No, the Pope is not Catholic

Recently our state sponsored intellectuals have been waxing indignant about the fact that the recently elected Pope is Catholic.  They have not yet complained about bears shitting in the woods.

But, in fact, the Pope is not Catholic.  He is progressive, merely less progressive and more Catholic than our state sponsored intellectuals would prefer.

Our state sponsored intellectuals are indignant because the Pope opposes abortion, women priests, gay marriage, homosexual bishops and so on and so forth.  (I would have thought that the Church was seriously oversupplied with homosexual Bishops, but I suppose the objection is that they are not openly homosexual, or not open enough)

But notice that our state sponsored intellectuals are not attacking him for supporting marital rape (traditional Christian marriage) and the enslavement of women (traditional Christian marriage)

The traditional Christian position is that marriage was an irrevocable contract in which both spouses agreed each to be always sexually available to the other.  If you are married, you don’t need consent for sex.  You need consent to refrain from sex – and you are not even supposed to give consent to refrain from sex too easily or for too long.  You are supposed to “rape” your spouse, in order to maintain the marriage.  This seems reasonable to me, for my observation suggests that if people consent to stop having sex, they are apt to not resume, and pretty soon the marriage breaks up.

If there is such a thing as “marital rape”, then it is impossible to contract to marry and stay married, which is a massive violation of freedom of contract, which violation of freedom of contract gravely impairs our ability to form families and reproduce.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church still supports that position – in Spanish.  In English, however, it is silent.    It seems that state sponsored intellectuals cannot speak Spanish, hence “rape” is one of the few things they are not attacking the Pope for.

Now since I think that all religions are at best pious frauds, at best a collection of children’s stories embodying ancient wisdom, at worst evil scams, Roman Catholics might reasonably say this is none of my business.  Trouble is, while Jesus gives permission to ditch any parts of the Old Testament that might prove inconvenient, no Christian has permission to ditch the New Testament.  If the priest ditches the politically incorrect parts of the New Testament, people smell that he does not really believe, and the churches empty out and turn into museums.

I regret the passing of Christianity.  Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe.  Civilizations die when their animating religion dies.  We will likely need a new religion, or some synthetic substitute, or shall vanish utterly.  When a people lose their religion they are apt, like the Romano British, to disappear.  In much of the Roman Empire in the west, the people remained and had descendents, but came under the rule of foreign aristocracies formed by invading bandits.  The Romano British were, however, pretty thoroughly genocided except in those areas least subject to Roman influence. The same will likely happen to much of today’s Europe.

27 Responses to “No, the Pope is not Catholic”

  1. Simon says:

    Trees, trees everywhere!

  2. Erik says:

    Vatican II teaches marital rape (“the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent”) and nobody seems to have noticed, in my experience the intellectuals clamor for more and better Vatican II, and worry that the Pope will roll back Vatican II.

    I suspect that Pope Francis may teach it too without people noticing.

  3. bob sykes says:

    Europe is getting a new religion. It’s called Islam. Once it takes over the whole subcontinent in addition to the a few cities it has now, the intellectuals will want the ancient faith back. Especially those who are feminists and/or homosexuals.

    By the way, the official Church position is that Vatican II did not change any doctrines, it merely changed the way the Church presented them, the vernacular mass, for instance. Most so-called Catholic liberals are confused on this point. But then they are all anti-Catholic bigots like the Kennedys or Kerry or Pelosi etal.

  4. jim says:

    By the way, the official Church position is that Vatican II did not change any doctrines, it merely changed the way the Church presented them

    The new presentation is that some are hidden in the basement and buried under a pile of horse manure.

  5. Candide III says:

    If the priest ditches the politically incorrect parts of the New Testament, people smell that he does not really believe, and the churches empty out and turn into museums.

    Sometimes very quickly:

    According to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, in 1984, nearly 90 percent of Irish Catholics went to weekly Mass. In 2011, only 18 percent did.

  6. First of all, greetings. You have a nice blog.

    Secondly, Anglo culture is truly different from Latin culture in various ways and even other European cultures (except maybe a Nordic country like Sweden, who is even more ballistic than the Anglos in some instances).

    The Anglos offered the following to liberalism:

    – The British Industrial Revolution, which divorced labour from household (no more home businesses and home schooling or local schooling near families, friends and such). Which lead to the rise of big transnational corporations, alongside big government.

    – The British Industrial Revolution then informally kicked the Husband/Father out of the household. So the mother was the last entity left, and daddy wasn’t there. He was absent, working too long or too much, outside or a long way from home.

    – Anglos are more individualistic on average than other groups. There’s no sense of nuclear and extended families together for the long run. In Anglo culture, people are scared of their neighbors and even Anglo “politeness” is but a way to gloss over (distract from) the atomizing individualism present.

    – Charles Darwin and Evolution. Liberals today still talk about their glorious “progressive” (evolutionary) utopia. Sounds fishy.

    – Puritanism, which latter became Victorianism. There’s the whole twisted form of Chivalry, White Knighting, Women are “Pure” (their version of purity is way off the mark and sounds almost demonic) and etc.

    An important feature is the whole virginity talk. I come from a Latin influenced culture. And sometimes, a Roman Catholic man would talk about the Virgin Mary. There was something there, something I can’t explain but was evident, lacking in Anglo culture.

    In Anglo culture it’s “sluts vs. virgins”, “virginity is stuuuupid”, “sluts are better and have more virtue” or “born again virgin” or chastity is not related to virginity (note that chastity and virginity are not the same but they are related, like a tree) or whichever.

    Then there is also the whole racial/ethnic aspect.

    In the USA, there was the “One Drop Rule”, meaning one drop of black blood made you black. In South America (Latin America) and Latin colonies in Africa (mostly French or Portuguese speaking), there was no such thing.

    There was European, Mestizo or Mestico (meaning Mixed), African, Native American, Zambo (Native American/Black) and so forth. It was more distinguished and varied.

    Add to my shock that when I was in America the first time, I was considered “Black”. Way back home I’m considered mixed/biracial, and in America I’m black all of the sudden.

  7. And even the relationships I remembered reading regarding European male/Native American, European male/African female or European male/Mixed female was different was different in Latin America and French or Portuguese colonies in Africa.

    It was definitely the Latin influence.

  8. Apologies for my typos.

    I meant “European male/Native American female”. And I typed “was different” twice unfortunately.

    Apologies.

  9. And I disagree. I thought that Pope Francis is a lovely Pope and a good choice.

    Maybe the Anglo sphere is going crazy over him thought.

    • jim says:

      I thought that Pope Francis is a lovely Pope and a good choice.

      As compared to anyone else who could possibly be pope.

      Maybe the Anglo sphere is going crazy over him thought.

      If the Roman Catholic Church appointed a Pope that was actually Catholic, much of Washington would die of heart attack, and the survivors would seriously consider nuking the Vatican.

  10. Red says:

    While watching TV shows on the web tonight an outlook.com commercial came up over and over again
    http://www.neowin.net/news/microsofts-new-outlookcom-commercial-highlights-its-support-of-gay-marriage

    It featured 2 women getting married and hyphenating their names. Initially I was pissed off and asking how they expected to sell me anything with an ad like that. Next I marveled how fast gay marriage went from unthinkable to the showcase form of marriage. So it’s so normal that it had to be used to sell software. After 5 more renditions of the commercial it didn’t bother me anymore. Marriage is officially gay. The push to force gay marriage on the churches will start very soon and once they succeed the church will be officially 100% gay as well.

  11. jim says:

    After 5 more renditions of the commercial it didn’t bother me anymore. Marriage is officially gay.

    Observe that when the word “gay” was imposed, the Flintstones stopped inviting their viewers to “have a gay old time” and the second verse of “Deck the Halls” disappeared from the Christmas rotation. That was not at all the intention of the social engineers that forced everyone to use the word “gay”

    If marriage is officially gay, straights will no longer get married.

    • Red says:

      It’s actually kind of wonderful. Instead of trying to explain to our parents that marriage is a bad deal for men due to the current structure of society and being told that a good women won’t use the system against use, we can simply say marriage is for fags.

    • Certain people/classes changed marriage. Average women then continued the destruction of the institution of marriage. Average men finally stopped getting married, because they were getting punished for it.

      In other words, the elite changed it, the women advanced the destruction and the men escaped.

  12. peter horne says:

    Jim, you’ve stated before that the ancient Britons were virtually wiped out by later arrivals and I have to say there is no evidence of this. Modern genetic studies have shown that approximately 80% of the present day population are descended from the original peoples who migrated from northern Spain and across the land bridge that existed between Britain and the continent at the end of the last ice age. The percentage is even higher in Wales and Scotland, which is what you would expect, England being more easily accessible from Europe. The Anglo-saxons, Normans, Norse etc. are but a thin veneer overlaying the aboriginal population.

    In my part of Yorkshire, for example the Vikings quickly settled down and became farmers on land which nobody else wanted and which was unoccupied. Hence the preponderance of Norse place names on the Yorkshire moors.

    Here is one such study:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

    • jim says:

      He asserts his conclusions without showing his evidence.

      On looking up the evidence that he claims supports him it does not support him. On the contrary, the genetic evidence indicates substantially complete genocide.

      The authors do not say “genocide” in so many words, that being politically incorrect, but the meaning of their evidence is clear.

      1. The historical record is that the Romano British were genocided, apart from those who fled to Britanny, and the Welsh.
      2. The historical record is that the anglo saxons were taller and blonder than the Romano British, and lo and behold, observe that the Welsh are shorter and darker, while today’s white Englishmen look rather like Germans.
      3. The archaeological record is of abrupt and total cultural transformation. Over most of England, people completely stopped following Romano British burial customs and completely adopted Anglo Saxon burial customs.

      To conclude conquest, rather than genocide, would need very compelling evidence. I am told such evidence exists, but no one shows it. Rather, we get argument by intimidation and authority. Authority tells us that there was no genocide, and that anyone who presents evidence of genocide is lying, but authority finds no need to present evidence for the absence of genocide, nor to rebut the evidence for genocide.

      • peter horne says:

        I would recommend Stephen Oppenheimer’s ‘The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story’ Chapter 11 deals with the study you refer to.
        A quote

        ” English females almost completely lack the characteristic Saxon mtDNA marker type still found in the homeland of the Angles and Saxons. The conclusion is that there was an Anglo-Saxon invasion, but of a minority elite type, with no evidence of subsequent “sexual apartheid”

        The population of southern Briton was probably germanic in origin in any case, from Scandinavia, which explains why that part of Britain is almost completely free of Celtic influence. They certainly had strong links to the Belgae, who were a germanic people. They often had the red hair remarked upon by Caesar. So the Britons were not monolithic and had various origins and languages. Britain had a terrible reputation for political instability and vice which no doubt contributed to its downfall. The anglo-saxons were originally employed as confederates against the Picts and the Irish and eventually rebelled against their masters, probably with the aid of local people who shared a germanic background. No doubt there were massacres on both sides.

        I would be interested in the historical records you refer to stating the britons were ‘genocided’ The records we do have, Gildas and Patrick being the main ones show a society declining through famine, plague and barbarian raids. The archaeological record shows no sign of genocide, neither does the genetic evidence.

        I would recommend Christopher A. Snyder’s book ‘An age of Tyrants for a comprehensive review of what little evidence we have.

        Our present elite would fall on evidence that the English had wiped out the Welsh with glee and use it as another stick to beat the English with, the ‘Celts’ being a designated victim group. Far from being politically incorrect, it would be welcomed.

        • jim says:

          ‘The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story’ Chapter 11 deals with the study you refer to

          I suggest you read the study itself, rather than someone else explaining it away.

          I would be interested in the historical records you refer to stating the britons were ‘genocided’ The records we do have, Gildas and Patrick being the main ones show a society declining through famine, plague and barbarian raids.

          Gildas was Romano Briton. He describes the Romano British being expelled, not subjugated. The Romano British he described were Christians, and thought of themselves as Romans.

          When next we get literate people visiting Britain, Saint Augustine 597AD, no Christians are to be found. The Anglo Saxon pagan religions were not evangelizing, did not seek, barely even permitted, converts. If Christianity had disappeared, it is because Christians had fled or died.

          Our next historian is the Christian Anglo Saxon, the Venerable Bede. The Venerable Bede, who should know, tells us the Romano British were eradicated or expelled, not conquered and subjugated.

          • A says:

            Nah.

            -Gildas and Bede both have agendas, mainly making pagans look bad.
            -There is evidence of religous continuity. St Albans is still named after a british saint from the 3rd century, and it was a major city in the dark/middle ages.
            -Place names often refer to “Wals” Meaning foreigners (as in Wales) and used to refer to Celts. Even in SE England. They also often cluster with Saints names and with meanings that can’t be hostile. Such as “St Peters Walden” meaning Foreign Hill of St Peter or Walthamstow meaning “foreign meadow farmstead”. Even rivers, which are major trade routes such as Thames and Lea have celtic names.

            The genetics supports less than 50% of Y chromosomes being Germanic. See here
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982203003737#

            the graph on pg982 is good

            • jim says:

              -Gildas and Bede both have agendas, mainly making pagans look bad.

              Gildas and Bede were on opposite sites of a deadly and terrible conflict, yet gave the same story of the conflict. They were close enough to the events to know what happened, and were writing for people who knew what happened.

              There is evidence of religous continuity. St Albans is still named after a british saint from the 3rd century

              Saint Albans was remembered by Rome, and by Roman missionaries, thus that he was remembered by Anglo Saxon Christians converted by those missionaries is not evidence of continuity.

              The genetics supports less than 50% of Y chromosomes being Germanic. See here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982203003737#

              Which indicates near 100% of Y chromosomes being Germanic in areas reported conquered by Angles and Saxons, and near 0% of Y chromosomes being Germanic in areas reported a holding out against Angles and Saxons, consistent with Weale et al.

  13. […] No, the Pope is not Catholic « Jim’s Blog […]

  14. […] No, the Pope is not Catholic « Jim’s Blog /* ') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); […]

  15. Jim writes:

    ‘If there is such a thing as “marital rape”, then it is impossible to contract to marry and stay married, which is a massive violation of freedom of contract, which violation of freedom of contract gravely impairs our ability to form families and reproduce.

    In fact, the Roman Catholic Church still supports that position – in Spanish. In English, however, it is silent. It seems that state sponsored intellectuals cannot speak Spanish, hence “rape” is one of the few things they are not attacking the Pope for.’

    Would you mind directing me to these documents? I’d be fascinated to read them.

    • jim says:

      Not sure which documents you refer to.

      As for the Roman Catholic Church’s Spanish position, people who speak a little spanish tell me that they still get irrevocable consent preached to them – in Spanish.

  16. […] barbarizmu napredak religije? Izraz “Is the Pope Catholic?!” ovih dana prima sasvim novo zna?enje. Tragedija je u broju iskrenih vjernika koji sve nade ulažu u crkvene strukture koje se svim […]

Leave a Reply