The opening salvo of this synod belongs to Cardinal Erdo.
After Francis’ usual fluffy, “this but also that”, “have your cake and eat it” speech, the Cardinal – who was culpably weak last year when he allowed the infamous relatio post disceptationem to bear his name as main signatory, but then recovered and disavowed it almost immediately – opened his own speech with the following words:
Jesus Christ is our master, our Lord, and the Good Shepherd.
It is difficult not to see in this an open criticism of a Pope so worldly, so shamelessly secular in all he does, that he managed an entire speech in the US without mentioning Jesus once. Also note the emphasis on the fact that our Lord is a good shepherd, and therefore not “cruel” or “legalist”. Not bad as a start. Not bad at all.
The rest is – if you gloss over the V II verbosity and the usual diplomacy of how good the bad pope actually is, full text here – in line with the incipit.
Cardinal Erdo has – see the link at the beginning for more comment – basically drawn a line in the sand at the very start. This is important, because the man – who isn’t a lion, see above – would not have pronounced such a speech unless he was sure that he echoes the prevalent sentiment among the bishops; not only those present at this farce but – infinitely more importantly if the Obama hits the fan – those outside.
The opening speech seems to me, in fact, a kind of closing speech. “It is what it is” – says the cardinal to the Kasperites – “shut up already”. He does not say it with these exact words, obviously; but among prelates “shut up already” is said in a different way than among us mere mortals.
It seems to me that when a line is drawn in the sand on the very first day, something is boiling in the Vatican cauldron. There must be a pent-up dissatisfaction with Francis’ ways – both in general and at last year’s synod – that moves the bishops to act decisively from the start in order to prevent any kind of “surprise” that Francis may have prepared. No one trusts this man. They know why, and you too.
Think of this: the bishops have just finished to insistently reinforce traditional teaching on marriage; therefore, there is no universe in which Francis can come out one fine morning and say that now the “Spirit” wants to do everything differently. He would dig his own grave, and he knows it. I hope the pressure on him keeps mounting. It will keep him awake in case he is dreaming of some golpe.
The opening salvo was, if you ask me, very effective.
I would go as far as to say that it has landed square on Francis’ and the Kasperites’ head.
Observing the press around Francis' movements and speeches one common theme is apparent: Francis is seen as someone who wants to make the Church different from what she is. There is Francis here, and the Church there, and the two are undoubtedly different. Even those who have an interest in supporting Francis in order to sabotage the Church are forced to do so by stressing how different he is; and, by reflex, how he is sabotaging the Church.
This is a self-defeating narrative. Once it is clear that Francis is different, it must follow for every Catholic that he is wrong, as even my cat understands that the differences here are substantial and not merely cosmetic.
Francis was not able to attack Catholicism on the sly, like a smarter man than he would have done. His lack of basic prudence and sufficient intelligent – coupled with a great theological ignorance, making him unable to detect his huge blunders before they are tweeted worldwide – make this attack obvious, and impossible to be explained away with any sort of Catholic continuity. But at this point, he has lost already. Who will believe him? Those who have an interest in following him even knowing he is wrong. But this is no surprise, and no news. If the Pope declared his allegiance to Satan he would become the darling of Satanists. It is, therefore, no surprise that he should be popular among perverts, communists, enviro-nuts and public, unrepentant adulterers.
This may be all good for a headline or three. Only it isn't Catholicism, and everyone understands it. It is clear by now that no matter how many headlines are written about Francis, they are always about the difference from, not the adherence to, Cathoicism.
This is why Francis has lost the battle. He will always have the wrong crowd on his side, but he will never have the Catholics! They will be, they already are horrified from him! These Catholics may well be a minority, but they will always be those who get to define what Catholicism is even for all the others, exactly in the same way every outsider knows the orthodox Jew is the “real” Jew, and the “progressive” Jew is merely a secular chap using religion as a social tool.
You can't demand that two and two be five and present yourself as a Math teacher. You can't demand that alcohol be freely available to everyone and candidate as head of the League of Temperance. You can't demand that communion be available to adulterers and present yourself as a true Catholic.
Francis has lost the battle. He could not get Catholics on his side, and they will be his doom in life and after death. He is now irredeemably branded – and rightly so – as a subversive and enemy of the Church. He may rape the Church, but he will never win her.
He will always be remembered as the rapist, not the protector. He may carry with him the abortionists, the perverts, the nutcases of all sorts. But the battle for Catholic hearts and minds, that is now lost forever.
As the days of the Synod approach, we know that two main points are on the heretics' agenda: adultery and sexual perversion.
Some very interesting contributions have been written to the effect that the adultery issue was meant to be the Trojan Horse for the “laundering” of homosexuality. I personally have the following views on the matter:
1. As numbers go, adultery is a far more pressing issue for Father Heretic than sodomy. Among the nominal Catholics in his parish there will easily be 50 public adulterers for every public dyke or sodomite, and whilst fags have relatives who may well “symphatise” this is no less true for the adulterers. Basically, if the German Pater Haeretisch wants to garner consensus and Kirchensteuer-money around him adultery beats sodomy hands down. Adultery's laundering is also, undoubtedly, his main economic interest.
2. However, Pater Haeretisch may well be a pervert himself, and in this case the matter of sodomy will touch him in a rather more striking way, the usual conflict of the sodomite – the knowledge that he is wrong, dirty, and a pervert – being amplified by his supposedly being a man of God. One can imagine for many of these Pater Schwulette the issue is more pressing than even the Ka-ching of the parish tills.
3. The one aim does not negate the other. Adultery is, grave as it is, a sin that still goes with nature. Sexual perversion is, as going against nature, a completely new ball game. There is no imagining that the laundering of sins against nature would not achieve, a fortiori, the result of laundering sins according to nature. Even an atheist immediately recognises – though he may not admit it to you – the substantial difference between the two situations, because sins that go against natural law are etched in the conscience of every man however big his effort to conceal it.
Therefore, at the Synod we will have a highly explosive mixture of issues which touch the wallet of the heretics and issues which torments them. They have Francis on their side, but Christ is against them.
How thus battle will end in the end, you already know. But we want it to have an end, actually, sooner that “in the end”.
We must continue to denounce adultery as well as sodomy; the faggot priest as well as the avid or simoniacal one; the sins that go with nature as well as those that go against it.
Francis and his army of clowns will not prevail. Not in the end but, preferably, not in October either.
Let us examine the programme of the Evil Clown for the foreseeable future.
1) Second half of September: America trip. Francis will legitimise and pamper one of the cruelest Communist regimes ever. Then he will move to the USA, where he will indirectly but clearly push for illegal immigration, environMentalism, the socialisation of Western economies, and the atrocious UN program of world governance and (though Francis will pretend not to like this) population control. Expect a lot of off-the-cuff rubbish about “inclusion”. Expect an awful lot of CO2 emissions, too….
2) Synod. It is clear Francis will be pushing a heretical agenda as much as he can. If he feels strong enough to adopt Kasperism, he will do. If not, he will push it as far as he can without being thrown out of the window himself. Expect an awful lot of vague language about “pastoral work” and (again) “inclusion” and “acceptance” meant at accommodating the German-speaking heretics as much as possible.
3) Year of False Mercy. Whatever the outcome of the Synod, a great Heretical Offensive is already scheduled, starting from December. Justice is “out”, Mercy is “in”. Expect relentless rhetoric of unconditional salvation given either for the asking (without the repenting) or just for the breathing (without even the asking). More fodder for German heretics, of course.
The path for the next fifteenth months seems very clear: Pope-driven satanic deception everywhere. Dalai-Lama-ing like there's no tomorrow. No rhetoric too stupid, no comparison too absurd.
This appears to be the programme. The programme appears to have been written without considering its addressees: devout Catholics. it is a course in prostitution of Catholicism to the heathenish masses. It is as satanical as it can be reasonably imagined before the False Prophet.
With God's help, it is now for devout Catholics to minimise the damage, and use this Evil Clown as an occasion to re-establish sound Catholicism. With God's help, Satan will not see his plans of maximum destruction realised.
But I think that one thing must be clear to all devout Catholics: irrespective of the degree of wilful complicity of the man, Satan is at work through him. The sooner we realise this, the better equipped we will be to face whatever challenge the future has in store for us.
Prayer, penance, and militancy.
Lord, give me strength! I am now in front of the very difficult task of conveying to my readers what kind of rubbish individual this man is, without calling him with half the names he has deserved. This man is a challenge for Catholics' adrenalines. For example, this morning I read this.
FrancisThought is here very clear: the often fabled “early Christians” were such good pastoral theologians. Then came the Church Francis hates, and she “divorced” theology from pastoral ministry, basically getting it all wrong and not serving the faithful for many centuries. Then again V II came, and put this train wreck on its tracks again. I lucky we are now. We must merely let the “Spirit” work.
The intervention is full of veiled invitations to Kasperism, and uses the images and figures of speech of the Kasperites. Theology must place Trafition and reality in a “dialogue”: hey, let's “dialogue” with perverts, shall we not? No, let us not call them to repentance: this would be a “divorce” between theology and pastoral ministry!
Those who challenge Catholic doctrine must not be “ignored”, because if you do so you “do not take seriously the principle of Incarnation”. What the heck does this mean anyway, that God became Man to confirm people in their “struggles” and “questions”?
Then there is this pearl of stupidity: that the ultimate source of theology is in “the praying people”. No, you damn fool. If the “praying people” are those out of which theology stems, theology will have all the errors, “struggles”, and “doubts” they have; and many no mistake, by “praying people” the man does not mean the orthodox rosary-counters; because he knows very well that, sinners as they all are, they are aligned with doctrine to 100%, and they have no “doubts” or any kind of “struggle” about it.
This Evil Clown vomits the heresy of Kasper almost every time he open his mouth. We should start calling it the heresy of Francis, and it would be more appropriate.
This man is Christ's enemy number one. Let's pray the Lord silences his heretical mouth soon.
I can’t hear anymore all this talk of the new ways how the Church must include, or integrate, or let feel welcome all kind of, obviously, unrepentant sinners.
What exactly did the Church in the time of St Pius X do that was wrong, and why?
Were there, in those times, no adulterers? No children born out of wedlock? No sodomy? Don’t make me laugh!
No. There was a massive amount of sin, because human nature is, after the Fall, automatically predisposed to sin.
Were our forefathers, then, “insensitive” to the “plight” of the adulterer? You bet they were! They were very sensitive to the danger of damnation, and had therefore no time for the rubbish of those who aren’t. If you believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell all the rest follows; if you waste your time talking about “new ways of accepting them” you simply do not believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell.
Think of it logically instead of emoting like a seventeen years old girl, and you will realise that there really is nothing in the middle. Every talk of “new” acceptance means an acceptance that does not include: 1) admission of grave sin and grave scandal, 2) repentance, and 3) amending of one’s way and putting an end to scandal. Therefore, any talk of “new” acceptance means making people more comfortable on their way to hell. Crucially, though, it makes the other pewsitters feel good and sensitive. Sensitivity is the opium of the small “c” catholic.
What did St Pius X do, exactly, that was wrong? Can you give me exact details? Did he not know that the child of the adulterers would feel bad? Of course he did! But you see, the likes of that great Pope were infinitely more interested in the salvation of souls than in the comfort of children! The Blessed Virgin in Fatima makes the children very uncomfortable, and does not give them any of the sensitive rubbish of the modern times!
Nor can you say that in those times such adultering couple and their children were rare. Firstly, and insofar as this was the case, they were rare (or less frequent) because the “insensitive” rules were openly preached and brutally enforced by a strong Church or, among the Proddies, by strong Christian feelings. Secondly, such situations were, actually, very common whenever Christian rules did not arrive, or where they were despised; the slums of (Protestant) Victorian London are a rather striking example of this.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t uphold Truth, and preserve “sensitivity”. You will never save souls by adapting truth to the sensitivity of children. I was told the brutal truths of hell when I was four. I am sure it did not harm my soul one little bit. Of course it would have hurt me to hypothetically discover that, say, my parents were living in sin. But then again this “hurtful” society created children whose parents were not living in sin! Conversely, it is this stupid sensitivity and fear to hurt anyone that creates the adulteries, the scandal, and the children born out of wedlock!
Was Pius X, then, not inclusive? On the contrary, he was very inclusive of the repentant sinner! Did he feel any need of “new” ways of including adulterers? No, it is very obvious the great Saint did not feel any need for them at all! Was he, then, unaware of how unpleasant it is to be born out of wedlock, or to be condemned by your community for living in sin? Of course he was not!
I could go on, but I think I have made the point.
There is nothing wrong in the way the Church has always done things. There can be no way, no way whatsoever, they were wrongly “insensitive” and we must find “new ways” to accommodate any sensitivity that was wrongly neglected before.
Let us realise that all this rubbish talk of finding new ways is the direct consequence of the loss of the fear of the Lord. If the fear of the Lord were still there, the priorities would be arranged differently.
Disagree with this, and you must admit that the Church was “not inclusive” or “not welcoming” in all her past history, all the way up to the enlightened Peron Generation: where air conditioning is evil, God scolds you but does not slap you, and it is necessary to “raise hell”.
St Pius X did nothing wrong. His Church was inclusive in the right way, and it was so out of real charity and love for the salvation of souls. Whatever harshness this charitable mentality caused was the unavoidable consequence of the harshness of the simple truths about salvation and damnation.
It is our generation that does not know what fear of the Lord is, and therefore forgets real charity and sinks in an ocean of diabetes-inducing talk of welcome and inclusion.
Get your priorities straight. The rest will follow from there.
The story in short: a powerful “Catholic” lay organisation claims Church teaching in matter of adultery and sodomy must changed, because… they prefer it that way, and the Evil Clown agrees with them.
The young bishop of Passau, Oster, makes something very Un-German: he speaks out, all alone, against the evil. The usual attacks ensue. But this time, five other Bishops (all of them, apparently, fairly young) speak out very clearly, thank the Bishop of Passau for his words and firmly take place beside him.
Results? The front has broken. Actually, it's clear now that there has never been one, and only the German desire to appear “unite” and not be seen as fomenting “division” could lead to the explosion being delayed until now. The German heretics, claiming a situation of “emergency” and opening threatening with schism, have now completely, completely lost face if a couple of days were enough to have six of the twenty-seven German bishops very officially opposed to the Kasperites.
Mind: that six have spoken does not mean that twenty-one side with heresy. It simply means that one letter was enough to give the lie on the heretical claim of a German “special need”, and to show to the entire world that even in the hotbed of European Heresy there is no compact front against Catholic teaching, at all.
It's a complete loss of face. I am very confident other bishops will speak out for Christ in the next weeks; but even if this were not the case, the six bishops have caused utter and complete devastation in the camp (as in-camp) of Kasper, Marx, & Co. What they can now claim is, at most, that heretics are a majority among German bishops. Fat chance to win with that.
The dream of a compact wall demanding a different “pastoral” treatment for the German sheep is all but gone. Kasper & Co. stand now openly refuted, and possibly in the next weeks openly humiliated, by their own bishops. What a sad end. What an inglorious way to go to hell.
I start to think that October might go down in history as a very clear reaffirmation of Catholic truth; because if you know Germany, you know that group thinking is very strong there, and the marching out of line fully against the Country's grain. That exactly in Germany one bishop's initiative should be enough to let the supposed hive mind collapse in a matter of days tells you a thing or two about what must be brewing elsewhere.
Marx and Kasper should get the stake, and the stake is what they would have had in times which value truth more than niceness. I doubt my suggestion will be adopted – there would be the need for the one or other legal change too, you see… – but it certainly is the punishment these two, and their main helpers, have deserved.
Which leads us to the Evil Clown: the man who started the entire mess by openly praising Kasper's “theology on his knees”, and will now prudently distance himself from the position he has done the most to further.
Francis is obviously on the side of heresy. He has pushed it, and continues to push it, every way he can short of an ufficial declaration of allegiance. Every Catholic with some discernment knows he is on their side. But as a Jesuit, Francis will find a way to throw his allies under the bus, and deny he ever wanted anything else than… socialism, enviro-mentalism, and cheap publicity for himself.
For the German heretics, it's now 1944. It's not sure they will lose, but the situation looks clear enough.
Sandro Magister has an interesting article (in Italian) about Francis and the Synod. In his usual way, Magister says in a polite way what many already know: Francis did all he could to support Kasper, but the October fiasco showed the task is beyond his strength. He also understands – says Magister – that next October the resistance will be much stronger, because people are prepared. Therefore, quite the Jesuit – a word used in Italy with a strong derogatory meaning, though Magister seems to pretend not to be aware of it – he has decided to distance himself from the Kasperites, avoiding the support he had previously given them. Magister follows with a long list of Francis interventions which seems, since October, to strike a more traditionalist tone in matter of family, children etc.
In part, I disagree with Magister. It seems to me that Francis' continuous stress on “mercy” is Kasperite to the very bone marrow. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that Francis avoids leaning out of the balcony in a very explicit way in this matter, limiting himself to the covert support he can give with his “symbolic” gestures like receiving Trannies.
It seems to me that Francis will – and I quite agree with Magister on this – be his usual self Jesuit and avoid a confrontation that would crush his pontificate to the ground. Rather than trying to officially change your religion, he will try to direct you towards his own one: the mix of social hatred, third-rate pacifism, third-world rhetoric and environmental madness with which he bores us pretty much every day.
If you must have such an Evil Clown as a Pope, it's better to have a Jesuit one. He will run for cover whenever he sees dark clouds approaching.
Or, as Magister puts it – implying, by the way, that the man is a heretic – he will be a “realist”.
Some good news for a change. Cardinal Sarah – the outspoken defender of the Sacrament of Communion and of Catholic teaching about sexual perversion – has been appointed head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (note the last words well). As V II Cardinals go, Sarah is certainly orthodox and conservative, i.e. Catholic.
Thankfully, I have not noticed anyone (up to now) trying to persuade us that this appointments shows that Francis is A Good, Orthodox, Conservative Pope People Do Not Understand. That time has, I think, gone forever.
Personally, I am not ready to give the man the least shred of credibility, whomever he may appoint. The man obviously hasn't changed, so our view of the danger he represents will not change, either. Why has Francis, then, chosen Sarah, of all people, for the position? My spontaneous thoughts:
1) He needs some prestigious African prelate near him to avoid the accusation of ignoring that Continent. Therefore, he puts an African at the top of what Africans do worst: liturgy. It minimises the damage for Francis, at least. How bad Sarah is in liturgical matters is also to be seen. Tornielli seems to trust him in liturgical matters too, which is a good sign. But this here is also an anti-Kasperite in the middle of the Vatican, which can never hurt.
2) Francis wants to show that he can reward outspoken prelates, as long as they do not criticise him personally. Burke out, Sarah in. A conservative in the Curia like before, but a less uncomfortable one for Francis. For now, at least.
3) He wants to divide the anti-Kasperite fraction, sending them partly to the wilderness and partly to Rome. I do not think it will ever work; but he might think so. A genius, he ain't.
4) He has given up on his revolutionary project. He is old, and it has become clear to him he will not be able to attempt any “revolution” without a huge, long conflict; a conflict which would doom his papacy for all centuries to come. He will continue to talk rubbish, of course; but no revolution. This seems to me, for the moment, only a possibility; but I do not consider it such a remote one.
Old, he is. Hypocrite, he is. Vain, he most certainly is. This one isn't the born and bred ideologue, the hero uncaring of the consequences, the Che Guevara of doctrinal demolition. This one is… a Jesuit. He will be strong with the weak and weak with the strong with the same easiness with which you breathe.
Time will tell. Let us not get too enthusiastic. The one in power is still TMAHICH. But he is clearly in the defensive now.
Today, we did get some good news. I cannot imagine any way in which bringing Sarah in can be seen as a sign of Francis' strength. No, it is a sign of Francis' weakness. He must appease the Catholics, lest he ends like the turkey at thanksgiving. He must bring in some African. He must give signals of normality. The bombardment of criticism since the Synod has not ceased, and in the meantime even the readers of the “Huffington Post” know he has put himself in a lot of trouble.
At the Synod, Francis has taken a pump gun and has shot himself in the leg. He is now trying to regain the face he has lost. It won't be easy.
It's too soon to say that Francis has thrown in the towel. But it is certainly enough to say that he is under great pressure, and must now act to avoid that the pressure becomes intolerable.
It always strikes me as odd that those most fixated on the opportunity, or necessity, for adulterers to receive Communion are those least likely to believe in Transubstantiation.
But then I reflect that to them the value of communion is not in what it is, but in the way they are seen by the community; that is, in a matter of pure egotistic self-righteousness.
Those who blaspheme the sacrament when it is about Christ, proceed to deify it when it is about them.
All normal, then.
And it came to pass The Destroyer had the gall of, after appointing Kasper as only opening speaker on the matter of adulterers and describing his as “profound and serene theology”, complaining that the press is now rather focused on this impending earthquake. Yours truly has reported.
A very good comment comes from this blog:
If I want to teach my family about morals and I hire Charlie Sheen, one must assume I’ve done my homework and selected the right person to convey the message I wish to have conveyed. I own the outcome.
With all due respect, it is simply not believable to select Kasper, sit back and watch the circus of dissent and confusion he conveys on your behalf, and then claim you did not wish this outcome.
Not owning the outcome feels deceptive and that is impacting credibility and trust.
Very well said.
We see the duplicity, the double-tongued hypocrisy, the lie, and the outright fraud of pushing a revolution and then saying one is surprised the revolution is causing so much stir, and people should focus on the daisies now in full bloom instead.
We see it. Francis, who is a Jesuit, doesn’t. Sir Humphrey should explain to him a couple of things.
Another brilliant reflection:
The Roman Catholic Church ordained and hired dissenters on every level and the situation is catastrophic.
Announcing the fix is in, hiring a man leading a schismatic movement and then claiming he is shocked by the outcome tells us it is the same old show only now at the top.
It gives the appearance the Pope is among those who operate under the old chestnut of passive-aggressive deception. That is bringing a boatload of other problems he didn’t expect upon his papacy.
It seems more and more evident to me that normal, reasonable, mainstream Novus Ordo Catholics (or at least, for now, bloggers) are more and more waking up to the immense scandal of this papacy. Their number will grow as Francis makes his enmity with Christ’s teaching (yes, I mean exactly that: enmity with Christ’s teaching) more and more evident. The Pollyannas will swallow everything unquestioningly like the average Stefan Mustermann during Nazism, thinking that if the Fuehrer has said so, why it must be right. But many, many others will realise the Church has no Fuehrerprinzip, and the Pope must respect Catholicism like everyone else and, actually, before everyone else; because being servus servorum Dei, the first among the servants of God, brings not only a very great power, but also a very special responsibility.
Deo volente, the resistance will grow stronger and Francis will realise the popularity with the wrong crowd is paid with a constant erosion of credibility as Pope; which, in turn, makes him less and less credible as the apostles of a New Age of Mercy; because if even yours laugh at your antics you can be Bishop of Rome, but you won’t carry a great weight after all.
Pope Bozo has abundantly trespassed every boundary of common decency, and it is time Catholic bloggers, journalists and common readers start making it clear without undue obedience for a Fuehrerprinzip the Church was never meant to have.
Unless, that is, they aren’t happy with the sacraments being made a parody of, and Catholic morality being perverted and subverted in the most shameless, if “officially unofficial”, way.
The head of the Austrian group “Wir Sind Kirche” (“We Are Church”) was excommunicated, together with her husband, for playing Mass (and, actually, “priestess”) at home. What I think happened is that these people invited a small number of satanic nutcases at home and, after tea and Sachertorte, “concelebrated” a pretend Mass.
I hope the Sachertorte was good, because the thing with the pretend Mass had a kind of a bitter outcome.
This group is, in a way, the Austrian Heresy on steroids or, if you prefer, the openly militant Austrian Heresy. A bit what the SA were to the Nazi ideology. They evidently do not limit themselves to dream of, say, priestesses; they actually play priestess themselves.
Ah, these children! They grow up so fast!
In this case, the children are clearly Satan’s willing tools. They refusal of basic Catholicism puts them squarely in the Presbyterian camp, but at least the Presbyterians have the decency to not imagine themselves Catholics.
By the by, the woman is 67 years old, showing age does not necessarily go together with wisdom, and is apparently using a title of “theologian” without the legal qualifications to do so. Where I come from this is a criminal offence of no small import. I wonder how the Austrian see that. What the matter tells me is that some people would do absolutely everything to attract attention on themselves.
I don’t pity the husband. I pity the neighbours.
Now, it is obviously good that, once in a while, we are informed the rules are enforced. But this here is truly extreme, and to infer from this any kind of “orthodoxy” of Francis would be utterly unrealistic, particularly considering the inquest against the two started in 2011. More probably, Cardinal Müller persuaded Francis that something more robust than a “slap on the wrist” had to take place. We have, anyway, always known this is one madness Francis does not support.
“Wir Sind Kirche” isn’t small fare, as in the German-speaking countries dissent is almost as fashionable now as brown was in the Thirties. They are present in more than twenty Countries, but to my knowledge they are vocal particularly in Germany and Austria. One wonders how the Austrian members will react to the news that their Dear Leader is found guilty of delicta graviora.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because this is one of those events that might open the eyes of the tepid, the ill-informed and the slow. To keep the woman at the head of the Austrian nutcase group would be telling. To oust her would force, perhaps, some soul searching.
When the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, one is forced to inform oneself as to what has happened and, if he is of sound thinking, realise they are excommunicated for refusing to compromise Catholicism. When these two are excommunicated, many will be hopefully led to realise that within this movement Catholicism is not even present in homeopathic doses.
In any way, what is sure is that we can’t infer from the punishment of this really extreme behaviour any return to orthodoxy from Francis.
It would be like praising Stalin because he did not eat children.
“Will God accept being put to the side like a useless toy for much longer?”
These are the last, ominous words of a beautiful article appeared in Riscossa Cristiana, and beautifully translated courtesy of Francesca Romana at Rorate Caeli.
I invite you to follow the link and to read there the entire article.
You will find, there, several other ominous statements. The most beautiful is from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro:
“We will find ourselves more and more faced with someone who professes to speak to us in the name of God by telling us that we have no need of Him.”
Gnocchi is right. But I do not want to spoil the fun. Enjoy Marco Bongi’s explanation of why this is the case.
Our clergymen have forgotten God. They worship the world and, ultimately, themselves.
It will all end up in tears. Theirs.
A… magistral punch to NuChurch from Sandro Magister, who has analysed the answers to various questions posed in the notorious “survey” by Country.
It turns out that the Countries more sold to the “throwaway culture”, and infected by all those luxury cars Francis so abhors, are actually the least orthodox in all principal matters of Catholic doctrine, whilst the poorer Countries in the third world lead the field in matters of orthodoxy.
We knew it already, of course.
What Magister elegantly points out, though, is that those are exactly the periferie, the “outskirts” Francis always puts in front of our eyes as the real inspiration for rich, sound Catholicism, inviting us not to “close” ourselves – and the Vatican – in the narrow views of the wealthy West.
How comes, then, that the Pope who is always praising the “outskirts” clearly pushes the “serene” heresies of the Kasperites?
Father Z has a post about Cardinal Kasper publishing a book about mercy, which says, but also does not say, what he wants to say, but is not necessarily saying.
I have my own hypothesis about why the Cardinal speaks differently from the two corners of his mouth.
He is a Modernist.
I mean, one of the good ones. Not SSPX-good of course (I do not think there is a single one among them: not Burke or Piacenza or Caffarra) but still a good one, with love for the Church and fear of the Lord.
You have, of course, looked with a growing sense of horror at what has been happening in the last fourteen months. You are known to be no friend of the new course, which contributes to your isolation as the Maradiaga tribe pushes you more and more toward the margins of influence. But still, you are a Cardinal: a Prince of the Church, and one who can have an interview and a headline every day.
You have, probably, thought the best think to do is to wait in the shadow, and hope for better times. That was at the beginning, when you thought Francis is merely a bad Pope, but nothing to lose one's sleep about.
But then Francis' showed his true face with growing brazenness; and boy, that face is ugly. Your sleep became increasingly less restful.
Now, you just can't sleep. Other than Francis, you do believe in the God of the Christians, and you are therefore afraid of Judgment. You know that one day you will appear in front of your Creator – or at least in His waiting room – and the possibility of hearing the words “depart from me, ye workers of iniquity!” directed at you, with no appeal and no remedy at all, chills your very blood.
You are a smart Cardinal. Not all of them are, but you are one of the smart ones. Therefore, you know that unless God puts Francis in a coffin, or causes him to have a miraculous conversion to Catholicism, it is only a matter of time until you are required to make choices on which your eternal salvation may well depend.
In October, mass sacrilege will be allowed. Openly, in broad daylight, among the praises and jubilation of the world. Francis obscene merry-go-round will go into sixth gear and start spinning like the Devil himself is pushing it. From the atheists to the adulterers, from the infidels to the lukewarm and to the simply stupid – and you know, because you are smart, that taken together they are the absolutely vast majority of humanity – a tidal wave of approbation will sweep everything in front of it, and leave behind immense devastation.
It will be 1527 all over again, but this time on a spiritual, and on a planetary scale.
You perfectly well know what it means for you: when the tidal wave starts to roll, every Cardinal standing in front of it may well be wiped out, as Maradiaga & Co. start thundering against the counter-revolutionaries. To speak out is, clearly, to take part in a turkey-shooting on the wrong side of the barrel.
But if you do not face the barrel, a far more terrible calamity may befall on you one day, as you realise your silence has made you an accomplice in perhaps the worst rape of Truth in history.
You try to look at it from every angle. You try to find solutions that would allow you to avoid an open confrontation. You do everything you can to persuade yourself that prudence requires that good men remain in the shadow, and patiently bide their time; working constantly under Francis' and Maradiaga's radar, and creating a net of underground resistance ready to strike one day.
A comfortable thought, this one; but when you look at it with total honesty, you know it's no more than convenience, and wishful thinking. Francis will take care a comfortable majority of his appointments are made among dyed-in-the-wool Modernists. Biding one's time would only mean to allow the revolution to consolidate, the tumour to metastasise. You know it, no matter how many times you try to persuade yourself there's still a place for strategists in the Vatican.
There isn't. Revolutions always get rid of them.
You think of the French Revolution, when the priests were given the choice between civilian life and guillotine. You remember reading that ninety percent chose to betray Christ, but ten percent – an awful lot of necks, in fact – chose Christ; and the guillotine.
They didn't “bide their time”. They knew the option was not open to them. They were priests. There are options a priest just doesn't have.
You start seeing things in a clearer way now. You are in a position of great privilege and honor at the moment, but this was never meant to come to you for free. Ubi honor, ibi onus. It was always requested of those who wanted to live like a Prince that they be able to die like a Prince. You swore to be willing to die for Christ the day you were ordained. Those French priests choosing martyrdom were not Cardinals, either; they were Princes only in their deaths, without the correspondent advantages in their lives.
You are getting bolder now. And come on, will you be killed? Yes, you might be sent to some obscure office; you might be sent to a Country full of horrible spiders, and extremely hungry flies; you might be sent where Christians are persecuted. Where, in fact, many are persecuted who aren't Princes, and who bear everything with faith in the Lord, and confidence in His just reward. But you will very probably not die, you will probably remain a Cardinal, you will probably keep a measure of influence and power. But what does this count in the end?
You must speak out.
You must speak out before and after October, come what may. You must openly denounce the sacrilege. You must leave a record for future generations. You must, if need be, become an example for future generations. Because you are a Prince. You are a Prince. You are a Prince.
And if this must be so – and it must be so; of this at least, you know there can be no doubt – then it is better to start fighting now; because the only chance of success is if many Princes put their swords on the side of yours and make clear now, not later, that they are going to fight both before and after October.
Will there be many of them? Realistically you know it's possible, but not probable. But the courage of each one of them will embolden others, and as they count themselves they might, come October, discover they are a frightful adversary. Princes from Africa and Asia will come to your help. It's one step at a time, and God never gave guarantees of earthly victory anyway. The Church was built on the blood of the martyrs.
Let's say, my dear reader, you are a Cardinal. This is what you, I hope, would decide you have to do.
I know it's easy to be an “armchair Cardinal”, but it is far easier to be a Prince of the Church only when it's comfortable. It is from those who have been given most honour and power, that the willingness to fight must be first asked.
If the Princes do not lead, how will the troops go to battle?
Yes, some troops will go to battle anyway. Priests and Bishops – those who are good at least – will join the fight, and will not care of consequences.
I shiver at the thought of the Princes who will die after refusing to lead them.
It is now around five months to what will probably go down in Church History as one of the most calamitous events ever, and there can be no doubt whatsoever where Francis wants to lead the Church: in a world where sound doctrine is paid lip service whilst the praxis contradicts it at every step: in the sacraments, in sexual morality, in social and economic matters, and in everything that does not conform to the times, or to the expectation of the secularised masses.
It is grave enough that sacrilege will be officially opened the door of the Church – in “special situations” that will immediately become the norm in large parts of the West – and the Sacraments made a mockery of. But you must also wonder whether this Pope will stop there. No, he won't.
After the communion for adulterers we will have the communion for sodomites; everything will be “celebrated”; nothing and no one will ever be “judged”; apart from Capitalism, and a banker or two.
The floodgates are about to open, and to throw a huge wave of mud on the Bride of Christ. What are we, as bloggers, doing to, at least, do our part to prevent it?
Reading around, my answer would be: not nearly enough. There is, it seems to me, the danger of the usual situation by which the initial attitude is “let's wait what happens, and let us not be divisive “; and after it has happened the attitude will be “well, now it has happened. Let us not be divisive”.
On the contrary, say I. Let us not wait what happens, and let us be divisive.
It is clear enough, what is happening: Francis is paving the way for a full-scale Modernist attack on the Church. He thinks, speaks and act like a Modernist because he is one of them. It is very clear that to him everything can be changed, if the “Spirit” – that is, himself – says so.
How can we, then, react to this to the best of our ability? My answer is simple: sound the alarm now, strongly and insistently. And do not refrain from exposing the man for what he is: a danger for Catholicism, a sower of confusion, and a buffoon.
The Synod is already happening. As I write this, we are all being “groomed” for the novelties to come. Novelties which now shock many faithful, but in five months' time will come to be seen as “inevitable”, or “a long time in the making”. Francis is already at it full-time, and many prelates are already following him. It's happening now, and we must shout our opposition now instead of waiting for the tragedy to happen.
It does not make sense to think “it will not be so bad”. Unless there is a huge uproar, or an extraordinary intervention of the Holy Spirit, it will be so bad! Can't you see how Francis becomes bolder with every passing month? When you see huge scandal in the making, do you speak against it or do you think “oh well, the Holy Ghooost is guiding the Chuuuurch for the beeest” like an old Pollyanna?
We can't give this Pope any slack, because he has not deserved any. If anything, he has made very clear there is no monstrosity he would not put into place, if he could. With his blabbering about not closing the door to the “Spirit” he has, once and for all, thrown away the mask. The Modernist machine is now working full steam, and we must not allow this and him to go unpunished – yes, unpunished – because he is the Pope. Yes, he is the Pope. Which is why the situation is so grave, why he is so gravely culpable, and why we must see him as the worst enemy of Catholicism.
Corruptio optimi pessima. Francis is certainly not optimus for any particular virtue of him – which he does not have -, but because of the absolute preeminence of his earthly position. A Pope sabotaging Catholicism every day is what the Germans call GAU, Größter Anzunehmender Unfall or the worst possible (nuclear) catastrophe; and the nuclear plants that gave rise to the expression are very fitting for our situation, because a huge accident is about to happen in the Vatican Power Station, and mad or evil men have taken control of it.
Francis is a popularity addict. His religion is himself first, Socialism second, himself third and fourth, and Christianity nowhere. What to do?
Mock him, ridicule him, let him drown in a sea of laughter and scandal. This is what is most likely, or least unlikely, to stop him or at least put a brake on his devastation. If every day thousands of Catholic blogs were to openly ridicule Francis, this would have two very salutary effects: it would show Francis he is the Kasperle (how fitting) of the sound Catholic world, and it would contribute to cure a large part of the Catholic masses from the Papolatry that has afflicted the Church for so many decades now. In time, the phenomenon would be registered by the mass media. At that point, Francis would have failed, and he would stay there like the old dangerous or evil nincompoop he truly, truly is.
This is not your usual Pope, to which the usual rules of utter deference apply. This here is a new breed of Pope. If bad Popes of the past were orks, Francis is a Uruk-hai, and he will get away with absolutely everything – on this earth at least – unless we react to this new threat in a way proportionate to it.
We are, as I have already written, at the point that Francis has brought such disrepute to the office, that to criticise the man is the only way to defend the office. Ridicule him, so that the contrast with a decent Papacy and his predecessors may become more evident. Mock him, so that his delirious novelty may be discounted before he even opens his mouth. Make of him a laughing stock, so that you will hit him where he is hurt most effectively: in his boundless vanity.
The past should, in this, be our guidance. Faced with an unprecedented threat, St. Athanasius – and, if memory serves, St. Eusebius too – began to autonomously appoint bishops. That, my friends, is a tad more extreme than calling a clown a clown. But Athanasius knew the situation was too grave to waste time wondering whether he would be accused of “schism”.
Christ here. Liberius there. This is all Athanasius needed to know.
Do not be afraid that, if we do so – if we start to become openly dismissive and mocking of Francis – he will dismiss his critics and everyone who is vaguely orthodox as “the baddies”. He does it already! All the time! Let him, then! Let him accuse his critics of “gossiping”! Sound people will see through his lies and, in time, they will grow in number.
Imagine Francis getting up in the morning and knowing he wil be the laughing stock of thousands of demonstrably orthodox Catholics bloggers, read by millions of readers. It would soon spread to the newspapers, and from them to the general consciousness. It would soon destroy his credibility by every thinking person.
The first Pope who is so bad, that Catholics mock him. How's that for a business card?
Enough with pretending this is a somewhat naive pastor, or an innocent province priest desirous to serve the Church. This is a wolf in ship's clothing, his religion is social justice, and his Trinity is Me, Myself and I.
Wake up to reality, take the sword, and react to this in the only way we can.
When talking of enemies, there is a rather well-known phrase in Italy: una risata li seppellira', or “one laughter will bury them”. I always thought this phrase very apposite, then after real weapons nothing is more effective than ridicule. Particularly so, when the hearts and minds of countless distracted or poorly instructed Catholics is at stake.
Wake up to the reality of this Pope. No more Mr Nice Blogger. It's time to get to the keyboard, and start using it like a sword.
Good day. May I introduce myself? I am a Kasperite.
I am, you must know, in rather high spirits since Cardinal Kasper's latest interview. It is evident – as the Cardinal is such a good chap – that Francis really thinks 50% of the marriages are invalid. Which clearly, clearly includes my “marriage” with my former wife. It's obvious. I feel it. Sensus catholicus, you know…
Look, I was only 28 then, she merely 27. At 28, what do you know? Yeah, I get you: I would be outraged at the idea I can't vote or drive at 18 because I am immature, and should be made to wait at least until I am 30 for both.
I should not be allowed to buy a house or a car either, you say; buy an insurance plan; sign for the Military; in short, take any sort of long-term commitment that influences the rest of my life; but that's different, you see. I mean, I spend inordinate amounts of time reflecting about for which party to vote, and which house to buy; or which insurance, or car; or which profession to choose; but our marriage, that was made on the spur of the moment, you see. We wanted the romantic church ceremony, you know. I mean, how immature is that?!
My actual wife wants one too, by the way. I'll have to deliver on this, or it will be Ice Age in HD in the bedroom.
So, what was I saying? Oh yes: our marriage (my first one) was most certainly invalid.
Yep. There can be no doubt about that. Or do you doubt the Pope? It's clear the Holy Ghost inspires him.
Therefore, what needs there is now to bother the sacra rota, and face costs to boot? Hey, if the judges of the sacra rota aren't as enlightened as our Humble Pope, they might even falsely declare that an obviously invalid marriage – which is clearly the thinking of the Pope – is not invalid! What a tragic mistake this would be! In the age of mercy, do we really need that? Come on!
No, I said to my second (erm, I mean…) wife: let's do it differently. Let's pretend – just because the Church has not become as enlightened as Francis – that I am still in a “valid” marriage, and let us go through whatever motions the Bishops decide after October. Yeah, there will be something about repentance, I think; sinfulness, or such like. Old Church things, you know. Then we will be fine, and will be able to receive communion in front of all the neighbourhood.
But no, wait, my first marriage is invalid (I know it!) so there is no need to wait for October!
I mean, it's clear the Cardinal knows the Church is just putting old-style obstacles between the faithful and Christ. He is trying to help as he can! As is the Pope! Yep, it's pretty obvious.
Think of the phone call. The Pope has spoken. The woman can take communion somewhere else. I mean, we can't all phone the Pope, right? The woman's case applies to me too, so the Pope's answer is also meant for me. OK, we have a decision then: next Sunday we will both be in the communion line, receiving in the hands. Not in our neighbourhood, though. Ratzinger-like, rather. For now at least. One step at a time.
Perhaps after October they will allow us something in the church, too? A “ceremony”, or a “blessing”? I mean, I have “repented”, right? 😉 . Why not? Didn't Francis say something about not judging, field hospital, not having certainties, all that stuff?
My wife (I mean, the second one; that is, actually, the first? Right? Gosh, it's complicated…) told me she demands a ceremony in a church at some point, or we will both convert to Anglicanism. I know, I shouldn't do it. But you know how women are, right? In the end, can it be that Jesus thinks where I marry is more important than my marriage? What's the difference, anyway? If I had been born of Anglican parents I would be an Anglican now. I know it for a fact. So in the end it's just a matter of politics. Hey, I could receive communion at the local CoE church every Sunday. Consecration and all. Even the chalice with the wine. It's like Catholicism without the wrong bits! I like the idea a lot, but my mother says she thinks it's stil a sin, and that I might put (she thinks; not sure) my soul in danger.
Ha! Old women!! She still believes actual, regular people go to hell! Well at least she thinks she heard so. It was a long time ago, though. She stopped attending in the Seventies, short before getting pregnant with me. She and Pa married in church, but it had to be very fast. Isn't it funny? She never told me her marriage was invalid, nor did Pa. Come on, Ma! You.were.pregnant!
So that's what I'll do. From next Sunday, we drive two neighbourhoods away and take communion. Then we wait for October. Then we go through the motions of having sinned, etc. Repentance galore 😉 as to the wedding, when my wife gets so angry I get no sex, it will be either an alternative ceremony or the Anglicans. Yes, Siree!
Anglicans are like Cardinal Kasper, you must know. They don't make all that fuss.
What did you say? Eating my own… WHAT? Steady, boy, this is not charitable at all. Not charitable at all! I think you should apologise!
Of course I would receive communion perfectly all right! No sacrilege at all! Please stop with that drivel about hell! God slaps us in the twist at most! The Pope said so himself!
Look: I have no doubt that my marriage is invalid, and I have no doubt my communion is valid. If I were to convert to Anglicanism, I know that would right too. I feel it, OK?
Well if you ask, YES! It means the Truth has changed! Didn't you read the Pope? Can't you see we are in a new time of mercy, at the dawn of a New Tradition? And by the way….(How does the Pope say it? Oh, yeah…)
Who are you to judge?
Speaking of ‘remarried’ couples who live together as “brother and sister,” Kasper told the magazine, “I have high respect for such people. But whether I can impose it is another question. But I would say that people must do what is possible in their situation.”
“We cannot as human beings always do the ideal, the best. We must do the best possible in a given situation,” he said.
“It’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian,” he added.
Thus spake Kasperthustra, the man who is inventing a new religion perfectly tailored for the need of his German punters.
Let us reflect on what the man is saying: chastity can only be observed in case of heroic virtues; that is, by earthly saints on their way to heaven.
Therefore, the Cardinal is saying that not only every priest, but he himself has been in his younger years either a saint or a Fornicator.
His words, not mine.
I have already written about the battle lines slowly but surely forming before the impending disgrace of October's Extraordinary Synod.
Today I read two news directly related to the event; one ominous, one half-way encouraging.
The bad news (which you can read everywhere) is that it appears a made decision that Paul VI ( the man whose miracle consists in avoiding a “danger” that never became real; yours truly is, like countless others, one for whom doctors had foreseen a grave danger of serious malformations; and I have already expressed my now founded hopes for my own beatification) will be beatified on the final day the October Synod. One wonders if this is not a way to underline, with another alleged show of God's favour for the madness of V II, the start for real of “phase II” of the Springtime. All on the same day; a true Modernist double whammy. Deus le volt, the wrong way.
The good news is that, as we read (in English) from the Eponymous Flower, two prominent Cardinals have officially joined the ranks of the Anti-Kasperites. You may want to follow the link and read the details there. Please note Cardinal Bassetti has a lot to lose, as he appears slated for the very powerful position of head of the Italian Bishops' Conference. He does not seem to put his ambitions before his duty. Let's hope it lasts.
That there will be battle, is clear. The problem is how hard the right side will be ready to fight, considering that Francis has already given his “officially unofficial” support to Cardinal Kasper, is less clear; Francis supports Kasper in a relatively (for the great public) subtle way, true; but still in a way sufficient to let all the insiders who have ears hear and know where he stands.
Let us not kid ourselves on this: the odds of faithful Catholics on this one appear fearful. With every passing week it appears more evident a climate of expectation is being built, to disappoint which would be considered, from the numerous Grima Wormtongues, not pastoral, uncharitable, or fuelling the risk of “schism”. At this point, Francis The Merciful could intervene and save the Catholic world from impending catastrophe as he collects more headlines as the man daring to go where no Pope before him, no matter how stupid or evil, dared to go.
I say all this not because I enjoy being the bearer of bad news – as a rule, I am the eternal optimist -, but because I very much fear the effect that the, very probably, obscene events in October might have on the faith of Catholics of less than robust faith and solid instruction.
What wil happen in October will only be a litmus test to gauge the corruption of the present Church and her betrayal of Christ's Truth. But no extent of corruption and betrayal can change either the nature of the Church, or of the Truth she is called to defend.
To use a strong image, the Bride of Christ, Mother Church, as she operates on this earth – meaning: in the men who run Her down here, in her earthly appearance – may have transformed herself in something resembling a slut, and she may be possibly on the brink of becoming an outright whore, or rather a camera-loving porn actress. But degraded as she is in her earthly manifestation, Bride and Mother she still is. The son who discovers that her mother has become an aged porn actress has all the rights to criticise her sharply in public for her shame; but he will continue to love her, to pray for her, to hope that it may be given to him to see the day she is reformed. Many were, in the past, the “slutty phases” of the earthly Church: the Arian mess, the great corruption around the Millennium, the licence and abuse of the Renaissance, or the irreligiousness of the XVIII century. Never has Jesus abandoned Her. Let us do the same.
Before the battle, the odds are fearful.
But God will see the fight, and He will remember on which side everyone of us was.
Already a couple of times I had comments on my blog – and many more I have read on other blogs – on the lines of “do you realise that what you write goes against the teaching of V II?”, or the variant “what you write has been superseded by the Vatican II documents”.
The writer of such comments has often the obvious aim to instruct the writer of this blog – or, say, some other commenter on another blog – about his mistake; a mistake due to him not knowing that things have, in the meantime, changed.
Religious freedom, ecumenism & interreligious “dialogue”, and the “pastoral” attitude after V II are, from what I could observe, the issues about which such comments are most likely to be made.
A strange inversion of reality has taken place here. What was right, the commenter says, has now been declared wrong. Therefore, people must be informed about the “new right”, in order for them to comply with V II.
This is far, far more absurd than if anyone were to say that 2+2 is now actually 5, white in fact black, and the sun – as thought by V II documents – a satellite of the Earth.
The idea that the Truths of Faith belong to a supernatural order that, by its own nature, refuses the very idea of change escapes such commenters. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council states – in a more or less confused and contradictory manner – principles that are, or appear to be, or are understood to be in conflict with 2,000 years of Church teaching, such commenters do not conclude that the Council Fathers were wrong, or confused, or misleading, but that what is right has now changed. And these people are, when you ask me, very often the same who worry about the “traumatic change” demanded of “old people” to say “and with your spirit” rather than “and with you too”, or whatever childish nonsense it was that was said until a couple of years ago (blessedly, I have forgotten already. Please don’t remind me).
There is here a defence of the orthodoxy of heterodoxy, a method in illogical thinking that leaves one quite speechless. Something strangely between “1984” and Lewis-Carroll’s Mad Hatter.
Truth is Truth. If it can change, then no Truth has ever existed, because if Truth can change it is evidently… not true.
Mind, we are not talking here about matters of discipline. Truth does not change if Friday penance can be done in ways different from abstaining from meat (which did not work, btw), or if it is decided that the fast before communion should be reduced to, say, three and a half minutes (I am sure Francis is thinking of that). The rules can be questionable, unfitting, even disgraceful; but they are nevertheless expression of the same Truth.
Quite different is the matter if we look at what pertains directly to the Truths of the faith: say, in the matter of the communion for adulterers and public concubines. Here, there are principles at stake that are at the very core of how Christianity understands itself, or better said how the Church defends the Truth of Christ. These Truths are the reality of Christianity exactly as 2+2 represents the reality of mathematical addition. On a logical plane it is not possible to tamper with the ones more than with the others.
To play with such Truths is, however prudently made – not talking of the Kasperites here, rather of Cardinal Ratzinger – always a very dangerous exercise. It is dangerous, because whilst the one or other exception might even make half sense in a way – or not, as the case may be – every exception will unavoidably cause the call for more exceptions; general confusion, and watering down of the way the Truth is presented and, in time, defended, will be the result.
The modern representatives of “V II orthodoxy” are the embodiment of this confusion as it breathes and types. They notice that in most countries there is no obligation of Friday abstinence anymore, and in their ignorance and confusion they conclude from this that, “evidently”, Truth changes. The same reasoning they apply to the Conciliar documents, which leads them to conclude what the Church has said now must be, well, “the Truth for our times”, or some sort of “even newer Testament”. The consequence of this is, again, the dogmatisation and unofficial proclamation of the infallibility of V II, because if Truth has changed, then the Holy Ghost must have backed it. As this man-made edifice shows huge cracks, its walls must be supported with… the beatification or canonisation of past Popes. A rather North Korean approach to an obvious failure, if you ask me.
This “new Truth” approach has the same logic as if a Math teacher were to come in class one fine morning and say “after three years of discussion with 300 other pious fellow teachers, we now think that in the new “age of merciful math” two and two should be, in some exceptional cases and after due introspection, five”, and the class to a man should get up and say “what inspired teachers you are! Indeed, a New Springtime of Mathematics has erupted! Praise the Lord! Santo Subito!”
Obviously, Truths of mathematics are better protected from Kasperite manipulation than Catholic Truth; if anything, because every child can tell you that 5 minus 2 is not 2 and there must, therefore, be a mistake there. But again, this is nothing to do with the intrinsic immutability of Truth, which is and remains in nothing more mutable than mathematics.
It is a sign of the times that we should have these “orthodox heterodox commenters” infesting the blogs, perhaps (and this is a biggish “perhaps”) even thinking they are actually helping someone.
Perhaps, I was saying.
Or perhaps not.
My opinion is that, more often than not, there is some skeleton in the cellar. I remember the “Homo Smoke” types, where I had to aggressively question some of these “merciful” people without rest, before they finally admitted they were homosexual; a circumstance they had thought fitting not to disclose to their audience as they expounded their apparently disinterested view of “mercy” and “tolerance” towards “gays”. **
The same is true today. What are the sexual tendencies of the Jesuit priests so noted for their “merciful” approach to sodomites? An approach which brings them in constant, near contact with a multitude of people clearly looking for, well, male ass, and almost always behaving and dressing in a way that would cause repulsion and disgust in every sane person? Why has the one or other bishop or archbishop suddenly discovered “pastoral” duties that, in his own time in the seminary, might have had them kicked out without even the benefit of a “good day”? And what about the many “charitable” commenters infesting the co boxes of Catholic Blogs like Patheos, of Catholic Answers, or of newspapers? Who is the man or woman (or both; at least genetically) that is writing for the “Daily Homograph” about Francis’ new and “modern” approach? Do they live in sin? Are they straight? Are their loved ones straight? Or have they “gone native” in one way or the other, and are now invested in some heterodox or even perverted agenda we know nothing about, and now tell you how good it is that Francis is, so to speak, so “native-friendly?”.
Beware of the orthodoxy in heterodoxy. And beware of the heterodox, whenever they talk about “charitee”.
** nota bene: the fag has great problems in saying “I am straight”, so big is the ego investment in his perversion. Once put constantly under pressure many will, in time, crack, throwing away the mask and showing their true face. It won’t be a pretty sight.
I never understood – it must be my lack of experience of the real thing – why the comparison of the Church as a “field hospital” should be something leading to heresy, or perversion of doctrine through other and more Jesuitical ways.
What is a field hospital there for? To heal the sick and wounded, I would say.
I imagine that in a field hospital no one looks to which army the wounded belongs: friend or enemy, the field hospital accepts everyone. Very fine. Beautiful. Utterly Christian.
But then, the absolute priority of the doctors in the field hospital is, I think, saving the patients’ life. If, to do this, very unpleasant things are necessary – things that would be unthinkable in less serious circumstances, like amputations – then the doctors go on and do what they have to do, because the greater good – the human life – has precedence over the lesser good – the limb -.
The field hospital, in other words, is not there to tell the wounded they are healthy and all fine, but to make them healthy again, with whatever means necessary.
Not differently, if you ask me, for the field hospital that we call the Church.
No one is left out. Prostitutes, concubines, perverts, sinners of all sorts, Catholic and not, Christian and not, are all welcomed in. But they are welcomed in in order that they may be healed. This healing is, and can only be, the only priority, and the goal to which, if necessary, everything else must be sacrificed. If in order to save a human life a limb can be sacrificed, it is evident that in order to save the infinitely more important soul no sacrifice is too big.
When I read people writing “the concubine should not stop living in mortal sin, because otherwise the children would (insert here your excuse: hate the church, change schools, have to do without a garden, see their father a bit less, which does not even have to be, etc), I truly wonder whether these people once in their life stopped and examined hell as a real possibility, or – as it is far more probable – whether they think that hell never concerns them, so the good of the children is the first priority.
It is, for these people, as if Christ were something you should try to accommodate, if no detriment to a host of other priorities results from it. Hey, there is a problem of cost! (how about downsizing). Hey, there is a problem of schools! (how about spending more time helping your children). Hey, the children would, (oohhh, ahhh: can’t you see me crying?) **lose their father!** (no, they wouldn’t). Hey, there is one more of the infinite series of excuses everyone can put in the middle (are they more important than your salvation? Yes or no).
The “field hospital” meme, Francis style, is an excuse. It is as inane and senseless as this pontificate. The Church is there to lead souls to heaven. She is not there to let them feel good. This is not healing, but accompanying these souls all the way to death. It is telling the patient some happy story whilst the gangrene advances, because it would upset him too much to say that if he wants to save his life, the leg must go.
The Kasperites are not concerned about salvation. Their focus is exclusively on the worldly. When the wounded adulterous woman comes in their field hospital, to them “healing” is not helping her to save her soul, but helping her to damn her soul, eating and drinking God’s judgment upon herself.
“We must find ways to help her receive communion”, they think. They do not think “we must find ways to make her worthy of communion”. They aren’t afraid of hell and they have no fear of the Lord, so they can’t see the sacrilege. To them, it is as if there were only legalistic, procedural obstacles that must be cleared, so that “mercy” may advance.
This is the very crux of Kasperite thinking: “let us find a way that suits you”, instead of “let us follow Christ’s way”.
It pains me very, very much to say that as the weeks and months to this disgraceful Synod pass, a climate of expectation is being created, the aim of which is to arrive to October in readiness for the mother of all excuses: “now it’s too late to not do anything”. Schisms will be painted on the wall. Mass defections. The need to “heal” after the pedophile priests scandal (the pedophile priest scandal is always handy; but the canonisation of a Pope who failed egregiously in the matter is wonderful, too). An orgy of “pastoral” thinking. A gradualism after which it is better for now to pave ways for sacrilege, and then try to teach the faithful better; something which has never been done in the first place. Infinite excuses will be found. They will be as numerous as human sins.
When it’s done, all hell will – literally- break loose. The popolo bue, the tepid and unthinking majority, will follow without any trouble. They don’t understand what scandal is, because the priest only talks about the “joy of being a Christian”. And how can Mrs Smith, who partakes of such “joy”, be so, oohhh sooo cruelly left out?
An army of blind will follow their blind pastors. They will be told “this is how we do things now”. They will never stop and think whether “how we do things now” is sacrilegious or not, and whether priests did differently then, and why. They won’t, because they never think in terms of sacrilege, but only of niceness. They never see the danger of hell, only the present discomfort at being counter-cultural, “uncharitable”, or not “inclusive”.
They will say “oh, of course it’s fine. Mrs Smith isn’t doing any harm to anyone!”.
She is doing harm to Jesus first, is the answer, and to the real wife of Mr Smith second. Nowadays, most people do not even realise that a sin is something that offends God, not something that hurts the cat.
Alas, in the religion of niceness Jesus has no place, sin is only when someone we know and like is hurt – never the former wife; who knows her, after all? – and being a nice “community” is next to holiness.
This is not a field hospital.
This is a front line brothel.