The case of the 19-years old German woman raped and murdered makes big waves again in Germany after a suspect was arrested. The suspect is a 17 years old Afghan who entered the Country illegally, then filed asylum request as “unaccompanied minor”. A precedent for violence the Police hushed up. The national (publicly owned) television refusing to report because the news is apparent only of “regional” relevance. As a Tweet in German says, the blood of this young woman is on Merkel’s hands.
However, is it only on Merkel’s hands? I doubt it.
I read from other sources that the victim was helping in one of those structures where young Afghan would-be rapists are able to select potential victims. I have also read she was the daughter of a EU functionary. None of this might be true, but it certainly is credible, as we have seen in several other cases that women were raped by the same mongrels they were “helping to integrate”.
Stupidity has a price. Individually as well as collectively.
Once again, we see what happens when the brains are switched off and feel-good feeling are the only thing that count. Sowing and reaping come to mind.
Keep going this way, Germany. Keep having your daughters raped and murdered. One day, you will recover sanity.
Via Rorate, the interview of the Coptic-orthodox “General Bishop” for Germany.
The words are clear enough, but note that the good man feels the need to say “Ich bin kein Hassprediger”, “I am not a preacher of hate”. He knows perfectly well that in a country like Germany, the Nazi Nannies might well jump at his throat for simply expressing a perfectly legitimate opinion, and might try to involve the prosecution organs to silence the man, as already done with the late “Kreuz.net”
The game is simple: Nazi Nanny goes to the police and says “a criminal offence has occurred”. The police must occupy itself with the matter and has, in principle, no choice to discard it. Therefore, the prosecution office will be involved. Depending on the noise made on the press, the pressure will grow on both police and prosecutors to consider a certain matter worthy of real investigations. At this point, a huge reputation damage has already ensued, and the press will, once one is branded as “hate preacher”, do the rest.
The interview warning Christians of a possible persecution already contains words clearly reminding us of the more subtle persecution already in place.
The Football World Cup will be, then, decided on Sunday between Argentina and Germany; exactly as in 1986 (when Argentina won) and 1990 (when Germany did).
I will support Germany. This is clearly against my patriotic football interest, as Germany would reach the up to now lone Italy at 4 victories, with only Brasil at 5. Argentina has “only” two victories (1978 and, as mentioned, 1986), so they would still remain behind us.
Still, I think that the German squad has showed the planet how to play football, and even without the glorious day in Belo Horizonte I think they would, on the whole and from what we have seen up to now, clearly deserve to win in preference of a rather lacklustre, if at times brilliant, Argentina. Plus, they do not tattoo themselves like savages and do not carry hair like they are the Mao-Mao.
Coincidentally, this match also… matches the Countries of the Pontiff Emeritus and the Pope (I don’t like at all the “two Popes” rhetoric; one is Pope; the other was, and keeps a title, like, say, every former “Primo Ministro” or “Presidente della Repubblica” in Italy).
I think of the strange coincidence of this (which amplifies the other one: Argentina against Switzerland, with the cartoons with the Pope on one side and his Swiss Guards on the other…), and would like to point out two things: one sporty, and one religious.
1. The Germans would never, ever boast of a World Championship won with an unfair and unsporting behaviour, and call it “the hand of God”. Never, ever. But then again I look at Bergoglio, who thinks Jesus deceived his disciples, and understand how he, and too many of them, think.
2. If Germany wins, Benedict will probably stay silent, or will – like the kind of gentle, self-effacing person he is – express a word or two of satisfaction only if really pressed by the media.
If Argentina wins, I shudder at the thought of what might happen: from the Pope dressed in footballer attire, to an Argentine trikot on the main altar of Santa Maria Maggiore, to a deluge of “selfies”, to improvised and not-entirely-sober video messages to the Argentinian people, nothing can be said to be below the abysmally low level of this man.
Let’s support Germany, then.
If not for love of their football, at least for fear of the “selfies”.
And it came to pass that only six days before the General Elections in Germany – and only one day after the very important regional elections in Bavaria, which was a great disappointment to them – the Greens and their head candidate Juergen Trittin are in the middle of a storm.
It turns out Mr Trittin supported himself the Green Party's electoral programme for the local elections in 1981, which called for the decriminalisation of at least some “non violent” sexual relationships between children and adults. It was apparently only in 1989 that such calls disappeared from the green party's agenda.
Yours truly would like to – beside not hiding from you his satisfaction at the events – make a couple of considerations.
1. Mr Trittin says he is sorry he has not done enough against this objective of his party, with which he always felt “uncomfortable”. I wonder if in all these years he showed the Church the same kind of understanding he now asks for himself and his political affiliates.
2. Funnily enough, there is now vague talk of the Green Party asked to pay to those organisations caring for the victims of pedophilia. I do not have the details, nor do I know how the legal frame for this is in Germany; but boy, I do hope that they are made to pay for decades, are criminalised as a category, and their name is never mentioned by the press without reference of their support for pedophilia. Do to them what they have done to the Church, say I.
Some tries now to take refuge in “the times”. Yes, they say, we supported such demands and calls, but “those were the times”. It is not clear to me why a politician who supported perversion in perverted times should feel authorised to tell us what is right and wrong a couple of decades later. It is obvious that such people – including Trittin – should look for their vocation elsewhere: gardening, say, or collecting stamps. There is such a disgusting entitlement mentality in saying to us we should cope with whatever past these people have, as if the doctor had prescribed to have a Juergen Trittin in politics at the highest level. Besides, “those were the times” is never heard when a bishop is accused to have been too naive or too lenient with his own priest. I am not justifying the bishop here, at all. I am saying that the leftist politician should not get any discount due to “the times”.
3. Lastly, allow me to make a prediction. These arrogant Greens and assorted liberal politicians who prostituted themselves to the pedophile mentality of past times are the same kind of people who today prostitute themselves to the lobby of the sodomites. In twenty or thirty years' time, they will tell us that they “deeply regret” having supported perversion, and that “the times” did not allow them to see reason, or they – Trittin's pathetic excuse – did not “oppose” the ideology as they should have, though they felt “uncomfortable”.
I truly hope this scandal leads to the destruction of a couple of ill-gained political careers – starting with Mr Trittin's – and that this becomes a first alarm bell to all those who continue to support sexual perversion, only of a different kind from pedophilia.
Make no mistake, if the “uncomfortable” Trittin had been told in 1981 that the party programme on sex with children would one day be seen as gravely perverted, he would have laughed, pointing out to the enlightened times that have taken the place of old Christian bigotry and the irreversibility of the evolution process now started and helped by the progressive Green Party. “You can't put the clock back”, and all that jazz.
The clock was, in fact, put back, or better said the madness was stopped. One day, it will happen in the matter of sodomy, too. I hope it will be soon enough, and hard enough, to destroy the careers of all those who have prostituted themselves to Satan for the sake of their own political advantage.
This story is very young, and it is for me difficult to see whether it will develop in the Green Sledgehammer the enormity of the facts justifies, or whether it will (more probably, I am afraid) rapidly disappear once the elections are over. On the one hand, it is alarming the core facts were already known and have been brewing for some time before making the national headlines in this way; on the other hand, Germany is possibly still healing from their liberal pedophile madness of the Eighties, and at some point the awareness must reach the level where head rolls. There are social processes that grow slowly for many years (whether rightly or wrongly) and then suddenly develop their own dynamic and jump at the centre of the attention in a relatively short time. The new religion of global warming is, I think, a good example.
Let's enjoy this for now, and let us hope this matter teaches a couple of professional electoral prostitutes that their satanic support for perversion today can catch up with them not only in years, but even in decades.
If we had a halfway decent clergy rather than too many little Bergoglios, this message – “we are going to try to demolish every politician who supports sodomy, even if it should take two generations to do so” – would be sent from the pulpits every week, and would have the little prostitutes trembling and wetting their trousers in no time.
Alas, we live in time when to criticise is allegedly a crime. This mentality, too, will come back to haunt its supporters one day, or the day they die.
It is a mystery to me how a person might think he is not a Catholic anymore because he refuses to pay a mafia-like monetary contribution (truly redolent of the Sicilian pizzo) to the local Church. Still, I do not come from the German-speaking world, where people tend, erm, to be a bit more rigid.
Now a Swiss citizen (a true Catholic, but fed up with the local mafia) decided to stop paying the Kirchensteuer and – obviously – remain a Catholic. Unsurprisingly, the local hierarchy was not persuaded baptism and orthodoxy are enough: if you don’t pay the pizzo to us, they said to her, you aren’t Catholic anymore. Kapiert?
A ten-year legal war ensued, at the end of which the local church spectacularly lost. The reason given by the judges is very simple: no religious organisation can impose the membership to a purely worldly structure (or I would say: the payment of a contribution to an administrative apparatus) as a condition for an individual to be a member of that religion; better said, it cannot impose the membership to the administrative apparatus to those Catholics who do not refuse the membership to the religion, but merely the payment to the apparatus.
To make a comparison, it is as if Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols would say to you “either you pay me money or you aren’t a Catholic anymore; and I don’t care if you are a perfectly orthodox baptised Catholic who doesn’t object to being a Catholic, but merely object to giving money for me to squander. Either you pay, or you aren’t Catholic”.
Madness, of course, for an Italian or an Englishman – and so un-Catholic, substituting Christian charity for a mafia-exercise in more than vague odour of simony – but unfortunately a serious problem for many Catholics in the German-speaking area, accustomed for several generations now to identify the paying of the tax with the belonging to the religion.
As a result of the decision, the membership to the Catholic Church is now formally separated from the support to the administrative apparatus through the Kirchensteuer. Therefore, every Swiss Catholic can refuse to pay the pizzo (the same way you and I don’t pay it) in the full knowledge of remaining as much a member of the Church as you and I are.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not doubt the lady is a good Catholic who makes her charitable contributions for the welfare of the (Catholic) world. But as everywhere on the planet outside of German-speaking countries, she will be able to:
a) choose herself how much she wants to freely give (it’s called charity; a concept apparently unknown to Swiss bishops), and
b) choose herself to whom she wants to give her money, rather than feeling obliged to feed a corrupt, more or less heretical apparatus of very well-fed cowards prostituting themselves to the mood of the paying mob.
This is, in the long-term, a deadly blow for the Kirchensteuer, a system clearly based on the concept of automatic and obligatory payment and which cannot survive in its present form once the payment automatism is eliminated.
Kudos to the Swiss judges, and let us hope some people start to open their eyes even in Germany. It is now absolutely evident the Kirchensteuer is the main reason why the Church in Germany is so scandalously on the side of the lapsed ( but largely still Kirchensteuer-paying) Catholics, as the local clergy prostitute themselves to the mob in order to avoid their exit from the Kirchensteuer-system. It is better for this system to die, and for the Church to stop the addiction to the huge stream of money it causes, than to see this endless procession of priests, bishops and cardinals utterly selling themselves to people with no respect for Catholic truth, but whose money they want.
This is a small step in this direction. No doubt, the future will bring others. To a Catholic from outside the German-speaking area, the very concept one wouldn’t be a Catholic if one doesn’t pay a tax is simply absurd.
If you want to make your worst to let your child grow with insecurities about his natural tendencies, you might consider moving to Sweden and sending him to Egalia, the taxpayer-funded preschool recently opened in Sweden.
At Egalia, every effort will be made to let your little boy grow up as a homosexual, and your little girl as a lesbian. These attempts will – nature being what it is – mostly fail, but the indoctrination of young minds and their introduction to sexual perversion from the tenderest age will not fail to show some effect anyway; moreover, even when you can’t ruin a child you can still hope to leave him with some more or less permanent damage.
The motivation for such exercise (which takes place, let us remember, in one of the most de-Christianised Countries on Earth) is the assumption that little boys get an “unfair advantage”, and the way to deal with that is to…. try to transform as many little boys into little girls, and vice versa. This is pure feminazism: the combination of a perverted ideology with mass human experiment and relentless child indoctrination. Dr Goebbels would be proud.
Therefore, boys and girls are not allowed to refer to each other using “gender stereotyping” words, like, erm, “boy” or “girl”. They are, in fact, asked to forget what they are, lest this should help them to grow in a natural (and therefore: gender-stereotyping) way. In their gender-neutral world there are, therefore, only “friends”. Similarly, they will not be put in contact with diseducational, proto-Fascist, chauvinistic literature aimed at consolidating the male supremacy like, erm, “Cinderella” or “Snow White”. Instead, they’ll be put in contact with, say, a couple of male giraffes who are sad because they cannot have a son, until they adopt a crocodile.
My observations on this – controversial even in Sweden, which is something you didn’t think possible – human experiment are as follows:
1) I can’t avoid seeing in this not only an attack to sexual normality, but a direct attack to Christianity. This is the same as to say that Sweden must become as much like Sodom as early perversion of children allows. The fact is seen, of course, as positive.
2) It never ceases to amaze me how feminists always have the men’s world as the exclusive metre of “success”, and “advantage”. That boys can’t become mothers simply escapes them. That, therefore, girls have an awful lot of skills more or less directly related to this fundamental difference, whilst boys have an awful lot of skills more or less directly related to their own set of biological possibilities, is also blissfully ignored. In this way, being a woman is completely discounted, and the only metre of success is what a man can achieve. This is the thinking of a woman who would like to be a man, tries to compete with them, fails, and whines. Make no mistake, feminism has in itself the germs of lesbianism. Or tell me how many women past post-pubescence do you know who are authentically feminine, and authentically feminist.
3) This kind of experiment has already been tried in Germany, starting from the Sixties. In only one generation, this has made of Germany the country with the highest percentage of homosexuals and lesbians in Europe (this is now I saying it, but the German Education Ministry when announcing the change of policy). Fortunately, Germany still being (in part) a Christian country this has been recognised as a problem and last time I looked (2004) a complete reversal of policy had been announced, with the explicit intent of encouraging boys to be boys, and girls to be girls. I can’t avoid the suspicion that some people in Sweden are well aware of the result of the German human experiments – alas, this is a tradition over there; the idea that human being are changeable has survived Nazism, or rather has transformed itself in a kind of politically correct kind of Nazism – but other than the Germans, they desire their effects.
4) It is a very easy prediction that whilst these feminazis (of both sexes) will succeed in perverting a relatively small number of children, most children will grow up happily defying every attempt of gender engineering: the boys happily growing into more or less stereotypical men and the girls into more or less stereotypical women. Which is, by the way, what has happened in Germany. In thirty or forty years’ time, these old PC teachers, now already with one foot in that hell they don’t believe in, will look with dismay at the result of their experiments and have to admit that it’s not easy to fight against human nature.
Some of them will then, no doubt, start to demand the castration of vast numbers of men, in order to achieve gender equality.
Accompanied by the tale with the castrated male giraffe.
It would appear that a new consistory is rather probable within the end of the year.
This is not entirely surprising as the vacancies are now numerous. By the end of the year there will be the possibility of appointing 15 Cardinals (if Pope Benedict wants to remain by the number of 120 elettori, that is). Now, this is at least one eighth of the next conclave, probably more – due to the system which sees Cardinals continuously losing electorate – and it is clear enough that every consistory can, in and of itself, radically change the situation at the next Conclave.
Pope Benedict is still in rather good health, but at 84 and with a past of heart problems I’m sure he is not planning for a reign of JP II’s duration. It is therefore rather important that this consistory injects the right energies into the next conclave.
Much is at stake, as both Summorum Pontificum and the relationship with the SSPX and the other traditionalist groups could be seriously compromised in case the next conclave results in a serious mistake. On the other hand, a careful but noticeable shifting of the centre of gravity towards the right wing would give everyone the serenity necessary for long-term hopes.
Ideally – if you ask me – Pope Benedict would appoint only one or two of the liberals to appease them (Nichols’ appointment is this time, alas, very probable) and choose for all other places men of undoubted liturgical and theological orthodoxy, possibly rather young so that they stay around for a long time.
I wish the Holy Father a long and healthy reign of course, but the demographic reality is what it is and it must be clear to us that this might be the last consistory of this pontificate.
Ad multos annos, Papa! But please, please conservative appointments!
You understand that conservative Catholicism is on the rise when you read news like this one.
There was a liberal Catholic parish in Berkeley, California (yes, that Berkeley). Their “social activities” included not only interfaith meetings (we know what kind of ecumenism is that, particularly coming from the lefties), but anti-war protests to boot. You can imagine from this the rest of the parish life.
Two years ago a new priest arrives, Fr Direen, and he is not a retiring wallflower. The parish council is disbanded (shock!), the finance council too (Horror!), even their spanish counterpart, the Consejo Latino *, meets the same destiny (Racism! Fascism!). Furthermore, the “meeting space” is put to some use with the installation of a religious gift store (also good for personal devotion and piety, and an excellent way to raise funds), and Fr Direen obtains the removal of a “respected” (read: very liberal) priest.
This is not all: the parish website now links to “courage” and other conservative, orthodox Catholic organisations. This is, clearly, too much.
Therefore, when Bishop Cordileone arrived to celebrate Mass, there was the predictable group of hippies ready to protest. Fat chance they have, as Cordileone is pretty much of a tough guy.
It is now clear that Catholic restoration is now advancing in the very heartland of liberal madness.
One needs news like this one, every now and then. They allow him to keep his sight on the big picture.
* In Europe, we have official languages everywhere. One of the reasons why we have them is to make clear that the immigrants must adopt the ways of the locals. I live in England and speak – and work, and deal – in English. When I lived in Germany, I did the same in German.
The concept should be introduced, methinks, to the Unites States.
The Daily Telegraph (you will remember, this is the newspaper which calls itself “conservative” but calls homosexuals and sodomites “gay” and puts obscene photos of homos kissing on their internet page, for every child to see) gives us just another example of how not to be a journalist.
As you can see in the link, there are several anti-Catholic messages in this article:
1) the reference to the Nazi-built stadium. Now, not even the “Telegraph”‘s most astonishingly leftist journalist would, I hope, suggest that all public buildings and structures erected by the Nazis (and an awful lot of them there were; if you ask me, mostly extremely beautiful; many survived the war) be destroyed because hey, “they were built by the Nazis”. If this is a logical statement (which it is), it follows that the Olympic Stadium is simply… the Olympic stadium and the fact that it was built by Hitler is, subsequently, neither here nor there. Clearly, though, the desire to put the Pope in contact with whatever smell of Nazism could be found was clearly irresistible.
2) The journalist is good enough to mention the fact that Pope Benedict’s membership of the Hitlerjugend was compulsory, but one wonders what relevance the Pope being drafted (that’s just what it was: you got drafted and you became a member of the Hitlerjugend, there was no other organisation where you could have landed) as millions of Germans of his age has to his travelling to Germany. Once again, the desire to put the Pope in contact with whatever smell of Nazism could be found was clearly irresistible.
3) Just in case you didn’t get the message, among the hundreds of articles about Pope Benedict the “Telegraph” could have linked to, what do our pink heroes choose? But of course! They choose an article with the following title: “Vatican: don’t mention the Pope’s Hitler Youth past”. Think of this, this is a historical papacy which gave us Summorum Pontificum; a visit to England is not many months old, which visit stunned the country for its success and the amount of public participation; also directly related to the British Isles, Anglicanorum Coetibus is another historical step with potentially vast long-term repercussions on the future of Anglicanism. But what do you think the “Daily Homograph” considers worthy of being “related” to the papal visit? Ah, the fact that the Vatican tries to influence journalists about the Pope’s past, of course! Once again, the desire to put the Pope in contact with whatever smell of Nazism could be found was clearly irresistible. , and here a dab of “oppressive and manipulative Vatican” is added for good measure.
4) Then there’s the matter of the Catholics “leaving the Church” in record numbers, which is clearly bollocks. What all these people do is very clearly not stop going to Mass – at least, not because they stop paying – but simply stop paying the “Kirchensteuer”, the infamous “church tax” in place in Germany and in a couple of other countries. This is a typical Protestant construct, a (voluntary but in the past, more or less socially expected) tithe paid directly from one’s wage which leaves the faithful with no control whatsoever as to how much he wants to give, and to whom. This is Castrism, not Christian charity. The result is that Germany has a clergy both extremely well off, and extremely tepidly Catholic. Why should they care? They can abandon themselves to every sort of circus and liberal tomfoolery and the money is there, guaranteed and aplenty….
The system of the “Kirchensteuer” is now clearly going down in flames, as it should. But this doesn’t mean that interest in Catholicism is diminishing, let alone that people are leaving the Church in record numbers. It just means that they are fed up with having to pay a “church tax”, which can only be good for the local church and might, who knows, force some of their priests to convert to Catholicism.
5) Dulcis in fundo, the entire article is, actually, wrong. The news here is that a big venue had been booked for the Papal visit, but this venue had to be abandoned because…. it is not big enough. This means that the attraction of the Pope is beyond the previsions, even considering that this is the travel of a German Pope to his own country.
What about, then, a headline like: “Success of Papal Visit forces change in venue”, or: “Crowds wanting to see Pope Benedict force use of Olympic Stadium”, or: “Papal visit: 40,000 places not enough for Berlin”. Note here that Berlin is historically Protestant and nowadays largely atheist, which makes the news even more noteworthy.
Well, it wasn’t to be. Something had to be found to smear the Holy Father with a dash of Nazism, and downplay the success his visit is very clearly heading to. You can’t tell your readers that this Pope awakens great sympathy even in uber-Liberal Germany so that a big stadium must be used, can you now? No, let us build the article on the “crisis of Catholicism” in Germany and let us paint the Pope with a broad Nazi brush. Let me see, what headline could we use? hmm, yes: “Pope’s Berlin Mass moved to Nazi Olympic Site” will do…
The “Daily Telegraph” is a nest of anti-Catholic hacks, in part motivated by the clear homosexuality to be found among their ranks. It is just that the newspaper being officially “conservative” doesn’t allow them to make an overt anti-Catholic and pro-homo propaganda, and more subtle messages must be sent.
Please don’t buy this rag.
From the German site Summorum Pontificum, a communique’ of the German SSPX about Universae Ecclesiae:
Two points are particularly noteworthy:
1. Zur Frage des Papstamtes
Die Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. anerkennt Papst Benedikt XVI. als rechtmäßigen Papst und als Oberhaupt der katholischen Kirche. […]
1. On the question of the Papal Office:
The Society of St. Pius X acknowledges Pope Benedict XVI as legitimately reigning Pope and as the Head of the Catholic Church. […]
It follows a clear distinction between them and the Sedevacantists. We knew that already, but I think there is a lot of confusion around.
2. Zur Frage der neuen Messe
Die Bruderschaft bestreitet nicht die Gültigkeit der neuen Messform. Wenn sie korrekt gefeiert wird – was an vielen Orten allerdings nicht mehr selbstverständlich ist – ist sie eine gültige Messfeier. […]
Again, my translation:
2. On the question of the New Mass
The Society doesn’t question the validity of the new form of Mass. When it is celebrated correctly – which in several places is not an automatic occurrence anymore – it is a valid Mass celebration […].
It follows, again, a rather convoluted explanation that the Novus Ordo be valid, but the SSPX has doubt about its “legality” or “legitimacy” or “lawfulness” (Rechtsmaessigkeit), an expression that I can’t explain to you – in my simple world, if you recognise its validity it means that you recognise the right of the Church to celebrate it – and would make a clarification of the SSPX very welcome.
Still, I find it positive that the SSPX in Germany has explicitly intervened making clear that they recognise both the Pope’s legitimacy and authority, and the validity of the New Mass. It is sad to hear incorrect or outright mendacious information about the Society and this kind of intervention is just what is required to deal with it. I wish the SSPX would intervene more often on these points, as otherwise they offer the flank to misinformation or outright calumniation.
I have already written about Bishop Athanasius Schneider here and if you read the blog post you’ll see that Bishop Schneider is not one who takes his role lightly.
Thanks to another excellent comment of Schmenz, I was alerted to this great video from the “Athanasius Contra Mundum” Blog, in which this excellent bishop speaks about communion in the hand.
Many are the interesting issues touched in this fragment of TV interview. The parts which most impressed me are the initial ones, where a young boy (being raised up in a communist regime) is shocked at being informed that in Germany Holy Communion can be received in the hand as if it was a piece of cake. More moving still is the part when the bishop remembers his mother searching for a church distributing communion on the tongue and – after failing to do so – giving in to tears. May God bless these beautiful souls and give them back one thousand times in glory what they had to endure in suffering and persecution.
Imagine for a second a persecuted Catholic family in a communist country – people ready to suffer daily humiliations and discrimination for the Lord – at seeing the Body of Christ casually distributed and superficially received (or I should say: eaten) in a way that to these poor family must have seemed a perfect absurdity and the epitome of shallow and desecrating behaviour. This was in 1973, an age when the older generation had still been properly instructed and had to witness the crumbling of a liturgical world made of reverence and sacredness.
At the same time, the perfect shock of these pious and persecuted people at what they were forced to witness gives the full measure of tragedy of the drunken years following Vatican II, an unforgivable liturgical booze-up whose after-effect is still felt within the Church.
Bishop Schneider gives hope that a new generation of bishops will put things right but at the same time exposes the betrayal of the most elementary sense of the sacred incited, permitted or tolerated by most Western bishops.
Once again, Kudos to Bishop Schneider for his beautiful and moving words. We do need more like him, but why must we go as far as Kazakhstan to hear a bishop talking with such reverence?
Here you’ll find Michael Voris’ take on the recent Mid-term elections. Apart from the very likeable, more directly political observations about Americans and Liberalism, I’d like to point out to some messages which I find extremely pertinent.
1) Voris maintains that Catholic churchgoers are, in their majority, Republicans. This is a very interesting assertion. I’d love to hear from US blog readers whether they agree with Voris’ take.
2) There is a link between the change that has occurred with the election and what is happening within the Church: liberals are kicked out whilst the conservative element irresistibly marches toward the restoration of sanity. I fully agree with this statement; it seems to me that the undercurrent is the same here, and that it does not limit itself to the Catholic world.
3) An additional bold statement is that Catholics in the pews get to vote about the restoration of orthodoxy. Not in the traditional, ballot-like way of course but in the more subtle, slower but rather effective way of choosing where to worship (and whose collection plate to frequent) or where to send the children to school. Such a practice would not be very successful in countries like Italy and Germany – where fund distribution is organised differently – but I can see it having much more bite in countries like the US, relying on private contributions for the upkeep of their religious personnel and structures.
4) Last important point to my eyes: the warning that the US hierarchy, still largely dominated by convenient cowardice about the Church teaching and the conversion of souls, must now choose whether to change course and embrace orthodoxy or be “swept away”. I fail to see where the sweeping would come from if the Pope continues to appoint half-liberal bishops to appease the local clerical communities; but there can be no doubt that what sweeping the Pope will not do, the demographics will in time do for him.
Enjoy the video!
First casualty and first headlines ahead of the visit. Cardinal Kasper, a man well-known for not being very liked (ecumenism Taliban, no friend of the Ordinariates and in general: far too left) makes some very politically incorrect observations and as a result either gets gout, or “is advised” by the doctor not to travel (must be a capricious thing, gout) or is excluded from the visit to avoid worse trouble.
Let us see his affirmations to see what is there in them:
1) The UK is “marked by a new and aggressive atheism”.
Very true. Can’t see how anyone could deny this. I hope the Holy Father will say pretty much the same thing in the next days. Unfortunately, I ‘m afraid he’ll say that in a way that does not offend anyone, that is: that does not get at the heart of the matter. Kudos to the Cardinal for having said what must be said out loud.
2) “when you land at Heathrow you think at times you have landed in a Third World country”
I don’t know about that. This is one of the biggest and busiest airports of the planet. Logistics and security must be a nightmare. Still, on the many occasions I have been there I must say that I never felt in danger, nor has anything ever been stolen, nor have I had to endure any particular discomfort not due to the exaggerated security mania of our times. Yes, I have seen cleaner airports perhaps (and more beautiful, modern ones without the “perhaps”); but “third world” seems to me vastly exaggerated.
If he compares with Fiumicino in Rome, he knows Heathrow has nothing to be ashamed of and if he compares with Frankfurt in Germany, well you should never compare with Germany…
3) BA discriminates against you when you wear a cross.
Absolutely true. BA allow their Muslim employees to wear a head scarf, but suspend their Christian ones if they wear a visible cross. Anti-Christian fanatics, period.
I am not a friend of the man. It seems to me that he incarnates if not the worst, certainly much of the bad come out of Vatican II. But I must say, this time I can’t avoid siding with him. To 66% at least.
Absolutely brilliant entry from Matthew Archbold regarding a spoof restaurant adv inviting clients to “donate a part of their body” to the restaurant and also looking for an “open-minded surgeon”.
Having reported the news, Mr. Archbold rightly reflects that a society allowing everything two adults consent to should also not have a problem in allowing cannibalism; similarly, a society allowing a mother to kill a baby in her womb shouldn’t be too much upset at allowing that same person to get rid of, say, a toe or some pounds of flesh she might desire to shed.
The reflection is more serious than it could appear. We live in a society that whilst remaining Christian in many ways and therefore reacting in an automatic way to many Christian taboos (cannibalism, incest, bestiality to name a few) has partially decided to set aside Christian thinking in some other matters (abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality come to mind). To persuade the populace to accept these perversions several arguments are used, like for example that it is a human right to behave as one pleases; that one is the owner of one’s own body or that one is not bound to adopt a Christian system of values.
Still, all these arguments also apply to cannibalism, incest and bestiality. If you take leave from Christian values when it is about homosexuality, why should you stick to them when it is about cannibalism, incest, or bestiality? Who is to say that a dog cannot “love” his or her owner, when everyone knows how affectionate dogs can be? How can anyone maintain that a dog would suffer a physical damage in any way bigger than the physical damage undoubtedly procured to a homosexual? And who is to say that two brothers (of whatever sex, as we are being tolerant here) shouldn’t be considered “a loving couple” in the same way as your butcher and his bearded “partner”, whose “union” was recently blessed by a smiling, inclusive Episcopalian pastor-ess, say they are one?
The real truth is that every supporter of abortion and homosexuality cannot explain to these people why he is “discriminating” against them, their dogs, their sheep, their siblings and their right to sell or donate their belly as they are allowed to sell their hair or donate their blood. There is no logical argument why the one should be allowed and the other shouldn’t and in fact, some years ago an incestuous couple in Germany went up to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (the German Constitutional Court) claiming that they had a “right to love”, that their rights were being denied, their freedom oppressed and in a word recurring to exactly the same nonsense commonly heard from homos and from their supporters.
The way to Hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions. I’d say that bad intentions make an excellent job of that, too.