Father Spadaro (Jesuit, obsessive Twitter-maverick, and told to be “near to the Pope”), has officially proclaimed and promoted heresy.
The quote is this one:
When the concrete circumstances of a divorced and remarried couple make feasible a pathway of faith, they can be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulty of this option, and leaves open the possibility of admission to the Sacrament of Reconciliation when this option is lacking.
“In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.
This is clearly an alternative religion.
A religion in which Christ’s command “may be not practicable”. A religion in which it is always possible to define a “lesser evil” and prefer it to a “worse evil” that can be picked at pleasure. A religion in which the priest is made an accomplice (only for those, of course, who at that level of evil still decide they do need to talk to a priest) in the obdurate sin of the unfaithful.
No, this certainly isn’t Catholicism. It isn’t any form of Christianity, either. It’s the new religion of the adulterers, the communists, and the perverted.
Father Spadaro is either possessed, or perverted himself, or extremely evil. There is no way a sane Catholic with a shred of fear of the Lord remaining in him, and who certainly knows better, would ever go on record with the words above unless Satan had taken, in one way or other, complete control over him.
In Christian times, people like this one were burnt at the stake. With Catholic saints painted (centuries later) as present and presiding over the proceedings as in the painting above from Pedro Berruguete. The painting may be historically accurate, or not. I have no time or inclination to make a research. But it certainly shows how Catholic painters thought in Catholic times.
Pray for the soul of the poor bastard.
Or wait for the retractation if the protests are loud enough. This is the way these people work.
Messa in Latino has an interesting blog post about a property in Limerick, Ireland.
In short, a dying Jesuit order sells the church to a developer. They plan to make of it a swimming pool/spa (but this did not bother the Jesuits one bit, I suppose).
The developer gets into troubled waters, and obviously the great crisis comes. The plans are put on ice.
In 2012, the church is sold to… the Institute Of Christ The King Sovereign Priest.
They restructure the place and make of it a thriving Catholic church. Tridentine Mass every day.
Take that, Jorge.
One wonders how many churches are sold by dying potheads without caring for alternative Catholic uses, or deliberately ignoring them. Particularly so, when the potential buyer would be a Traditionalist or semi-Traditionalist order.
Better a spa, then. Very probably there is also more money to be made. Unless, that is, sound Catholic forces end up rebuilding what the Jesuits potheads were destroying.
This, in turn, seems to me another example of the future of the Church. A Church that will probably go through terrible times as the Sixty-Eighters manage to ravage it for another decade or two; but which will in time see, at her roots, the sound Catholics take the upper hand as the bishop of the New Church Order die one after the other, and the liberals leave either aborted foetuses, or irreligious children.
The Jesuits are on their way to extinction, and not one day too soon. The Traditionalist orders – obviously including the crème de la crème, the SSPX – are all thriving. The church born of the implosion of New Church will be much smaller than the pothead orders of the Sixties; but she will be truly Catholic, and rich in zeal and vocations.
Wherever they install themselves, Traditionalist orders prosper. Orders leaning towards Traditionalism can have their growth stopped – temporarily, at least – only through brutal persecution.
This is a film we have already seen many times: a Church becoming stronger through clinging to her values or through sheer persecution, as Her enemies slowly sink to irrelevance, six feet under.
Providence at work.
Take that, Jorge.
One of the unlinkable dissenting sites report of an openly homosexual Jesuit Seminarian who has now, after ten years trying to become a priest, decided to leave the Seminary because of the firing of several perverts from Catholic schools and institutions in the last months. “I can't be a Catholic right now”, or words to that effect, is the comment of the little fag.
Let us observe all that is wrong here; because, as so often in the case of Jesuits, the mistakes here pile up like as many strata of Satan's shit cake.
1. Ten years of attempts. Seriously? Are Jesuits of the opinion unless one is old one can't receive orders? Or did the man not even manage to become a friar in all this time? What happens with the money of the faithful? I am, here, hoping this is not the normal case, and the extremely costly exercise was due to the perverted nature of the little faggot. Which leads us to the next point…
2. How can it be that a man who openly proclaims his own perversion is allowed to remain in the seminary? Officially? For how many… ten years? What part of “deeply rooted homosexual tendency” was unclear here?
3. What does this say not only of this pathetic nutcases but of the deciders in that seminary? What does it say of the rector? Is he homosexual, too? Why on earth would anyone, upon being told one is a pervert, persist in trying to make of him a friar, or even a priest? I smell faggotry from a mile here. Diffused faggotry. Faggotry unashamedly practiced, defended and promoted under the thinnest of veils. These chaps (or girls) have allowed an open faggot to stay in the seminary for many years: how many closet faggots walk along the corridors of that seminary? What positions they have? How can it be that the rot has not set at the top of the institution?
4. The unlinkable site reports, with more than a hint of sympathy, an astonishing affirmation of the little Jesuit fag: he can't be a Catholic right now, because of the treatment of the above mentioned perverts.
This beggars belief: a man able to put his own faggotry before his very own Catholic identity was allowed to stay in a Jesuit seminary all these years! What does this tell us about the quality and sexual orientation of the average friar – or priest – going out of that particular seminary?
Jesuits are a plague. Not 100% of them of course. But in general, Jesuits are a plague. An order fully in the thrall of Satan, spreading error and sexual perversion from schools, universities and seminaries; letting out in the world, without a doubt, a number – limited, thankfully, because they are dying – of either open perverts, or closet perverts, or people so accustomed to perversion and malformed in a perverted sexual climate that they are a real danger for the souls of those around them.
The little faggot has written a letter to Francis: TMAHICH, “who am I to judge”-Supremo, and Great Merciful Protector Of Worldwide Faggotry.
Now: TMAHIC is notoriously affect by logorrhoea, a phone addict, and a first-class double-tongued Jesuit. It will be interesting to see whether Francis does respond to the letter in writing, ignores the little fag altogether, or prefers one of those ominous phone calls at the end of which the little faggot will tell the world that Francis told him what a hero he is, and Francis does not deny or confirm any of the content. Scandal is spread, plausible deniability is attempted, the Pollyannas are happy the oh so holy Father did nothing wrong, the perverts exult, the Catholics are confused.
Just another Jesuit's day.
And it came to pass Father Lombardi had announced only a kind of miracle would make the Bishop of Rome appear to journalists on the aeroplane back from the Holy Land. I think it means that Lombardi had implored Francis to abstain from improvised shows, and Francis had agreed, but Lombardi is by now smarter than to trust whatever the man says.
Punctually, the “miracle” happened, because the Pope who “doesn’t like giving interviews” is more addicted to the limelight than the leader of a boy band.
It appears the Bishop of Rome had the usual attack of logorrhoea, but from the inordinate stream of consciousness two concepts very clearly emerge:
1. Do not reduce the Synod to “communion for divorced and remarried”, and
2. The divorced and remarried are not excommunicated.
Do you hear the sirens? Yes, it’s the “Jesuit alarm” that has just gone off…
Point 1 clearly means the press is kindly invited to stop embarrassing him; they should, pretty please, write about other issues whilst Francis, Kasper & Co. go on demolishing the Faith.
The idea of, say, apologising for the mess he has caused and state most solemnly that no changes will be introduced, neither from the door nor from the window, does not even enter his mind. He is not embarrassed by the scandal and the confusion at all. It’s our fault, you see: why don’t we talk about the “family”, or the weather, whilst he works with the wreaking ball?
Point 2 is almost as ominous. Yes, it can mean “you are not excommunicated, and it is only up to you to be readmitted to communion by creating the conditions for it!” But this being Francis, it more probably means “you are not excommunicated, so you can receive communion in some strange way we will have to explore; we must only work on this to make sure we get away with it”.
The man who loves to talk badly about “casuistry” is doing just that, all the time, twisting a very clear teaching in the most Jesuitical matter by reference to this, or that, circumstance that might allow to (erm, uh, no?) open “new ways” to “mercy”.
Beware of Jesuits.
Jorge Bergoglio was, for a number of years, at the head of a Jesuit seminary.
It strikes me as odd no professional journalist has made a serious research as to what happened in that particular seminary under Bergoglio's tenure. You know, the crude numbers: how many left the seminary in those years, how many got in. How many of those who got in left the seminary, and how many of those who became priests left the priesthood; how many (if any) grew to great holiness and how many (if any) were convicted for sexual misconduct. Things like that.
I have more than a vague feeling that such numbers, if they were available, would not be very flattering for “Mr Francis Effect”. Mind, I do not doubt even during those times he was liked only by those who hate Catholicism, and I allow myself to doubt he did anything else than destroying as much of it as he was allowed to.
Or you can see it from the contrary argument: has it ever been noticed that during his tenure there was a resurgence of solid vocations among Argentinian Jesuits? A new Catholic Renaissance? Was this seminary a beacon of Catholic evangelisation?
The same kind of work should be undertaken for Bergoglio's tenure in the two dioceses he has so humbly administered. Vocations? Mass attendance? What do we know about the figures of his work there?
You see, after experiencing fourteen months of Bergoglio on our skin, one has the persistent suspicion that the Francis Effect has, in fact, always been there.
Only, it has always been an unmitigated disaster.
Rorate Caeli has two interesting posts which, in fact, touch on the same subject: Modernism is hemlock for religious communities, and orthodoxy is their very bread.
The first post is about the Paulists, an order which, only a few decades after adopting a “modern” stance in Church things, went from being robustly prospering to… having to sell their seminary.
Good riddance. May their impending extinction be a cautionary tale for every sound Catholic, and let’s hope the Jesuits go the same way soon. The future centuries will remember the massacre of religious orders after V II as the just punishment for their haughtiness and insolence.
The second post is about the prospering Abbey of Fontgombault, that continues to create new communities or, again, overtake V II ones, staying faithful to their conviction of bringing the Traditional Mass wherever they go, or rather expand. The image of the old, dying members of the Abbey of Wisques celebrating the NO whilst the younger saviours of the monastery celebrate the TLM is a sad, even pathetic, but very accurate portrait of what will probably happen in the Church at large in the next few decades, as the Bergoglios of the world take position in the only place where they will no longer be a threat: six feet under.
It must be noted, here, that the Abbot of Fontgombault goes out of his way to avoid saying one single word against V II, or making even half reflection as to why they overtake other communities, and not vice versa. The Abbot must have grasped that in the Age of Mercy the only way to be spared is to avoid the New Sin That Shall Not Be Forgiven: criticism of V II.
Still, there is no denying orthodoxy and traditionalism have the keys of the future. The Francis of the world will at some point get out of the way and, in time, their followers will become unable to control the wave of orthodoxy that will sweep the, by then, vastly reduced ranks of the Church.
The Church is Indefectible and we need therefore not be worried about Her. But this huge tsunami of stupidity that has been impacting the Western emisphere for now 50 years will leave a huge trail of destruction behind itself. A destruction that has been going on under our very eyes for a long time now and continues to march undisturbed as our hierarchy, with stubbornness worthy of the Politburo, not only continue to deny the decay but even try to depict it as a great moment in a Church history. Perhaps not even the Politburo is here a valid comparison. Perhaps, North Korea might be more to the point.
We are informed that Bishop Campbell of Lancaster (the same, I believe, who silenced Deacon Nick of “Protect The Pope” blog fame) has now invited the Institute of Christ The King Sovereign Priest to take over a famous landmark in his diocese, St Walburge in Preston.
There are still, I think, thousands of Jesuits around, and one wonders why the Bishop has not asked some of those progressive and mercifu followers of the Spirit to take over.
Perhaps – just thinking out loud here – because their average age travels toward 75, they are now largely to be found in hospices and hospitals, and the Spirit hasn't treated them very kindly; though, I am sure, better than they deserve.
The reality is, I think, clear for all of us to see. The Bishop does not want the shame of having to close such a prestigious landmark, which would be an obvious witness of his failure as a bishop. At the same time, he recognises that inviting some old tambourine players to take over the place would not be a solution, because they would never be able to make a fairly expensive place like this one viable. The only solution seem, therefore, to see whether those can be persuaded who have the priests, the energy, the means, the faith, and the confidence in their mission to take over.
Which, I think, is what just happened.
The bishop has recognised that – no matter how many effort are made to stop this development – the future speaks Latin.
Whenever a new text of Pope Francis is published, we are confronted with not one or two carelessly worded phrases, but an entire onslaught of questionable or utterly subversive statements.
The last example is the “Little Monsters” speech, held in November in front of representatives of an utterly failed model now on its way to a fully deserved death: the V II religious.
Francis can’t put three periods in a row without saying something extremely banal, utterly stupid or very disquieting. He does so, because his entire Weltanschauung is just as banal, stupid and disquieting. A sound person will perhaps at times express himself in a not entirely happy manner, but everyone who listens to or reads this person will recognise that he is sound. Not so Francis. Francis says something questionable, or worse, without interruption because his very way of thinking is rotten to the core. His speeches are full of soundbites that mean perfectly nothing – or could mean anything – if read literally, but whose aim is to send a clear message: forget the Catholicism of your grandmother, we are in the age of Francis.
I might leave for another and more detailed post – if time and liver allow – the analysis of the actual bits of Papal madness. Here, let me focus on just three:
1. Mercy and morality.
Francis subverts the very concept of morality, in that he makes of it something clearly alternative to mercy. The consequence of this appalling thinking is clear: in the new Catholicism 2.0, mercy is utterly decoupled from moral. It is, in fact, amoral. Not enough for him to acknowledge that everyone of us is – obviously – a sinner, and the tendency to sin will remain with us as long as we live. No: to him, man’s sinful nature means that mercy, instead of morality, is the answer. When Eugenio Scalfari states that Francis has “abolished sin”, he goes far nearer the real thinking of Francis than the Pollyannas. Francis does not officially “abolish” sin, of course; but when he refuses to acknowledge morality as a value, he surrenders unconditionally and without resistance to man’s sinful nature. To him, sin is the disease and mercy is the cure, period. There is in all this no place for morality.
Possibly, morality gives him goose bumps.
Francis’ aversion to morality is in fact so pronounced that he suggested to his fellow Jesuits to “use mercy, not morality, when they preach”. Look: if morality is to be banned even from preaching, when will the Jesuit ever use it? Shall he hold little sermons in the confessional, perhaps? Or extol the virtues of the moral life to the old people whilst administering the Last Rites to them?
Make no mistake: this Pope is bent on the destruction of Christianity as it has been intended in the last 2000 years. He wants to substitute it – and he repeats it at every turn; so if you don’t get it, it is slowly your fault as much as his – with an alternative vision of the world in which everyone does as he pleases, morality is something for “little monsters”, and mercy is the panacea. This is the reason why he says that God does not do anything more serious than slapping one on the wrist; this is why he believes atheists are saved if they follow their conscience; and this is why – unless there are worse motives – he is so blind toward homosexuality. This vision of the world may sound good and will please those who rebel to God’s laws, but it isn’t even Christianity.
2. The “Little Monsters”
What stated above is very clear in the insisted criticism of Francis for those priests and religious who care for right living and the importance of the moral life. Not for the first time, Francis calls them “hypocrites”, as if doing one’s best to follow the rules necessarily implies they have a very dirty mind and live a life of lies; therefore, their good behaviour itself makes them hypocrites.
I do not know you, but if I heard a parish priest thundering against the hypocrisy of those who strive diligently to follow the rules I could not avoid thinking I am in front of a dirty old man. In exactly the same way as when I hear writers or journalists speak about the “hypocrisy” of traditional, middle-class, Christian values I know these people are certainly not even trying to follow the “small-minded” rules they are criticising, preferring adultery and light drugs instead. “Small-minded rules”. Wait, where have I heard this…
The “new hypocrisy” appear to consist, if you ask the humble Francis, in believing in rules and in our best effort to keep them; in counting rosaries; in having “excessive doctrinal security”; in praying by heart; and in general in doing everything Christians have done for 2,000 years, before Pope Diana The Humble appeared on the horizon.
In short, the “new mercy” is so similar to licence it cannot be distinguished anymore.
3. The “work of art” of priestly formation.
Similarly, Francis stresses that those seminarians – the few that have remained to these old V II nincompoops dancing around like retarded old men in the psychiatric hospital – must be trained intending their formation as “a work of art, not a police action”.
This man sees rules, discipline, proper behaviour as something negative. He talks like an ultra-liberal teacher from some American college campus rather than like a priest, much less a Pope. This is not only the caricature of a religious, but a man you should not allow to get near your children even if he were a layman, a neighbour, a colleague, or a family “friend”. He has no morality, and therefore doesn’t like it, and can’t teach it. He will corrupt your girls in no time with his talk of “no police action”, and education like a “work of art”. Ask yourself whether you would invite him for dinner and expose your family to the influence of a man like this. This is a wolf in wolf’s clothes, and no mistake. Invite him by you and the smell of the favela, the self-satisfied “doubts”, the moral “void”, and the general impious behaviour will enter your house with him. Hey, he might tell you Jesus pretended to be angry. Go figure.
Look at the Jesuits to see where such (degenerate) “art” leads to. Look at the Pope himself, questioning the obedience and humility of the Blessed Virgin! He is the product of such “art” himself.
Francis reminds me more and more of Luigi Tenco, an Italian singer of the Sixties and the perfect embodiment of the “rebel” generation of those years. Tenco composed a song titled “Ognuno e’ libero”, based on the words “ognuno e’ libero di fare quello che gli va”, or “everyone is free to do what he pleases”.
Add a sprinkle of mercy, a lot of pauperism and some (strong) smell of Favela, and you have Pope Francis’ Pontificate explained.
Luigi Tenco practised what he preached and, in a bout of worse than usual self-centred infantilism, committed suicide because he was not happy with the jury and the population at large for his treatment in a famous televised song contest.
No, seriously: he killed himself for that. But hey, “ognuno e’ libero…”.
Had he entered a Jesuit seminary instead, by now he could have been Pope.
Decidedly, Francis is the poison that keeps on poisoning.
From Vatican Insider
“Being a Jesuit is to be a person of incomplete thoughts, open thought: why always think looking at the horizon which is the glory of God always great, who surprises us relentlessly. And this is the ‘ anxiety of our void. That holy and beautiful restlessness.”
“This was how Jorge Mario Bergoglio – who entered the Society of Jesus 55 years ago – described himself and his fellow Jesuits”.
As always, Bergoglio’s words are fluff made of almost nothing; still, behind their apparent meaninglessness they vaguely, but clearly enough, suggest the most disquieting attitude. Modernism at work.
Clearly, this man has doubt as his own religion, and he is proud of it.
No surprise he does not believe in Catholicism. No surprise he hates those who profess the Catholic Truth with unflinching loyalty. No surprise he chose to become a Jesuit.
What a shame for the Church. What a daily provocation. What arrogance masqueraded as humility.
Please pray that this man may change his tune, of be taken away from us.
The SSPX rosary crusade is the best way to do it.
I have often written Francis, the Bishop of Rome, and the likes of him are a danger because they mix orthodoxy with heresy in a way that allows the heretical message to go through undisturbed, whilst giving a way to the Pollyannas to delude themselves he is being orthodox. Let us go a bit nearer and see in detail how they work.
Jesuits are a cunning bunch of sly foxes. They manipulate the simpletons with contrasting meanings not only in separate sentences, but even in the same sentence. The Bishop of Rome, the Jesuit in Chief, is a prime example.
Francis very often has a way of expressing himself that, no doubt with premeditation and malice, achieves his objective in a refined way. He does so by using a double subject that I will call, for the purposes of this post, the major and the minor one. The major subject is the one meant to make the worldwide headlines, the minor one is there to feed the pigeons. I have noticed this trick several times already. If you have paid attention to Francis' utterances you will immediately recognise the style.
Imagine a phrase like this:
Gays, those who love God and do good, are the crown of Christ.
The major subject is “Gays”, the word Francis and other Modernists uses for “Homosexuals” and/or “Sodomites”. This is what makes the worldwide headlines.
The minor subject, “those who love God and do good”, is the pigeon food. The Pollyannas will immediately clutch on this straw to interpret “gays” as “those homosexuals who accept in its entirety the teaching of the Church, live a chaste life and pray unceasingly that God's may give them the necessary graces so that they may get rid of their horrible perversion”.
After the phrase has been printed into the atheist and anti-clerical newspaper of your choice, Bergoglio's Jesuitical Spiel begins: liberal newspapers the world over will run headlines on the lines of “Gays Are The Crown Of Christ, Says Pope”. Meanwhile, the “reading Hitler through Snow White” party will publish countless blog post, all more or less titled “did Francis really say that Gays are the crown of Christ?”, trying to explain to us the baddies of the press of the entire planet – yes, pretty much all of them – really do not get the humble, saintly man. You see, they will explain, he did say “Gays” (which is unfortunate, they will admit obtorto collo under the pressure of their smarter commenters) but hold on, he meant a certain particular very rare type of “gay”, who never even calls himself “gay”, and not your usual sodomite.
Some others – the “Extreme Pollyann-ing crowd” – will say “look, you just didn't get it! Gay simply means “happy, debonair”. Therefore, the Pope is saying that happy Christians are the crown of Christ! Phew! I am so relieved! What an orthodox Pope we have!”
Being an army of Pollyannas, the “reading Hitler through Snow White” fraction will conveniently neglect to notice two things:
1. 99.99% of the planet will agree with the substance of what the liberal newspapers have written and understand the words of the Bishop of Rome as they, well, very well should, because it is what they mean. This will go through the entire spectrum: from liberal to middle of the road to conservative outlets. Basically, all those who can read with their brains switched on will understand what Francis wants to say all right.
2. The Pope will not correct the meaning of the words as stated by 99.99% of the world press. He will not give any authentic interpretation of them. He will do absolutely nothing as the liberals all over the planet crown him their own “honorary gay pope”. If “new evangelisation” means to allow 99% of the planet to get the totally wrong message, this “new evangelisation” is working all right, but I prefer to call it the old way: willful heresy, and the work of the devil.
Even after this, the Pollyannas will systematically refuse to acknowledge some very simple things: the headlines are exactly what was wanted from the start; the major subject was there exactly to generate them; and the minor subject was there merely to feed the pigeons, and keep them quiet.
The Spiel can be repeated ad libitum, and Francis uses it very often. He knows perfectly well why. The only ones who will never get it are the Pollyannas.
The Bishop of Rome has decided to regale us with another salvo of Jesuit nonsense, and it might be appropriate to write a word or two to avoid some Catholics to be further confused by this confused and very embarrassing man.
As an orthodox Catholic, I am “triumphalist” in the sense commonly used by Protestants, Atheists and Jesuits to belittle my orthodoxy. I believe that the Church is right, and all (tutti, tous, alle, todos) who are at variance with the Church are ipso facto wrong. I believe that the Church has the fullness of the Truth, a fullness which no one else could ever have. I boast about not only the intrinsic superiority of the Church to every other group, affiliation, community or sect, but even about the unavoidable victory of this only Church over every error, every heresy, and every abomination here on earth, one day. Further, I believe that being a Catholic is a great grace, and thank God every day that He allowed me, a wretched sinner, the grace of being born in a Catholic Country, and baptised and confirmed in the One True Faith. I pray that many others who are now outside of the Only Church may become part of it, consciously during their life or through Christ's grace in the last moment before death, because – whatever bad Popes may tell you or imply to you – outside of the Church there is no salvation. If Christ reigns, the Church does. If Christ wins, the Church must perforce triumph. If Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life, the utter superiority of the Church founded by Him to every other whatever-it-is must follow.
Why, you will ask, do I believe all this? I believe all this because I believe in the Risen Lord; a belief without which all of the above would be pure nonsense and child's tale.
Therefore, the idea of the Bishop of Rome that the – very well spread among orthodox Catholics, because the unavoidable fruit of Catholic orthodoxy – “triumphalism” of some Catholics be an indication that they do not believe in the Risen Lord is complete and utter nonsense. We are triumphalists exactly because the Risen Lord is the Guarantor of the Church's Truth and ultimate triumph.
On the contrary, those who attack Catholic triumphalism are those whose faith in the Resurrection I openly question. If one doubts the Resurrection, and only if one does, then suddenly the talk of “why do we think we have the Truth” begins to make sense. If you believe that Jesus resurrected, then you must believe that He is God, and then His Church is the Only One and the Truth of His Bride is destined to triumph. If you have doubts that Jesus resurrected, this is when you start talking like a Jesuit.
Besides, this extremely offensive bollocks comes from one who says “who am I to judge” when questioned about the sodomites in his entourage. Go figure. Must be a Jesuit.
There. It had to be said, I think.
God is punishing us with a Jesuit Pope. I pray that He may, in His own good time, take this punishment away from us.
“Mundabor, let me say first that I like your blog a lot (or, “I am a fan of your blog”; or, “I like a lot of what you write)…
(it follows an unbelievable load of V II crap, Sixty-Eighters waffling, and peace ‘n love rubbish; with musical accompaniment of guitars and tambourines. I am sure I have noticed a couple of Pinocchios around, too…).
Pax (or, “In Christ”, or the like).
As I have already written, the number of such messages I receive is on the increase. It is as if the recent events had persuaded some that being a Jesuit is the only way to go; or perhaps they have been to one of those marketing seminars where you are told to always start your pitch by agreeing with the client, and then proceed to explain you merely agree with him in a completely opposite way.
The problem is, if you are in total disagreement with your “client” (myself), to pretend some sort of agreement isn’t really conducive to any honest argument. For example; this blog is written by one who would, if it depended on him, prescribe and enforce caning for every one caught playing tambourine or guitar in church after Midday next Monday, irrespective of sex, age and musical orientation (sorry, ma’m: you wanted to play tambourine at 92, you’ll have to be caned at 92. No, ma’m, no exception. Too late, I am afraid…).
You cannot, you possibly cannot like my blog if you are the V II, guitar & tambourines, “what great Pope we have in Francis” type. If you do, it’s because you don’t understand what I write, and therefore you have no right to like my blog in the first place. But seriously, lip agreement followed by a mentality that is the negation of the agreement isn’t going to wash.
I want V II to die and its memory to live in infamy for the generations to come. I would love to organise bonfires of guitars, tambourines, felt banners and puppets used in Church; yes, on the public square, and who cares for the emissions. I think Francis is a great disgrace. I think the clock should be turned back to 1958, and every innovation happened afterwards declared unfit for children and adults alike.
Seriously, Mr Tambourine Man. You cannot possibly like my blog.
I don’t know. Perhaps it works on other blogs. It certainly doesn’t work here.
Perhaps they think the slimy captatio benevolentiae will let me feel bad at the idea of culling their message. Fools. I enjoy culling idiots’ messages. It is my little reaction to the tsunami of VII waste water hitting the Internet every day.
It’s like keeping Asterix’ village free from the enemy.
There’s an idiot who keeps busying my spam folder. He had introduced himself saying he attended the TLM. Turned out to be such a V II cretin I suspect in real life he could really be a Jesuit; and he still keeps writing for my spam folder, probably suffering atrociously if he stays away from it for more than a couple of days.
Heavens, the Internet attracts all sorts of cranks, idiots, trolls, attention seekers, and assorted nutcases.
I am glad they don’t know where I live.
Comments beginning with “I like your blog, but” will now trigger my “Jesuit Alarm”. This will in turn cause the activation of my “Torquemada mode”, probably causing the death of the comment.
You have been warned, Ma’am…
Damon and Michael Douglas put in great performances, as does the rest of the (star-studded) cast, who all deserve sincere praise for their commitment to this project, which others in the industry were reportedly too scared to touch. However, whilst both leads put in commendably watchable performances, I am not quite sure how much they were really able to feel some of the emotions they perform.
Read here (or perhaps not) the considerations of a chap who appears not to be a religious, but who is still published by the web site of the British Jesuits. I have written and reblogged about these people already.
The entire article does not mention, not even en passant, the sin of the Sodomites as being reprehensible in any way, shape or form. People simply are homosexual in the same way as they are, say, blond. There is a mention of “darker issues”, but one is not given to understand whether they relate to sodomy in any way. “The Big Sleep” was also very “dark” in its issues, come to that.
But the author goes further than that: whilst he questions the credibility of the source used for this movie, he notices the initial story was rejected as “too gay”, and the fact he says this movie is now one of the straightest he has seen in years not only tells you something about the movies he must normally watch, but also clearly indicates the movie lacks “gayness”.
The pearl is at the end: the actors must be “commended” for their “commitment” to a project other were “too scared to touch”; but you see, the main characters still aren’t, in real life, homos, so he wonders whether they are really “able to feel some of the emotions they perform”. In this man’s mind homo actors would have been better, of course. They would have had the right “feelings”, you know. Again, this film is not faggoty enough.
I thought actors are supposed to portray emotions they do not feel, which is why they can portray serial killers, and the like; but apparently a film about perverts requires perverts to be made properly, though the commitment to the portrayal of perversion deserves, how can it be otherwise, “sincere praise”.
Yes, this review must be from a Jesuit site. I wish I could say to you that if a religious instead of a layman had written the review, the Christian content would have been at least vaguely perceptible. Alas, this is not the case, and more likely than not such a writer would have abused of the initials after his name to be even more supportive of the sin of the sodomites. Jesuits are so keen to let you know how open minded they are. Heck, nowadays one must wonder about the odds of a Jesuit being straight in the first place.
This once great religious order is dying. The Pope complains such orders cling on their own money. The rot they have everywhere, he is unable or unwilling to see, much less correct.
One of the issues touched by the Holy Father during his disastrous meeting with CLAR was the one of the dying orders that cling to the vast possessions they have; a state of affairs the Pontiff doesn't like because he would rather use the assets for other purposes (presumably, giving the money away) whilst the interested parties reply the money is necessary to provide for them before the old nincompoops stretch – as the cynical Italian would say – their paws.
It stroke me as odd that the Pontiff didn't even mention with one word the lamentable state of these orders, or wondered how they could slowly commit suicide in such a stupid way, or admit the unprecedented crisis of religious life; he also did not waste one second to mention in passing the enormous damage created by the lack of religious personnel for the coming generations. His concern was, apparently, centred on the fact the old boys cling to vast real estate, which the Pontiff would rather see sold and, if the now fashionable rhetoric is to be followed, spread among the poor.
I am informed that horses are extremely centred in the present, which is why they can, say, be bought and sold many times in a way that would, say, break a dog's heart. The horse only thinks of today, they say. He is not in the least interested in the past, nor remotely concerned about the future.
The Holy Father's free-wheeling reflections concerning the money of the dying orders reminded me of the horse thinking, with the Pontiff faced with the utter ruin of a vast number of once great religious orders and the great damage for future generations, but concerned about the fact they don't want to give him the dough.
Alternatively, I can only imagine that his repeated “what do I know” and “perhaps” reflect his real thinking, and this Pope subscribes to the disquieting theory that the Holy Ghost doesn't need or want religious orders anymore, as in this oh so brilliant new age of ours, in which divorce, contraception, sexual perversion and defiance of Christian values are in a new Springtime, He will transfer the task to the oh so new man, and the contracepting, aborting, divorcing laity will take care of things. In this perspective, it makes perfect sense that the Holy Father say “what do I know” about the fact these orders are dying, but does know he would like their vast resources. Again, we would be here in front of a Jesuit rather unconcerned with the almost extinction of his and many other orders. Once again, note he says “they have no vocations” and sees in that a fact he can't really explain. That there are no vocations because the orders foxtrotted things up in the most egregious manner doesn't even enter his mind. Such is the mentality of a product of V II.
I Imagine this, because if this were not to be the case the Pontiff would most certainly focus on the restructuring of the orders according to pre-Vatican II rules, and encourage them to use their generally extensive resources to finance their growth; a growth which, if you believe God wants to have solid religious orders, you must believe will come once these orders are made solid again.
Nothing of this is to be seen in the Papal reflections. The traditional orders are all more or less dying, and his words suggest a sort of confrontation or at least opposition to his wishes that has gone on for some time, with the Vatican gently suggesting the orders divest part of their assets and the orders gently answering that they need them to fund their old age.
Probably horse mentality is, therefore, not really at play. Rather, a perfect easiness with the dying of religious orders. This is, of course, coupled with the near-perfect blindness of the V II man, either unable to see that the traditional orders are growing fast, or willing to consider their growth a residue of the past, as if those people still believed they live, erm, cough, in the Forties.
But hey, what does he know.
In the meantime, give him the money.