Today, it’s just an endless row of letters followed by a plus.

Sects

Don’t take it on me because you’re dumb, arrogant, and so very ugly….

I am old enough to remember the days of the coming ice age. I must confess, though, that I had forgotten about it, as it was all happening when I was a child and then simply fell from the radar. It was “important” enough that it had made it to my Ministry of Education approved textbooks, though (yes: in my time, your government told you what text books you had to form yourself on).

I was reminded of the fact – and of the textbooks – by Lomborg’s “the skeptical environmentalist”, a book whose validity is confirmed by the astonishing amount of mud his opponents threw on him.

The link above shows how widespread the madness was in 1970. It also shows that, there as now, the prophets of doom were at the service of a fundamentally anti-capitalist attitude, a collectivist utopia that couldn’t be called communism, but was – and is – exactly the old Marxist rubbish, albeit with some cosmetic variation to make it more palatable. There will always be people who believe this stuff. They are those in search of purpose and self-validation for their inflated ego.

Climate change was then, and it is now, a religion for atheists. It gives people the satisfaction of the basic need of feeling good with themselves, and – in Anglo Saxon Countries at least – of that other basic need, virtue signalling. This is why the obvious recognition that nothing of what Al Gore predicted has happened – or is even happening – does not have any effect of the proponent of his theory.

It is not, not it ever was, about the planet.

It is, and it always will be, about themselves.

Sects don’t need validation. They are like the plant of the “little shop of horrors”. They demand more and more food, until things get to a crisis point. When the bubble – or the plant – finally explodes, the sect members will look for the next sect. They will need to, because sect membership validates their entire existence.

Besides the real science – and the real common sense, and the real religious spirit – the defeat of the climate loons goes through an extremely effective weapon that I never cease to employ or to recommend: public ridicule and ferocious mocking. It is beyond me how we have become so brainwashed – even many so-called conservatives – that not even an elephant-sized target like the extremely dumb, extremely bigoted, ugly beyond belief, and otherworldly arrogant “how dare you”- girl was – metaphorically speaking – instantly incinerated. We are too nice to our enemies, lest we should not be considered good by the same people we despise.

The climate change hoax will be destroyed not by facts, but by laughter. Laughter goes head-on against the very reason why the loons abandon themselves to their lunacy: recognition and self-aggrandisement. This is true everywhere, but particularly so in the Anglo Saxon Countries, where social recognition is so openly, desperately, shamelessly craved.

I have bad news for you, Gretin.

You will always remain the fool you are now.

Clown Bishop Overbeck Wants To Conscript You

He is looking at you, bishop Overbeck

As a rule, heretical Bishops try to disguise their heresies under a thin veneer of Catholicism, making it look like they are being actually orthodox, at least to those of low IQ, high ignorance, or high interest in believing what the heretical guy says.

Every now and then, though, someone comes around who is such a scoundrel, such a sellout to the world, such a worthless piece of Francis, that he does not even bother to conceal the fundamental heresy of his very being.

Today’s scoundrel is Bishop Overbeck, an individual about whom I have already written in the past.

As you will see if you follow the link, Overbeck does not mince words: the change the Church is living now is bigger than the Protestant heresy. One only needs to be able to make 2+2 to understand that this guy is very plainly saying “we are heretical, we are proud of it, and you will have to get along with our heretical programme”.

The first two statements are self-evident. The third one is made explicit by another bomb dropped by this clown: he explains that if you want to defend tradition, you need to ask yourself whether you are still within the Church. Because you see, clown bishop has decided that the Church is now fundamentally different, and you therefore cannot follow the church of yesteryear and think you are within the boundaries of Overbeck’s fantasy creation.

Of course I am in unity with the Church, you cucking fretin! It’s exactly you who have just put yourself out of it, you fumb duck!! You can go to hell without me!

(If you think these words are too gentle, let me know in the comments and I will reflect whether to make my anger more explicit).

Unsurprisingly, clown bishop is also an enemy of Russia. Makes sense: even the Schismatics over there are infinitely more orthodox than this tool here. In fact, I think I can class it, seeing the declarations, as not unlikely that this guy has some big skeleton in the …. closet (as in: closet), it being not probable that a man without such skeletons would declare his heretical mentality and intent with such open hatred for the Church as he/she/it did.

I would, here, normally appeal for the defrocking of the guy, so he can seek gainful employment by the Lutheran Church Of The Latter Day Faggots. Alas, he will not be defrocked. An appointment to Cardinal is way more likely than that, at least as long as Francis breathes. In fact, who knows, the little Judas might have tried to position himself for a red hat, a place in the – likely – last train going out of Francisstation.

There is a God, and He judges everything and leaves nothing unpunished.

It’s the only consolation on days like this.

Totally Confused: Frankendyke And Liberty.

Whoopi Goldberg does not know what she says. Likely because she is unable to think.

Her “argument” seems very linear. I respect that you think abortion is the killing of a baby, but I ask you to respect that I disagree and allow me to act accordingly, because America.

Let us now make exactly the same “argument” in a different topic: I respect that you think that slavery is unjust and against human rights, but I ask you to respect that I disagree and allow me to act accordingly, because America.

Now substitute again for pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. Tax evasion, and drunk driving. Drug dealing, weapons trafficking, and domestic violence.

You see where I am going with this. The protection of life is an absolute. If, in a certain situation, a life is considered worthy of protection (for example: the unborn child will be considered such, the wilful murderer won’t), this protection must be accorded always, not according to opinion because “America”. Fundamental issues of right and wrong cannot be left to individual “opinions” that one must “respect” by not enforcing the decision on the issue on them. You don’t get to decide, together with your doctor, if you are killing someone or not.

The argument is so obvious that in no generation before ours such a stupid thinking was employed. You could be in favour or against a certain punishment for, say, drunk driving, but the idea of allowing a different treatment to some because you are “respecting their opinion” about it was not there.

The (biological) woman does not understand simple things. I think she is so ugly – both inside and out – that her brain fled in horror several decades ago, and was substituted for a Chinese knock-off found on EBay, that this Frankenstein dyke has been trying to use since. And if things did not go in that way, it was not for her brain’s lack of trying.

I wonder how many among the old harridans watching the show got the obvious flaw in the “reasoning”. Very few, I would say.

But then again, this is why they keep watching her.

Visible Signs

Crucifixes are being repaired in France, and new ones are being erected.

Yeah. It’s so easy.

Christian identity is protected by simply being proud of it, and showing it to the world outside. It is protected by erecting several crosses for each one that is vandalised. It is protected by giving visible signs of our faith in words and in deeds (the cross on the forehead on Ash Wednesday, not eating meat on Fridays, wearing cross pendants on our neck, etc.)

I was, now many years ago, very impressed by the vast number of crosses you see around in rural France and in (Catholic) parts of Southern Germany. Some of them are several metres high, many others are put in strategic places like crossroads or road curves (where your car will have to brake and be much slower). Some of them were three metres high, some more than that, very many two metres or more. It was something I did not know from Italy, though in Italy we also have small “mini shrines” (we call them “edicole”, but “shrine” is the translation I got), normally dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, in small villages or on the roadside, or on homes’ external walls.

These are powerful statements. The car driver, truck driver, motorcyclist, cyclist or even passer by are irresistibly attracted to the tall, slender figure of the crucifix. It can never leave one indifferent. In fact, I remember some of those crucifixes set against the sunset, or throwing a very long shadow, in extremely powerful moments (I suspect that this is done on purpose, the crucifix set in such a location that it has a certain angle to the road and the sun in summer…).

How much did such a crucifix cost? It certainly went in the thousands dollars of today’s money, but there were evidently many landowners, in the rural France of the past, ready to fork the money and to sacrifice those few square metres of arable land in order to have a visible sign of their faith on their own land. This is, in fact, a favourite “big lottery win fantasy” of mine: the purchase of hundreds of mini-plots in rural Central Europe and the erection of crucifixes on them. Dear Lord, if you are listening, you know what would need to happen next for that to happen…

Signs are important. It’ s not always “what we feel inside”.

It’s what we show outside.

Faggocracy In Action: Meet Bishop Stowe

How the heck these people are allowed to be bishops is beyond me. Why is this guy allowed to hire an openly faggoty fag guy to be “in charge of worship”?

And as we are there, we should pose the next question that comes to mind: what the heck is the “office for worship”? What need there is of all these “offices” made to procure comfortable jobs to one’s friends. Heck: who should be in charge of worship, if not, very directly, the bishop himself?

What does bishop Stowe do all day if he has no time to care for the worship of his parishioners? How were these things done in those blessed times before Vatican II, when parishes were more numerous and administration less bloated?

There is an entire Faggocracy that is getting fat with Peter’s pence. They have become so brazen now that they even hire their own, shamelessly, under the sun, and boast of it!

This guy Stowe needs to be defrocked and thrown on the street.

I think I know what his next job would be, but I don’t want to write it here because I am read by women.

And on the very odd chance that this Stowe guy is not homosexual himself, one wonders: what kind of kompromat does the faggot mafia have on him, to force him to take on one of their own in such a way?

Every time that someone asks you what, in the end, is wrong with Vatican II, answer mentioning this darn guy.

Boy, I miss the good old times. God has given me a different lot, and I had to grow up and live in a time of shameless “celebration” of sexual perversion, carried out by bishops!

Who made this clown a priest? Who made him a bishop? They will answer – or have answered – for this.

Nil inultum remanebit.

This is the only consolation.

The Greatest Injustice On Earth (For The Insane)

Trannies aren’t having a good week. First, the entire planet understands their potential for violence. Before you know, they are banned from competing with women in athletics. This only follows a similar ban on swimmers only a couple of days ago.

Ouch!

I am, like you, pleased at this glimpse of sanity. But you see, it is just a glimpse. In fact, what it does is to perpetuate the same injustice it pretends to celebrate.

Look, you have decided that that burly guy is a woman, right? You have affirmed his right to be called a woman. You have celebrated his womanhood. You have called those who actually use their brains oppressive, patriarchal, haters and all sort of horrible things. Why, then, you now behave like them?

You have decided that Butch is a woman? Treat him like a woman, then! Everything else would be an expression of the most hateful hypocrisy! You can’t have your cake and eat it! Besides, think of how this makes Sandrina (formerly, Butch) feel! Discriminated for who she is! Refused by men and women alike! This is atrocious, atrocious, I tell you! She will off herself, and it will be your fault!!

It is obvious that the relevant authorities are being utterly discriminating and full of racist hate here. They are, in fact, creating a third sex: male, female, trannie. This is hate, because they say, themselves, that the trannies are (prevalently) female! You cannot 1. Affirm Sandrina’s right to be female and 2. Deny to Sandrina the right to be female!

The only way out of this blatant discrimination is one of the two:

1. Coherent insanity: trannies who identify as such are females. This does not destroy female sport, because the trannies who dominate it are… females!

2. Coherent sanity: trannies who identify as females are madmen, but still men, in need of psychiatric attention.

In both cases, you would have coherence, and if it must be coherence of the lucidly mad, let those who have voted this madness enjoy it, and those who haven’t enjoy the complete destruction of female sport on the altar of insanity.

What is happening now is extremely hypocritical and legally questionable, as there will be no end of lawsuits stating that such bans are discrimination against people legally defined as females.

I think the claimants would be right. This will be an interesting one to watch.

Female is female.

Play trannie pc games, win trannie pc prizes.

Airline Trannie Down, Or: The Trannie Hoax Clearly Does Not Fly.

Not quite how it was meant to be…

A prominent airline Trannie has just committed suicide.

A Mister Scott – a man who, for some inscrutable reasons having to do with the devil, thought he was a woman, has offed himself. We know – though the woke crowd don’t – that this is how this madness, in most cases, ends.

Follow the link and look at the atrocious dynamics at play here. The man, in a last attack of extremely childish narcissism, broadcasts his suicide to his thousand of virtue-signalling followers in a way that screams “me, me, meeee” in every word. There is no hint of repentance for, very likely, mutilating himself and destroying his life. There is no honest admission that he screwed up on a planetary scale. There is, instead, the last passive-aggressive bit of bitching at the planet before his self-immolation. It is extremely difficult to see how this guy could have avoided hell.

I have said my eternal rest even for Bin Laden. I have, therefore, said one for this tool, too. Make no mistake, it sounds like a waste (but God applies every prayer to worthy should, so it isn’t).

Just as cringeworthy is the reaction of the “friend”, apparently the author of the article, one of the social media sheep who enjoy basking in the feeling of their own moral superiority. It is another show of virtue signalling, the pretend self reproach of the man who says “I am oh, so good! Look at how good I am! But have I been good enough?”

These are, in fact, the “helpers” and “allies” that will accompany the madman to his self-destruction, whilst feeling so virtuous every step of the way. Of course, ultimately the guy who committed the suicide is the only one responsible for his gesture. But I really wouldn’t want to be the one that virtue-signals all the way to another one’s precipice.

And so there you have it. Sexual perversion (note for the woke crowd: a trannie is every bit a pervert as a dyke or a sodomite are; and no, he is not a madman in the literal sense, then this is a lucid, Satan-fed madness) feeds, as so often, on a huge amount of narcissism. Then the plague of the modern time, virtue signalling, creates the perfect environment for the pervert to sink deeper and deeper into his own world of perverted delusion, until the cognitive dissonance becomes too much, and Satan finally gets his prize.

United Airlines also bear its part of moral responsibility. They not only tolerated the madness (there might be legal reasons for this; though I would, if allowed, fire the guy on the spot), but they decided to ride this satanic tiger and actually use the guy for, you guessed it right, more virtue-signalling and woke propaganda. Utterly despicable and, make no mistake, those who signed on this will, unless they repent, have their reward. I am a very Capitalistic guy, but when I see this kind of behaviour I really think it has gone too far.

Some of the comments are, actually, sane, insisting on calling the man him even if the author of the article refuses to say his proper male name. It is encouraging to see that more and more people see through the lie.

What do we learn from this? As more and more people encourage this particular kind of madness, and the madmen are elevated to the status of “trailblazers”, the suicides also increase and become more prominent.

The lie, literally, does not fly. It never did for us sane Catholics, but it certainly is becoming more and more difficult to believe even for a more, shall we say, agnostic crowd.

These madmen are, unwittingly of course, becoming the poster boys for the madness of tranniedom.

Do you want to end up totally miserable and, when the self-inflicted pain becomes too much, commit suicide? Become a trannie!! That’s the surest way to achieve your aim!

And no worries: there will be no lack of idiots accompanying you to your destruction every step of the way and, after your suicide, saying “I feeeel responsible for nooot dooooing mooooore”.

If any of my readers have – through no fault of their own – some relative who fancies himself a woman, perhaps articles like the linked one, and accurate statistics about the extremely high suicide rates among these nutcases, could help avoid the worst.

Still: realistically, a man who has decided that he is a woman trapped into the body of a man is already very advanced in his satanic madness; and prayer, very likely, the only thing that can help.

In your charity, make a (huge) effort and say a prayer for this stoopid tool. He also had an immortal soul, a soul of infinite value. That he likely merited to have his soul damned forever is, in itself, one reason more to pray that he might have saved his.

Grey Bird Down

The news reached us that Russian airplanes have taken down a US surveillance drone near the Ukraine. The exact way of the drone’s demise is unclear, but what counts is that the big grey bird is down.

It does not take a genius to realise that this was *not* an accident, as in these matters accidents simply do not occur. Rather, the us assertion of a Russian pilot literally dumping fuel on the drone indicates the presence of very skilled pilots closely following orders.

It boggles the mind that an Administration taking down innocent weather balloons, some of them launched by schoolboys or hobbyists, because it sees a “threat” in them, should demand that Russia has no issues with drones flying obvious reconnaissance missions over the Ukrainian front, meant to collect data used to kill Russian soldiers. It is, in fact, more surprising that Russia has *allowed* this to happen for more than a year.

The “international space” argument is clearly a moot point. The drone was clearly part of the military operations. Hence, it was a legitimate target, same as every American satellite is, should the Russians (which is improbable) decide to take down those, too. The Americans know it perfectly well, but they thought their little espionage by drone operations could go on forever. Russia has, if you ask me, just said a clear “Niet” or, more to the point, a “not anymore”.

We will see how this pans out. The Americans have already announced that they will keep flying the drones. They might, obviously, fly them from a safe, and useless, distance, just to make a point, or they might go on with proper reconnaissance operations. In the latter case, I think more drones will go down in time, after which things will become interesting and the Big Demented Bully will have to decide whether to frock around and find out, or limit himself to babbling something incomprehensible about the time his ancestors won in Yorktown before doing actually nothing.

Mr Kinzhal, Mr Zircon, and even Messrs Poseidon and Avantgarde are eager to be introduced to (or in, as the case may be) the American naval battle groups in the Mediterranean and in the North Sea. Will Biden make the introductions? Time will tell.

What I think is happening is this: the Russians are fed up with the level of NATO (means: US) participation in this conflict and, likely after several warnings have gone unheeded, had to decide which pressure point to apply to make Dementia Joe understand that he needs to back off, or prepare himself for a good bitch slapping. Several of those are thinkable, from taking down satellites (improbable) to hitting ships carrying weapons to the Ukraine, to hitting reconnaissance infrastructure like AWACS airplanes or drones. The choice of an unmanned aerial vehicle seems the most polite, least escalating way to convey the message.

The problem with that is that Joe, like Saddam, does not understand politeness and confuses restrain with weakness. Therefore, I think it probable that things will get worse before they get better, that is: that some serious bitch slapping will have to take place, before Joe understands that either he is ready to go nuclear, or he is better off backing off.

Oh, Joe, Joe! What have you done! Had you not stolen the election, you would not be on your way to making Carter look like a brilliant statesman! You would now be enjoying a quiet retirement, spending your days with typical Biden Family activities, like sniffing teenagers or watching your son trying to screw your niece after he screwed the widow of your other son.

As it is, you are like the big bully who has not yet understood that the time for bullying has come to an end.

Still, the big bird is down.

This will be one match to watch.

The Synodal App.

I wonder what hides in his phone…

It is known that there are, out there, mobile phone apps meant to facilitate “casual sex”, which I mean to signify people meeting for the only purpose of having sex. Unsurprisingly, a lot of this is driven by homos, for the simple fact that, irrespective of the sexual appetite of men, it will be extremely difficult to find women willing to engage in this kind of exercise. Therefore, these apps look like, largely, the preserve of sodomites. Still, one must also say that the level of horniness and brazenness of a heterosexual male using such apps goes way beyond what normal people would consider normal.

As it now turns out, a number of priests and seminarians have been exposed as using such (let us say it once again: largely homo-focused) apps.

Now, imagine this priest or seminarian, pretending to wanting to be a man consecrating his life to God’s service whilst being so obsessed with sex – and, likely, perverted sex – that he uses an app to find a way to satisfy his lust. What kind of priest will this be?

I tell you what kind of priest he will be: he will be the feminist, social justice, priesthood equality, ecu-maniacal, inter religious dialogue, Francis revolution kind of guy. This, if he is not all out as a Father Georgina type.

Put together enough of these disgraceful individuals, and you have a “synodal path” or, rather, the “Synodal app”. There, I have explained the way the church is going with the help of an app.

How do we get out of this? By ditching Vatican II.

Same as all other problems that plague the Church, the abandonment of proper liturgy and proper doctrine is at the root of this one. In fact, we might flip this coin and say that there is only one problem (the abandonment of proper liturgy and proper doctrine), and all the ailments of the Church come from there.

I am not a saint by any means, and cannot claim any realistic hope of going straight to paradise when I die. Still, the idea of using an app for “casual hookups” is quite disgusting even to a layman like me. The idea of a seminarian or even priest using such devices is simply revolting. But hey, the guy will be at the altar next Sunday at the latest, saying “peace be with youuuu” in a likely somewhat shrill voice.

V II and everything in it needs to be exterminated, and strong traditional doctrine robustly taught in seminaries, propagated among the faithful, and defended among the public.

You do this, you will see that priests are made of the right stuff and you have no hooking app issues.

Old Hags

Never felt the need for “societal change”…

So, it appears that, if you are Catholic and woman, the younger, the more conservative.

Ouch!

The article has some insights concerning this phenomenon, but I would like to say more.

The generation of those who in the US are called “boomers” is, in Italy, better known as “sessantottini”, that is: the generation that was giving trouble in their youth, troubles which started in 1968. In my experience, this is the most toxic generation of all those I have seen.

The Sixty Eighters are those who demolished a societal system that was actually working very well. They thought they knew better than all the generations before them. Apparently, they have become old, but not one bit less stupid. Of course, that society wasn’t perfect. No society is. In fact, one needs to be stupid to think otherwise.

This was, in Europe, the first generation of mass superior education. They thought they really knew better. The arrogance of the stupid and young was met by old people in awe at the “education” of their children, and without the proper instruments to defend values they knew to be right. We know how that went.

I have often written that, in order for things to improve, we need this generation of old people (and old hags) to die, as there is clearly no redemption for them. You need to consider that, in Europe, the wokeism phenomenon and extreme madness of gender theory is still mentioned, mostly, to make a mockery of it. Those who push it are, once again, largely older politicians who grew up with revolutionary ideas of “destroying in order to rebuild”. Plenty of those in the generation from, say, 1947 to 1962, that is, the generation of many people wielding power now.

These people will, in God’s appointed time, go to their judgment. Those they leave behind will be those who had to live and grow up with the mess their parents left them. They will, in far greater number, choose sanity.

Mind: I am talking about Europe. It seems to me that in the US the situation is far more serious, more polarised, and certainly more insane. Those the other side of the Pond might have to wait a little longer for sanity to come back, as a new generation of AOCs promises to wreak havoc with absolutely everything for decades to come.

Still: time is kind to logic and, at some point, sanity will come back.

Just tell grandma blathering about female priests to shut up already, because you know more than her, and it will be all fine.

Stalingrad Revisited

I wonder where Mr Z took his stubbornness from…

When Soledar fell, now many weeks ago, I predicted that the timing of the fall of Bakhmut would depend on how many soldiers the Ukrainians were ready to sacrifice there. It turns out they were, and still are, very many, to such an extent that the battle for Bakhmut already makes those for Mariupol, Severodonetsk, Lisichansk and Soledar pale in comparison. This is, hands down, the biggest meat grinder ever staged in Europe since the end of WWII.

The Western presstitutes are repeating their old Baghdad Bob trope, albeit with variations forced by an increasingly more evident reality on the ground. The latest trend seems to be that whilst the Ukrainians are suffering, they are inflicting enormous losses on the Russians, such that it is, in fact, pretty much a victory when they lose and have – those who are still alive at least – retreated. Readers of this little effort, of course, know better.

It seems to me that there is a Stalingrad mindset at work here. I mean by this that, once a military objective has been emotionally amplified by one side, this side finds it impossible to let this objective go, up to the point where its defence ends up attracting men and materials vastly out of proportion with its objective importance in the strategic picture of the conflict.

Hitler made this mistake in Stalingrad, as it became impossible for him to let his big trophy go. He ordered his troops not to retreat, pumped huge resources into a losing game, then tried long and hard to mount an offensive to rescue his surrounded soldiers. All in vain, of course. Had he followed the advice of his generals, he would have been in much better shape for the further course of the war. But no, the favourite toy could not be allowed to go.

Zelensky has put himself, now, in the same situation. Bakhmut is part of what the Ukrainians call the “Zelensky line”. He brought to Washington a flag signed by Bakhmut soldiers. He spoke many times of Bakhmut as the turning point of this conflict. In a word, he has staked his face on it. Like Hitler, he was told by his generals to be smart about it. Like Hitler, he couldn’t get himself to do it.

Meanwhile, the Russians gloat. They have found the perfect meat-grinder to “demilitarise” and “denazify” the Ukraine. Their losses are in the region of 1/10 of the losses they inflict. They are using Bakhmut as a huge black hole where Western equipment and Ukrainian soldiers simply go and disappear. They probably wish this could go on for a long time still. They certainly are in no rush to risk excess casualties for a fast resolution. They will use the meat grinder for all it’s worth.

Herein hides a cautionary tale. Wars will always cause casualties, but the total lack of discernment Zelensky has exhibited here will haunt Ukraine for a long time once the real story of the horrendous losses for an untenable position finally becomes common knowledge.

Zelensky will, from his likely golden exile in Miami, have to live with that, too. Frankly, I doubt he will be much upset.

This might well prove a Stalingrad where only the little people die.

Preaching The Collapse

“Darn! What if my girls grow up and makes this guy feel excluded?”

We are told that only 35% of US Catholics consider very important to pass their faith to their children.

Well I never…

Let us why this is, however, what the Vatican II Church herself goes preaching.

First: proselytism is bad, remember? This comes from Fat Clown himself. Who are US Catholics to judge him?

Second: how many couples who are raising children are, in fact, of mixed faith? If the parents have decided that there should be two truths, which are both OK, why would they change their mind when educating their children to the faith? Tell me again: how many homilies in the matter have you heard in the last 10 years?

Third: eee-cuuu-men-ism!!! We “promote” the “dialogue” and we “meet” the “other”. We have a pope (small p) celebrating Luther. We are, therefore, told, from the fat guy at the very top, that we shouldn’t be “rigid” about these things. Guess what? We won’t be.

Fourth: inter religious stuff! If even being a Muslim or a Jew isn’t a big deal, as apparently Jesus, dying on the cross, has canonised everyone who does not attend a Latin Mass, how can it be of any noticeable importance if one happens to be Catholic or not?

Fifth: the “abolition” of damnation. If an “eternal punishment” is outside of the “logic of the Gospel”, as, again, Fat Clown himself writes, why would anyone have any big interest in religion – any religion – at all? Eat, drink, fornicate, abort, and be merry! You’ll make it in the end, “everyone at his own pace”. If that’s not inclusive, I don’t know what is!

Sixth: inclusion. If being “accepting” of the other is very important, as so many prelates tell us: would it not be better to raise your child outside of a famously non-inclusive religion? One that will put Little Johnny in a difficult position with his “gay”, “non-binary” and even “transitioning” friends? Plus, will he not risk persecution at work, or the loss of opportunities?

I could go on, but I think you get the gist: the collapse of church attendance is preached the V II Church herself. The (very moderately) “faithful” are merely receiving the message that the Church has been relentlessly broadcasting from the pulpit, the newspapers and the magazines, the radio and the TV, even from papal airplanes!

You reap what you sow.

You sow unbelief, you reap Francis and his bunch of happy bastards.

On The Catholicity Of Catholicism

This is not about Africa, pal…

There is a chap here complaining (yes: complaining ) about African Bishops who happen to be Catholic. Let me quote him:

“There are many African bishops who are very comfortable celebrating Mass in Latin. They want to restore some imaginary past glory of Catholicism in Africa”.

First of all, congratulations to the mentioned African Bishops for being not only Catholic, but properly instructed. I doubt that many of our trendy, post-Faith Western Bishops would even be able (forget willing) to celebrate a Mass in the Tridentine rite.

But the issue I have is not even that: it is the very dumb quip about the “imaginary past glory of Catholicism in Africa”. Here, we see a grave issue with understanding Catholicism in the first place.

Catholicism is not regional, or tribal, or African. Catholicism is universal. It’s in the name itself!!

The glory of Catholicism that these worthy Bishops are clearly itching to encourage is not ethnic, or racial. It is the glory of Catholicism qua Catholicism.

In addition to that, the author of the dumb statement should be aware – and the more shame to him if he isn’t – that the issue of glory, beautiful and worth pursuing as it is, is not the main motivation of the proponents of the Tridentine Mass. What speaks for the Tridentine Mass is its character of most authentic, most deeply Catholic expression of the Liturgy, deprived of the protestantised deformations of the Novus Ordo; deformations which, unavoidably, end up deforming the faith.

Those Bishops clearly know it. This guy doesn’t. He thinks that the “glory of Catholicism in Africa” is their motivation. He does not understand the Tridentine Mass and the love for Catholicism of those who love it. He thinks, even concerning the Faith, in tribal terms.

This guy is active is a teaching position in some university. I wonder how many, like him, belittle and wilfully ignore vital aspects of the Catholic faith, like its universality and the absolutely central role of the Sacrifice of the Mass within it.

We need to start getting more critical of those who are supposed to teach us, and demand of them that they understand what they are talking about or, alternatively, stop sabotaging the Faith.

Sacraments And Language In The Time Of Francis (Part 2).

Horrible details are now emerging about the controversial December meeting of Francis with the seminarians, about which I have already reported.

We have now detailed news about:

1. The language he used, and

2. The “duty” of forgiveness.

It seems that, on that day, Francis might have had a couple too many fernet.

’The priest, the seminarian, the minister must be ‘close’. Close to whom? To the girls of the parish? And some of them are, they are close, then they get married, that’s fine”.

What a vulgar joke about a priest’s mistress, more vulgar because from a priest, most vulgar b3cause from the pope.

Just as gravely, several occurrences of “f” word really show the guy is a first-class boor. Try this:

“fucking careerists who fuck up the lives of others”

I have left the entire words, because I want this man’s vulgarity to be known in its entirety. No, don’t tell me “we don’t know”, or “it’s all rumours”. It is now confirmed that several, basically identical reports of the meeting exist. The guy was either at his boorish best, which is extremely grave, or he was drunk. Frankly, I don’t know what is worse.

The forgiveness part is, also, now confirmed verbatim.

From the linked article:

“if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all. We can never deny absolution, because we become a vehicle for an evil, unjust, and moralistic judgement”.

If you listen to Francis’ newly minter religion, a priest always has to give absolution, irrespective of even repentance and sincere proposit of not sinning anymore in future. If he doesn’t, he is judgmental and moralistic. The dirt that must reside in the mind of this man does not bear thinking

The gravity of this is immediately apparent. It makes one wonder what Francis thinks that Christianity is in the first place. This seems like the kind of thing that makes absolutely everything about religion useless, because if a Catholic has a right to absolution even without repentance, then it seems difficult to see why anybody else should be refused heaven. Plus, if the sacraments are a mockery, then the entire fabric of religion is a mockery, too. This is the kind of stuff a Pope who has long lost the faith – if he ever had it – would say.

Mind, Francis had already given hints of his attitude, and I remember him one mentioning that a faithful might say in the confessional “I will sin again” and still get absolution. But this is more explicit still.

Honestly, I think he might well have been drunk, or at least more than tipsy. I think it because I think that Francis was the same boor every day of his pontificate, but it is now the first time that he uses such language in an official occasion.

That the scandal was great is shown from the fact that, one month later, the story is still around. With right, people are now demanding from the Vatican an official explanation and an official reiteration of Catholic doctrine.

I also allow myself to say that this, once again, confirms a pattern of vulgarity I have already highlighted several times. Remember the Italian “c” word in St Peter’s square? As I often stated, this kind of word does not “escape” a person unless this person is accustomed to use it. A person, and he the Pope, who is able to repeatedly use very vulgar words in front of his own seminarians is, exactly, a person for whom the use of heavy profanities has become so normal, that he will use these utterances – either because propelled by alcohol, or by arrogance – as a matter of course.

If it wasn’t, at least in part, alcohol, then it was 100% arrogance. It was the sober, coldly evil – and childish at the same time – attitude of thinking “I will do this just to show you I can”. This is, again, vintage Francis.

May the Lord free us from this scourge soon, and inspire the Cardinals to give us a successor who at least tries to remedy as much of the damage as he can.

Defrocking Catholicism

Worth more than tax money.

I have not followed the details of the matter. There might be something I have missed. Si sbalio, mi corigerete (look it up!).

But it seems to me that Father Pavone does more for the unborn in one day than all of the US Bishops, together, in a year. It seems to me that there is something deeply, fundamentally wrong in confusing an obviously Catholic issue like abortion with a strictly-intended party political activity.

Padre Pio, during the election of 1948, explicitly invited his faithful to vote to defeat Communism. Should we defrock him, too? And what about all those countless priests who, in former times, took obviously Catholic positions in political controversies? Should every priest who approved of anti-abortion legislation be defrocked, too?

Mind, I do not have all the story. There might be legal technicalities, and there might be other issues. But it seems to me that Father Pavone is not welcome within the US Church establishment, because it gives the lie to their way too cozy relationship with the Democratic Party, which has the right to kill the unborn as a fundamental part of their ideology.

Sheesh, the same people who allow angry lesbians every licence to pretend they are nuns, will defrock Pavone? The same people who consider Pelosi and Biden worthy of receiving communion, will deny Pavone his role as a priest? What is this, a joke?

I am not liking this and I am not buying it. If this is done out of fear that the Church could lose its tax-privileged status, then it is really disgraceful; then in that case, the right of the Church to talk Catholic should be defended vigorously in Court and, if necessary, the tax-privileged status renounced.

There must be more to this than meets the eyes.

I am grateful for link that give more background to the story.

Of Broken Clocks, Bears, And Vicious Attack Dogs

Every now and then, life surprises you, big time.

For example, there is a guy known all over the planet for having an impressive ability to say something wrong, or stupid, or outright heretical every time he open his mouth, which is far too often.

Still, this guy has recently managed to say something that, in fact, makes perfect sense: if you go on poking the bear, don’t be surprised if the bear attacks you.

Broken clocks come to mind.

The particular bear our broken clock is talking about has been constantly poked for the last thirty years; but it was, at the beginning, a weak, fat, incapable, actually drunk bear, and it could not do much to prevent the poking.

In time, the bear got stronger, and more assured of his now growing ability to react to bullying, harassment, and encirclement. 2007 came, and the bear, for the first time, let the world know, from a wonderful city called Munich, that the time of the poking had now come to an end.

The warning was not heeded, because the bear was thought to have the attributes of a kitten. Soon later, in 2008, the bear roared, and the world should, at that point, have paid attention.

But the world – or, better said, those who have appointed themselves its Only True Anointed Representatives – did not listen, and kept poking. When, in 2014, the poking took the form of a shameless, open coup d’etat against the bear’s extremely strategic neighbour, the Bear reacted fairly strongly, sending an unmistakeable signal that, unless the poking goes to an end, someone will get seriously hurt. As a result, the Little Friends of the bear were systematically targeted. Fourteen thousand of them were killed in 8 years. The bear was very, very angry.

You would think, at this point, the Only True Anointed Representatives would listen. They did not. Instead, they started to train an attack dog to harass and intimidate the bear.

The attack dog was vicious, but quite dumb. He had grievances against the Bear, and it was whispered in his ear that, if he kept harassing the bear, the Only True Anointed Representatives would appoint him Very Important Dog, line his dog house with fine paper and, in general, allow him to eat classy dog food forever. Vicious Attack Dog also loved the Svastika, but this was conveniently ignored.

Being dumb, Vicious Attack Dog did not understand that it was being merely used by the Only True Appointed Representatives: if he kept the bear intimidated and silent, so much the better. If not, the expendable dog would be torn to pieces, hopefully after inflicting mortal or, at least, serious wounds to the Bear. This would only cost, to said OTAR, dog training and dog food. The massacring would be, instead, suffered by Vicious Attack Dog.

And this is, my dear friends, exactly how it went, with Vicious Attack Dog currently being literally torn to pieces, whilst the OTAR incite him to keep fighting until total annihilation and physical dismemberment.

This is, meanwhile, so evident, that even broken clocks manage to indicate it.

Fairy Lands And Potato Fields

Simple goodness…

There is a well-publicised article on the “American Thinker” mentioning that almost 40% of the 20 to 38 years old “identify as” alphabet people; that is, perverts of some sort or other.

First of all, an obvious clarification: these are, most of all, not perverts. Not real ones, at least. What they are, is unbelievably naive and astonishingly stupid people who “identify” as a gesture of “solidarity”, in order to feel good with themselves and kow-tow to their “ghei” friends.

It truly is a North Korean pressure to societal conformism without the concentration camp. These cretins, who really think they are helping someone else than Satan, can’t wait to show just how brainwashed they are; and mind, the poll was likely skewed and made to look in a “certain way”, but the gravity of the situation remains.

In part, this is clearly due to the loss of Christian values. It’s easier for the MSM to spout their propaganda, and for the groups of assorted perverts to push their perverted ideas, and for the dumb sheep to be brainwashed and made to bend the knee, if there is no Christian culture pushing against it; because then, the dominant religion will be pleasing your friends, being part of the group, and feeling good with yourself.

However, I agree with the author of the article, that this is a typical issue that comes up when people have too much comfort and security.

For three decades now, my suggestion to those who spoke to me about their mental issues and unresolved conflicts has been to work 12 hours a day in a potato field, for six months at least, and then reassess the situation. This, I have done because of the personal observation that people who actually have to work hard for a living and to take care of their families seem to never have unresolved mother issues, which their well-paid shrink somehow never seem to solve, though he will constantly say that the patient is “making progress”; patient who is, invariably, enough well off that either he or his papa can afford said shrink, and whose days affords him plenty of hours to think about himself, himself and, obviously, himself. If you ever had a friend or acquaintance like that, you know exactly what I am talking about.

I feel that I can easily recommend the same approach to everybody who has come to the point of “identifying” himself as a pervert.

Twelve hours a day in a potato field, under the merciless sun. No tractor and no automation. No food without work. In bed with the hen, awake with the cock. No TV, no books beside a Bible, and most of all no shrink. Ideally, one slap in the face every time he starts talking about himself, but I’ll have the get this green lighted by the Legal Department.

It would work miracles. At some point, the percentage of perverts would be the one Satan always had, perhaps half a percent. All others would be, well, just normal.

We are getting to the point when it is a relief to know that someone is normal.

But then look at who is pope and realise we live in very prosperous, but quite disquieting times.

The Unity Of Christians, Explained.

And it came to pass the Evil Clown received an “ecumenical” multi religious delegation from Finland. He loves to undermine Catholicism as he tries to look oh so inclusive and us, by contrast, so narrow-minded.

As you would expect, Francis piddled outside of the potty. He said, in so many words, that the Catholic Church does not “possess” God. Boy, and I thought Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride! Francis’ words are particularly grave because said in front of Protestants and Schismatics, in an official capacity. This guy never loses the ability to be shockingly wrong.

He also invited everyone to the usual “work”, of course “in humility”. Again, this makes you look arrogant if you think, as every Catholic should, that the work is actually done, it resulted in a wonderful barque and those who are out of the barque are well advised to embrace the truth and get in.

If you have not had enough of scandals yet, he indicated that 2030 will be an important year, because it marks the 500th anniversary of Luther’s Augsburg Confession, a milestone in Luther’s Satan-driven journey towards a dark realm of violence, heresy and (much) horniness. It’s all to improve mutual understanding, you see.

Yea, pal. It’s important to “understand” what the heck you are doing with that white habit, because from where I sit it seems clear you are sitting there to insult the Church and undermine the Faith.

It appears that Francis sees himself as the Head of the Ministry of Half Truth Number 1. Others have various positions in other Ministries of Half Truth, numbered 2,3,4 etc. All these people should work together to make the administrative machine work. This is as Protestant as can be, and Francis has not even the excuse of being stupid, because whilst I am satisfied that he is stupid, I don’t believe that he is that stupid.

I will allow myself here to indicate a wonderful, wonderful path towards the unity of all Christians. It is so logical that it is unassailable. It is so simple that even Francis understands it. It is so easy to explain that it only needs four words.

Everybody converts to Catholicism.

There.

It does not get more ecumenical, understanding, or humble than that.

Long Live Inequality

Never, ever, complained about inequality.

I can’t tell you how much it grates me that there should be politicians, actually now in the US more often than in Europe, whining about inequality.

The complaining about inequality is illogical, tyrannical, and Unchristian.

Humans have been made by their Creator with vast differences in, inter alia, intelligence, inventiveness, ability to work hard, ability to overcome difficulties, and many traits more. It is perfectly logical that this, alone, would create vast differences in people’s wealth.

But it is much, much more than that. How do you want to fight inequality? There is only one way: ferocious taxation of both earnings in life and inheritance after death. This is one of the most tyrannical ideas ever devised – which is why Communists specialise in it – as it deprives the human activity of that natural impulse to do better for ourselves and transmit the fruits of our labour to our children. It is difficult to imagine a worse compulsion and limitation of basic freedoms, short of North Korea.

Most of all, inequality is God-given and God-willed. The one is born the son of a penniless peasant. The other is born the son of a King. The social mobility the Church has always encouraged (many Popes of the past had quite humble origins, something that did not happened in secular government) and of which we see Old Testament examples (think of David) does not negate the premise: God wants some to be born rich, or powerful, or intelligent, or strong, or beautiful, and others poor, not powerful at all, dumb, ugly, or weak.

God does so, of course, in order to execute His Providential plan, giving all of us those special graces that are good for us, and asking us after death whether we have used those graces wisely or have squandered them away.

Of course, we need a fair society, which makes it impossible or extremely difficult for someone to enrich himself with devious, criminal, or fraudulent means; something in which, again, Communist Countries excel. And no, corruption and criminality are not given to us by God, they are merely allowed, like any other evil.

If all goes well and you have a well-ordered, corruption-free, efficient society which tries to give opportunities to those who deserve them, what do you get? You get huge inequality, as the emergence of the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts, of the Henry Fordses, of the Jeff Bezoses and of the Elon Musks of the world will be, in fact, encouraged. This is not only legitimate. It is wonderful. It is God-given inventiveness, innovation, resilience, patience, genius, and sheer determination at work. Are these people perfect? Of course not. But neither you nor I are, and still no one asks whether we should be allowed to exist or have money.

Believe me I know what poverty is. Believe me I never had the privileges of the US underprivileged. I never bought $200 training shoes. I went to school with broken shoes. I know what it is not having the money to ask a girl out. I know what it is is to be scared about the future. And you know what? I think it was all God-given and providentially arranged, every bit of it.

Inequality is a toy , or rather a weapon, for people who want to become privileged themselves, profiting from the envy and the mediocrity of the lazy and dumb.

Embrace inequality. Embrace Christ.

[REBLOG]: Little Vademecum for Those Anglicans Thinking of Conversion

In occasion of the now widely publicised conversions celebrated today in Westminster Cathedral, I allow myself to give my little piece of advice to those thinking of conversion.

This little advice is given in charity (the real one. Fake charity is for whinos, and Anglicans…). Charity requires that one tells the truth out of love. Calls of “who are you to judge” don’t have any effect with true Catholics. Catholics deal with Truth, not false compassion. Anglicans need to be told the Truth without any fear that they might be “hurt”. They’re heretics, of course they will! It’s not a walk in the park, it’s two systems of values clashing, and they can’t be both right.

Charity requires the Truth, and the Truth said whole. Those who aren’t ready to undergo a painful process to reach the Truth can avoid wasting time reading this. If only one reads and understands, the time will not have been spent in vain.

Please, have a chamomile tea first 😉

————————————————————————————-

1) There is only One Church, and it is not the Anglican one.

2) Christians are divided into: a) Catholics; b) Schismatics; c) Heretics.

3) Anglicans of whatever orientations belong to c) above: Heretics. Every one of them, however they may call themselves.

4) Anglican so-called orders are invalid. Anglican clergy are, for Catholics, laymen. This is Catholic teaching. No amount of self-delusion will ever change an iota in this.

5) There is nothing like a “something-Catholic”. You can’t be Anglo-Catholic more than you can be Methodist-Catholic. You are Catholic, or Schismatic, or Heretic. Are you Anglican? You’re Heretic.

6) This has been repeated (not stated, or invented, or decided; repeated) by Leo XIII in 1897, with Apostolicae Curae. He who can read, let him read.

7) The decision to convert is the decision to leave the Lie and embrace the Truth. Ego investments, personal preferences, how nice the Vicar is & Co. have no role to play in this. This side, or that side.

8 ) Every “converted” former Anglican who still claims to believe Anglican heresy (from the validity of the ordination of Anglican clergy; to Anglo-Catholics being “Catholics”; to whatever else) is a fake convert, sacrilegious and heretical. Better to remain a heretic from outside until one is ready for a real conversion, than to try to be a heretic from within the Church. Heretics are, by definition, outside of the Church anyway. Cheating one’s way to a club card leads to nothing and, possibly, to perdition.

9) Truth cannot be embraced in half. You either embrace Truth, or you cling to the lie. Tertium non datur.

10) Anglican doublethink doesn’t work the other side of the Tiber. “Two and two is four, but also five and we respect those who think it is six and will dialogue in chariteeee with those who think it is seven and a half” works only before the (notoriously lethargic) Vatican steamroller starts to move, but it leads to tears and excommunications when it invariably does. Those who think that they can export their doublethink and “tolerance” past the Tiber are in for a very late, but very rude awakening.

11) Catholicism works differently. To say “I’m hurt” will not make you right. To say “you’re uncharitable” will not make you less wrong. To say “you must adjust your doctrine to accommodate my feelings” doesn’t exist at all. You’ll have to eat the same fare as Padre Pio and St. Philip Neri, St. Francis and St. Dominic. No Anglican preservatives, and no choice of toppings. What a blessing.

12) The decision to embrace the Truth is difficult. It requires the acknowledgment that one (and one’s old soi-disant “church”) was wrong all the time. That one’s ancestors were wrong all the time. That one’s former organisation had no Catholic being or legitimation whatsoever. Nothing less is required. If you can’t say this to yourself with a sense of elation and Truth finally found, you are still a Heretic.

13) Truth will make you free. The decision to discard the lie and embrace the Truth in its totality is the healthiest and most productive single decision in one’s man existence. So healthy and so beautiful, because so difficult. If it wasn’t difficult, there would be no beauty and no merit in it.

14) Truth is like a diamond: extremely beautiful, but extremely hard. Are you ready for the beauty (and the hardness) of the diamond? Or do you want to continue to believe that the synthetic version is a diamond too? Choose the true diamond. Accept no substitutes. You’ll discover that its beauty is beyond your hope.

15) True Catholics will stand in awe in front of real, serious converts. You are in our prayers and we know that many of you will become extremely orthodox, wonderful Catholics. But true Catholics will attack without mercy those who attempt to import the heresy within the Barque of Peter. This is an unprecedented experiment, but will not be a door open to “Catholicism a’ la carte”. Again: forget the old Anglican ways, this is not going to work that way.

16) Pray Blessed Cardinal Newman that he may guide you. He knows all your troubles, went through the same pains as yours, sees all the obstacles in front of you. It took him years of reflection and prayer before deciding himself to the step. But once he took it, what a wonderful march he started! So take your time and be assured of our prayers and of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, your Guardian Angel and the Blessed Virgin. Take your time and prepare yourself carefully for the impact and the beauty of the Truth. It is better to carefully invest some years of sound investment leading to a copious yield, than to waste everything in a fake conversion leading nearer to Hell.

17) Best wishes and good luck to you.

Mundabor

[REBLOG] Little Vademecum for Those Anglicans Thinking of Conversion

In occasion of the now widely publicised conversions celebrated today in Westminster Cathedral, I allow myself to give my little piece of advice to those thinking of conversion.

This little advice is given in charity (the real one. Fake charity is for whinos, and Anglicans…). Charity requires that one tells the truth out of love. Calls of “who are you to judge” don’t have any effect with true Catholics. Catholics deal with Truth, not false compassion. Anglicans need to be told the Truth without any fear that they might be “hurt”. They’re heretics, of course they will! It’s not a walk in the park, it’s two systems of values clashing, and they can’t be both right.

Charity requires the Truth, and the Truth said whole. Those who aren’t ready to undergo a painful process to reach the Truth can avoid wasting time reading this. If only one reads and understands, the time will not have been spent in vain.

Please, have a chamomile tea first 😉

————————————————————————————-

1) There is only One Church, and it is not the Anglican one.

2) Christians are divided into: a) Catholics; b) Schismatics; c) Heretics.

3) Anglicans of whatever orientations belong to c) above: Heretics. Every one of them, however they may call themselves.

4) Anglican so-called orders are invalid. Anglican clergy are, for Catholics, laymen. This is Catholic teaching. No amount of self-delusion will ever change an iota in this.

5) There is nothing like a “something-Catholic”. You can’t be Anglo-Catholic more than you can be Methodist-Catholic. You are Catholic, or Schismatic, or Heretic. Are you Anglican? You’re Heretic.

6) This has been repeated (not stated, or invented, or decided; repeated) by Leo XIII in 1897, with Apostolicae Curae. He who can read, let him read.

7) The decision to convert is the decision to leave the Lie and embrace the Truth. Ego investments, personal preferences, how nice the Vicar is & Co. have no role to play in this. This side, or that side.

8 ) Every “converted” former Anglican who still claims to believe Anglican heresy (from the validity of the ordination of Anglican clergy; to Anglo-Catholics being “Catholics”; to whatever else) is a fake convert, sacrilegious and heretical. Better to remain a heretic from outside until one is ready for a real conversion, than to try to be a heretic from within the Church. Heretics are, by definition, outside of the Church anyway. Cheating one’s way to a club card leads to nothing and, possibly, to perdition.

9) Truth cannot be embraced in half. You either embrace Truth, or you cling to the lie. Tertium non datur.

10) Anglican doublethink doesn’t work the other side of the Tiber. “Two and two is four, but also five and we respect those who think it is six and will dialogue in chariteeee with those who think it is seven and a half” works only before the (notoriously lethargic) Vatican steamroller starts to move, but it leads to tears and excommunications when it invariably does. Those who think that they can export their doublethink and “tolerance” past the Tiber are in for a very late, but very rude awakening.

11) Catholicism works differently. To say “I’m hurt” will not make you right. To say “you’re uncharitable” will not make you less wrong. To say “you must adjust your doctrine to accommodate my feelings” doesn’t exist at all. You’ll have to eat the same fare as Padre Pio and St. Philip Neri, St. Francis and St. Dominic. No Anglican preservatives, and no choice of toppings. What a blessing.

12) The decision to embrace the Truth is difficult. It requires the acknowledgment that one (and one’s old soi-disant “church”) was wrong all the time. That one’s ancestors were wrong all the time. That one’s former organisation had no Catholic being or legitimation whatsoever. Nothing less is required. If you can’t say this to yourself with a sense of elation and Truth finally found, you are still a Heretic.

13) Truth will make you free. The decision to discard the lie and embrace the Truth in its totality is the healthiest and most productive single decision in one’s man existence. So healthy and so beautiful, because so difficult. If it wasn’t difficult, there would be no beauty and no merit in it.

14) Truth is like a diamond: extremely beautiful, but extremely hard. Are you ready for the beauty (and the hardness) of the diamond? Or do you want to continue to believe that the synthetic version is a diamond too? Choose the true diamond. Accept no substitutes. You’ll discover that its beauty is beyond your hope.

15) True Catholics will stand in awe in front of real, serious converts. You are in our prayers and we know that many of you will become extremely orthodox, wonderful Catholics. But true Catholics will attack without mercy those who attempt to import the heresy within the Barque of Peter. This is an unprecedented experiment, but will not be a door open to “Catholicism a’ la carte”. Again: forget the old Anglican ways, this is not going to work that way.

16) Pray Blessed Cardinal Newman that he may guide you. He knows all your troubles, went through the same pains as yours, sees all the obstacles in front of you. It took him years of reflection and prayer before deciding himself to the step. But once he took it, what a wonderful march he started! So take your time and be assured of our prayers and of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, your Guardian Angel and the Blessed Virgin. Take your time and prepare yourself carefully for the impact and the beauty of the Truth. It is better to carefully invest some years of sound investment leading to a copious yield, than to waste everything in a fake conversion leading nearer to Hell.

17) Best wishes and good luck to you.

Mundabor

[REBLOG] Jesus Was No Girlie

Another excellent blog post from the “man with no uncertain trumpet”, Monsignor Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington.

This time, Monsignor Pope’s attention is focused on the image of Jesus that was smuggled around in the Seventies, and that still influences the Sixty-Eighters and other pot-smokers today. In those years – and whilst I was a child, I got my share of those years – Jesus was generally portrayed as a kind of a whimp, a girly boy unable to exert or project any form of manliness, a mixture of hare “krishna” follower and Gandhi with, later, the addition of a dollop of Nelson Mandela. Victimised, but as meek as a sheep; bullied, but always answering with a smile, and unable to threat or harm, this is the Jesus we had brought to us as an example. “Peeaace” and “luuuuv” were everywhere, and not a whip in sight.

Well, one only needs to read the Gospel to get a completely different picture of Jesus; a man who never said things half, and never minced words; a man able to openly defy his opponents in public, in times when conflicts were carried out rather less nicely than today, and “being hurt” had a different meaning than today; a man whose followers went around armed with swords, certainly not for aesthetic reasons; a man able to free himself from the grasp of multitudes desirous to apprehend him, which can’t have been accomplished without a towering presence and an extremely commanding, charismatic, utterly manly attitude; a man able, alone, to throw away from the temple an undefined, but certainly not little number of moneychangers out of the sheer fury of his action, and the might of his whip. On this occasion, the contrast between the calm preparation of the whip and the explosion of irresistible physical power gives a wonderful example of the manliness of Jesus’ behaviour.

No, this was no pink-shirted, manicured, anti-wrinkle-lotioned, tubular-jeans-wearing metrosexual; this was a real man, oozing masculinity in everything he did. Try to imagine the scene of St. Matthew’s conversion and tell me whether it is compatible with anything else than the most commanding authority. Then try to imagine how Gandhi or Deepak Chopra would have tried to achieve the same result, and you’ll know the difference.

You see this everywhere in the Gospels, as the words and gestures of Jesus are always accompanied by an undercurrent of sheer authority, a commanding stance, the attitude of one who knows that he will be obeyed everytime he wants. Even scourged almost to death, Jesus talks to Pilate from a position of utter power, and leaves him in no doubt as to who is boss. Make no mistake, this is no Gandhi.

Thankfully, the gently whispering Jesus of my younger years is now slowly being substituted for an image more attuned to the Gospel image, largely – I think – because of the excellent “passion of the Christ” and James Caviezel’s very manly rendition of the Lord. It will take time, though, before the Birkenstock-sandalled, tofu-eating, Cosmo-reading and Oprah-watching Jesus is replaced by, well….. Jesus.

Mundabor

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

Catholic…. What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They live far happier lives, too.

Mundabor

REBLOG: Communion: On The Tongue Or “Magic Trick”?

I have already explained in my post about the Catholic Onion that when the bishop acts correctly, his priests feel encouraged in going the right way even if this may result unpopular and conversely, if the Bishop doesn’t care for properly transmitted Catholic values this mentality will end up informing the behaviour of many of the priests in his diocese.

A beautiful example here, courtesy of Father Z.

You will remember Bishop Olmsted, the rather decisive bishop who recently excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride and deprived the Hospital of St. Joseph of the right to call itself “Catholic”.

It will now please you to read that when a good example is given from the top, it becomes both easier and more easily acceptable for the priests of the diocese to follow the lead and take the necessary steps towards the recovery of reverent liturgical customs. In Bishop Olmsted’s diocese itself, Fr John Lankeit is actively working towards a gradual elimination of communion in the hand.

His words are sincere and alarming: “What I witness troubles me. And I’m not alone” writes Fr Lankeit. You immediately understand that here is one not likely to throw M&Ms at the faithful during Mass.

Fr Lankeit puts the extent of the problem in clear terms:

While my main objective in encouraging reception on the tongue is to deepen appreciation for the Eucharist, I also have a pastoral responsibility to eliminate abuses common to receiving in the hand.

Notice here the double whammy: a) reception on the tongue is the best way in itself; b) reception in the hand causes abuses.

It follows a list of examples, seen “all too frequently”, which I hope will not disturb your sleep:

• Blessing oneself with the host before consuming it. (The act of blessing with the Eucharist is called “Benediction” and is reserved to clergy).

• Receiving the host in the palm of the hand, contorting that same hand until the host is controlled by the fingers, then consuming it (resembling a one-handed “watch-the-coin-disappear” magic trick)

• Popping the host into the mouth like a piece of popcorn.

• Attempting to receive with only one hand.

• Attempting to receive with other items in the hands, like a dirty Kleenex or a Rosary.

• Receiving the host with dirty hands.

• Receiving the host, closing the hand around it, then letting the hand fall to the side (as if carrying a suitcase) while walking away and/or blessing oneself with the other hand.

• Walking away without consuming the host.

• Giving the host to someone else after receiving…yes, it happens!

Some of these I had already imagined; others go beyond my ability to figure out how they happen (the “magic trick”, say); other still can only be defined as astonishing (the dirty hands, the rosary, the kleenex, the “blessing oneself” (??) and the walking away with the host as if it were a piece of luggage).

I am certainly wrong here, but I can’t avoid always seeing in the receiving on the hand an element of “I am the priest of myself” that, at some level, must be buried within the consciousness of the communicant. I just can’t avoid seeing the placing of the communion wafer on the tongue as a priestly function and besides, how one can come to the idea of receiving God the same way as he eats bread and salami is just beyond my understanding.

Father Lankeit doesn’t express himself in such terms of course, but one can clearly see the liturgical zeal and sincere desire to lead his parishioners to better understand the importance of Communion and of acting accordingly. He writes about this four weeks in a row. This is another who, like his Bishop, will be heard. More like him and his Bishop and the beauty and reverence of the Mass will be speedily restored everywhere.

Mundabor

REBLOG: The Feast Of The Chair Of St. Peter

Tomorrow 22nd February is the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Whilst St. Peter’s feast day is the 29th June, the feast of the 22nd February is more directly aimed at celebrating the Petrine Office. This feast is, therefore, as Catholic as they come.

This feast day might be an occasion to explain to some non-Catholic in your circle of acquaintances why you are Catholic. When requested, I proceed more or less in this way:

1) And I say to thee: that Thou are Peter…. Jesus doesn’t say to Simon that he is a nice chap; or that he is very perceptive; or that he himself is surprised that among the apostles Simon was the only one to give the right answer to his question “Who do people say that I am?”. No, he changes his name and calls him a rock.

2) and upon this rock I will build my Church…. Jesus doesn’t say “I will build my first church”, nor does he say “I will build my provisional church”. Jesus picks a rock, and builds upon him One (1, Una, Eine, Une) Church.

3) and the gates of Hell shall not previal against it….. It, that is: the very same Church built on Peter, the “rock”. That one, and no other. Jesus doesn’t say “the Gates of hell shall, in around fifteen centuries, prevail against the Church I built on you”, nor does he say “the Gates of Hell shall prevail against the Church built on you but hey, let us be happy with a generic term of “church” so it can work even when yours goes astray”. He is very specific: he builds one Church upon one man and gives his promise of indefectibility to this – and no other – organisation.

4) And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven….. This is also dumb-proof: keys are a very obvious symbol of power and authority and it is clear here that Jesus is speaking with extreme solemnity. He doesn’t say to Peter: “Peter, you keep the key for the moment” or “look mate, gotta go; keep the keys until I find you or yours unworthy, will ya?”. No, this is a solemn promise evidently made for all times, as his just pronounced promise about indefectibility must make clear to the dumbest intellect.

5)  ….and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. For those who should at this point still not have gotten what is going on, Jesus becomes even more explicit: Peter has the keys, and the keys mean authority upon the faithful now and forever; an authority given in the most emphatic terms possible. 

The meaning of these phrases; the clear solemnity Jesus gives to his words; the crescendo of emphatic declarations of such a broad and clear scope do not leave room for any possible doubt and as a result, Protestants have nowhere to hide. Whoever reads Jesus’ words with a minimum of intellectual honesty cannot avoid to recognise that the Only Church of Peter’s time (and of the following fifteen centuries) is the Only Church of today and that as a result whatever grievance against the men who run the Church does not change a iota concerning the position of authority of the Church. As to the complaint that some Popes were oh-so-bad (not much worse than many a tv-preacher I’d say, but laissons tomber….), Peter wasn’t immaculate either, but his shortcomings didn’t prevent Jesus from promoting him to rock of His Church.

To believe anything different from the fact that the Only Church founded by Jesus is.. the Only Church means to believe one or more of the following:

1) that Jesus made a mistake in founding His Church on Peter;

2) that Jesus was mistakenly persuaded that Peter’s successors would be good chaps, but  had his toy ruined by the baddies who  succeeded Peter;

3) that Jesus couldn’t count;

4) that Jesus’ words had a sell-by date, or

5) that Jesus made his promise of indefectibility without taking it seriously.

Or perhaps one could decide to read and understand the only possible meaning of such emphatically worded statements, as Jesus repeatedly made.

There is only One Church, folks. It’s the only one founded by Jesus. Simple, really.

Mundabor

Reblog: Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.

This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor