Bergoglio cracks down: No fags for your orgies! - Sunday 5th-Saturday 11th of November

Like him or loathe him, one has to admit that were Bergoglio's pontificate not so tragic, it would be hilariously comedic. One of the most amusing things about the man has to be his gift for mis-prioritisation, was was on full display this past week. Another tragically amusing thing about him is taking narcicissm to whole new levels. That too was on display this week.

First Bergoglio whined about how people take pictures at Mass, reminding pilgrims - although I would rather use the term victims for anybody who gets exposed to one of Bergoglio's audiences - that it is not a show. This is strange talk, from a man who has himself had clown Masses and who forced a beach ball to sit firmly on the altar - a beach ball which seemed more pious than Bergoglio at the time since it seemed to realise it was out of place and tried to roll off several times. It is interesting though to note the words that the big hypocrite used:

...And I tell you that it gives me so much sadness when I celebrate here in the Piazza or in the Basilica and I see so many raised mobiles (cell phones), not just of the faithful, but even of some priests and bishops too. But please! The Mass is not a show...”

What is interesting with that is not that Bergoglio often treats the Mass as a show - cue the feet-kissing and the sign of peace which takes him all around the Church at times - but condemns others when they do it. In fact, I am kind of happy to learn from Bergoglio that he doesn't think the Mass is a show, seeing as he often treats it as such. No, what is interesting is the fact that even when he is right - that the Mass is not a show - he manages to make it all about himself: "It gives me so much sadness". It's just more "Me! Me! Me!, I, I , I! Me! Me! Most humble me!" from this narcissist.

My policy has always been that one ought not to take pictures at Mass, and if one does so it should be discreet, and one should not receive Holy Communion at a Mass in which one has been taking pictures as one has not been in total submission to the occasion. However, if it annoys Bergoglio, I am willing to revise my policy.

The most amusing thing, however, was that his chronic mis-prioritatisation was in full display during the week as it was announced by Greg Burke that Bergoglio has decided to forbid the sale of cigarettes in the Vatican. I couldn't help but laugh when I realised it was not a spoof, I had to find multiple sources reporting this because at first sight I thought it was a joke.

When you think of all the scandals which have hit the Vatican in just the past few months - from population control advocates giving talks, to adultery promotion, to sodomy promotion, to financial improprieties, and of course, the infamous homosexual orgy monsignor, of whom Bergoglio and the Vatican media apparatus has remained silent - it is remarkable to think that the one thing Bergoglio thought it wise to crack down on was cigarette smoking. If one had read the headline "Pope outlaws fags on Vatican premises", with a Catholic pope one might have tended to think "I didn't even know there were any at the Vatican! Be gone with them!". With Bergoglio though, it is a different fag which is being banned.

The reason is very simple: The Holy See cannot contribute to an activity that clearly damages the health of people.

The message was certainly clear, homosexual orgies I'll not talk about or condemn, but cigarettes are banned. My regime couldn't care less about spiritual death even though Jesus Christ speaks of it as the most dangerous thing, but if the WHO mentions smoking as physically harmful, you can count on me to act on it. The message, I am sure, was clearly received, but I summarise it below in case anybody has missed it.

In other words, no cigarettes after your orgies, or during, or before, or whatever the protocol is at Bergoglio's Vatican. No mercy for smokers, but for adulterers and everyone else; well, unless they count Rosaries or say the Confiteor in Latin. In other words, no fags for your orgies!

Another noteworthy thing is that Bergoglio chose to have his media folks announce this as though it was a momentous event. Look, the Vatican has 1 store of which I know, and possibly 2 if they have a bar at the Domus Santa Marthae. We are talking at most about 3 stores at the Vatican, so there was no good reason to make it out as though this was momentous news. If Bergoglio had considered cigarettes so harmful as to want to ban them at all Vatican stores, all he would have needed to do was to advice his assistant to do it in all the 3 places in person. I am sure it would have taken less than 20 minutes to walk to all the joints which sell cigarettes at the Vatican. Such discretion was not good enough for an attention whore of an apostatate, and once again, his media manager had to make it seems as though the most humble pope in history was doing a great service to mankind by announcing his decision to the whole world.

It could have been worse, I suppose: He might have forbidden the sale of all cigarettes which were not made from organic tobacco. So I suppose in that sense he did not exhaust all the comedic possibilities of this particular absurdity. Maybe he is not finished with this topic then.

That covers most of my reflections this week, and the rest I shall mention only in passing.

In another...

A terrible force of destruction meets an immovable object - Early reactions to Correctio Filialis - Sunday 24th to Saturday 30th of September

It turns out that the Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis was released at exactly midnight of September 24th, and not on September 23rd as I had previously written. What confused me was the fact that I went to Rorate Caeli shortly after midnight and found it there, and naturally assumed that it had been posted somewhat earlier. If we check their timestamp though it seemed to have been set for publication at exactly midnight. I had caught wind of something being released from reading Fr. John Hunwicke's post from the day before, in which he claimed that something big was expected on the Sunday. For that reason I was surprised to learn that it had been released before, or so I thought, and it didn't help that so many blogs I read put the 23rd on it.

Time zones help explain that confusion, because many of the blogs I follow are from the Western hemisphere, where it was still the 23rd on the day of publication. I would much rather use the Rome time since the document was meant for Rome, and since it was released on the 24th my time as well, so I'll henceforth refer to the 24th as the release date, but I digress, although...Distinctions Matter!

The phrase "an irresistible force meets an immovable object" is I believe quite common in weather-speak and I believe it is used when a weather front meets a mountain area or some such thing. In my particulary context, it obviously refers to Bergoglio and while he has been immovable in his obstinacy against Catholic doctrine and practice, in this particular analogy he predictably plays the part of "a terrible force of destruction" with the signatoris of Correction Filialis acting as representatives of the immovable object that is the deposit of faith.

For my part I acquired it from "The Dark Knight" - one of the best movies ever made, by the way, and unquestionably one of the most well-made, if not the ouright winner of that particular category. In the final confrontation with the Joker, Batman saves him from an untimely death out of moral principle, despite spending most of the movie actually trying to stop him, at great danger to his own life and that of others. In that particular scene, the Joker says "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".

My memory tweaked it a bit to read "terrible force of destruction" but I'll stick to that terminology since Bergoglio is unstoppable only on account of the timidity of the hierarchy of the Church, along with the complicity of many modernists in the Catholic establishment at large. He is by no means unstoppable, but that he is a terribe force of destruction I deem indisputable.

The more I think about it, the more I realise just how numerous are the similarities between Bergoglio and the Joker as portrayed in that film. Some time, I might get around to writing about that.

In any case, the correction was an attempt to stop Bergoglio's seemingly unstoppable march towards the destruction of what remains of the Catholic edifice. For what it's worth I don't think he will succeed with or without the correction, but the correction is a huge stumbling block. This has been proved very clearly as Bergoglio's enablers and attack hounds have had no other course but to attack the signatories in defence of Amoris Laetitia, and not the content of the correction itself.

Some have pointed out that there is nothing in the correction which shows that Amoris Laetitia actually teaches heresy, completely bypassing, it seems, the main charge of the signatories, which is that in his words and his deeds since the publication of Amoris Laeitia, Bergoglio has encouraged heretical readings of it (an already dubious text at best), in turn propagating heresies. If you're going to critique a document, the least you can do is read it and attack what the document actually asserts.

Others have pointed out that the number of signatories is small, the hypocrisy of which one writer, I believe on Rorate Caeli, took exception. He notes that the Bergoglio party has spent the better part of 5 years (and 5 long long years, I hasten to add) intimidating those who disagree with the dangerous direction this horrendous pontificate has taken us, only to point to the number of his opponents being small as proof that the majority is not with the opposition. We remember, by the way, that Bergoglio speaks constantly of dialogue and parrhesia, all the while either threatening or ignoring those who actually attempt to dialogue with him. It seeems hypocrisy is his only mode.

The most ingenious and at the same time non-sensical defence of Amoris Laetitia is that it is all due to a mistranslation! They claim that the whole furore was due to a mistranlation of the Latin. You couldn't make this stuff up!

Christopher Ferrara took dissected this ridiculous claim  at the Remnant. I suppose their implicit claim is that Bergoglio is somehow a Latinist who wrote the whole thing up in Latin, no doubt in their mind consulting the great treasure of Latin writings that the Church possesses. This is a staggering claim, in defending a man whose grasp of Italian evidently is as incompetent as his grasp of Spanish. No matter which language he speaks hardly anybody can figure out what he actually said. I suppose Latin being his primary language might explain why nobody understands him when he speaks any other language, but we are left with the small issue that the official Latin version of Amoris Laetitia was only published in July of this year, well more than a year after the original publication of Amoris Laetitia, and that the document itself was probably written in Spanish, given the large input of Tucho 'art of kissing' Fernandez, the ghostwrite and brains -...


Subscribe to hell