Iran

Chessehead Doland does what he does best, making a fool out of himself and mocking the Church yet again - Sunday 6th of May to Saturday 12th of May

This week's entry will be quite brief, as I have fallen far behind my blogging schedule.

It would be tempting to begin with political matters given that there were some momentous ones this week, but I'll choose to highlight the Met Gala disgrace officiated by Cheesehead Doland with a lot of help from the Vatican.

For anyone who may have missed it, there was a charity gala in New York. This year it was termed "Heavenly Bodies", with a sub-title too long for me to remember and too ridiculous for me to look up. In any case, the Vatican lent some garments and items to the exhibition. The museum itself had some scandalous garments on display, some portraying priestesses' clothes inspired by real priests' attire. The biggest scandal, however, was reserved for the red carpet, when the celebrities paraded in scandalous Catholic-related garments, each more ridiculous than the last, each more blasphemous than the last.

Many were outraged and righly so. Cheesehead Dolan, however, informed us that he saw nothing offensive and nobody out to mock the Church. His sodomitical Jesuit priest buddy Martin followed suit, ecstatic about the blasphemies which the world had witnessed. Cardinal Ravasi represented the Vatican in this horror show. He's head of some pontifical something in charge or culture or some stuff.

Some were keen to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt, insisting that it was not certain that the Vatican was informed of the scandal that the world was about to see, proving yet again that those who defend the NOChurch hierarchy are even more cruel towards the hierarchy than those who attack them. We think they are simply weak, populist, vain and possibly evil, whereas these folks think they are simply mind-numbingly stupid. When the best excuse someone can come up with is that you're a total moron, chances are that they are fooling themselves into that defence.

In any case, Cheesehead Cardinal Dolan soon put paid to that notion with his insistence that he saw nothing blasphemous or mocking. In other words, what he was saying, and the Vatican with him, was that they would have done the very same thing had they had the opportunity. After all, why not, if they saw nothing offensive? They even got to rub shoulders and cleavage with some of the most glamorous women in the entertainment industry, an offer too good for them to refuse for sure.

Many were quick to say: "Imagine if this had been Islam!", "Would they ever do that with Islam?" To that I must once again reply that if the ayatollah of Iran, or indeed any ayatollah, granted me the permission to mock Islam as freely as Cheesehead Dolan and the Vatican did, I would do it to no end. However, they don't, nor should they. They at least pretend to respect the religion they claim to follow at the very least, which is more than we can say about our evidently mainly apostate hierarchy.

The blame cannot and must not fall on the atheist Christianity-hating entertainment industry, which we all know detests Christianity anyway; it has to fall firmly on the shoulders of the Vatican and cheesehead himself for allowing this to happen and allowing themselves to be seen promoting it. If they are invited to a large and prominent mock-fest of Holy Mother Church, you can be sure they will join in, either out of stupidity or out of malice. I cannot, however, accept the notion that the bishops do these kinds of things out of sheer stupidity, unless you can convince me that they are so stupid that somebody dresses them in their robes because they are incapable (the few who still wear robes, let's not forget).

Let us at least give them the benefit of having chosen to betray Christ, instead of assuming that they were suckered into it by liposuctioned over-proportioned barely-clad heavily-cleavaged women!...Although at least in that scenario, these effeminate types would at least be drawn to women, so perhaps there is some charity there after all. I don't buy it in any case.

On the political front, Donald Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. It's hard to see who benefits from this, apart from the warmongers, of whom he is now very prominently a part, it has to be said. Tearing out agreements simply because your predecessor signed them, however incompetent, sodomitical and evil he may have been, is simply no way to behave if you want to make your country 'great again'. The Europeans have insisted that they will resist Trump, although I very much doubt it. After about 70 years of not having a spine, it is difficult to see the Europeans suddenly growing one, especially when they are led by pretty-much the most bought-and-sold unqualified political class to ever see the light of day.

I very much hope to be proved wrong on that.

Donald Trump then has the gall to say that he wants another deal. Who would sign another deal with him? Even if Trump was to keep it, his successor would probably come and rip it up anyway, judging from recent American precedent. Furthermore, which self-respecting country would want to join an agreement whose sole purpose seems to be its humiliation?

In the meantime, Donald Trump continues his warmongering against Iran, to the wild applause of the zionists in Palestine and Islamists in Saudi Arabia. The zionlist-Islamist alliance is strong indeed and Trump seems to be its figurehead.

One of many sad things about this is that as soon as Trump is no longer useful to whomever-he-has-sold-himself-out-to-serve, he will be discarded like a wet rag, given that there is no shortage of material to pin on him. That day may be coming sooner than anyone of us realise, because as useful as Trump has been to the congressional-military-industrial complex, they will never trust him because he is simply too unpredictable. At the first sign of...

The man who might be pope, and actually seems Catholic - Sunday 7th to Saturday 13th of January, 2018

This was, for NOChurch Bergoglian times, a relatively scandal-free week, although this did not spare us notions which would have horrified any even slightly-decent Catholic some 60 years ago or so.

In an interview, Bishop Athanasius Schneider was keen to point out what everyone already knows: Bergoglio has by his intransigence, demagoguery, promotions/demotions and affirmations already answered the dubia questions which were presented to him. In other words, we are in completely uncharted waters and it will no longer do to pretend that Bergoglio is leading the Barque of St. Peter into safe waters, but rather we must face the realisation that he is trying to scuttle the ship. The good bishop did not say that, but  a little creative reading between the lines will tell us that.

A group of converts from Islam has also come to the same realisation and they posted an open letter urging Bergoglio to change his attitudes toward Islam. They point out that conversion to Christianity from Islam comes at great personal cost, so Bergoglio should not be going around minimising the sacrifice that converts make, or confusing the faithful by promoting the notion that Islam, or any other religion for that matter, is the way to God, or even worthy of praise.

The big Bergoglian scandal of the week came with the news that Bergoglio had awarded a pontifical award to a homosexualist abortion promoter from the Netherlands. The award is titled "The Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great" and is supposed to be given to those who through their actions have shown great devotion to the teachings of Holy Mother Church, so we are all longing to know just which of these miscreant's multiple acts of violence against the Catholic faith Bergoglio thinks should be incorporated into the Catechism. The Vatican's defence was that she was awarded the medal for being a visiting diplomat, which as far as excuses go, seems to have been plucked from the equivalent of meat which isn't fit enough to go into  sausages for dogs (if there even is such low-grade meat that is).

The curious thing is that nobody was particularly surprised: We have all got used to the fact that Bergoglio is a death merchant. "Does Pope Francis Have No Shame?", we were asked. The answer, of course, is "no, he is utterly shameless!"

Sticking to the topic of Bergoglio and his death merchant and perverts, a member of the 'Academy for Life' appointed by Bergoglio informed us that couples (by which I, not wanting to waste too much time reading his filth, suppose he means married coupes) are in certain circumstances obliged to use contraception.

Fr. John Hunwicke picked up on an article written in the Catholic Herald titled "How to save the English Church" and was supportive of the ideas proposed. These ideas are that there are places in England which have shown that it is possible to revitalise parishes, if only they are handed over to people who have a sense of purpose. Those parishes entrusted to the Institute of Christ the King in particular have borne great fruit. The author wondered why some of these parishes should not be also handed over to the Ordinariate.  We would all like to know.

Over in Iran, they have now banned English in primary schools in an effort to end/combat "Western cultural invasion". Maybe when they are done trying it over there they can export the idea abroad. I am actually in 100% agreement with them that without English the moral corruption of the youth through popular culture is likely to be much more difficult. Let them learn Chinese or Russian, or Latin!

We were also informed that Bergoglio might have plans in the making to force every priest to swear allegiance to him, as opposed to the Church. We shall keep a watchful eye on this story. It certainly seems to fit the personality of the man, but I doubt it will happen. He doesn't need to anyway, since he has much, if not most, of the NOChurch establishment doing his bidding.

Okay, having written this much, I now realise that the week was actually yet another horrible NOChurch week, but I am done with the bad news...

We did have good news the best of which came with the installation of Archbishop Michel Aupetit in the Archdiocese of Paris. I am not quite sure how this man has managed to slip the Bergoglian drag net because he actually seems more than decent. We are, after all, talking about an appointment by a man who seems to seek out the darkest corners of the Church for the most devious perverts before he makes an appointment, and who seems to reject decent choices in favour of indecent ones, so this appointment is a schock, frankly speaking. Even The Remnant lauded the man, and praise from The Remnant does not come cheap; nor should it. I have previously written that I see this man as papabilia, and I have yet to come across bad news regarding him. He is anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, seems actually Catholic, and has a hollistic view of medical ethics which he has presented in a well-reviewed book, so he is likely to dive arm-deep into the ethical issues plaguing France at the moment. Having been a doctor, he is more than capable of holding his own against those who use trade jargon to promote inaccuracies and outright falsehoods.

I look forward to learning more about the man and if he is even half as good as he seems then it seems promosing.

Our sometimes-friend-sometimes-foe always opinionated Fr. Allan J. McDonald had a piece on how to "popularise ad orientem without disorienting the laity", in response to a piece written by Msgr. Charles Pope. I am in agreement with one of the commenters to the piece who wrote:...

Pages

Subscribe to Iran