I'll make this short, and not entirely sweet.
The apostolic visitation has concluded that, in essentials, there's nothing wrong with being, inter alia, in favour of abortion, priestesses, sexual perversion, and going “beyond Christ”.
This is clear evidence that TMAHICH thinks That, in essentials, there's nothing wrong with being, inter alia, in favour of abortion, priestesses, sexual perversion, and going “beyond Christ”.
Everyone who is an active supporter of Francis is an accomplice of all this, and much more, which the man promotes tirelessly every day.
I dread for those who will die today, on the side of this man.
And it came to pass that yours truly was at a pedestrian crossing, waiting for the green light.
Two women stood near me. One with the habit of a nun, and a big wooden cross leaving no doubt – even in this country of many faiths and none – about her allegiance. The other of about the same age (Seventy, perhaps), and sporting the now rather usual “slob look”: trainers' trousers, t-shirt, and trainer shoes.
Being Italian, I am aesthetically minded, and could therefore not avoid noticing how the long habit of the nun gave her a so much better appearance than her friend's, whose several rolls of fat bobbed in slowly oscillating waves under the t-shirt at her every step as her rather massive backside transferred his considerable weight on either leg, and whose general appearance and demeanour was clearly, as already stated, the one of a slob.
“Look”, I thought, “how the traditional way of dressing gives the nun a graceful and gentle appearance her friend probably does not even see, or for which she does not care”. It was very clear, as I looked at them walking before me, that had the nun been dressed in the same way as her walking companion she would have had pretty much the same rolls of fat, and the same backside movements, on show, albeit probably slightly reduced. The wisdom of past times has seen to that, and has provided for a clothing style allowing an aged woman to appear graceful, and a rather gentle sight, even when time had worked on her female form.
Only later – I am rather slow at times – the thought occurred to me that the woman showing her bobbing rolls of fat and painfully oscillating buttocks for all London to see might, in fact, have been… a nun too. A nun without cross, without witness of her Christian faith – if any left -, and pretty much without a sense of propriety, visiting a friend of another (and more serious) order on a Sunday.
I will never know, of course, then even if the thought had occurred to me in time I am not yet so angered at the decay of Christianity that I would openly challenge an old woman on the street and ask her whether what she is carrying around in that fashion is the body of a nun, and whether she think this is the appropriate way of giving witness of the fact.
Still, allow me to express some sympathy for the old woman wearing her nun's habit and her big wooden cross; and going, I am confident, just as gracefully through life as she walked on the street of post-Christian London, on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
The excitement and shock about the changes of the few days (in just 24 hours, it would seem the Hermeutic Of Continuity With The Seventies has taken a solid lead) caused me and many others to forget some rather secondary issues, like the bunch of acidic women of very questionable femininity promoting abortion, illegal immigration, and homosexuality and calling themselves “nuns”, principally because they scrounge from the effort and sacrifice of past generations of devout Catholics.
Now, the mad nuns may not be such an important issue as institutionalised sexual perversion, but they will probably become a good litmus test to see how the present Pontiff will deal with the issue of dissent.
The interesting matter here is that the mad nuns tend to hide behind the finger of their “social engagement” (notice they love traveling with the bus, too; it must be some kind of socialist mania; “nuns on the bicycle” would be healthier, methinks…), which in their eyes justifies pretty much everything they do, from the issue of abortion to the one of sodomy, not to speak of “wymyn” priest. Now, the newly elected Pontiff is also, we are told, very much focused on amassing treasures of social justice on earth, but he seems very distant from the viragos on pretty much every issue not directly stinking of socialism. If, therefore, he will chose to fare a soft line against the wymyn, we will know his engagement in favour of Christian doctrine stops short of damaging Socialist mantras. If, on the other hand, he will crush the dissent we will know this is one who doesn't wait 45 years to act when he sees the need for it.
One of the mad nuns has, in an interview to a rag calling itself “Catholic”, expressed the wish that an “Italian solution” may be found: the burying of the acts in the most forgotten drawer of the Vatican bureaucracy, never to be touched again as long as the “sisters” live (which, let it be said, won't be for very long).
Sister Mad might be proven right, but the style of the Pontiff seems rather to indicate he is not very much the type for this kind of insabbiamento, and whatever his decision he'll take care to let us know his take on the matter.
I have more than half a feeling that the wymyn won't be the only ones to be bitterly disappointed by the allegedly “progressive” Pope. But I am in incurable optimist and I also thought Cardinal Scola would make it, so don't even think of giving any credibility to my gut feelings.
Absolutely wonderful blog post from Father Z, which I suggest you click before you do anything else.
The list of astonishing evil – or pervert, or both – females, all of them nuns, who have reached some notoriety through their satanic positions is shockingly long.
Particularly dismaying is the fact some of these nuns were (are; will be?) not only tolerated, but supported by their own order. The scale of demonic devastation is barely conceivable even in the eyes of an average European.
At this point, I wonder how this could be allowed to go on for so long, and why the reaction is still so mild. I do not doubt the phenomenon will be destroyed one day. But my impression is it will be rooted by biology, not by Rome.
I personally see the root of this evil in the root of pretty much all the evils which have affected the Church in the last half century: Vatican II.
Vatican II was not only a shift – a seismic shift, I would say – in the way the clergy looked at their own role; most tragically, it was a shift in the way Popes have begun to interpret their role. Fifty years after the start of Vatican II, millions see it as somewhat wrong that a Pope should punish or threat anyone; a thought that must have been simply inconceivable to the Church of the past; the Church which started crusades, put heretics under trial, and openly defied Emperors.
Modern Popes are seen, rather, as decorative old men dressed in white, helping us to feel good every now and then by reminding us of things we all agree about, and therefore conveniently uncontroversial (the news of today: Pope criticises sex tourism. I frankly struggle to see the headline here). The idea that Popes may have, and legitimately so, teeth is not really there. A world who wants to make of Jesus an environmentally friendly pacifist will obviously insist in making of a Pope a decorative practical irrelevance.
This is, if you ask me, why it took many decades before the Vatican hierarchy started the work of eradication, and this is why the work will be so long and unduly gentle as to make the biological solution probably more effective than the theological one.
We do not know what will happen in future, but my take is the witches will continue to bark around as aggressively as they always did, and the Church reaction will be limited to some expression of disapproval from this or that high prelate.The leitmotiv will be, as always, that the Church doesn’t punish.
When this happens; when some slight verbal condemnation has been expressed, all moderate Catholics will start to say the Church has reacted, because we live in times in which words are confused with acts.
If you ask me, this mentality – this meekness that is not an absence of aggressiveness, but an outright weakness; and weakness is always recognised by the Enemy – not only causes countless souls to get lost in the end (and I can frankly not imagine any sincere Catholic doubting of this very simple fact) , but it is even bad PR politics.
People are naturally attracted from leadership. The more so, when this leadership is exercised by the man who has a right to it more than any other on earth. A Pope with the guts to wage open war to heresy and secularism, rather than being “meek”, will attract the hate of the progressive crowds (who want the death of Christianity anyway; see HHS mandate), but will, in time, deeply impress all those who still keep in themselves a small flame of Catholicism alive.
There is no organisation on earth who can mobilise as much as the Church. No other organisation has the helping hand of the Holy Ghost, and no other organisation has the profound grip on people’s soul the Church has. After fifty years of devastation and attempted suicide, the Church in the US can still make Presidents tremble. Just imagine where they would be now if the work had been started ten or fifteen years ago.
Whenever Popes recognise this and act accordingly, they are hailed as great Popes; when they are meek and weak they are remembered, if ever, as a lost occasion.
O for a warrior Pope.