Blog Archives

All Hail Croatia!

As Christianity disappears from what we used to call the West, the former Communist countries show a much stronger propensity to hold to their Christian roots, at least on single occasions.

Besides the obvious example of Russia and Mr. Putin (one of the few statesmen around who still acts Christian and says it out loud), we now have some beautiful news from Croatia, as Rorate reports.

You will say that what has happened is nothing special, and a country can well define marriage as between a man and a woman and, say, consent to so-called “civil partnerships”. This is, of course, true. Still, the Croatian result is important because it means in old, now largely de-Christianised Europe there are still those who resist to the “inclusive” mantra of our times and dare to defy the prevailing mass complicity with faggotry. At this this first step was made by Croatia with their vote. Not very much yet but, still, good news.

Make no mistake, we will see “affirmative action” from Brussels aimed at eradicating Christian (that is: the only conceivable) marriage as “homophobic” all over the EU. Let us, therefore, hail this vote as a good sign in the impending battle for the soul of Europe.

At times I truly think Satan is enlarging Hell. Such must be, in fact, the influx of “new entries” from once traditionally Christian countries, now more or less slowly on their way to becoming completely dominated by heathenism, and with Christianity reduced to festivities mainly used to get drunk and spend more money.

Rorate titled their post “All Hail Croatia”. Indeed. I allow myself to copy the exultation and make it, at the same time, a battle cry.


Pope Never Thought Of Supporting “Civil Partnerships”, Says Argentinian Press Agency



The original (in Spanish) is here, and an English translation from the excellent Chris Gillibrand’s blog here.

In short, it is utterly wrong to say the Pope has ever ventilated support for “civil partnerships” (among homosexuals) of whatever description, end of story.

The statement had been (repeatedly) made by Sergio Rubin, an Argentinian journalist waxing lyrical about Pope Francis after his election. It was rubbish, period.

My more attentive readers will remember Kimmy Akin had tried to offer a justification for his alleged behaviour if it had happened in the first place, and I had written a blog post explaining that such a justification could not have been offered anyway. 

We can, as Italians say, put a stone over this matter, too.


Italy After The Elections

Managed the astonishing feat of almost losing: Pier Luigi Bersani.

Managed the astonishing feat of almost losing: Pier Luigi Bersani.

The Italian elections have come and gone and, thankfully for us Christians, the worst has been, for now at least, avoided.

You might remember I had decided to hold my nose and vote for the Berlusconi-led Centre-right coalition after both Casini (the leader of the supposedly Catholic UDC party) and Monti had spoken of a possible endorsement of something similar to incivil partnerships.

It turned out the UDC was thoroughly massacred, and Monti severely punished.  The barely believable recovery of the Centre-right coalition, admittedly led by a spectacularly pugnacious Berlusconi, is exemplified by the fact that only 124,000 votes over a population of 56 million separated them from the relative majority and the  340 (or 54%) MPs linked with it. As it stands, the majority bonus went to the centre-left coalition, but without a majority in the Senate (not even together with Monti; which was the original “Plan B” ) and therefore looking like they had managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

The explosive new element (punctually not foreseen by yours truly, who thought voters would be reasonable in the end) is the motley crew of young people without a clue, unable to count and with great difficulties to think straight, but animated by great honesty and desire to improve the country of the so-called “five stars movement”.

They are led by a very successful comedian, Giuseppe “Beppe” Grillo (this is his real name, though “grillo” means “cricket” and well matches his comedic persona ). Grillo has been active in politics for the last 25 years (for you Americans, think an older Colbert without the pretend Catholicism and with a more dangerous sting) and is a very intelligent guy, whose honesty is only equaled by his own staggering political incompetence.

This man has become the catalyst of all those wanting to give a brutal message to the traditional parties, and who have inflated his core electorate based on tree-huggers, chronic revolutionaries and assorted dreamers. How honest the “grillini”  are can be seen from the fact they will not touch one penny of the EUR 100,000,000 (yes, that’s one hundred million) due to them as reimbursement of electoral expenses.

So, where are we now? The short answer is that no one knows; the longer one is that the centre-left will try to work with the new “five stars movement” on some core issues – like a new electoral law as the present one is universally disliked – before going to the polls again.

What this means for Catholics is at the moment very difficult to say. Unless I have missed something, no one is talking of incivil partnership as a priority now; but the situation is dangerous because between leftists and five star movement a majority could very probably be obtained in both chambers, and the  latter party leans decidedly towards the “secular/do what you please/we don’t care about Christian values” side. Still, it might well not happen, and it cannot be excluded both parties would have a number of dissidents if it did, whilst a ferocious opposition from the right might – or might not – ensue.

What happens from here will depend on whether we get a new electoral law, and which one. If we do, the sure death of the present, utterly brutal “majority bonus” in the lower chamber (in the Senate there are 15 different bonuses, which make things more nuanced) will mean a distribution of MPs more reflective of the real sentiment in the country, but I am not sure this sentiment is in his majority opposed to incivil partnerships. If we don’t, there will be another election with the “majority bonus” roulette, and it might well be a close race between the five stars – still in ascent, untested by government responsibilities, and according to many taking the majority of their votes from potentially leftist voters – and the centre-right coalition which, with more time at their disposal, would be a formidable opponent.

The worst has been – for now – avoided. Fake Catholic parties have been massacred, with the conservative vote now firmly in the hands of the centre-right coalition; but there isn’t much consolation to be drawn from this, and sadly the fact centre-right renounced to start the crusade for traditional marriage speaks volumes about the lay of the land.

We will soon have a new Pope; who, if he were to be both Italian and tough, will not fail to influence a part of the electorate. Particularly the second is a big “if”, and we are faced with an uncertainty which, if you ask me, does not bode well.

Pray for this once so Catholic country, where 50 years of neglect of proper instruction and proper Catholicism are leading to the slow but constant deterioration of what used to be a strong and proud Catholic heritage.


Cardinal Pell Has Some Explaining To Do


I was made aware, some time ago, of the televised debate between Cardinal Peel and that man Dawkins. I started to listen to it but I couldn’t go on once I realised it was the usual vulgar televised debate with the mob cheering and booing. I was, in fact, surprised a Prince of the Church (more importantly: one on the right side)would consent to such a circus instead of making clear the matter between faith and atheism is a) not subject to debate, and b) not subject to booing anyway.

It turned out, though, something worse than this happened. For reasons unknown to me – and frankly astonishing – Cardinal Pell seems – as you can see in detail from the description given in Michael Voris’ video above – to have express some kind of tolerance of understanding for homo-relationships.

Whilst he was cut and the listeners couldn’t hear his reasoning to the end – which alone tells you what kind of “debates” these are – more worrying is the fact the Cardinal didn’t feel the need to say what he meant afterwards.

Now, yours truly is a simple and stubborn person. If he knows some teaching belongs to the deposit of faith, and some debater of him points out the Pope has just said the contrary, I will just answer “than the Pope was wrong on this matter”, and that’s the end of it. But not everyone is so simple, or so stubborn, as your truly, and when a well-known conservative prelate like Cardinal Pell is taken in off-side they might well be confused.

Voris does, as almost always, an excellent job by reminding everyone that no matter how popular a conservative Cardinal you are, when you’re dead wrong you’re dead wrong; he gently suggest the Cardinal should say a word or three on the matter.

I think he’s absolutely right, and I think the Cardinal owes an explanation not only to the faithful Catholics all the world over, but to himself.






UK 2022 and Civil Fellowships

Bishop Jokeson said this is a magnificent Belgian Shepherd.

United Kingdom, Year of the Lord 2022…..erm, no, apologies: Year 2022 of the Common Era.

The UK Government has recently approved a law recognising “Civil Fellowships”. Through “Civil Fellowships”, the “smart” community (that is: those who have sexual intercourse with dogs, sheep and other animals; the word “bestiality” is now considered “smartphobic”, and a criminal offence) are allowed to have their “union” recognised by the Government, with various provisions to protect, say, the dog in case of death of his “partner”. Obviously, civil fellowship gives the couple right to adopt children, or dogs, or other animals. Nothing new in that, right? It has always happened and Old MacDonald had a farm, too….

The smart community is very proud, and Liberal England rejoices at the new legislation. “Inclusive” and “Progressive”, it is defined. The PM David Chameleon defined it “Conservative”, because “Civil Fellowships” are, clearly, family and the Conservative Party protects the family.

In an interesting development the Catholic Archbishop of Soho & Sodom, Vincent Jokeson, declared:

“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose smart civil fellowships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”

So, says the Bishop, provided you don’t think this is a marriage, it is actually fine.  We are “nuanced” here in Britain, and Christianity be stuffed.

There is a little problem though, because the reigning Pope, Christinger, had expressed himself – not saying anything new of course, but doing nothing else than repeating the most banal concepts of Christianity – already in 2017 as follows:

Although the particular inclination of the zoophile person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in zoophile activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

We have therefore, as we write the year 2022, an evident conflict between basic Christianity and the “nuanced” bishop of Soho & Sodom, Jokeson.

Criticised from, well, the Christians, and in particular from the “Catholic Harold”, Bishop Jokeson “answered” as follows:

Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation in England use a civil fellowship to bring stability to a relationship

It is clear that to our bishop, relationships between – or among; you never know – sexual perverts is something to which “respect must be shown”. More so, he recognises their “relationship” as something that must be helped to achieve “stability”. The bishop clearly thinks that if zoophiles do not have stable relationships, this is bad. “Let’s help Jonathan and Bella to bring stability to their relationship”, he says to himself, “as “respect must be shown” to their civil fellowship. “Clearly”!

In order to make his thinking more clear, Bishop Jokeson

said the key distinction between civil fellowship and marriage is that the former does not “in law contain a required element of sexual relationships”.

It is not clear what this means, as the Civil Fellowships were legalised for no other reason than to give a legal sanction to the sexual behaviour of those afflicted by such a perversion. Zoophilia is not being “friend” with Fido. It really isn’t! Please don’t let me get into the details, but it seems as we write the year of.. em, the year 2022 of the Common Era, bishop Jokeson is the only one pretending not to know what this is all about. Truly, this is hypocrisy beyond belief.

More on the subject from the Bishop:

“One-love fellowships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does,” he explained. “And that’s the distinction that I think it’s important for us to understand, that marriage is built on the sexual partnership between a man and a woman which is open to children, to their nurture and education.”

“Pay attention, children”, says the bishop, “this is an important distinction! Marriage is open to nurture and education but screwing Bella, the female Belgian shepherd, isn’t! Therefore, we must call the latter relationship (to which, as we have said, “clearly” “respect must be shown” and which must be helped to “stability”) with a different name! Don’t confuse the two, little ones!”

Bishop Jokeson concluded his argument with the following words:

So while bishops Jokeson said we must “respect the existence of one-love fellowship in law,” he said, “the point we are at now is to say that they are not the same as marriage.”

Ah, now Christians all over the world will be satisfied. We have said it isn’t marriage, therefore everything is fine! How “nuanced” has England become in 2022!

That’s the point “we are at now”. Christianity, now, has no point.

Apart from the frontal conflict with the most elementary Christianity – that I will not even start to explain, as even the most tragically retarded liberal would exactly know what the point is – there is an additional matter, on which  the Catholic Harold  takes position as follows:

There’s one new element in that answer: the preposterous argument that “one-love fellowships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does.” In other words, they’re not like marriage at all. But of course they’re like marriage in one very important respect: that they have as a fundamental defining element that those in such unions have the legal right to adopt children.

The “Harold” is, of course, right, then in 2022 England, one-love fellowships have the right to adopt children (and dogs, and other animals). This is something considered too absurd even to think about only 50 years before, but now part of the common feeling of the nation, of which the PM Minister Chameleon is an enthusiastic supporter. So much so, that Bishop Jokeson himself thinks these unions are worthy of “respect”, and the civil fellowship are good because they help to “bring stability” to them.

Aren’t we all oh so inclusive.

The Harold again:

“This isn’t the first time Archbishop Jokeson has said he accepts and supports these unions, and has attempted to father his views on the bishops’ conference: in the immediate aftermath of Pope Christinger’s visit, in September of 2020, he claimed that the bishops weren’t against them and was on record with saying”:

“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose smart civil fellowship. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”

Get this? “We persistently say it’s not the same as marriage”.

Job done, then! Bravo! !


Malta And Divorce: What Happens now

Note that it doesn't say "defend us in submission"

The unpleasant news of the Catholic defeat in the Maltese divorce referendum moves me to some reflection as to what has happened, and what the future might bring.

It is clear that the Maltese society is still remarkably Catholic. That almost 48% of the voters have decided to upheld one of the strictest, most difficult to digest rules of Christianity (so much so, that the Protestants have already decided that they do not want to have anything to do with it) is a powerful witness to what proper instruction can do. That it was not enough in this instance does not negate the importance of properly taught, insisted, vocally defended Catholic values in the least.

The question arises now about what will the future generations of Maltese think. What has been decided yesterday is that a rather illusory quest for individual happiness is more important than a society founded on Catholic values. This is not a good sign, as once this “principle” has been accepted other mainstays of Maltese Catholic legislation will be attacked. It seems for example difficult to see how a country accepting divorce may continue to ban the sale of condoms, or the cremation of the dead. If the accepted principle is that what is convenient to the individual is paramount, the rest (from homosexual “partnerships” to abortion) might well, in time, follow.

On the other hand, the demolition of a Catholic society is something that can’t be done so easily; not even then, when the clergy utterly fails the faithful. As an Italian I can bring excellent examples of this: when the Italian clergy was awaken even most Communists insisted on marrying in the church, having their children baptised, and so on. What may smack of hypocrisy (and was certainly, from their perspective, contradiction) still shows the huge power a solid Catholic thinking exercised even in those who would have seemed most allergic to its teaching. Even after the Italian clergy went to sleep (from the middle of the Sixties, with slow signs of awakening showing only now, and only at times) the Italian society remained surprisingly resilient to the assault of the new paganism: not in the sense that modern abominations haven’t paved their way into the Italian society (we have many of them: abortion, though not on demand; divorce, though not on demand; a certain promiscuity, though not even remotely comparable to the mass sluttiness to be found in England), but that their impact has been, even in the almost total absence of serious opposition from the clergy, remarkably low. Last time I looked – and forty years after the introduction of divorce – the divorce rate was around ten percent outside of the big cities, and my foreign friends living in Italy never cease to be amazed at “how seriously Italians take relationships”. If we look at abortion, whilst the situation remains very serious the numbers are stable or decreasing and, most importantly, the opposition to abortion remains rather strong. Furthermore, Italy still has no legalised poofdom, no euthanasia laws, and even the attempt of chasing the crucifix away from schools and law courts has been defeated twice.
All this – let me stress it once again because it is important – after an almost total absence of fighting spirit from those who should be its very embodiment, the clergy.

I look at Italy as it is now – still deeply rooted in Catholicism after 50 years of neglect from the clergy – and wonder what would have happened if the Italian clergy had decided that the lost referendums on divorce (1974, if memory serves) and abortion (1978, ditto) were not the end of the battle, but its very beginning. Methinks, we would have now a certainly more polarised society, but also a more sanely Catholic one. One, most importantly, where the vast majority of people – decent, loving, honest people wanting to do good, and to live rightly – is constantly reminded that there can be no individual metre of what is right. I think it absolutely not improbable (though of course we’ll never have the answer) that if the work of Catholic reconstruction had been begun forty years ago and had been aggressively pursued we might now already have – after only one generation of reconstruction – a different country, where Catholic values are not left confined to the undercurrent moral fabric of the land, but are openly professed and bravely defended.

This is now the choice the Maltese clergy have: to consider defeat inevitable and the march of irreligious thinking unstoppable, or to start a very hard, very long fight to take the lost terrain again. If they do, chances are that in only one or two generations the situation will be under control again. If they don’t, we’ll probably see an Italian situation: certainly not the disintegration of family like in protestant/atheist/muslim England (for this, the Maltese society is still far too Catholic), but a slow descent into the slippery slope of secular thinking.

Best luck to the Maltese people. At least to those who have voted properly.


Why Archbishop Peter Smith Is Wrong Even When He Is Right

The Answer.

The recent events about the so-called “civil partnerships” give me the occasion to explain why I think that the Church in England is culpably marching toward complete irrelevance even on the rare occasions when she seems to show a couple of milk teeth.

Archbishop Peter Smith has criticised, in unusually (for him) strong words, the plans of this pagan Government to allow so-called “civil partnership” ceremonies to be held in churches. This would seem all in order, if the intervention of Archbishop Smith weren’t the signal that the Church is simply not doing enough, not even remotely, and that she is constantly shooting herself in the foot in the process.

What Archbishop Smith seems not to get (or doesn’t seem interested in getting) is that in a democracy religious freedom is never abolished overnight, but always through a process of continual erosion by which the last concession to the pagan world becomes the basis for the next one.

Take the so-called “civil partnerships”. If homosexuality is not criticised by the Church in the strongest terms, it is no surprise that calls for civil partnerships will, in time, emerge from this or that corner. Basically, the average politician is an institutional coward easily bullied by pressure groups and it is in the nature of democracy that he will tend to represent the opinion of these groups, however little numerically, unless he can expect equal or worse troubles from their opponents. It is only when the Christian mainstream starts occupying the ground and showing readiness for combat at an early stage, that the combat becomes superfluous.

But Peter Smith doesn’t declare war on active and militant homosexual behaviour (remember: less than half a percent of the population) and as a result he gets the so-called “civil partnerships”. These are the fruits of cowardice and in the bishops’ expectations – that to be silent on this problem wouldn’t create bigger ones – we see all the incompetence and naiveté of a Neville Chamberlain.

When you cave in once, it will go on. Once the homos have obtained so-called “civil partnerships”, they’ll start to make pressure to be allowed to have them performed in a church. But this will not be compulsory, they say now. You’ll be allowed to say “no”, they say now, so why be upset?

Then, it will go on. Once the principle has been accepted that two perverts have the opportunity to legally “unite” in a church (as it has previously been accepted that they may form “unions”; as it has even before being accepted that sodomy is all right), how simple must one be not to realise that it is only a question of time before the homos will cry “discrimination” against anyone who does not allow them to?

Then, it will go on. If homos are allowed to have a statutory recognition of their “union”, and to have this performed in a Church, why shouldn’t they be allowed to call this “marriage”? And why shouldn’t they think that it is their right to have this marriage performed wherever they please in order not to be “discriminated against”?

If you think that this is political fiction, think again. Our not-very-esteemed Prime Minister already talks of civil partnership as if they were families, as he has explicitly stated that his defence of family includes civil partnerships. He clearly even seems to consider abominations like sodomy and civil partnerships part and parcel of Western values. He has lost long ago the very notion of what Christianity is, of what it means to be a Christian, of what the Commandments are, of what the Sacraments are. The man is a pagan, full stop.

We see this pattern everywhere. Abortion legislation didn’t start as abortion on demand. Divorce was allowed only in limited cases. Homosexual behaviour was, at the beginning, merely decriminalised. You give the Pagans one finger, and you expect that they’ll not try to take the entire hand?

Therefore, Peter Smith has it all wrong even when it would seem that he has it right. He can’t hope that it be allowed to him to remain silent about the so-called “civil partnerships” and get away with it. His cowardice will persecute him by forcing him to fight later the battles that he didn’t have the guts to fight sooner.

More in general, the Church in England can’t hope – if the bishops really are in good faith, which can be legitimately questioned and which must be questioned at least in the case of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols – that to cave in to the popular mood about civil partnership will save them from the necessity to fight. The fight will come on them anyway, but in worse terms, on a more unfavourable battleground and with a rearguard battle. This is what happens to you when you think that you can betray Catholicism and get away with it and all the English bishops, bar none, are culpable of this cowardice (or worse, of this malice). Christian values must be defended loud and clear, on every possible occasion, from the start, and the bishop is the man for it.

Archbishop Peter Smith should spend his time continuously and vocally asking for the repeal of the legislation about civil partnerships. He should start to talk publicly and strongly about the abomination of homosexuality. He should wish for legislation criminalising sodomy to be reintroduced and boldly say so. He should say this loud and clear, insistently and without fear. A couple of years of the “Padre Pio treatment” and Cameron & Co. (cowards, remember, because politicians) would not even think of titillating themselves with proposals like the last one. The awakening of just one tenth of the Catholic population would be enough to have Cameron & Co. running for cover faster than a Taliban vehicle under the fire of a Gatling gun and swearing that he never, ever approved of homosexual behaviour.

Archbishop Peter Smith has, like all his colleagues bar none, shut up for too long. The time is coming when he will not be able to shut up any more, but at that point the Church will already be under siege by a pagan society it has appeased for too long, and forced to a battle that has not been prepared because there was no courage to choose to fight. At the same time when he – semel in anno – spends some words in defence of Catholic values he shows all the incompetence of the lukewarm, indifferent, cowardly but permanently smiling shepherds that four decades of institutionalised appeasement of secularism have given us.

The battle is clearly coming but you can’t fight a good battle with the Neville Chamberlains of the world. Let us hope that starting with the next Papacy (about this I have already lost every hope of meaningful improvement in the average quality of our bishops) new appointments will give us the leaders we need to fight the good fight against the dark forces of secularism.

We don’t need cowardly bishops. We need people willing to take out the Gatling gun, and use it every day.


%d bloggers like this: