Blog Archives

On The Necessity Of Limbo

How can you refuse it heaven?

After reading this article I felt the need to add my own considerations. Limbo is not only theologically necessary, but also logically so.

If murdering an innocent child were enough to merit him paradise, aborting a child would be the most merciful thing one can do to any soul. Nazi and Commie genocides were, unwittingly, the greatest benefactors. Every pregnant mother would have an influence on the soul of her boy of literally infinite importance, a power much bigger than the one of great saints in heaven. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Planned Parenthood would be great benefactors, more relevant than any great saint.

Actually, a religion proposing the killing of the unborn with great success would be more efficacious in sending souls to heaven than the Church. Conversely, the desire to have a child born would be no more than this: the risk of the loss of infinite beatitude in heaven for the selfish desire to see one's own children grow, or to allow them to live a handful of decades in this imperfect vale of tears dominated by injustice, disease, decay and, of course, sin and the snares of the devil. Monstrous selfishness would this be.

The absurdity of the conclusion demonstrates the absurdity of the premise from a logical point of view alone; without even considering the dogma.

We live in time of such confusion that people spread heresy and blasphemy and feel that they are the good guys, because in their fantasy world God could never be, erm, the One the Church has taught us about for 2000 years. Their fake god is a strange mixture of satanical licence and sugary, effeminate, all-pervading fake love that, by denying all the rest (from justice to faith, to the obedience due to Christ) denies the very love it wants to upheld.

We must cut this rubbish and go back to Christianity.

Hell exists.

Original Sin is very real.

Baptism is extremely important.

The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons.

All self-evident truths many are trying to forget.

This senseless good-ism is the work of the devil, and it has to stop.



Salvation According to Francis

The Bishop of Rome finds it, as we are informed, “frightful” to think aborted children will “never see the light of day”.

I do not know you, but to me this says once again how worldly, how simply forgetful of heaven – if he believes in it, which isn't sure – the man is.

Where I come from, we were always under the impression, which was (cough) somewhat reinforced by 2000 years of Christian belief and constant teaching, that aborted children are – as a rule – deprived of the Beatific Vision.

Francis doesn't seem to care much for the Beatific Vision. To him, the “light of day” is clearly more important. “What a beautiful morning!”, he must say to himself on waking up to another beautiful Roman day, “to think that aborted children miss it! Frightful! I'll have to mention this in an homily one of these days…”.

Honestly, one like that doesn't even need to believe in God. A pro-life atheist will certainly deplore the loss of life experiences and various beauties connected with the abortion in exactly the same way.

Unless you think, as you well might, that in Francis' strange religion of course aborted children enjoy the Beatific Vision. If Francis thinks so, this has any or all of the following consequences:

1. Paradise is a very boring place, and the Beatific Vision not worth much. Hey, the poor souls could have enjoyed an earthly existence, and many glorious mornings to boot. And now that..

2. In Paradise the enjoyment of earthly condition is desired, but not possible.

Child: “Dear God, may I see the light of day?”

God: “How often do I have to tell you this? No, no, no! You have been aborted! You can't have any light of day!”

3. The mother who aborted the child actually gave him the most precious gift, security of the Beatific Vision without the risk of going to Hell, and all this at the extremely convenient, infinitely small price of few decades of fleeting pleasures, which would have been mixed with a lot of suffering anyway and, let us say it once again, the risk of eternal damnation. Seriously, there is no better deal this side of Heaven.

Actually, in this case it is the mothers who do not abort their children who are the cruel ones, because they expose their children to a concrete risk of damnation – an infinite punishment – and endanger for their child the possibility of the Beatific Vision – an infinitely worthy good – against the infinitely small satisfaction that can be derived by dubious and temporary wordly pleasure, limited both in kind and duration of enjoyment.

Unless – and here things become really strange – Francis should believe that, through Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, absolutely each and everyone is saved: born and unborn, baptised and unbaptised, slapped on the wrist or not slapped on the wrist. In this case there is no need for priests or friars, or for missionaries, or for the Vatican, or for the Church Christ founded, or for the Pope who should run her; unless it be, perhaps, to avoid the slap on the wrist, or enjoy the light of day, or help the delicate Francis not to have frightful thoughts whilst he subects the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate – those horrible people who keep believing in Hell and terrorising the faithful – to a… frightful persecution.

Once again, Francis says things that sound well, and don't make sense. They don't, because his entire new religion just does not stand the exam of reason; besides being in obvious contradiction with Catholicism, that is.

Pray for the Pope. Pray more, the more he says such things. If you don't really feel like doing it for him, at least do it for the Church that he should protect, for the truths he should transmit intact, and for the countless souls damaged by his shallow, emotional, wordly, self-centred, un-Catholic thinking.



%d bloggers like this: