Blog Archives

Perversion Is Never Consistent With Catholicism, Decency Or Common Sense

Pity Nancy Pelosi, old botoxed hag marching towards hell with a very solid faith in her divinity. As to the others, perhaps a couple of words are in order.

Firstly, Catholicism has never said that homosexuality is compatible with anything. On the contrary, Catholicism has always maintained that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, and not one iota will ever change in Christ's and the Church's teaching. Therefore, when the old hag claims that homosexuality is compatible with Catholicism, she is saying that Catholicism is a fraud and she does not know jack of Catholicism. She is, therefore, being stupid twice.

Secondly, I wonder whether there are still people who believe in basic decency in Washington or among Democratic voters at large. If you come to the point of thinking that sodomy is in any way normal, it is clear that your mind has already been perverted to the point of not seeing the stench and the filth of sexual perversion. And yes, the two go hand in hand, because it is impossible to be disgusted by sodomy and still think that homosexuality is compatible with anything different from a perverted mind.

Thirdly, these people just forget plain common sense. They think the human brain has worked the wrong way until their own botoxed mug appeared on the scene. Even the Bolscheviks loathed homosexuality, and the Gospel had nothing to do with it. It was just plain thinking, of which even those people were capable.

Pity the old botoxed hag. So old, so vain, so stupid, and such a damn fool.

M

 

Pope Excommunicates Nancy Pelosi!

Well, it's a canard then...

Well: it’s a canard, then…

 

Oops…

No.

Sorry.

My mistake.

It was not Nancy Pelosi (a well-known evil individual, intent of sabotaging Catholicism for her own purposes) that was “excommunicated”. 

It was the usual anonymous crowd so easy to criticise.

Mundabor

Venom Masquerading As Botox



Nancy Pelosi's astonishing tirade against Archbishop Cordileone – an attack that in his virulence surprises even coming from her – should, after we have stopped laughing at the heathen cow, tell us a couple of things.

Firstly, the first that Pelosi dares to defend so-called same-sex marriage as support of… marriage and even dares to lecture the Archbishop with it without the entire Catholic planet laughing out loud tells us to what level of degeneracy Christianity has arrived in the West. I wonder to what extent a person can be called “Christian” who does not get the very basics. This problem is not limited to the heathen cow, rather the cow is very much indicative of the utterly de-Christianised pastures in which she ruminates.

Secondly, the root of Pelosi's attack is also, in the last analysis, to be seen in Francis' disgraceful pontificate. It becomes increasingly more clear that the new theology of “who am I to judge”, launched by the Unholy Father to the stupid masses for the sake of his own aggrandisement, is now emboldening all kind of rubbish religious and rubbish politicians, who see in Francis' continued antics a more and more robust guarantee that they can shoot at Christianity and its representatives without fear of retaliation.

I do not know whether Cordileone (San Francisco) or Wuerl (Washington) is the one who is responsible for the shameless cow's soul, and it might well be the latter. But if Archbishop Cordileone has any possibility to excommunicate Pelosi, he should well and truly act; even at the risk, which is very concrete, that Francis would then proceed to lift the excommunication because hey, who is he to judge…

When this madness has gone, the future generations will look with a mixture of horror and – if they have a robust sense of humour – amusement at the times when an important politician of the Super Duper Power dared to openly rebuke an Archbishop and “teach” him something so shamelessly perverted as true Christianity; and they will shudder at thinking that a Pope allowed all this, and was an accomplice of this destruction every step of the way.

I truly hope Archbishop Cordileone does not soften his stance, and sends the cow to the slaughterhouse by excluding her from communion or outright excommunicating her. I have reasonable hopes on the first, but not much hope on the second.

Unless more and more religious start saying clearly what is what, in ten years' time the vast majority of those living in the West and calling themselves “catholic” will be unable to understand what is wrong with sodomy in the first place, and deem themselves good “Christians” for supporting faggotry.

Satan truly is having a home run.

Mundabor

 

Nancy Pelosi Asked To Stop Betraying Catholicism Or Apostatise

 

 

PelosiBirthControl

(Please don’t take it literally..)

 

From the open letter of Father Pavone to Nancy “abortion is sacred ground” Pelosi.

Original here.

If you follow the link, you will find a way to send Pelosi’s office your approval of Father Pavone’s letter.

Emphases mine.

Mundabor

———————————————————————

 

Tuesday, June 18, 2013
 

Dear Mrs. Pelosi,

Last Thursday, June 13, you were asked a question in a press briefing that you declined to answer. The question was, “What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?”

Given the fact that the Gosnell case has been national news for months now, and that Congress, where you serve as House Democratic Leader, was about to have a vote on banning abortion after 20 weeks fetal age, this was a legitimate question.

Instead of even attempting to answer the question, you resorted to judgmental ad hominem attacks on the reporter who asked it, saying, “You obviously have an agenda. You’re not interested in having an answer.”

Mrs. Pelosi, the problem is that you’re not interested in giving an answer.

Your refusal to answer this question is consistent with your failure to provide an answer to a similar question from me and the members of my Priests for Life staff. Several years ago, we visited your office with the diagrams of dismemberment abortion at 23 weeks, and asked the simple question, “When you say the word ‘abortion,’ is this what you mean?” In response, nothing but silence has emanated from your office.

In what way is this refusal to address an issue of such national importance consistent with the leadership role you are supposed to be exercising? Public servants are supposed to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public. Apparently, you can’t. Otherwise, you would have been able to explain the difference between a legal medical procedure that kills a baby inside the womb and an act of murder — for which Dr. Gosnell is now serving life sentences — for killing the same baby outside the womb.

Moreover, you stated at the press briefing on June 13, “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics.”

With this statement, you make a mockery of the Catholic faith and of the tens of millions of Americans who consider themselves “practicing and respectful Catholics” and who find the killing of children — whether inside or outside the womb — reprehensible.

You speak here of Catholic faith as if it is supposed to hide us from reality instead of lead us to face reality, as if it is supposed to confuse basic moral truths instead of clarify them, and as if it is supposed to help us escape the hard moral questions of life rather than help us confront them.

Whatever Catholic faith you claim to respect and practice, it is not the faith that the Catholic Church teaches. And I speak for countless Catholics when I say that it’s time for you to stop speaking as if it were.

Abortion is not sacred ground; it is sacrilegious ground. To imagine God giving the slightest approval to an act that dismembers a child he created is offensive to both faith and reason.

And to say that a question about the difference between a legal medical procedure and murder should not “have anything to do with politics” reveals a profound failure to understand your own political responsibilities, which start with the duty to secure the God-given right to life of every citizen.

Mrs. Pelosi, for decades you have gotten away with betraying and misrepresenting the Catholic faith as well as the responsibilities of public office. We have had enough of it. Either exercise your duties as a public servant and a Catholic, or have the honesty to formally renounce them.

Sincerely,

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

 

Grave Scandal At Inauguration Mass

Defence of the week, the easy way.

Defence of the week, the easy way.

It has now transpired both Pelosi and Biden (attempted to) receive communion during the inauguration Mass.

Whilst the ceremony was transformed in the usual mass-exercise of the V II era (apparently more than 500 people, many of them certainly priests, distributing communion) and we do not know the exact modality of what has happened, it seems clear to me this grave scandal was at least made possible by the Holy Father, who was accessory of their grave sin at the very least by silence.

Pope Francis is certainly aware of the atrocious work of the two Catholic Pharisees in matter of abortion. If he himself gave communion to them, he did so in full knowledge of the grave scandal they continuously give, and can certainly not hide himself behind the finger of the two perhaps having reached perfect contrition in the minutes preceding the reception of the consecrated host. The scandal given by the two being very public, their being allowed to receive in itself gives scandal.

Even if the Pontiff did not give communion to the two himself (which I find improbable, both because of the rank of the hosts and for security reasons) and the two slipped among the crowd to receive from some other priest or “Eucharistic minister” unaware of who they are or too scared to refuse communion to them, the Pontiff is responsible for it because he made it possible through his silence.

It would have been sufficient to address a warning during the homily, impersonal but clear, on the lines of “those who directly or indirectly support abortion in full knowledge of the gravity of their sin are not allowed to receive communion, and are therefore invited not to present themselves in front of me to receive” to keep both Biden and Pelosi solidly anchored to their pews without any names being made; none of the two would have dared to stand up in line and be publicly refused communion by the Pontiff, or simply ask for a benediction acknowledging they are unworthy to receive; nor would they have dared to (attempt to) receive from some other person, lest they are exposed in front of all the planet like the con tricksters they actually are.

Someone may say that this was a diplomatic exercise, and therefore had to be conducted according to the usual rules of diplomacy. Fine, and no one asks the Pope should have refused to have Biden and Pelosi at the Mass and should have asked Obama to send him presentable representatives instead. Still, when the rules of diplomacy impinge on the Sacraments, a line too much has clearly been crossed.

Nor can it be said this is not the first time such scandals happen (Pope Benedict apparently did exactly the same when he visited the US, and he certainly gave communion in Germany to “Catholic” politicians of whom he knew they gave scandal) and therefore the matter should be looked at with more leniency. Scandals committed in the past by past Popes do not justify scandals committed in the present by the present one, and no one is ever obliged to receive, or ever forced to give, Holy Communion.

The result of the Inauguration Mass is that Pelosi and Biden will now be able to continue their work undisturbed, and brag with everyone they have even received Communion at a Mass celebrated by the Pope – and very probably from his own hands – so they must be fine Catholics after all.

It is utterly irrelevant whether this is how things really stand, or not; that is, whether the two have validly received. This is how the two will be perceived by the huge number of ill-instructed and ill-informed Catholics in the US, and the Pope enabled them to continue to do so.

This Papacy claims to be on the side of the weak and unprotected. Posed in front of the choice between the hundreds of thousand of babies slaughtered every year in the United Stares alone and the prospect of seriously angering powerful people – and their President – by clearly upholding Catholic values for all the world to see, the Pope chose to please the second rather than defend the first; but he was not shy in making popular gestures in front of the world cameras, like stopping the car and go to the disabled man in the wheelchair.

Up to now, the “defence of the week” seem to be all right when a world audience is there and there’s nothing to be feared, but to stop when it becomes inconvenient; but the Holy Father wears a metal cross and used to travel by bus, so he must be a friend of the oppressed. At least of those who have not been butchered because of Biden and Pelosi.

Mundabor

Readable NCR Article!

Will he deliver? Archbishop Cordileone.

If there is one chap among the degenerated crowd of the so-called National Catholic Reporter (aka the Fishwrap) who can be read, it is Mr John L Allen.  Whilst it is not clear why the man still writes for said Fishwrap (we must all live some way, I suppose) it is clear he is used by the NCR to smuggle the idea that they be, in a way, Catholic. Which is, of course, tragically wrong.

Be it as it may, Mr Allen has an interesting contribution about some new (arch)episcopal nominations in the US, which have lately fallen on the more conservative side.

This can obviously not have been the work of the Pope, as the good man sees his German Bishops and Cardinals openly embracing heresy every day without even moving his Kleinfinger. Neither seems this to be the work of Cardinal Ouellet, as under his tenure there has been no notable improvement in the average quality of the appointments (and already there are rumours Monsignor Gaenswein will be pushed upstairs; I wonder what his pastoral credentials are). Similarly, Cardinal Dolan must be clearly excluded on the ground of his now abundantly proved cowardice in the face of the enemy.

It seems, therefore, at least realistic that Mr Allen is right when he says Cardinal Burke, who is also a member of the Congregation for bishops, might have been the driving force behind the recent, rather pugnacious US appointments, and it is clear particularly the appointment of Cordileone to San Francisco is an indication of some storm taking shape above the Bay.

Having said that, I would wait before uncorking the champagne, because Cordileone (who is not entirely immune from criticism himself, at least if his positions on death penalty and illegal immigration are the ones Allen implies) might well show he has less of a lion’s heart (Cordileone can be read as an archaism or dialectal expression for Lionheart in Italian) than expected. Whilst there is no doubting the fundamental soundness of the man (I have written about him in the past, and am glad there are still (arch)bishops like him; he is also a stout friend of the Mass of the Ages), whether he will have the guts to do what there is to do in the San Francisco’s circle of hell is a different matter altogether.

In my eyes,  the Archbishop of San Francisco is expected to excommunicate Nancy Pelosi and those like her if he wants to really set the pace, and leave a mark whilst doing it; nothing less will, in my eyes, do and nothing less could create that huge media echo which alone can force the American Catholic to look in the mirror and decide whose side they’re on.

Will the new Archbishop have the guts to do it? I doubt, and I would be very glad to be surprised.

Will the Archbishop be able to be really effective without recurring to the extreme measure of the excommunication? I doubt that too, and whilst he might partially succeed in some way, I think criticism which falls short of publicly severing Mrs Pelosi’ public tie to Catholicism will not have the effectiveness we need.

In short, I do expect Cordileone to have a different tone than his very ineffective and weak predecessor (Archbishop Niederauer; another Benedict XVI’s appointment and carved out of the same wood), but I doubt he will be willing to deliver the all-out fall-out Mr Allen seems to indicate with his  supposed “no retreat, no surrender” stance.

Cardinal Dolan is already working actively at the retreat & surrender preparations should the need for it arise, and I somehow can’t imagine  Cordileone marching almost alone (Chaput come to mind; Vasa of course, a pupil of Bruskewitz; but not many others) on the path of orthodoxy.

We shall see. For the moment, I do think we’ll have Nancy Pelosi wreaking havoc in San Francisco for as long as we will have sodomite masses in new York; courtesy of Cardinal Dolan.

Mundabor

Pelosi Seeks Excommunication, Archbishop Niederauer Still Fast Asleep

Quo usque tandem...

Now it’ s official. Nancy Pelosi wants to be excommunicated. She is literally doing everything she can to achieve this objective. She will not relent until she does.

Please follow this interesting exchange:

 At a press conference, Leader Pelosi was asked by THE WEEKLY STANDARD: ”The Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., is a self-insured institution. Should the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., be required to pay for these morning-after pills and birth control if they find that morally objectionable?”

Pelosi talked about the importance of women’s health, and then said, “Yes, I think that all institutions who cover, who give, health insurance should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women.”

Yes, this is not a joke and yes, this is the self-proclaimed “ardent Catholic”.

Good Christians of the past would wholeheartedly agree about the “ardent” thing, but in a different way.

I do not know when it was last time Mssss Pelosi showed to vaguely understand the meaning of the word “Catholic” but it must have been a long time ago; with some strange disease in the middle, which now induces her to believe pregnancy is a disease and abortion a matter of “health” rather than, erm, homicide.

To cite the author of the blog post:

If not now, when?  If not for such public statements, then for what?

Mundabor

Bishop Warns Pelosi, Sebelius They March Toward Damnation

The Bishop's admonitions came in the middle of cooking time.

There is no denying if Bishop Jenky of Peoria, Illinois occupied the place of, say, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco a couple of things would go differently in the old U S of A.

As things stand, Bishop Jenky cannot excommunicate that walking joke of a soi-disant Catholic answering to the name of Nancy Pelosi; nor can he do the same with Sebelius, though the latter is – if memory serves – excluded from communion anyway.

What Bishop Jenky did do, though, is to clearly warn the two aged witches their behaviour is putting their salvation at risk, the day will come when they have to give account, and it won’t be funny. Considering none of the two ladies is in her first bloom, the warning assumes an even more significant meaning.

With the occasion I must admit I learned only today Sebelius is in the business of “human services”, as the grandiloquent official name of her genocidal state apparatus is now called. Before you can say “late term abortion”, the old girl will consider herself the new Mother Teresa.

Still, I’d prefer Niederauer would wake up and do the right thing, and the pastoral admonition already released against Sebelius would be stepped up to next stage of confrontation without any excessive fear about tax status, and the like. If the Church proves she is serious about such matters, she has nothing to fear both from a financial point of view and from a political one.

B.O. already starts to be afraid of open confrontation as it is; let him wake up one fine morning discovering two of his favourite “Catholics” are excommunicated and see how he shivers. “Change”, I’d call that…

The battle against abortion is not going to go away and is, in fact, going to become increasingly harsher in the US (not in Europe, of course, where we are oh so “nuanced”). I think Obama makes a big mistake if he thinks Catholics will refuse to follow their shepherd in at least such a number as to wound him gravely, perhaps mortally. But this requires, of course, the will to wound the culture of death mortally, which is not (yet) there.

Mundabor

Vintage Mundabor. Catholic To The Death: St. Thomas More

St. Thomas More

On June 22nd the Church remembers St. Thomas More, a martyr of the faith.
Thomas More is particularly relevant to our time because besides being a scholar, philosopher and author he was a highly successful and influential politician. Born in a wealthy family, he rose to the top of the English political establishment through intelligence, competence and honesty. These virtues were also what put a premature end to his life, as he preferred to die on the scaffold rather than compromise his allegiance to Jesus and His Church.

Let us reflect on this: he who had become the most powerful man in King Henry’s government, respected and privileged, wealthy to the point of having his own zoo, freely chooses to die rather than adjust his beliefs to the political climate of the times. Granted, he had always been an extremely religious person – and had played with the idea of monastic life in his youth – and the writer does not suggest that heroic virtue to the point of self-sacrifice be taken as the ordinary standard of a politician.

Still, people like Thomas More (and Bishop John Fisher, put to death for the same reason and canonised together with him) are a sober reminder of the scale of betrayal of Christian values daily perpetrated by people like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and the multitude of other politicians calling themselves Catholic whilst trampling upon everything Catholicism represents.

Thomas More is the more relevant today, because today’s politicians are the more distant from His probity and courage. He puts the Pelosis and Bidens of this world to great and greatly deserved shame.

Mundabor

The Compassionate Condom Crowd And False Compassion

The Charge of the Fake Compassionate

As we all know, heterodoxy lurks from all corners. We find it among bishops (look at the United Kingdom, and seek no further); among priests (the last “strange” homily was from that Jesuit from Wimbledon saying on the lines of “hell is a way of saying that we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves with second class choices”); we find it among politicians a’ la Nancy Pelosi and – obviously – we find it among journalists a’ la BBC.

Now how would a progressive, heterodox journalist describe the notorious excerpt? “A change in Church teaching” would be a way; a “softening” would be another; a third one might be a show of “compassion”. Let us see why this is wrong.

1) Church Teaching doesn’t change. Circumstances are always changing, but moral categories never change. We live and die in a world confronting us with exactly the same moral choices of St. Thomas Aquinas’ time. If this wasn’t the case, we’d need a new Gospel and a new Christ. We need no new Gospel and no new Christ; the Truth has been transmitted to us and it is valid for all times and for all (ever changing) circumstances.

Right is right even if no one is right and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong. There is no way on the planet the use of a condom should be considered any differently in 2010 than in Humanae Vitae’s time (sodomy had already been invented; sexually transmitted diseases too) or, come to that, in Romans’ times. We are dealing with moral categories here, not with technological advancements.

2) The one with the “softening” is also funny. It implies that the Church’s teaching about the use of condom is, well, wrong somehow. That it should be “improved”. Poor little sodomites, to whom the Church, which tells them not to commit sodomy in the first place, also makes it impossible to enjoy sodomy in the proper way…..how cruel is that! Don’t ya feel for them, mate? Such a thinking can earn one some kudos in a homo bar or in a BBC studio, but is certainly not Christian. The Church says hard words when she is confronted with harsh situations, with hardened sinners, with abominations, with serious danger to one’s soul. Not only is this the charitable thing to do, but it is the most practical advice. Condoms will never eliminate the risk of infection, chastity will. Condoms will never be conducive to eternal salvation, chastity will. There’ s nothing hard in telling the truth, and nothing to be softened. Truth will make you free and will, possibly, lead you to a long and healthy life instead of a painful agony of spiritual and physical self-destruction.

3) Third one is the one with the compassion. To allow a sodomite to commit such an abomination would be “compassionate”; to suggest the best way to multiply the number of his unspeakably lurid (in all senses) acts would be “compassionate”; to satisfy the desire of the sinner to sin with as few conscience pangs as possible would be “compassionate”.

What has become of us. When the moral instance gives way to the consideration for the comfort of the sinner, we have a clear case of false compassion. When not the sinner as human being is being helped, but the sinner is helped on his way to sin, we have false compassion. When “compassion” is not seen as eliminating the sin from the sinner, but the danger from the sin, we have false compassion. When the physical health of the sinner (through the use of condoms) is considered more important than his spiritual health (through chastity), we have false compassion.

Really. What has become of us.

Mundabor

After The Mid-Term Elections, “Change We Can Believe In”

Emotional, sincere Catholic. More like him, please.

I tend not to have too many hopes in the collective future, as years and experiences have made me rather disillusioned. I also tend not to salute a “new era” every time that a new face (or a new skin colour) is elected in some important office, persuaded as I am that democracies can’t work in a radically different way than they do now, otherwise they’d just be doing it now. Thirdly and lastly, I always thought that it was not in order to end an expression with a preposition; but hey, people get elected to President of the United States with that, and who am I to object.

Having said all that I can’t avoid the delicious impression that yesterday’s mid-term elections represent a turning of the tide; that a great offensive in defence of Christian values has now officially started to make itself heard in the ballot box and in the next decades will spread all over the Western world.

I am trying to digest some facts, and present them to you in no particular order.

1) The marijuana proposition in California has been defeated; so soundly in fact, that it will be fun to see in what other states it will be defeated in 2012. I see in this a clear signal that the electorate has boundaries. Even – would you believe it – in California, the State who gave humanity Nancy Pelosi and Judge Walker.

2) Catholic activism starts to bite. Catholic Vote Action has endorsed nine candidates; seven were elected, some of them with rather spectacular victories (check out the boot for the founder of “Catholic in Alliance for the Common Good”, kicked out by a candidate supported by… real Catholics). Many other Catholics entered the House and Thomas Peters maintains that they are now, incredibile dictu, the majority in the Congress. This is, if not a legislative – abortion legislation is state matter, AFAIK – a cultural shift of great importance; may it still be that many of them are cafeteria Catholics, the number of really pro-life Representatives is most certainly on the rise. Ten or twenty years of this, and an awful lot can be achieved.

3) It would appear that six US States now have both houses with a Pro-Life majority. This can have truly major consequences. Let us hope that the walk follows the talk.

4) The fight against judicial activism trying to demolish the very basis of Christian society takes a rather aggressive form. In Iowa, three judges of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in favour of homo couples have been unceremoniously kicked out. I do not think many States have laws similar to those in Iowa, but the message is loud and clear anyway.

5) The soon-to-be speaker of the House, Boehner, is a Catholic and the first Republican Catholic to such an office. This is another sign of the times: when a mickey mouse Catholic a’ la Pelosi is replaced by a person unable to refrain his emotions at a pro-life rally – and second of twelve sons – you know something’s happening…

This is, of course, only the beginning. The way is very long and many other battles will have to be fought, and some of them lost.
But today, I sense that something is changing. That the American voters have said “enough”, and the echo will not fail to resound in the benches of the judiciary besides among the rank of the elected politicians.

Today, we might be at the beginning of real change not only the other side of the Pond but, in time, all over the Western civilisation.

Mundabor

“Murky Messages”, a Michael Voris Video

A typical vision of a better society

This is a very interesting Michael Voris video about the way Catholic shepherds lead their sheep when there are important decisions to be made.

As in the United States it is now election time (and a particularly important election this one is, whose repercussions could be felt for decades to come) it is very important that the message is given very clearly that in a democracy to be a Catholic is to vote as a Catholic should.

This would seem utterly redundant if we lived in a sane world, mindful of Christian values; but we live in a mad world where socialism and anti-Christian values are allowed to be smuggled as Christianity; therefore, there is a word or two to be said.

A society which allows abortion is a society which legalises genocide. The public opinion of every Western Country thought exactly the same until not many decades ago and abortions were only performed in Nazi Germany or in Communist countries. Only when Christian values started to be confused with “social” issues – and the clergy started to compromise with the growing anti-Christian values in order not to become unpopular – we witnessed abortion creeping within Western legislation as an exceptional remedy and – once the Trojan Horse that abortion is justified in certain cases had entered the walls – rapidly became de facto abortion on demand pretty much everywhere.

Similarly, a society which accept homosexuality as a lifestyle is a society that rebels to God and decides that new golden calves (nowadays called “diversity”, or with other very stupid names) should take the place of the old religion; all the while continuing to abuse of Christ by masking the worst abominations and exterminations behind a veil of Christ seen as “social man”; an expression which means pretty much nothing and can be used to justify pretty much everything.

You’d think that Catholic Bishops in the US would take the sword and finally start to tell Catholics to wake up, smell the coffee and vote with the first priorities of Catholicism in mind. You’d be wrong. Whilst there are a number of excellent bishops doing their job admirably (Chaput and Bruskewitz to mention just two), many others continue with the old inane, vague rhetoric of the “do not kick the cat and be friendly to everyone”-type.

Let us examine this nonsense:

“Go to the polls on election day and, through your choices at the ballot, act on your vision of a better society”

This pearl of wisdom comes from the bishop of Massachusetts, Cardinal Sean O’Malley. I think that Michael Voris is far too generous in saying that the message is inane. It is worse than that. It confuses Catholics and is totally heterodox.

Cardinal O’Malley thinks and speaks like a secularist liberal of the first water. There are no absolute truths he feels he must defend. There is no binding guidance, directly derived from the Catholic teaching, that he feels he must impart to the faithful. Not even the most obvious Christian values, like the defence of life, are strongly called to the attention of the voters.

We have, instead, a typical example of moral relativism exalted and taken as a worthy guide of the individual’s choice. “Act on your vision of a better society”, says the Cardinal. Good Lord, Che Guevara did it too, when executing prisoners by the dozen! Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot all did exactly the same! The statement is entirely a-Christian in its absence of Christian values, and entirely Anti-Christian in its clear implication that whatever “vision of a better society” one has, it’s fine.

Cardinal O’Malley is confused. He should be told the difference between Catholic values and man-made systems of values. He should be reminded why he is a Cardinal. He should be asked why he became a cleric in the first place. Every Stalin or Pol-Pot could have subscribed to the statement above, without any problem.

This is not what a Catholic needs to hear, let alone what a Catholic shepherd has the duty to say. Catholics need to be reminded of their values, and encouraged to give them the proper rank. They must be constantly reminded of their duties toward their faith and of the fact that there will always be a price to pay for them. They must be constantly warned from the danger of moral relativism, of easy pick and choose mentality, of being seduced by the Law of Man. This message must be sent clear and loud. Vague defences of human life interspersed with phrases like the one above will have only one consequence: that the misinformed or utterly deluded Catholics will continue to think that they can pick and choose with the consent of their shepherd. I will not insult the intelligence of the Cardinal by saying that this result is not foreseen and positively intended.

Messages like the Cardinal’s one positively encourage Catholics to go the wrong way and feel justified in doing it. A Catholic abortionist (an oxymoron I know, but he will probably not want to see it that way) will feel encouraged to think that he can vote for a clown like Nancy Pelosi and say that he is fully in line with the exhortations of the Cardinal! I wonder who would deny the validity of his assumption……

I so much hope that this is the last major election in the US by which Catholic shepherds are allowed to confuse the faithful and lure them in the false sense that they are right to have ideals and convictions, no matter what they are. They are right if their convictions are the right ones, and if they’re Catholics they can’t choose which convictions to have.

The Church is in a very sad state if even Cardinals do not live these simple fundamentals of the faith and haven’t the guts to act accordingly.

Mundabor

Don’t leave Catholicism outside of the ballot box

Absolutely beautiful video posted on the Creative Minority Report website.

Its importance is more than merely “local” (referred to the Mid-Term Election in November) and extend to the attitude every Catholic should have when he approaches the ballot box. The separation of Christian values and voting decisions has brought the West to the point we are today and the pendulum must now start to swing in the other direction. It is will be a slow process, but in time it will take momentum and will give us in the West more Christian societies.

Even if you don’t live in the US, please spread the word and forward this video.

Enjoy

Mundabor

“Wake up America”: Father Corapi on dereliction of duty

My kind of priest: Father Corapi

A short but extremely instructive video from the excellent Father Corapi, whom I can’t avoid thinking to as the Fulton Sheen of our times.

Father Corapi illustrates the following points:

1) we can be accessory to another person’ sin by silence. We can be accessory to a genocide many times the scale of the Holocaust, just by silence. The possibility of being accessory to another person’s sin seems to have disappeared from modern catechesis. We see the result of that in the legislative activity of even traditionally Catholic countries.

2) We must bring our conviction regarding the above to the ballot box. It is a dereliction of duty to think that one can be a Catholic himself whilst doing nothing to avoid the Country he lives in to reject Christian values.

3) This dereliction of duty is a much greater crime in those who have positions of public responsibility. The likes of Pelosi, Obama and Schwarzenegger will be judged much more harshly than the individuals whose soul they put in danger.

Father Corapi imperious call of “Wake Up America!” is in my eyes particularly apposite now, with the mid-term elections looming and the recent events in California showing how far Catholic representative of the people can go in betraying their religion and stabbing their electorate in the back.

Mundabor

Hatred and the misconception of “charity”

Be virtuous. Hate them.

Those reading conservative Catholic blogs are surely already fed up with the sugary concept of “chariteeee” promoted by liberals who consider orthodox Christians people full of hatred. Let me explain why they are both right.

First of all, some definitions: the Catholic Encyclopedia defines hatred as

a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other.

This is rather easy. It becomes more interesting when you read that hatred comes in two forms:

One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.

The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.

Now this is already more intriguing as one can clearly see, in the first form, the hatred coming from the scandal, the blasphemy, the abomination, the sheer godlessness of a person. The Latin definition of the first hatred, “hatred of the abomination”, actually says it all.

Even more interesting it becomes when we read that:

The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law.

It is clear here that, provided one does not take the “hate of the abomination” as an excuse to hate the person, this kind of hatred is not only not a sin, but is virtuous. You are supposed to hate the person having particularly odious traits inasmuch as he has them. You hate so-and-so because he is a blasphemer and in so doing you are even being good.

This reinforces me in a suspicion that I always had: that those unable to feel hatred for what is seriously wrong either do not have any real feeling for what is wrong or want to be free to commit it without being, as they love to say, “judged”. Conversely, people like Mother Teresa and Padre Pio – extremely pious by any standard – were noted for their very keen hatred of abominations.

But it gets even more interesting.

One may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people.

This doesn’t need any commentary. We all have such people in mind.

We must hate heresy; we must hate willed and celebrated scandal; we must hate the undermining of Catholic values masked as Catholicism. It is not sinful if we do, actually the contrary is true. It is evil if we let it happen because we want to feel “tolerant” (that is: never uncomfortable and/or with all options open) and call our cowardice and love of a quiet living “chariteeeeee”.

In better times – when Doctrine was properly taught – people knew about the ways to be accessory to another person’s sin. “Consent ” and “silence” are two of them. This should give all those who are, say, in favour of abortion but feel fine because they haven’t aborted themselves, or are in favour of euthanasia but say they wouldn’t make use of it themselves, a lot to think about.

Mundabor

Nancy Pelosi and Jesus’ Right To Life.

The Word according to Nancy

The American Catholic has this delightful video about that hideous fake Catholic, Nancy Pelosi.

The video has first an excerpt from a speech of the same Pelosi on the 6th May. If you go for a moment beyond the unspeakable smugness of the woman, you’ll notice that she says that her favourite word is… the Word and then she launches herself on a (most disgusting, coming from her) lecture about how “beautiful” the Word is (easy emotionalism) , and says that it, ooohhh, “contains everything” (more emotionalism) and that we must, ooohhhh, “give voice to the Word” and be judged according to how we do it in this life or in the next (and here she doesn’t even know how much she is right yet).

At a recent press conference, a CNS News journalist made reference to the 6th May smug fest and asked along these lines: “so when was the Word made flesh, was it at the Annunciation as the Scripture says or was it at the Nativity?”. Simple question, right? Well, the same woman you have just seen feeling oh so emotionally involved in her need to “give voice to the Word” and feeling oh so pure and beautiful whilst talking about it has the effrontery to answer “whenever it was (sic!), we bow our head when we talk about it….. in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that”.

This scarcely believable answer contains the following elements:

1) a refusal to admit that the Word was made flesh when Mary said her “Fiat” (or whereabouts), which doesn’t match with Pelosi’s ideology. She just doesn’t know when, poor lamb. The Word must have had some static noise at the time, or perhaps she was just so busy feeling smug that she didn’t pay attention.

2) a refusal to answer the question (“I’d like to talk about that in church” obviously not being an answer).

It gets even funnier as CNS news, not having had any answer, follows up with an email re-phrasing the question in: “Did Jesus have a right to life from the moment of conception?”. Frankly it doesn’t get easier or straighter than that. Once again, the answer is dodged with the usual shamelessness: “the speaker answered the question. Thanks” is the answer from her press office.

I do hope that, wherever she goes, nancy Pelosi will now be persecuted by questions of this kind. She will obviously not answer them, but it might take away some of the smugness we have seen in her 6th may speech.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Mundabor

Good Shepherds and the Dividend of Righteous Anger

Bishop Fulton Sheen. We need more shepherds like him.

The sad reality of cowardly bishops all too indifferent to the trampling of Catholic values is exposed with beautiful regularity on the Catholic blogosphere. Distressing as these news are, their diffusion is a meritorius work as the renewal of the Church is herewith helped and encouraged. Oportet ut scandala eveniant.

This has now become normality. We live in a world where Nancy Pelosi has the effrontery to call herself an “ardent Catholic” and to relentlessly put forward an abortion agenda without fearing any excommunication.

Thankfully, this is not always the case. There are still shepherds (few and far between, I admit) able to use harsh words to bring their sheep in contact with the brutal reality of the great discrepancy between Catholic values (that is: God’s law) and the secular mentality. This has happened in South America, where the recent approval of so-called same-sex marriages from the Argentinian Senate led to strong reactions from senior clergy both in Argentina and in Peru. CNA reports that the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, calls the legalisation of so-called same-sex marriages “a war against God”.

A war against God. Just imagine what would happen if such expressions were used here in Europe! The scandal of the secular classes would know no bounds and those who do not believe in God in the first place would be among the angriest.

Still, we can’t put all the blame on the secular society. Such claims would appear so astonishingly harsh in Europe, because the European shepherds meant to make them have relinquished their role a long time ago. Christianity has been considered by them, for now many decades, something you just don’t talk about or do so in very vague and uncontroversial terms – like “peace”; who doesn’t like “peace”? – whilst utterly avoiding the controversial issues they are supposed to care for in the first place.

Democracy will not give Catholics everything they want, but a self-professed abortionist should never be allowed to pursue her agenda and call herself Catholic at the same time. In some countries unpleasant legislation will be passed, but this shouldn’t happen without an open, hard fight.

Some Argentinian, Brazilian and Spanish bishops are now beginning to show the way. They are beginning to affirm Catholicism when Catholicism is uncomfortable rather than harmless consensus. They are right not only from a religious point of view but from a political one, too.

In a democracy, you pander to the interests of every minority which manages to get loud and obnoxious enough. The ugly truth is that vocal minorities are perceived as being ready to make their own votes dependent from having their way, whilst the lazy majority is seldom ready to switch alliances because some minority got soon forgotten concessions. Therefore, politics become the art of the pandering to minority interests. Take Muslims and deviant minorities. They have mastered the minority game and are now ruthlessly milking their “angry minority status”, creating the appearance that they are united (which they aren’t) and that the minority members aren’t largely indifferent (which they are).

Catholics could easily do the same. Five million Catholics could easily scare every Prime Minister into obedience, if they were led by courageous bishops looking for a fight instead of shunning it. The argument that the vast majority of Catholics are basically not so engaged does not stand: this is the case by every other minority, too.

We need to import to Europe the courage and clear words of Bishop Bergoglio; we need to make expressions like the one he used more often heard, and more seriously considered; we need to create a climate in which the mere idea of touching Catholic interests is seen as rather stupid.

To do this, we need brave bishops.
This illustrates all the scale of the problem.

Mundabor

Catholic to the death: Thomas More

Catholic to the death. Source: Wikipedia

On June 22nd the Church remembered St. Thomas More, a martyr of the faith.
Thomas More is particularly relevant to our time because besides being a scholar, philosopher and author he was a highly successful and influential politician. Born in a wealthy family, he rose to the top of the English political establishment through intelligence, competence and honesty. These virtues were also what put a premature end to his life, as he preferred to die on the scaffold rather than compromise his allegiance to Jesus and His Church.

Let us reflect on this: he who had become the most powerful man in King Henry’s government, respected and privileged, wealthy to the point of having his own zoo, freely chooses to die rather than adjust his beliefs to the political climate of the times. Granted, he had always been an extremely religious person – and had played with the idea of monastic life in his youth – and the writer does not suggest that heroic virtue to the point of self-sacrifice be taken as the ordinary standard of a politician.

Still, people like Thomas More (and Bishop John Fisher, put to death for the same reason and canonised together with him) are a sober reminder of the scale of betrayal of Christian values daily perpetrated by people like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and the multitude of other politicians calling themselves Catholic whilst trampling upon everything Catholicism represents.

Thomas More is the more relevant today, because today’s politicians are the more distant from His probity and courage. He puts the Pelosis and Bidens of this world to great and greatly deserved shame.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: