Excellent video of Louie Verrecchio, that points out the extent to which a large part of our Catholic clergy (Verrecchio is different from Voris, so he does state very clearly that this includes the Bishop of Rome) are unable to think like sound Catholics.
The problem here is not directly Francis. Francis is only a symptom of a disease that has been going on since V II. Francis could only become Pope because too many Cardinals have no idea anymore of what a Pope is supposed to do, and what he is supposed to be. The Cardinals themselves are the products of clerical ranks that are, on average, not better than themselves. Out of rubbish you are not going to get perfume. Out of rubbish priests you will get Bishop Rubbish, Cardinal Rubbish and, in time, Pope Rubbish.
Fittingly, Verrecchio makes another consideration I would wish my readers would commit to memory for future use: the “ecclesia” in sentire cum ecclesia is not the majority of today, but the way Catholicism has been properly felt by Catholics through the generations. The Church we look to is the Church that has transmitted to us the Tradition we are supposed to defend and transmit to the following generations. We aren’t Presbyterians.
The extent of the confusion (or evil intent) of the modern times is shown by the following words of Father Stranski:
“We had to start a completely new Tradition”.
This is not father Stranski being gaga, this is the Church hierarchy going gaga. Neither he, nor they, saw or see how stupid their words are. They don’t see it, because they are it. Unless they are even worse, of course.
Today, the audience laughs at Father’s jokes. They don’t understand they themselves are the joke. Sentire cum diabolo.
We are being punished. I consider a blessing that some of us at least realise it. Father Stranski apparently does not, and seems decided to go to his grave thinking he has “had to start an entirely new Tradition”.
Father Stranski, I pray the day I die I will not be like you.
Rorate Caeli has two interesting posts which, in fact, touch on the same subject: Modernism is hemlock for religious communities, and orthodoxy is their very bread.
The first post is about the Paulists, an order which, only a few decades after adopting a “modern” stance in Church things, went from being robustly prospering to… having to sell their seminary.
Good riddance. May their impending extinction be a cautionary tale for every sound Catholic, and let’s hope the Jesuits go the same way soon. The future centuries will remember the massacre of religious orders after V II as the just punishment for their haughtiness and insolence.
The second post is about the prospering Abbey of Fontgombault, that continues to create new communities or, again, overtake V II ones, staying faithful to their conviction of bringing the Traditional Mass wherever they go, or rather expand. The image of the old, dying members of the Abbey of Wisques celebrating the NO whilst the younger saviours of the monastery celebrate the TLM is a sad, even pathetic, but very accurate portrait of what will probably happen in the Church at large in the next few decades, as the Bergoglios of the world take position in the only place where they will no longer be a threat: six feet under.
It must be noted, here, that the Abbot of Fontgombault goes out of his way to avoid saying one single word against V II, or making even half reflection as to why they overtake other communities, and not vice versa. The Abbot must have grasped that in the Age of Mercy the only way to be spared is to avoid the New Sin That Shall Not Be Forgiven: criticism of V II.
Still, there is no denying orthodoxy and traditionalism have the keys of the future. The Francis of the world will at some point get out of the way and, in time, their followers will become unable to control the wave of orthodoxy that will sweep the, by then, vastly reduced ranks of the Church.
The Church is Indefectible and we need therefore not be worried about Her. But this huge tsunami of stupidity that has been impacting the Western emisphere for now 50 years will leave a huge trail of destruction behind itself. A destruction that has been going on under our very eyes for a long time now and continues to march undisturbed as our hierarchy, with stubbornness worthy of the Politburo, not only continue to deny the decay but even try to depict it as a great moment in a Church history. Perhaps not even the Politburo is here a valid comparison. Perhaps, North Korea might be more to the point.
Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
This come from an important document issues in 1961, “Religiosorum Institutio”, a document written when the Great Mess had been already announced, but the Church still abounded in good, orthodox men not afraid of facts.
Many are the sound points made by this document, and certainly there is no trace of the modern desire to please. This is a document written to be approved by Jesus, not the adulterers in (or rather, outside of) the pews.
Please read carefully the expression above, and take note as follows:
1. Pederasty and homosexuality are put in the same ballpark. This is a point on which this blog continuously insist, and could never insist for long enough.
2. The tendency to homosexuality is called evil, because it is. And it is because homosexuality is evil, exactly as pederasty is evil. It is a madness of the modern, V Ii church, fueled by a mighty homosexual mafia, that the two are now often kept strictly separated, and homosexuality is only mentioned to remind one that the Church “loves the sinner”, at least implying she is fine with his homosexuality. She is not. She cannot be.
Homosexuality cannot be a sin, in the same way as pedophilia cannot be a sin, because only an action can be a sin. But this does not make them less wrong in the least. It is because the tendency is so evil, that the sin is so sharply condemned. And again, this is the first generation that is so stupid that it cannot even make these elementary distinctions, and waxes lyrical saying that fornication is also a sin, therefore the church considers sodomy in the same way as fornication. My foot.
The sin of sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance, ladies and gentlemen. There is a fundamental difference between sins going with nature, and sins going against nature. That our generation is so blinded from political correctness that it refuses to see such evident facts – therefore normalising perversion – is another testimony of the way the V II generation is trying to annihilate common sense, and with it every sensus catholicus, in a desperate fight against sanity shared with the secular world, and applauded by it.
It is a great consolation to know what wherever one looks in the Church of the past one finds all the Truth, all the reassurance, all the sound doctrine the present hierarchy is utterly unwilling and, I suspect, even unable to give us.
Already a couple of times I had comments on my blog – and many more I have read on other blogs – on the lines of “do you realise that what you write goes against the teaching of V II?”, or the variant “what you write has been superseded by the Vatican II documents”.
The writer of such comments has often the obvious aim to instruct the writer of this blog – or, say, some other commenter on another blog – about his mistake; a mistake due to him not knowing that things have, in the meantime, changed.
Religious freedom, ecumenism & interreligious “dialogue”, and the “pastoral” attitude after V II are, from what I could observe, the issues about which such comments are most likely to be made.
A strange inversion of reality has taken place here. What was right, the commenter says, has now been declared wrong. Therefore, people must be informed about the “new right”, in order for them to comply with V II.
This is far, far more absurd than if anyone were to say that 2+2 is now actually 5, white in fact black, and the sun – as thought by V II documents – a satellite of the Earth.
The idea that the Truths of Faith belong to a supernatural order that, by its own nature, refuses the very idea of change escapes such commenters. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council states – in a more or less confused and contradictory manner – principles that are, or appear to be, or are understood to be in conflict with 2,000 years of Church teaching, such commenters do not conclude that the Council Fathers were wrong, or confused, or misleading, but that what is right has now changed. And these people are, when you ask me, very often the same who worry about the “traumatic change” demanded of “old people” to say “and with your spirit” rather than “and with you too”, or whatever childish nonsense it was that was said until a couple of years ago (blessedly, I have forgotten already. Please don’t remind me).
There is here a defence of the orthodoxy of heterodoxy, a method in illogical thinking that leaves one quite speechless. Something strangely between “1984” and Lewis-Carroll’s Mad Hatter.
Truth is Truth. If it can change, then no Truth has ever existed, because if Truth can change it is evidently… not true.
Mind, we are not talking here about matters of discipline. Truth does not change if Friday penance can be done in ways different from abstaining from meat (which did not work, btw), or if it is decided that the fast before communion should be reduced to, say, three and a half minutes (I am sure Francis is thinking of that). The rules can be questionable, unfitting, even disgraceful; but they are nevertheless expression of the same Truth.
Quite different is the matter if we look at what pertains directly to the Truths of the faith: say, in the matter of the communion for adulterers and public concubines. Here, there are principles at stake that are at the very core of how Christianity understands itself, or better said how the Church defends the Truth of Christ. These Truths are the reality of Christianity exactly as 2+2 represents the reality of mathematical addition. On a logical plane it is not possible to tamper with the ones more than with the others.
To play with such Truths is, however prudently made – not talking of the Kasperites here, rather of Cardinal Ratzinger – always a very dangerous exercise. It is dangerous, because whilst the one or other exception might even make half sense in a way – or not, as the case may be – every exception will unavoidably cause the call for more exceptions; general confusion, and watering down of the way the Truth is presented and, in time, defended, will be the result.
The modern representatives of “V II orthodoxy” are the embodiment of this confusion as it breathes and types. They notice that in most countries there is no obligation of Friday abstinence anymore, and in their ignorance and confusion they conclude from this that, “evidently”, Truth changes. The same reasoning they apply to the Conciliar documents, which leads them to conclude what the Church has said now must be, well, “the Truth for our times”, or some sort of “even newer Testament”. The consequence of this is, again, the dogmatisation and unofficial proclamation of the infallibility of V II, because if Truth has changed, then the Holy Ghost must have backed it. As this man-made edifice shows huge cracks, its walls must be supported with… the beatification or canonisation of past Popes. A rather North Korean approach to an obvious failure, if you ask me.
This “new Truth” approach has the same logic as if a Math teacher were to come in class one fine morning and say “after three years of discussion with 300 other pious fellow teachers, we now think that in the new “age of merciful math” two and two should be, in some exceptional cases and after due introspection, five”, and the class to a man should get up and say “what inspired teachers you are! Indeed, a New Springtime of Mathematics has erupted! Praise the Lord! Santo Subito!”
Obviously, Truths of mathematics are better protected from Kasperite manipulation than Catholic Truth; if anything, because every child can tell you that 5 minus 2 is not 2 and there must, therefore, be a mistake there. But again, this is nothing to do with the intrinsic immutability of Truth, which is and remains in nothing more mutable than mathematics.
It is a sign of the times that we should have these “orthodox heterodox commenters” infesting the blogs, perhaps (and this is a biggish “perhaps”) even thinking they are actually helping someone.
Perhaps, I was saying.
Or perhaps not.
My opinion is that, more often than not, there is some skeleton in the cellar. I remember the “Homo Smoke” types, where I had to aggressively question some of these “merciful” people without rest, before they finally admitted they were homosexual; a circumstance they had thought fitting not to disclose to their audience as they expounded their apparently disinterested view of “mercy” and “tolerance” towards “gays”. **
The same is true today. What are the sexual tendencies of the Jesuit priests so noted for their “merciful” approach to sodomites? An approach which brings them in constant, near contact with a multitude of people clearly looking for, well, male ass, and almost always behaving and dressing in a way that would cause repulsion and disgust in every sane person? Why has the one or other bishop or archbishop suddenly discovered “pastoral” duties that, in his own time in the seminary, might have had them kicked out without even the benefit of a “good day”? And what about the many “charitable” commenters infesting the co boxes of Catholic Blogs like Patheos, of Catholic Answers, or of newspapers? Who is the man or woman (or both; at least genetically) that is writing for the “Daily Homograph” about Francis’ new and “modern” approach? Do they live in sin? Are they straight? Are their loved ones straight? Or have they “gone native” in one way or the other, and are now invested in some heterodox or even perverted agenda we know nothing about, and now tell you how good it is that Francis is, so to speak, so “native-friendly?”.
Beware of the orthodoxy in heterodoxy. And beware of the heterodox, whenever they talk about “charitee”.
** nota bene: the fag has great problems in saying “I am straight”, so big is the ego investment in his perversion. Once put constantly under pressure many will, in time, crack, throwing away the mask and showing their true face. It won’t be a pretty sight.
It is very bad that anyone should ever get drunk. Drunkenness is, as people in Anglo-Saxon countries should be reminded far more often, a grave matter and can, given the circumstances, lead a soul to perdition. Notice that no traditional Catholic country has a culture of drunkenness (no, not even Bavaria; merriment yes, drunkenness for the sake of drunkenness, certainly not). This seems to be – together with his opposite, the alcohol Puritanism – rather a speciality of prevalently Protestant countries.
It is, I was saying, bad enough that anyone should get drunk. It is even worse if a priest does it. But it is truly the worst when a drunken priest goes to his keyboard and types a long list of insults to a blogging priest, whom he knows personally for being (the blogger priest) an ex pupil of his (the drunken typist).
Visit the blog and read for yourself. Savour the pleasant sound of the tambourines; the joy of Vatican II; the tolerance, the love of “dialogue”, and the “charitable”, “non-judgmental” attitude of Father John X, a true son of the Church Spring; a man now on his way – and a Spring now on its way – to a hateful autumn before winter, and a sad and sorry death, and (for the priest) judgment.
Pray for Father John X, that he may stay away from the bottle.
Pray that his soul may come out from such spiritual darkness that the reading of a decent blog causes in him drunken rants filled with a hatred that leaves one breathless. A hatred, mind, directed at a former pupil of him; at one for whom Father John X should have been an example. Pray, as you are there, that Father's rant may not have been written whilst drunk, but in a sober state; which seems not credible to me but, if confirmed, could open an horrifying view into a truly dark pit of hatred.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Spring has given us. A generation of angry, bitchy, self-righteous old Sixty-Eighters unable to recognise the failure of their entire life, and the danger for their soul.
To them, God was always wrong and they were always right. They now see with dismay the contempt with which the young generations look at their pathetic, wasted lives. Therefore, they get angry. This chap here says it explicitly only because he is very drunk, or uncommonly evil. But many others think in exactly the same way when they are sober, though they are smarter than to write such emails; which, among other things, could bring the police in their homes and cost them a nice sum to boot.
Father John X reminds me of the angry communists of old, who grew more resentful as Communism was looking, even to them, more and more like the losing side, and a stupid one at that.
In the end, Communism went down so spectacularly that even the resentful old Commies were silenced. We must hope, for the sake of this man, that the same happens to V II before he dies.
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.
There are interesting reflections around concerning what to do to have more vocations. Certainly, we must pray. Certainly, we can support the idea of vocations among the young in our environment. But if you ask me, the best way to more vocations is to have better priests.
I still remember very well my formative years, and looking back it is clear to me the office of priest was not considered by anyone as in the least desirable, not even by mistake. The reason for this is that most of the priests we had around us – and in the Italy of those times you had many priests around you, both in your place of residence and at school – had a common and distinctive trait: they looked, sounded, and even smelled, ashamed to be priests.
There was a kind of hierarchy of un-priestliness. There were those who were silently but obviously embarrassed, those who were more ostentatiously “modern” and those who were outright dissenters – the priest who whispered at school that the devil does not exist, in an heroic effort of blasphemy meant to let us understand how very courageous he was, I will never forget -. But all of them seemed to have the same slogan, a kind of “unglorious” one: the least Catholic, the better.
If the priest is ashamed himself of being a priest, who will want to become like him? If the priest is the very epitome of the uncool, pathetic loser, who will want to follow in his steps? And this is, in fact, what they pretty much all were: pathetic losers, ashamed to be priests; lives to be pitied, and an example not to be followed. The priest of those times was a cautionary tale.
This phenomenon created another one: the attempt to gain credibility not by being a true priest, but – in a suicidal, and not very manly move – by being something else: the “modern priest”, the “good friend”, the “nice chap”, the “favourite uncle”. The automatic self-divesting of any form of authority made of them, for all the world to see, unquestioned beta males deprived of true manliness, because manliness is always linked with assertiveness, self-assuredness, and a quiet but still very public show of testosterone.
Every man, but particularly adolescents, smell authority and manliness like the hound smells the fox. Not everyone has the natural assertiveness to be a natural leader, to be one to whom others look up to; but absolutely no one has the desire to be, for all the world to see, the last wolf in the pack. Such a one is not very manly at all, and could actually have problems of graver nature. Which is, I think, the origin and motive of many “vocations” in those years.
And so we have, I think, a faithful picture of perhaps 80% of the Western priesthood up to this day: no manliness, no authority, no “coolness” around them. Boys look at them, and pity them. As they well should, and as I do myself. They are embarrassed to be priests, and try to be as little of a priest as they can. As a consequence, they are embarrassing to be around.
Away goes sin; hell follows soon thereafter; “joy” is everywhere. Some time ago, I listened to a homily of a Cardinal. He sounded like a girl making a motivational talk for old aunts in a holiday resort. By all the authority given by the office, the red robe, and the choreography, he still smelled of girly loser. Who would want to be such a tool? Mind, this here was a Cardinal, helped by the trappings of the office. The girly parish priest truly has no chance with the boys.
A priest must be assertive, manly, unashamedly Catholic, outspoken, and with no hint of sissidom in him. He must be a shepherd, not a dry nurse. The shepherd has a rod, and he uses it. The shepherd leads his flock towards green pastures, he does not ask the sheep “where they want to go today”. The priest must be a natural leader, because a priest has to be a leader if he is to be successful. The priest has to be uncomfortable, harsh when needed, and quietly manly when he is gentle.
These are the priests who produce priests. These are the men who will cause boys to say “I want to become one like him”. These are men whose very demeanour will say to those around them that they are willing to die for their cause; which is as manly as it gets, and will be smelled by the boys around them like the above mentioned hounds smell the above mentioned fox. Not many will follow in his steps. But the admiration will – with God's grace – cause some of them to fo it. You must impress dozen to get one vocation to blossom, because this vocation will be nurtured from the respect or outright admiration surrounding the priest.
Boys will be boys, and their vocation must go with their nature, not against them. They must feel encouraged to use their own faith to channel the natural assertiveness, even aggressiveness, of the male of the species towards the higher goal of saving souls, of being shepherds of souls. This is one of the 1,374 reasons why women are not fit to be priest. Women are nurturers, not shepherds. God save us from a manly woman. There are two sexes for a reason, and this is the same reason why only those of one sex can be priests.
If you ask me, it's as simple as that. In the Seventies the priests were at their most stupid (the “worker priest”, the “social priest”; the Jorge Bergoglio types) and the vocations were at their lowest. As the worst excesses went away, the vocations slowly increased. Strong religious orders continue to create strong vocations to this day – so much so, that the Jorge Bergoglio types must crush them to deflect from their own bitchy incompetence – and the situation slowly, but gradually, improves. In the meantime, the Jorge Bergoglio types cause their seminaries to close. May their ruins be visible from afar, and be a monument to human stupidity.
But we need more of these good priests. The Brompton Oratory is always packed. You listen to them, and you know how a true vocation sounds, and how a real man speaks.
The boys listen, and learn.
Vocations are aplenty. No closures to be feared there.
I have written already why the cassock should be the obligatory garment of a priest wherever the occasion does not make it practical for him to wear his trousered clerical garments. This blog post is not about that.
This blog post is about the fact that an old Sixty-Eighter dares to lecture a priest about what is supposed to be, as far as I know, the standard habit anyway; and, just a tad less gravely, that the young priest is at the end so intimidated he feels the need to cry on Father Z’s robust shoulder and seek from him some suggestion about what he is to do, even coming to the point of saying that he does not know how to explain to his deacon and his flock what is what.
Heavens. These old people, they have no respect for anything these days…
My first suggestion to the young priest is to grow some balls, wear his cassock with pride not only in, but also outside of the confessional, and tell the deacon to kindly shut up if he does not have anything sound to say.
My second suggestion to the priest is to explore the possibilities of the deacon being transferred, removed, or otherwise sent to play the tambourine elsewhere. Then, if the lay of the land is a favourable one, he should make very clear to the deacon, in a matter-of-fact way, what his options are and that by continued resistance to sound Catholicism – one who talks in this way with his own priest certainly does a lot of damage all the time – they will be used without any problem.
My suggestion to the old bullying deacon is to pray, if he still knows how, and to change. But old dogs and tricks comes to mind, so this may well be a difficult one.
The cassock makes sense only if inside it there is a man ready for conflicts, because the cassock is just the garment that will, sooner or later, cause them to happen. A weak cassock-wearing priest does no service to himself or to the cassock. A priest should first become fit for the cassock, and then wear it because it is the garment fitting him.
Make no mistake: people will notice.
After the Dancing Dominicans and the Nutty Nun, we now have the Performing Priest. I mean by that the disgraceful chap who had the brilliant idea of singing, probably from the sanctuary no less, some stupid song just after the end of a nuptial mass.
One does not know what is most horrible: a priest without any respect for his habit, a priest without any respect for a sacred building, a priest without any respect for the sacredness of a Marriage – a Sacrament, let us remember: not a show of emotionalism – or a priest without any respect for the Tabernacle – which hey, these days is behind him all the time; so it tends to be somewhat forgotten… -.
One thing this priest saw: an audience.
One thing this priest loved: himself.
And I really, really dare to hope that the alleged surprise was discussed in advance in enough detail to avoid dismay and tears; because to ruin a sacred ceremony in this way without any kind of permission from the spouses would have deserved the to be slapped in the face by the bridegroom; on the spot, and without apology.
But then again, we deserve these parodies of priests. If we praise the Mad Nun from Sicily, why should we not praise every nutcase who thinks he needs an audience for his performance? Why would the next priest not “donate” a rock guitar piece, or a party card trick, or a virtuosism with a football (soccer) ball, or whatever else allows him to show his boundless love for himself?
We praise these nutcases. We find them fun. The most deluded even think someone may be converted from seeing a minus habens make an ass of himself. It's like saying “if we make of Christianity a circus, those who like circus might be converted”. Well, let's make of it a brothel, then. Lots of conversions, methinks.
We are preparing for ourselves a future for third-rate jokers. When the Joker-In-Chief wears a Red Nose to the further edification of his own humble monument, what prevents a nun or a priest to make asses of themselves in whatever way they please?
The fish stinks from the head down. The head of this particular fish stinks to the sky. It's no surprise the stink arrives to the most obscure parishes.
You start with the guitars at mass, you end up with the jokers in the sanctuary, the Pinocchio Masses, the Tango Masses, the Western Masses, the performing nuns, and the rest. It has to be so. It is In the nature of a thinking without love for the sacred, and without any sense of sacredness.
The Novus Ordo must die. Gradually, but it must die. And when it dies, articles like the singing priest must not be allowed to get near a Tridentine Mass; lest they think the reverent silence will let their voice be better appreciated.
Prompted by a recent comment, I thought it useful to give a semi-serious – in this blog everything is worth a smile, but everything is deadly serious – instruction about what I think is the proper behaviour at the dreaded moment of the “sign of peace”.
I propose three scenarios, and the appropriate behaviour for them.
1. You refuse to give the sign of peace. You are immediately branded as a dangerous Neo-Pelagian. An enemy of Vatican II. A Franco follower. Good! in time, there might be more like you. Catholic dictators are vastly underrated.
2. You get offered the sign of peace by someone near you, in a very dignified way. The poor chap (or chapess) is clearly suffering, too. Give him the hand as you would at a funeral. Let him know you feel his pain, so that he can feel yours. Offer it up to God. He will probably do the same.
3. You get offered the “sign of peace” by some aspiring Florence Nightingale (again, of either sex) thinking she is rescuing you from your miserable existence full of conflict and quarrel and transporting you in the Wonderful World Of Peace. Repay her with the same money, returning her handshake with such compassionate transport as to let her look like Gekko on a bad day; pay attention that your eyes and your entire facial expression exude Unspeakable Cosmic Goodness, and always remember to “make the roof” with your eyebrows: assuming the wounded and suffering, but sympathetic expression of Charity Confronted With Disgrace. You might have to practice a bit in front of the mirror, but “the roof” can be mastered pretty well if you are an eager student.
So, that was it with my little suggestions. Take them as you please, and practice them as much as you like.
If anyone should complain of your lack of sensitivity (point 1) or exaggerated zeal (point 3) act as follows:
1. Become extremely “hurt” and “wounded”.
2. Make sure everyone around you notice.
3. Go on until the offender apologises. Mercilessly, and with true “wounded bitch” passive-aggressive attitude. Then assume the convalescing expression of the one who might never get rid of the scar, but will – now that apologies were made – start to “heal” the wound. Possibly. And very slowly, anyway.
The Triduum is coming. You may have some need for these little skills.
The Pope has started a series of talks about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Can’t wait he arrives to the last: the fear of the Lord.
We are informed that Bishop Campbell of Lancaster (the same, I believe, who silenced Deacon Nick of “Protect The Pope” blog fame) has now invited the Institute of Christ The King Sovereign Priest to take over a famous landmark in his diocese, St Walburge in Preston.
There are still, I think, thousands of Jesuits around, and one wonders why the Bishop has not asked some of those progressive and mercifu followers of the Spirit to take over.
Perhaps – just thinking out loud here – because their average age travels toward 75, they are now largely to be found in hospices and hospitals, and the Spirit hasn't treated them very kindly; though, I am sure, better than they deserve.
The reality is, I think, clear for all of us to see. The Bishop does not want the shame of having to close such a prestigious landmark, which would be an obvious witness of his failure as a bishop. At the same time, he recognises that inviting some old tambourine players to take over the place would not be a solution, because they would never be able to make a fairly expensive place like this one viable. The only solution seem, therefore, to see whether those can be persuaded who have the priests, the energy, the means, the faith, and the confidence in their mission to take over.
Which, I think, is what just happened.
The bishop has recognised that – no matter how many effort are made to stop this development – the future speaks Latin.
Yes, it isn't a fake.
Yes, it happened in Benedict's time.
Francis did not come out suddenly out of nowhere.
Bad things happen and everyone thinks it can be kept out of control.
Until one fine evening of March 2013 the crap hits the fan. Then everyone says “oh, things were so fine with Benedict!”. No they weren't. There were a lot of mavericks around. But thinking about it coolly, with benedict's “it will pass” mentality it was only a matter of time until one would become Pope, because Benedict did not keep the Mavericks out of the red hats, at all.
As the anniversary of the Great Mistake approaches, I reflect on how easy it is to have the job of the Pope. Not in the sense that the job – properly made – be easy in itself, of course; rather in the sense that it comes which such an immense amount of goodwill – ready to translate into blindness – that the only way for a Pope to be unpopular or despised would be to seriously talk like a Pope should.
I could, for the anniversary of the election of a Pope who doesn't like to be called such, make a post with his blunders, heresies, offences to elementary Catholicism and common sense. I decided not too, because it simply does not make sense, such is the sheer vastness of the material. The best thing you can do is to search this blog and scroll down the results. If you were a person who got into a coma one year ago and goes out of it today, just reading about this man might be enough to send you into a coma again.
I have for some time now had very dark forebodings, that in the months and years to come our Catholicism is going to be tested as we would have thought inconceivable only one year ago. A work of destruction has begun that will probably be remembered in the centuries – after things have come to an end and the Lord has restored the Church to sanity. Still, how long this destruction and subversion is going to go on is not to be seen. Francis' appointments of Cardinals and Bishops are going to be – they already are – predictably bad, and the prostitute instinct of many of our bishops and aspiring such is already showing his poisoned fruits.
There is no saying what kind of betrayal we are going to experience in the years to come, as Francis' willing prostitutes jump on the Francis' bandwagon and start “not judging”, or even celebrating, everything from public adultery to sexual perversion.
Already the Archbishop of Lucca says we must “open up to diversity”. Fifteen years ago he would have been considered a nutcase by every Christian, and a possible homosexual by any sane person. This is a successor of the Apostles. For shame. He would like to be a Cardinal, surely. Unless he is a homo himself, obviously, in which case he is simply trying to make life easier for himself.
Ricca managed it wonderfully. It's about having the right friends, you see.
All this happens because our scandalous Pope encourages his people to do and say even more scandalous things than he does himself. But all this happens because most people – even among the thinking ones – decide to swallow whole the load of scandalous gestures and declarations Francis has bombarded us with in the last year.
Easy job being a Pope nowadays.
If a Pope of more Christian times had dared to repeatedly declare that atheists can die in their atheism and be saved, the call for an extraordinary Council declaring him a heretic unless he recants or says this is not what he means – which condemnation as heretic, by the way, would have possibly meant death at the stake – would have been very loud.
Nowadays, his own Archbishops and Cardinals want to overcome him in heresy. Cardinal Dolan is one who says “Bravo” to unrepentant sodomites. That's another one. A Cardinal for the time of Francis the Humble. Bravo, Cardinal Dolan! You might be Pope one day!
It's an easy job being a Pope today. Talk, behave, and even dress yourself like a clown and you will be just fine. Follow the world in all his errors, and millions will – oh, miracle! – “follow” you on Twitter, no less. Avoid saying anything at all uncomfortable when the world is listening, and a weekly magazine will be launched, devoted exclusively to you. Heavens, it will become a complete collection of papal heresies in print. Don't delay, subscribe today.
It's easy being a Pope today. Please everyone but Christ, do everything but your duty.
You will do just fine.
The recent utterances of Francis The Destroyer are, if you ask me, potentially far more dangerous than the translation blunder about the “ascetic” priests. And this time, it cannot be a problem of translation.
There is in Francis’ observation an insisted reference to a “new time”, the “time of mercy”. The man truly thinks that times go on in blocks. We had the time of, say, justice, where the church cared about the rules. Now we are in the time of mercy; a time which will obviously require new rules and a new attitude, otherwise it would not make any sense to say that we are in a “new time” anyway.
This is first class, quality-certified, prize-winning New Age bollocks. And it profoundly undermines and seeks to destroy – like all talk of “new times” – Christianity.
If we live in new times of mercy, we must deduct that we are stuck with the Jesus of the old times. If we live in a new time, there’s no way of saying what should be preserved – and what, necessarily, discarded – of the rules given to us in, and for, the “old times”.
I have never seen anyone talking of “new times” without linking to it the aspiration to, or the demand of, profound changes. It is not clear to me why Francis, of all people, should not entertain such ideas.
And this is exactly what he is doing. As more and more Catholics understand this Pope is genuinely subversive, he must gradually explain to them why this is so. Enter the “new time”, conveniently used every time the doctrine flies out of the window. And notice that he tries to hide behind his finger and say that the “new age” actually started with JP II; an alleged fact the planet never noticed, and of which it must now be informed by Francis.
Now don’t get me wrong: it is always easy to pick one word here and one phrase there of some past Pope and say “look, he said it already!” Protestants do it all the time with the Bible! But as always, you must understand what the agenda behind the words is, and there can be no doubt Francis’ agenda is to pump V II with “mercy” steroids like it’s a Russian athlete in the Eighties, until Justice is all but invisible, and Goodness made a mockery of.
I can hear the Pollyannas already, getting all excited about the “new papacy” for the “new times”.
At “Patheos” they will be screaming like little girlies.
I might be wrong, but I think this “mercy” thing – including hostage-taking of soon-to-be-canonised JP II – will be used to justify an awful lot of heresies in the years to come.
The “new time” is coming. Fasten your seat belts, and pray the Lords he gives us back the old times soon.
Difficult times are in store for Catholics. Besides the already questionable canonisation of JP II, the even more questionable “miracle” attributed to Paul VI, and still called “miracle”, opens even more disquieting questions about what is happening with the canonisations, and how a Catholic is to react to such news.
To me, the question is very simple: either canonisations are infallible, or they aren't.
It is my understanding that canonisations are infallible. That is, that God will not allow canonisations of people who are not in Paradise. If you read attentively the relevant entry in the Catholic encyclopedia, you will see that this opinion is so dominant as to allow us to consider it what the Church has generally believed: not because it is a self-evident truth, but because it appears a rather logical consequence of the cult of the Saints, and it is not given to see – to me at least – how the first can be crushed without very gravely damaging the second. I do not need to tell you that with a decree of canonisation the Pope orders (not allows) to believe that such and such is in heaven.
This is, mind, not dependent on the actual ways or procedures which led to the proclamation of someone as a saint. The highly structured process we know today – and which remained structurally unchanged until JPII raped it with the abolition of the advocatus diaboli – was not followed until many centuries after the first martyrs; and whilst we know in the earlier times martyrs had a kind of monopoly on the canonisations, I can't imagine we can get certainty of rigorous procedures for several centuries of Church history. Again, the Catholic encyclopedia has interesting words about the confessors and the gradual evolution of the process.
What shall we do, then: divide the saints into those with the “quality seal” of a rigorous procedure, and the others? Does everything come down to picking a “safe bet?” Is a martyr a “safer bet” than a confessor? As far as I know, many are the Saints who were acclaimed such by the Christians in Rome. Were they all martyrs? Are we so sure? And what about those believed saints in force of strong conviction of the Catholic world?
Does not the entire concept of the culto dei Santi repose on the concept of infallibility? Who of you, on buying a book about the Saints, questions the legitimacy of some of them? “Hhhmmmm… Saint such and such. Canonised in 931. A period of great Church corruption. Hhhmmm… No, I don't really trust this one”.
I am at a loss to understand how it can work this way. If the Church tells me that Saint Quisque is in Heaven, and She orders me to believe it, either she says it infallibly or the statement makes no sense, because there is no way to verify the entrance of the saint in Heaven with the measure of Church doctrine. When Francis tells me this or that rubbish about, say, the Blessed Virgin, I can check whether it is conform to tradition or not. When he tells me that Paul VI is in heaven, I must believe that God does not allow him to cheat me on that.
And in fact, it seems to me that to be a “doubter” implies the belief in a rather timid God, who would allow a Pope to cheat us in such a way that we cannot see that he is cheating, whilst allowing him to order us that we believe him without proof, and merely on faith.
Or you can say it in this way: no one can, without committing a mortal sin, allow himself an authoritative statement that, say, Paul VI is not in heaven. If, therefore, we cannot demonstrate that he is not, we must believe that God did not deceive us when He allowed the Church to believe for 2,000 years that a Pope can tell us that someone is.
I have more confidence in God's work than to doubt a canonisation, unsavoury or seemingly absurd as it may seem. I think that God stays behind the deal He has given us, and will crush Francis like a mosquito, or otherwise impede the canonisations, if JP II and John XXIII are not in heaven on the day appointed. This is what our forefathers have always believed, and this is what I will continue to believe, in the confidence that what was held sacred by all generations before me applies to this wretched generation, too.
“Ah, but this time is different!”, some will say.
Look: a lot of times were “different” already. Nihil sub sole novi. We have gone, in the history of the Church, through astonishingly corrupt times, and with Popes to match; but still, our forefathers trusted God not to allow a Pope to cheat them in such matters; not ever, irrespective of the deficiencies of the Pope, the canonisation process, or the mistakes made in life by the canonised person. Nor do we divide the Popes in Popes of First, Second and Third Class concerning canonisations.
Will I, then, erect myself as judge of another's acceptance in Heaven, when God does not give me a way to make a judgment, nay, he explicitly forbids me to make it? Will I die with such a sin of presumption on my conscience when I know, absolutely know, that this is just the thing concerning which it is part of the Divine Plan that I should not be allowed to judge for myself?
How can I know what tests Paul VI had to pass? How do I know with what virulence he was attacked? How do I know he did not get a valid plenary indulgence, dying – after all his mistakes – perfectly contrite for them, absolved of everything, and with nothing more to pay? How can I know that, if he did go to purgatory, he is still there?
“But Mundabor! He had no heroic virtue! He was an appeaser to his last breath!” It might well be so; it was very probably so; but whilst heroic virtue is a frequent appearance by canonised saints, it is not a requirement. The canonisation decree does not require you to believe in one's heroic virtue, merely that he is in heaven.
I am, as you might or might not have noticed, unhesitatingly critical of the Bishop of Rome when I think he is way out of line. I do it whenever I can see – through the comparison of his own behaviour and statement with objectively recognisable Church doctrine, basic decency, or common sense – that he is behaving in strident contrast to what is required of him. I do so persuaded that as God gives us a clearly recognisable set of rules, He also puts on us the duty to verify their observance, and to make us heard if this is not the case. If God has allowed you to see, you have no right to make yourself blind.
If, however, it is not given to me to verify that what the Pope states is in accordance with God's rules, but the rules of the Church tell me I have to believe it anyway and God will take care the Pope does not mess around, then I will do the only thing I am able to do, and the only thing that is left to do: submit, believe, and obey.
How can God allow that there be officially canonised bogus Saints? Would this not be an offence to all the true ones, a mockery of their sainthood, and a bomb put under the devotion of the Church Militant? How can this be squared with what your grand-grandmother has always believed, and believed because this is what the Church has constantly taught? What kind of Traditionalism is that?
Now, I am absolutely sure in the next weeks and months all kind of theories will emerge. Minority positions held once upon a time by the one or the other. Strange theories about the Church not really saying what everyone has always believed the Church was saying. Outlandish snippets of Saints of the past taken out of context.
I promise you, I will read whatever comes from worthy sources – like the SSPX, of course – with great attention; but frankly, the obstacle as we write the 5 March 2014 seems insurmountable to me, because against it is the huge wall of an infallibility I cannot but see as generally believed these last 2,000 years.
When it is not given to understand, then, I think, is the moment to obey. I cannot understand everything, but – sinner as I am – I will strive to obey in everything I can. Christ will not ask me, on that fateful day, if I was the smartest of the bunch, or had not come to the conclusion that the Church He found was wrong in what I can't prove wrong. I hope He will, at least in this matter, be satisfied enough that having been given no instruments to understand which is which, I have trusted what He said I have to believe in the matter.
Terrible times are awaiting us. We have apparently arrived to the mockery of the miracle – just to be logical: the “cure” of a feared malformation, or disease, is no cure at all -. But even a miracle is no necessary component of God calling one to heaven; and it is merely a procedural – and again: not obligatory – step of the current or even the old canonisation process. Let the proclamations of “miracles” become as stupid as they want. God will not be fooled by them.
I will therefore believe – until sensible evidence to the contrary – in the infallibility of canonisations.
If Francis is playing fast and loose with God even on this, I trust God will rid us of the canonisation, and possibly of the Pope himself; because whilst God will allow him to say he slaps people on the wrist at the most – which every Christian can see is rubbish – God will not allow him to make a mockery of Sainthood.
Put your trust in the Lord. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
SECOND UPDATE! IMPORTANT!!
La vera riconciliazione è che Dio, in Cristo, ha preso i nostri peccati e Lui si è fatto peccato per noi. E quando noi andiamo a confessarci, per esempio, non è che diciamo il peccato e Dio ci perdona. No, non è quello! Noi troviamo Gesù Cristo e gli diciamo: ‘Questo è tuo e io ti faccio peccato un’altra volta’. E a Lui piace quello, perché è stata la sua missione: farsi peccato per noi, per liberare a noi”.
This is the Italian.
It is much different from the English translation. Whoever made the translation should convert to Catholicism, or ask someone before translating.
“La vera riconciliazione è che Dio, in Cristo, ha preso i nostri peccati e Lui si è fatto peccato per noi.”
“The true reconciliation is that God, in Christ, took on our sins and He made Himself sin for us.”
This is worlds apart from “became the sinner”. It simply means that Christ took our sins. This is a common expression. There is nothing scandalous in that. Whilst “became the sinner” sounds (and is) blasphemous and would sound in Italian just as atrocious as in English, the expression clearly used by Francis is common fare in Italian. The expression is repeated at the end of the period, and the same considerations apply.
On this: cessato allarme, “alarm ceased”. The translator should get twenty lashes, though.
Pretty much the same happens for the second scandalous part, the one about the confession:
“Noi troviamo Gesù Cristo e gli diciamo: ‘Questo è tuo e io ti faccio peccato un’altra volta’ “.
This is not a very brilliant Italian. It is a somewhat uncertain Italian, perhaps with dialectal nuances, but one understands the meaning. What he means to say is this:
1. “We find Jesus Christ (in confession) and say to him: “This is yours, I have sinned against you once again” “. Again, this is a world apart from saying “this is your sin, and I will sin again”. The first expression does indicate contrition, and the ashamed consciousness of having offended Christ. The second indicates total absence of contrition, and the shamelessly announced intention to offend Him again.
2. Alternatively, he might link to the expression used before, and say “through my sin I cause You to make Yourself sin for us again“.
It is difficult to say which is which, because in normal parlance no one become a thing (a sin), the expression being used only when speaking of Christ. I tend for the first because it seems to me to point out to contrition, the natural attitude in the confessional. The second, though, links directly to the theme of Jesus taking on Himself the burden of our sins.
Once again, the “ti” is slightly misleading, but in the context the orthodox meaning is clear to a mother tongue whatever the exact meaning of the phrase. I would have said “faccio peccato contro di te (un’altra volta)” (first version) or “ti faccio diventare peccato per noi (un’altra volta)” (second version) instead of “ti faccio peccato (un’altra volta)”. Bergoglio’s use sounds like a dialectal expression to me, or a colloquial regional way, or a slight imprecision. Francis is probably misled by similar usages of the Italian language (“ti faccio male”, “I (will) hurt you”; “ti faccio vedere”, colloquial for “you’ll see”; “ti faccio arrossire”, “I make you blush”, and the like). Perhaps Spanish has similar ways he “imported” in Italian.
No, there is no scandal here. There are a lot of scandals with this Pope. This Pope is a walking and talking scandal. But I cannot see any scandal here in what Francis has said.
Obviously, if we reflect this is the translation of the Vatican site, and apparently the German has the same blunders, we understand how the scandal was born. But no, you can go to sleep (I will do it presently) safe in the knowledge that a mother tongue Italian blogger, who took great scandal at the English version, finds the original a tad “uncommon” or “unclean” in the expression (not the “President’s Italian”, so to speak), but certainly understandable in a way that does not create scandal.
Semel in anno, we can say this is not his fault.
The most atrocious translation I have ever read, though. Particularly because it gave the speech a sort of inner, satanic coherence with the heretical or blasphemous double whammy. It goes to show once again the dangers of these off-the-cuff statements which, even when they are not utter bollocks out of Francis’ mouth, can become it out of hurried translations perhaps from people who do not really know what Confession is. One who goes to confession thinks thrice before writing a translation like that, but again in today’s Radio Vaticana the translator might belong to any religion, or none.
I will, therefore, now proceed to cancel my entire post, and all our comments.
I would say “rejoice”, but there is nothing to rejoice.
Francis remains as bad as he already was. He has always mixed orthodox statements with heterodox or heretical ones. It’s not that he has now magically transformed himself in an orthodox Pope. This statement was was orthodox in the original and became heretical in the translation, is all.
Laudably, Bishop Francis invites us to go to confession; and in an interesting turn of events even seems to insist in calling it “confession” rather than with its V II correct name of “reconciliation”. Still, as Francis is polluted through and through with the evil ideology of V II, he regularly fails to stress and impress upon his readers what once upon a time would have been hammered in the faithful’s head by the most mediocre of priests: that there is an obligation to go to confession.
This is indicative of the entire V II mentality, even in those cases when the steroids of Francis’ South-American Jesuitism are, for the time being, blessedly absent. Whenever I read Francis’ exhortations, I am reminded of those newspaper articles gently encouraging us to eat more carrots, or reminding us of the virtues of Brussels Sprouts: you should do this, because you see, it’s good.
The not-so-small difference is that there is no Sacrament Of Carrots, nor is it necessary to eat Brussels Sprouts to have one’s mortal sins forgiven; and as importantly, that God does not tell me to eat carrots, but He commands me to go to Confession. I am sure Francis is aware of this, but from the way he talks this is not very evident.
“Oh, but he is talking to Catholics – some will say – they know that! They do not need to be reminded!”
Really? Have you noticed any trend in Confession frequency in the last, say, fifty years? And by the way, how come the faithful never have to be reminded about their obligation to attend Mass, go to confession, not contracept, & Co., but must be always reminded about poverty, as if they did not know about their obligations in that respect?
Well, I can tell you how come: because for Francis the things of Heaven are fully secondary to the things of earth. His gaze is fully fixed on the favela, and he constantly gives the impression to him religion is just a way to improve people’s condition here on earth.
As if God were there to serve Man, rather than the other way round.
Go to confession, folks. You’ll feel so good when you get out of the confessional.
Ah, the Eye of the Tiber!
They have a brilliant article about your usual condescending V II priest regaling his audience – young in this case, must not be the case – with the usual dumbed down homily.
The “homily” might have come, in fact, from His Humbleness himself.
A fair warning: the “Eye of the Tiber” is like a Catholic “Onion”. The facts are generally invented to make a point.
Though I am not sure about that Superman thingy.
The use of the vernacular prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of fragmentation and an effective help to the corruption of true doctrine.
(hat tip to Father Carota).
Cardinal Maradiaga is, without the shadow of a doubt, having the time of his life. Inebriated with a newfound, worldwide notoriety, the high-fiving Cardinal keeps giving free-wheeling interviews, in which he speaks as if the Church were his toy, to play with as he pleases.
Not happy with throwing around with journalists his idea about a possible Pontifical Council led by “married couples” – which is stupid enough in itself, but should be kept for internal discussions anyway; unless of course the Cardinal wants to force the one or other hand – the man abandons itself to declarations that astonish in their populism; a populism pushed to a degree unknown, to my knowledge, even to Francis.
Firstly, the Cardinal says the laity “are the majority” of the Church, as if the Church were some kind of democratic organisation in which you have rights merely for being “majority”. Secondly, he says “we can't go on like this”, thus passing a very hard sentence on the way the Church “went on” since Jesus' time. Thirdly, he informs us that the “Spirit” is “pushing” in his direction, and one wonders whether his back carries the signs of the “Spirit's” obvious “pushing”.
We have now sunk to pure circus level. We have reached “big brother” lows of superficiality; Church policy has become a media show, the “X-factor” for the tambourine Catholic masses.
Why is this? Because the Commander In Chief is such a one, of course. He is the one who started the circus and keeps it running; it is no surprise at all that others want to have a place on the stage in Circus Bergoglio, just on the side of the Head Clown himself.
The fish stinks from the head down. Always. If you complain about the stink and refuse to see whence it comes, you are being willingly blind.
One of the most evident manifestations of the “Francis effect” is the frequency with which prelates think they must make known to the world their outlandish views. They did it before too, of course, but as there was no “make a mess”-climate they did have to be more prudent. That’s all gone now.
Cardinal Cormack Murphy O’Connor is one of the biggest culprits for the continued decline of Catholic thinking, practice and influence in England. Predictably, this also led to a decrease in confessions. Faced with such a phenomenon, the Cardinal does not ask himself what he can do to let people change their mind and go to confession; no, he wonders how confession can be changed to adapt it to the changed mindset of the people instead.
A “proper reform” is now needed. Can’t you see, he seems to say, that confession is goign out of fashion?
When such is the thinking, hell is truly the limit. Shall we allow Skype confessions? What about an Internet chat room for two? Or should we perhaps put classical music in the confessional? No, wait, some Tango music would be more in touch with the times, and a fitting tribute to the humble Francis ….
Or we might put up ads in the local newspaper, you know… A friendly priest’s face saying: “Who am I to judge?” could be just the ticket…
There there is the problem of the confession being allegedly used by predatory priests to prey on their designated targets. What to do? Evidently, the man is so confused that he does not see that the biggest technical problem of today’s confession is in… the innovations post V II.
Traditionally, a grate separated the priest from the faithful. The priest couldn’t see – though in small communities he would certainly recognise from the voice – who was on the other side. No mother needed to be concerned for her own daughter, her own child, or herself. The physical separation was strong enough, and in most confessionals – like the Italian ones, often open to the faithful’s side rather than locking the faithful in a cubicle – the possibility of being overheard always there. Even the most evil predatory priest would, in such circumstances, decide the setting does not work for his evil intent.
Enter the “closed room” confessionals of the new era, and in the same years the predatory priests produced by the post V II seminars. He will now be in a closed space with his victim, eye to eye, perhaps in physical knee-to-knee contact, in a “relaxed” and “confidential” environment; no one else around him but the child or girl he has set his eyes on…
Then we complain some priests might have abused of the confessional to prey on their victim…
Has the Cardinal ever thought about it? I doubt. Plenty of questionable “confession rooms” in his old diocese, and no sign of the man having ever ordered the return of the grate. But we are now curious to know what the man will propose to bring the faithful back to confession. Introductory video games, perhaps…or collective confession, when the crowd says “we are all oh so sorry” and the priests absolves everyone, as if they were about to go to battle…
If CMOC and those like him would at least shut up and quietly enjoy their remaining years of utterly undeserved prestige and privilege, it would be something already.
But no, they must have the headlines.
I wish Francis would dedicate some of the time he does not devote to hugging wheelchairs and talking nonsense “off-the cuff” to the reading of the writings of serious Popes of the past.
If he did, he might at some point stumble on something like this:
But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people.
This is from Pope St. Pius X’s letter to the French Bishops and Archbishops against the movement of the Sillon, “Our Apostolic Mandate”.
What can Francis learn from texts like this one? Let us see:
1. No hot air anywhere. NO “walking here”, and “meeting there”, and “go to the crossroads”, and “smell like a sheep”, and all the other nonsense that does not explain the main thing: whether one will be Catholic once he has come to the crossroads, or will simply say “look at me: how social, inclusive, and smelly I am”. No childish comparisons, either. A stern and crystal clear language.
2. Truth administered without hesitation, and without compromise. Already the statement: “it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues” makes a massacre of 99% of Francis’ utterances since that fateful day almost one year ago.
3. The clear statement that you start from the Truth and use it to judge whether the slogans of men are or are not valid. If, on the other hand, the premises are wrong, then the entire thinking will be wrong. The result?: “A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity”. Francis has his fundamentals wrong. He is full of an earthly (populist, and rather resentful) ideology and tries to adjust Catholicism to it. He makes exactly the mistake Pope St. Pius X is lamenting.
4. Statements written for adults. Longish periods, rich in subordinates. Statements requiring one to think rather than emote. A writing style that makes clear the reader has the responsibility to attentively absorb what the Pope is saying, rather than showing the reader how well the Pope has absorbed the stupidity of the world. Can you imagine the author of the statement above saying “who am I to judge” when confronted with a sodomite as close collaborator?
There are no excuses for a bad Pope. Even a slow-witted, ill-instructed Pope could and should lock himself in his study and absorb from the great Popes of the past and the immense, invaluable patrimony they have left us the proper way to act and express himself like a Pope; asking his speech-writers to elaborate with modern examples on the concept already beautifully expressed by them, and following their lead in their understanding of Church Tradition and the Fathers.
The great Popes of the past have lessons in papacy available to every Pope for free, at the only cost of a touch of… humility.
Francis does not think he needs any lesson. He thinks he can make everything new. He thinks he can build his own papacy on the chimerical construction lamented by his great predecessor. Let us recall Pius X’s words about:
“the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can”
Add heresy to the above mentioned statement, and what you have is pure Francis.
I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
Ecclesiastes 3: 17
In the unbelievable days we are living there is nothing impossible anymore. It is as if a fury of self-destruction had taken hold of once Christian Countries, and would now aim at the annihilation of Christian values with the same energy with which once Crusades were waged, and heresy fought.
What the Belgian Parliament has done exceeds even the boundaries of common insanity. It is evil in its purest form. Evil shouted out in a very loud manner, and sugarcoated with Satan’s favourite weapon: a fake good-ism, a parody of mercy unable to mask the atrocious reality of a boundless cynicism, and an ice cold disregard for everything sacred, even the life of a six years old child. Or four, or perhaps three. The law has no minimum age. Belgium perfectly epitomises the ruthless cruelty of men who have forgotten God.
A child of, say, six years old can do very little of his own. He will be told when to eat and when to sleep, when to speak and when to be silent, when to play and when to do his homework. He will seldom even cross the road without an adult being there. He will – very obviously – be unable to drive, or vote.
But he will now be able to decide if he wants to have his life terminated. If he lives in Belgium, that is.
Evil. Pure evil. The culture of death has become a religion.
As always in these cases, revolutionary evil clothes itself with the mantle of good sentiments. In the same way as divorce and abortion and euthanasia, this new measure allows for a child to decide – imagine that! – that he wants to die only when the “extreme cases” which always make for bad laws, are present. The poor child must be terminally ill and suffering. I think they do it with horses, too.
Make no mistake:as with divorce, abortion, and euthanasia, the exceptional cases will become less and less exceptional; the “suffering” more and more widely interpreted, and extended to mental/moral/immoral suffering; the criteria for “moral suffering” will be reduced to the will to die, as already seen by the will to divorce and the will to abort, and as it is happening in this disgraceful Country (Belgium) for euthanasia already. I have read in Belgium one death in twenty is now more or less officially the product of euthanasia. The existing euthanasia law is around a decade old. Satan’s harvest is very rich already.
Henceforward, when the “good” Nazi parents of the poor lamb – unbaptised, very easily, by such people – decide that it is time to push the “reset” button sooner rather than later and go on with their life after the discovery the goods are defective – stopping the hassle and expenses in the process – they will tell the child it is an excellent idea to go to some fantasy land, where the supply of toys is unlimited and he will never be told it’s time to go to bed.
If the child is bigger – say, nine or ten – he will probably be asked to be realistic about the very sad situation. If he is bigger still – say, thirteen or fourteen – he will probably be told about the expenses he is causing, and all the suffering his poor Nazi parents would like to spare him. All of these, mind, still unable to vote, or even to drive. But able to decide it’s time to be got rid of.
Then a Nazi doctor will appear on the scene, who will decide whether junior is sensible enough – for a five years old, that is; or a boy – and will be presented with the interesting question: is this child or boy able to decide that he wants to die? Every sane person would laugh at such an idea, but Belgium is very obviously insane.
So there you are: when Nazi doctor has decided the kitten can be smashed to the tree – oh, sorry, I was distracted: that the child can be terminated, is what I wanted to say – a lethal injection or some other utterly effective method – Zyklon B not unthinkable, of course – will get rid of the problem. Cue the inconsolable parents, whose grief will be beautiful to see, and will be graced by the solidarity and support of their friends and family, “on their side” concerning their “difficult decision”. More harvest, of course.
The Belgian church has, I am told, meowed a bit at the last. But the Belgian church consists, from what we could observe in the last fifty years, almost exclusively of perverts and idiots. They have managed to accompany with the tambourine the transformation of a once very Catholic country in a cesspool of dirt and evil with possibly no rival on earth. If you have not opened your eyes about the fruits of V II, I strongly suggest you start now.
Stupid clergy produces evil people. Evil clergy produces modern Belgium. If the Church in Belgium had been vaguely Catholic in the past decades, we would not be at this point now. But even those who weren’t preying on children and were not homosexual were too cowardly to swim against the tide of secularism.
The result is in front of our eyes. The Church in Belgium has done exactly the same as its inhabitant: she has forgotten God; or rather, she has sold it for the thirty pieces of silver of easy popularity and acquiescence to the world; when it wasn’t much worse than that, of course. My experience in Bruges might be worth the reading. Yes, it is as bad as that. Again, is it a surprise such a clergy produces such a country, which in turn produces such laws? Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. A once very Catholic country has now become Satan’s poster boy. Don’t kid yourself into believing the Belgian Church can call herself innocent of this.
The Lord gave, and Belgium hath taken away. There will be a terrible price to pay for that.
I do not think the Belgians, as a whole, care. The majority in the Belgian Parliament was overwhelming.
In 2014’s Belgium, it is safe for a politician to be a Nazi.
Such are the ways of the “who am I to judge” generation.
Father Carota has a beautifully suffering post about the drawbacks of being a good priest. Modern society being what it is, it is nowadays almost impossible to be a good priest without incurring the ire of the self-righteous semi-secular (but entirely arrogant) society; a society full of people expecting their every whim to be complied with, and ready to attack everyone refusing to play the game with the accusation of having “hurt” them. Such a priest will therefore, just for his willingness to be a good priest, accused of being “uncharitable”, variously “judgmental”, and most certainly “hurtful”.
In this case, it seems one or more rather wordly women used their Facebook account to smear the priest, guilty of the horrible crime of – inviting them to dress decently in the Church.
Shocking! I mean, shocking that there are still priests willing to do their job! Not many of those nowadays, I am sure…
Thirty years ago, the woman so addressed might have disagreed with Father's assessment of what is “appropriate dress”, but would then have very probably understood that, well, he is the priest, so that's that.
Not now. Now, a remark or a correction – or in extreme cases, a refusal to enter the Church – gives rise to a Facebook campaign, the idea that in such matters one simply accepts what the priest says being slowly inconceivable.
This is not Father Carota's fault, obviously, but I think the clergy as a category have much to answer for such a mentality. Decades of self-effacing pussyfooting, of non-authoritarian “pastoral” approach, and of ceaseless desire to be the “nice guy” have both emasculated and ridiculed the figure of the priest in the eyes of the populace. The Priest is not seen anymore as a person of authority, but as a low-paid (Germany-speaking Countries excepted) social worker whose only hope of being tolerated is to mingle with the world as much as he can. Therefore, if he tries to tell someone what to do – in matters strictly related to his own authority and sphere of competence, of course – all hell will break loose. Such behaviour must make on the ” occasional” folks (the “marriage and perhaps funeral” types) the same impression as the cleaning lady suddenly lecturing them about the Impending Revolt Of The Oppressed.
The figure of the priest has lost much in authority and, I would say, in manliness. This goes hand in hand with the loss of their function: being a priest, saving souls, admonishing and, when necessary, forbidding and reproaching. Nowadays, many priest go around bearing on their face a big inscription stating: “I apologise for being a Catholic priest and will try to keep your inconvenience to a minimum”. Is it a great surprise, then, that even public dykes feel it appropriate to stage a very public m circus upon being denied communion?
Still, the duties of the priest remain the same even after the category has brought so much harm on itself, though the prevailing winds will take care that many of them accurately avoid to do a proper job. The more grateful must we be to those, fairly rare, priests who tell it like it is and, faced with the choice between Christ or a quiet life, invariably choose Christ.
In the end, it's always this side, or their side.
And it came to pass the well-known blogger priest wrote a (beautiful) blog post about the alcoholic who drank himself almost to the point of self-annihilation, but this time knocked at the priest’s door not to ask for money – which I am sure Father would not give him, lest he fuels the other’s addiction – but to care for his own salvation, proceeding afterwards to produce a serious, and very beautiful, prayer effort according to his lights.
We are, I am sure, all pleased for this change of mind and wish the chap all the best, and a future without alcoholism to the point of self-destruction. I am reminded of Lucia’s words in the Promessi Sposi: “Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia!”, “God forgives (so) many things for a work of mercy!”.
All fine up to here. A good priest, this one, who inspires drunkards to spend half an hour kneeling in prayer.
What seriously angered me immediately upon reading the post is the comment of an obvious V II ultra, who then proceeded to say to Father: “Remember your soul is more at stake than his; God loves Poor Lazarus”, clearly stating that his (the priest’s) own soul is more in danger of damnation than the soul of a possibly terminal alcoholic who has managed a beautiful feat of faith, once. As I write this blog post, no other commenter has questioned these words.
Let me make a couple of observation on this, then, because I can’t read such crap without saying a word or two; and no, don’t give me any of the usual sensitive, PC bollocks, because I have enough of it and won’t even read your comment to the end.
It is a strange, and rather perverted Christianity in which a man who consecrates his life to Christ – and, I am sure, makes a very good job of it – is considered in graver danger of damnation than a self-demolished alcoholic. It is the result of an orgy of goodism that is so worried of feeling good with itself that it forgets goodness in the process.
According to such perverted Christianity, it is better – and as a result, more advisable – to waste one’s life drinking oneself almost to death, and then spend half an hour in prayer in front of the altar, than to dedicate one’s life to Christ and to the salvation of the sheep. The stupidity of this thinking boggles the mind: it devalues – nay: it humiliates – virtues at the same time as it positively encourages to sin. In fact, it makes of sin – of very grave, constantly repeated sin – the best and surest way to Jesus’ love.
I know, it sounds oh so fine. Much of the populist V II crap does. As if Jesus would love the sinner in proportion to his sinfulness. “Blessed the child rapists, because theirs is the Autobahn to heaven?” But you see, in these egalitarian and very stupid times it seems the Gospel’s prodigal son is the better son and the better soul; which is nowhere to read in the Gospel; but boy, it sound sugary enough for nowadays’ saccharin addicted.
And let us talk of Lazarus the beggar, too, the specific man mentioned in the comment. Last time I looked, Lazarus is described as destitute and either a leper or one with huge health issues, but not an alcoholic. And he doesn’t go to heaven because he is a beggar, but because he is good in the eyes of the Lord. Similarly, the rich man is not damned because he is rich, but because he is not good in the eyes of the Lord.
We live in a world that has so much lost the sense of sin, that it even puts the alcoholic above the priest at the price of half an hour of prayer. Then we complain about vocation crisis. Ah, those stupid people of our Christian past, who considered the priest, and not the alcoholic beggar, the example to follow, and the good soul! They should have reserved their esteem and consideration for the drunkard instead! Hey, he has spent half an hour at the altar, has he not! You see, this clearly puts him in a better position in Jesus’ eyes than the one who spends an entire life for Him, because the best triggers of Jesus’ love are just not there: like being an alcoholic, say; or a whore, or a child rapist, or a professional killer. Jesus loves a sinner! Alleluia! That Padre Pio, who was obviously so boringly good… one wonders whether Jesus loved him in the first place. I bet the man never even got drunk once in his life! So sad.
Happily, Christianity tells us exactly the opposite, though this isn’t heard much nowadays: those who are better are those God loves more, and His great saints – many of them, of course, unknown to the world – are those whom He loves most. Christianity also tells us that to be good is good, and we must strive to live a life as devoid of sin as our energies – which we, again, train by living a good life – allow. We do our part to earn Paradise – or rather: to earn Purgatory – by living well, not by living badly; by staying near to the sacraments, not by becoming alcoholics; with fear and trembling, not with utter disregard of God’s laws. I though it was “if you love me, keep my commandments”, not “if you want to be loved more by me, trample them”.
And yes, thankfully for all of us, the Mercy of the Lord is always there just for the asking – which goes with the repenting, of course -. There is always hope, even for the alcoholic, the whore, and the child rapist. We pray that everyone may be saved, as we hope for salvation ourselves; and we are consoled by every show of God’s mercy, because we are also in great need of it. Therefore, we try to walk through life in the fear of the Lord, but we also trust on His mercy when we stray, as we all do. We stay near to the confessional, because we know that in the same way as we rely on God’s mercy, God demands of us that we work towards it; & Co., & Co.
Or perhaps we should forget all this: the Mass, the prayers, the confessions, and the struggles with sin, and become stupidly drunk and, in time, self-demolished alcoholics instead.
Hey, upon a single act of faith our souls would be less at stake than the one of a good priest.
Ah, the German Bishops. Always ready to fight against Catholicism. Clearly, they rank among Satan's most faithful allies.
You might remember the “survey” of some time ago; a survey which, if memory serves, was actually meant for priests, though the usual suspects encouraged their faithful to participate to the exercise and say what they find wrong in the Church's teaching, in a kind of orgy of democracy and populism.
Predictably, the results were that the astonishingly neglected – and arrogant their own part – German sheep either do not know important parts of the teaching, or consider it – wait for this – “heartless”, “unacceptable”, or the like.
You will, now, imagine these shameful but not unexpected findings would be the occasion for a loud mea culpa from the side of the shepherds, admitting that it is their most grievous fault that souls entrusted to their care may think that God is heartless, or, far more probably, are not even informed that Church rules concerning sexual morality are just not disposable, because they are from God. With which, actually, the discussion should come to an abrupt end.
And in fact, it being unthinkable that a Christian may deem God heartless and still call himself a Christian, the only explanation to such a brutal refusal of God's laws is that the sheep believe, and the shepherds allow them to believe, that these rules can and, indeed, must be changed.
God only will be able to look into the souls of the millions of confused non-Catholics who share such a thinking, and justly decide in every individual case when their guilt is worthy of hell and when the lack of proper teaching, or the bad example of their own shepherds, are bad enough to allow them to escape the ultimate punishment. But there can be no doubt in my mind that the bishops and priests themselves know perfectly well what the rules are and whence they come, and will have absolutely nowhere to hide when their day of reckoning comes.
A public condemnation of eternal Church rules as “heartless” – a condemnation clear enough, though thinly veiled behind the excuse of it being what the vox populi says – is something I had missed up to now, though this is probably merely due to my lack of attention. This bunch of idiots do not say “the people don't like and even harshly criticise the rules, so we must start a serious work of evangelisation because it's clear we have done everything wrong for decades”; no, they report to Rome what “the people” find “unacceptable”. They say: “Look, Francis: the sheep say the rules are heartless; therefore, they must be changed, or at least they must be “pastorally” raped until the sheep are halfway satisfied and keep paying the Kirchensteuer.
I expect this message to be sent with the usual subtle distinguos, and to be broadcast in a way that avoids danger for the bishops themselves. In the next months, methinks, we will hear these wolves reflect on how they can “more effectively” transmit Catholic teaching, whilst being “pastoral” regarding the grievances of the sheep. They find the teaching unacceptable, you see, so let's be “pastoral”. Still, the overall message will be clear enough, and this is how the German sheep will understand it: we, the good German pastors, are doing what we can to help you, dear sheep. Please, please keep paying the Kirchensteuer!
What a bunch of prostitutes in purple.
Interesting post at Father Z's, where the rather usual situation – at least in my experience – occurs: long line to receive from the priest, pretty much no one wants to receive from the riduculous layman – or woman – with the strange abbreviation beginning with E standing nearby.
What does, then, the priest in question do? He simply provides the chap – or gal; or more probably old woman – with the desired clientele by stopping his own distribution.
Interesting, this one. The priest can clearly see the faithful want to receive from him. Does this happen because he is a fine chap who knows a lot of jokes? Or will it perhaps be because… they want to receive from the priest?
If the priest isn't a humble Jesuit, he knows the truth already. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn here is that the man is actively recoiling from doing his job so that another one who is not a priest, and not the one from whom the parishioner want to receive, may avoid feeling a total fool, standing there all alone with a face that says “the Sixties were a good time, actually…”.
My personal suggestion is to never, on no account and under no circumstances, receive from a laywhatever. Oh well, if you're dying and there is truly no alternative, perhaps, but that's that. If many start doing this way, at some point even the most politically correct knucklehead will get the message. I have never received from a laysomething in my life, nor have I ever given communion to myself. I am firmly intentioned to die with my record intact. If you can receive and feel like receiving – nowadays one must explain why he doesn't, doesn't he; and he must pay attention some old woman will not nag him no end that he really, really should – and the only alternative is to take part to a horrible legalised liturgical abuse like no generation of pre V II had to endure, or not to receive like many in every generation before V II, I can't imagine how it would not be vastly better to choose the second, the traditional option. Choose to be in the company of sixty generations of Christians, rather than of one and a half of tambourine cafeteria Catholics. You can make spiritual communion anyway, and there will be other occasions.
But certainly, confronted with such behaviour I would seriously consider whether the priest in question should have another occasion, or at least a fourth or fifth. From their fruits you will recognise them; a priest who willingly neglects his duty so that the Sixties may look better doesn't look like a very good fruit to me.