Bergoglio death wish

Bergoglio's stupidity catches up with his perversion - Sunday 12th of August to Saturday 8th of September

It has been far too long since I wrote, and it has not been for lack of topics, rather perhaps the exact opposite. There has been so much to write about that it has been difficult to know where to start.

Most of what has caught my attention has been Church scandals, but there have been some siginificant secular news as well. I shall make the unusual choice of starting with the secular news, although I shall only cover  the secular world in brief.  The rest will be taken up by Bergoglio's most headline-grabbing scandal to date, so perhaps it is just as well that my update-rate has been sub-optimal, for otherwise I would have been writing about that very thing all this time; so dominant has it been.

The most significant news was that China may scrap it's abhorrent two-child policy after 40 years of callous murders. What has often been called a one-child policy was for most people always a 2-child policy, since people outside the cities were 'allowed' 2 children, as were those without siblings. I write allowed in quotation marks because I cannot get over how absurd it is that the government sticks its nose into how many children  a couple has. A government can no more allow people to have more than 2 children than it can allow its citizens to breathe, which is to say that having children is a natural right which the government has no right to infringe upon more than it has on our right to breathe. It can only allow it only insofar as it has violated that right in the first place.

In any case, the 2-child policy created a childless society en large, which was not helped by the Chinese traditional preference for boys, or Chinas world-leading suicide rate among women. China is on course to have the oldest population in Asia in a few decades,  and all because of its communist ideologues. When you fight against nature, you will always lose.

I have, however, long maintained that China might indeed become the first country in modern times to outlaw the killing of unborn children, after having allowed and even mandated it. This is because the Chinese are not as ideological as their Western leftists. To them abortion was what they thought would bring them out of poverty. To the Westerners, abortion was a way to rebel against God and former Christendom's cultural and moral heritage, through the 'liberation' of women, which of course, has been the enslavement of women to their sexual appetites. The Chinese have no time for this nonsense; they are materialists. If killing hundreds of millions of children is what they think will bring them wealth, then kill hundreds of millions they shall. They have finally realised that children are not a cause of poverty, but rather a nation's greatest resource, and now they are despreate to increase the birthrate. The easiest and cheapest way is to simply outlaw the killing of children, and you can be sure that if they think that will help their bottom line, then it is exactly what they will do.

I recently read that the Chinese have spoken about introducing a tax on those who don't have children. In other words, my prediction is not far off from being realised.

A bridge collapsed killing at least 35 in Genoa, Italy. This collapse affected me more personally than most other tragedies since I am certain I drove over that very bridge last summer on my way to Florence. In other words, I could have been one of those people. The Italian government, with Salvini at the helm, blamed it on the EU, given it has forced Italy into budget cuts. I hope that was a statement brought out more by being overcome by emotions more than calculated political opportunism, because even by modern political discourse, that is stretching political truthiness beyond breaking point. I do like Salvini a lot, but that was well below the belt. There is much blame to go around, but the EU cannot be blamed for this.

The EU, to the extent it can even be blamed for forcing the Italians to attempt to live within their means, simply called for budget cuts. I am quite certain they never mandated that these cuts be on vital infrastructure. As one good piece pointed out, if Italy did not invest so much on the NATO racket, it might have had more to invest in its infrastructure. Instead of buying fighter jets costing hundreds of millions of euros, they could build very good bridges for much less than that, and save lives while doing it, instead of taking them.  Instead of going along with sanctions on Russia which could have brought billions which might have been used on infrastructure, they decided to go along with the American racket. They could have stood for their sovereignty in both cases. Instead they decided to put the money into the hands of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and the lives this and similar decisions took just ended up being their own.

Russia kept warning against a false-flag chemical-weapons attack in Syria, even providing evidence to the OPCW and the U.N.. The U.S., meanwhile, continued to protect its Syrian Islamists by making the militants know that any false or hoax flag conducted on them would lead to strikes on Syrian government positions, and being the lap dogs they are, the British and French followed suite. This comes as the Syrians and their Russian allies are preparing the final assault on the last major Islamist strong-hold in Syria, having cleared most of the country, despite American interference. The Netherlands, in turn, decided to end support for Syrian militant groups, which confirmed what we have been saying all along - that militants in Syria have been backed up by secular Western countries - in addition to Arab sheiks and Jewish zionists...

The Real Benedict option in these desperate NOChurch times

The term "Benedict option" is normarlly used to refer to a course of action which leads people away from the midst of a messy society and into seclusion, from where they can regroup and re-introduce sanity into the society. It refers to St. Benedict, the founder of Western monasticism, who did just that and whose monastic communities would go on to save the cultural inheritance of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire.

There was a book published not too long ago titled "The Benedict Option" in which an apostate - to Orthodoxy and who is said to be a self-promoter so I'll not mention his name or link to his articles- argues for much the same thing. The fact that St. Benedict strove to secure and promote the Catholic faith does not seem to faze the author, and some reviewers of the book have noted that without the authority of the Church, we would still end up with the same situation since a secluded society, even of moralists, would soon run into disputes about what was moral and what was not. Some would counter that by pointing to the fact that the Catholic Church - at least its earthly hierarchy - has been largely responsible for the destruction of morality in much of the world, a charge I do not dispute. Of course, NOChurch does by no means share the soul of the Catholic Church, but that's a topic for another day.

The biggest fallacy of the author seems to be the presupposition that a secluded society which insists on moral grounds would be left alone by the decadent world around it. There seems to be little grounds for that presupposition given that the modern state does not recognise any sphere in human affairs in which it is not entitled to not only interfere but actually dictate. In the future though, after this particularly self-destructive phase of Western civilisation (or what's left of it anyway) has crumbled, out of the ashes we might well end up having a Benedict option similar to the origial one, which rebuilds what's left of former Christendom.

However, I would like to argue that there does exist in these dark times of the Bergoglian papacy a real Benedict option which we cannot simply dismiss. It requires a re-definition of what is commonly known as the "Benedict option" and it refers rather to a pope, and not a monk, not withstanding the fact that this particular pope told us he would like the life of a monk, though he only manages to make a half-decent impression of one.

The pope in question, of course, is Pope Benedict XVI, and the real "Benedict option" is the notion that Bergoglio is not really the pope, but that Pope Benedict XVI is still the rightful pope.

This notion was popularised by Ann Barnhardt, who pursued it with the "tenacity of of a psychopath", to quote a very good moving which uses the those words to describe  a detective who pursues a very far-fetched theory in attempting to solve a murder of one of his colleagues, and manages to find the murderer in doing so,

As Bergoglio's manners have deteriorated towards total open depravity, more and more have bought into the notion that he is not pope. After all, isn't a Pope supposed to be Catholic? How can a Catholic poke fun at the Holy Trinity? How can a Catholic  insult the mother of God  - multiple times? How can a Catholic insult those who attempt to convert others to the one true faith, while praising some of the most immoral apostates in history in the process? How can a decent priest surround himself with sodomites and paedophile-enablers? How can a pope attack the sacred institution of marriage? How can a pope promote sodomy? How can an even half-decent Catholic shower praise at mass murderers and mass abortionists? How can an even moderately sub-intelligent human being advance the notion that youth unemployment is root cause of evil in the world today? How can a pope state that communists are the real Christians? I could go on and on and on, and on...

The simple answer to that is that Bergoglio is not Catholic, and more or less the only people who believe that Bergoglio is Catholic are the neo-Catholics of the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-or-pretend-it-is-good-if-the-pope-does-it Novus Ordite variety. Most traditionalists, I would argue, have realised that Bergoglio is not pope, and most non-Catholics who follow the man realise that he also is not Catholic, which is why it is popular among modernists and leftists to openly state that Bergoglio is attempting to completely revamp the Church but is being held back by conservatives and resisters (i.e., that he is not Catholic). In fact, Bergoglio has used much the same words, as have a few of his closest collaborators.

In claiming that Bergoglio is not Catholic, I am naturally counting as Catholic someone who actually believes in the Catholic faith, in Holy Mother Church as the Church divinely instituted by Christ, and one who desires to further her divinely-commissioned purpose: the salvation of souls. Strictly speaking, of course, a Catholic is anybody baptised into the Catholic Church by either baptism or blood. That allows us to use a more theological than cultural definition, while also allowing us to rule out as Catholics such as Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler, Arius and the like, who in a strict application of the term are simply bad Catholics and not non-Catholics.

The basic premise is this: The Church is a communion of faith, and those who deviate or reject even a portion of the faith find themselves outside this communion. Our heretic-in-chief has rejected a large chunk of the faith. Truth be told, it would be difficult to point to any aspect of the Catholic faith that he actually accepts. The only thing he seems to embrace papal authority, albeit with a totally faulty conception of it and its duties, because he really only seems to...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio death wish