That ridiculous tool in drags going around under the usurped name of “Archbishop of Canterbury” has given another little proof of his total ignorance of the very basics of Christianity.
He is quoted by Vatican Insider with the following words:
[it is] “completely unacceptable and profoundly wrong to look down on, belittle, isolate and cast out those who have different sexual orientations. Homophobia is a huge sin.”
“Mundabor” – they used to say at school – “what does the author want to say”?
He wants to say the following:
1. Every “looking down” of “belittling” of a faggot is “homophobia”. (Yes, ma’am; this is very gay).
2. God makes faggots, as it is clear from the context in which he uses the word “orientation”.
3. To “belittle” a faggot is a huge sin, but we are not told what the sin of the sodomites is. Hey, it’s an “orientation”, though, so come on…
Welby is the typical example of the effeminate society we live in; a society for which God’s laws count for nothing, and the protection of perverts come to the point that even the “belittling” is a “very grave sin”. One would be tempted to ask Mrs Justine what a “sin” is according to her. It can’t be what displeases God, then in this case sodomy would be right there at the top.
It must be what displeases modern sensitivities. Then the wannabe archbishop in rags is spot on. Very grave indeed.
This man is seriously confused. Or perhaps a closet homosexual.
Just what the so-called “c of e” needs to go to hell as soon as possible.
This, my dear readers, is the problem when a President tries to polish his image by honouring and being photographed with fags: fags are perverts, and they are going to get themselves into trouble, and the President with them.
The young fag in question, a Caleb Laieski, was managing to build a rather precocious political career as “fag liaison”, or “youth and diversity liaison”, for the mayor pf Phoenix, who obviously considers it extremely important to know first hand what young faggots think and, it is to be supposed, how they act. Clearly, Obama could not let such a photo-op go to waste. Unfortunately for all parties involved, the “think” part may make them look beautiful among Libtards, but the “act” part led to statutory rape.
Alas, it turns out the young fag was even completely aware he was committing statutory rape and resisted at first; but in the end his perversion got the better of even his political ambition. One horny fag, this one.
Lesson for everyone past kindergarten age: a pervert is a pervert is a pervert. Scratch the veneer of White House respectability, and the truth will come out.
Notice that the fag doesn’t write to his young victim “this is wrong”. He writes to him, in so many words, “this could damage my career”.
So selfless. I am moved to tears.
Also notice that – as some of the commenters have pointed out – there seem to have been no fathers around, and it is alleged the mother of the youngest was in agreement with the sodomitical activity of her child. This is the liberal society at its best; that is, its worst. No father figure around, mommy thinks with her liberal v@gin@, and allows her son to be thoroughly perverted so she can continue herself to do what she pleases in an utterly non-judgmental environment. Unnatural parents begetting unnatural sons. The sins of the… mothers, and all that.
I know, I know: dyed-in-the-wool Liberals can cope with Roman Polanski sleeping with a thirteen-years-old child, so they will not have for this fag anything else than sugary understanding. To them a fag is more worthy of protection than a Panda cub, or the Polar Bear.
Still, many other people, who are not so blind, might begin to see behind the thin veil of liberal progressivism, and discover the ugly truth of satanical perverted behaviour.
Well done, Barry Boy.
You deserve the photo with the statutory rapist fag, for future memory.
In another blunder, probably not unintentional, the Vatican has awarded a young faggot an honour for some medical advancement I do not even care to copy and paste here.
I do not know whether this is an attempt to show “faggotry friendliness” or just that the people responsible did not know the young chap is a homo, but there you are, “Vatican honours “gay” scientist” is now everywhere.
Now, it is not known to me the Vatican pre V II ever honoured Soviet scientists, or Nazi medical researchers. Why? Because to honour a single accomplishment – even if useful in himself – would have meant to unavoidably further, or be seen to further, the much bigger ideological issue behind the fact.
If one is a Communist, he must not receive any honour, period. Why? Because it’s not honourable to be a Communist, it’s an infamy.
The same applies to sexual perverts, like this young chap. To honour him means to allow him to further promote his diabolical agenda. Those who honour vocal perverts simply make the work of the devil.
This was a big mistake. The Church is there to promote Catholicism, not faggotry.
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
For many years now has the Gaystapo tried to force their perverted views into the cinema screens and living rooms of the West. Due also to the extreme infiltration of perverts and their friends in Hollywood, where Liberalism is the only accepted religion, they started to make inroads in cinema productions, not as object of more or less amused disgust, but as “new normality”.
At first, faggots were the “friend of the protagonist” in, say, romantic comedies. Visible, horrible, but not at the centre of the action. Then came “Brokeback Mountain”, and faggotry claimed, for the first time in mainstream cinema, “equality” with normality. Needless to say, real and honorary faggots (like David “brown nose” Cameron) were all there queueing at the cinema in front of the press.
After a while, it became endemic: I particularly remember the trailer of a faggot comedy with Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor (not only did I not see the movie, but I never went to see a film of either again), but there were several example both sides of the Atlantic, with the BBC (the Buggers Broadcasting Corporation) having the faggot element in basically every film they co-produced (the “History Boys” one, and the one with the “Marigold Hotel” to mention just two).
Then something, I am told, started to happen. Besides the at times questionable success at the box office, the DVD and TV sales started to lag. Families do not buy or rent the romantic comedy with the “positive” faggot very much, and TV stations must pay more attention than liberal film producers to what they do. Suddenly, things started to go back (or forward…).
I am a rather attentive and frequent cinema goer, and the turnaround seems very clear to me. I haven’t seen “faggot friends” of the movie star for a while, and I have actually seen a movie (“Seven Psychopats”) with a beautiful quip just at the end that only a couple of years before would have caused a storm (remember: Vince Vaughn had to “apologise” for his character saying that the Toyota Prius “is gay”; which, by the way, it certainly is).
The last episode of this slow faggoty Stalingrad is the recent movie about Liberace. Notwithstanding two Hollywood heavyweights and a very media effective, if very stupid, campaign around Michael Douglas, the movie didn’t work. In Germany it is considered the flop of the year, and I was yesterday informed in the US it did not even find a distribution network, ending as a “straight to DVD” that is the best sign of a production that bombed. Now think of this: in order for the movie not to even get a chance it must have been considered radioactive, and the danger of losing money far worse than every bullying and threatening of the Gaystapo. In the end, consumers choose, and I think we can now confidently say the consumers have spoken and said they do not consider perversion normal: they keep their children away for it, have no time for it, have no money for it, and have no interest in pushing the faggoty agenda beyond the ideologically motivated “token gay friends” of some of them.
The people have chosen, and the Gaystapo can go wherever they please. I do not doubt it will be many years before the cleaning has completed, but I can’t imagine there is a going back now.
How the times have changed. From Brokeback Mountain to broke production houses. It serves them right.
This video is forty minutes of pure Catholic teaching, as our shepherds cannot give us anymore.
The likes of Archbishop Nichols, Cardinal Woelki, and Bishop Francis of Rome could do much worse than listen to this.
They are in great need of Catholic instruction.
Note the approach of Father Rodriguez: absolute fidelity to the teaching of the Church, and no “respecting of persons”. Splendidly, he quotes Pope Francis exactly to explain what Pope Francis is not doing. Please also note he does not read Francis through Benedict a bit.
This is truly, truly good. Don’t miss it.
Yes. It’s as bad as this.
Guido Barilla just gave us a wonderful example of stupidity and cowardice united in the same person.
First he gives an interview in which he says Barilla is for the traditional family and faggots are welcome to buy their pasta somewhere else; when the latter predictably get screeching like it’s going out of fashion, he backpedals in such a furious and shameful way you wonder if he isn’t one of them himself.
This is so gay.
One can one be so stupid that he does not understand that these days if you say a word against the Gaystapo you must expect retaliation, at least in words. How can he be so shameless that he does not understand he will look like the French army in 1940. How can he, most of all, be such an hypocrite as to first try to play the “family” card and then tell all supporters of the family they are so utterly wrong.
Punish Barilla and do not buy their pasta and other products anymore. It’s not that there is lack of choice. Among the mainstream producers, smart buyers buy De Cecco anyway, and they know why.
Stupid, hypocrite and coward Guido Barilla will now hopefully be boycotted by perverts and normal people alike.
It would serve him right.
What a faggot.
In the hope this may give you some slight consolation – or at least a laugh; though the problem is very serious – in the midst of the antics of the Bishop of Rome, I thought it fitting to report about a layman styling himself as a priest, a Desmond Tutu, certainly known to those of you who appreciate comedy.
Said Mr Tutu participated to another of the many satanic ways in which the satanic UN waste our money: the opening of a “gay-right campaign” in Cape Town.
The man – if he is a real man; at this point it is legitimate to doubt – is on record with the following, utterly and entirely satanical, statement:
“I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.”
It is difficult to explain to a Christian in a better way the mechanism through which people pave their way to hell.
This man ticks all the boxes: he is in open rebellion to the undisputed Christian tradition of 2,000 years, and his rebellion is so strong and so explicit that it leads Tutu to the extreme, and actually rather logical, consequence: to him, it is better to go to hell than to accept God's “homophobic” rules on sodomy.
Wannabe little god against One True God. Who is going to win?
Read the statement, if you will, again, and then again. The pride of it. The arrogance. The shamelessness. The blasphemy.
Lucifer couldn't have said it better, and Tutu has openly chosen to belong to him, in a very public way.
Many people seem to believe no one really desires hell, and those who end up there are actually “surprised” by an unexpected outcome. This is, clearly, not Mr. Tutu's case. Unless he repents – and he better do so publicly, methinks – it is extremely difficult to imagine how he can avoid that his will be done; unless, of course, God gave us His rule as a form of joke, or to allow us to change them according to the wishes of the UN, or of satanical individuals on an ego trip.
Now you might say: “but Mundabor! Who are you to judge?”.
I reply that I am certainly not condemning Tutu to any hell – though if it were for me to choose, of course I would. I would like a shot. – Here, though, it is very clear that -bar an always welcome repentance – Tutu has condemned himself to hell in the most obvious of ways. Not because I say so, but because God says so.
I know, I know.
The Bishop of Rome would tell Mr. Tutu: “but do good, we will meet there”.
I must say that if you ask me, the suspicion is more than legitimate that the two will, in fact, meet there.
It should be evident to many already – and it will be more, I am afraid, in the years to come – that Western democracies are becoming the biggest threat to Western freedom.
In a world more and more devoid of Christian values, and made more and more stupid by lack of proper education, freedom is dying a slow death.
In Anglo-Saxon countries, millions of young men and women think they are educated because they have a degree, though they cannot even write. Their cultural horizon stops at the X-Factor and Lady Gaga. They inform themselves from the crappy free “newspapers” they find at train stations. They are children making children – outside of marriage, now almost as a majority; but hey, “who am I to judge?” – who would not be able to assess any situation other than by following what the army of equally ignorant sheep around them does.
Add to this that, more than twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism as a global threat, the West has remained without any significant external enemy, and even the wave of highly-organised Islamist terrorism has been, if we are realistic, almost completely destroyed and certainly reduced to a social irrelevance in less than a decade by virtue of smart intelligence work, and determined military action.
As a result, the already dumb sheep, unable to even spell but – other than the illiterate of centuries past – with an extremely high opinion of themselves, have never experienced a real threat to their societal structure, and have never had in front of their eyes the spectacle of a vast number of European countries deprived of elementary freedoms. They have, therefore, neither the intellectual not the practical instruments to understand the value of freedom.
To these people, other perceived “values” are more important than freedom. Not believing in God, they make gods of themselves and need to be utterly persuaded of the fundamental goodness of the little gods they think they are. Everything that threatens the perceived picture of their own goodness will have to be sacrificed in order for them to continue to feel good with themselves.
At this point, words like “hate crime” begin to emerge; the sheep, too stupid to understand that in a free society hate – even the real one – can never be a crime, will soon run to the help of the allegedly “hated”, firstly because they feel like as many little gods of niceness, and secondly because they desperately need to feel they are not the dumb idiots they in the end know they are. In an orgy of self-satisfaction, the measures against “hate” will become more and more harsh, and their application more stringent. “Hate” will become everything the majority of dumb sheep clearly sees as different from themselves. All this, cela va sans dire, in a perfectly democratic manner; then when the majority doesn't care for freedom, their democracy will make the work for them without the need for any blood to be spilled.
This society – the society the West is creating every day – will be eerily similar to Nazism, at least to the Nazism perceived by the usual German sheep in the Thirties: nice, harmless, friendly people loving their beer and pretzel, and seriously persuaded they are actually the best people on Earth whilst living in the middle of abortion, euthanasia, heathenism, and ferocious thoughts-control. It will be instructive to keep in mind that, though certainly in different circumstances, the Nazis went to power in a fully democratic way.
It is a legend that democracies protect freedoms. Democracies do not protect freedoms. People do. If a people's understanding of basic freedom deteriorates, their democracy will soon reflect the change.
If you think we are very far from a situation like this, I seriously invite you to think again. More likely than not, some of yours neighbours already wouldn't really object to you being put to jail for expressing “hate” if they think it is a serious threat to the image they have of themselves (say: by being a Christian, and saying it). The number of such people is clearly on the increase. They might not necessarily oppose your faith as long as it remains in your bedroom, but will consider it not tolerable – and worthy of detention – if it goes against the pagan god of their own goodness and, astonishingly, tolerance. They are stupid, and illiterate. They do not understand freedom, much less Christianity. They are in love with themselves, and will desperately cling to their love until the day they will have to die, and their friends will “celebrate” their “goodness”. This cult of one's own goodness requires the “intolerant” to be punished without any… tolerance.
Some people think the usual Nazi of the Thirties was a “hating” beast filled with hate for a world or perceived enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazi Germany was a perfectly ordered, peaceful, prosperous society enjoying their tranquility and defending themselves against the, erm, “haters”; haters clearly recognised as such by society and one's better, and therefore uncritically accepted as such whilst enjoying one's tea and scones (or rather, beer and pretzel).
Do not make the mistake of thinking your own neighbour is much different that the friendly lady or lad in Nazi Germany. Your own neighbour already accepted “hate” legislation and homosexual marriage, and would say to you “bullying” is so very bad, it must be severely punished, surely? They might soon start resembling their counterparts in, say, Magdeburg circa 1937. It will merely take more time.
The world was freed from the horrors of Nazism by kicking and bombing their ass to the tune of around, if memory serves, eight million dead when both soldiers and civilians are added (the number might be different, but you get my drift). But there is no seeing what earthly power can be a threat to the extremely wealthy, technologically advanced, and militarily powerful Western societies, now slowly sliding toward Nazism out of lack of faith in God, and a strong belief in their own goodness.
We must pray, and pray more. We must stop being appeasers now, if we want to have some chance of becoming the persecuted of tomorrow. Most of all, we must resist this horrible climate of political correctness, and stop being nice with the Nazis.
If you think yourself too fine to say “faggot”, you will one day have to be fine enough to have them instructing your children, making your laws, ruling your life, and oppressing your religion.
Still is not too late. But the number of Nazis next door is growing. Only a robust cultural offensive – also consisting in the rejection of political correctness – will stop the Nazi sheep.
Some “who am I to judge” Jesuits might do worse than reading a bit of St. Catherina of Siena.
I am reliably informed (though in my ignorance I have never read extensively from this great Saint; a lack I will try to remedy soon) that the words Our Lord had to say to her about the matter of sodomy are as follows:
“They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature] . . . but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them. . . . It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”
Interesting words, isn’t it?
Extremely homophobic, I know. What a hater. His website should be taken down. Perhaps the police should be called. Who does he think he is, this Jesus? And why does he believe in demons?
Doesn’t He know Bishop Francis has said to atheist words on the lines of “but do good. We’ll meet there”?
Doesn’t He know sodomy can be just a little “sin of the youth”?
Doesn’t He know sodomy isn’t forbidden in any European countries?
Seriously, this Christ here should take a long, hard look at himself.
It’s no surprise Bishop Francis doesn’t like Him.
This one is exactly the kind of man who would count rosaries.
Funny short article from the often very funny “Onion” which, though written from the wrong perspective, shows the Bishop of Rome is widely perceived to have made a mess of Catholic things – from our perspective at least -.
If you have strong objections to the “f word”, don't click.
Let us imagine that it were – absurdly – discovered that homosexuality is a genetic malformation that can be discovered and cured before birth.
Do you think many “liberal” parents would choose to have their own baby born homosexual?
In the wake of a controversy between the blogging priest and the blogging queen (search, and you shall find) I would like to offer my two cents in matter of what I see as proper terminology, and proper behaviour for everyone.
I use the word homosexuality to describe the perverted attraction toward people of the same sex. Concerning this, then Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say:
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
There can be no mistake here: the churche hates homosexuality, because homosexuality is intrinsically evil. This not only corresponds to 2000 years of Christian teaching, but also to sanity and common sense. The one who is not disgusted at the thought of sodomy isn't better than the one who is not disgusted at the thought of incest, bestiality, or child rape. Still, the Church will tell you that the inclination of a person to incest (or homosexuality; or child rape) is in itself not a sin as long as no consent has been given to the thought. I never see this argument used to say that the Church “loves child rapists and hates child rape”. I wonder why?
Therefore, yours truly uses the following words to mean the following:
Homosexuality: that particular kind of sexual perversion consisting in sexual attraction for those of one's sex. Homosexuality is a perversion, and it is in the same ballpark as incest, & Co.
Homosexual: the person afflicted by this particular sexual perversion. This person might try to be a good a Catholic, and not consent to his perversion. In this case he might not sin, but he is still a pervert, and the fact that he fights the good fight may exclude the sin, but it will not negate the perversion.
Faggot (Fag, Sod, Sodomite, Queen): the man who commits the sin of the sodomites. Often, he is vocal about it, adding scandal to sin.
Homosexuality is a perversion. It is extremely bad, revolting, disgusting, an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The homosexual who does not consent to his homosexual attraction may not sin in the particular instance, but he is not less of a pervert than the paedophile who does not consent to his own kind of abomination. Whilst we try to be charitable to everyone, we can't make what is bent straight for the sake of niceness, and I personally wouldn't want either as neighbour (thank you very much; and you're welcome), particularly if I had children.
“Oh, but he is sooo chaste”
Bully for him. Wish him all the best. My next rosary is for him, that he may get rid of his perversion by God's grace. Sincerely.
But would you have a pedophile as neighbour because he says – or you think – that he is reforming himself? Thought not. If in doubt, ask your wife.
The faggot is, in all probability, Satan's fodder. He bears very clear signs of reprobation, and extremely strong ones if he also gives scandal. I can't imagine many of them repenting, and I can obviously not imagine a single one of them escaping hell who does not repent.
It is a great mystery to me how modern Western societies have de-coupled their judgment of the child rapist from the one of the sodomite, but the most probable reason is because they have forgotten what a sin is: the violation of God's law, rather than the act of ” harming” someone. Sheer stupidity might play a role, though.
The question remains how a homosexual is supposed to behave concerning his affliction. I get rather angry when I read of homosexual, and allegedly pious ones, insisting that they be allowed to “out” themselves.
Does society allow people to say “I am a Caholic and I would love to foxtrot my dog, or my mother, or the neighbour's little child?”. No, it doesn't. The one who has such perversion is required to pray very much and shut up more, lest he gives scandal.
In every demand that one's perversion be “acknowledged” lies the implicit demand that such perversion be accepted. There can never be anything like “Homos for Christ”, because the very shouting that one is a homo goes against the very idea of shouting that one is a Christian.
In fact, the very fact that one is a homo precludes him the Priesthood, and for extremely good reasons. Here it is recognised that a great flaw is present: a flaw that is there even in those instances in which no sin occurs. Said in a blunter way, it's never OK to be a “homosexual Christian”, because it's never OK to be a homosexual.
Therefore, the homo is required to think, speak, and behave straight, without any “born that way” bullcrap. There can be no excuses of “it would be as absurd for me to play straight as for you to play bent”. God does not make any man a homosexual, He makes every man man. Therefore, the homo who adopts a manly behaviour is still going with, not against, his nature, and is conseuenly rightly required to behave accordingly.
Any other behaviour is scandalous, implies the desire for acceptance of one's perversion, and unavoidably leads to the demand of its approval.
There. Now you even have Mundabor's code of conduct for Catholic homos.
What more can you want.
And it came to pass the British Fag Government decided words mean what they would like them to, and brains can be switched off at leisure.
As a consequence, men can be called “wives” and women “husbands”.
One would say this is too stupid even for Maria Miller and David Cameron, but this is not the case.
Not only David Cameron and Maria Miller are so stupid, but so is a country that has decided not to think, in order that it might feel good with itself.
Satanical. Preposterous, but still satanical.