SSPX (Williamson) On Homosexuality

Questionable political ideas; but when he talks about Catholicism, hats off…

 

I have said many times by all his human shortcomings Bishop Williamson easily puts into shade (and into shame) every English bishop, bar none, for clarity of message and purpose, let alone orthodoxy and sincere love for the Church and the flock.

In the last days, there have been in the Catholic blogosphere some disturbing discussions about homosexuality.

Well, thinks I, let us see whether at the SSPX someone has some clear exposition on the matter, avoiding yours truly to spend an entire night with the adrenaline over the roof and the persistent suspicion of living in a world so blinded by stupidity not even the worst abominations can be seen anymore.

I have, therefore, looked and have found a letter of said Bishop Williamson which, like many other articles I have read of him (when he talks about Catholicism, that is), is simply exemplary.

The comment section will be closed, because life’s too short.

The letter is here reproduced in its entirety, with emphases and the odd comment mine. The original is here.

——————————————————————————–

Regarding: “Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children”

October 8, 1997

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The Catholic bishops of the U.S.A., more precisely their Committee on Marriage and Family, have just come out with a “Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children”, which is a lamentable piece of work. Since this Pastoral Message is liable to make people, already confused, even more confused, let us re-state some Catholic principles, because the question bears directly on Faith and Morals, and on people getting to heaven or falling into hell.

Homosexuality means the misuse between man and man or between woman and woman of those functions and parts of the human body which God designed for use exclusively between a man and a woman within a lawful marriage, for the primary purpose of the reproduction of the human race. The Law of God governing use of the reproductive functions can be broken in a variety of ways even between man and woman, but these sins, e.g. fornication or adultery, are at least natural to the extent that they observe the basic duality of man and woman. On the contrary sins of homosexuality violate even this basic natural structure of the reproductive function, rendering it necessarily and utterly sterile, void of its intrinsic purpose. That is why homosexuality is sometimes called “the sin against nature”.
In fact the sin is so unnatural that Mother Church ranks it alongside murder, defrauding the worker of his just wage, and oppression of the widow or orphan, as one of the four sins “crying to Heaven for vengeance”. However, God did not wait for the founding of the Catholic Church to instill in men the horror of this sin, but he implanted in the human nature of all of us, unless or until we corrupt it, an instinct of violent repugnance for this particular sin, comparable to our instinctive repugnance for other misuses of our human frame, such as coprophagy.

That is why St. Paul in the famous passage on homosexuality in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, verses 24 to 27, lambastes the Gentiles for practising this sin even though they had no revealed religion, and he does so in terms chosen to re-awaken that natural repugnance, e.g. verse 27: “And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error”.

Therefore to speak of homosexuality as an “alternate life-style” is as perverse as equating the violation of nature with its observance. It is as foully corrupt as to make no difference between recognizing God the author of nature, and defying Him.

Therefore what is “innate”, or in-born, in human nature concerning homosexuality is a violent repugnance. Therefore to speak of homosexuality, or even just an inclination to it, as being “innate” in certain human beings, of course to excuse them, is to accuse God at least of contradiction, if not also of planting in men the cause of sin, which is implicit if not explicit blasphemy.

The very most that can be innate in a man of, for instance, homosexuality, is the raw material for his temperament which may be sensitive in one man, rough in another, but whether that sensitivity or roughness is molded into the compassion of a saint or the vice of a homosexual depends on a series of good or evil choices made by each individual. Homosexuality is a vice, or sinful habit, created by nothing other than a series of sinful acts, for each of which the individual was responsible. Homosexuality is a moral problem, which is why, fascinatingly, St. Paul in the same passage derives it from idolatry! (No space to quote, look it up!)

“Oh, but Our Lord had chawity, (unlike thumwun we know who wath tho nathty to Pwintheth Di!). Our Lord loved thinnerth, and faggotth, and tho thould we!!” So runs the objection! [this is fantastic!!]

Yes indeed Our Lord loved sinners, but not in their sirs, rather despite their sin, which he hated. When Our Lord protected the unrighteous Mary Magdalene against the righteous Pharisees in a way which can bring tears to our eyes each time we read Luke, Chapter 7, he was protecting not her sin but her repentance. God will, as He has told us in the Gospel, go to almost any lengths to help the sinner who is trying to get out of his sin, but He abominates the sinner who wallows in it, and upon these modern cities that flaunt their perversity in annual homosexual parades, He is preparing such fire and brimstone as may make what fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah look like a fall of dew, because at least those cities never knew the Gospel (cf. Mt. XI, 20-24).

Woe then to the sinner who instead of casting away his sin, hugs it to his bosom, as do a mass of today’s homosexuals, and as the Bishops’ Pastoral virtually encourages them to do. God’s patience is long, but if the sinner insists upon welding his sin to his soul, then one day God’s patience runs out, and He hates sinners with sin, crying out to both, “Depart from me, ye accursed, into everlasting fire”(Mt.XXV,41). Therefore real charity, which wishes everlasting salvation to homosexuals, will, with all due prudence, not put a cushion under their sin, but paint it to them in its true colours to help them to get out of it.

But what does our American Bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family do? They dangerously down-grade the sin and dangerously up-grade the sinner, putting in effect a cushion beneath the sin.

As for the sin, they do still – to their credit – say that homosexual activity is intrinsically wrong. However, in at least two ways they diminish the wrongness. Firstly, they suggest homosexuality can be innate when they quote a Newchurch document from Rome to the effect that some homosexuals are “definitely such because of some kind of innate instinct”, and when they say that “Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen”, because “a common opinion of experts is that there are multiple factors – genetic, hormonal, psychological – that may give rise to homosexuality”. Of course whatever is innate is not sinful.

Secondly, they make a true but in this respect dangerous distinction between the habit (“orientation”) of homosexuality and the act (“activity”), saying there is nothing wrong with the orientation as long as it does not turn into activity. True, only the act and not the habit is a sin, but since when did habits (especially in this domain) not incline to acts? There may be even much virtue in resisting a bad habit, but am I helped to resist it by being told the habit is not bad? If the orientation is not so bad, why should the activity be so bad?

As for up-grading the sinner, watch how close the Committee come to saying that God loves the sinner with his sin (which is blasphemy). I quote: “… God loves every person as a unique individual. Sexual indentity helps to define the unique persons we are. One component of our sexual indentity is sexual orientation ….Human beings see the appearance, but the Lord looks into the heart (I Sam XVI,7).” How is this quotation to be interpreted other than as saying that God loves the homosexual in and with his orientation to homosexuality?

And if God loves the sinner with his sins how must men love him! From start to finish the Pastoral Message drips with honeyed words to prescribe how we must behave towards homosexuals. Let me reconstruct the general idea: (my own words in the quotation marks)

“With supportive love we must accept the homosexual persons challenged by the hurtful humour and offensive discrimination directed against their kind. We must reach out with honesty and commitment to help in the overcoming of their painful tensions. We must not be exclusive or judgmental but by significant communication as caring persons we must enable them to take a fresh and healing look at their dignity as human persons so they can learn to cope with their feelings. Sensitive to their authentic needs, and unconditionally supportive of their tender self-awareness, we must reach out and embrace them in intimate community” – oops! – it’s dangerous to get in the honeyed groove!

And this stuff goes on for eight pages uninterruptedly! What other purpose or effect can such words have than to dismantle the individual’s and society’s instinctive defence mechanism against a sin stinking to high Heaven that wrecks them both? And all this in the name of the Catholic Church??

Such a false love blurring sin and sinner has nothing to do with Catholicism! As St. Paul traced homosexuality back to idolatry, i. e. the breaking of the First Commandment, so the true remedy of the sin is for those practising it to return to the true worship and love of the true God. But what chance do they have of being led back to it by churchmen who virtually promote such corruption as in this Pastoral Message? Almost none.

“Pray”, said Padre Pio, who died in 1968, “there is nothing else left”. But prayer, said the Cure of Ars, “is the powerlessness of the All-powerful, the all-powerfulness of the powerless”.

November will be the month to enlist the prayerful aid of the Holy Souls in Purgatory. A card is enclosed for you to return if you wish by November 1st to the Seminary, where it will go on the altar once a month for a sung Requiem Mass for all souls inscribed. But please send any stipends for Masses separately from the cards.

And please be supportive and compassionate towards the sensitive feelings of the Seminary’s cash-box, presently hurt by a painful sense of rejection and emptiness, always in need of fulfillment! So do let yourselves be challenged to nurture it and fill it full with a healing flow of greenbacks, and it will not stop thanking you for your co-operation.

Dear readers, forgive me, the Bishops’ Committee’s language is getting to me! On the contrary, may the Lord God sustain every one of us in the real religion!

Most sincerely yours in the month of the Holy Rosary,

Methodists Vote Their Own Theology On Sodomy. For Once, They Vote Right.

As a Catholic, I never cease to be amazed at the very concept a group of faithful calling themselves a church can think of voting their own theology, the same way as a council would vote whether they want a new bridge or to enlarge the hospital. Apparently, the thinking behind that is that  the Holy Ghost guides them. So if community A is guided in a way and the neighbouring community B is guided in a different one…

This, let me say this, utterly ridiculous and childlike system of deciding what is right and what is wrong must not necessarily lead to the wrong results.  Let us say, there is on average a 50% probability they will do what is right. This happened to the biggest US mainstream Protestant denomination in the US, the Methodists.

The Methodists have defeated attempts to modify their own theology in a way which “includes” perversion. The political correctness on the proposed formulations leaves one speechless: what does it mean to say homosexual are “people of sacred worth?” As human beings, of course they have sacred worth. But is their perversion worth anything?

To have an idea of the errors of Protestantism,  please consider another motion called for the acknowledgment we have “limited understanding” of homosexuality and (hold fast) should  “refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices until the Spirit leads us to new insight.” This is absolutely fantastic: if something is not after my liking, I will “refrain from judging” until the “Spirit” mysteriously changes his mind and “leads me to a new insight”.

This is not even Christianity a’ la carte. This is Christianity wanting something that is not even on the menu.

Then there is the idea one shouldn’t use “incompatibility language”. Whence they do get all these stupid expressions is beyond me, but they must feel smart.

Still, even in the middle of this democratic madness it appears a majority has refused to throw Christian values out of the window, and has rejected all motions seeking to water down the Christian position on sodomy. This, notwithstanding a debate tending to persuade them that if they aren’t inclusive, they will be responsible for many suicides.

Some of the delegates maintained some freshness, like the one comparing homosexuality to bestiality; which should actually be rather normal; unless you are a Methodist, in which case it’s use of “incompatibility language”.

The incestuous and pedophiles now want to be made “compatible”, too.

Otherwise, they will commit suicide.

And it will be all your fault.

Kudos to our proddie friends, anyway. At least, to that 54% who got it right.

Mundabor

Patience

Carlo Dolci, "Allegory of Patience".

I do not know whether I am the only one, but the concept of “patience” as practised in the Vatican corridors seems rather odd to me.

Whenever heresies or grave acts of disobedience arise, the Church reacts with such slowness, in comparison a sloth looks like Usain Bolt. The thinking here appears to be that one doesn’t have to rush things, and “the Church has always time”, and “the Church thinks in centuries, not years”.

Fine.

But then one wonders why the same thinking is applied so selectively. If there is so much time, and the Church thinks in centuries, why was the battle against abortion not started, and aggressively so, when abortion legislation swept the Free World? 

“Ah, this is because the Church is attentive not to engage her weight in battles she knows are lost”, is the mantra I used to hear in years past. The reasoning goes that if you fight against abortion and lose, then you’ll lose leverage when you fight against….. I don’t know exactly what, as in the last forty years I haven’t seen much of a fight anyway, unless it was for popular causes (we have now Popes engaged for the environment, for example; a rather novel concept, if you ask me).

My question then is: if the Church has time, and thinks in centuries, wouldn’t this be a wonderful reason to engage in all kind of battles, particularly those who would seem lost to this generation? 

It is very, very seldom, that important societal changes take place overnight. Even when events take place in rapid succession (take the French revolution, or the October one) it is plain to see the events have leavened for decades before the revolutionary outbreak. What we can clearly see is that even the Church cannot hope to introduce or re-introduce important societal changes unless a long, patient work is started, which then goes on for generations if needs be.

The battle against abortion is such one; the one against contraception another; the one against sodomy a third, and the one against euthanasia a fourth one.

I get seldom as angry as when I read, on comments written around, that a certain battle is lost. Lost, my foot! No battle is ever lost with the Holy Ghost on your side. But we have to have the courage to fight, and the determination to carry the fight in our graves and transmit it to the following generation if needs be.

How was this called? O yes…

Patience.

Mundabor

Football Coach Has The Guts To Say The Truth

If you forget a moment the Protestant lexicon of the man (the “personal relationship with Christ” always lets me think they have Him down for an afternoon tea and a cigar every Tuesday and Thursday) this man has guts. He speaks Christian truth and puts, if not today certainly in the future, his job on the line.

Hear him, literally, lecturing the members of the Omaha City Council about the Christian values which, alone, are going to allow them to reason the right way. He even allows himself a couple of rather strong words, and his praising them for the “courage” and strong conviction they must have in going against the Lord is also very ironic. Thankfully, he is Black, so everyone (particularly if White) will think twice before he trashes him.

Kudos to this intelligent, courageous, rather ironical man. He’d make a good convert, methinks.

Mundabor

Russians Show Some Common Sense

It's official: commie on the right more evil than commie on the left.

Whilst the West sinks in an ocean of political correctness in which pretty much everything is allowed, the Russians still show some common sense.

It appears more than 90% of Russians support a ban on homosexual propaganda. And in fact, I can’t imagine any country in Europe allowing such open show of perversion only 30 or 40 years ago.

Note the difference with London, where mayor Johnson (whom, make no mistake, you should still vote if you ask me, for reasons which have to do with the fact his only real opponent is pure evil)  bans a Christian adv from the underground after having had no problem at all with the homo propaganda the Christian adv was reacting to.

Note also that the opposition to homo propaganda is almost as widespread among younger people than among older ones, and is extremely widespread even by people of communist sympathies.

That some damn Russian commie should teach us basic morality is really a sign of the times.

Mundabor

Romney Shows His True Colour: Pink.

Curtains soon in pink? The White House.

Alas, we must prepare ourselves for four years with either a secular Muslim or a strange non-Christian at the White House. Unless, of course, Mitt Romney wins and does us the favour of moving for greener pastures before the time, and his appointed Vice President is chosen with some discernment.

Romney has now had the brilliant idea of hiring Richard Grenell, an openly homosexual spokesman (is spokesman appropriate here?), and the hypocrisy of the RINOs is, as widely expected, breathtaking.

The problem with the appointment is not only the fact the man is homosexual, but the fact that he is openly so.

In itself, a homosexual spokesman would be bad enough, once we leave the political correctness aside,because the job of spokesman is politically delicate, and should be not so easily exposed to attack. Of course homosexuals must work too, as must pedophiles, and former convicts. But this does not mean that many people would approve of a pedophile, or a former convict, being hired as a man very near to the possible future President.

The problem becomes, though, much worse because the man is, as they say, “openly gay”, which is modern parlance for an unrepentant sodomite. Therefore, the decision to hire him is a political statement Romney makes; and if you ask me, not a terribly smart one. Through his appointment, Romney chooses to give scandal. This can’t be Christian, and most certainly isn’t Conservative.

Granted, Romney is clearly afraid of not reaching to the mainstream voters, and is anxious of getting rid of his image of “weird” candidate. He has reasons to be worried, because I expect during the campaign we will become all experts of all the most ridiculous aspects of Mormonism, and I doubt he’ll have anywhere to hide when the embarrassing questions start to come.  But by all fears, it seems to me indisputable if he loses the conservative electorate he is doomed. A man who should use the time given to him to polish his conservative credentials, pick a clearly conservative candidate to be Vice President and, in general, reassure Conservative America he can halfway deserve their vote is now clearly intent to hunt for support in those political regions he’ll never take away from Obama.

Even if this doesn’t cause great damage to him now – and it might – the obvious effect will be that conservatives of every shade will look at him with greater scepticism; and this is a commodity Romney most certainly doesn’t need.

Even considering the cynicism of a man accustomed to change opinions like you and I change shirts, this seems to me a very dangerous move.

Personally, I think it things go on this way the big game in November will be the elections in the Congress and Senate, as the White House seems destined to be kept by the wrong occupant until 2016.

Mundabor

Boris’ Beastly Blunder

You should have shut your mouth, Boris...

We all knew Boris Johnson was prone to say controversial things, but generally they were controversial for the right reasons.

To refresh your memory, the man is on record with the following pearls:

“we don’t want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage”

The expression “pulpit poofs” for homosexual clergy is also his. The most famous is probably the one that if we allow marriages between a man and a man, then why not between three men, or indeed three men and a dog.

This was, of course, before the man was brainwashed by supposed “experts” and transformed in another little slut of politics, like Cameron.  With the result that from un-PC and popular he is rapidly becoming sanitised, politically correct and increasingly criticised from those he needs more: the Conservatives.

Yesterday, Boris made a big mistake: he decided to try an improbable transformation in politically correct “Cameron Cutie” and decided to ban from the London underground a Christian adv campaign aimed at informing homosexuals (the Christians are Anglicans, therefore they call homosexuals “gay”) that there is a possibility of exit from what is a perversion rather than an “orientation”. Boris’ utterly stupid words:

“It is clearly offensive to suggest being gay is an illness someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.”

The man has now some explaining to do, because his utterance of yesterday is in such contrast with what he has always maintained that the accusation of being an election whore is perfectly merited.

I know, I know…. it’s election time and for some strange reason at election times everyone tries to be what he is not; in Boris’ case he might have the extenuating circumstance of being probably the politician most persecuted by PR and PC watchdogs on the planet. Still, this show of fake “sensitivity” is beyond stupid if your name is Boris Johnson and even your cat knows very well what you really think.

But this is not all: Boris ukase is not only stupid; it is profoundly illiberal and clearly discriminatory, then it turns out the Christian movement did nothing else than to mimic a pro-sodomy adv appeared some weeks ago. The poofs’ adv is allowed, the Christian one isn’t.

The Advertising Standard Authority had not seen any problem, either. Ah, but they aren’t working the sidewalks, and looking for clients before the mayoral elections….

Now Boris will be sued , and will have the pleasure of having not only his discriminatory behaviour towards Christians, but his cowardice and hypocrisy exposed in the last weeks of the campaign, severely damaging his reputation among those he needs most. The more or less rioting mob in Inner London will vote for Ken anyway, and Boris should know by now he would not take the homosexual vote  (how much is that? 1%? Less? Seriously? What does Johnson smoke in the morning?) if he danced in a pink tutu in Trafalgar Square, singing Elton John songs.

This was bad, Boris. But let us be frank: you deserve it all. You deserve the shame, the accusations of hypocrisy, and the enmity of the Christians, and if there wasn’t Ken on the other side I would say you deserve to be kicked out of the City Hall and thrown into the nearby river.

Mundabor

Cardinal Schoenborn Disgraces Himself Again

Cardinal Schoenborn, protector of perverts. Note the word "saint" is not there.

In the personal conversation I had with Mr. Stangl, I was impressed with his pious attitude, his humility and his firm willingness to serve. …

These are the words with which Cardinal Schoenborn commented the fact that his diocese decided to confirm the election of an homosexual, living in a registered civil partnership, in the local parish council. 

If this weren’t satanic enough, you may want to know that the diocese is very happy with the high participation to “church life” of the parishioners, whose “church life” finds expression in electing with large majority a self-confessed homosexual with institutionalised wannabe  “marriage” to show his “love” to his partner.In Schoenborn’s world, “popular participation” is the new word for “orthodoxy”.

Mark my words: don’t be surprised if one day we should discover that Cardinal Schoenborn himself is a homosexual, or a paedophile, or both. Such level of complicity with sexual perversion generally does not happen by coincidence. This here is the same level of reckless, demonic devastation of Catholic values we have seen in Belgium, and when the entire tone in the Diocese is given by the “progressive” bishop, we might discover the bishop is like this one; or that among his priests there are people like this one.

The problem with this individual is that he is bent on sabotaging everything that is Catholic, and does not care a straw for what his truly Catholic parishioners think (or for his eternal salvation, in which I think he stopped believing a long time ago; or else he is on drugs). He will do whatever it takes to be popular with the masses, both because of the money of the Kirchensteuer and because of his alleged (and easily believable) boundless vanity. Another mark of many homosexuals, by the way.

Cardinal Schoenborn makes the work of the devil day in, and day out. In the meantime, we hear about the 600,000 people who have greeted the Holy Father in Mexico, and made him an “honorary Mexican”, and I truly wonder……..

In not punishing or removing him (better both, I should say), Pope Benedict makes the same mistake of John Paul II: he trusts the wrong people, and does not listen to the voices of reasons when they are about people he likes; as a result, his papacy will be tarnished by his ill-selected friends like the papacy of his predecessor. We are all human of course; but good Lord, at some point this huge, huge scandal will have to be stopped.

Schoenborn must wish Pope Benedict a very long life. Something tells me when this Pope is gone, he’ll go down like a stone.

Mundabor

P.s. Don’t forget: this is the hero of the Medjugorje crowd.

Collegeville: Retreat From The Retreat

I had not written about this, because I felt unable to control my adrenaline level.

Good news, though: the scandalous “retreat” – so scandalous in fact, one could barely believe it was not a joke – has now been cancelled.

One would have to give a long and hard look at why these things happen in the first place, but it is good to know that at times someone wakes up – or is, well, woken up – and realises the folly of such initiatives.

Mundabor

How Charitable We All Were!

Saint-Elton-The-Adopter in a rare XIII-Century Sacred Image

It is almost Christmas, and yours truly has decided to write a short post about the way Christianity has traditionally dealt – in charity – with the issue of same-sex attractions.

We all know that, whilst the Church has always condemned the actual act of sodomy – we say this in a very low voice of course, as we understand the Holy Ghost is sending different signals now, as he has been doing these last 60 years – Christianity has always been very understanding of the actual luuv experienced – no doubt, because of the influence of the Holy Ghost – by many saintly couples with same-sex attraction.You know by now that an enormous number of saints was homosexual (Saint Elton The Adopter, and Saint Stephen Fry come to mind) as was an inordinate number of bishops, cardinals, Popes, Roman Emperors, and Jedi like, say, Lucia Skywalker and Yodaola The Minute Lesbian.

Already in Roman times, same-sex ceremonies were celebrated everywhere. It is recorded what one of the first bishop, Vincentius, had to say on the matter:

“We do not oppose same-sex partnership. We recognise in Roman Law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that this are not the same as marriage”.

This is the reason, dear reader, why for two thousand years the Church has known two parallel institutions:marriage (destined for those of opposite sex, and having as their aim procreation) and civil partnership (destined for those with same-sex attractions, but living together in an oh so edifying chaste life; actually an example for us all, wretched sinners…..).

As you can see from the writings of this early Veterinary of the Church, same-sex couples were basically everywhere, and their oh so chaste life celebrate by other Christians as a true example of Christian virtue.

This is why we read in Romans the following words:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,

Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

But those who, being filled with deceit, malignity and malice, did not have sexual intercourse, received in themselves the recompense which is due to their virtue, and stability was given to their relationship*.

As Vincentius already explained to us – and as it has been constant teaching of the Church these two thousand years -  the Church’s censure does not refer to same-sex attractions, but merely to the sodomite act. The sodomite act is – at risk of being uncharitable; which we are not; or course we aren’t; perish the thought -  not the best choice; suboptimal at worst; somewhat short of the ideal; and who are we to judge, anyway…

At the same time, said Vincentius, same-sex fellowships are different. For those, he said,

“we are very nuanced”. “Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation within the Roman Empire use a civil fellowship to bring stability to a relationship”.

This is, my dear readers, why same-sex civil partnership have become such an indissoluble component of Christian civilisation, without which the Christian West would have been unthinkable. This is why, from time immemorial, the Church has celebrated chaste homosexual partnerships and honoured them in poetry, music, painting, and the like.  Think of Raphael’s “Marriage of the Eunuchs”, or Masaccio’s “Peter Tatchell and his child-bridegroom”. This is also why your grandmother, who was justly terrified at the idea of global warming, did not object to her neighbours living in an homosexual – chaste, of course – relationship in the least, and  participated to “orgoglio allegro” (which then spread to the Anglo-Saxon world, and became known as “gay pride”)  together with all her female and gay friends; all of them celebrating tolerance, inclusiveness, and being oh so nice with each other. That was, you see, a Christian world. So nice!

It is really, really unfortunate that after two thousand years of celebrating diversity, of authentic Christian tradition of homosexual partnership, these miserable Birkenstock-wearer and assorted Sixty-Eighters should try to re-invent Christianity  and tell us same-sex attraction is….. a perversion!

I blame Vatican II!

Just stop and think……

how charitable we all were!

Mundabor

* this is an ancient text, in the past believed an interpolation but now proved authentic after it was found in Vincentius’ own Bible text.