Blog Archives

Trannii Probati?

I had joked some days ago, and said I missed the Trannie at Francis' Easter stunt.

Turns out I was wrong: one of the “women” (“Trannii probati”, evidently…) who got their feet washed was, you got it, a Trannie. Said Trannie also had the effrontery of receiving communion, at the hands of another priest, and live on Television, shortly thereafter.

If Francis knew of this, the degree of evil of this man clearly goes beyond what even I had imagined, making nothing less than a satanic mockery of Jesus' washing of the feet of His disciples.

But let us imagine that this was not the case. Let us imagine that Francis hasn't noticed the voice of the man, or in his innocence (provided such an old lewd man like him has any left) really thought her a woman, or has not noticed the man's Adam's apple (which, for all I know, should be an inescapable giveaway even if the man stays there without uttering a word, and hidden behind a ton of hair). Let us imagine all this, out of a charitable attitude the man (Francis, I mean here) does not deserve in the least.

Even if Francis has, in hypothesis, not willingly washed the feet of a Trannie, what has happened goes to show what the consequences of these media stunts are. Jails do not gather the most beautiful flowers of humanity. The Church certainly belongs in a jail, but the Church belongs there in order to convert or reform the sinners, not to encourage them in their sins. The latter is, most certainly, what has happened with this disgraceful episode.

There is no possible universe in which a Trannie can present himself for communion dressed like a woman – and therefore fully embracing, for everyone to see, his own perversion – and receive worthily. Her very attitude, clothes, walk, talk, in short: all her person will scream: “I am in mortal sin!”

If we can accept a world in which that is not mortal sin, then nothing must be a mortal sin. If we make excuses for a man dressed like a woman, there is no case in which we cannot fabricate excuses. If it is possible to walk, act, dress, and therefore live in perpetual defiance of Our Lord without this being a mortal sin, then it is impossible to see how the public concubine should not be able to receive communion. If we make allowance for, say, a fantasy “repentance” just before receiving, we must make the same allowance for the child rapist just before he proceeds to rape the child, and then again just before killing him.

Mortal sin is not only the specific act of, say, sodomy, or fornication between concubines. Mortal sin is already in the public scandal: in the obvious, and public, defiance of Our Lord's laws. This is why the public concubine is in mortal sin qua public concubine, and not only if she has sex. This is why the very fact of living in sin in front of the community excludes from communion even if Mr Concubine happens to be secretly impotent, and Mrs Concubine happens to be the frigidest bitch alive.

This is another grave scandal born of the immense stupidity – even excluding the evil intent – of this pontificate.

A Trannie had his feet washed, in place of men chosen in order to remind us of the Apostles. Men who had, traditionally, to be people of tested repute in their own community: viri probati. In the past age of sanity, even an immoral man would have been considered, and emphatically so, not worthy of having his feet washed on Maundy Thursday. We live in times in which a Trannie has his feet washed and no doubt many idiots, even among Catholics, wax lyrical about the “peripheries”, and all that rubbish.

Huge blunder or willed, satanical mockery? I do not know.

But it tells you everything you need to know about this Pontificate.



Piddling Over Catholicism.

The pattern is always the same.

The Bishop of Rome inadvertently – or not, as the case may be – piddles outside of the urinal, and leaves a huge pool of stinking liquid material. The world get very excited at the urine pool, and praises the modern pope whose style of piddling is so different from his predecessors'.

The cleaning squad (generally Fr Lombardi and/or Fr Rosica) then intervenes, has the urine pool cleaned, and issues a press release along the following lines: “The Pontiff is supposed to piddle in the urinal. We confirm this is what the urinal has always been for. We aren't there when the Pope piddles, and can therefore not say exactly what has happened. It is not true that the Pope plans to abolish urinals, but we cannot comment as to the Pope's piddling style.”

Then they go to Francis and implore him to do things properly, in order to show the world he is not as atrociously bad as he continuously proves he is.

Francis, who is a Jesuit, is happy to oblige.

“What do you need then, Father?” , he will ask the poor martyr of the day.

“An intervention in favour of the indissolubility of marriage would certainly be fitting, Holy Father. We cannot give doctrinal advice via press release, and when you have just made a huge pool of urine for everyone to see we would not be credible anyway. It should really come from you, Your Holiness”.

“Well, then, my dear lad. I will do as you say. We must not confuse Catholics, must we now?”

“No, Santita'. We cannot”.

And so it always comes to pass that some time after the latest scandal, Francis pisses in the urinal once. He may say to a pro-life audience that abortion is murder, or to a pro-marriage audience that marriage is sacred. This doesn't upset the liberals much, because they understand the implications and the duties of the office; but it has the Pollyannas screaming in girly excitement, and complaining that once more the wolves within the Vatican have moved the urinals overnight, in order to let Francis look bad. “I can't believe the urinal was at his place”, some of them will say. “It must be so, that it has been removed without warning the Holy Father, who has a certain age and no time to go looking around for missing urinals. They are working against him, poor innocent lamb”.

Still, after Francis has piddled in the right direction once, they will all be satisfied.

“See? Francis surely knows how to take aim! What did you think?” They will hasten to write everywhere. Aaahh, normality again. How beautiful…

Three weeks later, the next huge urine pool is there, the cleaning squad intervenes, and the procedure begins anew.

And now, my dear reader, some words of warning: if you think that the comparison between Francis' antics and the pool of urine is inappropriate, you really need to give a hard look at yourself, and candidly assess whether you care for Catholicism. Because if you do, you will instantly realise that what this man has been doing, and continues to do without caring in the least for the ceaseless scandals, is infinitely worse than any urine pool you could imagine if Francis had the bladder of an elephant.

It is astonishing that we live in times where saying that people living in very public sin endanger their soul causes scandal; but a Pope literally urinating over Catholicism any time he feels like it, or thinks his interlocutor will be pleased at the exercise, is cause, for most, of nothing more than some very mild, and very pious discomfort.

What a black day, the day this man was made a priest.




Reality And Delusion.

One reads, every now and then, criticism of those who criticise the Pope. At times, this criticism is not only based on consideration of opportunity, but is linked to an attack of the character of the critics: you criticise the Pope, because you are bad and want to make yourself important by playing holier than thou with the oh so good Holy Father.


This kind of thinking neglects a fundamental consideration: that for a Catholic it is not easy to criticise a Pope, and if one wants to play holier than thou the Pope is the last person with whom to play such a play. In fact, it can easily be said not only a blogger, but every Catholic talking with his friends cannot criticise the Pope without putting his own credibility on the line. He must, therefore, very much pay attention to what he says.

Another extremely banal consideration is that no one likes to criticise the Pope. As the successor of Peter, the Pontiff is met with a natural desire to like him and approve of him. The idea that there would be an army of Catholic bloggers just enjoying their criticism of the Pope is evident nonsense. How such people would then be taken seriously by other Catholics is not said. How this behaviour would now have come suddenly in fashion, is also not explained.

These critics talk without looking at reality, without considering the facts.

The criticism of the Pope is based on objective reality, observable by everyone. A reality that has been observed not once or twice, but dozen of times, with a repeatedly scandalous behaviour the Pontiff always refused to correct. Similarly, the sound criticism of the Bishop of Rome you read around is never based on the kind of emotional sweeping generalisations people may use with, say, politicians – you know the type: “all politicians are thieves”, & Co. – but is constantly based on undeniable facts.

Now, Catholicism is not based on whims, or on easy emotionalism. It is based on hard Truths of Faith to which everyone is bound, and which bind the Pope first as he is the first of God's servants.

What shall we do, then: ignore reality? When has it become a Christian precept that Popes are not a legitimate object of well-deserved criticism? Since when it is Christian to allow scandal to go unchecked, when the one who gives scandal happens to be the Pope? Is the Pope not bound by the rules? Are we not accessory in his son by silence, when we are silent concerning the scandal given by the Pope? What kind of delusion is that?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty. I believe all that the Church believes, and profess all that the Church professes. I simply cannot become suddenly blind, when the most elementary tenets of the Church of Christ, and with them the obedience to God, are put into question. I cannot suspend my duty to react to scandal exactly when the scandal comes from the most dangerous of places. This would be not only blindness, but wilful sinful neglect of my own duties as a Catholic. This would mean to decide that Christ should take a place in the second row when the Pope has put himself in the first; nay, that I should simply ignore Christ everytime the Pope is at variance with him. How can I, or everyone else, blind myself to reality without becoming an accessory to Francis' sins?

There there is the objective dimension of the scandal. When the Pope gives scandal, the damage is bigger than when even several Cardinals together do it. No one on earth can give as much scandal, and confuse so many faithful, as the Pope. Therefore, the problem of a Pope giving scandal simply puts in the shadow the antics of every other Cardinal or Bishop or Priest. We cannot ignore this self-evident reality, that a child of five can easily grasp.

Besides, we are not talking of personal interpretations here. Francis' trespasses are many, richly documented, made under the sun without any shame. He even goes to the extraordinary length of documenting them in spontaneous home made videos! And we are supposed to shut up in front of such scandal? Really? What kind of Christianity is that, that orders one to forget Christ?

I refuse to do so. I refuse to do so as a blogger, as a friend, as a relative, as a colleague. I will not ignore the simple reality on the ground and take refuge in a delusion of normality that is just not there. I cannot ignore the Pope more than I can ignore the reality of Church teaching; and if I do the first, I unavoidably do the second. There is simply nowhere to hide. Christ and Francis can't be both right, it's as simple as that.

Now, one can understand that a priest may, out of his hierarchical loyalty to the Church, be nuanced in his criticism of the Pope. But when a priest accuses the critics of the Pope of having issues of their own merely because they look at reality for what it is, he is being disingenuous. What he is asking us to do, is to become deaf to every stupid statement coming from the Pope – very many of those, unfortunately – in a sort of “Pope before Christ” slogan that is simply unacceptable, and it is very sinful in his demand that we all become accessory to Francis' sin.

Delude yourself if you want to. I refuse to do so.

The Pope's good servant, but Christ's first.




“Beset By Scandals”, My Foot…

Creepy faggot. But hey, he's not a priest. Simon Hughes.

Creepy faggot. But hey, he’s not a priest. Simon Hughes.

One of the many things that drive me mad of the secular press is this fashion of never mentioning the Church without mentioning the “scandals”.

Whilst the big problems are now around 30 years past, and the more recent problems (like Vatileaks) are embarrassing but nothing that will make Church history, it seems no journalist worth his hell can write an article about the upcoming Conclave without mentioning a Church “beset by scandals”.

Last time I looked, the last not one, but two German President had to resign due to a corruption scandal (Wulff) or grave controversies (Koehler). If this is not “beset by scandals”, I don’t know what is, and right at the top of the Institutions. 

Or we want to say that the oh so anointed President of the United States is the political son (erm, bastard) of the most corrupt political machine existing in the United States, without any of his many admirers ever mentioning that he hails from Chicago, a town clearly “beset by scandals”. 

In the meantime, France has a former President (Chirac) condemned to two years in prison (suspended, I grant, but you get the drift). 

I will, for a human sense of patriotism, say nothing about Italy.

Summa summarum, it is not clear not me why the magic locution “beset by scandals” is almost never applied to the democratic institutions of modern abortionist Democracies, but is considered de rigueur whenever the Vatican is mentioned.   Nor is this adjective applied very often to the BBC (whose men, women and people in the middle take the biscuit without discussion), or to the English educational system (worse percentage of suspected child abusers than the Church) or the so-called of England (same ballpark) or the NHS beset by malfunctions, scandals, and homicidal nurses. I will not even bore you with the Liberal Democrats, a party who seems to have made sexual perversion, creepy behaviour or perversion of justice a prerequisite to obtain positions of responsibility.

No, the NHS is such a great achievement of Socialism that it makes it to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games, but the Vatican can’t be mentioned without the “scandals” making it to the very same sentence.

I am, I must say, rather fed up. Particularly because this soundtrack will accompany us through the conclave, the election and the Easter celebrations which this year will, you can bet your pint, attract huge curiosity from the secular world because of the brand new Pope.

Seriously, the press office of the Vatican should say a couple of things on this, before the conclave begins.

I truly am sick and tired. Are you?


%d bloggers like this: