Showing posts with label "pope francis". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "pope francis". Show all posts

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

The True Meaning and Context of that Koran Quote in the Vatican's New Document - "whoever kills a person is like one who kills the whole of humanity"

Francis and Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan review a line of Muslim warriors at Abu Dhabi Airport

Yesterday, we pointed out that the Vatican's "Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together" was co-signed by a Muslim scholar who advocates punishing apostates from Islam with death.

The Document has already become infamous for a number of other reasons, including that it contained the obviously blasphemous and heretical claim (for a Catholic) that the "plurality and diversity" of religions are "willed by God in His wisdom."

But it also paraphrases an oft-quoted verse in the Koran:
In the name of innocent human life that God has forbidden to kill, affirming that whoever kills a person is like one who kills the whole of humanity, and that whoever saves a person is like one who saves the whole of humanity [this is the Document's gloss on part of Sura 5:32]
This is perhaps the most misunderstood and mis-cited claim in the entire Koran, though the reasons for that are clear - it seems to indicate that Islam is a "religion of peace", against murder and terrorism, etc.

Muslims have a clear incentive to roll this quote out at every opportunity when addressing Western audiences, and Western pro-Muslim apologists obviously have every reason to repeat it ad nauseam.

The Vatican just reproduced it in an official Church document.

The whole thing is a crock.

Far from being a peaceful prohibition against murder, Sura 5:32 originally functioned merely as a Koranic attack (yet another) on the Jews. And the rest of Sura 5 goes on to explicitly endorse, among other things, war and terrorism against non-Muslims.

I hope readers will indulge me if I again reprint an earlier Mahound's Paradise post, this time from 5 July, 2016.

On that Fake Koran Quote, "if anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew all mankind"

"If anyone slew a person..."

After each horrific Muslim terrorist attack, apologists for Islam - Muslim and non-Muslim - can be counted on to trot out this alleged excerpt from the Koran:
If anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.
It sounds like a lovely piece of mystical Eastern wisdom, doesn't it? The problem is, the alleged excerpt doesn't appear in the Koran in precisely that form, and the context in which it does appear might surprise you.

First, a bit of background. Some imagine that the Koran systematically lays out a coherent ethical system. It does not. That's not a criticism per se - the New Testament is also not systematic in that sense - but it is important to note. Often critics of Islam are accused of taking the nasty sounding bits of the Koran out of context. But it is actually the apologists that almost always do this, and almost always for a non-Muslim audience that is largely unfamiliar with the Koran.

The alleged quote comes from Verse 32, Sura (or Chapter) 5 of the Koran - whose title is variously translated as "The Food," "The Repast," "The Dinner Table" and so on. There are two themes to the sura. The first is a fairly detailed exposition on what is and what is not permitted for a Muslim regarding food and the killing of animals.

But the bulk of it is on relations between Muslims and various non-Muslims groups - Jews, Christians, Polytheists and Pagans. The sura is almost uniformly hostile - in places aggressively and violently so - towards non-Muslims, which makes it all the more notable that apologists use one of its verses to argue that "Islam is a religion of peace."

To recap, the excerpt allegedly says:
If anyone slew a person, it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.
But what does 5:32 actually say?
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
(I have highlighted the parts that aren't usually cited).
The context is a discussion of a somewhat embellished version of the story of Cain and Abel - the murder of Abel is the precise slaying in question - which began six verses earlier. The context of that is a sort of list of various occasions where the Jews did bad things.

Thus, the context is actually yet another Koranic attack (of which there are literally hundreds) on those perfidious Jews. Allah originally ordained the rule in question for "the Children of Israel" and (as the previous verses make clear) they disobeyed him. Typical Jews.

Many commentators also view it as a warning to contemporary Jews.

Of course, even if the moral rule is meant to apply generally (which a number of other verses arguably contradict), the real verse contains an exception that you could drive a truck bomb through - or for spreading mischief in the land.

To underline the point, here is the very next verse (5:33):
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
That's right, the very next verse after "if anyone slew a person..." is a prescription for carrying out ISIS-style punishments on those who - as traditionally interpreted by Muslim scholars - resist or oppose the spread of Islam.

The rest of Sura 5 contains a number of other interesting verses, which strangely you never hear about alongside 5:32. For example, Verse 51:
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors.
Another verse tells us that Allah punished some of the Jews by turning them into apes and pigs (5:60).

As if to rub it in, another verse tells us that Christians aren't as bad as Jews. It's the Jews and Pagans who are the worst. (Presumably when this late sura was released, Muhammed was strategically trying to cozy up to some Christian tribe.)
Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant (5:82).
Tucked into the anti-infidel stuff is a command to cut off the hands of thieves (5:38). Then we're back to rules about eating and the killing of animals interspersed with a few additional pokes against Christians for thinking Jesus was God.

Sura 5 and specifically Verse 33
was among the primary texts used by Muhammed to justify (before and after the fact) the assassination of opponents - the satirical poetess Asma Bint Marwan was impaled with a sword as she was nursing her child - and his aggressive military campaigns on the Arabian peninsula to conquer or wipe out all non-Muslims - such as for example, the Jews of Khaybar.

That apologists use a bowdlerized version of 5:32 for their "Religion of Peace" claim is ironic.

Ironic in a sick way.

As some readers may already been aware, the "as if they had killed there whole world" idea isn't exactly original with Muhammad. He got it from somewhere else. I'll look at that in Part 2.

[I never did that Part 2, which is why I edited that out of the new title. Maybe now I can finally deliver it.]

Thursday, December 27, 2018

Twitter Poll Result: Majority of Traditionalist Catholics Not Certain Francis is Pope


Okay, the post title sounds a bit like it's from the Onion.

I suppose I could have titled it "Twitter Poll result: Water is Wet."

But still.

The majority of traditionalist Catholics either do not believe Francis is the pope, are uncertain if he is, or are unwilling to commit to saying so.

Or so say two silly Twitter polls I just did.

Yes, they're silly Twitter polls and only silly Twitter polls. They feature, respectively, 597 and 732 "votes" from my followers and those who received retweets from my followers, etc.

But I have no good reason reason to believe they inaccurately track the views of traditionalist Catholics as a whole.

What is a "traditionalist Catholic"? I suppose we might define it as the label for those who take seriously the traditional teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic religion is based on tradition - beginning with the "tradition" of the Old and New Testaments - one might be forgiven for saying it denotes those who take their Catholicism seriously.

I don't find the poll results shocking or surprising. I'm sure you don't either. Among other things it fits with the anecdotal evidence I've gathered from speaking with Catholic acquaintances, friends and fellow parishioners, both in person and online, over the past many months.

But looked at another way, the general fact is indeed a shock. Who would have predicted it, say, six years ago? While Vatican II and the pontificate of Paul VI did cause many thousands of Catholics to become (and remain) sedevacantists, sedevacantism has always been a decidedly "fringe" movement that, as far as I can tell, has essentially been frozen in numbers for many years.

That most serious Catholics have at the least doubts about the actual identity of the current pope, with a quarter to perhaps almost a half believing that the current apparent occupant of the chair is, to put it unsubtly, an imposter or anti-pope is of course unprecedented in modern times.

Some words about the voting sample: 

I assume most of my Twitter followers, or receivers of the retweets of my followers, fall into the "traditionalist" or "serious" categories. To the extent that some may not, it would only increase the "doubts about Francis" numbers among those who do - as one wouldn't expect many lukewarm or non-Catholics to vote "Benedict" or have doubts about the identity of the current pope, etc.

Do my Twitter followers (or those who receive the retweets of my Twitter followers, etc.) make up a diverse and relatively representative sample of traditionalist Catholics? Actually, I think they do. If you think it's all people who agree with me about everything, you haven't been reading my feed recently. 

But enough of the preliminaries. Here are the two poll questions and results:

December 24-25 (not the most optimum time for a Twitter poll, I admit, but still):
Who is currently the pope? (597 votes, total) 
Francis, 52%, 310 votes a. 
Benedict, 27%, 161 votes a. 
Someone else, 1%, 6 votes a. 
No one, 20%, 120 votes a.

This seemed to show a slight majority for Francis over the sum of the other alternatives, or a two-thirds majority if the "No one" category is removed.

As many pointed out, that poll did not include an option for, among other things, those who were unsure. Another twitter friend pointed out that the wording might have biased things a bit towards Francis in that before "pope" it did not include "true" or "actual", etc.

So I decided to do another poll, which only ended a few minutes ago:

December 26-27:
Who do you think is currently the true pope? (732 votes, total) 
Francis, 38%, 278 votes a. 
Benedict, 24%, 176 votes a. 
Not sure/not my call, 19%, 139 votes a. 
Other/the seat is vacant, 19%, 139 votes a.

I interpret the 14% fall off in Francis votes (and the only 3% fall off in Benedict votes) to indicate that a quarter or more of the original Francis total was "soft". Some voted "Francis" in the first poll because the options told them they had to commit to someone, but many were in fact unsure.

What would the poll results look like if we liberally (and almost certainly falsely) assume that all of the "no" and "other" votes were from classical sedevacantists - people who would have voted "the seat is vacant" in all polls for the last sixty years worth of popes? I ask this not to disenfranchise sedevacantists but to attempt to isolate the "Benedict/Francis" effect. The results would change somewhat. Francis gets a clear majority if one has to commit (Poll 1), but still fails to achieve one if one doesn't (Poll 2).

Poll 1:
Who is currently the pope? (471 votes, total) 
Francis, 66%, 310 votes a. 
Benedict, 34%, 161 votes a.
Poll 2:
Who do you think is currently the true pope? (593 votes, total) 
Francis, 47%, 278 votes a. 
Benedict, 30%, 176 votes a. 
Not sure/not my call, 23%, 139 votes a.
One could, if one wanted, make other methodological assumptions to whittle away the remaining slight "doubts about Francis" majority in the second poll. But what would be the point? It's clear that the Francis reign coupled with the bizarre circumstances of Benedict's exit and pope emeritus behavior - living within the Vatican, the white cassock and all the rest - have led to unprecedented doubts and uncertainty about the actual identity of the pope among serious Catholics, and it's reasonable to assume that such doubts and uncertainties will only grow.

Some have argued that the best attitude is to essentially punt on the question. It doesn't matter who is pope. We can't know. It's not up to us to say. And so on.

That, in and of itself, is of course damning. And who would have predicted it six years ago?

We don't merely have a bad pope. Not even merely a really bad pope. Something else is going on.

Or so most traditionalist Catholics now believe. At least according to our Twitter feed.

Monday, August 27, 2018

Vatican Source: "the news of Archbishop Viganò has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb" - Former Nunciature Official: "Viganò said the truth."

Carlo Maria Viganò

Only hours after the release of former nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò's statement implicating Pope Francis in the Cardinal McCarrick sex-abuse cover up, more and more sources are confirming its believability.

Among other things Viganò related the "stormy conversation" between then-nuncio Petrio Sambi and Cardinal McCarrick in 2011 when McCarrick was informed that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed sanctions on him:
Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires ad interim after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it — about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that "the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor."
Catholic News Agency contacted Msgr. Lantheaume:
[We] requested an interview with him to discuss the account attributed to him by Archbishop Viganò. Lantheaume, who has now left the Vatican diplomatic corps and serves in priestly ministry in France, declined to give an interview, and said he had no intentions of speaking further on the matter.
“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” he wrote to CNA.
The internationally known Fr. Carlos Martins of the Companions of the Cross and the head of Treasures of the Church sacred relics ministry wrote on his Facebook page:
I just spent the last two hours on the phone with a friend in the Vatican Curia. He said that the news of Archbishop Viganò has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb. Two things are universally noted regarding Viganò: 1) He is highly respected as a professional, and 2) His Curial positions gave him clear access to the damning information he reported. In other words, he is not a hack, and he is not relying on rumor. This makes his report absolutely worthy of belief...
In the words of the Curial official I spoke with this afternoon, what Viganò has reported “makes the Borgia popes look like saints.” The feeling in the Curia right now is that the response of Viganò’s enemies will to try to discredit him personally, both because of the impeccability of Viganò’s character and the impossibility of his having interpreted the facts incorrectly. Their only hope will be to try to take energy away from the perversion and corruption that he uncovered. They will likely state that he is a bitter man who is seeking personal aggrandizement after having been exiled from Rome. When this occurs, don’t buy into it. Viganò is retired. He has nothing personally to gain from this [h/t Vox Cantoris].
Rod Dreher tweeted a few hours ago:
US Catholic priest e-mails re: Pope Francis: "He's dead to me. A total fraud now. All these years he has been hammering priests and bishops and now he is shown to be a hypocrite. ... I'm hearing from Rome that Vigano's letter is absolutely credible. No doubts."
And against the attempts by Cardinal Cupich (who Viganò claimed owes his red hat to McCarrick) and others to cast doubt on the very existence of the sanctions against McCarrick, the moderate to liberal Catholic academic and commentator C. C. Pecknold tweeted:
I’ve been hearing all day from reliable sources claiming high-ranking prelates and Vatican officials have confidentially confirmed that private sanctions were in place against McCarrick. It now appears that the Vatican will not dispute this if they go on record.
The response from Francis and his allies to Viganò's statement has been in hindsight predictable, tracking the strategy employed against the dubia and the dubia cardinals. He cannot confirm the claims, obviously, since that would be tantamount to admitting grave crimes that Francis himself has strongly and repeatedly condemned.

Indeed, a few commentators (including this mischivious one) noted how Viganò's bombshell document was released only a few hours after the scatologically-prone Bergoglio had publicly referred to those who covered up clerical sex-abuse as "caca".

But any denials run the risk of being exposed as lies.

Thus, the "no comment" of yesterday's papal plane interview.

But at the same time, Bergoglio's minions are going after Viganò with verve and viciousness:

Massimo Faggioli: Viganò is a "terrorist".

Austin Ivereigh: Viganò is engaged in a "crude putsch" for "Team Burke".

National Catholic Reporter's Michael Sean Winters: Viganò is the conservative Catholic Oliver Stone (!) - "a trafficker in conspiracy theories who mixes fact, fiction and venom..."

And so on.

I hope they're terrified.

Twenty-four hours ago, I judged that Francis could easily survive this. He didn't rise to the top for nothing. Now I am not so sure.

"Beautiful Morning," Hilary White wrote, attaching a video: "Ding Dong the Witch is dead."

She hope she's right.

Monday, June 4, 2018

"Do you like Pope Francis?" New Italian Families Minister: "Let's just say I prefer Cardinal Burke"

Lorenzo Fontana

In the first post-war Italian elections of 1948, Pope Pius XII told Catholics that they could not vote for the socialist and communist left.

A few generations later, in the elections of 2018, the current occupant of the Papal throne sided with the socialist and communist left.

This would have been a stunning development if we had not already become so used to the radical and bizarre directions Francis has attempted to take the Church in the last five years.  

Fortunately, the majority of Italian voters were on the other side.

Lorenzo Fontana, 38, became the Minister for Family and Disability in the new Italian coalition government of Giuseppe Conte on June 1.

Gloria TV just reported on a 2016 interview he had with Italian media:
In November 2016, he told liberoquotidiano.it that he impressed his future wife Emilia on her first visit to Verona by taking her to the Old Latin Mass. 
To the question whether he is "ultra-Catholic" Fontana replied, “I try to be Catholic. It is not easy.” 
Asked, if he likes Pope Francis, Fontana said, “Let’s say that I prefer Cardinal Burke.”
Here is the current Wikipedia entry on Fontana's politics:
Fontana is widely considered a social conservative. He calls himself a "crusader" who fights against abortion, same-sex civil unions and stepchild adoption, which he considers as a "weakening of the family". He is also against "pro-LGBT" sexual education, stating that Vladimir Putin's Russia "is the reference for those who believe in a nationalist model of society". On 2 June 2018, the day after becoming minister, he added that "gay families do not exist". 
He strongly opposes illegal immigration to Italy, claiming that it is, together with the "gay marriages and the so-called gender theory in schools", a serious threat that "aims to erase the Italian people along with their communities and traditions". 
Fontana is married and has one daughter. He is a Roman Catholic.

H/t Hilary White at What's Up with Francis Church @WUWTS

Monday, April 16, 2018

Pope Francis Weighs in on the Death Camps*


Today, Pope Francis was asked about the pending murders of millions of additional people in the many extermination camps operated by the Nazis across Central and Eastern Europe:
I entrust to your prayer the members of those peoples and nations, living, sometimes for a long period, in situations of restricted movement, involuntary captivity or other potentially fatal circumstances due to the requirements of the war. By these I chiefly mean the Jews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals, Polish professionals and others, and of course Catholics. These are delicate and complex situations. We pray that every group and race is always respected in its dignity and treated in a way adapted to its condition, with the agreement of the relevant parties including local authorities and political and military professionals.
A week earlier, the Pope had "tweeted" his support for those being transferred to Auschwitz-Birkenau and destined for its gas chambers:
It is my sincere hope that everything necessary may be done in order to continue compassionately accompanying the Jews and others on their difficult journey made necessary by the current situation, and that the deep suffering of those affected by these measures may be heard. I am praying for the Jews, as well as for Germany and all others that may be involved.


*If you think this parody is unfair, tell that to Alfie Evans. 

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Pope Francis Disappears from Ignatius Press Catalog


In the Spring of 2014, the Catholic publisher Ignatius Press featured nine books by or about Pope Francis in their catalog, from The Way of Humility: Corruption and Sin & On Self-Accusation by Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio (Pope Francis) to Francis: Pope of a New World by Andrea Tornielli. Ignatius also advertised a "Pope Francis Portrait," the "Pope Francis Rosary" and the DVD, Who is Pope Francis: The Life and Message of Pope FrancisHere is the full list:
The Way of Humility: Corruption and Sin & On Self-Accusation by Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) 
Education for Choosing Life: Proposals for Difficult Times by Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) 
Pope Francis: A short bio of the Holy Father 
Pope Francis: Our Brother, Our Friend: Personal Recollections about the Man Who Became Pope, edited by Alejandro Bermudez 
The Light of Faith (Lumen Fidei) by Pope Francis 
Francis: Pope of a New World by Andrea Tornielli 
Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio by Francesca Ambrogietti and Sergio Rubin 
On Heaven and Earth: Pope Francis on Faith, Family, and the Church in the Twenty-First Century by Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio & Abraham Skorka 
In Him Alone Is Our Hope: The Church According to the Heart of Pope Francis by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) 
Pope Francis Portrait 
Pope Francis Rosary 
DVD: Who Is Pope Francis? The Life and Message of Pope Francis
As Francis was, of course, then, the Pope, this was par for the course for one of the major Catholic publishers. The first catalog to be created after Francis' election, Fall 2013, featured many items relating to the new pope. And similar large selections of works by or about Francis continued to be featured in successive catalogs up until recently.

Most of the 2014 items are still available on the Ignatius website, and, as might be expected, there are numerous additional books by or about Francis, published in the interim, also available on the site.

However, something else changed.

Pope Francis, and indeed all references to Pope Francis have almost entirely vanished from Ignatius' current (Spring 2018) sixty-four page catalog.

Now absent are all the titles listed above as are all other more recent items still available such as the Pope's four (at the time) encyclicals and exhortations, the book, Pope Francis on the Family, the DVD, Francis the Pope of Renewal, the CD Habemus Papam and so on.

Indeed, as far as I can tell from flipping through the first five pages of a website search, every single item by or about Pope Francis is now on "clearance," including the e-books and, yes, that rosary.

I wrote almost entirely, above, because the Spring 2018 catalog does still contain one book by Francis, Your First Communion, tucked away in the "Books for Children" section. Francis also apparently wrote the Preface to Teaching and Learning the Love of God by Pope Benedict XVI, as well as allegedly penning the Forwards to DoCat - a sort of sequel to the "youth catechism" YouCat - and the YouCat Bible. Francis is also mentioned in passing in the blurb for a book of essays by George Weigel, and in the blurb on Humanae Vitae, it is mentioned that Francis will later be canonizing Pope Paul VI.

These are the sum total of Catalog appearances by the Pope, even including mentions.

By contrast, the Catalog lists least fifteen books by Pope Benedict, over many pages.

There are also two books by Cardinal Sarah.

And there are numerous additional forwards, endorsements, mentions and the like by or about Benedict, Sarah, Cardinals Burke and Müller and various other prelates.

Ignatius has long been a booster of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, at least four of whose books are featured in the current Catalog.

And, of course, as always, the Catalog features hundreds of works by other Catholic laypersons and religious, ranging from G.K. Chesterton to Mother Angelica.

Thus, the Ignatius Catalog looks about like it always has. With one glaring exception:

The current Pope has gone missing.

Except from the Children's section.

Friday, April 13, 2018

Jeffrey Mirus is Unwell (Again)


WARNING: FOUL LANGUAGE.

SOHO — I’ve tried ignoring this Pope but the bastard won’t go away. He's not good for my income stream. Yes, I’m going to have a right old moan today — and this month we hit only 17% of our fundraising goal. Pope of Mercy? You must be joking. Tell that to my broker. But at least I had a booze blowout with a few fellow Neo-Caths to sanitize our sorrows. Last night I poured gin into my computer keyboard and it nearly blew up. There aren’t any prizes for shills but that's just what I am. If I don't play ball regarding Frankie, I get kicked in the balls. Which reminds me, I’m somewhat choked at not having been invited for a drink by the Patheos Women’s Guild. I have been invited to take a drink with Mark Shea though. Bollocks the thought. But [REDACTED], who betrayed his college for 30 silvers, went berserk in TGI Fridays yesterday and bought me two drinks. He asked me for a loan and I pretended he was joking. Could this be some sort of honey trap?

Anyway, I think I may have cracked it this year. The website spend account is sending me to Cuba where I shall be once again lying about Frankie. This could lead to suicide, I fear, if the self-pity and sentiment sets in and I really don’t want to be found dead wearing a "who am I to judge?" button. It looks quite silly enough as it is. Incidentally, do you think I can trot out my "Pope thinking outside the box" argument again? I've already used it fifty-nine fucking times. When they get wise to it, I'll try something different. What?

But by far the worst thing about the shilling, apart from the suicidal tendencies, is the business of acting the clown. This is what my doctorate was for? Snowing the donors. But who else will Help Keep Jeff Out of the Nick.

Now if Bergo could read, I’d sit right down and write him a letter. Dear Super Pope, it would start too. He likes a little sycophancy, as we all know, as do all idols, gods, features editors, publicans, bank managers and anybody else in the nursing business. For one thing I’d ask for a German Cardinal to drop in twice a week and pass me an envelope. Secondly I’d like a return ticket to Disney for the rest of the Papal Mystery Tour plus a one-way ticket out of Londonistan to anywhere. Then I’d like an introduction to one of those extraordinary Irish women who’ve been brought up to tolerate the most appalling five-thousand word blog posts on Vatican II and even come back for more.


So, over there, Simon Bolivar's birthday is coming up, which I hear is sort of like Christmas but for Masons. That puts me in the mood. If you should be Catholic enough — sorry rich enough — to think that it’s better to give than to receive, then I suppose we must consider the wonderful blog readers who’ve put up with a lot from me this past year. I’d very much like to take all the female staff on this web rag out to lunch. Not that I have any. But still. 
I’d like to buy Crabby Trad a colour telly and then make her watch it and I’d like to get Snotty Trad a dictionary of slang so as to enrich his abuse of me. I’d love to give Ignatius Press the book they commissioned me to write in 1897 and I’d like to give my landlord April's rent. As it is, I’m afraid that all I’ll be giving this year is a hard time to my barman. At least I can tell him my true feelings about Frankie. Not that he cares. He's a Low Anglican. I shall also bung my doorman who amazingly deludes himself that I’m a professor and a gentleman. The poor fool probably thinks I’m Cardinal Newman too.

***

Originally posted at Mahound's Paradise on July 11th, 2015.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

How to Stop Being a Terror-Blogger


Yesterday, I excerpted some of Gaudete Et Exsultate - those passages that were the most blatant attacks against faithful Catholics now perceived by the Francis regime as enemies. Unfortunately, I left out one of the "best" ones - footnote 73, which equates the regime's critics to literal terrorists. I was reminded of this by Call Me Jorge (a hardened terrorist blog if there ever was one):
Detraction and calumny are acts of terrorism: a bomb is thrown, it explodes and the attacker walks away calm and contented. This is completely different from the nobility of those who speak to others face to face, serenely and frankly, out of genuine concern for their good (fn. 73).
Since the bizarrely named "Call to Holiness" is itself a cluster-bomb of detraction and calumny against so many, the "in your face" nature of this sort of projecting should win some kind of award. Perhaps Bergoglio's favorite non-mythical being (whose real existence was surprisingly affirmed in that exhortation) can give one out.

The word on the street is that this latest document by "Francis" is as much the work of Antonio "Vice-Pope" Spadaro as anyone else. That Spadaro was caught using a sock-puppet Twitter account to attack the dubia cardinals (though it is unknown whether or not he was calm and contented afterward) should entitle him to his own award.

As for the nobility of face to face meetings, one wonders how such serene and frank discussions are supposed to occur: 

"Holy Father, I was wondering if you had ever considered giving up your Peronist religion of power in favor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Just a thought and no pressure. By the way, are we still on for lunch even though you just suppressed my order and put me under house arrest?"

"Tucho, my brother, I recommend full and sincere repentance before it's too late. Some say it beats kissing, but your mileage may vary."

Fr. Antonio, is there any chance you might ghostwrite a response to those questions my friends and I asked your boss a year-and-a-half ago? I don't mean to bug, but two of us are already dead."

According to one report, Bergoglio has now taken to eating his meals with his back turned to the rest of the room in order to prevent possible incidents of conversation with the other diners.

"I'm not your regular waiter. Actually I'm a cardinal. But this was the only way I could find to ask you whether there are still absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions. Also that will be 83 Euros, not including tip."

Monday, April 9, 2018

A Shortened Gaudete Et Exsultate (Against All My Enemies)

Bergoglio, yesterday
I've read the new Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete Et Exsultate so you don't have to.

You would be better off reading a comic book.

This latest piece of evil dreck, signed by "Francis," but probably written by Victor Manuel (Tucho) Fernández, the foul-mouthed "kissing priest," or one of the other new-Borgia Pope's corrupt and perverted coterie, is 22,087 words too long.

I've shortened it to less than 15% of that length, leaving in only the most important bits.

Unsurprisingly, as many news organizations and commenters - both pro-, neutral and anti-Francis have already noted, in some ways this "Call to Holiness" can be reduced to a series of attacks against Jorge Mario Bergoglio's perceived enemies, not the least of which simply are faithful Catholics.

One of them said today that the document was "sinister" in that, while it could (with some stretching) be read in an orthodox manner, the more obvious interpretation is a diatribe against the Enemies of the Revolution.

As well as a call to action to go after those enemies with what energy the Francis Junta still has left.

In other words, it's a set of truths, half-truths and lies worthy of the devil himself.

By the way, the devil himself gets a mention in the document. See, you can just see the idiot chorus proclaiming, the Pope does believe in hell.

Is it disrespectful of the papal office to mock Gaudete Et Exsultate? On the contrary, I think it's disrespectful of the office not to mock it.

As another friend remarked, yesterday: "I’ve never seen such broad, open hatred of Bergoglio. His stock has tanked harder than Facebook."

I suspect this latest emanation will hasten that. Anyone with half a Catholic brain can see exactly what he's doing.

These excerpts - most of them full paragraphs - are taken directly from Gaudete Et Exsultate in the order written. Where the sources are not obvious, I've noted them. Unsurprisingly, they are all references to Francis' own statements. 

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION

GAUDETE ET EXSULTATE

OF THE HOLY FATHER

FRANCIS

ON THE CALL TO HOLINESS IN TODAY’S WORLD


Against the Contemplatives  
It is not healthy to love silence while fleeing interaction with others, to want peace and quiet while avoiding activity, to seek prayer while disdaining service (26).
Against Faithful Catholics (many of whom are heretics)   
Here I would like to mention two false forms of holiness that can lead us astray: gnosticism and pelagianism. They are two heresies from early Christian times, yet they continue to plague us. In our times too, many Christians, perhaps without realizing it, can be seduced by these deceptive ideas, which reflect an anthropocentric immanentism disguised as Catholic truth. Let us take a look at these two forms of doctrinal or disciplinary security that give rise “to narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyses and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others” Evangelii Gaudium24 November 2013, 94: AAS 105, 2013, 1060 (35). 
Thanks be to God, throughout the history of the Church it has always been clear that a person’s perfection is measured not by the information or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity. “Gnostics” do not understand this, because they judge others based on their ability to understand the complexity of certain doctrines. They think of the intellect as separate from the flesh, and thus become incapable of touching Christ’s suffering flesh in others, locked up as they are in an encyclopaedia of abstractions. In the end, by disembodying the mystery, they prefer “a God without Christ, a Christ without the Church, a Church without her people” Homily at Mass in Casa Santa Marta, 11 November 2016 (37).
Certainly this is a superficial conceit: there is much movement on the surface, but the mind is neither deeply moved nor affected. Still, gnosticism exercises a deceptive attraction for some people, since the gnostic approach is strict and allegedly pure, and can appear to possess a certain harmony or order that encompasses everything (38). 
Gnostics think that their explanations can make the entirety of the faith and the Gospel perfectly comprehensible. They absolutize their own theories and force others to submit to their way of thinking. A healthy and humble use of reason in order to reflect on the theological and moral teaching of the Gospel is one thing. It is another to reduce Jesus’ teaching to a cold and harsh logic that seeks to dominate everything (39) 
Gnosticism is one of the most sinister ideologies because, while unduly exalting knowledge or a specific experience, it considers its own vision of reality to be perfect. Thus, perhaps without even realizing it, this ideology feeds on itself and becomes even more myopic. It can become all the more illusory when it masks itself as a disembodied spirituality. For gnosticism “by its very nature seeks to domesticate the mystery”, whether the mystery of God and his grace, or the mystery of others’ lives Letter to the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina for the Centenary of the Founding of the Faculty of Theology3 March 2015, (40). 
When somebody has an answer for every question, it is a sign that they are not on the right road. They may well be false prophets, who use religion for their own purposes, to promote their own psychological or intellectual theories. God infinitely transcends us; he is full of surprises. We are not the ones to determine when and how we will encounter him; the exact times and places of that encounter are not up to us. Someone who wants everything to be clear and sure presumes to control God’s transcendence (41). 
It is not easy to grasp the truth that we have received from the Lord. And it is even more difficult to express it. So we cannot claim that our way of understanding this truth authorizes us to exercise a strict supervision over others’ lives. Here I would note that in the Church there legitimately coexist different ways of interpreting many aspects of doctrine and Christian life; in their variety, they “help to express more clearly the immense riches of God’s word”. It is true that “for those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance, this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion”. Indeed, some currents of gnosticism scorned the concrete simplicity of the Gospel and attempted to replace the trinitarian and incarnate God with a superior Unity, wherein the rich diversity of our history disappeared Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium24 November 2013, 40: AAS 105, 2013, 1037 (43). 
In effect, doctrine, or better, our understanding and expression of it, “is not a closed system, devoid of the dynamic capacity to pose questions, doubts, inquiries… The questions of our people, their suffering, their struggles, their dreams, their trials and their worries, all possess an interpretational value that we cannot ignore if we want to take the principle of the incarnation seriously. Their wondering helps us to wonder, their questions question us” Video Message to Participants in an International Theological Congress held at the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, 1-3 September 2015: AAS 107, 2015, 980 (44). 
A dangerous confusion can arise. We can think that because we know something, or are able to explain it in certain terms, we are already saints, perfect and better than the “ignorant masses” (45). 
[Saint] Francis recognized the temptation to turn the Christian experience into a set of intellectual exercises that distance us from the freshness of the Gospel (46). 
Those who yield to this pelagian or semi-pelagian mindset, even though they speak warmly of God’s grace, “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style” Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium24 November 2013, 94: AAS 105, 2013, 1059 (49). 
Underneath our orthodoxy, our attitudes might not correspond to our talk about the need for grace, and in specific situations we can end up putting little trust in it (50). 
Still, some Christians insist on taking another path, that of justification by their own efforts, the worship of the human will and their own abilities. The result is a self-centred and elitist complacency, bereft of true love. This finds expression in a variety of apparently unconnected ways of thinking and acting: an obsession with the law, an absorption with social and political advantages, a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine and prestige, a vanity about the ability to manage practical matters, and an excessive concern with programmes of self-help and personal fulfilment. Some Christians spend their time and energy on these things, rather than letting themselves be led by the Spirit in the way of love, rather than being passionate about communicating the beauty and the joy of the Gospel and seeking out the lost among the immense crowds that thirst for Christ (57). 
Not infrequently, contrary to the promptings of the Spirit, the life of the Church can become a museum piece or the possession of a select few. This can occur when some groups of Christians give excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting. The Gospel then tends to be reduced and constricted, deprived of its simplicity, allure and savour. This may well be a subtle form of pelagianism, for it appears to subject the life of grace to certain human structures. It can affect groups, movements and communities, and it explains why so often they begin with an intense life in the Spirit, only to end up fossilized… or corrupt (58). 
Once we believe that everything depends on human effort as channelled by ecclesial rules and structures, we unconsciously complicate the Gospel and become enslaved to a blueprint that leaves few openings for the working of grace (59). 
May the Lord set the Church free from these new forms of gnosticism and pelagianism that weigh her down and block her progress along the path to holiness! These aberrations take various shapes, according to the temperament and character of each person. So I encourage everyone to reflect and discern before God whether they may be present in their lives (62).
Against the Pidgeonholers 
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” 
These are strong words in a world that from the beginning has been a place of conflict, disputes and enmity on all sides, where we constantly pigeonhole others on the basis of their ideas, their customs and even their way of speaking or dressing. Ultimately, it is the reign of pride and vanity, where each person thinks he or she has the right to dominate others (71).
Against the Sour  
If we are constantly upset and impatient with others, we will end up drained and weary. But if we regard the faults and limitations of others with tenderness and meekness, without an air of superiority, we can actually help them and stop wasting our energy on useless complaining (72).
Against the Enemies of Justice and the Poor  
True justice comes about in people’s lives when they themselves are just in their decisions; it is expressed in their pursuit of justice for the poor and the weak. While it is true that the word “justice” can be a synonym for faithfulness to God’s will in every aspect of our life, if we give the word too general a meaning, we forget that it is shown especially in justice towards those who are most vulnerable: “Seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Is 1:17) (79).
Against Gossips  
This Beatitude makes us think of the many endless situations of war in our world. Yet we ourselves are often a cause of conflict or at least of misunderstanding. For example, I may hear something about someone and I go off and repeat it. I may even embellish it the second time around and keep spreading it… And the more harm it does, the more satisfaction I seem to derive from it. The world of gossip, inhabited by negative and destructive people, does not bring peace. Such people are really the enemies of peace; in no way are they “blessed” (87).
Against the Enemies of Change (with support from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops)  
Jesus himself warns us that the path he proposes goes against the flow, even making us challenge society by the way we live and, as a result, becoming a nuisance. He reminds us how many people have been, and still are, persecuted simply because they struggle for justice, because they take seriously their commitment to God and to others. Unless we wish to sink into an obscure mediocrity... (90). 
For Christians, this involves a constant and healthy unease. Even if helping one person alone could justify all our efforts, it would not be enough. The bishops of Canada made this clear when they noted, for example, that the biblical understanding of the jubilee year was about more than simply performing certain good works. It also meant seeking social change: “For later generations to also be released, clearly the goal had to be the restoration of just social and economic systems, so there could no longer be exclusion” SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION OF THE CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Open Letter to the Members of Parliament, The Common Good or Exclusion: A Choice for Canadians, 1 February 2001, 9 (99).
Against the Pro-Lifers  
The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty (101).
Against the Islamophobes 
We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ”, with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude” (102). 
A similar approach is found in the Old Testament: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex 22:21). “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:33-34). This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad (103).
Against the Bloggers  
Christians too can be caught up in networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned. The result is a dangerous dichotomy, since things can be said there that would be unacceptable in public discourse, and people look to compensate for their own discontent by lashing out at others. It is striking that at times, in claiming to uphold the other commandments, they completely ignore the eighth, which forbids bearing false witness or lying, and ruthlessly vilify others. Here we see how the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze (cf. Jas 3:6) (115). 
The saints do not waste energy complaining about the failings of others; they can hold their tongue before the faults of their brothers and sisters, and avoid the verbal violence that demeans and mistreats others. Saints hesitate to treat others harshly; they consider others better than themselves (cf. Phil 2:3) (116). 
It is not good when we look down on others like heartless judges, lording it over them and always trying to teach them lessons. That is itself a subtle form of violence. (117).
Against the Sour (again)  
Far from being timid, morose, acerbic or melancholy, or putting on a dreary face, the saints are joyful and full of good humour. Though completely realistic, they radiate a positive and hopeful spirit (122).
Against the Enemies of Change (again - with support from Saint Lightyear)  
Like the prophet Jonah, we are constantly tempted to flee to a safe haven. It can have many names: individualism, spiritualism, living in a little world, addiction, intransigence, the rejection of new ideas and approaches, dogmatism, nostalgia, pessimism, hiding behind rules and regulations. We can resist leaving behind a familiar and easy way of doing things (134). 
God is eternal newness. He impels us constantly to set out anew, to pass beyond what is familiar, to the fringes and beyond (135). 
Complacency is seductive; it tells us that there is no point in trying to change things, that there is nothing we can do, because this is the way things have always been and yet we always manage to survive. By force of habit we no longer stand up to evil. We “let things be”, or as others have decided they ought to be. Yet let us allow the Lord to rouse us from our torpor, to free us from our inertia. Let us rethink our usual way of doing things; let us open our eyes and ears, and above all our hearts, so as not to be complacent about things as they are, but unsettled by the living and effective word of the risen Lord (137).  
In this way, the Church will not stand still, but constantly welcome the Lord’s surprises (139).
Against the Contemplatives (again)  
When we live apart from others, it is very difficult to fight against concupiscence, the snares and temptations of the devil and the selfishness of the world (140).
Against the Youthful Zappers  
All of us, but especially the young, are immersed in a culture of zapping (167).
Against the Enemies of Change (again)  
This is all the more important when some novelty presents itself in our lives. Then we have to decide whether it is new wine brought by God or an illusion created by the spirit of this world or the spirit of the devil. At other times, the opposite can happen, when the forces of evil induce us not to change, to leave things as they are, to opt for a rigid resistance to change (168). 
We must remember that prayerful discernment must be born of a readiness to listen: to the Lord and to others, and to reality itself, which always challenges us in new ways. Only if we are prepared to listen, do we have the freedom to set aside our own partial or insufficient ideas, our usual habits and ways of seeing things. In this way, we become truly open to accepting a call that can shatter our security, but lead us to a better life. It is not enough that everything be calm and peaceful. God may be offering us something more, but in our comfortable inadvertence, we do not recognize it (172) 
It is not a matter of applying rules or repeating what was done in the past, since the same solutions are not valid in all circumstances and what was useful in one context may not prove so in another. The discernment of spirits liberates us from rigidity, which has no place before the perennial “today” of the risen Lord. The Spirit alone can penetrate what is obscure and hidden in every situation, and grasp its every nuance, so that the newness of the Gospel can emerge in another light (173).
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 19 March, the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, in the year 2018, the sixth of my Pontificate. 
Francis