Home > Author Archives: Stramentarius

Author Archives: Stramentarius

March 18th, 2018

Papal Disasters, St Patrick and Faggotry

Here are two challenging thoughts.

The first is from Fr John Hunwicke, and it’s the best summary of the present papacy I’ve seen yet.

During the Bergoglian era, the two major disasters have been the shiftiness, accompanied by unbecoming bluster, in the area of paedophilia and coverups and cronyism; and attempts to get away with perverting the Church’s moral teaching by stealth.

This was prompted  largely by the unsuccessful attempt by Pope Francis’ supremo for communications, Mgr Dario Edoardo Viganó,  to manipulate the media into believing that Pope Emeritus Benedict, in a recent letter, had expressed unqualified and fulsome support for his successor. This was done by deleting  portions of the letter which tended to  show the contrary. Pope Benedict was  in fact declining to write an endorsement of a series of booklets published under the auspices of Pope Francis.

The second thought arises from Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s St Patrick’s Day junketings in the United States. Today’s blog post by Ann Barnhardt is fortuitously, but amazingly, à propos. It says, among other things:

Saint Patrick’s greatest miracle was driving all of the faggots out of Ireland.  This was a key reason why he was recognized as a saint, and this was one of his greatest miracles.  “Snakes” is code for faggots – back when people literally did not discuss faggots and faggotry out loud because it is THAT DISGUSTING.

HE. DROVE. THE. FAGGOTS. OUT.

EVERY. LAST. ONE.

Can you imagine?  Can you imagine what a vastly, vastly improved world this would be if there were NO FAGGOTS?

I can’t discover where Ann got  the idea that “snakes” is code for homosexuals. But if by “faggots” (the American word for queers) she means  just militant sodomites and NOT everyone  struggling with homosexual temptations then she’s quite right. I hope I understand her correctly, but I think she should spell it out.

March 1st, 2017

Nice One, Holy Father!

With acknowledgments to the blog Ignatius His Conclave…

image1

Well, what HAS  Pope Francis given up?

If you can take a really sick joke (not original) the answer is……

…..Sixty million Chinese Catholics.

February 3nd, 2018

Varadkar Should Wake up and Smell the Gas

One of the most loyal subscribers to the Brandsma Review in the days when I was editor was Caitriona Connolly of Templemore, Co. Tipperary.  A few days ago Miss  Connolly, disgusted by Leo Varadkar’s  abortion campaign, sent him the following e-mail. I hope it makes him want to crawl under a stone and hide, but I fear the man has no shame: which is why he and his henchmen keeping calling for a courteous, civilised  debate on their plan to legalise baby-killing. They know that if the gloves really come off—as they should—the Eighth Amendment can be saved.

Dear Taoiseach…

It is most commendable that you today attended a ceremony to commemorate the unfortunate victims of Hitler’s atrocities. RTÉ news reported: “Leo Varadkar said it was important to understand how the Jewish people became victims so we can intervene when other groups are being victimised due to racism or discrimination.” 

The breath-taking, mind-melting element in all of this is that you appear to be utterly blind to the fact that the “unborn” are today’s victims, and you, sir, stand in Hitler’s shoes! The womb is today’s gas chamber and you are leading the posse to exterminate countless unborn victims.

Hitler had his list—Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies. Your list is infinitely more broad ranging—all unborn lives up to 12 weeks of age, the handicapped and those not deemed to have lives worth living (by some). 

Pro-abortion politicians et al. are today’s Nazis, so now, perhaps, you will understand how those Nazis who defended themselves did so. They were as unremorseful and as comfortable in their skin as you currently are in yours. But that changed for a good number of them, when the world held them to ransom, and their eyes were opened and their ears were opened!

You’ve been told relentlessly about the wrongness of abortion and the correctness of the sanctity of human life. So now—are you going to wake up and smell the roses, or will it be the smell of gas for you?
Yours faithfully
Caitríona Connolly, Templemore

January 30th, 2018

Leo Varadkar’s god.

A few days ago the world quite rightly commemorated the Nazi holocaust.

Fr John Hunwicke’s blog equally rightly pointed out  that today’s  “politicians and media gauleiters, who are so Correct when speaking about the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem, are poor and blind and murderous fools when it comes to the Final Solution of the Baby Problem. Leo Varadkar, an Irishman, elegantly demonstrated this when he chose the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day to commit himself to the great god of abortion whose faithful promise is I am come that you may have Death, and have it more abundantly.”

January 22nd 2018

The Wondrous Victory O’er the Embryo

My brother-in-law Alec O’Connor, who died last week, was something of a prophet. Way back in the mid-90s, not much more than a decade after the passing of the Eighth Amendment, he could see that an attempt to overturn the result of the Pro-Life Referendum was bound to come sooner or later, and that such an attempt, backed by powerful political and media forces, would be very likely to succeed. Hence His poem, “The Wondrous Victory O’er the Embryo” which I was delighted to carry in the April 1994 issue of the Brandsma Review.

The debate so far has been, in accordance with the wishes of Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, polite and civilised. This has been very much to the advantage of the pro-abortionists, who appear to have convinced a lot of people that they are nice, caring people campaigning for a respectable cause.  But they are not respectable: they weren’t back in the Eighties, and  they aren’t now. I well remember being told by the American pro-life campaigner Dr Bernard Nathanson, who had been personally responsible for 60,000 abortions before becoming convinced of the evil of what he was doing, that unless the Amendment were carried it would be only a few years before “you will have the same despicable abattoirs and charnel-houses in Ireland as we have in the States”.

Alec’s poem—which I regard as almost Swiftian in its savage indignation—is below. I think its time has now really come, and that it could push some wavering minds in the right direction. So I am asking everyone to forward it to as many friends and acquaintances as possible—to anyone with the wits to understand and the heart to be moved.  I want it to go viral.

 

THE WONDROUS VICTORY O’ER

THE EMBRYO

This Chansonette, to Be Sung or Recited in Schools,

Colleges and Places of Public Resort

When Erin Frees Herself from the Slavery

of Her Present Abortion Laws,

Is Dedicated Most Humbly to

OUR LEGISLATORS

Wake, Erin’s daughters, wake to greet this day!

Praise our astute TDs, the NUJ,

Our learned judges, all to whom you owe

This wondrous victr’y o’er the embryo.

Now condomless be coupled, Erin’s maids

(Unless you think your stud might give you Aids)

And should the flow’r and pollen haply meet

Fear not! An eager army’s here to treat

With suck and scrape and every form of woe

That enemy of joy, the foetus-foe.

Hun, Chinaman or Yank—it matters not,

Nor Britisher, nor loudly piping Scot.

With curettes raised they’ll throng through Erin’s doors

Praising with joy her changed ABORTION LAWS.

So to the clinic hie thy happy path,

To greet the noble surgeons with a laugh.

With Hippocratic oaths they’ll thrust about

Till enemy within becomes without!

Then, products of conception pluck’d away

You’ll sing a song of love the livelong day.

“Away to sluice, all embryos and zygotes!

Away all prattling priests and pro-life bigots!”

So, Erin’s maidens, greet this happy day.

Praise our astute TDs, the NUJ,

Our learned judges, all to whom you owe

This fabled vict’ry o’er the Foetus-Foe.

 

 

So: please cut, paste and forward this poem far and wide

 

Incidentally, Alec’s grandfather was Sir James O’Connor, the last Attorney-General for Ireland before Independence. I’m sure Sir James would have been appalled and horrified by what present-day Irish politicians are up to.

 

 

December 28th, 2017

Repent—or else!

With acknowledgements to the blog “Ignatius His Conclave”.

During the course of his traditional Christmas message of mercy and goodwill, the Supreme Leader singled out those who had offended him during the past year:

Here let me allude to another danger: those who betray the trust put in them and profiteer from the Church’s motherhood. I am speaking of persons carefully selected to give a greater vigour to the body and to the reform, but – failing to understand the lofty nature of their responsibility – let themselves be corrupted by ambition or vainglory. Then, when they are quietly sidelined, they wrongly declare themselves martyrs of the system, of a “Pope kept in the dark”, of the “old guard”…, rather than reciting a mea culpa. Alongside these, there are others who are still working there, to whom all the time in the world is given to get back on the right track, in the hope that they find in the Church’s patience an opportunity for conversion and not for personal advantage.’

The members of the Politburo looked nervously from one to another. Which of them was it?

Meanwhile, in an adjacent room, the KGB were polishing their jackboots…

I think “Ignatius His Conclave” had better watch out, don’t you? The Supreme Leader takes a dim view of people who poke fun at him.

 

December 27th, 2017

What we need….

“We need priests who are men of the interior life, ‘God’s watchmen’ and pastors passionately committed to the evangelization of the world, and not social workers or politicians.”
—Cardinal Robert Sarah

December 10th, 2017

What’s Wrong with Bergoglianism

A false, heretical understanding of Mercy reduces God to being tolerant of everything, to the point where sin disappears and black becomes white, the foolish are regarded as wise, the corrupt become virtuous.  A tolerant God means mankind has no need of Redemption or Salvation, the whole Christological drama becomes unnecessary and humanity has no need of a moral compass, because whatever is done,  so long as it doesn’t undermine the Enlightenment virtues, is fine.

This passage from Fr Ray Blake’s blog sums it up perfectly, I think.

 

November 30th, 2017

The Bending of ‘Gender’

Another pearl from that extremely wise and informative blog of the Anglican Ordinariate, Ignatius His Conclave:

It all began with the manipulation of language. We should have known – Orwell warned us – but we let it pass.

‘Sex’, the physiological phenomenon which facilitates reproduction, was modulated to ‘gender’, a linguistic function in the construction of grammar. The culprit, it seems, was one John Money, a ‘sexologist’; and it began as recently as 1955. The diseminators (!) were radical feminists and the World Health Organisation.

The new meaning of gender took off in countless reports and memoranda, until it has replaced the earlier term even in common parlance.  But the change was not merely a linguistic fad. It had serious intent. It was a potent weapon in social deconstruction.

If the Enlightenment was a revolt against the past in the name of a future as yet unborn, gender-speak was its ideal tool. By blurring the immemorial distinction between the sexes it undermined the family (always a bête noire of the progressive Left). Ultimately, by asserting that gender is a social or even personal construction, it muddied the waters of all social discourse.  The notion of ‘gender dysphoria’ is its ugly offspring.

Ours is rapidly becoming a world where there is no truth – where my truth is a good as your truth. Individual feelings are paramount. I feel, therefore I am.  A child can ‘feel’ that she is a boy; and an adult can be penalised for saying that she is not. Marriage can as well be between two women or two men, because their feelings are all that matters.

The Church has a vocation in all this to witness to the simple fact that society and its values are not simply a human construct, which can be deconstructed at will. They are grounded in the immutable facts of our terrestrial existence; rooted in that which is given and not made.

Looking back on the twentieth century, which saw the bloodiest attempts at social deconstruction and reconstruction the world has ever known –  beside which the guillotine and the Terror pale into insignificance – we can see how pressing that task is.

I’d advise all followers of this blog to add Ignatius His Conclave to their list of favourites.

November 20th, 2017

Fr Weinandy Sets a Fleece

Have you ever heard the expression “setting a fleece”? It comes from Chapter 6 of the Old Testament Book of Judges, where an obscure individual named Gideon has a vision telling him to lead the Israelites against their oppressors, the Midianites. He’s not sure if the vision is real or not, so he prays to God for a sign that it was genuine. He takes the fleece of a sheep, puts it on the ground, and leaves it overnight. If the fleece is wet with dew the next morning, leaving the ground dry, he will take it that the vision was real. Next morning the fleece is soaking wet, and the ground dry, but he’s still not quite convinced, so he prays for a further sign the next night. This time, he wants the ground to be all wet, and the fleece bone dry, and  that’s just what happens.

When I was involved in charismatic renewal (yes I was, for quite a few years) a very gifted teacher, Margaret, used to give us the benefit of her deep knowledge of Scripture. When she got to the story of Gideon, the question arose whether it was permissible for people in our own times to “lay a fleece”—metaphorically speaking—by asking God for a specific sign that a particular course of action one had in mind was in accordance with His will. From what I recall, Margaret said that while one shouldn’t make a habit of it, setting a fleece could be permissible in some cases where one was genuinely perplexed and an important issue was involved.

I had never heard anyone setting a fleece in an official Catholic context until very recently. That’s what Capuchin father Thomas Weinandy did, although that’s not what he called it. You will recall that Fr Weinandy wrote a severe letter to Pope Francis, chiding him for causing much of the present chaos in the Church. For his pains, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops forced Fr Weinandy to resign from his position as their consultant. That’s ironic, because in his letter to the Pope, Fr Weinandy said: “Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalised or worse.”

Anyway, here is Fr Weinandy’s account of how he came to write the letter:

At the end of this past May I was in Rome to attend a meeting of the International Theological Commission, of which I am a member.  I stayed at Domus Sanctae Marthae.  Since I arrived early, I spent most of the Sunday afternoon prior to the meeting on Monday in Saint Peter’s praying in the Eucharistic Chapel.  I was praying about the present state of the Church and the anxieties I had about the present Pontificate.  I was beseeching Jesus and Mary, St. Peter and all of the saintly popes who are buried there to do something to rectify the confusion and turmoil within the Church today, a chaos and an uncertainty that I felt Pope Francis had himself caused.  I was also pondering whether or not I should write and publish something expressing my concerns and anxiety.  On the following Wednesday afternoon, at the conclusion of my meeting, I went again to St. Peter’s and prayed in the same manner.  That night I could not get to sleep, which is very unusual for me.  It was due to all that was on my mind pertaining to the Church and Pope Francis.  At 1:15 AM I got up and went outside for short time.  When I went back to my room, I said to the Lord: “If you want me to write something, you have to give me a clear sign.  This is what the sign must be.  Tomorrow morning I am going to Saint Mary Major’s to pray and then I am going to Saint John Lateran.  After that I am coming back to Saint Peter’s to have lunch with a seminary friend of mine.  During that interval, I must meet someone that I know but have not seen in a very long time and would never expect to see in Rome at this time.  That person cannot be from the United States, Canada or Great Britain.  Moreover, that person has to say to me in the course of our conversation, ‘Keep up the good writing’.”

The next morning I did all of the above and by the time I met my seminarian friend for lunch what I had asked the Lord the following night was no longer in the forefront of my mind.  However, towards the end of the meal an archbishop appeared between two parked cars right in front of our table (we were sitting outside).  I had not seen him for over twenty years, long before he became an archbishop.  We recognized one another immediately.  What made his appearance even more unusual was that because of his recent personal circumstances I would never have expected to see him in Rome or anywhere else, other than in his own archdiocese.  (He was from none of the above mentioned countries.)  We spoke about his coming to Rome and caught up on what we were doing.  I then introduced him to my seminarian friend.  He said to my friend that we had met a long time ago and that he had, at that time, just finished reading my book on the immutability of God and the Incarnation.  He told my friend that it was an excellent book, that it helped him sort out the issue, and that my friend should read the book.  Then he turned to me and said: “Keep up the good writing.”

In the light of Jesus fulfilling my demanding “sign,” I want to make two comments.  First, I decided to write Pope Francis a letter, which I intended then to publish unless he adequately addressed the issues I raised.  Almost two months after having received my letter, I did receive an acknowledgement from Vatican Secretariat of State informing me that the letter had been received.  This was simply an acknowledgement and not a response to my concerns.  Second, I find it significant that not only did the Lord fulfill my demand for a sign, but also did so in, what I believe, a very significant manner.  He accomplished it through an archbishop.  By utilizing an archbishop, I believe, that Jesus’ fulfillment of my request took on an apostolic mandate.