Valencia’s Card. Cañizares persecuted for defending nature, common sense against “gender theory”, homosexualist agenda

UPDATE 23 June:

Via Crux 2.0

Spanish cardinal who denounced ‘gay empire’ cleared of hate speech

ROME-A judge in Spain ruled on Thursday that a cardinal denouncing an attack against the Christian family by a “gay empire” was not, simply by virtue of using that language, committing a hate speech crime but exercising his right to freedom of expression.

The criminal proceedings against Cardinal Antonio Cañizares of Valencia were dismissed without further investigation because the magistrate saw no “criminal intent” nor an appeal to “hatred and violence” in the homily delivered by the prelate on May 13.

“The family is haunted today, in our culture, by an endless threat of serious difficulties, and this is not hidden from anyone,” Cañizares had said in his homily.

“We have legislation contrary to the family, the action of political and social forces, with added movements and actions of the gay empire, of ideas such as radical feminism, or the most insidious of all, gender theory,” he added.

For many in the Church hierarchy, included Pope Francis, the term “gender theory” is used to describe the ideas of some scientists and cultural critics who argue that sexual differences between men and women are socially constructed rather than given in nature.

The criminal complaint dismissed on Thursday had been filed by The Spanish Network of Help to Refugees, that also accused Cañizares of xenophobia for questioning if all the immigrants arriving to Spain were “clean wheat.”

A second process, started by the Valencian LGBT association Lambda together with 55 other organizations, has also been dismissed.



Originally Published on: Jun 21, 2016

I was in Spain recently, having breakfast – as one does – and, while munching the ubiquitous toast with tomato looked up at the TV only to see a discussion of Card. Canizares Llovera and the trouble he was in for giving what sounded like a really good sermon in Valencia.

I shot a photo of the screen.

Since then the Cardinal’s problems have multiplied. BTW… he had the nickname “Ratzingerino” for a while and had served as the Prefect of Divine Worship after Card. Arinze and before Card. Sarah.

Here’s a good summary from with my usual treatment:

Spanish Cardinal Faces Criminal Charges for Homily Remarks

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares faces hate speech charges for questioning [questioning… but really denouncing] “gay empire,” “radical feminism,” and “gender theory” during homily.

Just in case you need more examples of why laws against “hate speech” are a bad idea, here’s a case out of Spain in which a Catholic leader is under investigation for remarks he made during a religious ceremony. [If a certain party wins lots of election in these USA, this is what we will see happen more and more often.]

While giving the homily at a Catholic University of Valencia mass, the Archbishop of Valencia, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, suggested that “the gay empire” and “radical feminism” were undermining traditional family values. “The family is being stalked today, in our culture, by endlessly grave difficulties,” he said. “When the family is attacked or is diminished, the most sacred forms of human relationship are perverted.”

Note that the 70-year-old Cardinal didn’t threaten violence against anyone, nor attempt to incite listeners to violence. He merely expressed his—perhaps unfashionable, but hardly radical or dangerous—opinion that Spain has passed “legislation contrary to the family,” and that this stems from “the action of political and social forces,” including the “gay empire,” the ideas of “radical feminism,” and “the most insidious of all, gender theory.[Which is demonic.  I’m with Card. Sarah on that.]

Yet because hate speech is such a nebulous concept, one rooted in à la mode concepts of civility and shifting perceptions of power, the homily Cañizares gave has earned him an investigation by the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in Valencia.  [Wait till you read the name of the office involved.]

The investigation stems from a criminal omplaint filed by Lambda LGBT collective, which called Cañizares’ homily “homophobic and sexist,” designed to “incite hatred against those who do not enter fit into the archaic models defended by the Catholic hierarchy.” That’s right: the group is upset about a Catholic official defending “Catholic hierarchy” during a Catholic mass.

Alas, this effort to dictate the confines of religious rhetoric isn’t just a whim of one particularly illiberal activist group; Lambda’s complaint was signed by 55 other organizations, including the Spanish Network of Help to Refugees. [I direct the readership to a book by Andrew McCarthy called The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. ] In a statement, the Network accused Cañizares of being an “ultra conservative” who yearned for the “times when immigrants, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and women were subjected to the dictates of a society governed by the powers of the Catholic church society.” Apparently, such sentiment is now potentially criminal in Spain.

The governor of Valencia condemned Cañizares for “fomenting hatred, while the Monica Oltra, Valencia’s [Get this!] vice president and minister for Equality and Inclusive Policies, called the Cardinal a misogynist. If found guilty of the charges against him, Cañizares could face up to three years in prison.

This is where things are going.

Free speech and religious liberty are under attack.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark
Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , | 35 Comments

Your Good News

I had a good week last week at Acton University, catching up with friends, hearing great presentations, being challenged to stretch and give my own talk, reading Mass in the traditional form, hearing some outstanding confessions, hanging out with really smart, highly motivated people from all over the world from different faiths and backgrounds. Afterward, I’ve spent a few days with priest friends at a great parish with some super people. Time to head home, after exploring the new Japanese garden here.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | 17 Comments

#ActonU 2016 Wrap-up and a Scholarship Opportunity


This year’s Acton University ended with bang.  Peter Kreeft gave a talk on the last day in which he made some great comments about music, including music used in church.

Dr. Kreeft, a long-time prof at Boston College, began by speaking about art.  He spoke of music as the highest art.  He then challenged: Do we choose the music of the spheres or the music of our peers?  Most modern music, he said, is σκύβαλα (it’s in the New Testament, btw).  He particularly excoriated, and mean truly flayed, the ghastly σκύβαλα we hear in churches.  And if you disagree, you are not only just plain wrong, but you should also grow up and get an “aesthetic enema”. He maintains that “our present movement towards praise choruses and praise worship music, and contemporary Christian music is a bowel movement. It is both musical and theological σκύβαλα! Christian rock is an insult to rock as well as to Christianity.” “It turns potential saints into bobbleheads.” He argues that, “this is not a matter of personal taste. Beauty is as objectively real as truth and goodness, though it is much more complex, and mysterious, and harder to prove.” “They are theologically empty. To see this, just separate their lyrics from their music, and speak the lyrics. They are embarrassingly shallow. They say little more than, ‘I’m excited now.’ Compare them with the old hymns. … It’s like comparing Oprah with the Summa Theologica. They do not even rise to the dignity of heresy.”

I think the recording will soon be available. It’s a blast.

Also, I want to bring to the attention of the readership that there is a scholarship available through Acton Institute: The Calihan Academic Fellowship.

The Calihan Academic Fellowships provide scholarships and research grants to future scholars and religious leaders whose academic work shows outstanding potential. Graduate students and seminarians currently studying theology, philosophy, economics, or related fields must demonstrate the potential to advance understanding in the relationship between theology and the principles of the free and virtuous society. Such principles include recognition of human dignity, the importance of the rule of law, limited government, religious liberty, and freedom in economic life.

Posted in Just Too Cool, Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , | 10 Comments

Men! We need you watching on the wall.

The Collect for the 16th Ordinary Sunday (Novus Ordo) has strikingly military imagery.

Propitiare, Domine, famulis tuis, et clementer gratiae tuae super eos dona multiplica, ut, spe, fide et caritate ferventes, semper in mandatis tuis vigili custodia perseverent.

Famulus and feminine famula appear frequently in our prayers. Famulus is probably from Latin’s ancient cousin, the Oscan faama, “house.” A Latin famulus or famula was a household servant or hand-maid, slave or free. They were considered members of the larger family.

Custodia is “a watching, guard, care, protection” and has the military overtone of “guard, sentinel”. Vigil is “wakeful, watchful”, and, like custodia, can also be “a watchman, sentinel”. Liturgically, a “vigil” is the evening and night before a great feast day. In ancient times vigils were times of fasting and penance. Men who were to be knighted kept a night’s vigil. They were watchful against the attacks of the world, the flesh and the Devil. They fasted, prayed, and examined their consciences in order to be pure for the rites to follow.


Look propitiously on Your servants, O Lord, and indulgently multiply upon them the gifts of Your grace so that, burning with faith, hope and charity, they may persevere always in your commands with vigilant watchfulness.

I was reminded of this Collect by the following video.

They are “standing on the wall”.

A tip of the biretta to my friend Fr. Heilman for this.  He wrote at his place:

A rather large and important study conducted by the Swiss government in 1994 and published in 2000 revealed some astonishing facts with regard to the generational transmission of faith and religious values. In short, the study reveals: “It is the religious practice of the father of the family that, above all, determines the future attendance at or absence from church of the children.”


This confirms the essential role of father as spiritual leader, which I would argue is true fatherhood. Fathers are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, modeling the love of the Father in their most important earthly relationship. Fathers are to care for their children as our Father in heaven cares for us and finally, fathers play a primary role in teaching their children the truth about reality. It is the father who should instruct his children in their understanding of the world from a consciously and informed Christian worldview. It is the father who is essential for sending his children forth with a biblical view of reality and a faith in Jesus Christ that is rooted in solid understanding.

It is time for fathers to return to honorable manhood and reconsider their priorities and realign them with God’s commands, decrees, and laws, teaching these things to your children “when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise” (Deuteronomy 6:7).

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Be The Maquis, Hard-Identity Catholicism, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Semper Paratus, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Mickens and “the closet”. Fr. Z responds.

fishwrapRobert Mickens, once a writer for The Tablet (aka The Bitter Pill aka RU-486) until he openly wrote that he wished that Benedict XVI should die, now writes for – who else – the Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter).

Mickens posted a panegyric about suffering closeted “gay” (I hate the distortion of that word) priests whom he places in so many gradations that you’d think they were choirs of angels.

How horribly they are treated!  What an injustice it is that the Church says homosexuals shouldn’t be admitted to seminaries!  Ratzinger was a real meanie! If not this Pope, who?  If not now, when?

He also outs himself.

Mickens’ piece has a lot of yak yak, but it mainly struck me as frustrated, desperate.

It is hard for me to imagine what it is like to suffer from same-sex attraction. I know, however, from common sense and from a quarter century of hearing confessions that it is a terrible burden for those with that affliction. So I’ll simply cut to the chase with the most compassionate response I can think of:


Moderation queue is ON.

Posted in Liberals, Sin That Cries To Heaven | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

Take firearms training for the sake of your safety and for your loved ones

The AR-15 and its variants are much in the news again these days, as some call for their sales and ownership to be banned and some seek to defend them.

Whichever side of the divide you are on, here is a provocative and interesting video.

One of the things you should pay attention to is, in my opinion, his call for training.

Training includes both instruction in the use of the weapon (in this case an AR-15, but any other weapon as well) and instruction in situational awareness.

Quite a few of you readers out there are against the ownership of weapons like the AR-15 (and quite a few in that group haven’t the slightest idea what an AR-15 is).  Therefore, if I could make a suggestion, look online or ask around about classes where you live for instruction in the use of a handgun and/or long gun like the AR-15.

My point is this: even if you don’t want to have handgun or a rifle, even if you think no one should, get the instruction anyway!

With that instruction, you will have a deeper understanding of what you are advocating but you will also have gained training in situational awareness – which the armed and especially the unarmed really need – and pointers even about avoiding and deescalating conflicts that could potentially erupt in violence.

You will be safer as a result, and so will be your loved ones when you are out and about.

So, watch the video.  Be provoked, if you choose, but also consider my suggestion. Even if you hate these things, even if you hate the people who like these things, bite the bullet (see what I did there?) and take a couple classes anyway!  Go ahead and hate away on the rifle and those who want them.  Just get the training anyway!  You won’t be wasting your time and, I’ll wager, you’ll find it interesting and helpful no matter what you choose to do about firearms.  And when your kids are old enough, have them get the training too.

It’s a sporty world out there, my friends, and it’s coming your way.

Let me be clear: Before some of you go ballistic – and some of you will go ballistic and make all sorts of stupid assumptions about my motives and you’ll write dopey emails or letters full of accusations – what I am pushing here first and foremost is the training!  The TRAINING.  Got it?  Must I say it again?  Even if you don’t want any gun ever… take the training anyway.

Yes, the moderation queue is ON.  What else?


In contrast to the Navy Seal, here’s a 7 year-old girl with her dad.  She’s shooting an AR-15 for the first time.   I suspect she will never be afraid of or confused about the AR-15 or similar rifles for the rest of her life.

By contrast to the little girl, Gersh Kuntzman of the New York Daily News wrote:

“What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very, very loud. It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon. … I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection). The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”

I believe “Gersh” is a male name. Not sure, about that however.

Posted in Going Ballistic, Semper Paratus, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , | 58 Comments

Pope Francis v. Pope Francis about indissolubility and marriage

So Pope Francis in unofficial off-the-cuff remarks says that the majority of marriages are invalid because people don’t get what marriage is.   Those off-the-cuff remarks were quickly amended and are now the official off-the-cuff remarks, whatever that means.

I was reminded of a speech that Pope Francis gave to the Roman Rota about marriage on the occasion of the beginning of the judicial year in January 2016 (not very long ago).  Those were not off-the-cuff remarks.  The Pope used a text, from which he read.  HERE

Let’s read Francis through Francis.

In his scripted (not off-the-cuff) remarks to the Rota, Pope Francis said:

“It is worth clearly reiterating that the essential component of marital consent is not [not] the quality of one’s faith, which according to unchanging doctrine can be undermined only on the plane of the natural (cf. CIC c. 1055 §§ 1,2). Indeed, the habitus fidei is infused at the moment of Baptism and continues to have a mysterious influence in the soul, even when faith has not been developed and psychologically speaking seems to be absent. It is not uncommon that couples are led to true marriage by the instinctus naturae and at the moment of its celebration they have a limited awareness of the fullness of God’s plan. Only later in the life of the family do they come to discover all that God, the Creator and Redeemer, has established for them. [NB…] A lack of formation in the faith and error with respect to the unity, indissolubility [!] and sacramental dignity of marriage invalidate marital consent only if they influence the person’s will (cf. CIC c. 1099). It is for this reason that errors regarding the sacramentality of marriage must be evaluated very attentively.”

So, in January 2016 Pope Francis said is decidedly NOT off-the-cuff remarks, and precisely to an audience concerned with these matters, that lack of understanding of the ends of marriage and it’s indissolubility does NOT invalidate a marriage.   Only when lack of formation and error affect the person’s will would they possibly, and not necessarily, invalidate marriage.  Even so, marriages are assumed to be valid until they are reasonably demonstrated to be otherwise.

Put these different sets of remarks, those which were scripted and read, and those which were off-the-cuff (even in their amended form) in the scales.  Which one’s will we accept as being the real deal?   Pope Francis might personally have some odd notions about who is married and who isn’t, but when delivering an official address on the matter, his words were clear.

Not understanding – at the time the marriage rite takes place – the ends of marriage or that marriage is indissoluble all the way to the death of one of the spouses does not invalidate the marriage.  So says Pope Francis – on a good day.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Pope Francis, The Drill | Tagged , , , , | 31 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

Was there a good point in the sermon you heard during your Mass of Sunday Obligation?

Let us know what it was.


For my part, on this 5th Sunday after Pentecost, I spoke about how dangerous anger is, what is does to you (endangers your soul), how the Enemy (who is filled with rage) can provoke us and spur us on, how hard it is for others, and what to do about it.

And even though I didn’t talk about it during my sermon, I mention here…

… Mystic Monk Coffee!

You know you want to!

Think of this as your bloggy coffee after Mass moment, when you are all, no doubt, talking about how wonderful Father’s sermon was, over steaming hot mugs of …

… Mystic Monk Coffee!

If you are doing the ordering for your parish coffee hour, order …

… Mystic Monk Coffee!

Not only do the Carmelites in Wyoming get the boost from the sale – and they are building their monastery – I, the one and only Fr. Z – also get a taste of each sale.  So, you are helping me too.  And I need help.  Wait… that’s didn’t come out quite as I wanted, but you get the general idea.

And when you get home from church, because you have regularly used my link to order…

… Mystic Monk Coffee!..

… you can make iced coffee.   Mmmmmm…. iced coffee….

Finally, just for fun I will just add …


Not that I want to provoke anyone to anger, or anything like that.

Mystic Monk Coffee!

It’s swell.

(They also have TEA.)

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | 29 Comments

Lawler on Papal Off-the-cuff Remarks. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Phil Lawler has some observations about what the Pope said the other day in his off-the-cuff remarks about marriage… and it seems also about priests.

From Catholic Culture:

The damage done (again) by the Pope’s statements on marriage

During an address to a diocesan congress in Rome yesterday, Pope Francis was quoted as saying:

  • that some priests are “animals,” [NB: This he, apparently, didn’t say.]
  • that pastors should not be “putting our noses into the moral life of other people,” and
  • that the “great majority” of Catholic marriages today are invalid.

All of these shocking statements were attributed to the Holy Father by reliable journalists: experienced reporters who take pains to get things right, and usually do. Below I’ll address the important question of whether or not the quotes were accurate. But first let’s assess the damage done by the statements as they were reported.

  • In the 1st quote the Pope appears intemperate and uncharitable. He may disagree with priests who refuse to baptize the children of unwed mothers, but name-calling is ugly, and certainly beneath the dignity of the Petrine office.
  • In the 2nd quote the Holy Father seems thoroughly illogical, and/or dismissive of the entire Catholic moral tradition. Confessors and spiritual directors always “put their noses” into the moral lives of their people; good pastors and preachers do, too, albeit somewhat less directly. If the Church does not wish to be involved in our moral lives, why have any moral teaching at all?
  • With the 3rd quote, the Pope throws into question the validity of millions of marriages, and insults the Christian married couples who are working to fulfill their vocations. More than that—as Edward Peters explains—he suggests that there has been some fundamental change in human nature, since by nature any rational person is capable of entering into a valid (if not necessarily sacramental) marriage.

Did the Pope really mean to suggest that in our age the breakdown in understanding of marriage has been so profound that we—or most of us, at least—are incapable of forming the same sort of marital bond that our ancestors have formed for countless centuries? That would be a stunning claim!


The Pope’s statement—if it was relayed accurately and meant seriously—would mean that our society is so thoroughly perverse that it has actually debased human nature. If that were the case, the Catholic Church could not reconcile herself to modern society; the faith would be in open conflict with the modern age. Yet in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis delivered a very different sort of message, suggesting that pastors should learn to work patiently, gradually, and sympathetically with people who do not share the Catholic understanding of marriage.  [How does a priest do that if he is not to inquire into the moral lives of people?]

So the Pope’s remarks, if they were reported accurately, were seriously damaging. [Quaeritur…] But were the reports accurate?

  • With regard to the 1st quotation, the answer, fortunately, is No. The Pope’s remark, made in an ad-lib response to a question, was terribly disjointed and difficult to follow. But apparently he intended to say that some priests treat children (or possibly their unwed mothers) as “animals.” He did not aim that insult at the priests themselves.  [Ummm… if he said that some priests treat anyone like animals, that’s pretty bad.  Who are these priests?  Where are they?]

This demands that we develop a family pastoral ministry capable of welcoming, accompanying, discerning and integrating.

Now here’s the same passage, as it was originally reported by Ines San Martin of Crux:

The Gospel chooses another way: welcoming, accompanying, integrating, discerning, without putting our noses in the moral life of other people.

The questionable phrase, “without putting our noses…,” was wisely cut from the final version. Yet the Pope did use those words—or, allowing for misunderstandings and problems in translation—something reasonably close to them. [We have now the unofficial off-the-cuff remarks and the official off-the-cuff remarks.]

  • And what about that stunning 3rd quotation? In the official transcript the Pope is recorded as saying that “a part (sic) of our sacramental marriages are null.” But a check of the audio tape of the event confirms that in fact the Pontiff said “the great majority.”  [While it is true that even the majority of something is still a part of something, a majority is more specific than a part.]

So evidently the Pope’s words were changed, after the fact, to eliminate the most troublesome statements. Who made the changes? According to the Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, the transcript was edited by the Pope himself; “thus the published text was expressly approved by the Pope.”

So when the dust settled, and the official transcript appeared, the Pope’s statements were no longer shocking. Should we conclude, then, that everything is fine, and no harm was done? Absolutely not!

First, because those shocking statements were widely disseminated through the news media, to be heard or read by millions of people who will never see the official transcript.

Second, the Pope’s remarks were consistent in their tone—a tone that encouraged listeners to question the authority of Church teachings. At one point Pope Francis light-heartedly said: “Don’t go telling on me to Cardinal Müller.” His joking reference was to the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the guardian of Catholic theological orthodoxy. (Perhaps needless to say, that joke did not survive in the edited transcript.)

Third and most important, because this pattern keeps recurring: the astonishing statements, the headlines, the confusion, followed by the explanations and clarifications that never clear away the fallout. When will Pope Francis realize—when will other prelates make clear to him—how much damage he does with these impromptu remarks?

Some loyal reporters struggled doggedly to minimize the impact of the latest eruption. A Catholic News Service story said at the outset that the Pope’s argument about the number of invalid marriages was “a point he has raised before, and one also raised by now-retired Pope Benedict XVI.” Yes, but never before had either suggested that most marriages were invalid. America magazinesuggested that when he spoke of a “great majority” of marriages, the Pope didn’t really mean most marriages—an interpretation that puts a novel definition on the word “majority.” John Allen of Crux observed, reasonably enough, that the Pope has every right to amend his own remarks. True. But the problem was not the way they were edited. The problem lay with the Pope’s original remarks.  [YES!]

There are two problems, really: [1] that the Pope speaks so often without first considering what he is about to say, and that [2] when he makes these impulsive remarks, his first unguarded thoughts so rarely show the imprint of sound Catholic teaching.

On that last bit: This is why the Pope doesn’t change the Church’s law through off-hand remarks.  There is a proper way to promulgate law.  There are ways to tell when a Pope intends to teach in such a way that the faithful are bound to accept what he says.   Off-the-cuff remarks during Q&A is not one of them.   When a Pope gives an off-the-cuff answer in Q&A, our reaction to the answer depends not in the fact that the Pope said it, but rather on the quality of that answer.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you libs will squawk, “This is a New Age blown in on the Fresh Breeze from the Open Window to the World’s Ways by Vatican II!   We don’t have rigid formality now!  No more of this talk of rules and proper ways to do things.  That’s all the dark bad past now.  You and your ilk are the sort that forced poor Fr. Lombardi to change the Pope’s perfectly acceptable and Super-Mega Official Teaching during his Q&A.  HA!  Your days are numbered.   Were going to find you and … and… then you’ll be sorry.  You are going to be in reeducation therapy for a long time because YOU HATE VATICAN II!”

As I have said before, when I… sorry, We are elected and take the name Pius XIII (or possibly Pius X II) We will vanish into the depths of the Apostolic Palace for periods so long that the press will start to run stories that We have actually died and that officials are hiding the fact.   Then We shall appear at Our balcony and read to the world (before releasing it in print) an Encyclical, two pages in length in dense Latin (the language of its composition) and, having thus taught the world, vanish again.  Come to think of it, We may send a Monsignor to read it.   And, by the way, Our second decree as Supreme Pontiff, that will be issued in the second minute of Our Pontificate, will forbid Cardinals from speaking to the press without first they submit their remarks for approval and then receive permission by papal rescript.  Pius, We, will not make off-the-cuff remarks in the presence of journalists.  They, instead, will be banned from the Vatican City State by a decree issued in the third minute of Our pontificate.  The only way that journalists will be allowed into the presence will be if they are accompanied by two well trained, very large, and heavily armed members of the Noble Guard, which will be reinstated via our fourth decree in the fourth minute of Our Pontificate.

No, Pius will not make off-the-cuff remarks.

And it is unlikely that there would ever even be a question about an airplane presser, since We won’t be going anywhere.

Except, perhaps, for a stroll in Our garden at Castel Gandolfo.

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", HONORED GUESTS, The Drill | Tagged | 57 Comments

There’s “That’s wrong!” and then there’s …this…

Someone ought to have a few words with this … fellow.

From a reader…


I hope that this isn’t really a photo of Mass.  Maybe it’s some, I dunno, bible church group doing their thing.   But I fear that it is what it looks like it is.

Posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, You must be joking! | Tagged , | 42 Comments