Blog Archives

The Problem With Francis Is Francis Himself




Francis’ Ideal Bishop



The Mexican Bishops are angry at the Pope.

They are angry because the Pope rebuked them fairly openly during his recent propaganda-trip (they are, I am told, not so angry when the Pope spits heresies, which is fairly often; sed de hoc satis). They are, interestingly, willing to see in the (apparently) reasonable work done by them against Secularism and Protestantism (that is: something more than most of their South American colleague, which tends to zero) the ultimate reason for the Pope’s not-so-veiled rebuke. Now, the analysis comes from the Archbishop of Mexico City, Cardinal Carrera. But it is reasonable to suppose the man shared thoughts with his colleagues before giving vent to his justified anger.

From this we learn one very important message: whenever the Pope attacks some Bishops, the first thing the Bishops think is that the Pope attacks them because they are being Catholics.

Absurd in normal times. Perfectly reasonable in Francis’ times. 

With the usual half-baked effort in diplomacy, the Cardinal asks “who advised the Pope so badly”. The question is wrongly posed. Francis is not a good man badly advised. He is an evil man, a profoundly dirty mind, a person corrupted in his bone marrow. Whatever bad advisers he has (I am sure he has a number of them, though I am sure others try at least limit the damage), they are merely the result of his own badness.

You also read in the article that El Mundo not only confirms great tensions between the Evil Clown and his Mexican Bishops, but also forecast a “renewal of the top of the Mexican Church”. It seems to me that what is in the cards is something akin to what has already happened in Paraguay  . But you see, Bishop Livieres Plano was isolated among his modernist colleagues; in Mexico, it could be very different.

The problem with Francis aren’t his advisers. They are, bad as they are, just the consequence of the root problem. The problem with Francis is Francis himself.

The Mexican bishops got it. And, besides the half-bakes diplomacy, they want you to know it, too. 



Pope Didn’t Call Mexico. Sad, really.

"Internal matter"?

A rather embarrassing small incident after the victory for pro-life supporters in Mexico.

It would appear that Bishop Guerrero Macias had boasted that “a call from the Pope, I don’t know to who[m]”, had changed the situation.

Federico Lombardi promptly intervened and said that oh no, God forbid, the Pope would never do that. The head of the biggest organised religious organisation in the planet to say to a Catholic what he thinks about what he is doing with his soul? Unthinkable. The Pope “always respects the internal affairs of nations”, and therefore such calls simply do not take place.

I have a couple of small problems here.

Firstly, the Pope is not only a head of State, but the head of a religious organisation. It is not clear to me how it should be a problem that – wearing his religious hat, so to speak – he should contact whomever he pleases in the discharging of his religious duty. On the contrary, I see it as difficult to justify how he could not intervene.

Secondly, Lombardi’s principle sound dangerous, as it makes every religious controversy “an internal affair” of that nation. If in Malta divorce is legalised the matter concerns all Christianity, not only the Maltese. Christianity doesn’t know “internal affairs”. This is why religious blogs like this one deal with Christian matters wherever they happen, UK or US or Mexico or Hungary.

There might be reasons of prudence suggesting that a Pope doesn’t make this or that phone call. But when Lombardi declares with such blunt words that the Pope has the duty to shut up in matters concerning “the internal affairs of nations” and that it would be “disrespectful” to intervene, I wonder whether the mentality in the Vatican is becoming a rather secularised one.


Mexicos Supreme Court Rejects Legalisation of Abortion

Gotta love the signature

A strange country, Mexico; at least seen from the other side of the pond.

On the one hand, Christian values seem to be deteriorating rather rapidly, with sodo-marriages now allowed in parts of the countries (strong federal structures, apparently, with wide-reaching powers for the individual states).

On the other hand, the 2007 decision of the Constitutional Court to allow abortions for the first 12 weeks after conception has caused a real pro-life run, with 18 of their 31 states approving state constitutional measures meant at keeping abortion away from their own territory. A bit the equivalent of Proposition 8 regarding sodomy, but without the sodomite judge.

The widespread move to keep abortion away from the relevant state has prompted one of the judges of the constitutional court to try to impose the overruling of the single states, that is: the decision that it is unconstitutional for a state to put measures in place meant at banning abortion from its own territory.

This attempt has now been thwarted.

Whilst it would appear that abortion is still legal in 13 of the 31 states, one can only salute a decision that allows vast parts of Mexico to continue to give themselves, at least in this respect, Christian rules.


A Time For War: “Cristiada”

I have already pointed out in my last blog post about Assisi III that it would be high time to start talking a bit of the Catholic doctrine of war instead of indulging in the usual easy rhetoric of peace. It would appear that there is a good example at hand.

Above is the trailer of Cristiada, a film about the armed insurgence of mexican Christians (and obviously mainly: Catholics) between 1926 and 1929 in reaction to the strongly anti-Christian stance of the Mexican government of the time. When the persecution became open (closing of monasteries, religious schools and convents in the province of Chihuahua, for example; or possibility for the government to regulate the number of priests; or prohibition for priests to wear the clerical garb outside of the church) the rebellion became armed. Somehow, I feel that the movie will not be distributed in the United Kingdom…..

I do not doubt that even today – as, of course, then – there would be those among the Catholics happy to – if put in a similar situation – choose the easy and, most of all, safe role of the prayerful oppressed instead of realising that there is a time for war. Thankfully, in Mexico people who thought differently were enough to carry their fight to victory in the end.

We are, admittedly, not in such a dire situation here in Blighty or in the rest of Europe. But we are certainly nearer to the point of armed conflict now than we were ten or twenty years ago. In fact, a situation might well emerge in the next decades where a Catholic is obliged to choose, like Thomas More, between God and King.

Now don’t get me wrong, democracy is a beautiful thing and one appreciates its ability to achieve long periods of peace and prosperity. One of the most distinctive traits of western democracies is that they don’t go at war with each other; still,they might well go at war against Christianity.

A country in which a supremely stupid Prime Minister says that Christians must be “tolerant” and the Judiciary is right in imposing to them an anti-Christian behaviour is not very far away from the Mexican government of 1926. A country in which laws are proposed – though not passed – by which the selling of Bibles can be seen as “discriminatory” against all the pervert therein condemned is not far away from forfeiting its right to existence. A country unable to distinguish between a man and a woman and two perverts shows that it has squarely put itself in a position of conflict with Christianity a long time ago.

Democracy is, of course, a good thing. But democracy is not our religion. I believe in God, The Father Almighty, not in democracy. When the two come into frontal conflict , I know which side I’m on.

Don’t make of democracy an idol. Democracy is good – and justified in its existence – only as long as it doesn’t explicitly marches against a higher Order.

The Queen’s good servant, and all that……


Abortion and its logical consequences.

It's not even a caricature

Extremely tragic but at the same time instructive story from EWTN.

In Mexico, several women are processed for killing their own babies after birth. The feminist organisation protecting their interests (“Centro Las Libres”, which unless I am mistaken means “Centre of the Free Ones”, tells you something already…) claims that the mothers should be convicted not for homicide, but for……. illegal abortion.

Now I know that abortion is in itself the killing of a life, but I certainly can say whether he who has been killed was unborn or born. This seems to escape the “free ones” for whom the killing of one’s own baby (born alive and breathing and subsequently deliberately killed) is pretty much the same as, well, an abortion of kind.

The reasoning goes to a great length to explain the logic of the abortionists (as the “free ones” most certainly are), but leaves room for some disquieting questions.

If a mother can kill a foetus unpunished, they seem to think, why should the killing of their own babies be considered so differently? The mother could have legally killed the foetus up to a certain point in time and she would have only committed a less gravely punished offence after that time. Why then punish her for homicide if she decides to “abort” her baby after, ahem, the foetus happened to breathe? Isn’t it undeniably true that the right to kill her own baby has been ….. given to her by law?

Paradoxically, the reasoning is less absurd than it would appear, in the sense that it enlightens the absurdity of a right to abort. There can be no doubt that most Western legal systems allow the killing of a human life to go entirely unpunished, whilst severely punishing the mother for doing what she was perfectly allowed to do until a few months before.

The mothers have obviously been convicted for homicide because the law says that they are not the owners of the baby’s life. Exactly this is the point. If the mother is not the owner of the baby’s life after birth, how can she be the owner of the baby’s life before birth? If a legislator is Nazi to the point of deciding that a mother is allowed to kill her own child, is it so surprising that the feminists group above mentioned would claim for every mother the right to kill her own new-born baby without incurring in a conviction for homicide? And if a legislator doesn’t want to be Nazi after the child’s birth, why is it Nazi before that event? Where’s the logic?

Who is thinking more logically here, the feminists asking the legislator to continue to allow what it already allows (or punishes less severely) or the legislator providing a strong defense for the life of the unborn whilst totally ignoring that he was a life even before being born?

I fully agree with you: the defense of the women attempted by the feminist group is atrocious, appalling, undeniably Nazi and utterly oblivious of the importance and dignity of life in front of the oh so important convenience of the mother. But so is abortion, which is fully legal.

I hope that this will open the eyes of some people in Mexico and abroad. Sometimes the atrocity one is not ready to accept is the way of opening one’s eyes toward the atrocity one has been ready to condone for too long.


Cardinals who speak out and Cardinals who shut up.

We have better water, but they have better Cardinals.

I have already written here about the contrast between some courageous Catholic shepherds (particularly in South America) and the resigned or, rather, indifferent weakness with which the English hierarchy reacts (so to speak) to every new step towards total secularisation proposed by David Cameron or by his more socially conservative predecessor, Gordon Brown.

We now have another eloquent example as we read that in Mexico a Cardinal has spoken clear words about a decision of the Mexican Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of so-called same-sex marriages. Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera said that “The Church cannot stop calling evil “evil” “ and added as follows:

“The absurd approval of this law that can be legal, but never moral, allows us to be conscious of the unequaled value of family … and is an opportunity to continue raising our prayers to God for our leaders,”

“Even though we are called to be respectful of the civil laws, we have a moral duty to not make vain God’s commandments and avoid falling into permissiveness that damages the fundamental principles of our faith and the precious value of family”

He was not left alone as the spokesman of the Archdiocese of Leon also intervened:

“We strongly condemn the approval of civil weddings between men and women of the same gender, and we make a call to faithful Catholics so that … what’s civil doesn’t dominate what’s moral,”

This last intervention highlights a problem typical of all legislation contrary to natural law: that it tends to end up becoming morally accepted through the laziness, the convenience or the sheer apathy of the population, unless of course the latter is properly instructed and kept vigilant. The Italian saying that the laws of one generation are the morality of the following one certainly reflects rather well what happens on the ground.

Please contrast this latest courageous statement with the behaviour of our bishops in Blighty; starting with ++ Quisling Nichols, the man who is not even able to stop the scandalous homo masses taking place in his own diocese.


%d bloggers like this: