Le Tocsin

“The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of Tradition”– Pope St Pius X

Donation button


Le Tocsin is not for those of a nervous disposition.  Indeed, Father Flapdoodle, Sister Snakebite and Bishop Bubbles are advised to seek medical advice before reading.


Hi!  I’m very anxious not to be bothering folk who would prefer not receive this information.  If you would rather not hear from me again, please hit the button below, and you will be removed from the mailing list faster than one can say “mouse click” – and that’s a solemn promise.

Please leave me alone

Subscribe to Le Tocsin
Note: only subscribe a friend if you have their permission or are confident they will not object

Receive Newsletter

Truth is routinely censored and twisted in the secular asylum, but by God's providence, Catholics have the Internet.  However, producing and distributing a regular e-bulletin like this is not cost free.  So please consider occasionally making a small donation towards our costs

Make a small donation

--- Ads ---



"No civilisation likes its orthodoxy questioned"

By: Graham Moorhouse

The Principle (A film due to be released in the Spring of 2014) is the one movie you must see this year.  I would go further and suggest that it could be the most important movie you will see in your lifetime!

Who would have believed that we would live to see some of the most eminent cosmologists on the planet beginning to question the Copernicus model?  Note: all the scientists interviewed in this film (a majority of whom are atheists by the way) have signed release forms.  To be fair the film does not take a position on the issue, it merely interviews some of the leading cosmologists on the planet and leaves the viewer to draw his own conclusions.  However, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion (in my view) that the Copernicus theory is in deep trouble and the geocentric view is firmly back on the table after 400 years. 

It is important to understand what we mean here by geocentric.  I have always been a geocentrist in the metaphysical sense that the earth is the planet on which God became man and founded His one true Church, but that is not the sense in which it is used here.  Neither is geocentric used in the rather simplistic sense of being at the physical centre of the cosmos; the physical centre can only be determined if you have a precise knowledge of the perimeter of the universe, or the distribution of mass throughout the universe - both of which are beyond, I suspect, existing science to determine.  No, geocentric here means something far more profound, it means that the earth is at a very special and totally unique place in the cosmos. 

Sufficient to say that the Copernicus theory - the belief that the world is nothing special, just another piece of rock hurtling through space alongside billions of similar bits of rock, which just happens by blind chance to have evolved in a particular way - is the foundational article of faith of the modern world.  Darwin's theory of evolution, would have been impossible without the Copernicus world view. 

It is fun to speculate what the world might look like had these two theories not been given credence.  Without Darwin, no Nazis party, no Communism and no secular liberals. The list goes on.  This is absolutely huge; without the credibility given to the enemies of Christ's Church by the triumph of the Copernicus theory, it would be difficult to imagine Protestant revolution and the successes of the Masonic sect.  No Masonic successes, no French Revolution.  No French Revolution, no murder of the French king, and France would still have a Catholic monarchy and America would not have a Masonic constitution.  No Masons in the new world, no American slave trade.  The ramifications are endless. Benedict XVI in February 2013 said something to the effect that Vatican II was necessary to counter the damage done to the Church by the Galileo controversy.  Galileo was merely a disciple of Copernicus; if Galileo was wrong and the Church right all along, just imagine how vibrant Catholicism would be without the ball of Vatican II chained to its leg?

Is it too fanciful to suggest that we may be seeing another piece of the jigsaw falling into place that Our Lady was referring to when she said to the children at Fatima, "My Immaculate Heart will eventually triumph "? I mentioned in an earlier version of Le Tocsin that Russia, a country that clearly holds a special place in God's plans (why else would Our Lady ask for the Pope and bishops to consecrate it to her Immaculate Heart?) has already made changes that may foreshadow its conversion. The Copernicus theory has underpinned the atheistic world view for over four hundred years; if it implodes we are in uncharted waters and almost anything is possible, including a diabolical persecution of the Church, for the godless will not take it lying down.

I will explain no more as I do not want to spoil the film for you. But if you cannot understand that we may be on the edge of a shattering game changer, you need a brain transplant, for you and I may be on the crest of living through the most significant scientific moment in the history of planet earth. What an exciting and unbelievable privilege!

Click here to view a short trailer. But much better still, click on the picture below to view a fascinating hour long interview with Rick DeLano the producer. I'll try and keep readers updated on this in future issues of Le Tocsin.


The following had me grinning like a Cheshire cat for forty-eight hours. 

In an age when one merely has to publicly announce that one is addicted to unnatural vice to become an overnight celebrity with media's lefties all over you excited as kittens on a ball of wool, life in the secular asylum is inherently depressing. 

However, every once in a while God tosses us a wonderful little cheer up moment, to remind us just how beautiful life can be. Click on the following picture for one such moment. Say a Rosary for this little lass, that her guardian angel keeps her safe, for the prince of this world will already be plotting her exploitation and corruption, for innocence and beauty are like salt on an open wound to the godless.

9 year old opera singer

A Call to All Traddies to Support the Ordinariate

Pope Francis recently waxed lyrical about ecumenism, while heaping praise on John XXII and JP2's ecumenical efforts.  Oddly, nobody ever defines what they mean by ecumenism, but that's another story.  Francis omitted to mention Benedict XVI - a bizarre omission given that Benedict only lives a couple of doors down the block, and is the only post-Conciliar pope to have actually achieved anything tangible for Christian unity with the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate, which facilitated the return to the true Church of thousands of Anglicans.

That said, the Ordinariate is a slightly odd shaped animal. The Ordinariate in Australia and America is solidly traditional. "Traditional" here needs a little unpacking. The Ordinariate rite is basically the old Sarum rite, embellished with Crammer's beautiful English, but with none of his heresies (unlike the Novus Ordo, which has all his heresies and none of his beautiful English).

Sadly, the majority of the English Anglican clergy who have returned home have been absorbed into the Magic Circle's Novus Ordo la-la land. However, there are four to my knowledge that have not been so absorbed. But here's the kicker: three of that four are the only Ordinariate priests to have their own congregations. Mgn. Newton, the head (bishop) of the Ordinariate celebrates the Ordinariate rite in Warwick Street at the church previously infamous for being the meeting place of Vinney's favourite predatory sodomite club. 

This Sunday, 2nd February, Mgn. Newton will be celebrating Mass at noon at Holy Family Catholic Church, 115 Limpsfield Road, South Croydon, CR2 9LF (where the Ordinariate has been made most welcome by the very kind parish priest, Father Augustine Kinnane).  He will then celebrate again at 4:30pm at St Mary’s Catholic Church (Our Lady of Reparation), 70 Wellesley Road, Croydon, CR0 2AR.  I believe the noon Mass will be a low Mass and the 4:30pm Mass will be a sung Mass. 

I urge all traddies within commuting distance to support one or other of these Masses this coming Sunday.

Has A&E awakened a sleeping giant?

A&E, is an American cable and satellite television channel that serves as the flagship television property of A+E Networks, a joint venture between the Hearst Corporation and Disney – ABC Television Group. Duck Dynasty is an American reality television series on A&E that portrays the lives of the Robertson family. The show has broken several ratings records and the fourth season premiere drew 11.8 million viewers; the most-watched nonfiction cable series in history.

On December 18, 2013, A&E announced the indefinite suspension of Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, from the show over remarks he made in an interview, which it is fair to say failed to endorse the militant sodomite collective's agenda.

The backlash and outrage was so enormous and instant from advertisers, viewer, Christians and fair minded Americans alike, that A&E was forced to backtrack and reinstated Phil nine days later, not of course before having issued some mealy mouthed "justification" for their climb down.

The following article was inspired by an piece by ROBERT ARVAY at the American Thinker but has been abridged and adapted by : Don McGovern

The Japanese Admiral, Isoroku Yamamoto, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbour, famously remarked, "We have awakened a sleeping giant." He was right. A mere six months later, at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy inflicted devastating damage on the Japanese fleet. It has been called, "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare." 3,057 Japanese seamen lost their lives, against 307 Americans. This battle marked the turning point against a foe who had up to then seemed invincible. Sixteen months later, the Americans assassinated Yamamoto, having cracked the Japanese military codes, they shot his plane out the sky.

For years now, the gay lobby has steamrolled over the beliefs of Christians, defeating and humiliating us in one battle after another. Then came the battle of "Duck Dynasty," and the gay Gestapo suffered its first major defeat. Dare we ask, "Could this be our Midway?"

The script had become only too familiar: someone speaks up in favour of traditional marriage and values, and instantly the gay rights Gestapo are making threats, filing lawsuits, and mobilizing protests. Then, instead of Christians putting up a brave resistance, there follows apathy, retreat, apology and defeat.

This time it was different. This time, millions of Christians, and indeed other Americans, including even some free-thinking gays, said, enough is enough. We've had it with your bullying. We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore. The left was stunned, reeling backward in defeat. For the first time in over a decade, they are not reloading, they are retreating.

The efforts of the gay Gestapo and others on the left to intimidate and silence Americans may not be the only thing that has infuriated Christians. A whole host of other attacks upon First Amendment rights have gradually built up steam.  A long list of violations of rights by the most left wing president in history has surely played its part in the anger Americans are now feeling. If not the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, then some other event was sure sooner or later to have ignited the powder keg.

"Duck Dynasty" was not, one should note, an entirely accidental target of the social left. Its enormous popularity was rightly perceived by liberals as a very real threat to their hegemony -- that is a threat to their almost total dominance of Hollywood, the entertainment industry and the media. But small-budget, Christian-oriented movies are making strong inroads into the areas that the left has long assumed was its exclusive territory.  Hollywood is the base from which humanists and secularists broadcast their relentless propaganda.  In the entrails of such darkness, not even a few candles of truth can be allowed to flicker because in pitch darkness even one small candle may be seen for miles.

Against the small, intrepid flotilla of truth, the mighty battle-fleet of leftist dogma sailed forth, expecting yet one more victory on its way to total domination of society, a society in which (they hope) even the merest mention of traditional values will be quickly snuffed out. They expected that smashing the ducksters would be done without breaking sweat. A simple complaint, an implied threat, should do the job.  Against the gay juggernaut, the Christian majority was expected to cower in fear as per usual.  We now know that matters turned out rather differently.

We won; and the forces of would-be tyranny have suffered a major setback - but we cannot afford to gloat. The left are sore losers; they still haven't forgiven Franco for giving them a bloody nose over seventy years ago. There is much more work to be done, and none of it will be easy.

This war is not ours, it's God's, and He will win it for us, in His time, not ours. No doubt many epic and bloody battles remain to be fought.  Nevertheless, let us enjoy the thought for now of these frustrated would-be tyrants skulking in their sinister caverns, licking their wounds and smarting from their first defeat, while they brood over the grim possibility - that they too may have awakened a sleeping giant.


If you believe my reference to "gay Gestapo" is extreme, check out this link. Robert Lopez recounts how they ruined his life and destroyed his career. What makes this story particularly poignant is that Robert Lopez is himself gay!

The best argument I can think of for re-instituting lay cardinals

Archbishop Vincent (Never-Answer-a -Straight-Question) Nichols, a man so stuffed full of pious banalities and sanctimonious trite it's a miracle it hasn't given him acute constipation, is to be elevated to the Cardinalate next month ... weren't there any suitably qualified and experienced Catholics available?

Vincent is a priest who is happy to offer homage to false Hindu gods, notwithstanding the fact that 10,000s of our ancestors in faith have embraced cruel martyrdoms rather than offer one grain of incense to such false gods.  One can only wonder what happened to the commandment: I am the Lord your God, you shall not have strange gods before me.  

He is also seemingly open to the blasphemy of the Church blessing the unions of two men united by nothing more holy than a mutual addiction to the depravity of same sex anal copulating - a fact he made clear on prime time television.

St. Michael the Archangel, be our defender in the day of battle!

"Only four percent of those who attend ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary schools in the UK remain in the Church in adulthood"

Editor's Note: the Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies (CCRS) is managed and awarded by the Board of Religious Studies on behalf of the Bishops' Conference.   It has been skilfully designed by the anti-Catholics who have usurped most English sees to ensure that Catholic schools do not pass on the Catholic faith.  In this objective it has been extraordinary successful, with no more than 4% of the children passing through Catholic schools continuing to practise the faith into adulthood.

Imagine if a Jewish rabbi was to have accidentally stumbled into the gay bar in Munich where many of the earliest meetings of the Nazi Party took place.  Conjure in your mind's eye how the atmosphere would have immediately turned icy and palpably changed to one of aggression, intimidation and hostility.   Then ask yourself why the atmosphere at a CCRS meeting, an official organ of the Catholic bishops conference, turns immediately sour and unwelcoming when an orthodox Catholic is discovered in their midst?   Are we not witnessing here something literally diabolical?  Then further ask yourself: why your bishop is routinely appointing such hard-line anti-Catholics to key diocesan posts?  This has been going on now for some fifty years in most of our dioceses, so wake up and smell the coffee, and for God sake stop kidding yourself that this is an accident.  The very least you should be doing is refusing to fund these Catholic hating bishops, and removing your children, if you value their faith, from their deeply corrupt schools - GEM

By: Patrick Lawler

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:06

Welcome to yet another of the “Tales of CCRS”.  One of the teaching days on the Westminster CCRS course I attended was specifically for teachers in ‘Catholic’ (you’ll see why I place it in parentheses as we go along) diocesan schools, mostly primary schools as it turned out, but with a few from secondary. The theme of the day was “What makes a successful Catholic School?”

One of the first things I noticed was that, in line with the feminisation of education in general and the primary sector in particular, all the teachers were women.  That would be the same these days anywhere in the country at a gathering of primary teachers.

The day was led by a logic, reason and historical knowledge challenged Deputy Head (soon to become a Headmistress, Lord help us!).  However, I want to focus on the other course participants and the jaw-dropping ignorance of the Faith, promotion of heresy, error and apostasy and the self-serving cowardice they collectively displayed.

Let’s get a few things straight first of all:

  • You do not have to be a Catholic to teach in a ‘Catholic’ school.
  • If you are a Catholic, you do not have to uphold the Faith, live the Faith or have even a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the Faith.
  • Families do not have to be Catholic to send their children to ‘Catholic’ schools.
  • In many, especially, but not only, inner city ‘Catholic’ schools, children from Catholic families are in a minority; non-Catholic and especially Muslim pupils make up the majority in an ever increasing number of them.
  • Many of the 'Catholic families’ that send their children to ‘Catholic’ schools do not attend Mass and indeed have no faith life whatsoever.  Many are single-parents, unmarried or divorced and "remarried".  Most are using contraception and are pro-aborts.

Are you depressed yet?  Well, hold on, it gets much worse!  While there are so many things I could say about the teachers I met that day, it is important to bear in mind that they are an absolutely representative sample of the people running our diocesan schools and the three most basic and crucial things I can point out that should utterly convince you to Home School at all costs are:

  • These people have no commitment to the Faith, nor indeed knowledge or understanding of it.  Put simply, they are unbelievers.
  • They are, quite literally, incapable of grasping objective truth and, in fact, reject it out of hand.
  • As if 1 and 2 above were not bad enough, they are actively and hysterically aggressive, antagonistic and insulting to anyone who points out the truths of the Faith and their logical ramifications.

I will not give chapter and verse of the many exchanges I had throughout the day, it would be tiresome and long-winded in the extreme.  The notable thing was that, as soon as it became clear by my comments and suggestions that I am an orthodox, traditional Catholic, it was obvious I made most (if not all) of the other course participants and the course leader uncomfortable and many of them made their dislike of me and my Catholic attitudes clear.

The state of ‘Catholic’ schools (Primary and Secondary) can be illustrated by the following points, all of which are real responses, views and official policies I read and heard on the day - I am not making any of this up:

  • It may not be said or taught at any time and in any context that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Faith.
  • All religions and faiths are equally valid and worthy of respect.
  • Sodomite ‘marriage’ is to be celebrated and approved of.
  • Children are “sexual beings” from an early age and sexual experimentation and questioning are to be encouraged and accepted.
  • There is no such thing as “normal” in terms of sexuality, marriage or family structure; these things are fluid, changeable and not subject to any fixed morality.
  • There is no such thing as absolute Truth; truth is relative.
  • There is no such thing as objective morality; morals are relative.
  • One’s own conscience is the ultimate guide, not a fixed system of rules “imposed upon us by a patriarchal Church”.
  • As long as one has love and good intention, one need not attend Mass.
  • The Eucharist is symbolic.
  • The Koran is a holy book.
  • Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Hell does not exist.
  • Satan does not exist.
  • All people are saved.
  • There is no such thing as sin (apart from being “judgemental”, of course!).
  • The Labour Party is the champion of the “Poor and Oppressed”.
  • The European Union is an unalloyed good.
  • The United Nations is an even bigger unalloyed good.
  • Abortion is a woman’s choice; no patriarchal “Church run by celibate old men” can have anything of value to say on the matter.
  • Contraception is a really, really good thing (no patriarchal “Church run by celibate old men” has anything of value to say on the matter).

I will mention just one specific interaction I had with two of the course participants, because it goes to the very root of the rot and corruption we see in ‘Catholic’ schools; the inability or refusal to grasp the meaning of objective truth.

I was in a discussion with two of the Primary school teachers and I was trying to explain to them that their just expressed belief that “There is no such thing as absolute truth, truth is relative” was:

  • Inherently self-contradictory and nonsensical because the statement, “There is no such thing as Absolute Truth…” purports to be an absolute truth statement.
  • Inherently pointless and self-defeating because, even if one ignores the above, and accepts the statement at face-value, the statement has no meaning or purchase on reality because, by the statement’s own terms, it has no right to be accepted as truth.
  • By definition, an abandonment of morality, an open door to every vice and perversion fallen human nature can conjure and an acceptance of “Might makes Right”.
  • A denial of God; since God is the Absolute Truth and all Truth descends from him.

I spent a significant amount of time clearly and logically expressing these points and giving examples and similes to illustrate them beyond any ambiguity.  It was perfectly plain that neither of them had any counter to any of the points I made (because they are logically and irrefutably true) so the way they chose to end the interaction was to say (in their best talking-to-child-with-learning-difficulties-voice), “Well, that’s your opinion" ... I was, quite literally, speechless.

While I strongly urge as many people as can to home school, I do realise that it’s just not possible for everyone. The next best thing is to find a secular, non-Catholic school, and take care of your children’s faith formation yourself (it is your responsibility anyway).  Your children will have a much better chance of learning and loving the Faith that way and staying faithful into adulthood, whereas, if they go to ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary schools, they will have their faith destroyed by the faithless, stupid, ignorant and cowardly teachers therein.

Only four percent of those who attend ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary schools in the UK remain in the Church into adulthood, a 96% failure rate.  Perhaps you will now have a better understanding of why that is so

"I feel like I'm listening to earthworms claiming to have solved a quadruple equation"


I have an embarrassing confession: until a few years ago I believed in evolution. To be more exact, it was never an article of faith for me, there just seems no reason not to accept it. I hadn't thought about it that much. It just seemed the only show in town. And I could not see why an almighty God could not create that way if He chose to. Indeed, those who riled against it seemed to me to be trying to put limits on God. .  

Richard Dawkins cured me of my belief in evolution. One of my sons gave me a copy of the Blind Watchmaker and the scales fell from my eyes. The more I read the more it seemed like a put-up job. I began to see it for what it is, in the words of Anne Coulter, the secularists' creation myth.


There are so many reasons to dismiss it as no more than a put-up job by secularists to prop up their blind faith in materialism that it is difficult to know where to start. But one has to start somewhere: so lets start with the "humble" feather. Now the materialists claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds - well at least that's their latest theory; they have of course embraced umpteen other theories equally enthusiastically at some point in the recent past.

The problem with this latest theory is that the feather is highly complex, as a glance at the illustrations above will prove. The evolution of a reptilian scale into a feather would necessitate tens of thousands, perhaps millions of intermediate small changes (99.9% of which incidentally would provide the individual with no evolutionary advantage). So one would logically expect to find in the fossil record evidence of thousands of these intermediate, lets call them, scale-feathers. How many have been found so far? - zilch, not one, not even a maybe perhaps!

Dawkins was challenged on this absence of intermediate species and produced a video (it can probably still be found on YouTube) in which he claimed, in his inimitable graceless style, these intermediate species are abundant in the fossil record (which I suspect came as something of a shock even to his fellow believers). To "prove" his assertion, he shows a slide of a large fish shaped mammal that reputedly lived at the water's edge - something like a large, fat, elongated sea lion, with tiny legs - which he confidently claimed was the ancestor of the whale.

There are to my mind three holes in his evidence (so-called). Firstly, his statement that it is the ancestor of a whale was mere assumption; he hasn't a shred of evidence to substantiate it - at the very best it was no more than an intelligent guess.  Secondly, the creature on the slide was a myth, much like the unicorn.  No one had ever seen it, it was the fruit of artistic imagination based on the discovery of a few bones.  Thirdly, even if his mythical creature actually existed and the illustration was half accurate, it still didn't demonstrate macro-evolution. What we were being presented with was a whale shaped mammal that lived substantially in water becoming a whale shaped mammal that lived exclusively in water. That is micro-evolution, maybe an extreme example of micro-evolution, akin to the difference between a St Bernard and a Chihuahua (both nonetheless dogs), but still nevertheless micro-evolution.

To see any connection between that and a scale becoming a feather requires the sort of furtive imagination that would leave Lewis Carroll looking decidedly pedestrian.

Do I believe the world was created in six twenty-four hour days? No - or rather I'm a don't know. I can see nothing wrong in being a don't know. "Being", the fact that I am instead of I am not is the greatest of all mysteries. And those who claim to have it all wrapped up and nailed down, be they theists or atheists, leave me gobsmacked; I feel like I'm listening to earthworms claiming to be able to solve quadratic equations.

Pope Francis

The best recruiting sergeant the sedevacantists could have hoped for

Francis seems to be a man stuffed full of bizarre statements just waiting to pop out.  There have been so many it is difficult to know where to begin. One of the more daft was something to the effect that proselytizing was nonsense, "preposterous" I believe was the word used.  One can only assume that the ten of the twelve original Apostles who suffered cruel martyrdoms for their proselytizing, threw their lives away preposterously!

A mystery that I had been struggling with was: how could essentially the same body of men who elected Benedict XVI also elect Francis? 

A friend of mine has, I believe, stumbled on the answer: they elected Benedict XVI by mistake.  Benedict XVI as Fr Ratzinger was one of the moving forces behind Vatican II and he was also John Paul ll's right hand man. The cardinals thought they were voting for the same modernists drift and rapprochement with the world that characterised JP2 disastrous pontificate.

They didn't see Summorum Pontificum  coming, nor the lifting of the (alleged) excommunication of the four SSPX bishops, nor the attempted rapprochement with the SSPX.  They were horrified by this unexpected turn of events and indeed were successful in scuttling the last, the rapprochement with the SSPX. Their opposition was probably a major factor in Benedict's resignation. In the next conclave they made sure they didn't make the same mistake twice, and voilà Francis.

The liberals, inside and outside the Church, are delighted of course, and see Francis as their great white hope. However, given the pallid state of the Church in Argentina in general, and Buenos Aires in particular, not to mention the equally pallid state of the Jesuit order, this is a hope clearly wandering abroad without any visible means of support.

The left will of course become disillusioned, probably sooner rather than later, because what they really want is changes in settled Church teaching, and the Holy Spirit won't allow that to happen whatever the personal inclinations of Francis. Just as the Holy Spirit prevented, I believe, Paul VI changing the teaching of the Church vis-à-vis artificial contraception. This will not unfortunately prevent this supposedly humble man using (abusing) the primacy as a bully pulpit for his own agenda. Where Pope Francis to attempt to alter the settled teaching of the Church, he would, by definition, cease to be Pope, for a man who is not of the household cannot be head of the household. And in that very unlikely event the sedevacantists would have been proved right.

However, I suspect we are in for a bumpy ride under Pope Francis, and sadly any reversal of the Church's fortunes humanly speaking must be postponed until after the Lord takes him to his reward. Unlike his namesake, he is a man far too self-absorbed to understand the wisdom of sometimes keeping one's mouth shut. Nevertheless, looking on the bright side, Francis could be the last throw of the Conciliar dice from what is clearly a dying generation of churchmen, for nearly all the younger generation of priests and seminarians are orthodox and even, horror of horrors, have "crypto-lefebvrian" inclinations.

It would seem that in Francis' Church there is a mansion for everyone in our Holy Father's house except traditionalists, those that is who embrace the orthodoxy and orthopraxis of their forefathers, saints and martyrs. These are to be treated like an uncouth and disgusting lodger; someone who doesn't take his personal hygiene too seriously, and insists in wandering into the living room when you have guests, picking his nose, breaking wind, and raising embarrassing questions. You would love to be able to evict him, but under current legislation that is not quite possible (although they insist on talking as if they got away with it with the SSPX) so the best Francis can do is insult the "lodger" and hope he will eventually get the message and leave on his own accord.

I personally find the spectacle of elderly sixties-hippy clerics, whether they be popes, curates or Catholic Time's columnists, desperately trying to arrest the rising tide of fervent, orthodox, "crypto-lefebvrian" young priests, highly entertaining. They remind me of those elderly comrades with Zimmer frames and wheelchairs who turn out in Red Square every May Day to wave their silly red flags.  A good collective noun for them would be "Canutists" - although the real king of that name was actually smart enough to know he couldn't really hold back the tide.

On the Lighter Side

Koran burningThe police found a young man laying outside a mosque.  He had clearly suffered a severe beating.  He had two black eyes, a cut lip, missing teeth and a broken nose, not to mention numerous cuts and abrasions.

The police questioned him, anxious to learn how he had got into this state.  He explained that he had been attending an open day at the mosque, which had been very interesting.  During a coffee break he had found himself in conversation with a young man who had informed him that he had the entire Koran on CD.  The badly beaten young man explained that he had always been interested in the Koran, and had exclaimed excitedly, "Would you burn a copy for me?"

"That was the point all hell broke loose," he informed the police.

Email Us

We’re on the Web