Continuing our short comment over the satanic abomination published by the Vatican yesterday, we find the argument of sexual perversion introduced.
This is, make no mistake, the clear indication that the Homomafia is now running the show at the Vatican, helped by the man who, whether a homosexual himself or not, decided they were not a problem because they don’t go around with the “Vatican Gay Lobby ID card”. Today, for a change, I will abandon the “what they really said” method.
If you ever wondered why Francis buried in the sand the famous 300 page report, you can cease wondering now.
So, there it goes:
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The smell of brimstone is strong in this one.
I have never heard of “homo detector” devices being put at the entrance of churches, and when it “beeps” people being chased away by ushers crying: “Go away!” “No homosexuals in our church!”
The Church has never forbidden the approach to the altar to pedophiles, homosexuals, murderers, incestuous people, and people screwing animals.
What the Church has always said, is that these are abominations. Therefore, on the one hand no pervert is allowed to act on his perversion, and on the other hand no pervert is allowed to give scandal by advertising it.
Which introduces the problem of “welcoming”. The soul is welcome to contrition and repentance. The homo is not welcome as homo. He is not welcome if, in any way whatsoever, he wants to have his perversion accepted, “valued”, “evaluated”, “appraised” or “appreciated” in any way whatsoever; because this would be welcoming scandal, not souls, and leading souls to hell, not heaven.
The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge.
Homosexuality isn’t a “question”. It’s a sexual perversion. It leads people to hell. Its obvious (not “natural”; actually, unnatural) byproduct, sodomy, cries to heaven for vengeance. It’s in the same ballpark as screwing one’s dog, or one’s father, or one’s little nephew. That’s it. Live with it.
Still, our little Satan’s whores now dare to tell us that such perversion should move us to “elaborate a realistic path of affective growth”. This means, for all but the stupid, that the pervs are encouraged in their “feelings” for each other. The “integration of the sexual dimension” is, and cannot be read in any other way, an acceptance of sodomy, perhaps waiting that two sodomites who are told how much sodomy accompanies them in their “affective growth” then suddenly cease to commit sodomy because… because… no one knows why. The end is another bomb, as the “educative challenge” seem to be addressed not to the homos, but to the Catholic people, who must be “educated” to the “welcoming” of sodomites in their midst.
The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
The little bastards get very sneaky here: as they repeat, with a very low voice, that the sacrament of marriage and two sodomites or lesbians living together in sin aren’t quite the same thing, they effectively put homosexual “couples” almost on the same sexual footing as the sacrament of matrimony. The defence of the doctrine is here reduced to saying that Holy matrimony is still on a better footing than two sodomites living together! O you Angels in heaven, do you hear them??
The gravity of this is immense.
But fear not: there will be Pollyannas around so happy to write that the little whores have “upheld Catholic doctrine”.
Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
More whoring. Open sodomitical scandal is nothing more than a “problem”. Does it lead to damnation? Well, looky here: some faggots make a living out of other faggots! Isn’t this a beautiful “sacrifice” from, say, the old man who pays for the young pervert? I am so moved I want to cry. Do you have a handkerchief?
About the children, we are told that even their adoption from fags and lesbians is now a-ok! Lord, protect us and the little ones from these devils!
I say it once again: there is nowhere to hide. No level of imbecility can justify anyone in pretending that
1. this is not atrociously satanic, and
2. this is not orchestrated by TMAHICH
TMAHICH is the man who put the liberal whores in the team in charge of writing this abomination. TMAHICH is the man who wanted both this Synod and the way it is going. TMAHICH is the man attacking Catholicism at every step, in every way he can.
In a way, and shocking as it is to say this, the situation is not entirely bad. I mean, it is obviously atrocious, but the upside of it is that the mask has fallen. Those who accept to pretend that the mask is still there have abundantly deserved to be punished for their folly, because they obviously value their quiet life and the desire to avoid uncomfortable questions infinitely more than Christ.
Francis here, Christ there. Francis is comfortable and easy, Christ is uncomfortable and difficult.
Pick your side, and pay the price.
As the disgraceful Synod begins, an army of perverts is converging on Rome like it’s June 1944.
I wonder how many among even the most hardened, professional Pollyannas will still pretend to believe perverts must be accepted as perverts within the Church; as if their proclaimed perversion did not, in actual fact, translate not only in perverted activity, but in the perversion of the Church.
Whilst the urban legends of homosexual saints are clearly tosh, it is certainly possible that a person afflicted by this horrible perversion reacts to it in the right way and decides that his homosexuality must be not embraced or whitewashed, but on the contrary fought against and lived for what it is: a horrible perversion that must be fought against until death. The various groups like Courage, and the counsellors now under increasing persecution in the United States, do just that: they help people on the wrong (per) direction (versio) to find the right one.
Yours truly does not throw his arrows against the homosexual – or the pedophile, the incestuous, the one affected by bestiality – who recognises his problem, sees it for what it is, and acts accordingly out of fear of the Lord and love for His Church. The attentive reader will immediately notice that I never call such people “faggots”. In this, yours truly thinks he is fully in line with the thinking of the Church not only after, but also before V II, in which is the only guarantee of orthodoxy. Homosexuality is a huge problem. The serene acknowledgment of it, and the awareness of the absolute necessity to put an end to homosexual behaviour, is already a great step. May those so honest get rid of their affliction in this life, and be richly rewarded in the next.
But I draw a line in the sand whenever I hear hypocritical, subversive talk of “acceptance” and “inclusiveness” of homosexuality.
Did the Church every “accept” pedophilia? Did she ever “include” incest? Of course, of course she calls the pedophiles and the incestuous to repentance! But never would she, lest she betrays her role, consider such horrible perversions as acceptable in themselves!
The Church loves the person because he is an immortal soul. She does not love the person as sinner, much less accepts or includes his perversion. This must be repeated again and again, because it appears thickness is rather well spread among Catholic – or pretended such – keyboards.
Another basic concept most “everyday Catholics” do not get – which is utterly disquieting – is the obvious distinction between sins that go with nature, and sins that go against it. It must truly be a perverted generation the one that does not get basic principles not only of common sense, but of the god-given order of the world.
The affirmation that, say, “the church calls homosexuals to chastity, but then she does the same with heterosexual people too” is, at its root, profoundly subversive. It sends the message that the one or the other sexuality are the same in the eyes of the Lord, and therefore the same rules are applied. It also sends the message that homosexual attraction is in itself fine – a misconception held by many a perverted mind nowadays – and the problem only begins when penises start floating around looking for the wrongest possible places.
This is not only bollocks, but perverted bollocks, and I defy any of these “understanding” Catholics to tell me they would know, on being informed that their son is attracted to boys, think it just fine, provided no sodomy occurs. Whereas the same father would proudly acknowledge his son’s attraction to girls and, in fact, think it just fine, because that’s exactly how it is. In this latter case, the attraction is fine even if fornication occurs, because in this latter case what is wrong is the fornication, not the attraction. The attraction for the opposite sex is from God, from the same one is from the Devil.
All this is lost nowadays. The desire to please perverts is such, that their very perversion is swept under the carpet, and downplayed in every possible and impossible way.
This is indecent, and outright disgusting. It reminds me of the Eighties, when the liberal press insisted in telling us how “natural” sexuality in children is; no doubt, because there were a lot of pedophile journalists then, exactly as there are a lot of homosexual journalists now.
Now, an army of faggots and dyke converge on Rome like it’s June 1944; they do so because they smell the blood, and they know that I do not say hostility, but not even laughter and ridicule will submerge them.
This is a clear sign of how deep we have sunk into the moral abyss: that perverts have become an accepted part of our everyday life, people whose “feelings” should not be “hurt”.
“Sodom light”, I call this.
In fact, not even so very light.
How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
In another show of how some Presbyterians are exactly the opposite of Christians, we are informed a “transgendered” freak show is going to preach in a big Presbyterian so-called Cathedral, in an event to which the omnipresent Fag Supremo, Mrs Robinson, is also going to take part.
The amount of sugary nonsense waffled about by the organisers of the event is stunning. Not only is Christianity never to be seen – reminder: every heathen can be good to plants and dog puppies; but this is not what Christianity is about -, but it is transformed into its contrary, or I am tempted to say “transgendered”, by a purely self-celebrating worship of one’s perverted self.
Interestingly enough, the perverts’ organisations involved in the event say this is nothing special, and was “long overdue”. Which makes sense: in the world of perverts, being a pervert or a pro-perverts does not make of one anything special at all. The perverts will only ask one why he has not perverted himself before…
I wonder what kind of people take part in such ceremonies from the pews. I would bet my pint these places attract those who have a desperate need to silence their own conscience, and think the best way to do it is to declare their conscience wrong, and themselves right, hoping their conscience will shut up at last. Sodomites, lesbians, adulterers, abortionists, sexual sinners of any kind must find some superficial comfort in an edifice looking like a real Cathedral, inside which sexual perversion is celebrated as, no less, God-given.
And in fact, these people do not confront Christianity frontally, like an atheist pervert would; they simply proceed to reinvent it, and inform us 2,000 years of Christian thinking was wrong. They, the perverts, are right.
The tranny wannabe priest is the best example of the transgendered wannabe Christianity these people are trying to promote. They want to make of Christ one like them, so that they may forget they are, in fact, his very enemies.
Truth does not change.
Now as then, there will be wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
We can, and actually should, pray for the poor bastards. But it is, I think, perfectly fine to also say, in the traditional way:
Flammis acribus addictis
Voca me cum benedictis
Some of you might have wondered why I have not endorsed the UKIP for last week’s elections.
The reason is that the UKIP is giving up to organised faggotry at alarming speed; therefore, whilst I would see with pleasure the once conservative Party bring harmed by them in a very same-sex way I did not think I could, in conscience, support them through this blog.
Today I got a further confirmation why. It has transpired the party has now suspended one of his just elected Councillors for calling Elton John and his live-in aberrosexual “perverts”, besides referring to perverts in general with fitting terms like “fags” and “dykes”.
Heavens, this is exactly the kind of people the Country needs! People who are not afraid to exercise their right of free speech, and forcefully react against the Gaystapo now trying to invade every aspect of this Nation’s life! But no, a party occupied with becoming as stupid as the Tories decides that facts are too much of an inconvenience, and decides to give itself the usual oh so tolerant face that is, in actual fact, a hammering on Christian values.
This is the first generation since the outset of Christianity in which perversion cannot even be called such without incurring the ire of people who call themselves “Christians”.
A clear sign that this is the first post-Christian generation in the history of Europe.
How fitting that even Popes would have as unofficial slogan “who am I to judge?”.
I have posted a short while ago – after my adrenaline level has stabilised, albeit to a very dangerous level – a blog post about Pope Francis’ endorsement of and encouragement to sodomy.
Reading around on the Internet, you find the various comments: with the professional blind, the closet homosexuals talking of “mercy”, and the “I don’t know how, but this must all make sense in some way” types.
Some commenters, though, seem to make a very dangerous mistake: they choose orthodoxy by half, thinking that this is a kind of “golden mean”, or a way to protect orthodoxy whilst remaining “charitable”. It isn’t orthodox, and it isn’t charitable.
A clear example is in the approval of the so-called “third way” concerning homosexuality. From what I could read around, this “third way” would consist in declaring oneself openly and proudly homosexual, whilst choosing chastity because… Christianity says so.
This is a clear example of senseless bollocks, invented by someone who wanted to bend over backwards to appease the culture of the times, or wanted to promote homosexuality profiting of the culture of the times.
Homosexuality is a perversion. There’s nothing good in homosexuality. Nothing whatever. Homosexuality is not to 98%, or to 99%, but to 100% of the devil. It is, therefore, utterly impossible to be afflicted by such a perversion and be “proud” of it, in the same way as it is impossible to openly declare oneself a pervert without giving scandal.
Thinking logically, the entire concept defies its purpose. To make something public already means to imply a search for approval; an approval that is then forcefully imposed on the community by the very assertion that there should be any “pride” in it.
One truly wonders what the purpose of this “third way” is: to lead homosexuals to accepts chastity, or to lead Christians to accepts homosexuality of something to be openly proclaimed, and to be proud of. Tellingly, no one of the promoters of this strange “way” seem to ask himself why there was never any need of it before. Was Christianity unmerciful these last 2000 years?
Beware of this kind of “moderate” positions. They aren’t Christian, at all.
The same happens with some Catholics who say that they are contrary to so-called same-sex marriage, but are not against so-called civil partnerships. They do not understand that if Christianity has done without civil partnership for 2,000 years it was because of … basic Christianity.
Unfortunately, nowadays the very concept of scandal has disappeared. Accommodating people’s real or perceived need is the real priority, and people therefore start to think, in all seriousness and without seeing any problem, how Christianity can be bent to do it.
The idea that it should be a problem at all that a faggot living with his “partner” would not have his “relationship” with him legally regulated, or would not be able to visit him in the hospital, or would not have any right to his “pension pot” by “divorce” would have caused justified scandal, mixed with amused irony and salacious comments, in every generation before ours. Nowadays, people very seriously think about them, and think them a societal issue. This is how de-Christianised our societies have become.
These are merely two example. There are many others.
Be always vigilant, and reflect whether what you are reading on the internet would have been considered sound by your grand-grandmother.
Truth never changes. It’s as simple as that.
Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
This come from an important document issues in 1961, “Religiosorum Institutio”, a document written when the Great Mess had been already announced, but the Church still abounded in good, orthodox men not afraid of facts.
Many are the sound points made by this document, and certainly there is no trace of the modern desire to please. This is a document written to be approved by Jesus, not the adulterers in (or rather, outside of) the pews.
Please read carefully the expression above, and take note as follows:
1. Pederasty and homosexuality are put in the same ballpark. This is a point on which this blog continuously insist, and could never insist for long enough.
2. The tendency to homosexuality is called evil, because it is. And it is because homosexuality is evil, exactly as pederasty is evil. It is a madness of the modern, V Ii church, fueled by a mighty homosexual mafia, that the two are now often kept strictly separated, and homosexuality is only mentioned to remind one that the Church “loves the sinner”, at least implying she is fine with his homosexuality. She is not. She cannot be.
Homosexuality cannot be a sin, in the same way as pedophilia cannot be a sin, because only an action can be a sin. But this does not make them less wrong in the least. It is because the tendency is so evil, that the sin is so sharply condemned. And again, this is the first generation that is so stupid that it cannot even make these elementary distinctions, and waxes lyrical saying that fornication is also a sin, therefore the church considers sodomy in the same way as fornication. My foot.
The sin of sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance, ladies and gentlemen. There is a fundamental difference between sins going with nature, and sins going against nature. That our generation is so blinded from political correctness that it refuses to see such evident facts – therefore normalising perversion – is another testimony of the way the V II generation is trying to annihilate common sense, and with it every sensus catholicus, in a desperate fight against sanity shared with the secular world, and applauded by it.
It is a great consolation to know what wherever one looks in the Church of the past one finds all the Truth, all the reassurance, all the sound doctrine the present hierarchy is utterly unwilling and, I suspect, even unable to give us.
The First Fag President of the once glorious United States has invited the first so-called “gay” so-called “bishop” of a so-called “church” to give the final so-called blessing at some speech or other some days ago. With the usual class, the “bishop queen” twitted “OMG!”, thinking he is a screaming, stupid, self-centred adolescent girl. Which he is not. Adolescent, I mean. Anagraphically, at least.
On reading this, I reflected on the perversion of modern times, when Christianity has become such a faint remembrance, and perversion so mainstream, that even a POTUS can get away with what Barry just did without being flayed to death.
Today, on Good Friday, we can reflect on how many, in a position of power, crucify Christvevery day not (only) with their private sins, but by openly attacking Christian morality at every level: social, legal, and religious.
And then I thought: what if Barry would, faithful to his “inclusive” creed, suddenly discover a same-sex attraction for the girlish “OMG” “bishop”? Look, Obama is enough of a spineless wimp, to the point that he has even openly admitted he doesn't smoke out of sheer fear of his wife. And then there's Michelle O.: a woman with jaws good for a Spielberg movie, and whose entire demeanour and attitude to life says she would so much have wanted to be born with a willie, but she had to find an emasculated puppet in order to become the President Of The United States By Proxy. Oh, the injustice of modern times…
What if, then, Barry were to embrace his already rather developed inner faggot, and discover a sudden same-sex attraction for the ageing wannabe bishop “OMG!” Robinson? Let's look at it.
The so-called bishop's “lover” would have to recognise that the “Spirit” has led the so-called bishop to this new “experience”. He would have to be “supportive”, of course. That's the first obstacle gone.
Michelle “Jaws” Obama would have to recognise, at least in public, that even her husband – whom she certainly considers a third-class loser, first-class nuisance and utter idiot – has a “right” to his “happiness”, and it would be too late now to start defending traditional roles. The daughters are also, in fact, old enough to be “punished with a baby”, so they should not be shocked too much at something so “normal” like their father undergoing a “new phase”. That's obstacle two (and, as far as they count anything, mini-obstacles three and four) gone.
And then there is the most important obstacle: the voters. But you see, the beauty of being a POTUS at the second mandate is that you don't have to stand for an election ever again. If your name is Barry O. you can just sit and relax, polishing your image for the well-paid speeches to come. Playing more golf, if possible. Things like that. Voters are not your concern anymore. Your wife is, of course. But only if she is near enough to strike.
The voters would be, obviously, severely tested. One thinks of the Black vote, to a good extent not consisting of atheist trannies. But hey, if they plaud the POTUS when he invites the faggot bishop to bless people, why should they criticise him when the President himself practices what he preaches?
And so we are nearing the happy end: in this XXI century of ours the President of the United States could leave his wife and family and run away with an homosexual so-called cleric and the majority of the Country would have no other choice, if they have a shred of coherence left, than to look and applaud.
Then Michelle would be free to go on and have – if technology allows – her own little operation herself.
Happiness all around.
Read on Rorate about the latest antics of Cardinal Dolan (already mentioned on this blog). The key passage is this:
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York praised University of Missouri football star Michael Sam for coming out as gay, saying he would not judge the athlete for his sexual orientation. “Good for him,” Dolan said in an interview with NBC's “Meet the Press” airing Sunday.
“I would have no sense of judgment on him,” Dolan continued.
Note the following:
1. Dolan mentions, as Satan himself would do, the Bible. His Christianity is the hearsay version, “do not judge”. Dalai Lama style. Francis-cum-Nelson Mandela. Woodstock galore.
2. the Cardinal obviously quotes Francis. Michael Voris will criticise Dolan, but not Francis. Mysteries of TV production.
3. He (Dolan) puts on the same plane faithful spouses and clearly sodomite – at least implicitly – athletes. “Bravo”, he says to both.
You see? The ones follow the Bible by being chaste spouses, the others follows the Bible by inserting their accessory into the dirtiest hole (and probably, not the only hole) of another man (and probably, many men). Both of them – the chaste couple and the sodomites – are, says the Cardinal, deserving of praise.
No sense of judgment. Bravo.
Now: if the athlete had said “I am afflicted by a homosexual attraction, but I believe all that the Church believes and will therefore avoid the sin of sodomy and pray the Lord that he may give me the grace to overcome this affliction”, the Cardinal would still have been wrong, because homosexuality is a sexual perversion and something about which one does not go about giving scandal. Would the Cardinal say the following words about a person who had outed himself as a pedophile?
“God bless ya. I don't think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, 'Bravo.'”
But it is actually far worse than that. Dolan's satanical words are clearly an endorsement for the homosexual lifestyle, proclaimed and lived in scandal. This is a Prince of the Church. What times we live in.
It seems to me here that the Francis effect is making all his devastating effects heard. Cardinal Dolan would very probably never have dared to say anything similar to this, had Benedict been still in power. But now that a new wind is blowing, our over-nourished weathervane promptly changes direction, and plauds sexual perversion in the spirit - not the actual words; but the spirit, yes – of what Francis says.
And so the game goes on. Francis starts the mess and clearly indicates, without going all the way, where he wants to lead the Church. His colonels promptly take the hint, and deliver. Lio ensues.
In the nuChurch of Francis that oh so sharply condemns careerism, they are all aligning to follow the new party line, knowing the man will reward a certain type of prelate. They know the Peron in Rome will appoint others like him to bishops, archbishops and cardinals. Dolan obviously has one aim in mind: to be the new Humble One. I doubt he will encourage the practice of fasting, though.
When I think of the Vatican hierarchy of today, “Brothel without boobs” is what comes more frequently to my mind. No, it's not a strong image. I'd prefer the chances of salvation of any prostitute than those of Cardinals like this one.
Francis is, as we all know, not one to judge. If you smell of favela and come from the “outskirts”, or else say to him you are “of good will”, he will leave you free to do whatever you please without as much as raising an eyebrow. Actually, though, it seems he does perfectly nothing even when the Head of State (Italians would use “head” in another context now; but I digress…) of France, the old teenager Francois Hollande, comes to visit.
Last time I looked in the news, sodomy was not part of the agenda between the two. Why is that? Because Francis is not interested in talking about it, of course.
Think of this: even when Western leaders met Soviet leaders, there were always mentions of the value they share. No Western Head of State would visit Russia without at least having on record that the situation of perverts over there has been addressed. The Pope, though, does not think that the issue of sodomy be worth at least a polite statement about the Vatican's and the Teenager's total disagreement on the matter.
This, as just another wave of Manif pour Tous takes place in France.
If Francis were a decent Pontiff rather than a disgraceful… bishop of Rome, he would not miss one occasion to support the brave men and women fighting for basic morality in France. Instrad, he abundantly shows that to him they are an embarrassment.
Being Francis, he will certainly throw some bird food to the pigeons every now and then: he does have to if he want to show he is Catholic, uncomfortable as this will let him feel. But everytime he can show to the secular society how much he does not care he will do, as the Hollande visit clearly shows.
Hollande should have come back to France with every Frenchman knowing he is the enemy of Christ and his Church. This can be done diplomatically but effectively. Again, look at the West's behaviour toward Putin: is there anyone in the West not knowing what the stance of the Post-Christian Western European States is? As it is, Hollande came back knowing from that corner he has nothing to fear.
This is how Francis betrays Christ and His Church, whilst he collects magazine covers from the adoring godless world.
“A lot of people complain and don't tolerate it but with all respect I say that homosexuality is a defective way of manifesting sexuality, because that has a structure and a purpose, which is procreation,” Sebastian told Malaga newspaper Sur.
The interview was published Sunday, a week after the Spaniard was named as one of 19 new cardinals chosen by the pope, to be officially appointed February 22.
“We have a lot of defects in our bodies. I have high blood pressure. Am I going to get angry because they tell me that? It is a defect I have that I have to correct as far as I can,” said Sebastian, who is the archbishop emeritus of the northern city of Pamplona.
“Pointing out a defect to a homosexual is not an offence, it is a help because many cases of homosexuality can be recovered and normalised with adequate treatment. It is not an offence, it is esteem. When someone has a defect, the good friend is the one who tells him.”
These words come from the interview the non-voting soon-to-be Cardinal Aguilar gave a couple of days ago. Predictably, the Gaystapo is having a hissy fit.
Let me make a couple of short observations:
1. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion, not a physical “defect”. To put it on the same plane as high blood pressure (something that can be simply hereditary, and is simply that: a health issue) is to downplay the entire issue atrociously. The way the Cardinal puts it, homosexuality simply “happens”; one “has it” just like he might have high blood pressure. Don't expect many to be impressed by his words. Unless we start to call things with their name, things will never change.
2. The cardinal wanted to speak out, but what came out was a meow. He says “with all respect I say etc.” Would he say “with all respect I say pedophilia is a defective way of manifesting sexuality?” By being such a pussycat, he is formally asking the Gaystapo to attack him. They would attack him anyway, of course; but to attack a lion is rather more difficult than to attack a pussycat.
Political correctness has led to such an oblivion of the most elementary rules of Christianity that even those very rare princes of the Church who dare to say something against homosexuality do so in a whisper, not without saying “with all respect” beforehand, and making the most harmless of comparisons.
Meowing never changes anything. Roaring does.
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.