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.
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.