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.