Francis, The Case Study

“Love me tender”, Vatican edition

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate were persecuted by Francis based on zero point zero evidence. The order, and its founder, were slandered and dragged through the mud for all the planet to see. Francis would care not one bit for evidence, or for a shred of decency.

This buddy of his, Cardinal Ouellet, is so fond of harassing women that he gets a class lawsuit against him. What does our own wannabe hero does? He orders a preliminary investigation, in charge of which he puts a close buddy of the Cardinal. The close buddy obviously decided that there’s nothing to see here, end of story.

At least, this Frankie-protege’ (literally) is not a homo. But hey, several other friends of Francis clearly appears to be. Think of Zanchetta, the buddy Francis couldn’t wait to make a bishop. And of course, we all think of Archbishop Paglia and the homo-fresco he commissioned to a homo-painter. Or of Monsignor Ricca, the guy with the Montevideo Lover, and the lift (or “elevator”) story whose details I don’t even want to know. Or of father Georgina, the man of whom everybody tries very, very hard to make us believe he is straight (and when you see a video of him, the game is up).

You will, hopefully, forgive me for thinking this: that Francis has no decency or shame; that he sees his position purely as a way to protect and reward his friends and those who have advanced his career; that he has an extremely alarming number of “friends” who are clearly bent (heck: one would be extremely alarming!); that he does not care for what Catholics think of him, because he despises Catholics in the first place; that he ruthlessly mocks, and clearly can’t stand, any traditional expression of Catholic piety and religiosity (those who pray the rosary for him must be mocked, and a boy with his hands joined in prayer is too much for him to bear); and that he ruthlessly persecutes those who dare being too Catholic, and too openly so: the Traditional Latin Mass obviously fills such a man with horror; the FFI I have already mentioned.

If you have forgiven me until now, I think you will accept my conclusion: that God has allowed an evil man, a man who clearly appears destined to have a very prominent position on the wrong side of eternity, to be made the Pope in order to show us that when you tamper with the holy traditions of the Church and sabotage her doctrine, you will get a Pope that is the visual representation of this deformity. This, I think, God has decreed that we will have to endure until He gives to bishops, cardinals and faithful the grace to finally shout that enough is enough, and to go back to sanity.

Francis is the symptom of the disease called Vatican II. Sadly, those who see this are a clear minority, with the others happy to sing diabetes-inducing hymns in church, identify Catholicism with niceness, and largely remove from their consciousness everything that Francis does. Their priests clearly help them in this because, hand on heart, I have never experienced a Pope so little mentioned from the pulpit than this embarrassing case study in the power of the devil.

Until the Great Awakening happens, I am afraid we will have to deal with Francis II, Francis III, perhaps Francis IV, and countless other cases of FFI, Ouellet, Zanchettas, & Co.

Pray, fast, and do penance.

This might go on for a while.

[REBLOG] Pope Gay The First

There is no week now without this disgraceful man reaching for a new deep from the gutter in which he has already put himself.

Once again, the immense scandal he causes is born from his being so much in love with himself, that he cannot resist “humbly” making the world new in the presence of journalists. This time, we had 80 minutes of off-the-cuff “Francis show”, and if you have already photographed the arrogance and ignorance of this man – if you read this blog, it is probably because you have – you know that 80 minutes of Bergoglio Show can’t be good for Catholicism. More alarming still, is that the off-the-cuff remarks show how this man really thinks.

The Neo-conservative press is now desperately trying to spin the immense stupidity (or evil intent, or a mixture of the two) of this man; but you can spin as much as you like, the man is a plague.

Let us see what kind of subversive bollocks a Bergoglio can spit in one single day, when he feels in good form.

1. So-called Gay Lobby.

If there is one, Francis hasn’t seen it in the Vatican ID card. Besides the absurdity of the statement, this is so gay even Elton John – an admirer of his, you must know – must see it that way.

Seriously: what a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say. What an insult to the intelligence of every sane Catholic. What unspeakable arrogance. The Bishop of Rome is here clearly being the best ally of the “gay mafia” within the Vatican. He has clearly exposed himself as their man, elected by them so that he may not do anything against them, and help them.

Please let us wake up here. First important appointment is the one of a sodomite with levers everywhere within the Vatican; when a huge scandal involves this man, Francis refuses to get rid of him; then he proceeds to downplay the whole issue, so that he can be free to help his sodomitic friends without too much nuisance. Make no mistake, Screwtape would be delighted with Francis.

2. Homosexuality

Innovating on 2000 years of Christianity, this extremely confused (or worse) man wants us to believe being an homosexual is something that doesn’t stay in the way of being a priest. This shows you, better than anything else, how deeply rotten this man’s thinking is. I wonder if he would say the same of people with a tendency to screw their own mother, or dog, or niece. Either the answer is “yes” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted in all matters of sexual abuse) or it is “no” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted concerning the matter of homosexuality).

The moral of the story is that for this man, provided a homosexual is not part of a “gay lobby” (which he would allegedly not spot anyway; see the ID wannabe joke) not only can he be a priest, he can be one of his strictest collaborators, and who is he to judge?

Francis’ Christianity, and requirement for priesthood, ends by “accepting The Lord and having good Will”. Welcome, perverts the world over. The priesthood awaits you.

Satanic. Utterly and completely satanic.

Some people (like Jimmy Akin, who today makes a quadruple salto trying to defend the indefensible; I think we’ll see a lot of this in the years to come) will even try to sell you that, formally, Benedict’s explicitly stated policy of not allowing homos to the priesthood will not be touched. How can this be? If this is the example he gives; if this is the way he talks; if this is, very obviously, the way he thinks, how can this be?

Compared with this man, Pope Paul VI is merely an amateur. This here is Screwtape’s real deal.

You may or may not know that a good Catholic has traditionally had the faculty to pray for the painless death of the Pontiff if he is persuaded the Pontiff in question is a disgrace for the Church – as you can see, nothing new under the sun – .

I have a huge problem with praying for the painless death of Bergoglio, because in my naïveté something within me rebels to the idea of wishing the death of a Pontiff.

Still, the times are such that a Pope may well step aside if he finds himself in the physical impossibility of working as Pope. I have written in the past that I consider Benedict’s decision – seen in isolation – a wise one. If a Pope can’t make it, than he should not make it either, and leave his place to someone with the necessary strength.

You decide for yourself.

I start praying for the end of Bergoglio’s papacy today.

Mundabor

 

The End Of The Swiss Guards?

“… and will you do something about the Guards, Frankie dear?…”

 

 

The rumour is alive that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) might be about to abolish the Swiss Guards altogether.

I am not sure this rumour has any basis. What I know is that this would be, if executed, very much like Francis: with one stroke, he would do a great favour to the army of sodomites walking around the Vatican – and able to go in and out without too many questions asked by inflexible Swiss soldiers – whilst at the same time looking as the simple, humble pope so allergic to pomp and circumstance.

In addition, you must know that the Swiss Guards are chosen among Swiss families of unquestionable Catholic tradition, and remain in charge only for a limited amount of time. It’s not that they are sent on the sidewalk, or consigned to destitution. The end of the institution would simply deprive them of a great honour and of a wonderful addition to their CV.

Of course, the Gendarmeria would remain. But these are professional policemen, with a family and a mortgage. They aren’t likely to pose too many questions about who goes in or out and, being Italian, they would most rapidly understand where the wind is blowing.

No, the problems of the fags are really the Swiss Guards, as we have seen already in the past (search this blog). In this perspective, it makes sense that the homos ask Francis what kind of useless pomp this one of the Guards is.

The problem is, though, that the Swiss Guards are a rather beloved Roman (in the broader sense) institution, the darlings of Romans and tourists alike. It is not only that they are only a part of the landscape; they are a part of the Roman heart; a bit like like the Corazzieri, the tall soldiers of a Carabinieri elite unit working as Presidential Guard. If, therefore, Francis were to just get rid of them, very many among the people would start to question what kind of mentality, and what kind of man, this is.

You see, when you make the calligraphers redundant (spare a prayer for the poor devils and their families if it really comes to that: unemployment in Rome is always a tragedy, but unemployment as a calligrapher must truly be a nightmare. I have not read any news about that, so I fear the worse) the general public does not really notice it. But when there are no Swiss Guards at the entrance, they notice it immediately.

Perhaps Francis will try some other solution that keeps both the people and the fags happy; like, say, suspending the Swiss Guard service at night so that they are “allowed to sleep”. Insert here some sugary story about how devastated Francis was at knowing about their long night watches in the cold and damp Roman nights, and Bob’s your uncle…

We shall see. There is no feat of which this Pope would be incapable of, if he were to think he has something to gain from it; and his behaviour suppressing the Vatican report on the homos abundantly shows he has protected them from day one in exchange for their help in his election. 

Francis is, if not an old homo himself, certainly a man of the homo lobby in the Vatican. He has already removed a commander guilty of being too “Swiss” with his own fags. It remains to see how far he will go.

A dark, dirty, lewd old man, this one. I am pretty sure his ideal of the Swiss Guards is like in the video below. So un-threatening, un-Swiss, and judgment-free…

O dear Pope Benedict, why have you been so gullible…

M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIFUm70n0fU

 

 

The Pope, The Fag, And The Swiss Guards

Darling, we have a problem...

The Pope has removed the head of the Swiss Guards and has sent him home for being… too much of a guard. He has also profited of the occasion to blame the man for his professionalism.

Yours truly is more than a tad cynical, and believes in Giulio Andreotti's quip, that “he who thinks badly of others commits a sin, but he is very often right”.

Let us, then, connect a couple of dots, and make a couple of hypotheses.

1. Francis feels safe enough in the Vatican. He doesn't like order, discipline, duty. He removes the head of the Swiss guard – who obviously like them – and feels good in the process. This is the “innocent” (stupid, but innocent) Francis.

2. Ricca & Co. Want more freedom to roam around at night, to get out and let people in. The rigid security of the Guards causes continuous problems by not allowing, or making a ruckus, everytime trannies and junkies should be allowed not only within the Leonine Walls, but even in the same building where the Pope lives. They refuse the homo junkies entry, and demand that the Pope authorises the entry. Ricca and his band of faggots get angry. The head of the guards is removed. This is the “accomplice of perverts” Francis.

3. Francis is fed up with the head of security obliging him to a rigid security standard. No going out at night among the assorted perverts for him. No tranny voyeurism. No smell of homosexual sheep. No plunging in that world of dirt, desperation, and corruption that seems to outright excite him. No questionable people inside, either. This cannot go on, can it now? Less rigidity! More freedom! Who the man thinks he is, a soldier? This is, in case you haven't got it, the pervert Francis.

These are just three possible scenarios. Feel free to make your own.

—–

Before you think all this is unrealistic, reflect on this:

1. There were rumours of the Pope roaming the streets of Rome at night already. The Pope never denied. One like Benedict would have had strong words about it. One like Francis wants, at the very least, you to think he might do it. One wonders.

2. Swiss guards have already reported about the harassment from homosexual prelates within the very Leonine Walls.

3. The Pope lives under the very roof of a notorious faggot, and isn't fazed a bit.

4. It is known that several “gay saunas” are located in the immediate vicinity of the Vatican.

5. Whilst in and out of perverts certainly happened before, the Pope now living in the Domus Sanctae Marthae creates a very special security environment and very obvious security concerns. The edifice lies at the very boundaries of the Vatican City.

6. Many faggots have been killed from fag prostitutes wanting money from them. Pasolini is an example. Versace is another one. I certainly forget several others.

—–

He who thinks badly of others commits a sin, but is very often right.

He who thinks badly of this Pope is merely connecting the dots.

M

 

Why We Need To Hear More “P” Words.

 

 

The defence of Catholic teaching in matters of homosexual perversion – heard from many corners since October – is certainly encouraging. Still, one cannot but notice one feature typical of all or almost all the interventions: the extreme reluctance to call homosexuality a “sexual perversion”.

Whilst there are not a few prelates who would use words like “intrinsically disordered” – which amounts to the same but said in a way most people will not fully understand – when it is about really making an impact, most of our prelates balk at the “p” word.

This leaves the public in a strange limbo, as they are told that homosexuality is wrong, but they aren’t really told why. Not, at least, in a way that drives the point home.

I am sure a lot of Catholics begin to think the Church condemns homosexuality for some reason that we will never fully grasp, but register it (for now at least) as fact. Apart from the perversion of healthy thinking such a thinking betrays, it makes dissent not all too difficult; actually, it invites it, because when things are not properly explained trouble can never be far away.

Perversion is a simple concept to understand: the thinking of someone whose sexual desire goes in the wrong (per; as in perjury) direction (versio; as in conversion). This is so, as every simple mind understands, irrespective of the person acting on his perversion, or not. The pedophile is a pedophile because he lusts after children; he does not begin to be a pedophile only when he rapes a child. The perversion is there before the action. The action – or the mindset – is particularly grave because it goes – other than, say, gluttony – against what the natural desire should be. Gluttony is the result of a god-given desire gone out of control. Perversion is a desire that must not be there in the first place.

When you put the issue in these simple words, it becomes easier for the faithful to understand the intrinsic depravity of homosexuality. If you keep talking of something “God does not want” without qualifications you are muddling the waters, because gluttony or fornication do not go frontally against the way we are built, but homosexuality, incest or pedophilia do. We also know that even mortal sins have different degrees of gravity; therefore, to invoke the fact that gluttony can induce a man to mortal sin does not help, either.

Clarity is the only way. Pussyfooting around doesn’t help anyone. Let the church abandon the concept of homosexuality as perversion, and your children will be – when sufficiently perverted in their reasoning – unable to understand what the fuss is all about. Hey, they remember when they stole from the cookie jar. That can be a mortal sin too, no?

We need more prelates and simple priests able and willing to pronounce the “p” word instead of using more or less indirect expressions, lacking in clarity and forcefulness even when they do not lack in meaning. We must not allow political correctness to prevent us from clearly expressing what the Church believes. Our shepherds should be the first to tell the truth whole, lest the real message (it’s a sexual perversion) goes lost in the pussyfooting (“God says he’d really like you not to; why it is so beats me, but hey…”).

Clarity creates clear alternatives and demands clear choices. “The Church says homosexuality is a perversion. No, really. This is what the Church believes. What do you say?”

Ten years of this, and things will change radically.

Nothing of this, and I see persecution coming.

M

 

 

Francis’ Own Humble Abode, And A Couple Of Considerations

‘Umble. Very ‘umble…

 

 

I wonder if this Marco Tosatti article would have made for a good inspiration for a show in the style of MTV “Cribs” where, instead of the ear-ringed rap singer impossible to understand (no’ wha’ I’m say’? yo!) you get the somewhat more stylish, humble abode of His Humbleness himself.

I have already written about the fact that with Francis’ occupation of vast space (one entire floor, it seems; it makes sense, for security reasons) within the Domus Sanctae Marthae, rooms are taken away from the usual hotel guests, whilst the papal apartments are obviously (and let us hope no one gives Francis the idea) not given to illegal immigrants trying to introduce themselves into Italy through some shitty boat. But this here is different, because it exposes the hypocrisy of the “humble man” thinking in its minutest details.

Firstly: I have thought – like, I am sure, all of us – that the Domus Sanctae Marthae was a decorous, nice hotel for visiting prelates like many, shall we say, honest three star hotels you find in Italy. Something in the range of the 80-100 euro a room per night; undoubtedly nice, but no luxury.

 

Creepy. Very creepy…

 

 

Well, if you look at the photos you will see that this appears rather different, with the atrium revealing a more upscale concept (say: four stars, comfortably), which in turn lets one assume the rooms are equipped and sized accordingly. Yes, it’s not as splendid as the Papal Apartments certainly are; but then again this one is such a boor that in the middle of unspeakable beauty he would merely find himself uncomfortable.  So much for the humble living, then.

But what about the “living among the people?” Haven’t we been delighted with the idea of the Pope happily walking among busy Monsignori (some of them not perverts, presumably), greeting them here and there, shaking hands in a friendly atmosphere, and eating together with all the others whilst discussing the news of the day, and asking what is there for lunch today? “!Ola, Paco! Que pasa?”

Well, not… quite.

It appears His Humbleness eats not only suitably detached from the clerical proletariat, but he does not want to be seen by them, either, with plants humbly but effectively screening him from the sight of the more or less adoring fans.

“Ah, but this has to be so, Mundabor!”, you will say, “otherwise everyone would want to shake hands, greet him, and co!” 

Quite. Which is why you have the Papal Apartments, conveniently away from hotel rooms.

An apartment is there to keep you apart. If you want to live in community, well clearly you will have a community around you. Not difficult, really.

So: Pope Humble wants you to believe he lives in some humble abode, but it turns out the abode is quite the luxury establishment. He wants you to believe he lives in the middle of the hustle and bustle of the Monsignori, but he keeps himself away from them.  And he takes away from them an entire floor of hotel rooms, or a number of hotel rooms, because to use the office in the Vatican is too much of a Renaissance Prince thing.

Congratulations. This wins the Uriah Heep Prize 2014 every day.

—-

Now, let us say a couple of harsh things here: why, then, does Pope Francis the Humble Hotel Dweller live in the Domus Sanctae Marthae? And why does he accept to live under the supervision and the management of a scandalous homosexual priest?

Can it be only for the “image”? Yes, it can. It certainly can. For this man, Francis is everything.

But stop and think, for once, as you would if this were not the Pope, then this is very much a sui generis Pope. Could it be… worse?

Why on earth would one keep as gatekeeper a person obviously depending on his grace to even keep his clerical habit? Could it be, because he needs someone who shuts three eyes concerning who gets in and out, perhaps at night? Could it be that in such a way he has much more freedom of movement for himself and others – perhaps, movements the people better not be informed of – than he would in the papal apartments, with the endless corridors and the inability to move without all the planet knowing it, besides the distances to be covered to get out of the Leonine Walls?

From the Domus, one hop and you are out, in Rome, in the middle of the sheep. Which, at night, tend to be the most smelling ones. or, conversely, you can have all sort of sheep visiting you; with just a handful of people knowing, and they conveniently chosen. But to do this, you need someone who covers you and whom you can trust, because he has so much to lose if you only snap your finger; one who, says, hires and keeps in the strategic places other people who are as vulnerable as he is; then, you can have the people get in and out at ease, Pope included.

No, don’t look at me in that way (I know you are; I can see your face right now): one who openly lives in a hotel run by a well-known pervert at the margin of the Vatican City has deserved that questions are posed.

This isn’t Padre Pio, you see.

And let us leave it at that.

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

The Wheat, The Tares, And The Pope

The wheat…

This morning, those of you who have attended a NO Mass have listened (or will listen) to the parable of the wheat and the tares.

As I was intently listening (the priest had an extremely loud and theatrical voice, full of zeal and passion; a very effective Gospel reader) I could not avoid making the following two reflections: 

1. The reading is, in the present situation, very consoling. It is clear that we must face the abundant tares currently present within the Church, and accept that the field will be a mess until the harvest is imminent. The enemy has planted so much tares within the Church that countless Bishops, Cardinals, even the present Pope clearly belong to the tares rather than to the wheat. The tares are so abundant that they cannot be estirpated without seriously damaging the wheat harvest. More crucially, God will not get rid of the darnel before His appointed time. The Galantinos and the Veras, the Maradiagas and the Kaspers, and even the Bergoglios are the tares sowed by the Enemy to ruin the harvest. Like the tares, they are everywhere in the field. Some of them will, hopefully, repent. It is very realistic to think that most of them will not. The latter will, in due time, be gathered and burnt. 

Let us say it once again: God will not cleanse the field for us before His appointed time. We must live with the damn tares. This is God’s will and God’s plan. Thinking of impending end of the world are, with great probability, nothing more than a pious hope born of the refusal to accept that the field has always had an awful lot of tares. The world was always meant to have a lot of tares, and the Church has never be deprived of them. Unfortunately, in this age the seeding of them has been particularly effective, and the darnel is now everywhere. It’s a very messy field. But in essentials, it is how the field has always been. 

… and the tares

2. I doubt Bergoglio reads the Gospel other than to try to extract some of the stupid, populist, socialist, childish, or simply unintelligible nonsense he regales us so often with. I know he very probably does not believe in God, does not think he will stand in front of his Judge, and does not care a straw about doing his job as a Pope is expected to do. But I do wonder: if Francis were – perhaps after drinking a grappa too much – to make an effort to read the Gospel seriously and try to understand what it really means, how could he not be shocked at the parable?

It is clear to everyone with a brain to Dalai Bergoglio damnation is a very remote possibility; an event from which he clearly excludes all those who are “in good faith” and “seek the Lord”; actually, an event from which he is happy to exclude even those who do not believe in the Lord, at all (which makes sense, and squares perfectly with the extremely strong suspicion he does not believe in the Lord himself). In Bergoglio’s world, hell must be something reserved to “Pelagians” (that is: devout Catholics), “judgmental gossipers” (meant are again: devout Catholics), mafia bosses, and … well, no one else, really. There is, in fact, no need to even convert anyone to Catholicism, because Christ has already done the job for pretty much everyone. 

In Francis’ field, the tares are very sparse, and mainly made of devout Catholics.

How would, then, this probably tipsy Bergoglio react, if he were to really pay attention to what the parable says? How would he explain the obviously huge quantity of the tares? How could he deny that the tares are so abundant that they cannot be uprooted without destroying the entire harvest?

 Now: the usual Bergoglio would probably tell you that Jesus was just being cunning, and was deceiving his disciples so that they do not no bad things like, say, going back to Judaism (no, wait! This can’t be! Buddy Skorka is Jewish and perfectly fine where he is! please pick another example, will you?…). But tipsy Bergoglio, who for a moment forgets his own rubbish thinking and tries to really understand what Jesus says with the parable, must be simply terrified.

No worry, though. The event is not very probable.

We all know when Bergoglio is tipsy he is more likely to grab the next smartphone around and send a “video-selfie” to a so-called “brother bishop”, than to read the Gospel and try to get some use from it.

Mundabor 

 

By Their Friends You Will Recognise Them

Possibly homosexual priest promotes sodomy his entire life.

Francis receives him.

He concelebrates Mass with him.

He even kisses his hand.

(The priest is the one dressed like a layman, with a cross added)

 

 

Homosexual priest has given open scandal in South America for many years.

He is allowed to run three Vatican hotels, where religious of a certain kind can, more or less casually, meet other religious of a certain kind, undisturbed.

Francis lives under his roof.

He also promoted the man to an extremely high position, at the head of the Vatican Bank.

Francis is photographed with him in a very friendly attitude.

 

 

 

 

Perfectly orthodox priests from a very saintly family co-founds a perfectly orthodox religious order that becomes among the most successful within the Church.

He is slandered and confined at home, whilst Francis goes over his order with the steamroller.

 

 

 

 

—————————————————————-

Time to wake up.

Mundabor

 

Francis: Dumb Or Blackmailed?

Striking resemblance in more than one way: the great Stan Laurel.

 

 

The jury has been out a long time – but only because we are charitable, and he the Successor of Peter – to decide whether the Bishop of Rome is merely a minus habens or a positively evil one.

It is somewhat difficult to say, because the man is so unconcerned with contradicting himself in the most blatant way, so utterly indifferent whether he makes any sense at all or not, that a case of sheer stupidity cannot be excluded. What is certain, is that if a politician went around spreading the same nonsense day in and day out Francis regales us with, the world would laugh out loud, and he wouldn't be a politician for long.

Very recently, the Bishop of Rome gave us another stunning example of this astonishing behaviour: first he assured us that the Devil exists, and then he told us one of his most evil actions is to lead people to gossip.

As to the first part, yes we can read, and we know even the Gospel mentions the devil. Francis must think his audience have no idea at all of Christianity to make such platitudes the object of a homily. I mean, some not well meaning heretics may think that no one goes to hell, but no sane Christian would doubt the existence of the Devil.

Note, though, that in Francis' Catholic Disneyland there is no serious consequence attached to this existence of Satan: if God slaps us in the wrist at most – most days, I mean; on other days he sends you to hell if you are a mafioso; on no day common people are in danger of damnation – and following one's conscience is enough even if one is an atheist, Francis' Satan is nothing else than a bearded and horned nincompoop spinning around for no real or lasting purpose.

This cretinous thinking is shown by the other “teaching” of the Destroyer In Chief: Satan's great effort in order to lead us to… gossip.

Let us say it again: the same man living under the roof of a sodomite tells us the devil wants to make you gossip. How a man could be so senseless is difficult to even fathom, which is why on the balance one might well conclude Francis isn't really stupid, he just hopes we think so.

And by the way, why this obsession with gossip? Can it be entirely casual that we are confronted with a Bishop of Rome who, whilst the entire West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and threatens Christianity in an increasingly more evident way even in the West, is concerned about… gossip?

Could it rather not be that this rather strange character has every reason to fear revelations concerning his own past, his own character, his own very sexual behaviour at some point or other? And that he tries to prevent this by warning us about thinking ill of… him? How can, otherwise, this fixation with gossip whilst Christianity drowns in a see of perversion and he himself lives near to sodomites be halfway rationally explained?

And if this is so – and it might well be so: this is a former bouncer, and they aren't known for being innocent violets; nor would he be the first prelate who is blackmailed because of his past – would it then not provide a logical, rational, understandable (but not justifiable) explanation of the astonishing silence of this man, worrying about gossip as the West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and, soon, outright persecution of real Christians?

I am no fan of conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theories are, basically without exception, outlandish in their very object and obviously aimed at explaining some absurd theory behind them. But here it is different: what is outlandish, unreal, utterly absurd is a Pope concerned with gossip as Christianity is threatened all over the West, and to try to give a logical explanation to this absurd behaviour is, in fact, the rational and logical thing to do.

There is a perfectly logical – if morally untenable; but then Bergoglio was always morally untenable – explanation for a man apparently so astonishingly blind as this one: thatvthe gay mafia – in the Vatican or outside – has him in his hands. Then, it all makes sense: the necessity to keep the pervert near him, basically controlling through his staff everyone who gets in or out; the countless episodes of downplaying of both sodomitical behaviour and gay mafia, and the slowly absurd attempts at deflecting the attention from the issue of sexual perversion when the entire West doesn't talk of anything else.

Mind, this does not have to be so. The man would be Modernist enough in his outlook even if he were to notice the gravity of the sin of the sodomites, and would not surround himself with characters like Monsignor Ricca; and that he isn't a genius, but is very fond of popularity, should by now be clear even to a very dim intelligence.

It does not have to be so. But if you ask me it is plausible to think that it might be so; because it gives a logical, plausible, rational explanation to the absurd, outlandish, unreal, beyond stupid phenomenon of a Pope blabbering nonsense about gossip as the world is excoriated by the flame-throwers of the Gaystapo.

Mundabor

 

It Always Comes Back To Christ

When good people do not express their scandal, evil people go on undisturbed.

The person of the Pope and the Papacy are separated. Of course they are. The latter is a divinely appointed office, the former is a fallible man elected by fallible men; men who may, or may not, ask for the guidance of the Holy Ghost during a Conclave.

Therefore, logic demands that it be allowed to criticise the fallible man – harshly, if his shortcomings are so extreme as to make it necessary – without this impinging on the sacred institution. On the contrary, the Pope is criticised exactly because of the damage he causes for the sacred institution of the Papacy and, by extension, of the Church.

It is rather disingenuous, and devoid of logic, to say that those who criticise the Pope damage the Papacy. They damage the Pope's credibility as a person – particularly if he has none, as in this case – but they do it to protect the Papacy, and by extension the Church and, ultimately, Her Bridegroom, Christ.

If, therefore, anyone were to say that the Pope cannot be criticised because this damages the Papacy, this would be tantamount as to say that the person of the Pope cannot be criticised if he damages – the current occupier, actually, insults or very obviously misrepresents – God. This borders on Papolatry, and makes no sense at all. Particularly then, when at the same time all the other ranks of the Church are considered fair game for criticism, and harsh criticism whenever necessary; only not the Pope, who does pretty much the same that the others do, but with infinitely more scandal as his every word is far more widely read and listened to.

Furthermore, it is not to be seen why criticism of the Pope would damage the Papacy, but criticism of the Successors of the Apostles or of Princes of the Church would not damage the Church. The Pope isn't a demigod on earth. In fact, the actual occupier of the office insists in seeing himself as a Bishop, and calling himself that way.

Either the Church is damaged by criticism to his prelates even when they are justified, or she isn't. Either it is allowed to criticise the Pope, or it is not allowed to criticise the bishops. Compulsory blindness when the line to the Pope has been crossed has never been the Church's way. Ask St Paul. Or St Peter, come to that. I wonder how many, today, would say to Paul that he can criticise everyone and everything, but he must stop in front of Peter.

——

It does not make any sense to compare traditionalist Catholics to Luther. The proof of the pudding is, as always, in the… Truth.

Traditionalist Catholics would stand the test of every generation of Catholics of the past. Luther wouldn't, and neither would Francis. You measure a Catholic according to his loyalty to Christ's Truth, not to his blind refusal to criticise the Pope.

Nor can it be said that the Pope is misread, the Cardinals aren't. Kasper is wrong, but Francis who supports him isn't. Homos within the Chutch are wrong, but Francis who shamelessly and publicly defends Ricca isn't. Liturgical wreckovators are wrong, but Bergoglio committing liturgical abuses – yes, it's a liturgical abuse even if one is Pope – isn't. I could go on.

—–

It also does not make any sense to accuse friends of the SSPX to have “left the church”. They haven't, unless one is deranged enough to think that 2,000 years of Catholicism have left the Church. Again, adherence to Truth is what counts. Admirably, the SSPX practices this adherence to Truth in everything, including their obedience to the Pope whenever possible. But like every Catholic generation of the past, they do not let their obedience become blind Papolatry. Ask John XXII, or Pope Liberius, or Pope Honorius, whether this was the thinking of Catholics of the past.

—–

Finally, it is very disappointing that someone who has been criticised in a very charitable way should accuse his opponents of outright malice.

Firstly, it is not clear why the same accusation could not be made to the same person when he criticises, say, Cardinal Dolan. Secondly, it has no basis in logic.

I do not accuse anyone of, say, not criticising the Pope because, say, his sponsors and donors – like, say, the Opus Dei – would stop giving money to him. I understand the thinking could simply be aligned. Similia similibus solvuntur. But I am rather grated when one who takes contributions to defend a certain line – contributions out of which his own livelihood is paid – accuses of ulterior motives many bloggers – and getting more numerous – who criticise the Pope out of sincere love for Christ and His Church; after working hours and sacrificing their own free time; and without any hope of monetary reward for their effort. Gratis et amore Dei.

It is astonishing, and utterly devoid of any logic, that one who is criticised for telling the Truth about anyone but the Pope should move the same accusations to those who do the same as he does, but with more coherence, and following 2,000 years of Church history from St Paul down.

I go as far to say that when such a malicious criticism is levelled, a breach of trust has occurred.

Avoid Michael Voris' channel.

Mundabor

 

One Year Later: Truly, The Horror!

Not one to judge.

Upon the election of Jorge Bergoglio, Rorate Caeli published the opinion of Marcelo Gonzalez, an Argentine Catholic journalist.

The Horror!

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was “blessed” by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the “powers” of the TV-pastors.

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual “marriage” [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.

May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion… and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.

I will not beat around the bush here: one year later, every single word of the man has been proved extremely accurate. Let us see in detail. No links, because it would take me occupied for hours. Search this blog.

1. He openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals.

Check. Salvation for atheists. “Who am I to judge”. God slaps you on the wrist at the worst. Hold on to your Koran. Countless others statements of the same tenor.

2. Faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.

Check. A notorious and scandalous homosexual at the head of the Vatican Bank, and left there after a worldwide scandal. The 300-page homo report buried in the sand. Creepy insistence on an imperfect church, that smells like the sheep. If you're orthodox and respect the rules, he doesn't trust you, and holds you for a hypocrite.

3. A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass. Has persecuted those interested in implementing Summorum Pontificum.

Check, and check. The TLM is a “fashion” for “addicted”. The FFI is openly persecuted. There is clearly no interest in fostering Summorum Pontificum. A past of Pinocchio and Tango Masses emerges.

4. Famous for his inconsistency. Unintelligible.

Check, and check. Runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds. Gives air to his teeth without the faintest idea of what he is saying. Journalists all over the world wonder what he really wanted to say. Baffled readers decide he must have said something smart, because he is the … Bishop of Rome.

5. Entourage under grave suspicion of moral misbehaviour.

Check. I will say two words: Monsignor Ricca. In addition: mockery of those worried for the homo lobby; hey, they do not go around with the gay mafia ID card.

6. Has not missed an occasion for “dialogue” of the most extreme sort. Blessed by Proddie “ministers”.

Check, and check. With Francis, Christianity is at times a distant echo. Hold on to your Koran. The Jews have their own reserved lane to salvation. Personal message to Muslims for the end of Ramadan: he shares their joy. May their life glorify the Almighty. Observers are not sure whether Francis believes in Allah. Not improbable. A Proddie preacher is called “brother bishop”. Francis washes feet to infidels and women.

7. Coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions.

Check, check, and check. “Casogate”, showing the extreme easiness with which taboo words escape his mouth. An orgy of Peronism for one entire year, showing the most appalling ignorance of basic concepts of economics. Francispeak and Doublespeak like it's going out of fashion.

8. No polyglot. No curial experience. Does not shine for his sanctity. Has not fought against abortion. Very weak against sodomarriage. No manners.

Check. Check. Check. Check. Check, and check. Italian is limping. English basically non existent. He reorganises the Curia by creating more red tape, and spending vast amounts of money for external consultants. He puts an homosexual friend at the head of a bank. He insists on a church that is, in a creepy way, dirty. He speaks against abortion only in private (with Bishop Scicluna, say), but never when he has a worldwide audience. He wants to avoid “obsession” with abortion and homosexuality. He does not show up at a classical music concert, and lets it be known he is not a “Renaissance Prince”. He is, simply, a boor.

9. Conversion cannot be excluded. Still, the future appears terrifying.

Check. And check. Think of the upcoming Synod, and all the archbishops and Cardinals now happily free-wheeling.

————————————–

The author of the article (and Rorate by association) were, after the publication of this blog post, attacked for weeks in the most slanderous manner. Some of those who had accused them (like the Remnant troops) have made amend. Others have taken refuge in an extreme Pollyannism that refuses to see reality, merely because reality is not a pretty sight. Others still would attack one for saying the “Hail Mary”.

I have suspended judgment after the article, as I did not know the new Pope and, much as I listen with attention to what Rorate writes, I want to make my own opinion first. I think I can say that in the same way as I did not want to join the critics without proof, I have not been slow in looking at reality when it has progressively appeared to us in all its… horror.

One year later, the prophecy of the words reported above is absolutely uncanny. This again shows not only how well Mr Gonzalez had understood Francis, but also that Francis has – with the Uriah Heep ” 'umbleness” that is his own most distinctive mark – made no adaptation whatsoever to his new job, and has given us a Pope that is just as bad as the Cardinal Archbishop.

A vulgar man. Just as well at ease with, well, “casi” and coprophagia as he is with homosexuals in his own closest entourage. Who is he to judge?

A man with no fear of the Lord, who thinks He will slap one on the wrist at most. With no respect of Jesus, Whom he accuses of willing deception of the Apostles. With no respect for the Blessed Virgin, of whom he says she might have felt betrayed and lied to on seeing Christ on the Cross.

A man deeply confused, and who cannot give a justification for his job as Pope – even atheists are saved; Muslims should hold to their Koran; Jews don't need Christ anyway – other than helping people to feel more “joy” and to get more social justice before the inevitable salvation; a salvation from which he excludes, in case, only the “Neopelagians” who still love and follow Catholicism.

Horrible things are very probably about to come, with the Blessed Sacrament sacrilegiously offered to public adulterers. The Pope applauds the Cardinal who is at the head of the movement.

I am sure I am forgetting various other issues. No, I really am.

———————————

One year later, we can say it very loud: Bergoglio is the horror.

Let us pray for the restoration of sound Catholicism. Either with a converted Bergoglio, or with a Church free from Bergoglio.

Mundabor

An Easy Job For Stupid Times.

Yes, it's a creepy Papacy.

As the anniversary of the Great Mistake approaches, I reflect on how easy it is to have the job of the Pope. Not in the sense that the job – properly made – be easy in itself, of course; rather in the sense that it comes which such an immense amount of goodwill – ready to translate into blindness – that the only way for a Pope to be unpopular or despised would be to seriously talk like a Pope should.

I could, for the anniversary of the election of a Pope who doesn't like to be called such, make a post with his blunders, heresies, offences to elementary Catholicism and common sense. I decided not too, because it simply does not make sense, such is the sheer vastness of the material. The best thing you can do is to search this blog and scroll down the results. If you were a person who got into a coma one year ago and goes out of it today, just reading about this man might be enough to send you into a coma again.

I have for some time now had very dark forebodings, that in the months and years to come our Catholicism is going to be tested as we would have thought inconceivable only one year ago. A work of destruction has begun that will probably be remembered in the centuries – after things have come to an end and the Lord has restored the Church to sanity. Still, how long this destruction and subversion is going to go on is not to be seen. Francis' appointments of Cardinals and Bishops are going to be – they already are – predictably bad, and the prostitute instinct of many of our bishops and aspiring such is already showing his poisoned fruits.

There is no saying what kind of betrayal we are going to experience in the years to come, as Francis' willing prostitutes jump on the Francis' bandwagon and start “not judging”, or even celebrating, everything from public adultery to sexual perversion.

Already the Archbishop of Lucca says we must “open up to diversity”. Fifteen years ago he would have been considered a nutcase by every Christian, and a possible homosexual by any sane person. This is a successor of the Apostles. For shame. He would like to be a Cardinal, surely. Unless he is a homo himself, obviously, in which case he is simply trying to make life easier for himself.

Ricca managed it wonderfully. It's about having the right friends, you see.

All this happens because our scandalous Pope encourages his people to do and say even more scandalous things than he does himself. But all this happens because most people – even among the thinking ones – decide to swallow whole the load of scandalous gestures and declarations Francis has bombarded us with in the last year.

Easy job being a Pope nowadays.

If a Pope of more Christian times had dared to repeatedly declare that atheists can die in their atheism and be saved, the call for an extraordinary Council declaring him a heretic unless he recants or says this is not what he means – which condemnation as heretic, by the way, would have possibly meant death at the stake – would have been very loud.

Nowadays, his own Archbishops and Cardinals want to overcome him in heresy. Cardinal Dolan is one who says “Bravo” to unrepentant sodomites. That's another one. A Cardinal for the time of Francis the Humble. Bravo, Cardinal Dolan! You might be Pope one day!

It's an easy job being a Pope today. Talk, behave, and even dress yourself like a clown and you will be just fine. Follow the world in all his errors, and millions will – oh, miracle! – “follow” you on Twitter, no less. Avoid saying anything at all uncomfortable when the world is listening, and a weekly magazine will be launched, devoted exclusively to you. Heavens, it will become a complete collection of papal heresies in print. Don't delay, subscribe today.

It's easy being a Pope today. Please everyone but Christ, do everything but your duty.

You will do just fine.

Mundabor

 

The Forgotten Report

 

Do you remember the famous 300 page reports that was in everyone's minds – and blogs – around Christmas 2012? The one commissioned by then Pope Benedict XVI and concerning homosexual infiltration in the Vatican?

The last thing I remember is that Benedict had decided to put the report at the disposal of his successor, and that the dimension of the report and the little that had emerged indicated that things were serious indeed.

Nothing has emerged of the report since. We do not know whether Francis even bothered to read it. For all we know he might have put it in his fireside and used it as a humble way to heat his rather extensive humble quarters at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

In the meantime, we are informed a former Swiss Guard states he has received sexual advances from around two dozen clerical homos during his permanence at the Vatican, among them an undetermined number of bishops and one Cardinal. Swiss Guard soldiers generally stay two years. Do your math.

One wonders. The sin of the sodomites has utterly disappeared from the Vatican radar screens after Francis' election, as we are invited to not “obsess” about such trivial things as a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance. All the while, the Pontiff talks day in and day out of a new theology of mercy and doubt, according to which doctrinal security is bad, a priest must smell of favela, morality is not “pastoral”, and “who are we to judge”. A turn of phrase used by the Pontiff about, erm, the homosexual prelate running the hotel in which he lives. If it sounds creepy, it's because it is.

I do not know about you, but this sounds like open complicity with sodomy to me.

In the meantime the report, if it still exists, lies locked in some very robust safe, protected from the indiscreet eyes of whistleblowers.

We live in strange and disturbing times. And we have a very strange, and very disturbing Pope.

Mundabor

 

Orthodoxy By Hearsay

Not easily shocked, Bishop Francis…

Some days ago, Bishop Scicluna of Malta said something very normal about adoption and sexual perversion; better said, he said something that would have been normal, even banal, in usual times, but attracted predictable criticism in times of pope-sponsored “religion of mercy”.

The Bishop replied that he had spoken in the same terms with the Pontiff himself, and the latter had been so gracious as to express dismay at children being adopted by faggots, or dykes, and encouraged him so speak about it.

Predictably, the neo-con Pollyanna fraction was uncorking the bubbly, utterly in ecstasy at the prospect that the Pope might, this once, in private, allegedly, have spoken like a Catholic. Perhaps it would be useful to explain here a couple of concepts:

1. The Pope’s statements related by third parties do not make lasting headlines. Very probably, they aren’t even noticed by any other than those who read the specialised press or the Catholic blogs. The world at large will never know what the Pope would have said. They are, to all intents and purposes, little more than rumours. Particularly so, when we have a Pope clearly afflicted with a rather serious case of logorrhoea, and whose interviews and exhortations alone are now rapidly approaching 100,000 words.

2. If the Pope thinks about the issue as strongly as reported, that is, is “shocked at the idea of same-sex adoptions”, he has to do nothing else than say so himself in no uncertain terms. It would make worldwide headlines. Unsurprisingly, he just doesn’t. Worse still, when confronted some time later with the girl “raised” by the two dykes, he manages not only not to say anything openly critical, but even to fuel fears he might become “pastoral” in matter of pervert couples, happily throwing Catholic teaching out of the window in this matter as he has already done in so many others.

3. It’s rather easy to be a champion of orthodoxy when 100% of the intended audience (in this case: of one) agrees with you. It is rather more difficult when there is a price to pay in terms of popularity. Francis has his popularity very, very dear.

4. It is clear by now that Francis is a professional of the agreement. He say what people want to hear, and who cares about the Truth. He will agree with Scicluna in the same way as he agrees with Scalfari. He actually says to Bishop Scicluna to speak out about his concern when the latter says him so. The problem is clearly Scicluna’s, not Francis’. He mocks people who pray rosaries with “progressive” nuns, but says the truth must be said whole in front of his bishop. Then he speaks with Scalfari, and suddenly the truth must be denied. In this case, one can imagine the polite conversation. “Really, bishop? Shocking, eh? Is this issue near to your heart? By all means, do speak out about it…”.

Methinks, Francis calls this behaviour being “pastoral”. I call it being a Jesuit.

I am eagerly awaiting for a clear and public statement of Francis saying that he is appalled at perverts adopting children; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with homosexual couples; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with homosexuality; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with him, still tolerating Monsignor (note the title) Ricca as his host and even promoting him to an important position within the Vatican bank, all the while shrugging his shoulder at the rampant homosexuality within the Vatican (they do not have ID cards, you see), and liquidating Ricca’s elephant in the room with a Presbyterian “who am I to judge?”.

I think I might be waiting for a long, long time.

Mundabor

Francis’ Favourites: A Gallery

Monsignor Ricca, the creepy scandalous sodomite at the head of the Vatican Bank: who is he to judge?

Maria Immacolata Chaouqui, a rather sluttish E & Y consultant now promoted to “adviser” of the Pope. St Catherine of Siena, she ain’t.

 

Rabbi Skorka, the infidel who is in favour of so-called same sex couples. Closest buddy evah.

Clelia Luro, who left her husband to become the concubine of a former Catholic bishop. Phone call every week. Recently passed away.

Mundabor

Suggestions For The Age Of Buffoonery.

Suggestion Nr 7 worked a treat...

As we live in an age of obvious buffoonery, where even Popes care more for their own popularity than for the dignity of the Petrine office, I allow myself to suggest the following measures. They will, no doubt, greatly increase Francis' popularity among the dim witted.

1. Francis as singer by the “X-Factor”. I'd suggest “Don't cry for me Argentina” as best suited.

2. Francis as judge in a tango competition. Make no mistake, he'll enjoy that.

3. “I am a Pope, get me out of here”. Live from the Papal Apartments. The Dalai Lama and Rabbi Skorka as participants to promote ecumenism and add diversity. Eugenio Scalfari will be asked, too.

4. Peter Tatchell invited to the Vatican. Monsignor Ricca can make the introductions. Tour of the “gay sauna” establishments around the Vatican (strictly without Francis).

5. Demise of the white clerical habit. Jeans and trainers instead. Variations according to the occasion, e.g. Rainbow sweater when receiving Tatchell, “What Would Jesus Do”-hoody with the boys of the Favela, a more formal blue blazer and khaki trousers combination – the trousers with crease, but no tie – to receive Mr Putin.

6. WWD: World Wheelchair Day. Ten or twenty thousand wheelchairs in St.Peter's square. Francis can review them like a general his army. Frequent getting out of the Renault 4. Insisted embracing and blessing of those with the worst diseases. Photographs near at all times.

7. Putting on a red clown nose to show his support for Comic Relief. They help abortionists and, I am told, homosexualists, but who are we to judge. Tatchell is a friend of Ricca anyway. At least they have similar taste.

Oops. We have that with the red nose already. See picture. Apologies.

8. Francis as Father Christmas. They will be delighted at the HuffPo. So much “in touch”.

9. Francis on all four playing with ethnically diverse children of all religions and none. Scalfari's grandchildren – or their children – could be an excellent idea. Parents present at all times.

These are merely some short suggestions off-the-cuff. Francis' media advisors will certainly be able to improve on this.

The goal must be twenty million Twitter followers in the next three months.

Welcome to the Age of Buffoonery.

Mundabor

 

Francis, The PR Man?

With a brilliant deception, Francis poses as friend of faggot priests.

You might – or not, as the case may be – think at times this Papacy follows a double railtrack strategy: Francis expresses himself in a vague but popular way, whilst the likes of Mueller keep thing in check and within the boundaries of orthodoxy (say: communion for public adulterers, or Medjugorje).

Let us see the implications of this, and whether this is a realistic scenario.

If this is a strategy, then it clearly is a fully deceitful, utterly Jesuitical one. It means that, like Scientology, the Church lures people with an easy message, and gives them the real content once the targets are “hooked” to the dream they have been sold. The “modernising” Francis as the hook, and the – for Bergoglio's standards; I'd still send him the Inquisition, and the real one at that – “orthodox” and “precise” Mueller as the fisher does not work as a theory, because it goes against the basic principle of Christianity, based on a God who cannot deceive and cannot be deceived. Francis represents the Church as Christ's Vicar on earth. He will decide on how the Church reflects Truth. If he decides not to speak the truth, no amount of work made by his lieutenant – provided they are good enough, which by Mueller is most certainly not the case – will ever even begin to repair the damage, nor will it ever justify the initial deception.

If, therefore, you share the above mentioned position, you must believe that at the present time the Church's evangelisation strategy is based on a huge lie, on marketing built over the fundamental falsehood that the Pope willingly promotes a certain (modern, pleasant, unthreatening, hip) idea of the church so that the public may buy the ticket and enter the circus tent, where Mueller performs the lion-taming.

The second consideration is whether this is a realistic proposition. Francis has appointed a “gang of eight” in order to examine a more or less radical reform of how the Church is run, and some of them have already abandoned themselves to savage talk. He commits liturgical abuses without thinking twice. He has homosexuals and sluttish women in his entourage. He has a penchant for heretical talk. He mocks even those who pray for him. He says and repeats that atheists can be saved if they follow their conscience. This is not the behaviour of a sleek marketing man. Clearly, there is an ideology behind the behaviour and clearly, the behaviour is program itself rather than just a pleasant facade to lure people into… orthodoxy.

I do not buy the one with the sleek marketing man working in tandem with the smart educator. The facts I have been observing rather speak for an utter Modernist Pope whose heresies are, in part, kept in check by people less overtly heretical than him.

I would so much like to think otherwise, but that's what it is. Let Francis and his minions and helpers deceive the simple. As for myself, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I will continue to call it a duck.

Mundabor.

 

Beyond The Wheelchair

No problems with creepy perverts, for sure…

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

 

Wheelchairs are, as we are informed, not enough anymore. In his humbleness, the Bishop of Rome cares to be seen by the entire planet whilst he kisses and blesses a poor man, obviously disfigured by a terrible disease. Following the example of the Gospel, Francis does not miss an occasion to put himself in the middle of the street, and be seen by everyone whilst doing good. Very moving, I am told. Perhaps I should check the Gospel on the matter, though, and Francis too.

As we live in an age of easy popularity, forgive me if I swim against the tide and allow myself to be unpopular, fully uncaring of the complaints of the adoring crowds of Francis, The Humble Pharisee. I am truly, truly sick and tired of this kindergarten mentality that refuses to see reality, and prefers to take refuge in bouts of sugary emotionalism completely devoid of any logical content whilst sound Catholicism goes to the dogs. There are bloggers around swooning like girls at the sight of the boy band: look, he did not only kiss the man! No! He imposed his hands on him! Astonishing! Unprecedented! We thought he would say “take the man away from me, he’s ugly!” And instead, this…!

Give me a break.

Do you think that Pope Benedict would have refused to see, or bless, the very same man? What about JPII, JP I, Paul VII? Pius XII perhaps, or Pius XI? Or perhaps is it so, that these were all men who, conscious of the fact that they must disappear as persons so that Christ may appear in the Papacy, would not indulge in public gestures easily – and rightly – seen as cheap shot at personal popularity?

What is more like the Pharisee in the Gospel of a Pope who, instead of sending his Almoner to help around in the most discreet manner possible – as it used to be; so much so, that most people do not even know who an Almoner is and what he does – sends him around to say to the people he helps “this money comes from Pope Francis”, with the unavoidable press echo whenever someone makes the event public? Is it not so, that saying “this money comes from Pope Francis” is an invitation to make it public?

“Pope Francis helps old lady”. And then you are on the press with 200 euros.

Aaahh, the church of V II. The Pharisees would be proud.

The very same mechanism is at work with all the wheelchairs, and the poor disfigured people. It is as if this were the first Pope who has compassion.

Wake up, for heaven’s sake. Refuse to be part of this circus. Read again what Jesus said about the Pharisee who puts themselves in the middle of the road, and say it out loud. With all their shortcomings, Paul VI, JP II and Benedict XVI had a sense of dignity completely absent from this Twitter Hero, this Dalai Lama in White. This papacy is degenerating into a marketing circus of the cheapest sort; a circus meant to promote one man, whilst orthodoxy is considered “narrow-minded”. If you think of all the times Jesus expresses himself with great fury, you have no doubt whatsoever whether Francis would have considered Him narrow-minded…

And don’t tell me Francis doesn’t want this. He isn’t blind. He sees the cameras. He sees the photographers. He knows what will happen. He clearly follows a plan, enacted countless times already. If you still haven’t got that Francis is more attracted to photo-ops promoting his image than Bill Clinton was attracted to curvaceous interns, you are beyond hope.

Oh for a Pope who does his job seriously; speaks rarely but sensibly; can teach and admonish instead of spreading lies and confusion; and is interested in being hated by the wrong people, and followed by the right ones.

Will I see a decent Pope again before I die? Perhaps not. But I will not silently accept this obscene circus that degrades the Church every day to the promotion of one man, and seeks to prostitute Her to the whims and the fashions of this world.

Let us not obsess about abortion, or sodomy. Let us swoon about Francis’ latest media performance instead.

Mundabor

 

 

 

The Pitfalls of Humbleness

One’s friends say a lot about one.

I wasn’t there, of course, and can therefore not give witness of what exactly has caused the last madness of the Bishop of Rome: the interview with Scalfari.

I am, though, old enough to try to make a hypothesis – as charitable as I can – of what I think led to the present meltdown in the Domus Sanctae Marthae. If you think I am not entitled to make such hypotheses stop reading now, or hold your tongue. Otherwise, this is what I think might have happened.

————————

– Francis obviously doesn’t trust many people. He feels that the Vatican apparatus is his enemy, bent on blocking every initiative of his. They don’t know anything of the favela, you know. They listen to Beethoven, dress exquisitely, and eat like princes. Among them, he feels like a revolutionary peasant in the middle of the bureaucrats of the King he has just deposed.

– He thinks he knows everything better, though. He has a certain idea (heretical, and stupid; but this post is not about that) of how the Church must become: a confused, explosive mixture of Peron, Chavez and Che Guevara; a mixture of which he has persuaded himself, a long time ago, that it is something not only good, but even Christian. He knows the Vatican “machine” is out there to (to use the delightful expression of “Yes, Minister”) “house train” him, and he therefore decides to “do his own thing” without looking left or right.  

– His pride therefore leads him to isolation. He has nowhere to turn among the soft-spoken, but extremely alert personnel of the Vatican. He fears encirclement, isolation and, ultimately, castration. He decides not to enter the Papal Apartments, and to live as far away as he can from the Vatican bourgeoisie.  A self-appointed spiritual son of the favela, he knows they are his class enemies.

– Coherently with his Jesuit-born “all you need is luv” religion, he starts surrounding himself with strange people. People like the homosexual Ricca, whom Francis keeps near him – very near him, actually – even after a huge scandal erupts. Francis does not care much of what other people think, so he does not think it fit to send Ricca in the wilderness – as a layman, if you ask me -. At least, he does not care as long as they do not dent his ceaseless quest for approval and popular adoration, which is proving more and more the most evident weakness of this, in the best case, mediocre man. He must think – I am charitable again – that he is doing what the Lord (or at least the very confused image he allowed himself to have of Him) would want him to do and, blinded by vanity, must see the popular approval as the evidence that he is on the right track. Vox populi, vox dei: the battle cry of demagogues and vainglorious leaders since time immemorial.    

– Francis ends up, then, with a very close circle of trusted friends, none of them prudent or expert, none of them fit in Catholicism, many of them certainly sycophants. It’s the eternal bane of power, that wants the boss relentlessly subject to flattery of all sort. If he is a man of integrity, he will deal with it brilliantly. If he is Francis, he will soon believe he is the one who will be remembered in the centuries for his groundbreaking revolucion.

– I think I might know who some of these friends are. If they aren’t exactly those ones, then they are people like them.  People with an agenda, or people who do not know, or people who do not care. They become the inner circle of this lonely wannabe revolutionary, and help him to fabricate his own personal tragedy. He doesn’t see the pit, because he isn’t enough intelligent or humble for that, and like all those who aren’t very intelligent he believes himself extremely smart. This is why he puts a bomb under his chair every two weeks, and still thinks he is doing just fine. 

– One of these people might just be Monsignor Ricca. Francis wanted to keep him near him as the head of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, and he evidently trusts his advice. Don’t laugh. Francis is just the type to ask a scandalous faggot what he thinks  of his theological views. Faggot priests he has seen and tolerated enough and for long enough, and, in his own words, “who is he to judge?”.

– Another one of these people might well be Rabbi Skorka, his dear buddy from Argentina who, besides being a Jew (no, they do not believe in the same God as we. They truly don’t!) is in favour of perverted “unions”. Skorka was in Rome around the time of the interview. He is possibly Francis’ closest friend, or at least one of his closest friends. Francis is so confused concerning matters of religion, that this very Skorka said in an interview Francis watches that he eats kosher. I kid you not. Google it!***

– If this is the morning, how can the day be any better than what we have just seen? Is it so unrealistic to think that Francis receives the draft of the interview, has it open on his desk, knows that it will be read the world over, and asks for advice people like Ricca and Skorka, and perhaps these very two? What will, then, a faggot and a Jew say to him when they see him (unwittingly, perhaps; again, he is not a genius) demolishing the Catholic faith? Will they say to him “are you sure this is how you want to be seen?” Will they say to him “I am not sure this is very Catholic?” Or are they going to say to him “this is so beautiful, Jorge! The world will applaud you! This is the dawn of a new era of peace, dialogue, understanding among the people, luuuv, and you are the prophet who ushers this new Christian (!) vision!” ? 

– Again: Francis might not have asked exactly Skorka and Ricca (though again, he might well have asked just those two: they were near enough, and are trusted enough). But if he has cut himself out of sound advice – as he must if he wants to pursue his revolutionary plan; and as abundantly showed by his decision to avoid the Papal Apartments – he must have around him an awful lot of sycophants, perverts and unbelievers; people seeking personal promotion and advantage, or perhaps even believing in their very badly formed conscience that they are doing the right thing, and working for “world peace”. You read Skorka’s words, and you realise besides a thin varnish of Christ put here and there by Francis there isn’t much difference between the two: peace, dialogue, understanding, love; more peace, more love, more dialogue. Individual conscience, no matter how badly formed, is the metre of everything. Are you a Jew? Eat kosher!

If this is true, it become not only clear, but unavoidable how the meltdown could happen: when a confused Peronist who would be astonished at reading the Penny Catechism decides he can do without the “leprosy” of the Vatican apparatus, the result can only be the decision to publish the Scalfari interview as we have all read it, and allow it to go around worldwide without a word of correction.

Word, by the way, for which I am still waiting: then up to now an awful lot of people has started saying the interview does not reflect the Pope’s thinking; only, not the Pope.

————–

I know, I know. Some of you think this is a far too gentle reading of the events, and I understand these readers though I do not agree with them. I do not think he is willfully evil. I think he is very confused, very ignorant (and I mean brutally ignorant, as in “no knowledge of the very basics”: commandments, sins crying for vengeance, works of mercy, stuff like that…) and naturally arrogant, and the mixture of the three leads him to believe he is being a good Catholic.

A thin excuse I know, and the Pope is the last one who can be excused for not having a properly formed conscience. Still, I would say it’s still better than the malicious intent. At least one can hope he lives and learns.  

Pray for our confused, ignorant and arrogant Pope. It’s the confused, ignorant and arrogant Popes who need our prayers the most.

Mundabor

*** Then people are surprised he considers proselytism nonsense… 

Monsignor Ricca Still In Place, Bishop Francis Keeps Giving Scandal.

 

A few days after his return to Rome, Pope Francis was more clear. He had the secretariat of state informed that Monsignor Ricca “will remain in his position.”

And thus with him there will remain intact the glaring contradiction between the work of housecleaning and reorganization of the Roman curia that Pope Francis has repeatedly said he wants and the “prelate” of his appointment in whom he continues to place his trust, a perfect emblem precisely of those scandalous behaviors and of those “lobbies” of power which should be swept away.

One has to like Sandro Magister. In these times of shameless brown-nosing of everyone who is popular – Bishop of Rome absolutely not excluded – he is the only one among the worldwide respected and followed voices who says very clear that Bishop Francis keeps giving scandal and still doesn’t get it.

In a long article, Magister says very clearly that the King – or I should say, the Bishop – is naked. I find it particularly noteworthy that whilst the article mainly deals with the other scandalous appointment of the questionable woman from Calabria, Magister does not forget to keep his readers alert to the permanent scandal that is the support the Bishop of Rome continues to give to the, again, scandalous sodomite in the highest ranks, and an appointment of his very modest self.

Whilst Michael Voris avoids real criticism, Father Z looks for positive news with an ever more powerful magnifying glass and the varied progressive troop with a varnish of pretended conservatism swoon over how cool sacrilegious beach masses are, Magister points out with a rather stringent logic to two of the biggest problems of Francis: a) making wrong decisions and b) refusing to correct them when they explode like hand granates just very shortly after he has released them.

The hubris of this man is impressive, if not very humble. Once he has made a gigantic cock-up, he takes refuge in “not judging”, and certainly not acting. It should not be seen that the… bishop of Rome has made a rookie’s mistake; actually, already very many of them; and he Seventy-Seven.

Either Francis is so much in love with his public image that he thinks it worthwhile that the Church suffers every scandal for the sake of his own popularity; or he is so much the obedient puppet of the sodomite mafia that he does not dare to cross them; not even when the filth is there for everyone to see, and the stink goes up to heaven.

Kudos to Magister, then, for the very special act of courage of reminding his readers of how Ricca represents all that is wrong with this papacy; a papacy so wrong, that it doesn’t even want to be called with its own name.

Mundabor

 

 

Small Differences

Enemy of Anti-Semites

 

 

Friend of Sodomites

Mundabor

About Being “Messy”

Still there. Still a scandal.

And it came to pass we were informed the Bishop of Rome is being “messy” in his statements. We agree and applaud, because he certainly was.

Still, one cannot avoid asking if this “mess” is involuntary; better said, one cannot avoid asking how, after more than three months of mess, the mess can still be seen as involuntary. It certainly takes a huge dose of optimism.

I also disagree with the astonishing concept that on the famous aeroplane the Bishop would have been in line with Catholic teaching. And in fact, by listening to a certain video one has for a long time the impression a robust criticism is coming out, but in the end very little happens. And no, what Bishop Francis said is not in line with Catholic teaching.

It is absolutely not in line with Catholic teaching to think that there might be a time, or place, or circumstance in which it is all right for a priest to be bent. A bent Catholic priest is as much in order, or in line with Catholic teaching, as a priest sexually attracted to your dog, and you must think long and hard whether you would allow your son to serve mass, or otherwise have social contact, with such a priest.

Just as bad is the obvious forgetfulness of the scandal going on, under our very eyes, as I speak. There can be no excuse for a Monsignor exposed as an inveterate sodomite uncaring for scandal to remain a priest, much less for him to remain at his very influential place. This scandal will not go away by just ceasing to mention it.

As a whole, one notices there are some steps in the right direction, and the television channel in question must be bombarded by viewers' emails asking the responsible to look at reality as it is. But I frankly continue to notice that the main source of the trouble is not mentioned, or is considered not responsible, or if he is considered responsible, it is merely because of lack of experience. Which is involuntarily funny, being related to a man happily sailing towards eighty springs, and who in virtue of his past offices had to deal with the press for many years now.

One salutes a partial adjustment of course. Frankly, though, to me this still seems militancy somewhat blind from the right eye.

Of course I do not expect the same words you read in this blog; there are professional, legal and commercial implications to be taken care of, all of them legitimate, and the professional journalist is supposed to have ways and means and tricks of the trade the amateur blogger hasn't. Still, it is as if we were discussing Palestinian terrorism here, and no one of the mainstream or big outlets were – yet – willing to mention Arafat.

Mundabor

 

R.I.P. “Reading Francis Through Benedict”

One must appreciate the effort made by some to offer what at the beginning appeared a reasonable key of interpretation of the new successor of Peter.

The Church is inherently conservative, and Popes tend to be even more conservative. It was, therefore, absolutely understandable one would consider the novelties of the Bishop of Rome – which, one must admit, the man did not lose a second in showing – as the quirks of an old man, possibly meant to make him popular and possibly meant to make the Church, as a whole, fashionable; quirks that would, it was reasonable to assume, not alter anything substantial in the way the Church understands Herself, with merely the addition of poverty rhetoric, and a generous dollop of Peace 'n Justice.

Soon, though, it became clear this interpretation was more and more difficult to defend: when the refusal to wear the Mozzetta or the red shoes was followed by a serious liturgical abuse on Maundy Thursday, it was clear we are in front of a man who considers himself above Canon Law; a man unable to understand that even if he is the Bishop of Rome and can therefore change some of the rules, he is nevertheless bound by an elementary sense of propriety – and by the necessity to give a good example – to be the first one who abides by them as long as they are there. The oh so humble Bishop was already resembling an Oriental satrap.

With the weeks, it became worse. It was clear to everyone the current Bishop of Rome was insistently and ostentatiously distancing himself from his predecessor. The examples are too many to be all recollected here: from the choice of transport to the refusal to spend the summer in Castel Gandolfo, from the obsessive search for wheelchairs in front of the cameras to the dismal habit of uncontrolled off-the-cuff observations the world absolutely had to be informed about, this man showed more and more clearly he wants to be seen as entirely different from Benedict, totally focused on himself, and completely detached from everything his predecessors have done. Jorge was at this point already madly in love with Francis, and the entire planet had to be informed of the fact. This alone is as Un-Benedictine as can be, and every hope Francis might still be like Benedict – when he did not lose a single occasion to show how different he is – was already appearing the preserve of pathological optimists.

The last weeks have, though, put very thick nails on the coffin of the “reading Francis through Benedict” narrative. The unspeakably arrogant refusal to even suspend such a disgraceful individual as Monsignor Ricca was followed by an even more arrogant, and even more astonishing, downplaying of sodomitical activity as some sin of the youth – as if the man had been chasing skirt in his early Twenties and before his vocation rather than being an inveterate sodomite uncaring for scandal probably until exposed, and certainly well in his Forties and whilst being a Monsignor – and by the mocking dismissal of the existence of the “gay lobby” of whose existence he himself had informed the planet.

At this point, any reading of Francis through I do not say Benedict, but even Paul VI is utterly untenable. On the contrary, this is a man so different from Benedict in absolutely everything – including intellectual and, as is now abundantly evident, moral stature – that every reading of the one through the others is as absurd as the attempt to give a Catholic interpretation of Mein Kampf.

Francis is, sees himself, and wants to be seen as in head on collision with Benedict. He lives in a completely different dimension, in which not even the concept of the most basic decency could be said to be shared with Benedict's worldview. This is the reality on the ground, and has been from the habemus Papam. We have been slow to get the message, because the message is so shocking that it takes a while to even persuade the faithful of it. But this is where we are, and the Bishop of Rome's invitation to “make noise” – when seen in conjunction with his blatant liturgical abuses before and after his accession to the throne – clearly show this man is positively encouraging a revolutionary movement from the grassroots, and countless liturgical and otherwise abuses meant to make the Church more “modern” and “relevant”; that is, meant to sell Her to the world; lock, stock, and barrel.

Of course, Francis will always be, at times, in agreement with Benedict. It's not that he is denying the Trinity, or the necessity of the Sacraments. If Benedict say that two and two is four, Francis will necessarily agree. But this is also where the similarities end, because truly, Bishop Francis could not have troubled himself more to stress how different he is from Pope Benedict; and, I must add, from all the Popes before the latter.

Seriously: if Francis can be read through Benedict, Hitler can be read through St. Thomas Aquinas.

It just doesn't work.

Mundabor

 

“Off-The-Cuff” Comment

I’d love to know how many Catholic women have not voted, or have stated they would never vote, for Newt Gingrich because of his past marital infidelities, but are so ready to believe that Monsignor Ricca must now be “reformed” and “chaste”.

Just sayin’

Mundabor

 

Summorum Pontificum Under Attack?

At least, Pinocchio had the cricket…

And so it came to pass an efficient, prosperous, growing semi-traditionalist Order, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (short: FFI), had its Tridentine Mass culled par ordre du mufti, the mufti in this case being none other than the gay-loving Bishop of Rome of ours. 

The event is – or might be; or should be – rather massive, because impinges exactly on those freedoms that Summorum Pontificum freely gives to all religious:  not only the Ecclesia Dei orders, but all of them. 

One can, therefore, wonder whether the FFI isn’t the canary in the coal mine, whose death warns us of immediate danger for the Traditional Mass.

On the matter, I have read two opposed opinions, that you can read here and here.  I add that there can be little doubt the FFI, in itself not a traditionalist order, has been factually overtaken by the Traditionalist; who, whilst obviously not “oppressing” their more progressive brother, have given a certain “tone” to the work of the order; order that, punctually, has started to expand robustly and gather friends everywhere. This is the kind of plague that generally befalls the traditionalists orders; which, in turn, lets the Bergoglios of this world look very, very bad.

In short, according to the two camps either the Bishop of Rome is merely intervening in internal squabbles, and the de facto silencing of the TLM mass is just a medicinal measure to bring harmony within the order again; or he is profiting from a convenient minority of “progressives” within the FFI to cull their Latin Mass activity and make of them a ballon d’essai or a dress rehearsal for the great attack to the Traditional Mass.

I invite you to click both links and read the arguments on both sides, arguments which would take too much time – and wasted time at that, because they are very well put – to rephrase here for you.

——————

I wasn’t there, of course, and if I was there I must have been in the bathroom. Personally, though, I think that the Rorate argument wins hands down. Not only are the positions expressed by Rorate, in my humble opinion, more logical from the point of view of an outsider; but crucially, they match with the subversive character of Bishop Francis we could observe in these short months.

Often in the past I have written that I could not see Bishop Francis going head on against the traditionalists. On one hand I considered him if not smart, at least attentive; then I thought he would have other problems to deal with; finally, it wouldn’t be smart to give the SSPX so great a gift by showing to the entire Catholic world what a joke Bergoglio is.

I must, though, here frankly admit that when I wrote that I also did not imagine a man going to such excesses of egomaniacal  conduct as to keep at his place a sodomite destroyed the world over by horrible revelations of rent boys & Co., just because he is his buddy – or, worse, because he needs Ricca’s many friends, friends as bent as Ricca is; or, worse still, because these are the friends who have allowed him to be chosen to be the Bishop of Rome, so that he now owes them -.

Every month, this man shows us that he can be even more shameless than we thought him capable of; and as a result, every month we must reassess his possible moves concerning this or that in light of the increasing more dangerous character emerging from his action. 

Bishop Bergoglio has surpassed our worst fears with beautiful regularity since the beginning of his … new appointment. How can we say he will stop in front of the Tridentine Mass? Who can say he will even wait for Pope’s Benedict’s death before officially demolishing his heritage? This is a man whose lack of the most common sense of decency extends not only to almost daily insulting his predecessor in a very thinly veiled manner, but even to defying the most elementary sense of propriety in front of the entire Catholic world by keeping a sodomite at his place, and making stupid and arrogant jokes about the non-existence of the “gay lobby” he himself had publicly mentioned.  What is such a man not capable of?

From their fruits you shall know them. Even in Collodi’s book, you never know in which problems Pinocchio can put himself into. But at least Pinocchio had the fee and the Wise Cricket. Bishop Bergoglio has Monsignor Ricca, the man (?) he absolutely clings to…

This being the situation, and with Screwtape clearly making himself very comfortable within the Vatican corridors, what could not happen? Could perhaps Francis decide – which I would think extremely stupid – that every advantage given to the SSPX is worth being suffered, if it allows him to silence all the others? Imagine his objective is simply to stop the Tridentine Mass for being celebrated, without any concern whatsoever of the huge boost in prestige and reputation – and money – this would give the SSPX?

Of course, this would be extremely stupid. Of course, this would continue the Pinocchio-isation of the Church and plunge her in a new crisis of vocation of heterosexual priests – faggots will, I am sure, run to be enrolled in the seminaries -; of course, Francis would lose the image of “great uncle” to acquire the one of “grumpy old sixty-eighter”, the vastly superior traditionalists shaming him at every occasion. But perhaps, he is not so intelligent? Perhaps, he is so full of himself that he thinks he can do nothing wrong, and does not need to follow prudent advice? Hitler and Napoleon, when they lost their head, thought they could conquer Russia. Bishop Humble, once he has seen a couple of million people in Copacabana, might well think he can conquer a small number of Traditionalists?

It is difficult to give an answer to these questions. This is like 1933. There is a new man in power, and this new man shows he is increasingly strange and unpredictable, and gives all signs to be a megalomaniac of “change”. I do not doubt he feels, like Hitler, called to be remembered in one thousand years.

On the other hand, when he was in Argentina he refused every open clash with the SSPX, who have a strong presence there. This is a powerful argument. But history teaches us that more often than not, the Pope is different from what the Cardinal used to be. This “bishop of Rome” must be the most different in a long time.

For example, there is this rumour of a great plan to be announced in Autumn, to make the Church, in a way, simpler. When I heard it I thought it had to do with the exterior appearance of the clergy (say: only Fiat or Ford cars; bishop must live in a three bedroom house; compulsory embracing of people in wheelchair whenever a camera is present; and the like), but in the light of the FFI measure the plans certainly assume a more sinister trait. Perhaps is the man trying to sweep away Summorum Pontificum in one fell swoop, counting on the choir of wannabe conservative who will suddenly discover the Holy Ghost hates Latin? 

I wish I had an aswer, but this man eludes answers. He plunged himself into a grave liturgical abuse weeks into his pontificate; he aids and abets not only homosexual clergy, but sodomites at that – don’t insult your intelligence pretending to believe the likes of Ricca are “chaste” anyway – and even dares to make a mockery of the people’s worries about the very faggots he protects.

This is the kind of man we have at the top. Again, it’s like 1933. There’s no way to know more until the true scale of this man’s delusion emerges.

Mundabor

Never Waver

What would he have thought of the Pope remarks? Yes, exactly that…

My dear reader, the new season of madness that is coming upon us will see our faith attacked from all sides; from the media and from our friends, from the environment (at work, etc.) that will isolate us, to the worst treason of all, the one of the clergy suddenly “embracing” those things for which their grand-grandmothers would have slapped them in the face.

We must now expect many of the “how cool it is to be a conservative” camp to make a volte-face, and decide that yeah, the Church got that with homosexuality wrong these last two thousand years; hey, it happens in the best families; but look at how many people go to see the Pope as if it were the Cannon Man or the Bearded Woman! Hey, he must be doing something right! Can’t you see how much the world luuuv him?!

Be ready. Be steadfast. Never waver. What the Church has taught to your grand-grandmothers, that is the Church you belong to. Novelties must have no effect on you. No amount of drunkenness of the Vatican II clergy must ever let you think that perhaps, perhaps one who says ten thousand times what was right is now wrong might have an argument. He hasn’t. This is Goebbel’s method. Just repeat the lie long enough, and most will end up believing it is the truth.

The sirens of pacification, suggesting that you go with the flow and simply embrace all the shallowness, stupidity, and outright heresy of the times make – even when they are in good faith – the work of the devil. There is no way sloppy theology can be right, exactly as there is no way guitars at Mass can be right. There is no way it would have been right for Pius XII to be a “Renaissance Prince”, and it is right for Pope Francis to mock “Renaissance Princes”. There is no way God or Christianity have “changed” and the Holy Ghost is now, under the stewardship of Francis, changing the course after the first 2000 years of introductory experiment.

The next years are going to see a polarisation in the Catholic camp: as those who love to call themselves (vaguely) Conservative but do not care for the conservation of Catholic values “embrace” Francis’ devastation of Catholic tradition and abetting of perversion, a minority of people who really care will continue to say it as it is, in the serene knowledge that Truth is unchangeable, and those who try to tamper with it will pay a terrible, terrible price.

As to this blog, I invite you to read its headlines: tradidi quod et accepi, and Catholicism without compromise. They will continue to be the guiding lights of this effort; and if one day the Bishop of Rome dances a passionate Tango with his buddy Monsignor Ricca in the middle of St. Peter’s square, or produces himself in a dance dressed in a pink tutu, I will first ask myself what my great-grandmothers (in my case, the grandmothers would be more than sufficient) would have thought of it; and what Pope Pius X, or Pope Pius XII, or Padre Pio would have made of the event; and what they would have thought – you know perfectly well what they would have thought – I will also think, and there you have it.

Stuff “change”, stuff the new times, stuff the fashion and the bollocks of an unbelieving clergy only interested in popularity and short-term quiet. The mere idea the new times could not be lived with the instruments of the old ones is the very core of Modernism.

Thanks, but no, thanks. Give me the old religion, and may the Lord give me and us the force to bear whatever price for our faithfulness we may be called, one day, to pay.

Mundabor

Pope Gay The First

There is no week now without this disgraceful man reaching for a new deep from the gutter in which he has already put himself.

Once again, the immense scandal he causes is born from his being so much in love with himself, that he cannot resist “humbly” making the world new in the presence of journalists. This time, we had 80 minutes of off-the-cuff “Francis show”, and if you have already photographed the arrogance and ignorance of this man – if you read this blog, it is probably because you have – you know that 80 minutes of Bergoglio Show can’t be good for Catholicism. More alarming still, is that the off-the-cuff remarks show how this man really thinks.

The Neo-conservative press is now desperately trying to spin the immense stupidity (or evil intent, or a mixture of the two) of this man; but you can spin as much as you like, the man is a plague.

Let us see what kind of subversive bollocks a Bergoglio can spit in one single day, when he feels in good form.

1. So-called Gay Lobby.

If there is one, Francis hasn’t seen it in the Vatican ID card. Besides the absurdity of the statement, this is so gay even Elton John – an admirer of his, you must know – must see it that way.

Seriously: what a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say. What an insult to the intelligence of every sane Catholic. What unspeakable arrogance. The Bishop of Rome is here clearly being the best ally of the “gay mafia” within the Vatican. He has clearly exposed himself as their man, elected by them so that he may not do anything against them, and help them.

Please let us wake up here. First important appointment is the one of a sodomite with levers everywhere within the Vatican; when a huge scandal involves this man, Francis refuses to get rid of him; then he proceeds to downplay the whole issue, so that he can be free to help his sodomitic friends without too much nuisance. Make no mistake, Screwtape would be delighted with Francis.

2. Homosexuality

Innovating on 2000 years of Christianity, this extremely confused (or worse) man wants us to believe being an homosexual is something that doesn’t stay in the way of being a priest. This shows you, better than anything else, how deeply rotten this man’s thinking is. I wonder if he would say the same of people with a tendency to screw their own mother, or dog, or niece. Either the answer is “yes” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted in all matters of sexual abuse) or it is “no” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted concerning the matter of homosexuality).

The moral of the story is that for this man, provided a homosexual is not part of a “gay lobby” (which he would allegedly not spot anyway; see the ID wannabe joke) not only can he be a priest, he can be one of his strictest collaborators, and who is he to judge?

Francis’ Christianity, and requirement for priesthood, ends by “accepting The Lord and having good Will”. Welcome, perverts the world over. The priesthood awaits you.

Satanic. Utterly and completely satanic.

Some people (like Jimmy Akin, who today makes a quadruple salto trying to defend the indefensible; I think we’ll see a lot of this in the years to come) will even try to sell you that, formally, Benedict’s explicitly stated policy of not allowing homos to the priesthood will not be touched. How can this be? If this is the example he gives; if this is the way he talks; if this is, very obviously, the way he thinks, how can this be?

Compared with this man, Pope Paul VI is merely an amateur. This here is Screwtape’s real deal.

You may or may not know that a good Catholic has traditionally had the faculty to pray for the painless death of the Pontiff if he is persuaded the Pontiff in question is a disgrace for the Church – as you can see, nothing new under the sun – .

I have a huge problem with praying for the painless death of Bergoglio, because in my naïveté something within me rebels to the idea of wishing the death of a Pontiff.

Still, the times are such that a Pope may well step aside if he finds himself in the physical impossibility of working as Pope. I have written in the past that I consider Benedict’s decision – seen in isolation – a wise one. If a Pope can’t make it, than he should not make it either, and leave his place to someone with the necessary strength.

You decide for yourself.

I start praying for the end of Bergoglio’s papacy today.

Mundabor

 

Loyalty Misunderstood

We write today the 25 July and as I pen this Monsignor Ricca, Bishop Bergoglio's sodomite lunch buddy, is still at his place. A pontiff who insists on the need for saints wearing jeans seems unable to understand the need for priests not practising sodomy. I do not know about you, but I find it rather rich. It is as if for Bishop Bergoglio saying and doing belonged to two different planets, without any need for the actions to conform to the words.

In the unavoidable reflection caused by this astonishing behaviour, one cannot avoid thinking of the precedent – during Bishop Francis' Buenos Aires time – of the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, Monsignor Sucunza. The latter was the obvious cause of a trial for adultery and divorce, and was constantly and stubbornly protected by Bergoglio without any consideration for the scandal he gave.

What I think happens here is that the Bishop of Rome has a rather disquieting understanding of loyalty, according to which when someone has become part of his own circle, he will protect him whatever his failings and the scandal they cause. This will, in turn, ensure him blind loyalty from the people of his entourage.

Now, loyalty is very good if it is founded on virtue and shared values. It becomes a pure power machine if it is based exclusively on personal allegiance, and looks past whatever failings.

Even Don Vito Corleone would have understood that Monsignor Ricca is untenable and must go, and no kind of loyalty from his picciotto can justify sustained and grave harm to the greater cause. Bishop Bergoglio, whose greater cause is vastly bigger than Don Vito's, should have immediately put the interest and reputation of the Church – besides basic decency – before every personal consideration.

Very obviously, Bishop Bergoglio does not think that way. His system of power – and perhaps a very, very twisted notion of what is right – seems to require that whoever is perceived as one of his own men – like Sucunza, or Ricca – is protected for as long as humanly possible, without any consideration for the consequences.

The permanence of Ricca in his post is a scandal that become worse with every day, and throws a sinister light about the basic moral structure – and the not very basic power thinking – of the one who should be, before all things, servus servorum Dei.

A scandal is a scandal is a scandal. A sodomite is a sodomite is a sodomite. No amount of twisted thinking can justify what is happening. If you ask me, what is happening shows the true face of Bishop Bergoglio more than anything else we have seen – and we have seen a couple already – from him. The brazenness of this behaviour will perhaps silence the clericalists, but it will scandalise all those who do not confuse loyalty to Peter with Fuehrerprinzip and outright Papolatry.

Every day the Bishop of Rome allows Ricca to stay, this scandal enlarges and the credibility of the Church is undermined.

You find excuses for this behaviour if you want to. I find the way this man behaves truly beyond the pale. Every priest or bishop or cardinal who would dare to behave in this way would be bombarded with criticism like it's Dresden in February 1945.

Bishop Francis leave a sodomite, appointed by him, in his place undisturbed.

Mundabor

 

Trustworthiness

This source is in French, but credible sources consider it reliable.

What it says in the world's second most beautiful language is as follows:

1. Monsignor Ricca has not offered, but has in fact presented his resignation to Bishop Francis on Saturday.

2. The resignation extends to his activity as, ahem, “homo hotelier” at the Vatican.

3. Further misconduct in recent years has emerged.

Now this may seem little but, if confirmed, would not be good at all.

To 1.

For Pope Francis to prefer to travel to Rio and leave such a scandal crying to heaven for vengeance can mean only one of the two: he wants to leave undistubed the cult for his person as he travels to Brasil, or he wants to protect his homo “buddy” by allowing him to go away gracefully. In both cases, personal interest has come before the reputation and prestige of the Church, and great scandal was given – and as I write, is still given – to faithful Catholics.

The one with Magister's sources being “untrustworthy” – once again, a masterpiece of ineptitude and arrogance – will now unavoidably turn against either Father Lombardi or, far more probably, Bishop Bergoglio. There can be no doubt that here either Magister is untrustworthy, or Bishop Bergoglio*. Tertium non datur. To paraphrase Jane Austen, in this matter there isn't enough trustworthiness for both of them.

Therefore, either the Bishop of Rome is a liar – and therefore qua definitione untrustworthy – or he is so carelessly arrogant – and still untrustworthy – as to send his own press man to state heavy words without caring for a proper homework first. Before you get all angry at me, reflect on how you would scream if, say, Obama had been – obviously mutatis mutandis – in Bishop Francis' actual situation. We would all say that …. well, you all know what we would say.

To 2. I am surprised that the obvious scandal of a sodomite priest running three hotels for priests has not caused more horror, tragic hilarity and, in time, close scrutiny. The man has probably used his position to arrange every possible kind of “meetings” with and between his buddies, from all over the world; people he wanted to link to himself, link to each other and make part of his network. His position must also have put him in the knowledge of many a secret, and in a position to destroy many a career. He must have been a very powerful man, this dirty little scumbag. Bishop Francis trusted him, though, and actually felt comfortable living under a roof run by him.

From the conclave (charitable version; please spare me from the other one):

“Ah, this Francis is one with a safe instinct for choosing the right people! Let us give him the task to reform the Curia from the homo mafia, and from the other problems!”.

This serves Francis right. Should have stayed in the Papal Apartments. In this particular case, the punishment for his “humble” hubris came particularly swift, and particularly hard. A faggot as host, lunch buddy for three months and even protégé? Hats off: he could not have done worse. Takes some doing. Respect.

To 3. Every attempt to depict a Pope that was impressed with Ricca's “conversion” will die with this particular piece of news; then everyone knows the gossip must have been there, and Bishop Francis would look even more as a managerial Waterloo if the story were to be spread.

———————–

Well then: arrogant, simpleton, or a mixture of the two. I personally vote for the first hypothesis. The man is too smart to be a nincompoop; he is good enough at marketing himself (no shame, though; which helps); but in the end he is clearly not smart enough to run the Church.

More and more, the hubris of this stubborn but not exceedingly prescient Pope emerges. Whilst the world media try to make of him the next Mahatma Gandhi, those who can think for themselves have abundantly photographed this man. Click around and read the one or other priestly blog, and you will read for yourself.

If you have a very robust sense of humour, you will find this papacy at least grotesquely entertaining. I try to take it with as much humour as I can, but I am an emotional man and am easily angered, so it's not all that easy.

I do hope, though, this particular kind or Circus Medrano will come to an end, obviously in the Lord's good time. I do not have any illusion about Francis' successor, but one can at least hope in some shrewdness.

Alexander VI was at least a clever man, an orthodox Pope, and a great peacemaker.

This here is bad even at being a bad Pope.

Mundabor

* the reader's intelligence will not be insulted by implying the “untrustworthy” stunt is an initiative of Father Lombardi.

 

Rio: Meet The Francis Lama

Only one went to Rio. All fine, then....

If you had any doubt the sober demeanour of Pope Benedict has left place to a personality cult in JP II-style, this World Fornication Day should not leave you any doubt.

The Bishop of Rome – now not the Holy Father anymore, but the Cool Uncle – is the superstar of an event in which emotion is sought for the sake of the emotion.

“Frenzied crowds” meet him in Brazil, and I wonder how many of them are simply moved by the desire to say “I was there”. The cars of the Papal motorcade moving in the middle of a crowd not kept in place by fences remind one of the Tour de France, with the ecstatic but hysteric crowds mad for their heroes, but not the faintest aim of spiritual advancement.

This is not, my dear readers, the product of a desire for spirituality. Spirituality does not lend itself well to this kind of exercise. For this reason, great Popes like Pius XII or great saints like Padre Pio have always avoided putting themselves on the front stage. Oceanic crowds are more suited to Mussolini.

In theory, one might have thought that the strategy is a promising one during JP II's pontificate, with a Pope clearly with superstar status attracting enormous crowds. But even then the shallowness of this following had to be evident to everyone with some critical thinking, and the progressive dechristianisation of the West after almost 27 years of “John Paul Superstar” should have persuaded most. It certainly persuaded Pope Benedict, a man far away from such excesses, and too intelligent to even consider them.

The clock has now been set back to the Eighties and Nineties: the new Francis Lama offers an even easier, even shallower, even easier to digest entertainment.

Like the Dalai Lama, Bishop Francis will dish cheap platitudes, rich in sugar and strictly vitamin-free. I wonder if he will mention hell or even purgatory once; I very much doubt he will even deal strongly with at least a couple of unpleasant issues, as John Paul II at least regudid.

Bishop Francis has neither John Paul's saintliness, nor Ratzinger's brain, least of all Pacelli's grit. He does not even dare to be unashamedly Pope, though you can be sure he is nobody's Fool. His marshmallow papacy will please the juvenile crowds and the shallow of spirit, and will deeply sadden all those who see Christianity sink all over the West whilst the Numero Uno cannot even admit a mistake, and accept the resignation of a scandalous sodomite. The New Humbleness is the Kool-aid for the masses thirsting for “celebrities” and easy feel-good kicks.

Bishop Francis will give them both, in spades, happily marching forwards with the cult of the Dalai Francis; perhaps thinking, like Wojtyla, that in this way he will help the work of evangelisation, and perhaps with less humble motives. But the more he goes on with his marshmallow pontificate, the more he will alienate those yearning for real nourishment. He reminds me more and more of Sandro Pertini, former Italian President; the idol of the stupid the country over, but always despised by the minority able to see beyond the smokescreen.

The Magical Humbleness Tour goes on.

Monsignor Ricca, for now, stays.

Mundabor