I very much liked this post appeared on One Mad Mom. I invite you to read it in its entirety. It is beautiful to see that in the midst of the stupidity of our times, there are still an awful lot of Catholic mothers who understand the very basics of life, basics which obviously escape the rich wife of the many, many billions.
The blog post also allows me to spend two words about this strange phenomenon of the modern times: bought and/or married prominence.
The First lady wasn’t elected President. Her husband was. Melinda gates isn’t a successful entrepreneur. Her husband is. She literally bought he public space by way of marriage and sinking an awful lot of money earned by her husband in more or less (often: more) satanical activities.
This idea that we should listen to someone (who, like in this case, may well be the perfect cow) because she has married someone who was, or has become, extremely rich and/or extremely powerful is just plain dumb.
Let her write her own blog if she wants, by all means. Let her express her opinions freely like everyone else of us. But prominence by way of the husband is clearly off.
I have barely started to breath again now that I don’t run any (big) risk of seeing pics of the former First Trannie, always a menace to my digestion.
But I really would like a world in which prominence is earned, not married or bought.
It seems that aeroplanes have a strange effect on Pope Francis. Every time he is over there in the skies, he gets even more heretical than his usual self.
I do not know where to start. The obvious sabotage of Catholic doctrine on contraception is alone worth of good Cardinals asking him to put an end to this scandal and resign already. But it is not only that. In everything he says, the man talks like your anticlerical bastard down the road, and employs all the trite nonsense they use.
And no, we must wish for the end of every false religion. And no, the fact that Christians also commits bad acts does not mean that we are not a religion above every other, and the only true one. And no, this argument of calling the mistakes of the one to justify the existence of a false religion is pure evil. And no, being a fundamentalist does not mean not to have God. Every catholic is, must be a fundamentalist, because he must recognise in Catholicism the fundamental value and funding reality of his existence. The one without God is this evil ass.
Francis spouts an impressive collections of insults to Catholicism in one flight. But in this list of atrocities, the condom one is probably the worst, because so openly proclaimed. It is more than an off-the-cuff observation. It is a programmatic statement. As long as there is an imagined environ-mental emergency, the man will not care for contraception. Actually, he calls contraception “one method of prevention”. Of what: Catholicism? Shall I quote the Presbyterian Ronald Reagan to him? It is not about telling how to do it; it is about telling not to do it!
Please, Lord, get us rid of him, now!
This man sabotages Catholicism at every step. A very stupid notion of enviro-social-justice is his religion. He does not have any other.
It is high time that Bishops and Cardinals who care for the Church ask him to put an end to this and resign, or be held accountable for his betrayal of Catholicism. never have we had a Pope like this one. This here is pure evil.
It is time to expunge this cancer from the body of the Church. Popes can resign, and Popes can be made to resign. There is no need for them to proclaim a false dogma, or to be formal heretics. Francis should be asked to resign because he is a shame for the Church, and unworthy of the habit. And he should be asked so insistently, until it becomes known to the last Daily Mail-reading housewife that he is a shame for the Church, and an enemy of Christ.
This is truly enough.
Che Guevara would manage to be a better Pope than this clown.
The HHS mandate row is, as it is natural, very complicated; particularly for people, like me, who live the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and can’t spend their lives looking at the details. In particular, it is difficult for a European observer to immediately grasp the two profiles of contraception and abortion.
More in particular, things are complicated in that, as I could understand it, Hobby Lobby opposed a limited number of – medicaments officially considered – contraceptives because they deem them abortifacients. Which means, if I got it right, that at least as far as they are concerned the issue is abortion, not contraception. But the issue is at the same time also religious freedom, and I understand the Supreme Court decision was limited to a limited number of medicaments which, whilst abortifacients, are officially contraceptives. Therefore, whilst Hobby Lobby can be satisfied, we aren’t (yet).
Things are more complicated for Catholic organisations than for Hobby Lobby, as – if they are Catholics in more than name only – they must oppose both contraceptive and abortifacients of all sorts. Again, from what I gather the Supreme Court examined the cases under the aspect of religious freedom, which unavoidably must apply to contraceptives as well as abortifacients. Therefore, it would appear to me, unless I got it wrong, that whilst the issue has not been explicitly decided yet, there is a fairly good chance that the Supreme Court will upheld the right of every Catholic organisation (non-profit one, or for-profit if closely held) to deny every medicament going against Catholic teaching, contraceptives as well as abortifacients.
Some of my US American readers might perhaps provide me with easy and concise explanations, or with links helping with the matter.
I have found this here and this here, and will look at them more in detail as time allows. I am interested in particular in the chances of the contraception battle for nonprofit and closely held for-profit organisations, as it seems to me that concerning certain abortifacients things should be clear enough for both for-profit and non-profit ones.
Again, I am thankful for sober, digestible guidance in the intricacies of the law and the judicial decision.
Predictably, the Francis effect is unfolding.
Not only there is an army of Catholics openly at variance with the Church, but in the new Age of Stupidity this army more and more gets to believe that Francis and his successors will move things in their direction. The perception clearly generated is that Francis will demolish all he can demolish himself, and pave the way for further demolitions after him.
The wrecking ball humbly devastating Catholicism is, predictably, also showing its destructive effect on the sacraments. Five percent say they now go to confession more often, twenty two percent less. Is it surprising? With a Pope treating all sacraments like something that does nothing else than improving your day – remember: he cannot imagine God doing more than slapping one on the wrist; salvation is open even to atheists; Muslims should cling to their own religion; Jews have their own reserved lane to Jesus – how can one be surprised that the sacraments are neglected?
I suspect the five percent going to confession more often do it rather as a reaction to Francis than because they like him. Those who like him have no reason to do anything than feel pleased with themselves: no judging anymore, no fear of the Lord. Converting others no Catholicism? No, no, no!
Sit back and relax: the Humble Pope will tell you everything you need to hear.
One year later, the damage made by the Age of Stupidity cannot be ignored. The demolition is not even subtle. It's brutally explicit, vulgar, unashamed of its own irreligiousness, shouted from the rooftops.
Please, Lord, free us from this scourge.
It must be rather funny, these days, for the army of people with a very thin varnish of Catholicism – you know the type: the “I am a baptised Catholic, but my theology is so evidently superior” types – who have thought, as many of them must have thought, that it’s so simple really: you stop obsessing with the remnants of an ancient past and embrace modernity , and peace will be declared between the world and the Church. I am rather sure many of these people, tambourine priests among them, were wondering why it had not happened before, and we had to wait the year 2013 for a Pope who just “gets the people” and is “in tune” with the world.
Whilst I never underestimate human blindness or plain stupidity, I dare to hope in the months and years to come some people will open their eyes and recognise a simple truth of life: the Church and the world cannot be more reconciled than the devil and the holy water; not now, not ever.
The recent lecturing of the Vatican – which is, in fact, a lecturing of the Church and Her Truths – from the side of the United Demons is the clearest signal to day of this, again, inescapable fact of life. Appeasement has never worked, does not work, and will never work, because the Church Herself exists because of the fundamentally irreconcilable ways of the Church and of the World.
If the Church could make peace with the world, the Church would simply have no reason to exist, and an impressive demonstration of this is that when vast parts of the earthly Church try to at least get to a truce, or a ceasefire, with the world, the Church herself is gravely wounded and reduced to factual irrelevance in vast territories in the short time of one or two generations; with only the promise of Indefectibility saving her from the self-destruction to which this stupid attitude would otherwise condemn her in another two or three generations at most.
And so there we are: the church – I mean, the people who represent Her as an institution – tries to accommodate the world’s demands; but the world is insatiable, and will never stop posing new demands after the old ones have been appeased.
You “don’t judge” sodomites, and the world will demand that you recognise their inherent goodness; you “don’t obsess” about abortion, and the world will demand that you support it; you want to be “in tune” with the world, and the world will ask you to practice what you preach.
No black shoes, simple cars and other more or less subversive shows of “humbleness” will ever change anything on this, because in this matters the conflicts deals with the very essentials.
If Francis thought his lack of teeth – or worse – in matter of sexual perversion and abortion will persuade the world to leave him alone, now he will be forced to learn his lesson and understand that, much as the world may flatter him, it will require his tribute from him anyway; a tribute so high, in fact, that not even Francis will ever be able to pay it; this, even assuming he would want to, which I sincerely hope is not the case.
If, on the other hand, Francis has no illusion on the inevitability of conflicts, and merely hopes to increase his own popularity in the world as the man who “does what he can, though he can’t do more” (a strategy clearly followed by the German and Austrian clergy with their rebellious sheep), then his chances are vastly better, but I still think at some point the world will get tired with one sitting on the fence, and be him the Pope.
The Church is at war with the world. She must be, because this is why She exists. No Pope will ever be able to get rid of this war as easily as he can get rid of the Mozzetta. Therefore, the only way is the Christian way: to fight against the world frontally and without any desire for truce.
Our side will win in the end. Actually, it has won already. So go on and fight the good fight, good and less good men at the Vatican, instead of trying to appease an enemy that will never be satisfied.
As so often, I have difficulties in talking about the latest antics of a Cardinal without showing a lot of, say, Italian temperament. It isn’t good for my lever, either, so I tend to pass on more than some of the horrible news I hear coming from that corner.
This time, though, I must go back on the latest comments of Cardinal Meisner, because the way some Catholic news outlets tried to defend the indefensible exposes the utter confusion reigning in these disgraceful times.
It has been said, then, that never has the Cardinal said that the use of the “morning after pill” is justified; not on any circumstance. The poor Cardinal was merely badly advised, in that he was told the morning after pill can be used to prevent a pregnancy; which turned out to be, would you believe it, wrong.
Let us reflect on a couple of issues:
1. Apparently there are Cardinals going around the world who pretend not to know the difference between contraception and abortion. They seem to believe contraception is something that can happen after intercourse, as in: I had sex yesterday, let me contracept today! The idea that the intercourse has taken place several hours before the use of the pill and sperm has a limited life, after which it’s either pregnancy or nothing, never touched him. He seems to think many hours after the fact there’s still a spermatozoon slowly travelling toward the egg (on a British train, I imagine), but in case of rape the Cardinal can put himself between the traveller and his destination and say: “stop, you wicked rapist’s spermatozoon: you’ll only reach your egg and do your wicked work over my dead red hat! Don’t you even think of doing this! Bad, bad spermatozoon, don’t you know the girl was raped? “. It would be fun, if words would not fail at explaining how tragically incompetent all this is.
2. The Cardinal is a typical V II product. He will do whatever he can, absolutely everything, to bend himself forward for the aborting and contracepting masses. So when he receives a report saying “dear Cardinal, it’s still no abortion until we call it so” he does not react saying “stop smoking whatever it is you are killing your brain cells with”, but on the contrary even wants to believe it. If he received a medical report saying pregnancy begins only ten weeks after intercourse he would, methinks, believe that too. The simple truth is that in his desire to appease the dissenting, but Kirchensteuer-paying Catholic public the Cardinal has simply decided to forget the most elementary common sense; or else he is on cocaine, which I wouldn’t struggle to believe if he has received a medical report saying cocaine is good against arthritis.
3. Dulcis in fundo, a point already touched by me in the other post but which (the point, not my post) does not seem to have been much noticed by the press: a Cardinal publicly stating that he favours contraception in certain cases. Unless I am gravely deficient in my Catholic instruction on the matter, this is a huge blunder.
As far as I know, the Church does not condone contraception, full stop. Not in this case, not in the other, not in that third one. Never. It might have tolerated the use of condoms in brothels, as it tolerated the existence of brothels; but she certainly never said there are cases in which condoms should be used more than she said there are cases where the use of the services of a brothel is justified, courtesy of the Cardinal after he received the newest medical report.
The Cardinal allows himself to disagree: confused as his ideas about conception and contraception are, it is clear he had to realise if what he wanted to achieve was not outright abortion, it was most certainly – absurd as the thinking is – contraception. Let us examine the consequences among our oh so well-instructed Catholics in just a few years’ time….
“Care for a quick rape tonight, darling? I really am in the mood….”. “If you really must, dear. Remember in that case you can contracept, though…”.
Other variations are possible:
“Father, I really think I should start taking the pill now; I am going out with that nice guy who is always so correct and polite, but you never know when he may start to rape me”.
If it sounds so ridiculous, it is because the Cardinal’s thinking is. He should have thought: “Achtung! This here is clearly contraception at the very least! What does the Church says about contraception, again? Remind me, secretary, because my seminary was rather liberal…”.
He didn’t, and he made an ass of himself in front of the Catholic world.
Outside of Germany, at least, as I start to think the little stunt might have procured him the one or other friend over there.
The Catholic News Agency has an interesting letter written from Archbishop Chaput (then of Denver) concerning Humanae Vitae. The letter was written in 1998 on occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the encyclical letter, but has lost nothing of its beauty. It is very long, but it is easy to read, well argued, and extremely clear in its content at all times. Blessedly, it is also devoid of those continuous references to V II documents so dear to modern Vaticanese.
Archbishop Chaput repeats (and explains very clearly) the arguments brought by Paul VI against contraception, but he adds a new observation: the rather cold theological character of the encyclical letter did not help its diffusion or acceptance among the Catholic masses. It is true Chaput is able to write with admirable clarity, but I allow myself to see the reason for the failure of Humanae Vitae to stem the tide of contraception in the following elements:
a) weakness from the top. To write is one thing, to bite an altogether different one. Paul VI probably thought it was brave enough to issue the encyclical in the first place. I cannot imagine the idea of aggressively following up on the letter and demanding that it be upheld by his bishop and priests ever entered his mind.
b) On the contrary, Humanae Vitae gave rise to a widespread dissent within the Church.
Therefore, the letter was not vocally defended from the Vatican, and either ignored or outright opposed by the majority of the clergy. With these premises, it would have failed to be a success even if it had been written in the most beautiful and lyrical language.
When we talk about Humanae Vitae, we should not forget the encyclical was and is largely ignored because the Church as a whole failed – with the culpable inaction of Paul VI, who could see very well what was happening but lacked the courage to oppose the trend – to stand for it in the first place.
If the Church now begins to aggressively – and I mean saying it loud and clear, rather than always hiding behind the dratted pastoral sensitivity – defend the message of Humanae Vitae, in a couple of decades much will be done, as the Sixty-Eighters go to meet their maker (or not, as the case may be) and a new generation can be raised with the right values.
This is one of the most beautiful blog posts I have ever read. You should read it in its entirety.
Wish I could write that way.
Very fitting for the Holy Week, too.
In case anyone should still think that RU486 is a contraceptive, please read here what the National Right To Life has to say on the matter:
RU 486 is an artificial steroid that interferes with the action of progesterone, a hormone crucial to the early progress of pregnancy. Progesterone stimulates the proliferation of the uterine lining which nourishes the developing child. It also suppresses normal uterine contractions which could dislodge the child implanted and growing on the wall of the mother’s womb.
RU 486 fills the chemical receptor sites normally reserved for progesterone, but does not transmit the progesterone signal. Failing to receive that signal, a woman’s body shuts down the preparation of the uterus and initiates the normal menstrual process. The child, deprived of necessary nutrients, starves to death. The baby detaches and is swept out of the body along with the decayed uterine lining.
Contraception, my aunt. Outright killing more likely.
Of course, people like Adolf Hussein Obama who don’t even have problems with leaving a child to die of cold after birth – and call it “late-term abortion” – will not see the “subtleties” between contraception and killing. But hopefully many others will, particularly among Protestants.
Some people think (I know they do, though it is beyond me how this happens 😉 ) that this humble correspondent is too harsh towards the Heresy; that he shouldn’t use this word, heresy, at all; that to do so is rude and (how was the word again?) uncharitable.
But the simple fact is that heresy is heresy however nice the relevant heretic, and that heresy is wrong and leads the faithful to error.
Here (courtesy, once again, of that Catholic wonder called Rorate Coeli; you’ll have to scroll down to the 6th January 2011) we have another example of how heresy, deprived of the help of the Holy Ghost, leads into fatal error and contributes to the demolition of Christian values and of Western societies.
At the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Anglicans opened the door to contraception. They did it in the usual way such things happen, as taboos are seldom broken openly and defiantly. They just adjusted and tweaked the Truth to the point where it suited the times enough as to allow those people who really wanted to disobey the rules to feel authorised to do so. The issue was contraception, the wording is as follows (emphases mine):
“Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience”.
This is the same game we have seen at play about divorce, abortion and homosexual relationship and it is the same game we are now seeing played about euthanasia. You don’t try to slam the door open, as this would never succeed. You just open it very little, and leave it to the times and the shift in moral values – shift in values that your first opening will invariably introduce – to open the door completely until there is even no remembrance that in the past the door was always supposed to be shut, no ifs and no buts.
There are Christian principles and there are, we are told, Christian principles in light of which one can go against Christian principles.
Yep, these must be Anglicans…
Thankfully, there is one shop that is the Only One and whose moral values are not shaped by the desire to do as one pleases. Thankfully, Christ has given us a Church against which the Gates of Hell will never prevail.
The Church (the Only One) reacted promptly to the convenient and politically correct pollution of Christian values operated by the Anglicans. The Church knows that when you begin to set the door ajar, it is only a matter of time before it is wide open. The Church also knows that Truth has no “best before” date and is in no need of being turned upside down under the pretence of allegedly using “the same Christian principles”.
Below is the reaction of the Church, with the encyclical letter Casti Connubii, recently turned 80 (emphases mine):
“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Note the political incorrectness of Pius XI’s words. He makes clear that the Christian tradition on the matter was uninterrupted, not even touched by the heresy of Luther and by the following ones. He treats the Anglicans with a (with today’s eyes) shockingly brutal “some” which doesn’t even leave them the dignity of a group worth the legitimation of their existence, like “ecclesial community”. He proceeds to a strongly worded statement that God has given to the Church Only the task of preserving the Truth, and that this Truth speaks to us through the Pope’s mouth. Clearly, vague innuendos to Catholic truths and barely understandable statements with Catholicism hidden after multiple layers of easy-to-digest platitudes were not the speciality of this saintly man.
Let me say it once again: Truth is Truth and it does not tolerate the pollution with human conveniences. If one proceeds to make exceptions and distinguos in exceptional cases, the cases will soon start to become less and less exceptional as society becomes accustomed to the idea that there is a way out. See divorce. See abortion. See, well, everything. If one starts to hide this pollution with an illusory application of “the same Christian principles”, there will be no limit to the use of vaguely Christian-sounding platitudes to unhinge whatever doctrine has now become unpalatable. When one starts to make exceptions to a principle, the following generation will not even remember what the principle was.
Thankfully, the Church still stands erect in the midst of moral ruin. More proudly erect at some times than at others perhaps, but erect she stands nonetheless. About the moral ruin, surely no doubt is possible.
On Catholic Exchange, Judie brown has a very interesting piece about the relationship between contraception and legalisation of homosexuality. She has the following arguments:
1) Contraception links sex to pleasure and thus opens the way for pleasure irrespective of his finality. Therefore, contraception is at the root of the increase of acceptance of homosexuality.
2) That most Catholic couples in the US use contraceptives doesn’t make their use less wrong; it merely exposes the inability of the clergy to convey Catholic values.
3) We might have had a different situation today, if the Church has preached the Truth about homosexuality (and contraception) instead of shutting up.
On 1) This is very profound. Homosexuality is a perversion, not a weakness and people don’t become perverts because you don’t insist on the way to have intercourse in the proper way. Still, it can be argued that the reduction of sex to pleasure has led to a higher acceptance of all those who see in sex only a way of seeking pleasure. This mentality will in itself not cause an increase in homosexuality, but probably an increase in its acceptance. The decline of the taboo of homosexuality (sins crying to heaven for vengeance? What’s this?) has certainly also played a massive role.
On 2) I found the remark absolutely spot on. It is time to repeat again and again that the Bishops must start doing their job again. Here in Blighty, I can’t name a single Bishop who wouldn’t deserve immediate dismissal. In the US the situation is probably better, but one wonders how much (one answers: not much).
On 3) I think the lady really hits the bull’s eye. Contraception is not unavoidable. Abortion is not unavoidable. Mickey Mouse “marriages” are not unavoidable. They have all come to pass because the Clergy were sleeping or more probably, cowardly looking for ways of being popular. That so many people nowadays see as “normal” what Christianity (and not only Christianity: ask the pre-Christian Romans!) always saw as a grave perversion says it all about the scale of the dereliction of duty from the Western clergy. Note that where the Clergy do their work, this problem is virtually non-existent (Africa, Asia).
The bottom line is that at the beginning of everything is Bishops doing their job and taking care that their priests do the same. Sound teaching attacks the secular mentality in all its mistakes and allows a more complete view of Christian Doctrine and of one’s own life, which in turn better equips Christians for the right reaction to secular challenges.
If the proper thinking about contraception had been hammered in the head of the faithful since Humanae Vitae, we would probably not be here today talking about Proposition 8.