Last week, the British Parliament has overwhelmingly rejected a law aiming at legalising “assisted suicide”. The law was the usual first step of the satanical incrementalism we always see in these cases: only for terminally ill people with (says doctor) six months to live; suicide must be compos mentis; he must take the poison himself; no doctor obliged to comply. Have no fear. No one will force you to swallow the pills.
It is very clear that all this was a big fig leave: many terminally ill people live far longer than the doctor says, and the doctor would be either under great pressure or ideologically inclined to confirm the short life expectancy; the requirement of the patient to be compos mentis would soon fall if suicide is seen as an acceptable alternative; old and vulnerable people can be put under pressure to put an end to their lives anyway; the doctor would soon have been seen as “suicidephobic”, & Co.
This time, it hasn't worked. The Country is still not satanical enough. It would seem good news.
However, I must notice that nowhere have I noticed the debate put in a Christian frame. The main problem was the protection of the suicide. This once greatest taboo of them all has now become simply non-existent. The debate was largely secular, even when it came from people who are religious (Catholic prelate) or say they are (Anglican clowns). The entire discussion was mainly centred about the easy abuse of any legal opening to suicide. The evil of suicide wasn't part of the wider debate. God was just forgotten or, rather, ignored.
This is a very bad sign. The debate is already framed in a way that must, in time, cause the satanic measure to prevail in some way. The “right to die” meme is now firmly anchored in the collective consciousness of the Britons. The perception that one has, in principle, a “right to die” is clearly mainstream. It is now largely a question of protection: that is, a question of a good compromise between conflicting rights, in which the right to die is now seen by vast parts of the population as a legitimate part of the equation.
This country has become so secular that even people who call themselves church people fail to direct the attention – actually, have no intention of even trying – on what God says. The usual words “weak”, “vulnerable”, “protection”, “guarantees”, “right”, are tossed about with no reference at all to a religious frame.
The law did not pass, but this debate is lost already. Unless the cultural climate changes, the attention will be directed at giving better protection to the vulnerable, not at avoiding the suicide. As the years go by many who still have vestiges of religious feeling will die, and many for whom a man is his own god will reach voting age. Unavoidably, a suicide law will be passed some day.
In the meantime, we will continue with today's practice, with the Crown Prosecution Service showing no intention whatever to crack down on those who abet and assist terminally ill suicides. It will continue to be a dark zone of tolerated suicide, seen by many and prosecuted by none, provided the involved parties keep their mouth shut.
Britain is still on its way to hell. The pace is merely somewhat slower than already feared.
Read here about another fruit of the atheist madness of our times: the slaughter of hundreds of babies in the Netherlands, “deemed” to desire to exercise a “right to die” about which, irrespective of the evil of the desire, no one ever even asked them.
The monstrous mind of the atheist, liberal world is exposed very clearly when such things happen. Similarly, we are once again reminded of the slippery slope of liberal legislation, which has never failed to produce results abhorred by many of their very original proposers: abortion was initially thought as a (evil) remedy for extreme cases, like the fifteen years old girl very near to suicide. Pro-pervert legislation was initially smuggled as a way to help dykes and faggots to have an easier life in their administrative matters (will, say; or hospital visits). Euthanasia as a remedy to the oh so atrociously suffering, oh so terminally ill, oh so old man or woman.
How it ends – how it must end, then when one starts to take leave from reason it is unavoidable to go down the road to madness – is abortion on demand, so-called “gay marriage” and adoption rights, and the slaughter of innocent babies.
There can be no middle way between the Christian way and utter madness. God’s rules are not only good for our salvation, they are perfectly logical, eminently practical and completely sensible for the human being. It is an illusion to think that a Lawmaker can take leave from Christian principles without progressively drifting into utter and complete, monstrous cruelty.
But hey: these people certainly are in good faith, aren’t they? They follow their consciences, don’t they? Therefore, a question spontaneously arise:
Who are we to judge?
The debate about the UK euthanasia law has started yesterday, and it is polarising the country almost half as much as a selfie of some obscene slut singer or the new diet of some wannabe celebrity. Still, some people are discussing about it.
In a strange phenomenon, which is at the same time indicative of the confusion of our times, (ir)religious leaders like Lord Carey support the murdering of a suicidal person, whilst left-wing newspapers like the “Guardian” do not.
Why does this happen? Because of a fact that you can notice very easily in the newspaper articles of the last days: the factually complete absence of Christian values in the debate.
And in fact, two heathen factions seem to fight for the ground: those who think that it is good to allow someone who wants to dispose of himself to do it, and those who fear that this would lead to pressure to old vulnerable people to do what they do not want to do. The implicit concession that there shoul dbe some sort of understanding for people who want to commit suicide is clear enough; at the very least there is no vocal debate about the point.
That no one, absolutely no one could ever have any right to kill himself just because he is ill, or suffering; and that this is pretty much the worst sin imaginable (worse than sodomy! Yes, worse than sodomy!) no one seems to remember, much less say out loud.
The debate is entirely secular, and the pros and cons are seen from an entirely secular perspective.
It is also an absurd debate, because it is a debate run from a position of forgetfulness of its very ethical bases.
If there is no God, it makes perfectly no sense to claim that it be bad that vulnerable people may be put under pressure to die. If there is no God, the question whether any person has any right to live when he is not of use to the community is a perfectly sensible one. If there is no God, we are just a very sophisticated termite nest, and there is no objective rule as to how the nest should be run. Actually, if there is no God and we are all destined to be born, live a short life and and die into nothingness, the most practical thing to do is to maximise the survival chances of the termite nest by getting read of all elements of weakness making it either more vulnerable to other nests (or nations), or else decreasing the utility of the strong termites contributing to the strenght of the nest.
But the fact is, there is God: and this God is not only the one who will judge Lord Falconer and his accomplices when the day of their redde rationem comes, but it is also the God who has given us the Christian values on which our societies rest.
A discussion on values in which God is absent, and which therefore forgets the basis and origins of those very values that are being discussed, seems outright absurd to me, and a losing strategy to boot; because make no mistake, unless the root of morality is found in God, the stupid oxes will happily be led by the nose from the masters of the usual slogans of “mercy”, “freedom” and “compassion”. In the emasculated, utterly duty-allergic society in which we live, these emotional calls to “freedom” will always prevail over the embarrassed calls to prudence of those who are against, but can’t really say why.
It is only a matter of “safeguards”? Well, then you’ve lost already.
It is a matter of values? Well, then think what these values are, and why you value them, and why you should protect them.
This euthanasia battle is, I think, already lost; because the troops on the right side have completely forgotten why they are fighting.
Introducing a further step in the utter satanical descent of this once Christian Country into the abyss of hell, Lord Falconer is now trying to introduce an euthanasia law on these shores.
The details are perfectly irrelevant, and it is perfectly useless to discuss under which “strictly defined circumstances” a person will be allowed to commit suicide. The principle is that he will be allowed to, and even if the usual incrementalism of Satan’s ways were to provide that, say, initially only terminal illness would cause the suicide to be allowed, it is very easy to realise this is, in time, going to go mainstream.
Once the principle is accepted, suicide on demand is the unavoidable conclusion. Look only at Belgium, where even teenagers can now be authorised to dispose of themselves in an environmentally friendly way only a decade or so after the initially more restrictive euthanasia law was introduced. And hey: if this is what the boy wants, who are we to judge?
Surely, you think, the Christians still left in the Country will react to this monstrosity like one man!?
Think again. Not only that old nincompoop Tutu has now taken the part of Satan, but the former so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has done the same.
Tutu’s position is no surprise, as the man smells of brimstone from very far away. Just remember when he said that he would rather choose hell with the sodomites, than a “homophobic” heaven. But Lord Carey is a different matter, because one would expect from him – proddie as he is – a higher content of Christian Truth. Still, we live in times when a supposed religious authority can say that he has “changed his mind”, because “old philosophic certainties have collapsed”. Boy, what a child. Or an evil mind.
Once again, we see easy emotionalism at play. The proposers of suicide don’t call it “euthanasia” any more, preferring by far the far more modern expression “right to die”. This smells pleasantly of “freedom”, and allows them to present themselves as “oppressed”; whilst the coming, murderous oppression of countless old people put under a subtle, but to them irresistible pressure to put an end to their lives is, clearly, not oppressive at all. In some articles, it is even called “assisted dying”, as if one were assisted whilst he is dying. Well no, it’s assisted suicide. It’s different.
Now, Lord Falconer & Co. go to the extraordinary length of declaring that suicide is not unChristian, because Lord Carey and the devilish Tutu say so. I have no doubt millions of Brits will believe him on the word. This is what Christianity has become in this Country.
This proposed law may be condemned to a slow death on Friday, a fact which Falconer & Co. are now trying to prevent. But even if this should happen, one can clearly see a path here, with the “suicide squad” promptly using all the tools of the sodomites: whining, cries of “oppression”, call to “freedom”. I wonder how long it is before adjectives like “choiceophobic” start circulating.
Make no mistake: unless the pendulum start swinging on the other side, this euthanasia law is going to enter the statute books; probably in the next parliament if not in this one, but almost certainly in the one thereafter. It is the logic of godlessness and embracing of everything satanic, of rebellion to God in everything, that demands that it be so.
This is not only, mind, going to cause the loss of lives. It is going to cause the loss of countless souls, as many who are perfectly able to discern what they are doing deliberately choose suicide; the most elementary rebellion to natural law and, therefore, an act by which no “but God, Lord Carey and Desmond Tutu had told that this was perfectly Christian!” will ever wash.
And so we see how, fifty years after the revolution of the Sixties, the Revolution eats its children. Not only the symbolic ones – the young sodomites and their friends and supporters, say – but, literally, the same potheads who started the mess; a generation facing in the next decades the full brunt of the new legislation in many European countries, and deciding to put a miserable end to the hopes of their soul as they have lived miserable lives in opposition to God’s law.
This will be the fitting end of their “love” madness, as their delusion of godless “love” becomes eternal hate and despair.
The generation that sow mass rebellion reaps mass damnation. Really, it’s as simple as that.
Sandro Magister is a veteran journalist. He does not express himself with the virulence of a blog writer. He couldn’t, because he writes for others.
As I have already written in the past, there is a way of saying things in Italy which, whilst probably diffused everywhere, is particularly developed in the Italian political discourse, and very much so when the topic is the Holy Father.
I have already written about the petition of the centre-right newspaper Il Foglio, also officially praising Francis whilst he is petitioned to show some, well, pontifical attributes already. No, let me rephrase it: to show some balls, which hasn’t happened up to now.
Very recently, Sandro Magister has intervened on the issue, but in a far more robust manner. Again, this being Italy and the Pope you must read between the lines. Which, in this case, isn’t really difficult. The emphases are mine.
The incipit/presentation already sets the tone:
A UN report humiliates the Church while exalting the current pontiff. Who is not reacting and is even remaining silent after Belgium has legalized the euthanasia of children. The risks of the strategy of silence adopted by Bergoglio.
This is devastating. The Church is humiliated. Francis is exalted. Fine with him. So desirous he is of popularity that he shuts up even after the Belgian euthanasia law. His strategy is to shut up and be popular. No, really, read it again, and notice the words I have emphasised. This is what the article says, in the only way in which it can be said. If anything, one is surprised at the bluntness.
[…] the cover dedicated to him by the magazine “Rolling Stone,” a full-fledged coronation in the temple of pop culture.
That’s another one. A Pope for the stupid masses. A T-shirt image. The pop culture icon. No, these are not compliments. But boy, this is said in a smart way.
“Or the commendation that by the report of the UN committee on the rights of the child has bestowed on the famous “Who am I to judge?” spoken by Pope Francis, the only one spared in a Catholic Church against which the worst of the worst is said in the same report”.
The unspeakable is told against the Church’s teaching. Francis only is spared, even praised. As the teacher would have asked at school: “Mundabor, what does the author want to say?” Well, mam’, isn’t it clear enough?
It is not easy to enter into the mind of pope Bergoglio. His words are like the tiles of a mosaic whose design is not immediately apparent. He also makes tough and biting remarks, but never at a moment in which they could generate conflict.
Let me rephrase this for you: “No one knows what the heck this man is thinking. His confused statements are all over the place, and do not make sense at all. He is only able to throw punches in the air when there is no adversary around, but he is nowhere to be seen whenever his words would cause opposition from the world”
“And yet it is precisely there that the concealed thought of the Jesuit pope is to be found, his judgment on the present era of the world”.
“What the man thinks, he does not say. He is a Jesuit, you see”.
“The view of the Church is known, and I am a son of the Church,” Francis says and says again. His thought is the same as that which is written in the catechism. And sometimes he recalls this combatively for those who expect him to change doctrine, as in the least-cited passage of his “Evangelii Gaudium,” where he has the harshest of words against the “right” to abortion. But he never proclaims Church teaching out loud at a moment when the dispute over an issue has become heated”.
“He manages to be, at times, Catholic when his official orthodoxy (in which we desperately want to believe, or at least we must say so) can be buried in the middle of a 50,000 words mega-statement, never mentioned by the press. But when there is some heated discussion, he invariably chickens out”.
“He has kept quiet now that the euthanasia of children has been permitted by law in Belgium. He keeps himself apart from the millions of citizens of every faith who in France and in other countries are opposing the dissolution of the idea of the family made up of father, mother, and children. He has remained silent after the unprecedented affront of the UN report”.
“He shuts up about euthanasia, sodomy and destruction of the family, and the unprecedented affront of the EU report. There’s nothing he would not shut up about, if speaking would make him unpopular”.
“With this he intends to blunt the weapons of the adversary. To defeat him with the immense popularity of his figure as pastor of the mercy of God”.
“Look, I have already told you no one knows what the heck the man is doing. I do not want to end up like the “Radio Maria” journalists. So please bear with me and pretend you believe this rubbish”.
“There is also this in the popularity of Francis, a pope “like never before,” finally “one of us,” molded through a copy-and-paste of his open, adaptable statements”.
“The Pope speaks stupid slogans for the masses, that everyone can highjack for his own purposes. Copy-and-paste fluff. That’s why he is popular whilst the Church is insulted”.
“This worldly cunning could not have been used against his predecessor, Benedict XVI. He, the meek one, preferred conflict in the open field, with the courage of the yes that means yes and the no that means no, “in season and out of season,” as in Regensburg, when he lifted the curtain on the theological roots of the connection between faith and violence in Islam, and yet again on the “non-negotiable” questions. This is why the world was so ferocious with him”.
“Can you see the difference? Benedict did not shun the fight, and the world hated him ferociously. Francis avoids anything vaguely resembling a conflict with the world, and the world adores him”.
I have no doubt whatsoever some rather angry phone calls will be directed at the editor of the “Espresso”; a magazine which, whilst undoubtedly leftist, cherishes its supposed unbiased attitude towards issues near to the heart of the Country, and its link to its more moderate readership. Without a doubt, a soft but suitable pressure will be gently applied to the star journalist who must not be allowed to have his own foreign policy; and who, obviously, already knows it, and knows what he can write and how he can avoid breaking too much china.
Wait for some weakly praising articles of Bergoglio from the same author in the days and weeks to come. Alas, it’s how things are done in Italy. First, no enemies.
Still, those who can read will understand the implications, and will know what’s brewing. Plenty of those intelligent and informed readers in Italy; a country that whilst generally very blunt can be – exactly because of the dangers of the usual bluntness – full of subtle communications codes, and where even murders can be and in fact are commissioned without the need to give an explicit order.
Make no mistake, this was a huge torpedo. The Italian way, that is.
Russian members of Parliament have asked the Russian Foreign office to examine the recent Belgian Nazi Law about Euthanasia in order to see whether a ban on adoption of Russian children by Belgian parents might be in order.
It makes sense. It is infinitely better to be an orphan anywhere on the planet, than the child of adopting parents who might suggest to him that he terminates himself, do not prevent him from doing so, or simply “support” him in his decision to commit suicide because hey, they are good Nazi parents. “At some point – the parents might say to the terminally ill child – it’s time to go into the oven”.
As pointed out already, as it stands the child would have to be terminally ill; but the tendency we have seen by divorce and abortion and, in Belgium itself, by euthanasia point out to a rapid metastasis of the cancer; this, without considering the simple fact that there can be no justification whatsoever for euthanasia even in case of terminal illness.
So, a Russian baby girl might be given in adoption to “enlightened” (ha!) Belgian parents who, in a couple of years’ time, might pave the way for her termination; because hey, she’s ill. Actually, in a couple of years’ time she might not even have to be ill; merely willing to die.
Looks like a fiction movie.
It’s XXI Century Belgium.
The Nazis are among us.
I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
Ecclesiastes 3: 17
In the unbelievable days we are living there is nothing impossible anymore. It is as if a fury of self-destruction had taken hold of once Christian Countries, and would now aim at the annihilation of Christian values with the same energy with which once Crusades were waged, and heresy fought.
What the Belgian Parliament has done exceeds even the boundaries of common insanity. It is evil in its purest form. Evil shouted out in a very loud manner, and sugarcoated with Satan’s favourite weapon: a fake good-ism, a parody of mercy unable to mask the atrocious reality of a boundless cynicism, and an ice cold disregard for everything sacred, even the life of a six years old child. Or four, or perhaps three. The law has no minimum age. Belgium perfectly epitomises the ruthless cruelty of men who have forgotten God.
A child of, say, six years old can do very little of his own. He will be told when to eat and when to sleep, when to speak and when to be silent, when to play and when to do his homework. He will seldom even cross the road without an adult being there. He will – very obviously – be unable to drive, or vote.
But he will now be able to decide if he wants to have his life terminated. If he lives in Belgium, that is.
Evil. Pure evil. The culture of death has become a religion.
As always in these cases, revolutionary evil clothes itself with the mantle of good sentiments. In the same way as divorce and abortion and euthanasia, this new measure allows for a child to decide – imagine that! – that he wants to die only when the “extreme cases” which always make for bad laws, are present. The poor child must be terminally ill and suffering. I think they do it with horses, too.
Make no mistake:as with divorce, abortion, and euthanasia, the exceptional cases will become less and less exceptional; the “suffering” more and more widely interpreted, and extended to mental/moral/immoral suffering; the criteria for “moral suffering” will be reduced to the will to die, as already seen by the will to divorce and the will to abort, and as it is happening in this disgraceful Country (Belgium) for euthanasia already. I have read in Belgium one death in twenty is now more or less officially the product of euthanasia. The existing euthanasia law is around a decade old. Satan’s harvest is very rich already.
Henceforward, when the “good” Nazi parents of the poor lamb – unbaptised, very easily, by such people – decide that it is time to push the “reset” button sooner rather than later and go on with their life after the discovery the goods are defective – stopping the hassle and expenses in the process – they will tell the child it is an excellent idea to go to some fantasy land, where the supply of toys is unlimited and he will never be told it’s time to go to bed.
If the child is bigger – say, nine or ten – he will probably be asked to be realistic about the very sad situation. If he is bigger still – say, thirteen or fourteen – he will probably be told about the expenses he is causing, and all the suffering his poor Nazi parents would like to spare him. All of these, mind, still unable to vote, or even to drive. But able to decide it’s time to be got rid of.
Then a Nazi doctor will appear on the scene, who will decide whether junior is sensible enough – for a five years old, that is; or a boy – and will be presented with the interesting question: is this child or boy able to decide that he wants to die? Every sane person would laugh at such an idea, but Belgium is very obviously insane.
So there you are: when Nazi doctor has decided the kitten can be smashed to the tree – oh, sorry, I was distracted: that the child can be terminated, is what I wanted to say – a lethal injection or some other utterly effective method – Zyklon B not unthinkable, of course – will get rid of the problem. Cue the inconsolable parents, whose grief will be beautiful to see, and will be graced by the solidarity and support of their friends and family, “on their side” concerning their “difficult decision”. More harvest, of course.
The Belgian church has, I am told, meowed a bit at the last. But the Belgian church consists, from what we could observe in the last fifty years, almost exclusively of perverts and idiots. They have managed to accompany with the tambourine the transformation of a once very Catholic country in a cesspool of dirt and evil with possibly no rival on earth. If you have not opened your eyes about the fruits of V II, I strongly suggest you start now.
Stupid clergy produces evil people. Evil clergy produces modern Belgium. If the Church in Belgium had been vaguely Catholic in the past decades, we would not be at this point now. But even those who weren’t preying on children and were not homosexual were too cowardly to swim against the tide of secularism.
The result is in front of our eyes. The Church in Belgium has done exactly the same as its inhabitant: she has forgotten God; or rather, she has sold it for the thirty pieces of silver of easy popularity and acquiescence to the world; when it wasn’t much worse than that, of course. My experience in Bruges might be worth the reading. Yes, it is as bad as that. Again, is it a surprise such a clergy produces such a country, which in turn produces such laws? Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. A once very Catholic country has now become Satan’s poster boy. Don’t kid yourself into believing the Belgian Church can call herself innocent of this.
The Lord gave, and Belgium hath taken away. There will be a terrible price to pay for that.
I do not think the Belgians, as a whole, care. The majority in the Belgian Parliament was overwhelming.
In 2014’s Belgium, it is safe for a politician to be a Nazi.
Such are the ways of the “who am I to judge” generation.
In a “shocking” story that is, we are assured, provoking “much emotion” in France – emotions rule our times: thinking is sooo overrated – a couple of vecchi malvissuti (“old people who have lived badly”: Manzoni was a giant…) has decided to send themselves directly in the hands of the devil with a carefully planned, coldly executed suicide. One of them – the wife, I gather – has even left an angry letter because hey, she should be free to take her life in the manner most agreeable to her, and who are we to judge…
If you think God will have pity on these idiots, you are sailing on very dangerous waters and are in danger of considering hell a place from which we will be kept out no matter how big our effort to get there. From there to Father Barron the step is but a little one.
We cannot know how God decides in the individual situation, but in His mercy he thought it fit to let us know what his criteria are. As God cannot deceive us, we know with absolute certainty that He will stick to them. This means, in clear words, that either the respective guardian angel managed to achieve a perfect contrition for his charge at the very latest moment – an hypothesis going far beyond any reasonable assumption, but that we examine in acknowledgment that He is the one who decides – or the two must, if God is God (and God is God) perforce be in hell, having shouted their arrival rather loudly. Make your own mind about the odds, and shiver.
Double suicide. Carefully prepared. With two letters left. I would not want to be the Catholic priest who, in such a situation, gives scandal and confuses the faithful by allowing – provided any such is asked – a Catholic funeral for the two, and dies one day without repenting for his folly.
Still, let us be clear here: the folly is becoming mainstream. Millions of Frenchies will now see as “unjust” that a man cannot terminate himself as if he were a hamster tired of the wheel, and will abandon the Christian front like it's 1940. They will demand “compassion” and ask that what God has given human folly may throw away, feeling terribly good in the process. Methinks, the attitude will be shared not only by atheists – which is coherent with being an atheist: if there is no God, even a Holocaust is a matter of choice and a man not intrinsically different from a hamster; merely more complicated – but even by people who believe themselves at least vaguely Christian, and seem to think God must have been utterly wrong in those old dark and judgmental times, times not yet enlightened by the compassion of societally accepted suicide and mass abortion.
The liberal press will go at this like the devil's whores they are. Perhaps even beyond France. Other like them – Cameron, Clegg and Miller come to mind – might profit to obtain other cheap points for themselves. We have seen it happening in Ireland already.
Everyone who supports even indirectly any form of euthanasia is clearly sinning gravely, and putting his salvation in grave danger. Yes, even if it is our son, or sister, or cousin. We must never tire to say so and pay the price – there is always a price to pay for siding with Christ: this is how the system works – and pray for those, particularly if loved ones, who mock or insult us.
One day, we will have our reward. Those who want to decide about life (abortion) and death (so-called euthanasia) and willfully die in their stupidity will, alas, get theirs.
One hundred years ago, such an event would have filled an entire community with unspeakable dread at the sight of the impious monstrosity committed. Nowadays, it's a competition for the one who has most understanding.
We live in times when fornication is considered clean, and ozone a pollutant; when the suicide, the most abominable criminal of them all, is looked at with sympathy, and the religion that condemns him condemned in turn; when countless people seriously think they are too good to accept Christ's moral standard.
The modern religion, aided and abetted in the highest places, can be reassumed in five terrible words:
Who am I to judge?
Oh well, perhaps soon-to-be Cardinal Mueller is managing to inject some (as in: some) sound Catholicism in the man's head.
Whilst Francis is still problematic, at least this time we had an improvement.
In today’s world, the Holy Father stated that the thought that all must be the same, that one must be “more normal” is brought forward by this adolescent progressivism. Referring to the readings account that those who did not follow the Law were condemned to death, the Holy Father stated that it is something done even in today’s modern world.“But do you this that today this is not done, human sacrifices?” he asked. “So many are done, so many! And there are laws that protect them.”However, despite the unfaithfulness in the world, Pope Francis said that God continues to be faithful and forgives those who are repentant.
“Adolescent progressivism” is a good description of what Francis has been doing basically without interruption since that disgraceful day in March. I dare to hope – because I am an incurable optimist – that this is Francis' way to say that there will be no more attempts – or at the least none so extreme – to appear “more normal”.
In a possible confirmation of the above, Francis takes out of his sleeve a rather powerful image: human sacrifices. The words themselves and the other reference, that such “human sacrifices” are protected by laws, seems to indicate that he is referring to abortion and euthanasia (remember: euthanasia is protected by law in some countries, like Switzerland and Belgium; whilst other countries like Britain do not show interest in prosecuting the relatives and enablers). The problem with this phrase is that Francis does not say so. Apparently he is fine with “who am I to judge” headlines, but “abortion is a human sacrifice protected by law, says Pope” is a headline he does not want to see. Very judgmental, you see.
Not being a sensation, this speech will not make the world headlines, whilst “abortion is a human sacrifice” would have done it without a doubt. A pity. On the other hand, Francis will remain popular among those who do not read Catholic outlets (basically, the planet).
Still, one notices an improvement. We are near to listening to the Bishop of Rome speaking like… a Pope here. Perhaps he has simply read a speech written by others rather than substituting it with his own … adolescent progressivism. Or perhaps today is “feed the pigeons day”. Perhaps, though, he is making an effort.
A third positive sign comes from the explicit mention of repentance as a prerequisite for forgiveness. Again, this is a welcome change from the sub-kindergarten deity up to now smuggled by Francis as the God of the Christians to atheists, infidels and apostates of all shades; and again, this is not enough, because the warning about God's justice is still remarkably absent and remains merely implicit.
Is something happening in Francis' papacy? Has he started to listen to the least bad among the people near him, and has he perhaps realised keeping the course of the first seven months will make of him an object of shame and derision for all centuries to come?
Perhaps. Let us hope so. Let us pray that it is so.
But let us not abandon ourselves to irrational optimism, either. Modernists love to deceive, and to mix the heretical statements with the orthodox ones. We will only be able to say that Francis has changed his tune and the style of his papacy when we see him consistently expressing himself in an orthodox way: renouncing to the adolescent progressivism, the shameless promotion of his own humility, and the clownesque attitude, and accepting to be hated by the world for his defence of Catholicism.
One is happy to register an improvement. But really, one “human sacrifice” statement does not a good Pope make.
Two recent sentences of the Canadian justice have recently reinforced the position of normal people against the growing phalanx of Nazis nowadays going around undisturbed under the guise of liberals.
One of the two sentences is particularly notable because of the circumstances: the doctors demanded the right to kill the patient, the wife was opposed.
One truly wonders what has become of mental sanity in the West, if situations like these occur in the first place. Doctors. Suing. To. Kill. Their. Patient.
One cannot avoid thinking Satan is making overtime, and not without success.
Still, one must notice with a certain satisfaction that at least in the case of so-called euthanasia we might not have to witness the diabolical extremes reached in the case of sodomy. The Canadian parliament has overwhelmingly rejecting a relative legislative proposal, and the obvious strengthening of pro-life positions in the coming years will perforce cause more and more people to reflect very attentively about the life of the vulnerable on the other end of natural life.
Let us enjoy the good news for today. We are approaching decades in which we will have to learn to savour to the last all the good news we get.
Hans Kueng, the consummated actor who played for some time a well-known role as Catholic theologian, is thinking whether he should commit suicide. ( I know: German).
The fact is, you see, the man is not very healthy, and at 85 he thinks he has had enough. It might be time to call it a day, or a life. Therefore, he reflects whether he should not pull the plug himself.
He has Parkinson’s, you see. The same as JP II, that untiring promoter of suicide (I suggest we stop saying “euthanasia”. It’s just suicide with factual certainty of success).
Now let us reflect a bit; would Francis not say that this is a good way to go (and I mean: to go?). Let me explain.
“This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.”
What a beautiful, romantic image. Crisscrossing ways, that in mysterious ways touch on heresy here and on homosexuality there, under the romantic moon of the favela, until these somewhat not-very-straight-and-narrow ways “come closer together” and “lead toward the good” in a liberating happy end, accompanied by Francis’ favourite dance, the tango. Beautiful! Liberating!!
Speaking of which, I wonder: where did I hear that one with the “straight and narrow?” Can’t remember, really. It sound so bad, though. So “legalistic”. Certainly “narrow-minded”, and very probably “obsessed with rules”. Heavens, we can’t think like that anymore! We must live in the present, you see; expand the circle of ideas…
I will remember one day who said those words about the narrow way. Whoever he was, he hasn’t read Francis. That’s for sure.
Back to our dear suicidal actor, though. He is, we have just said, at a rather criss-crossed way of his rather criss-crossed life. One of these ways – which has a particular penchant for crissing rather than crossing – leads directly to a Swiss Nazi clinic, where our actor will be disposed of in an extremely environmentally friendly and, I am sure, utterly hygienic manner. Will our hero, now happily “satiated of life”, choose that way?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
But if he does, how will, do you think, Francis react?
Let us see. I quote again:
“This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas”
Ah, Kueng certainly got to know a lot of people. He listened. He expanded the circle of ideas, a lot! A capital chap, then. This is important. But what if he decides to dispose of himself? Is this bad? I mean, not “criss” bad instead of cross” good, but… Hell bad?
Well it depends, you see. If you listen to the old narrow-minded and legalistic people, this is a sin against the Holy Ghost, which will not be forgiven, and Kueng will be condemned to read Francis’ interviews to Repubblica for eternity. But if you listen to Francis himself, who is – as in the meantime even my cat knows – not narrow minded:
Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.
So, we start to understand now. Our dear actor “has his own idea of good and evil”. He must not follow the Divine Truth. He must not instruct himself. He must not accept Christ and keep his commandments. He must not accept the Catholic Truth on faith. No! No! No! He must “follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them”.
Many heroic people of this sort already conduct such a meritorious existence. Abortionists, for example. Muslim terrorists. And Sodomites, I almost forgot the sodomites! All of them happily fight evil as they conceive it! For example, they fight those evil Christians with those homophobic ideas! Yes, Francis might say, “this way is a bit of a cross instead of a bit of a criss; I am a Catholic, so you already know what I am supposed to think, so I will not open my mouth and tell you; but you see, in the end if one fights evil the criss and the …Cross [sign of the Cross here..] will meet pretty much in the same place”.
Didn’t he say it already? “But do good, we will meet there“, or words of the sort…
So, back to the suicidal actor again.
Will Francis object to his suicide? If yes, on what ground?
Isn’t it so, that Kueng “follows the goods and fights the evil as he conceives them”?
How can, therefore, God be so “legalistic” and “narrow minded” as to send him to hell?
And anyway, who is Francis to judge?
Eh? Ah? No?
It should be evident to many already – and it will be more, I am afraid, in the years to come – that Western democracies are becoming the biggest threat to Western freedom.
In a world more and more devoid of Christian values, and made more and more stupid by lack of proper education, freedom is dying a slow death.
In Anglo-Saxon countries, millions of young men and women think they are educated because they have a degree, though they cannot even write. Their cultural horizon stops at the X-Factor and Lady Gaga. They inform themselves from the crappy free “newspapers” they find at train stations. They are children making children – outside of marriage, now almost as a majority; but hey, “who am I to judge?” – who would not be able to assess any situation other than by following what the army of equally ignorant sheep around them does.
Add to this that, more than twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism as a global threat, the West has remained without any significant external enemy, and even the wave of highly-organised Islamist terrorism has been, if we are realistic, almost completely destroyed and certainly reduced to a social irrelevance in less than a decade by virtue of smart intelligence work, and determined military action.
As a result, the already dumb sheep, unable to even spell but – other than the illiterate of centuries past – with an extremely high opinion of themselves, have never experienced a real threat to their societal structure, and have never had in front of their eyes the spectacle of a vast number of European countries deprived of elementary freedoms. They have, therefore, neither the intellectual not the practical instruments to understand the value of freedom.
To these people, other perceived “values” are more important than freedom. Not believing in God, they make gods of themselves and need to be utterly persuaded of the fundamental goodness of the little gods they think they are. Everything that threatens the perceived picture of their own goodness will have to be sacrificed in order for them to continue to feel good with themselves.
At this point, words like “hate crime” begin to emerge; the sheep, too stupid to understand that in a free society hate – even the real one – can never be a crime, will soon run to the help of the allegedly “hated”, firstly because they feel like as many little gods of niceness, and secondly because they desperately need to feel they are not the dumb idiots they in the end know they are. In an orgy of self-satisfaction, the measures against “hate” will become more and more harsh, and their application more stringent. “Hate” will become everything the majority of dumb sheep clearly sees as different from themselves. All this, cela va sans dire, in a perfectly democratic manner; then when the majority doesn't care for freedom, their democracy will make the work for them without the need for any blood to be spilled.
This society – the society the West is creating every day – will be eerily similar to Nazism, at least to the Nazism perceived by the usual German sheep in the Thirties: nice, harmless, friendly people loving their beer and pretzel, and seriously persuaded they are actually the best people on Earth whilst living in the middle of abortion, euthanasia, heathenism, and ferocious thoughts-control. It will be instructive to keep in mind that, though certainly in different circumstances, the Nazis went to power in a fully democratic way.
It is a legend that democracies protect freedoms. Democracies do not protect freedoms. People do. If a people's understanding of basic freedom deteriorates, their democracy will soon reflect the change.
If you think we are very far from a situation like this, I seriously invite you to think again. More likely than not, some of yours neighbours already wouldn't really object to you being put to jail for expressing “hate” if they think it is a serious threat to the image they have of themselves (say: by being a Christian, and saying it). The number of such people is clearly on the increase. They might not necessarily oppose your faith as long as it remains in your bedroom, but will consider it not tolerable – and worthy of detention – if it goes against the pagan god of their own goodness and, astonishingly, tolerance. They are stupid, and illiterate. They do not understand freedom, much less Christianity. They are in love with themselves, and will desperately cling to their love until the day they will have to die, and their friends will “celebrate” their “goodness”. This cult of one's own goodness requires the “intolerant” to be punished without any… tolerance.
Some people think the usual Nazi of the Thirties was a “hating” beast filled with hate for a world or perceived enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazi Germany was a perfectly ordered, peaceful, prosperous society enjoying their tranquility and defending themselves against the, erm, “haters”; haters clearly recognised as such by society and one's better, and therefore uncritically accepted as such whilst enjoying one's tea and scones (or rather, beer and pretzel).
Do not make the mistake of thinking your own neighbour is much different that the friendly lady or lad in Nazi Germany. Your own neighbour already accepted “hate” legislation and homosexual marriage, and would say to you “bullying” is so very bad, it must be severely punished, surely? They might soon start resembling their counterparts in, say, Magdeburg circa 1937. It will merely take more time.
The world was freed from the horrors of Nazism by kicking and bombing their ass to the tune of around, if memory serves, eight million dead when both soldiers and civilians are added (the number might be different, but you get my drift). But there is no seeing what earthly power can be a threat to the extremely wealthy, technologically advanced, and militarily powerful Western societies, now slowly sliding toward Nazism out of lack of faith in God, and a strong belief in their own goodness.
We must pray, and pray more. We must stop being appeasers now, if we want to have some chance of becoming the persecuted of tomorrow. Most of all, we must resist this horrible climate of political correctness, and stop being nice with the Nazis.
If you think yourself too fine to say “faggot”, you will one day have to be fine enough to have them instructing your children, making your laws, ruling your life, and oppressing your religion.
Still is not too late. But the number of Nazis next door is growing. Only a robust cultural offensive – also consisting in the rejection of political correctness – will stop the Nazi sheep.
A chap who is trying to obtain from British courts the right to commit suicide, and previously known as “Mr L” to protect his anonymity, has requested and obtained that his anonymity be lifted. His name is, no less, Mr Lamb.
Predictably, the liberal troops are in a state of great excitement, and the always satanical BBC reports today about Mr Lamb’s “fight” for his “right to die”. Classic FM (five million British listeners in the morning, and therefore an extremely important news outlet notwithstanding the harmless sounding name) also had glowing expressions of support for Mr Lamb in the early morning, though the 7am edition already struck a different… note.
Interestingly, Mr Lamb says he is “suffering”, but also that he often goes to sleep at 5pm because his life doesn’t make sense anyway. This sounds more like boredom than sufferance to me. I’d suggest a good book. And prayer, of course.
The issue here is, as always, a very basic one: is life something God giveth and taketh away, or something belonging to the human carrying it around and which the carrier is free to throw away like an old sweater?
To us, there can be no doubt how things stand; but I wonder how it is for atheists. You don’t need to be a believer to maintain that legalising euthanasia will put thousands under pressure (implicit more than explicit) to be put to sleep like dogs (I think the expression here is “have their life terminated”; but really, it would be exactly the same thing one does to dogs). On the other hand, if one is an atheist an hypothetical pressure shouldn’t be reason enough to limit one’s freedom, surely? After all, one can be put under pressure to smoke, but smoking isn’t forbidden because of this.
When one forgets God’s laws, and God’s very existence, Satan can’t be far away. When one forgets that no one is the owner of one’s life, Hitler’s euthanasia is just around the corner. When one thinks there is nothing more important than one’s own problems, you have Mr Lamb.
Mr Lamb is a true minion of Satan, and in his foolishness he now insists that his name be known everywhere in the country; for sheer vanity perhaps, or maybe in order to give his “cause” a better notoriety. He will, no doubt, have a big following on Twitter, and atheists all over the country will cheer his attempt to put himself in the dump.
Truly, the world has gone mad.
I wish Mr Lamb defeat in court, and repentance before it’s too late.
Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
The recurring 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade is a good way to say a word or two about the pendulum which seems to swing across societal phenomena.
No doubt, when the disgraceful Roe vs Wade ruling was issued, very many thought this was one of those moment of irreversible change, so that the return to a ban for abortion would not be more likely than a return to the horse cart. For some time the facts seemed (seemed only) to agree with them, as abortion became a largely unquestioned part of the landscape in most of the Western world.
At some point, though, the pendulum came to a still stand, and then began to swing in the other direction. It is fair to say it is now in full swing and winning the biological battle, big time. What happened is not only that the abortionists made fewer children, but that more and more people realised (or are in the course of realising) a genocide doesn’t become legitimate only because it happens to be legal.
It took a long time, though, because it always takes time for the lazy cattle we call “electorate” to slowly wake up to reality, the commonly received perception of what other perceive being generally considered a perfectly valid substitute for truth, morality, or even thinking. It took time, but it’s now happening with great impetus, and it won’t be many years until the mass opposition becomes a reality in Western Europe, too. It works, and it works because of people who were not afraid of being in the minority, ostracised, or insulted.
We see the same pattern now at work in the matters of euthanasia and buggery, with the promoters of both trying to depict the change as a generational, epochal swift in perspective, and as irreversible as flying or eating Chinese food. They might well get their Roe vs Wade, and many people (the lazy cattle) will at that point think the world has ” evolved”, and will feel very smug in the process with that feeling of “look at how good I am” the stupid seem unable to live without. When that moment comes, is when we must continue the reaction without waiting for one generation to go by, learning from the abortion issue that nothing is irreversible, least of all abominations going against the most elementary natural instincts like the above mentioned euthanasia and buggery.
We live in times when we must face (never accept, or acquiesce to) the possibility of dying in a world much different from the one we grew into; a world in which the wicked triumph and the just are insulted, persecuted, or worse. We must stay strong and continue our battle, knowing that the one who planted the ear, shall ear…
One day, thinks will begin to improve; if our day comes before that day, perhaps we will be able to attribute our much hoped-for salvation to the battles we had to fight in a hostile environment, the object of mockery and hostility in the very mildest of cases.
As I will never tire to repeat, the greatest contribution to the swinging of the pendulum would come from the Church. But the Church is, if not entirely asleep, certainly slumbering in the drunken stupor of Vatican II, and does not see the dangers accumulating, does not notice the black clouds at the horizon, and does not feel the necessity to start a serious battle now in order, Deo Volente, to avoid a much more difficult one in 10 or 20 years time.
Much sooner, actually, if the likes of Andrew Cuomo get their way.
I am eagerly awaiting for Cardinal Dolan to invite him to some highly publicised dinner.
Today’s newspapers/internet magazines are full of the story of the man who asked the court whether he could be legally murdered. The court said to him “no, you can’t” and the chap apparently cried in front of journalists (there are photos on the internet, at the very least) at being informed England is not so Nazi yet and he will have to leave until it pleases God in His wisdom (that’s not what the judges said; but you get my drift…) to put an end to his days.
Only one week or so later, the chap has… died, apparently of …”natural causes”. Pneumonia, says the coroner. Oh well. As the coroner says so and risks jail if he invents tales, we will assume that there was nothing fishy in this death and will proceed to make some consideration from this point of view.
You can calculate for yourself the probability of salvation of chap who one week ago showed a sovereign despise for his god-given gift, and has kept this attitude even in his instruction for tweets (you won’t believe it, the chap had a vast twitter following; morbid) to be sent after his death. I don’t bet my pint about his salvation, because Mr Nicklinson seems to me one of those who seek damnation with the lantern and easily accomplish their objective; and no, I simply don’t care two straws whether he had thirty-eight different paralyses and forty-nine legs not working: his life was as sacred – and as much a divine gift – as everyone else’s, and every differentiation in this respect is purest Nazi thinking.
What enrages me most, though, is that in nowadays’ England a man can decide to send himself to Hell with lucid and stubborn determination and not only the media and the fora are full of the usual satanic idiots supporting him ( though why they should be sad is beyond me; “we rejoice at your death” is what they should write…), but in addition to this very public madness no public warning should come from our bishops about the sheer nazi horror of what these people think they can do to their immortal souls.
In a twisted way one could still understand ( if never justify) the atheist thinking “who should care if I want to hitlerise myself and be done with that. I’m fed up of living with (add here your favourite disability), I don’t believe in God and I just want to be terminated”. This is certainly shocking, but in itself not entirely stupid. It is the necessary conclusion of a wrong premise, but the conclusion is not absurd in itself.
But that those who are supposed to believe in God should just shut up when people damn themselves in such a public way, under the eyes of the nation, and are cheered by others for doing so is truly beyond belief. So much so in fact, that one can seriously wonder whether they believe in God in the first place.
Mr Nicklinson’s case is very indicative of this satanic madness: a man insists in getting rid of himself and spending an eternity in hell, and is cheered by Neonazis feeling – like the original ones – oh so good in the process. “Yes, get rid of yourself!” they say to him. “We can clearly see your life is worth crap, and not worthy of being lived! An obvious case of Lebensunwertes Leben! It is a shame the courts would not allow you to get rid of that rubbish you have become! Come on, old boy, try at least to get a pneumonia! You wouldn’t want to go on like that, would you now?”
Apart from the – let us say it again: repetita iuvant – satanic attitude of Mr Nicklinson and his supporters, I want to point out to the utter uselessness of our modern, cowardly clergy, in this respect as in pretty much all the others. If the bishops don’t shout from the rooftops how evil suicide is, how can they persuade the masses that it should be avoided? If the only answer they have is waffling about the “sufferance” of the person who wants to die, how will they persuade anyone that he should not want to be killed? If they never speak about eternal sufferance (compared to which, I am sure, Mr Nicklinson’s earthly sufferance was a walk in the park; and very probably he has already realised this as I write) and always use the easy way of focusing on the earthly one, how can they hope to persuade those on whom the devil is so actively at work to desist from their foolish ideas?
Mind, I am not talking here about the atheist hard-liners: they will continue on their Nazi line whatever a bishop may say. What is getting lost in this ocean of “niceness” is the mainstream of those (more or less vaguely) Christian who get Satan’s version of the story, whilst those who should speak about the heavenly one stay silent lest they be unpopular.
The clergymen of the “church of nice” never talk about evil, satan, and hell. They only pander to people’s feelings. Oh how much you are suffering. Oh how much I feel for you. Oh how good I feel whilst helping you to feel good with your own (once again) satanic intent. Oh how popular, and sensitive, and caring, and pastoral I am! I must be a good priest/bishop, surely?
They should take heed. Not a long time will pass, and many of them might well find themselves in the company of the Nicklinsons of the world.
I do not know whether I am the only one, but the concept of “patience” as practised in the Vatican corridors seems rather odd to me.
Whenever heresies or grave acts of disobedience arise, the Church reacts with such slowness, in comparison a sloth looks like Usain Bolt. The thinking here appears to be that one doesn’t have to rush things, and “the Church has always time”, and “the Church thinks in centuries, not years”.
But then one wonders why the same thinking is applied so selectively. If there is so much time, and the Church thinks in centuries, why was the battle against abortion not started, and aggressively so, when abortion legislation swept the Free World?
“Ah, this is because the Church is attentive not to engage her weight in battles she knows are lost”, is the mantra I used to hear in years past. The reasoning goes that if you fight against abortion and lose, then you’ll lose leverage when you fight against….. I don’t know exactly what, as in the last forty years I haven’t seen much of a fight anyway, unless it was for popular causes (we have now Popes engaged for the environment, for example; a rather novel concept, if you ask me).
My question then is: if the Church has time, and thinks in centuries, wouldn’t this be a wonderful reason to engage in all kind of battles, particularly those who would seem lost to this generation?
It is very, very seldom, that important societal changes take place overnight. Even when events take place in rapid succession (take the French revolution, or the October one) it is plain to see the events have leavened for decades before the revolutionary outbreak. What we can clearly see is that even the Church cannot hope to introduce or re-introduce important societal changes unless a long, patient work is started, which then goes on for generations if needs be.
The battle against abortion is such one; the one against contraception another; the one against sodomy a third, and the one against euthanasia a fourth one.
I get seldom as angry as when I read, on comments written around, that a certain battle is lost. Lost, my foot! No battle is ever lost with the Holy Ghost on your side. But we have to have the courage to fight, and the determination to carry the fight in our graves and transmit it to the following generation if needs be.
How was this called? O yes…
From Business Insider (emphasis mine):
Here’s the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world’s biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It’s given us some of the world’s greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it’s not that they’re a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.
Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:
General lowering of moral standards
A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
Government coercion in reproductive matters.
Does that sound familiar?
Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.
In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8%
Human progress is people. Everything that makes life better, from democracy to the economy to the internet to penicillin was either discovered and built by people. More people means more progress. The inventor of the cure for cancer might be someone’s fourth child that they decided not to have.
I particularly liked that last phrase, which reminds me of the posts already written here about the biggest source of economic progress being… people.
But no, let us continue to slowly kill ourselves whilst we kill our values and civilisation. Perhaps the day they are killed through euthanasia because the grateful population can’t be asked to pay for their broth and the latest model of mobile phone at the same time, some people will think the Church wasn’t so stupid after all.
The girl has just been informed that she is pregnant. She is, of course, scared, as I can’t imagine many young unwedded girls rejoicing at the news. In past times, the fear would have – in many cases, if certainly not all – made place for a clear consciousness of the sacredness of human life and, perhaps, a sincere maternal desire to see this life born. Homicide was forbidden, and human life considered, well, human life. Therefore, not many young mother would choose – though some certainly did – to become the assassins of their own child. Basic Christianity, of course; part of that system of values which helps one to avoid the worst and hope in Heaven.
Fast forward to the begin of the XXI century, when one can consider the pregnancy of a young woman a “punishment” and still become President of the United States. In our age, the pressure works in the contrary direction; she does not help to keep the most basic principles of natural law but rather to pervert them, and Christianity with them.
This is where one of the most astonishing traits of modern societies come in: pressure to murder. The young girl in question will be, more often than not, be advised by her own mother – let alone by her own girlfriends – to get rid of the problem. The basic principles which one century ago would have helped a young woman, difficult as her position was, to do what is right have now been perverted to such an extent that these mothers or girlfriends would not hesitate in claiming vaguely “Christian” principles to support their suggestion: what is such a life worth, would one ask; would it not be better that this child would be born in five or ten years time, would another one say as if lives were interchangeable; does she have the right to give birth to a child condemned to a life of deprivation, would a third one reason without asking herself what the child in question, if asked, would answer.
In countries like the UK, this kind of pressure can be really strong. A lethal mixture of forgetfulness for basic Christian principles, neglect of common humanity and staggering abuse of fake goodism (I have listed some examples above; the Nazis reasoned in the same way about euthanasia) have brought us to the point that people can suggest abortion to their own daughters and best friends without feeling more than a passing discomfort, soon cauterised with the above mentioned excuses.
The pressure increases with the push to legislation in favour of euthanasia, as it stands to reason that once it is allowed to contemplate putting old people in the (of course, environmentally friendly) bin, it must be even more so allowed to do the same with the unborn. In the end, if one can put to sleep old Aunt Agatha (Yes, I love P.G. Wodehouse!) in order that she does not “suffer”, how more legitimate will it be to put to sleep an unborn child, whom no one has ever called “aunt”, let alone with her own name?
And talking of “allowing”, isn’t the biggest element of pressure the fact itself that abortion in itself is not – within huge boundaries – a criminal offence anymore? How can we expect that when the legislator says “you can do it”, there will be many people saying to themselves “I can’t do it”? The very fact that abortion is not a criminal offence must be a great inducement to abortion to all those who find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, particularly if young and unwed. I do not know how many girls can honestly say “even if it was allowed, I would never have an abortion”. Many certainly can, but many others…
What I do know is that if for abortion there were 20 years of jail and the stigma of having murdered one’s own child, many more young women would be helped to make the right choice. Pressure again, but of the right kind.
Do not believe the tales of the abortionists trying sell you the legend of untold mass murders, occurring in dark garages with the help of knitting needles, or coat hangers. Utter bollocks, as first of all premarital sex was by far less spread than today, and secondly the use of such practices would have led to a huge number of deaths among young women and among countless mothers, a mass involuntary suicide of which there is no historical record.
I seriously wonder how many women died in the UK of the knitting needle in, say, 1952, and how many die of perfectly legal abortions in 2012.
We live in a country where the legislator creates pressure to the homicide of the unborn, and this diabolical legislation in turn corrupts entire sectors of the country; then wise people have always known that the laws of one generation are the morality of the next one.
Still: in a country where the dominant ecclesial community is barely recognisable from the Muppet Show, can we be so surprised?
Lucio Magri was an Italian journalist and politician. A smart and eloquent guy, you would wonder how he could be a Communist. He was, of course, not your friend-of-the-workers commie, but rather one of those at-ease-with-the-rich commie, who could be very critical of the “real communism” because he felt so good talking of his own, imaginary brand of it.
Lucio Magri went to Switzerland to commit suicide. His commie ideology not contemplating even the possibility of the existence of God, he thought it fitting to dispose of himself like you do with an old TV set.He was so depressed, some say, after his wife’s death. He was so depressed, other say, after seeing the ruinous fall of everything Communist. He was such a communist, say I, that is: an idiot to the last. Although in his case you may say, a well-spoken and well-dressed idiot.
Lucio Magri is now, with a very high degree of probability, in Hell. It is fitting to say this because the usual good-ism does not help much in front of a planned and clinically executed project of getting rid of oneself. Except, of course, one can’t get rid of himself, ever. If Hell exists – and it does; Jesus said so; Magri might have been aware of His existence, methinks – then Lucio Magri is very, very probably there.
He is – very probably – there because he allowed his stupid ideology to, literally, eat him alive. He is there because he allowed his soul to be polluted with a false ideology at the point of not caring even for the possibility that, in the same way as he had been spectacularly wrong all his life about communism, he might be spectacularly wrong about God’s existence, too.
Lucio Magri was, for a 79 years old, a healthy man. He wasn’t suffering of some painful disease, and didn’t suffer of some slowly advancing disease like dementia; no, he was one of those healthy old men we fortunately see more and more often around us. What killed him was the emptiness he carried inside, the refusal to accept he might have been utterly and completely wrong, the ruthless disregard for human life that is such a typical trait of Communists the world over.
Lucio Magri willingly, if not consciously, chose Hell. Unless for some strange miracle and extraordinary feat of his guardian angel – poor one, how he must have suffered – he found the strenght, in his last seconds, to deny all his life and ideology and repent, he is most assuredly in Hell and this is what became of the well-spoken, well-dressed, pleasant armchair revolutionary.
Let this be a cautionary tale. Communism is of the devil, and those who believe in Communism and do not repent will get to him in the end.
We live, as you all know, in “strange and disturbing times”. Christianity is challenged all over the West and whilst in the United States the fight to take back our Christian values already rages, in old and tired Europe the attitude is rather one of resignation, ignorance, and apathy. This has in part to do with the demographics (every European travelling to a big city in the United States would, I think, soon notice the difference; it is like being in a small European university city like Cambridge, or Tuebingen), but in greater measure with the fact that whilst in the United States the religious feeling has continued to play a big part in people’s daily lives, in Europe it has been allowed (not least, by the Catholic clergy) to be considered like a beautiful piece of art you put on a shelf and look at, with mild satisfaction, every now and then.
Moreover, at times it seems that everything is going from bad to worse. With the abortion industry now surpassing Hitler’s wildest dreams of extermination and Nazi thinking now spreading all over Europe in other matters – you know how the 1939 German Euthanasia law called it? Gnadentod, which means “merciful death” or “death out of mercy”. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…. – we are now confronted with repeated calls for euthanasia laws (out of mercy, of course; like old Adolf did…) and, it goes without saying, with a delirious fashion for the toleration of everything that is sexually deviant, provided that the “no rules rule” is applied to everyone else.
My comment box – and not only mine – is, as a result, at times used to post comments reflecting this atmosphere; comments in which resignation, desperation, expectation of the worse, or even a clear “end of the world” mood is reflected. This is not only bad for the individual concerned – provided the individual concerned doesn’t draw a strange pleasure from being a prophet of misfortune; which I sometimes suspect – but, more relevantly, it is bad for the cause. Therefore, your humble correspondent wants to try to give a different – nay, the opposite – perspective.
1. If you think that we live in exceptionally difficult times, think again. Only in the last century, Nazism and Communism have done their worst to obliterate Christianity. Not only entire countries, but half the European continent have contracted a cancerous disease which took decades to eradicate. Countless priests and laymen have been persecuted, thrown in re-education camps, died tormented by their torturers and forgotten by the world. More than 2500 priests landed only in Dachau, the concentration camp in Germany, and more than 1000 never returned.
Do you want an “end of the world”-feeling? Try France during the Terror.
Mind, those times could come back sooner than you think if we allow the liberal terror regime to set foot in Christian countries. But we are not there. By far not.
2. Empires have crushed. The Church has remained. The Church has a promise of indefectibility. It will never, ever go down. Yes, Christianity might be completely wiped out in your country, but no one will ever succeed in wiping out Christianity. No Country, no Empire, no army can say the same. The alleged thousand-years Reich literally went down in flames in twelve years, and even Communism’s great moment in history was no longer than the Kingdom of Jerusalem’s. Nothing that is made by man escapes this rule of rise and fall; not the extremely mighty (but rather short-lived) Assyrian empire, not the British Raj, not even the greatest of all political wonders ever devised, the Roman Empire. The Church, and only the Church, will always stand, in the middle of crushing worlds, seeing Empires become dust. Therefore, don’t be upset when the friends of abortion, euthanasia or sexual deviancy squeak their little slogans. The rat trap awaits them already. They are like little hamsters thinking that by desperately running in their little stupid wheel they will change human nature, or defeat Christianity. Fools.
3. There was no age without fight. A golden age in which Christianity wasn’t challenged has, in fact, never existed. Even in times which seem now to us dominated by an iron Christian orthodoxy, challenges were everywhere; the only difference is that in past times the defence of Christian values was taken seriously, whereas today there are people, even among the clergy, ashamed of what once was considered “sacred” (yes: the Inquisition!). From the Cathars to the Hussites, from the Lollards to the Waldensians, heresies were present – and were a real threat – even in those most Christian of times. There’s no age without fight, or without dangers. Christ came with a sword, not with a cocktail. Similarly, there has been almost no age without its own prophets of misfortune, and its own army of people thinking that the end must be near because things are oh so very bad…… Call me cynic, but to me “the end is near” is on the same plane as “we are soon going to run out of oil” and “the weather ain’t what it used to be”.
4. Things do change for the better. It is a legend that once something has been corrupted, there is no way back. In fact, the pendulum always swings, given time, the other way. The French Revolution wanted to wipe out Catholicism from France, but after just a few years Napoleon was allowing her to rebuild her structures again. The once ferociously persecuted Catholic Church has now millions of followers in the United Kingdom. Poland and Hungary, once prey of the communist beast, are now so Christian that they can be of example for every other country on the planet. The very worldy eighteen century was followed by the beautifully spiritual nineteen century, the corruption of the Church during the early Sixteen century was the starting point for the beautiful, energetic Counter-Reformation. The examples are endless. Things do get reversed.
5. It is our duty to fight the good fight. Instead of moaning for the last initiative of the cretins most recently blinded by Satan, reflect that this is one of the ways our generation – like every generation before us – has been given to escape Hell and, one day, merit Heaven. Be a brave soldier. Know that in the end your side will be victorious; not in your lifetime perhaps, not in your country perhaps; but victorious nevertheless. No soldier, no Communist party officer, no Pol Pot follower ever had such a solid reassurance of this as you do. Bask in this feeling, and draw energy by it. By all the anger that the enemies of Christianity cause to you – I know something of that, being of unhealthily emotional nature even for the Italian standard myself – never lose sight of the big picture. We must get rid of this effeminate mentality by which we get persecuted and react by showing how very meek we are, all the while basking in our cowardice and calling our submission to the pagans and infidels “Christian”. Submission, my aunt. Take the sword that Christ offers you, and fight the good fight. With your relatives, with your friends, with your colleagues, don’t be tired of defending our values; is this not what perverts, post-nazis and now even atheists do all the time? Be prudent, but be clear. Carry your faith written in your forehead, and show it with visible signs of devotion. Even little things count; no sign of the cross made when you walk past a church goes unnoticed; seldom by passers-by, and never by the Blessed Virgin. Look at how great saints like St Francis and Padre Pio were extremely meek in their interior attitude, but at all times tireless warriors of the faith.
et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Don’t be a pussycat. Be a brave Christian.
Browsing around the Internet in search of reactions to Universae Ecclesiae, I was once again struck by a very clear phenomenon: the absolute, stunning, annihilating prevalence of Conservative Catholics in the blogosphere. Their dominance is now so marked, that one is not even surprised at finding one conservative blog after the other anymore; it is more so, that this is now so natural and so expected, that the chance encounter with a liberal blog would have been – if I had had such encounter – a rather shocking experience.
This reflection should make us proud (I mean with “us” not only the cohorts of bloggers, but the legions of readers who, with their contributions and encouragements, make the entire world of Catholic blogging so interesting and instructive), if it weren’t the case that our existence is, in fact, very bad news.
It is a common fact that people don’t talk much of shared ideas or common values. There are no debates about the influence of pedophilia on society, because there is nothing much to debate. Similarly, there are – after the communist madness shot itself in the genitals – no discussion anymore about whether private property be a theft, and the like. Shared values are, by and large, shared silently.
Similarly, if in the Italy of sixty years ago you would have started a debate about whether it be good to abort or to practice euthanasia, the reaction would have been a non-discussion for the evident unworthiness of the proposer, it being generally understood and universally accepted that legalised abortion and euthanasia were a distinctive trait of the Nazi regime, and such things unthinkable in a Christian and halfway decent society.
And this is the entire point. Western societies have become so indecent, so accepting of typical Nazi values, that what two generations ago would have caused open mockery or ironic commiseration, nowadays causes savage discussions. The same goes for Catholic issues, with your typical aunt of, say, 1942 smilingly dismissing as in great need of rest whoever would have told her that two generations later, millions of words would have been written about the necessity of …….. kneeling before Communion.
Our very existence is, therefore, bad news, because our existence is the clear result of the most elementary common sense having been thrown to the dogs by the senseless pot-generation of the Sixties; a generation still spreading its poison in the form of senior clergymen and senior politicians, roaming throughout the world and seeking the ruin of souls to this very day.
As it is now, hundreds of millions of Catholics can’t remember the last time their bishop has said anything meaningful against abortion or divorce; they can’t, actually, not remember when their bishop has said anything meaningful at all, vague blathering about social justice and environ-mental issues obviously not qualifying. It’s not surprising that such faithful spend part of their evening reading Catholic blogs.
If, on the other hand, the bishops were firing daily from all cannons against modern abominations and the desertion of Christian values, Catholics wouldn’t be here in the evening reading what other Catholics think; you yourself, dear reader, would just be doing something else, needing this blog no more than you need to be informed about pedophilia, or incest, or “proletarian expropriations”. Shared values are taken for granted, and one feels comfortable in the very fact that they are no object for discussion (think about a world where vast masses think that pedophilia is all right: appalling, right?).
The day the Catholic clergy starts doing its job properly and assertively, Catholic blogging will stop being a phenomenon so vast as to even attract the attention of the Vatican. That day, million of fathers and husbands will start dedicating more time to their wives or domestic occupation and less to following endless discussion on the Internet. That day, Catholic blogging will become a far more subdued activity, because the nourishment and instruction the reader seek on the net is just there, available and propagated from the friendly priest near them, as it should have been all the time.
I firmly believe that the Liturgy is the Church. You can’t corrupt the Liturgy without corrupting the Church, and you can’t improve the Liturgy without improving the Church.
Let us hope that Universae Ecclesiae will grow to become an important step toward the end of the massive phenomenon called “Catholic blogging”.
Interesting article on LifeSiteNews about Graf Clemens Von Galen, Bishop of Muenster, Germany.
Galen had the gut of being openly critical of Hitler’s euthanasia plans (oh, how history repeats itself…) in a time when thousands of Catholic priests were already toiling and dying in concentration camps (a circumstance, this, which is never remembered by the anti-Catholic nutcases); and in wartime to boot, when he could have been liquidated even more easily than in peace time. The claim that he expected martyrdom is, for everyone who knows a bit about Nazi Germany, completely realistic.
It didn’t happen. This time, Hitler felt that he couldn’t afford an open confrontation with a high prelate and backed down in the way he generally used to do it (that is: making in a hidden way what he wouldn’t consider prudent to do in an open one).
I have written already about the pathetic show of the UK bishops (and not only of the UK ones) about abortion. This courageous man of God provides a beautiful contrast to their behaviour.
Mind, though: I am not asking from our Bishops for martyrdom, or concentration camp. But if only two generations ago, amidst the most terrifying of circumstances, bishops had the courage to say the Truth out loud, I don’t think it is too much to ask that a tiny fraction of this courage be found in today’s Western Europe, with no martyrdom or concentration camps in sight.
Interesting video from Michael Voris about the time Catholics spend… being Catholic.
Voris’ argument is that outside of church, most of the time is spent immersed in the worldly atmosphere around us; in doing this, many people stop being Catholic at every practical level and simply accept that the world around us has become un-Christian to a shocking extent. This not only makes the role of the Catholic ineffectual (or not so effectual) in the world around him, but makes it more probable that the worldly society around him will slowly absorb him and become the normal, legitimate world, opposed to which the 50 minutes at Mass become a short immersion in a parallel universe without any real relevance to our lives.
The matter is less banal that it might appear, because the list of issues about which Catholics are simply silent has grown to astonishing proportions. Divorce, contraception, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexual perversions, euthanasia and all other behaviour which our ancestors would have considered unthinkable are now tolerated by Catholics with the same indifferent attitude with which rain and cold are accepted, and I don’t want to think how many Catholics are more angry for the queues on the M25 than about abortion.
Yes, most churchgoers are at some level aware that they are against abortion, but this is far from becoming concrete action: from speaking out loud with friends and family, to taking this into consideration when voting, to caring that one’s own children grow up with the right moral values.
Others are more acutely aware of the evils of present times but seem content to keep their Christian practice private, happily (and conveniently) renouncing to make the Truth heard whenever reasonably practicable. No fuss, no anger, no loss of popularity. A bit too easy, says Voris.
Left alone, those 50 minutes are not enough to ensure Catholic values within the family, let alone to make a more Catholic world. Voris’ appeal is, therefore, important in that it reminds the Catholic that his mission begins when he goes out of church, rather than remaining confined to church attendance.
Don’t be a fanatic, but don’t be a coward. Remember that you’re a Catholic and that you are requested to beat witness of the Catholic Truth. Remember your responsibility toward your family and children and as a friend, a colleague, a voter.
Nutcases, perverts and cruel people of all kinds have long understood that the best way to get their way through the barrier of societal disapprobation is to talk of their relevant cruelty or crime or abomination in terms of “rights”. No, make it “human rights”, it sounds so much better….
As a consequence, the mother wanting to kill her baby (provided she recognises him explicitly as such) will talk of murder in terms of her right to choose; sodomites will see their practices as something to which they are simply entitled; paedophiles will claim for themselves the right to sleep with consenting minors, incestouos couples will talk of their “right to love”, and so on.
It seems that nowadays everyone thinks that he has the right to do everything. I am waiting for the day where maniacs (of which there is no scarcity) will claim the right to self-maim themselves or to allow one person to maim and torture another to death. This has happened in Germany some years ago and I am not the one to withhold from you the information that the chaps in questions were both homosexuals. This last episode is very handy, because it is difficult to recognise every appreciable difference between one or two perverts weary of living (both “adults and vaccinated”, as they say in Italy) and desirous to exercise their “right to die” when and in the way they see fit and the new entry among the “right to do everything”-crowd, the Healthcare Professionals For Change.
This group (which Sky defines as “influential” without telling us why) is composed of “doctors and nurses” in favour of assisted suicide. The groups should have called itself “Death Doctors and Nurses” I’d have said, but “change” is sooo Obama…
The group wants to challenge the opinion of the vast majority of doctors and nurses in the UK, who are firmly opposed to any form of assisted suicide. “There is not a single Royal College or significant medical organisation in this country that backs the legalisation of assisted suicide or euthanasia”, says “Care, Not Killing” and in fact if one reflects that in the London area it becomes increasing more difficult to get an abortion due to the growing number of doctors refusing to murder babies in the womb one understands that the claim is rather credible and that these latest nutcases truly represent a tiny minority of health professionals.
Personally, if I were in a hospital with an incurable disease I would insist on NOT having any of these doctors and nurses dealing with me.
We all know what good intentioned nazi doctors were capable of.
Those reading conservative Catholic blogs are surely already fed up with the sugary concept of “chariteeee” promoted by liberals who consider orthodox Christians people full of hatred. Let me explain why they are both right.
First of all, some definitions: the Catholic Encyclopedia defines hatred as
a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other.
This is rather easy. It becomes more interesting when you read that hatred comes in two forms:
One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.
The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.
Now this is already more intriguing as one can clearly see, in the first form, the hatred coming from the scandal, the blasphemy, the abomination, the sheer godlessness of a person. The Latin definition of the first hatred, “hatred of the abomination”, actually says it all.
Even more interesting it becomes when we read that:
The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law.
It is clear here that, provided one does not take the “hate of the abomination” as an excuse to hate the person, this kind of hatred is not only not a sin, but is virtuous. You are supposed to hate the person having particularly odious traits inasmuch as he has them. You hate so-and-so because he is a blasphemer and in so doing you are even being good.
This reinforces me in a suspicion that I always had: that those unable to feel hatred for what is seriously wrong either do not have any real feeling for what is wrong or want to be free to commit it without being, as they love to say, “judged”. Conversely, people like Mother Teresa and Padre Pio – extremely pious by any standard – were noted for their very keen hatred of abominations.
But it gets even more interesting.
One may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people.
This doesn’t need any commentary. We all have such people in mind.
We must hate heresy; we must hate willed and celebrated scandal; we must hate the undermining of Catholic values masked as Catholicism. It is not sinful if we do, actually the contrary is true. It is evil if we let it happen because we want to feel “tolerant” (that is: never uncomfortable and/or with all options open) and call our cowardice and love of a quiet living “chariteeeeee”.
In better times – when Doctrine was properly taught – people knew about the ways to be accessory to another person’s sin. “Consent ” and “silence” are two of them. This should give all those who are, say, in favour of abortion but feel fine because they haven’t aborted themselves, or are in favour of euthanasia but say they wouldn’t make use of it themselves, a lot to think about.