Cardinal Kasper is now everywhere, and I fear we will soon find him in our morning cereals.
The latest piece of dissent this unhinged man has now given to the world appeared on News.va, the news outlet of the Vatican.
Many are the dumb, or worse, statements in the interview; but I want to focus on the last issue, the Cardinal's evaluation of Humanae Vitae.
The Cardinal is, as always, rather blunt. One must put the Pope in the contest of his times, which was obviously different from the context of our times (truth is, in his mind, evidently overrated). The attitude one should have is that Pope Paul describes an “ideal”; but hey, ideals are not what they used to be, and nowadays we do things differently. We register the “ideal”, follow our conscience, and contracept (or murder the baby; or divorce and remarry; or support sodomites; or do whatever our conscience says). Not only is this convenient, but we feel so modern…
The Cardinal is promoting a new religion. For the followers of this religion Christianity is the “ideal”, but the moral compass is given by the conscience of the individual. A Kasperian is, therefore, one whose religion is as near to Christianity as his conscience, shaped by his circumstances, allows. Moral imperatives have disappeared, absolute truth must yield to conscience, and three second of reflection are enough to understand that to go against one's conscience can't be bad, and is in fact moral, provided we have this “ideal” – which we have just chosen not to follow – somewhere in the back of our mind.
The Cardinal even has the gall to say that the Pope stated the truth, but one must respect people's conscience. Truth is true, but my conscience trumps it; and going against truth is suddenly “pastoral”.
What a double-tongued old heretical b@st@rd this one is.
Kasperianity is a new religion. It is inspired from the Devil. It is, also, rather energetically supported by The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH), a man with the guts of calling Kasper's theology “serene” and “profound”.
Take care with whom you choose to side, Christ or Kasper.
You might otherwise, one day, look rather foolish. Infinitely so.
Father Z has a rather astonishing post about Paul VI discovering the abolition of the Octave of Pentecost, and the subsequent duty to wear green instead of red vestments, on the very morning of the fact.
One does not know whether to pity or despise more a man who, whilst in charge as Pope, is so disinterested in liturgical matters that he must be informed on the very morning of momentous liturgical changes he has himself approved. The show of culpable dereliction of duty and outright incompetence revealed by the episode is quite breathtaking.
Possibly even worse, though, is the man’s reaction at the discovery.
He weeps. And does nothing.
Paul VI was certainly conscious of being the Pope. He must have known, then, that the powers of a Pope go far beyond weeping; they extend, in actual fact, to reigning.
A Pope upset enough at the discovery of a liturgical opprobrium that he even weeps about it, but then does nothing about it albeit it is perfectly in his powers to act, shows a kind or ineptitude and a lack of resoluteness, an absence of the most basic qualities required in a Pope, that one can only see as do disgracefully unmanly as to border on sheer effeminacy.
Mind, I was never sold on the one of Paul VI’s homosexuality. It seems not realistic to me that Paul VI may have been homosexual without the facts leaking out with such self-evident force as to become a huge weapon in the hands of those who hate the Church, from common atheists to activist Communists to militant sodomites, to Protestants of all flavours.
But truly, reading episodes like the one above one understands how the suspicion could arise. This is not a worthy Successor of Peter, but a weeping girl so out of his depth that the evil people around him can do whatever they please undisturbed, and not even fearful of any of their changes being nullified by the Pope.
It is, to me, the source of ever renewed amusement that a Pope who was decent once in fifteen year of pontificate should by some be considered a sort of hero who stood firm like a rock on the impact of a huge wave of change.
The contrary is the case. Pope Paul stood like a frightened little girl in the midst of a marauding pack of Hell’s Angels bikers; pretty much always, with one notable exception; and remaining, as the little frightened girl, so shocked at the reaction to Humanae Vitae that he did not write any other encyclical letter for the following eleven or so years of his pontificate.
Pope Paul VI not only all but abdicated his social and political role, but he also oversaw the slow destruction of the church whilst doing pretty much nothing else but weep.
He will be beatified in October.
Such is the post conciliar church.
Beautiful words from Pope Francis yesterday, talking in front of representatives of nuns from the entire planet. Citing Paul VI, the Holy Father stressed the absurdity of loving Christ without loving the Church, or in any way feel the two as separated. A mistake, I venture to add, that if it is bad enough in a Protestant who has inherited this delusion, is not pardonable in a nun who to this very Church willingly chose to pay obedience.
Still, I can't avoid being alarmed. The frequency with which the Pontiff mentions Paul VI makes it not unrealistic that he picked this very Pope as the model to be followed in the shaping of his papacy. The problem with that is that whilst Pope Paul VI was never bad at talking, he was pretty much of an absentee Pope when it was about acting. From the Liberation Theologians in South America to the mad nuns in North America, and from the altar girls in Germany to the Dutch Schism in the Netherlands, Paul VI was such a spectacular disaster that one wonders whether he could have done any worse if he had wanted to.
The Pope we have now has not openly indicated that he intends to model his papacy on Paul VI's, but his willingness to talk a lot in abstract whilst steering well clear of concrete conflicts happening in many countries of the West does indicate a Papacy in Montini style: when I have encouraged you to behave properly, I have done enough. Add to this his frequent references to his being (merely, as it is to be interpreted) the “bishop of Rome” and you have the picture.
This is recipe for a replay of the troubles of Paul VI's disastrous pontificate, and already the Germans play with “deaconesses”, utterly unchallenged at least in public, and thus allowed to confuse millions of Catholics.
Pope Francis went to pray in front of the tomb of St. Pius X (yours truly reported).
Up to now, it doesn't seem he was inspired much.
We have in the meantime become somewhat accustomed to robust words from the Holy Father. The one with ending up praying the devil if one doesn't pray Christ was excellent, and the one about the necessity to preach the entire Truth rather than only the convenient parts was also very good. Several of those observations have graced the site of Radio Vaticana, and the easily contented are all in a flurry. “You see? Your fears were nonsense – they say to us -. Look at what he has said, again!”.
I am very sorry to disappoint, but I don't think a couple of words will wash. Pope are measured mainly by what they do. Talk is cheap. Even Pope Paul VI was good at talking.
Yesterday we had another example of this attitude. A Pope calling Paul VI “great” can only fill us with dread, as if Paul VI is the example of how Francis wants to be Pope we had better start to dig our trenches now.
Still, the easily satisfied will tell us that the Pope has also said that Jesus can only be found within the Church, so we are all fine.
Strangely, the Pope did not explain how he intends to square his beautiful words of the present with his embarrassing deeds of the past. I seem to remember he wrote a book together with a sodomy -loving Rabbi who is a pal of his, and exactly how much Jesus is to be found in such a one he hasn't explained yet.
Of course – and as I never tire to explain – we can't automatically attribute to the Pope all the mistakes he made as an Archbishop. Still, a situation where his books full of the past mistakes are going to be published worldwide is a dangerous enough situation, and should prompt him to at least make some observation concerning the new duties and responsibilities of a Pope, & Co.. This would warn the readers from the danger of reading the reprint as if they were reading “the Pope's book”.
I don't see any of this. Not only has this Pope been perfectly inactive in front of the veritable tsunami of homosexual legislation now sweeping the Western world, but he doesn't seem concerned in the least about giving a properly coherent message. Rather, it seems to me this Pope says what pleases him on the day, but doesn't care that his words are either followed by actions, or the strident contrast between them and his past behaviour is explained. This way, he probably thinks he will give some fodder to the conservative pigeons, whilst taking care the henhouse continues to be solidly in the hands of the V II foxes. Cue Pietro Marini's astonishing words about sodomitical “unions”, still unchecked by him as I write his.
Easy words. No action.
Yep, it's no surprise he thinks Paul VI was a great Pope.
The sudden resignation of Pope Benedict has a positive side effect that I thought I would not leave uncommented: the freezing of the beatification of Vatican II via Paul VI and John Paul I. This very questionable plan would clearly have been tantamount to a desperate last attempt to reinvigorate Vatican II. Pope Benedict, who was unwise enough to give the plan the green light, was wise enough not to carry it out before stepping down.
The beatification of the two former Popes – and with them, de facto and certainly in the intentions of the Vatican, of an entire generation of disgraceful Catholicism, as Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II are already beatified – – is now officially on ice, hopefully forever.
Pope Benedict’s successor will, though, find two highly “charged” beatifications baked almost to perfection, and his decision whether to serve the unsavoury dish to the Church or to let the matter die quietly will be a useful indication of what his plan for his pontificate are.
For the moment, I am glad this madness will not take place.
A long string of disastrous episcopal appointments to please the local hierarchies (though I slowly doubt they displeased him in the first place).
The appointment of clearly heterodox clergy even in key positions, like Westminster.
The absolute inaction – apart from a couple of words some time ago; but words are no action – against the heresy in Austria.
The “Assisi” kermesse, only marginally better than the past exercises, and accompanied by almost all of the un-Catholic “ecumenical” stench of the past editions. This did not even please the crowds. Lesson learned, I hope. Don’t bet your pint.
The clear desire to ingratiate himself to the German crowds – see the rather astonishing declaration of some weeks ago concerning the “suffering” of the divorced and remarried; poor lambs… – by accurately avoiding to say it straight about divorce.
The ridiculous farce with the SSPX; a farce either started to try to divide them, or precipitated by lying collaborators, or caused by sudden fear to displease the German “sponsors”. This last farce very probably involved eating his own words. Very smart.
The leakage scandal, not so terrible in itself but showing a man who doesn’t even know his most intimate collaborators and companions.
Much worse, the letter leaked showing a duplicitous style of governing the church, with people like Burke first kept in the dark about taken decisions, informed only after the fait accompli, and after the humiliation given a little sweet, like one does with little children in order to keep them quiet. Too clever by half is the right description.
The clear flavour of favoritism, with those near and dear to him free to do how they please (Schoenborn, a “personal friend”; Mueller, another “personal friend”) without any fear of punishment, whilst the SSPX is left out in the cold with a dangling bait only an idiot can think they will swallow. Once again, too clever by half.
Lastly, the double whammy of the appointments of Roche and Mueller.
In the balance of seven years of Pontificate, it is clear Summorum Pontificum was nothing more than another sweet given to the noisy Traditionalist children: a measure whose execution – let alone enforcement – was obviously never wanted, and motivated exclusively by the desire of the Pontiff to appear the ally of more conservative elements. This is why the bishops boycotted it with such gusto: they knew this was exactly fine.
Whilst, though, Summorum Pontificum is largely lettera morta, the appointment of bad – or very bad, or clearly heretical – personnel continues unabated, and with some notable exception (Burke, say; isolated and not even informed of momentous decisions) the happy V II crowds continue to call the shots, with heretics happily promoted in the key positions.
I can understand you if you thought Pope Benedict could be a Pope if not of traditionalist restauration – this he never said – at least of steady and gradual march toward sanity. Forget it. He now even has his own Bugnini, today’s appointment being surely destined to weigh on his memory as heavily as Bugnini’s work weighs on Pope Paulus VI of unhappy memory.
Pope Benedict is no better than Pope Paul VI, and Paul VII would have been a much more apposite name for him. He is probably worse, as Pope Montini might – just might – have had as an excuse the violent – if not unexpected – eruption of an open revolt he was not prepared to quench, whilst Pope Benedict is clearly helping a bunch of grey-haired sixty-eighters oily, slimy, socialist, heretical money and power-grabbers to perpetuate a situation that must – and will – die with them.
Pope Benedict has tried to disguise himself as a Pope friendly to conservative Catholics, and threw them a couple of sweets they were all too eager to accept as gold coins. In order to keep this fiction going, he might even agree to some form of reconciliation with the SSPX, possibly with some small print allowing him to neutralise them; certainly, the SSPX should never accept any agreement requiring them to trust him.
One can safely say the game ended today. It will be very painful for many of us to have to admit it, but I’ll still prefer to look at reality rather than insist in this dream of the conservative pope that just doesn’t manage to act conservative because…. of the wolves he chose.
This is Paul VII, and no mistake.
The staunchest Catholics are critical of certain popes of the past. The Colonnas and Caetanis of the world, the greedy ones like Benedict IX, the warriors like Julius II, the scheming fornicators like Alexander VI are heavily criticised.
The staunch Catholic knows that he can do this because his faith in the Church, or the validity of the Church’s role and message, do not depend in the least on how good – or bad – the Pope is. Like something else, bad popes simply happen.
The same happens when the criticism concerns popes of a more recent past. There’s nothing easier than to find around the Internet a rather sharp criticism of the long-deceased Pope Paul VI or of his predecessor, Pope John XXIII.
Exactly the same process is now occurring for the last deceased pope, Blessed John Paul II. Treated in life like a pop icon and the undisputed Strange Communicator, the earth-kissing, koran-kissing, rock-loving, airmiles-collecting pope’s legacy is seen with an increasingly more historical, and therefore more critical role now than it was only some years ago, with his rushed beatification probably not doing him any favour in this respect, and rather leaving the impression the Vatican wanted to use a marketing instrument for all it was worth before the reaching of the “sell by” date.
Strangely, though, this exercise of the legitimate ability to respectfully criticising the Pope seems – at least in recent times – to never apply to the Pope in charge.
The pope in charge is, in this prospective, inerrant. If he makes a mistake, his mistake lies in being too good. If the mistake must be attributed to him, he has been badly advised. If he keeps making mistakes, his advisers must be bad apples . If he surrounds himself with bad apples, it is because as an apple he is just too good to notice.
Most recently, I have found a new version of this: if the wrong document has been sent out, a Cardinal must have changed it against the will of the Holy Father, every other explanation having to be excluded because it conflicts with the new unwritten dogma of papal inerrancy. If we believe this, we can truly believe everything: Hitler wanted global peace but has been badly advised, Stalin was a devout Christian but his aides were bad apples, and Mussolini was fundamentally an ascetic character whom bad women kept tempting.
This total abandonment of common sense and basic logic is not only deprived of reason, but profoundly offensive of the same man it is meant to protect. To imply an old man would sit on a chair and suffer at the thought his cardinals change his texts, without doing anything against it, is the open accusation that this man is perfectly inadequate to fulfil his role, either because he is not compos mentis anymore or because he allowed his aides to cow him into inaction to such a point.
It is rapidly becoming apparent the emperor has very few clothes, and to leave him out in his undies whilst the “wolves” are blamed for the scandal isn’t really helpful for anyone, least of all the emperor. The more so, because the time will come when the emperor’s actions are clinically examined both in this world and in the next, and the unwritten assumption of inerrancy will not help him anymore.
Neither I nor the internet were there, but I wonder whether in Paul VI’s times exactly the same mechanisms applied: it is not the pope’s fault; he is surrounded by wolves; he isn’t understood; his collaborators work against him; his documents are even changed, his suggestions not followed, he is the hostage of cruel ruthless cardinals. Bugnini bad, Montini good.
Really? Did this mentality help him in the end? Would he have acted differently had he not felt authorised to think that whining was an acceptable substitute for acting? Did he manage to escape hell in the end? If he did, was it because of, or notwithstanding the silence and excuses of those around him? And these latter, were they not accessories to his sins by silence, or by concealment, or by defence of the evil done?
If you ask me, the duty of a good Catholic does not lie in selective blindness. Not from a general point of view, but the more so because as Catholics we know the Church is stronger than any difficulty, whether external or internal. We must accept the reality of mediocre Popes as we accept the reality of disease and bad weather. Bad popes happen, but they do not change a iota in our faithfulness and dedication to the Church of Christ.
Pray for the Pope; that he may see the situation, and set a couple of things right.
This is a very good example of what happens when those who are in charge refuse to do their job, and unless something happens fast we must brace ourselves for much, much more of this.
Since last summer, an open revolt has been going on in Austria, with more than 300 priests and deacons clearly and openly espousing heretical positions. Just click on the “Stop” sign on the right hand side if you want to know more.
The man in charge and with the task to stop this mess is their – unofficial – ally, but he is also a personal protege’ of Pope Benedict, so nothing happened to him. Nothing happened, of course, also to the priests themselves, who were simply told they are being naughty, or rather “unhelpful”. Clearly, they feel encouraged to go on – with a distinguo here and a small concession there of course – and are the heroes of their own rebellious parishioners.
When such things happen, either one acts to quench the fire at its beginning, or he must accept responsibility when the fire unavoidably extends. The Church is very hierarchical. It is not that no one is in charge, and it is not that no one is responsible. The man in charge is, ultimately, the Pope, and the Pope has the responsibility to watch that bishops and priests behave. He is there for that. If he doesn’t do it, he is a bad Pope. It truly is as simple as that, and how good the Pope personally is does not count. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the virtuous life of a Pope easily helps to conceal the shortcomings of his work. Until a major heresy explodes of course, at which point history’s verdict will be merciless, and deservedly so.
There is one man in charge, then, and the bucks undoubtedly stops by him. In this case, the man in charge threatened – very vaguely – after many months, and we had hoped that at last the Vatican steamroller would start moving. Alas, this did not happen.
On the contrary, the German clergy – encouraged by such evident lack of action – started to become very nervous, and to challenge the Vatican in a thinly veiled manner to protect the interest of their …. sponsors (or better said: clients), the Kirchensteuer-paying German Catholics, many of them divorced and desirous to have things their own way.
Now it appears not one or two deranged idiots, or one or two deranged theologians, but 150 priests from the second-biggest German diocese, Freiburg, admit to giving communion to remarried divorced Catholics, and Benedict XVI starts to look more and more like Paul VI, without the excuse of V II.
The strategy of the Austrian-German-Swiss (very soon) priests and hierarchy is all too clear: they want the money of the Kirchensteuer and are scared by the growing number of Austrian-Germans-Swiss (non)pewsitter refusing not only to accept Catholic rules (for which clearly said clergymen don’t care two straws) but also to pay the Kirchensteuer (for which clearly said clergymen care a lot). Therefore, the shepherds must show they care for the sheep, and call their cowardice and – if we are honest – prostitution “pastoral care”.
In Rome, things aren’t much better and, actually, they are very possibly worse. The man in charge does pretty much… nothing, and unavoidably encourages (unwillingly, of course) the revolt to spread. These priests aren’t stupid: they know which side their bread is buttered, and can recognise an harmless and indecisive Pope when they see one.
These priests – secretly backed, or openly not strongly opposed, by their bishops – are clearly using the tactics already used with Pope Paul VI: mass revolt first, and what, oh what can a Pope do – if he is a bad Pope, that is – but to make concessions to them? This is, my dear readers, all the difference between a good and a bad Pope: the good Pope acts, the bad Pope first doesn’t act, and then says “how can I act, now?”. Mind, the good Pope always acts: if the disease if more dangerous, the cure he will apply will be more energetic. He would defrock not 150, but 15,000 priests if needs be. This is why generally he does not need to defrock many of them. The bad Pope finds some accommodation, because by admitting he will not act when the revolt is big he admits he can be strong-armed. As a consequence, his Church will become a sort of unofficial priestly democracy, led by the populists and the heretics.
Now as in Pope Paul VI’s times, the heretical priest have recognised the weak Pope and – in this case, also seeing that the Holy Father is increasingly more frail, and approaching death – see a good opportunity to strike hard. This is nothing new: we have seen this with the altar girls, and with the countless abuses and irreverent practices then become accepted. We are now seeing this with the abuse of Holy Communion, and the sheer number of the rebellious priests involved in this unspeakable mass sacrilege from the very altar puts the Holy Father in front of the alternatives between showing strenght or letting the chaos go on. But the Pope seems to have no strenght, so the chaos will – bar pleasant but improbable surprises – go on.
Please note the Holy Father – also here, in pure Paul VI manner – positively encourages the revolt (unwittingly, I think) not only avoiding to take any serious action against the Austrian priest and their unofficial protector and mentor, cardinal Schoenborn, but also – and not more than a couple of days ago – expressing himself in a very mealy-mouthed way about the suffering of the divorced and remarried, as if this suffering had come down from the sky like hail or drought. As always, when you say to people they are oh so suffering without telling them who is the responsible for this, they’ll ask you why you should add to their suffering; and if you don’t have the balls to say what is what, you’re in trouble.
As you sow, so shall you reap. The Holy Father’s lack of action has predictably led to the necessity of acting even more harshly now, and if he does not act – which he probably won’t, besides declaring urbi et orbi how saddened he is – there will be even more painful battles to be fought down the line. Alas, being sad never solved any problem, nor does it substitute in any way the need for action. It merely encourages the heretics to become bolder.
I have to say that, unfortunately, this Papacy has up to now given proof of a rather spectacular incompetence as far as concrete action is concerned, and the increasing frailty of the Holy Father might make the next year or two a remarkably catastrophic phase in the history of the Church. I hope the next Pope is a very strong man, or this post V-II mess will accompany all of us to our grave. A pity, as I for myself had hoped to live long enough to see the end of this V-II madness, as I have seen the end of Communism.
At this point, I think it is fair to say the Church would be infinitely better off with fornicators like Alexander VI, personally immoral but energetic and never a unwitting friend of heterodoxy, than with your typical “modern” Pope: personally very pious, but more or less incapable of managing the Church in a decent way. This kind of Pope confuses millions, and contributes every day to the loss of countless souls. But he is very pious and goes to confession every day, so he should be fine when he dies. I’d personally be less sanguine than that.
We must pray for the Pope that he may somewhere find the courage to deal appropriately with heresy, or to consciously pave the way for a successor hopefully able to do it.
If this goes on, brace yourself for the schism of the century; courtesy of a very saddened Pope Benedict XVI.
The blogosphere has been ablaze for some time with the (by the grace of God, ferocious) controversy now opposing the Obama administration (who wants to force Catholic employers to select health insurances who pay for “services”, like the killing of babies, the Church refuses to abet; a poisonous fruit of the “Obamacare” legislation) and the American bishops (who point out that this goes against the most fundamental freedom of religion, something the Obama administration knows absolutely nothing about).This time, it seems the fight will be long and hard, and I can’t see how the nazi-liberal can win it in the long run.
Father Blake then wonders why in the US such controversies should be so ferocious, when in Europe no one ever moved a finger. Interesting question, to which I’d like to give some attempt at answers, none of them very pleasant.
1) In Europe, from around the end of the Second World War (actually, before that in countries like Germany and Italy) the idea of having the entire population automatically covered by health incurance began to take foot. Whilst the systems were different (one state behemot in the UK, and a vast number of small structures in Italy and Germany; Italy then switched to the behemoth) the idea was not really controversial as it was purely about health. Also, in those years abortion was universally banned. Health insurance meant “healing the sick”, period.
But as always (and I have written about this very recently) when you leave something to the care of the Government, the latter will soon take care to ruin things. Besides these organisations becoming monsters of waste of public money, they were abused for every sort of overt and covert hijacking of health funds for things which had nothing to do with “healing the sick”; from paying swimming lessons to contraception to, unavoidably, abortion; and as the system was from the start thought of as “compulsory” and “universal”, once abortion was approved it was considered only natural the “universality” of the system would apply to it, too.
Therefore, a system started as “healing of the sick” became “killing of the unborn”. This is what happens when you allow the government to do things for you.
2) The question now arises: why the Church didn’t say anything? Because they were cowards, is the answer. Even in Italy, there was a decidedly toothless fight against abortion and divorce. In the wake of Vatican II, “change” was considered more or less “inevitable” ( always the pet excuse of those who don’t want to fight). The main responsible of what has happened was obviously the Vatican, with the then reigning Pope a world champion when it was about feeling sorry, whining around and complaining he was disobeyed but rather non-existent when it was about doing revolutionary things like demanding obedience, or putting up a fight. In the Seventies, fights were passe’ and Paul VI’s idea of opposition rarely went beyond a very subdued meowing about what the Church thoughts should, ideally, happen. A bit like the weak uncle sitting at table, expressing his opinion in a very low voice and firmly expecting – and secretly hoping – that he won’t be taken seriously, otherwise the discussion will have to become heated.
3) The third element is, of course, the complicity of the local church hierarchy. When the local hierarchy declares war, a war punctually erupts, as we see now in the United States. Nothing of the sort happened in most European countries, with the local bishops happy to go with the flow. More popular, you know, and we don’t want to do anything as “people won’t change their mind anyway” (another brilliant excuse for the coward; I though the bishops were there to convert, not to decide people won’t be converted. My bad, I am sure).
Therefore, we are now in a situation where even euthanasia is not a taboo anymore; where disgraceful Archbishops openly refuse to disapprove of so-called “civil partnerships”; where not even Mass obligation is transmitted to the faithful; where the priest has become the pathetic figure of an obsolete old man who tries not to be a nuisance and knows a lot of jokes, but is not seen by anyone as a moral guide, generally because he isn’t.
This, I think, is why we are where we are. Europe is old and tired, and being old still has too many old sixty-eighters around. It has contracted out the very concept of freedom to a very nazi-“liberal” wannabe elite who is stealthily stripping the population of the most elementary freedoms with the entire apparatus of “hate crime” and “sensitivity” legislation. It has slowly forgotten not only the basis of freedom, but the basis of Christianity, with those most affected (the pot-smoking, sixty-eighter generation) now in power.
The smarter part of the US population sees all this, and reacts accordingly. I do not doubt the likes of Nichols can’t even understand why they are so angry.
If one doesn’t get Christianity, or freedom, I am not surprised.
They say that God is everywhere and I believe it; but it would appear that “liberal” priests are to be found in the strangest places, too.
Make no mistake, the author of this article is – besides being a faggot, which is bad enough – a perfect idiot. He is, in fact, so stupid that he thinks that he “has won” the “battle for the way he uses his genitals”, forgetting to tell us that:
a) he feels a piece a shit, and hates himself, like everyone of them. This is where the word “homophobia” comes from, “hates of self”. A dominant trait of these people.
b) the day he dies, at the latest, he’ll know “who has won the battle”. Then, he’ll experience a completely different meaning of the expression “being screwed”. Not pleasant even for people who, actually, like being screwed.
Still, this post is not about the pathetic attempts of these practicing homos to give themselves a dignity; nor is this about their self-hate, or the fact that their own conscience catches them even before the particular judgment does (and no, shouting “gay pride” and “human rights” is of no avail); but it is about the other, rather interesting elements coming out of the article:
1) A priest (depicted in the article’s photo and yes, he wears no clericals), called “Father John”, frequents faggoty bars described as “not the kind of place into which heterosexual wander by mistake”, and “an establishment where men occasionally exchange blowjobs in the parking lot”.
2) This priest is not only – which is bad enough, but par for the course in such an establishment – an unrepentant sodomite, but he hasn’t any problem in giving further scandal. The journalist describes his behaviour in this way:
The young man told us extraordinary tales: and openly boasting of sex-and-ecstasy parties in Miami rectories, swinging priestly bachelor pads purchased with illicit cash, embezzlement schemes, S&M, and blowjobs-for-promotions.
Note here: openly boasting; which given the place, and the situation, is an utterly believable claim. A Catholic priest, for heaven’s sake.
3) A conservative Catholic blogger acquaintance of the faggot in question was:
rejected from the seminary, it seems, because of his insistence that homosexual behavior is sinful.
So, the conservative is kicked out of the seminary because he is a Christian and even insists in being it, whilst the obviously satanic “Father John”, who is “modern” and “pastoral”, finds his way into the seminary and from there in a completely homo-dominated “lavender mafia”.
This is what the “aggiornamento” has brought us.
Congratulations, Pope Paul VI. I hope you’ve avoided hell and no, I’m not so sure.
4) The journalist (who is, let us not forget, a faggot and an idiot), dares to implicitly call “hypocrite” an organisation that is against homosexuality and then tolerates such sods as “Father John”. What escapes him is that Father John is the pathology, not the physiology of the Church, and that the hypocrite here is Father John himself, the unrepentant bragging faggot.
The author of the article has, in his foggy thinking, at least the intellectual honesty to report that conservative Catholics thinks that the Church needs to be “purged” (you don’t say? Are you sure? Shouldn’t the Church place an idiot like Father John in every sodomite bar instead?); but being a pervert, he cannot resist from mentioning to us this pearl of the purest heresy, referred to him by a “liberal” (read: either faggot himself, or fornicating) priest:
“Sex is such an important part of who we are. You’re going to find a lot more people who are willing to embrace celibacy because of some sexual neurosis than guys who are willing to embrace it out of religious piety. And guess what? It doesn’t work.”
These words come from a priest – anonymous, of course – . This is one that first decides to become a priest, and then discover that “sex is such an important part of who we are” and those who embrace celibacy have, in their majority, their screws out of place.
What an ass.
You wouldn’t believe it, but these are the people who call the Church “hypocritical”.
Next time you hear of a liberal priest, think of “Father John”.
He might be pretty representative of the genre.
Reading around the Internet some of the reflection about today’s beatification of John Paul II, I would like to point out to a couple of aspects which are, in my eyes, rather important in order to put today’s events in the right perspective. Though I have already written a similar post here, I’d like to tackle the issue again from the point of view of the effect it causes on others, particularly non-Catholics.
1) A beatification has the same rank of a private revelation. No Catholic is obliged to believe that the person made blessed really is in Paradise. This obligation only comes into effect with the canonisation. This should, I think, always be said very clearly when you discuss the matter.
2) A beatification (or a canonisation) exclusively deals with the saintly life and heroic virtue of the blessed or saint and with the presence of the required number (if any; for the beatification of martyrs no miracles are required) of miracles, but is no endorsement of the operate of a person as a Pope, or in whatever other public role he might have been involved. Please stress this to everyone you talk about the matter. This should also be stressed with much energy whenever someone mentions the beatification.
3) The great “expansion” of the number of beatifications starting from JP II is, in my eyes, questionable; still, given the fact that as a Catholic do not have to believe a single one of the beatifications anyway I allow myself to feel relaxed on the point. My – or your – questioning the opportunity of such a number of beatification is therefore perfectly orthodox.
4) More delicate is the question about canonisations. As Catholics, we are bound to believe that the canonised person is in Paradise. As Catholics, we must believe that the Holy ghost would never, ever allow a Pope to make a mockery of the process. Every criticism of the new canonisation process must therefore keep this truth in sight: that every canonisation is to be accepted by the faithful as truth, be they very few or very many. This is very important if we want to avoid confusing our interlocutors.
5) Personally, I didn’t like JP II’s pontificate; not one bit; neither as a whole, nor in any one of his single most defining traits. I’d say that after Paul VI, JP II can be considered the worst Pope of modern times, by a comfortable margin. But this is my assessment of his pontificate, not of his saintliness. I strictly detach the first (the in my eyes catastrophic effect of almost 27 years of “Wojtylism”, by which an entire generation of Catholics grew up without even knowing the Ten Commandments, but ready to fill airports) from the second (the fact that the man was really trying to do his best, and was personally very holy).
6) “Holy” doesn’t mean, again, perfect in the same way as heroic virtue doesn’t mean perfection. People have their own foibles and character’s traits, the blessed and saints as everyone else. Even Padre Pio had his shortcomings, and was harshly criticised because of them. But we honour the saint anyway; even more so, because in reflecting about the shortcomings of very saintly men we can better understand how difficult it was for them, as for everyone else.
I assume that every conservative Catholic can easily agree with all the above points, though there will be obvious differences in the assessment of the concrete situation. Again, by every criticism we run the danger of confusing the Catholics and must, therefore, be particularly prudent.
If I were challenged by non-Catholics, or by non conservative Catholics, to say a word about the beatification I would accurately separate:
a) the man from the pope,
b) the canonisation from the beatification and
c) my dislike with this or that part of the new procedure with the Catholic Truth concerning canonisations.
As Catholics, please let us be mindful that whilst we can criticise the beatification procedure as much as we want, we must be mindful not to give the impression that we have ceased to believe in the binding value of the canonisations.
In addition, by the appalling ignorance about Catholicism now rampant ever among Catholics themselves, I wouldn’t give any critical, liberal Catholic a reason to believe that Catholic truth are considered not so untouchable, if even conservative Catholics appear to attack them.
Within the boundaries of acceptance of Catholic truth in the matter, I’d say that everyone should feel free to exercise his criticism as much as he likes.
A non-Catholic seeing that a Catholic can be very critical, but is always loyal will register the fact and, at a more or less conscious level, remain impressed.