The infamous so-called same-sex marriage legislation has passed the last significant hurdle in France, and now only the ancillary legislation – whose approval can sadly be seen as assured – is required before the glorification of satanical sexual abomination becomes the law of the land.
Some of the French clergy have made a valid resistance to this, though – as always in the Vatican II Church – cowardice and doublespeak were everywhere. This particular battle was, then, fought and lost.
Or… was it?
It grates me no end that there is a mentality – both among the clergy and the laity – of despondency and resignation after their democracy has approved the last abominable measure; as if democracies were unable to reform themselves, or were able to survive if they don’t. This resignation takes several forms, from the loss of interest in the issue because “it is already decided” to more sanctimonious forms of passivity like the convenient “we must pray” (which we must do anyway, and won’t scare your MP in any meaningful way) or the apocalyptic thinking in the style of “the end is near”, another convenient way of doing nothing in the meantime.
On the contrary, the only way to face situations like this is to see this battle not as ended, but as just begun. From the pressure put on your MP to the active work among friends, relatives and acquaintances, to the active decision not to give financial support to initiatives even remotely linked to approval for abomination, (and possibly, to no other initiatives than those directly linked to the defence of true Christian values) to the boycott of those companies – like Starfags, erm, Starbucks – who support such abominations. The ways are endless, if the commitment is there.
As always, there will be a price to pay. You might well be required to not vote the stupid Conservative candidate, thus helping the outright idiot from Labour or Lib-Dem to be returned. This you do so that the stupid Conservative party understands they’ll not be able to get your vote by just being “least worst”, and you will screw them no matter the cost, because in battle nothing is so important as to punish the traitors on your side of the trench.
Similarly, the ridicule or outright hostility from your acquaintances will accompany you all the days of your life, and you will soon notice there will be those who prefer to avoid your company – though others will esteem you more, and start to think – and your openness will not make you very many friends. He who sees everything will reward you for his when the time comes.
Still, it is fair to say the laity are just the troops: the officers are supposed to be the clergy.
The clergy should be those who organise and direct the battle, not just in the vigil of legislative measures, but forever after. They should be those who gather the immense energy of the angry Christian laity and direct it like an arrow straight to the heart of the democratic system. Democracies are steered by organised minorities, with most voters only being a huge dumb ox no one pays attention to.
The Clergy must stop putting up a half-hearted fight until a decision is taken, and shut up or waffle about “pastoral work” afterwards. Catholics are born for combat. Perversion must be called perversion before, during and after a legislative process aimed at glorifying it. The life of the politicians supporting such measures must be made a living hell not only during the relevant debate, but forever after. The opposition to them must go on until their utter political destruction, and their approval of abomination must tar them in front of all Christians as long as they are in politics, or repent in a credible and very public manner. Every politician must know if he chooses the wrong side he will be made an example of, irrespective of the price to pay. The best deterrent against such policies is not a short fight that ends after six months, but a guerrilla warfare aimed straight at the genitals of the culprits, and going on without cease.
There was a left-wing political movement in Italy, well-known both for being rather extreme and, at the top, largely a product of well-educated sons of the upper middle class. The name of the organisation was Lotta Continua, “uninterrupted fight”. Their motto was “nulla restera’ impunito”, “nothing will remain unpunished”, the Italian translation of the nil inultum remanebit of the Dies Irae.
Whilst I could not disagree more with the political aims of Lotta Continua, I and many others like me always liked the determination and focus of their leadership. We – and our clergy – should really learn from these people, or better said remember what we and they should have known all along.
Is this happening? Not really. After a more or less spirited opposition, our well-fed clergy revert to business as usual and focus on what they love most: popular issues.
Pope Francis is widely reported to have harshly criticised the Argentinian government when they passed perverted legislation, but I have not yet read of a single word he said to make their life difficult after the legislation passed, that is, after the real battle began. How can a politician be afraid – let alone, terrified – of going against Christian values when he knows the end of the vote is very largely the end of the problem?
We must avoid this at all cost, then when we stop to oppose we start to be accomplices, and accessories through silence.
If the trumpet is silent, it is so much more difficult for the troops to regroup and prepare the next assault.
Jimmy Akin has a very interesting article about the way Church prelates should act in the face of Anti-Christian legislation. It seems to me, though, that he reaches, in part, the wrong conclusions.
The intent of the author is to analyse what the then Cardinal Bergoglio might have said (but no one knows whether he has) concerning Sodomarriages, and to justify his behaviour if he really did it. I think the explanation goes too far.
The central point of the article is the way Catholics (the bishops, the cardinals, the priests on the ground, but also activists and lawmakers) must act on anti-Christian legislation in a democratic environment, namely:
1. try to avoid that it becomes law.
2. try to kill it if it does, and
3. try to tear it into pieces as soon and as far as possible if option 2 seems, at some point, not realistic.
Up to here everything is very fine, and the author brings some useful examples of this concerning pro-life legislation in the US: Roe vs Wade is there, an outright repeal is not in the cards for now, and the work is therefore focused on measures taking away the evil from Roe vs. Wade, so to speak, one limb at a time.
Where I think Mr Akin is getting to the wrong conclusions is when he says that then Cardinal Bergoglio – if he really did so; which we don't know – might therefore have been done the right thing if he proposed a “civil union” legislation at the national level to avoid the bigger evil of impending Sodomarriage.
Now, this cannot be right. Firstly it is un-Catholic, and secondly it is illogical.
The Church never tolerates “lesser evil” thinking. Until an evil legislative measure has become the law of the land, there is only one duty, and this is to fight it with all the Church's strenght. To propose or promote or in any way facilitate a law which is a worsening of the present situation because a “worse worsening” might otherwise happen is not Catholic, and is in clear contrast to what has been said before. Firstly you make everything on earth to avoid Sodomarriage legislation; secondly you make hell on earth for the politicians who dared to approve it to get it repealed. If after a number of years it should be seen that it partout does not work, then you work to tear the bad situation to pieces one limb at a time.
Look at the Papal States, deprived of sovereignty in 1870. Firstly they have fought against the army of the Kingdom of Italy; secondly they have tried to reverse the situation after it had occurred, desperate as the situation appeared, among other things forbidding Catholics to take part in elections; at some point (in the Nineties of the XIX century) they have started serious talks about how Church and State could live together, and at the appropriate juncture they have acted to improve on the existing situation. They certainly haven't thought for a moment “The Kingdom is going to invade us soon, so let us try to find a compromise that damages us in a lesser way”.
The illogical part comes from the consequences of this thinking. If to put, so to speak, point 3 before point 2 were a permissible step, there would be no boundaries to what the Church would approve. The threat of Sodomarriage would be enough to let them propose civil unions; the threat of polygamy would be enough to let them propose Sodomarriage, and the threat of bestiality would be enough to let them accept or propose polygamy. If to run one step ahead were the way to get the Church to get into “damage limitation” mode, there is really nothing which Church prelates cannot be moved to approve. The Cuomos of this world would simply adopt the strategy of legislating one half step at a time – with the Church's support – rather than one step at a time without it. It just doesn't make sense.
Thinking of today's England, the consequence of this would be for the Church to embrace either civil partnerships (which are there already) or a sodomarriage legislation with some special guarantees for the Catholic church, as the so-called same sex marriage legislation has already passed the first hurdles and might well become law at some point. If the Church doesn't fight tooth and nail against it, that is.
The reasoning doesn't make sense also because the experience shows us that such lesser evil legislation unavoidably leads to the proposal of the bigger evil, and I do not know of any country where “civil partnership” legislation has quenched the calling for so-called same sex marriages. To propose such legislation is tantamount to delivering ourselves to the Enemy in installments.
The Church is in the business of blocking evil before it occurs, and fighting it after it did. She is not in the business of caring that, at every given day, the faithful may be given half the load of manure in order to avoid secular lawmakers to unload the entire load. You just don't propose or facilitate a lesser abomination to avoid a bigger one.
The conclusion from this is that if really Cardinal Bergoglio proposed such a measure – which we don't know; and I'd say he didn't, unless perhaps in a “brainstorming” exercise reaching conclusions whose erroneous nature he must have immediately seen – then Cardinal Bergoglio was obviously wrong in doing so. We should analyse the clergy's actions in light of what they are or were supposed to do, not try to find justifications a posteriori for when they didn't. There is nothing like retroactive infallibility of the future Pope anyway.
Having said that, I found the article very interesting in the way it explains the approach to effective action in the face of evil – when teh action is the appropriate one – and though I would share it with you.
And so the first vote over so-called same-sex marriage has arrived, and the perverts and their friends predictably carried the day. The bad news is that Labour and LibDems voted overwhelmingly in favour of the measure (which goes to show the extent of godlessness reigning among their ranks), the good news is that opposition among the Tory ranks was massive, with more than half the Tory MPs voting against (136) or abstaining (35) against only 127 wannabe “conservative” MPs voting for their own damnation.
And in fact, an entire country seems in the process of wanting to embrace perversion and damnation: shamelessly “celebrating” one of the worst abominations known to human nature and enshrining this approval not only in law (this had already happened with the so-called “civil partnerships”), but even in the brainless and godless idea you can legislate past the simple facts of nature. If Sodom had had a parliament, one wonders in what their leader’s expressions would have been different from the one of our Camerons, Millibands, and Millers: “inclusiveness” here, “love” there, a bit of “commitment” for the socially “conservative” sodomites and – of course – a lot of “equality” everywhere.
Until the angel came, and it was the end of the “equality”.
Now, yesterday’s was only the first vote, in which the representatives of a godless nation have said it is all right to continue to work on the draft measure presented to them. Further debates and votes will now have to be made in – as I understand the process – both the Lower House and the Upper House, but it is improbable that the law will fail to get a majority in the House of Commons. The situation looks more encouraging in the Lords, where the new law could well go the same way as the infamous ” reform” so spectacularly failed some months ago.
There is no denying, though, that the situation is serious. Unless opposition mounts from the ranks of Labour, a party traditionally voted by many Catholics in the North (who need a good examination of conscience now), the Lords really are the last line of fire before years of litigation, and being most of the Peers in the end actual of former professional politicians one can really not do much more than hoping.
Other than that, I can at the moment see only two ways: a slowing down of the measure until the Parliament ends (only two years to go; might be feasible) or the awakening of the Tory party and defenestration of their disgraceful leader, with which the measure would probably die of neglect and starvation very soon.
It is astonishing to me how people who call themselves Christians can see their own party (supposed to be a Conservative one) openly embrace Satan without a shred of Christian thinking, let alone fear of the Lord. This here is not about technical details, this is about absolutes, it is about accepting that one’s own party carries out the biggest attack on Christianity in the British Isles since the Vikings, a threat more insidious because coming from their own ranks rather than from an outside enemy. The Tory MPs and party members really have to wake up, and punish their leadership before they are punished -as they most probably will in 2015 – by their own core voters, who have been spat at in the face in the most arrogant of manners.
You might say that resistance is now futile, as if the measure does not make it in this Parliament it will most certainly make it in the next, with a Labour majority now very probably in the cards in 2015 and the death of the boundaries’ reform quashing the last hopes of the Tories to get a majority at the next elections.
My answer to that is that resistance for Christ is never futile, mounting pressure always has an effect in an organised democracy, Labour once in power might not have interest in touching the wasps’ nest and the possible Scottish independence in 2015 might shuffle the cards again, making The parliament more “English” and, therefore, politically and socially more Conservative. But most of all, the mood of the stupid crowds might change if the pressure is kept and the battle becomes restless.
This is a country where an awful lot of people has no interests beyond getting drunk, getting laid, and looking at stupid tv shows. They will say and think what they think it’s cool to be thought and said. Let sodomy become uncool and you’ll see the entire “sodomymania” disappear faster than the Global Warming craze.
This battle might well be lost here on earth, in rotting Britain where politicians of all political colours are not even bothered to mention Christian values anymore. But please always remember this battle is already won in Heaven, and the day we go to (hopefully) our rewards there will be no sodomite’s propaganda, no stupid politicians and no brainless “equality” rhetoric around.
Be brave, stand firm, never stop the fight. let the likes of Cameron and Maria Miller go to the hell they have richly deserved. Let us make ours the beautiful verses from the “Requiem”:
Confutatis maledictis / flammis acribus addictis / voca me cum benedictis.
In a rather interesting article appeared here, the author remarks on the rather clear words the Pope has been speaking in the last few weeks (particularly concerning “gender” issues), and notices with dismay the Holy Father’s words have been uniformly ignored by the media. As the author appears frustrated at the lack of attention given from media outlets to the Pope’s utterances, I dare to hazard a couple of explanations as to why this is so.
1. The secular media mention the Church only if they think it is the right time to attack Her. If, therefore, the Pontiff’s words had been picked up by the press, they would have been picked up with the exclusive aim of criticising the Pope and slandering the Church, and with the usual procession of offended lesbians and convicted pedophile priests thrown in as an added bonus. This time it did not happen, another time it will…
2. The Pope’s words are not picked up, because they aren’t news. “Pope is Catholic” isn’t going to win any Pulitzer Prize. Generally, the Press needs an angle they can exploit, like “Pope preaches against gender equality” so you can trumpet the story of “equality”, but again only if you need a story. If, say, BO’s inauguration and the anniversary of Roe vs Wade are considered news enough, no news will be built around the Pope’s words.
3. The world at large doesn’t consider a warning Pope relevant, but it would immediately notice a roaring one. As long as the Pope isn’t considered a real obstacle for the advancement of the secular cause, he will be either attacked for the fun of it or, more often, happily ignored. If, though, they should see that the Holy Father means business and is set on a frontal attack on secular society, you would experience a huge wave of abuse and slander, then the secular, abortionist, perverted euthanasia Nazis would soon understand they are now fighting for their existence as a meaningful, society-shaping social group.
Let us imagine the Vatican were to announce the removal, on the same day, of a dozen among the worst English bishops and their replacement with young hardliners with spotless reputation. Do you think this would not make headlines? Not even when he repeats the exercise in France, Germany, Italy? Really? How would the reaction be if the Pope were to say every politician promoting the homosexual agenda is a tool of Satan, and those who vote him might well pay for it with their soul? Would this attract attention? Or imagine the Pope would announce the return – after a transition phase for training – of the Mass of the Ages as the Standard, leaving the NO to those priests too old or thick to (re) learn it. Would the world start to notice that something is happening? My answer is: yes it would, and the hounds of hell would be unleashed against the Church; but even if the secularists preferred to be in denial for a while (basically, the behaviour the Catholic hierarchy has been exhibiting for now several decades) the time will soon come when a wave of new bishops and new priests, a new assertiveness or (much better) an outright crusade would force them to notice that they only have the choice between fight and death; which is, by the way, what the Catholic hierarchy will understand very soon concerning their existence in more than some Western countries.
This is, therefore, why the Pope is ignored. This is a time whose needs will not be satisfied with eloquent preaching, but with a war cry to make the blood within every elected politician in the West freeze. This is what works, not speeches in the Vatican only picked up by Catholic agencies, blogs and magazines (some of the latter, of course, very critical of the Pope for being Catholic).
Alas, and said with all due respect, you can’t teach an old Pope new tricks, and I very much doubt Pope Benedict (whose later utterances seem to indicate he is becoming increasingly more aware of the enormous threat hovering over the Christian West) will ever be ready, let alone willing, to transform himself into a roaring lion.
We must hope his successor will be made of a stronger cloth, and will perhaps trade some of the intellectual finesse for a desire to really act (in the dioceses, in the seminaries, in the religious orders; in the eradication of heresy made without waiting a couple of decades; in the excommunication whenever possible of bad Catholic politicians and in the relentless, assertive confrontation of head of states and governments). Only an open fight, and a Pope ready to really fight it, can change the narrative and lead to the turning of the tide.
Catholicism is under attack and has been for some time, and the new generation of mini me antichrists like Obama and Andrew Cuomo are becoming more and more brazen in their hostility to Catholicism; they see very well they have really nothing to fear, and the fat Cardinal will invite them to a prestigious dinner for a photo-op and a good old guffawing between friends.
After all this, should we surprised that the Pope’s words are largely ignored?
We are, as you all know, in the middle of the Year of Faith. The way I understand the Year of Faith is that this is a year in which Faith is promoted with particular fervour to react to the growing secularisation of Western societies.
If this is so , it goes without saying the promotion of Faith goes together with the promotion and diffusion of the Truths of faith, as opposed to the error. It should be also not even worth mentioning that errors in matters of sexual depravity should be, in the Year of Faith, be fought against in a particularly virulent way.
Obviously, and as in every human endeavour, words count much less than facts and, in fact, words not accompanied by the relevant facts have in all ages been mocked. Facta, non verba, says a very old adage. Now, most of us must be content with words because they are not in a position of power where they can really act (we can in our small way, of course; but I am not talking about that…). Still, every Bishop can do a lot, and a Pope can, alone, change the face of the Catholic clergy as there is no bishop he cannot remove, no religious order he cannot reform or disband, no crusade he cannot (provided they do not require real tanks) undertake. The Pope is far more powerful than the President of the United States, then he is stopped by none of the checks and balances the latter has to deal with every day. The Pope is, very simply, the person on earth who can act the most, and his responsibility is commensurate to the power entrusted to him, and to the prestige attached to his function.
Ubi honor, ibi onus.
This is the problem I see with the Holy Father. He proclaims the Year of Faith, and a torrent of very apt words falls on the world’s Catholics. Still, when it come to facts one notices very fast the Holy Father is, like all his predecessors after Vatican II – with the possible exception of the one who died too early to tell – sorely deficient. Like his predecessors, he makes more the impression of an impotent teacher in a class taken over by unruly children than of a strong headmaster with the school firmly under control.
Most recently, we are informed, some French Bishops have come to the idea that the best way to defend Catholicism is to attack it, and that undermining God’s commandments is the best way to defend them. Truly, they must be V II bishops.
The suggestion to defuse the matter o so-called same sex marriages by allowing so-called civil partnerships is as perverted as the idea to avoid robberies being made legal by suggesting to decriminalise theft. It is also extremely stupid because our geniuses should find us a country where so-called civil partnerships have been allowed without the cry for “the full monty” becoming deafening in a matter of just a few years.
Are, therefore, our French bishops so unbelievably stupid that they can’t see beyond the door of their residences? Are they so gaga that they do not know anymore what sodomy is, and that it remains such even if there is no state “marriage certificate” to sanction it? O do they have collective Alzheimer’s and do not remember what “scandal” means, and that it is their duty to avoid it to spread, let alone become legal?
The truth is, I am afraid, much simpler. These despicable men have lost the Faith, and their horizon is now strictly limited to what might give them some chance of caving in to the instance of the secular society without appearing too cowardly – if possible; otherwise, who cares… – in the process.
They have, I have told, clearly lost the Faith; then a Bishop who believes in the God of the Christians would never even think of sanctioning legal recognition of sodomy so that there be no legal recognition of sodomy… called marriage. Really, these people are evil, and evil in the most dangerous of ways, because in purest V II style they smuggle their satanic work for Christian charity or political prudence, like a closet Communist would suggest you submit to a new Brezhnev to avoid the return of Stalinism.
Padre Pio would roll in his grave.
What does, then, the Pope, who has not only the power but the duty to neutralise these people, do to protect the faith in… the Year of Faith? Has he forced anyone to retract? Has he removed any of them? How many of them are, in fact, his own appointments? The answer is: nothing. He has done nothing, he is doing nothing, he will do nothing. As long as he reigns, bishops will continue to undermine Catholicism everytime they feel they have some advantage to gain from so doing and remain unpunished. They have nothing to fear. They know it, and he knows it too.
Mind, it is not that the Holy Father cannot talk. His Christmas address concerning the fact one cannot choose his “gender” was beautiful. But if a Pope talks and refuses to act, he is betraying at least half of his office, and will be justly remembered like another Paul VI who had a clear vision of what was happening, but did not have the guts to be Pope.
Another two or three well-sounding and ineffective Popes like this one, and we will be persecuted in the public square.
I have written some days ago about the impressive initiative (again, no thanks to Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols) from the roots of English Catholicism, with in the end around 1,000 clergy signing a letter to David “Chameleon” Cameron asking him to stop the so-called same sex marriage initiative.
The letter is impressive because as a start it gathered around one-quarter of the clergy, but one must now slowly wonder how long will it take for the others to join and take a stance; which, thinking of some of the priests and religious I have seen in this country might well be the first time in their life.
A rather notable momentum has been building in the last weeks, and there is no doubt the initial good-ism of our stupid, unbelieving, and prostituted politicians – who hoped to make themselves beautiful on the cheap to distract the attention from the economy – has all but ceased, for now. It is now necessary to keep this going and let the pressure mount.
Alas, something tells me for a sizeable part of our clergy even the signing of a letter defending basic Christianity is too much to ask, and they will be all too happy to sit on the fence and see how this goes. It they wake up one morning with perverts’ “marriage” they will simply invite their parishioners to “give witness of their joy” or similar waffle, continuing in the Western tradition of pastoral activity made of hot air and easy platitudes.
It’s truly time to wake up.
Rev. Philip Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth
Registered Charity No. 246871
Bishop Crispian Way,
023 9282 0894
023 9286 3086
Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
10 Downing Street
Dear Mr Cameron
From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth
I am writing to you to send you best wishes from the priests and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers for you, as you carry the heavy responsibility of leading our great nation. However, I am also writing to ask you, indeed to urge you, to change course on your intention to introduce same-sex marriage.
You have said you are an enthusiastic supporter of marriage and that you do not want “gay people to be excluded from a great institution.” Yet I wish respectfully to point out that behind what you say lurks a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of ‘equality.’ Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from
marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.
By enabling gays to ‘marry’ and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society.
If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.
Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it. More, you are ignoring the huge opposition of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, as well as that of a huge number of ordinary people. You are imposing the aspirations of a tiny minority on the vast majority. Make no mistake, the change you are proposing is of immense significance. By it, you will be luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us all a brave new world, artificially engineered. What you are proposing will smother the traditional Christian ethos of our society and in time strangle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church in Britain to conduct its mission. There is no sanction whatsoever in the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition for gay marriage. I cannot see how anyone who claims to be a Christian can possibly justify what you are intending to do.
I know you have spoken of the ‘quadruple lock’ and other legal safeguards. Yet for me many grave concerns remain about the brave new world you are fashioning in the name of the false gods of equality and diversity. For example, will I as a Christian have to support your ideology when preaching? Will you exempt the Church, its resources and premises, from charges of discrimination if it declines to host same-sex social activities? Will Catholic schools, Catholic societies, Catholic charities and Catholic institutions be free (and legally protected) to teach the full truth of Christ and the real meaning of life and love?
I appreciate how politically difficult it can be to undertake a U-turn and to sustain the attendant criticism such would bring. But when it is a matter of the truth, and the reasons are cast-iron clear, a U-turn would be hailed by history only as brave and courageous. This is why, like a Thomas a Becket appealing to Henry II, I do not hesitate to ask you to consider doing what is the right and just thing to do. Otherwise, will we ever be able to forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party (sic) who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?
I assure you of my respect, best wishes and prayers.
Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth
CC: Priests and People of Diocese of Portsmouth
I have written on another post that if the Catholic clergy dared to wage open war on sodomy, their efforts would not fail to be crowned with success. Let us see why.
One of the greatest fallacies of democracies is the diffused thinking that as every head has one vote, every vote was born equal; this is simply not the case.
In England as in every other democracy, a politician looks for the approval of lobbies and pressure groups, and tries to follow the popular fashion. What terrorises him is a negative press. This counts, and nothing else. The vast mass of voting sheep do not interest the politician. He doesn’t care for the fact that most people abhor sodomy, because this abhorrence is diffused and not organised; it’ s not opposed by any organised group threatening to put an end to his career, nor is it a fashionable issue able to give him some nice headlines.
Homos, on the other hand, do have organised and vocal pressure groups, and they have managed (through the cowardice of the common man and the silence of religious authorities) to create a narrative that lets them appear -incredibile dictu - in a favourable light. The professional politician, who in the end is often nothing better than a better dressed prostitute, registers all this, and acts accordingly.
How do you, therefore, persuade this kind of person to follow the Christian line? By following the rules mentioned above. He must be terrified of the flak that will be unleashed against him if he does not comply, and the Christian group must be recognisable as a biting organisation determined to get his scalp. Do this, and you are assured to get the attention and the compliance of the majority of your MPs and local politicians.
If you think that it does not work, please reflect about the influence gained by fringe groups of perverts: they did not do it through numbers (which just aren’t there) but through the powerful (if effeminate) voice their being organised and ready to fight gives them.
Now please reflect: if your MP is scared of a tiny minority of perverts, how terrified will he be of the Catholic steamroller moving towards him? The steamroller doesn’t have to be fast: it is sufficient that everyone should know the Church has time, and once a fight has been picked it will be continued until the flattening of her opponent. Imagine being an MP who has just noticed the Church will fight him to his complete atomisation (this means: taking care he can’t even be elected to represent a borough, and can’t be put in a quango to save his backside unless the government is looking for trouble) and think the effect this will have on all his colleagues. Being (the concept is a bit harsh; but again, life is…) whores, the said elected representative will run to espouse those principles the opposition to which is so dangerous to their political survival, and will do so more and more as the Church slowly starts getting a grip on the Catholic masses.
Lenin really was right in this: that democracy or not, the organised and motivated minorities are those who call the shots. The vast majority of voters are a herd of uneducated lazy me- too followers without own opinions, who will gladly absorb whatever trend and dominant “climate” they see around them. Do you want proof? Three years ago every cretin was an environmentalist; what has changed now is not that they have become smart, but that environmentalism is not the attitude that one must have to be deemed smart anymore…
Finally, let us consider that whilst perverts are a tiny percentage of the population, Catholics are a much vaster cohort; not only in sheer numerical terms, but in the speed with which they can make it “uncool” for the herd to oppose them. To do so you don’t even need to mobilise the 5 million Catholics in the UK, or the 1 m weekly churchgoers. Perverts don’t mobilise even a tiny part of their (very scarce) basis! What would suffice is to give your average politician a taste of what is rolling towards him; instant conversions to the arguments of the Catholics will be the result.
There is a time for peace and a time for war. Dear Catholic clergy, please lead us in battle instead of endlessly waffling about peace.
Browsing around, one reads suggestions – all of them good – about what our clergy should do in these difficult times: pastoral letters, interviews, and the like. Whilst I personally commend all these initiatives, in my eyes the times demand for something completely different.
It is nothing less than astonishing that in just a few decades the Church has reduced herself to such a degree of effeminacy that a warring Pope can’t even be conceived anymore. Modern Popes are supposed to be harmless great-uncles talking about the things that make us feel good, but never even remotely resembling people who can act, fight, and punish. The old warning of Pius XI, that a Catholic must be ready for fisticuffs (symbolic ones, as long as possible) would sound utterly outlandish in nowadays’ Popes, who are more likely to admonish us about the necessity not to harm spiders.
Popes of the past did wage wars, though; and I am talking here not only of the secular ones, made for the interest of the Papal States, but of the spiritual ones: both “warm” (like the Crusades) and “cold” ones (like the fight against the revolutionary thinking in France, or the fierce support given to Franco’s fight for Catholicism and civilisation).
All this has gone, and we see the results of this policy in everyday life: open any aggregator of Catholic news and you will find the now common stories about governments embracing sodomy, bishops undermining the seal of confession, Cardinals aiding and abetting heresy, and Christianity being slowly banned from any place that is not the toilet.
On the same page, you’ll also find the astonishing news about the Pope promoting peace, being in favour of understanding among the people, being saddened at the death of some religious leader, praising the work made by some people for peace, encouraging us to pray and extolling the virtues of peace.
All good, of course. Blessed be the peacemakers, and all that. But one truly wonders on which planet the Holy Father is living, and someone should tell him as a Pope he has a job to do that goes beyond talking, praying, and writing, and involves actual doing, including – as his masculine predecessor Pius XI would say – some (spiritual ) fisticuffs.
Nothing of this is to be seen. With extremely few exceptions, our Bishops and Cardinals follow the lead of the Holy Father and fiddle whilst Rome burns. They remind me of Quakers rather than Catholics, and we are seeing all around us what happens when the shepherds want to please the sheep, rather than actually lead them.
Unless this stop, we will continue to see decay around us whilst the Holy father happily tweets asking us how we can improve our spiritual lives; a world where – like in England now - a government daring to call itself Conservative wants to become an officially certified Sodom, without the Church declaring total war on them. In an extreme case like this – more extreme than pretty much everything that has been seen in the history of Christian civilisation - the British clergy should flay them every day from the press agencies, massacre their heathenism every Sunday from the pulpits, excommunicate every ( and I mean every) Catholic MP or local politician who even dares to send one tweet in support of sodomy; and go on and on against those politicians until their political career is utterly annihilated.
Don’t tell me it wouldn’t work: firstly, battles for Christ are fought irrespective of the odds , and secondly it would work, most certainly it would. But this is the material for another post.
Yesterday’s debate in the commons was below pathetic and at the same time indicative of the state this once great nation has reduced itself to.
Maria Miller, the minister for families who is trying to destroy them, is on record saying that “we support marriage” because “this is one of the most important institutions we have in this country”, and therefore “the Government should not stop people from getting married”.
The hypocrisy and disingenuousness of this is mind-boggling. The overweight lady simply forgets that whilst marriages obviously existed before Christianity, our understanding of marriage is deeply rooted in Christian thinking. I know that in places like Sodom people might have lived together and even called it “marriage” (they might, or might not; the Angel Maria Miller deserves hasn’t left many traces for us to investigate), but this is exactly not the point. The point is that a Christian society (in this country there are officially more than 30 million Christians; though one at times wonders where they are…) cannot understand social institutions in any other than a Christian manner, and even a non-Christian society generally has the intelligence to understand that sexual perversion is evil.
Maria Miller, like too many within her party, does not get this. She is impervious not even to Christianity, but even to natural law. We are governed by heathens without even the faintest idea of what is right and what is wrong; who do not even use that basic, elementary compass God has put in all of us, Christian or heathen, intelligent or stupid, to let us understand what is really, really wrong. But hey, she wants to be re-elected, so it must be fine.
One of the stupid assertions of the woman is that there will be safeguards to protect religious freedom, and for those who do not want to be forced to conduct such parodies of “marriage” in church. But wait, hasn’t the fat girl just said that “the government does not want to stop people from getting married” because “this is one of the most important institutions we have in this country?” What prevents, then, a future government from saying that church life is one of the most important institutions we have in this country, and people should not be discriminated against and impeded from participating to it with a marriage in church? I can see the woman sitting in Parliament and saying exactly that herself in just a few years!
And in general: what are these kind of promises worth? Have those within the so-called Church of England not been promised, many years ago, that there would not be women bishop, if you give them women priest? What of this now?
And what about the legislation about so-called “civil partnerships”? Were we not told, just a few years ago, that the institution of marriage as such should not be touched, which is why we have “civil partnerships”? How stupid can people be, that they do not get that every concession must force the next one, because if one refuses to be against perversion as such every “freedom” much chase the next “freedom”, every abuse must cause the next abuse, and Christianity must be destroyed one piece at a time?
Perverts and their aiders and abetters are eating away Western civilisation one bit at a time with the help of politicians prostituted to the popular sentiment of the moment, and most people do nothing because they are always told the next bit of Christian civilisation will remain intact. Fools. Those who support or do not fight against this measure will deserve to have their churches forcibly desecrated by perverts “celebrating” their rites. Don’t worry, it will come soon enough.
And of course I am angry at people like Yvette Cooper, the Labour witch who yesterday gave enthusiastic support to the new legislative measure (with which, by the way, every hope that Labour may decide not to support the legislation in Parliament has vanished). But you see, beside being an atheist, Yvette Cooper is not supposed to be Conservative. She is a bloody socialist, it is certainly not a surprise that she should pickaxe Christian values. But that people who call themselves “Conservatives” should do so is beyond contempt.
Make no mistake, this legislation will pass in the House of Commons without much opposition; the Anglicans will wait for the provisions meant to “protect” them before telling themselves dissatisfied but vaguely in agreement with how good the government’s aims are; the Catholic Church will do nothing more than feebly meow (Archbishop Nichols is clearly a friends of sodomy and has made everything to encourage them short of giving them open and enthusiastic approval). Do not hope for any help of Rome, either. We live in times of weak and cowardly Popes, happy to write books and tell themselves “saddened” whilst Rome burns.
It seems to escape most people that our Western democracies are becoming such pits of impiety that in comparison even revolutionary France seems a bulwark of conservative thinking. There are certainly precedents for societies which accepted sodomy as something to be “celebrated” (that’s not me, it’s Maria Miller again; she will rot in hell unless she repents), but you must go way back to the days of Sodom, or look hard at savages populations where the Word of God has never been brought. Certainly there are no past examples in countries calling themselves Christian and understanding themselves as the product of Christian civilisation. This country is about to vote itself out of the number of the Christian countries, and does not seem to notice, or to care.
The new gods are “celebration” (Maria Miller) , “equality” (Yvette Cooper) and an old profession not mentioned in parliamentary debates, but present in every word heard yesterday from the two women.
The BBC has, as you would expect, a morning program. It should be one of those programs where two people (one man and one woman; pleasant but not too attractive; pleasantly communicative but not too invasive; you know the type) sit on a couch and inform us about a variety of things: the hose pipe ban, what’s happening on the M25, your five a day, and the like.
Not so in Beebistan, the planet where political correctness reigns unopposed, and liberal propaganda does not spare anyone, not even children. Saturday morning, the viewers were served a fat, uncommonly ugly woman dressed like a priest. I am sure she was in black because it helped to mask her more than generous proportions, but by the way she behaved she could have had a red nose and no one would have noticed anyway.
The woman was one of those middle-aged fuglies trying to look modern, and happy, and careless, and oh so in tune with the world. As always in these cases, she only managed to look pathetic. The argument about which she was “invited” (with no counterpart to represent the contrary opinion; hey, it’s a morning broadcast and not a political debate, right?) to talk was the (so-called) Church of England’s opposition to the (also so-called; what a world we must live in) “gay marriage”; an issue on which the said wannabe church seems to be willing to fight an unprecedented battle against our perverted Government, whilst archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols shouts his silence.
In a very debonair, “let’s have a chat” way, the two presenters introduced her to the matter (morning program, remember! Sodomy with your muesli!) , and the wannabe vicar of Dibley started to talk agitatedly about how much she doesn’t care if a man wants to marry a man and a woman a woman, and she would find it so nice to have it in church. Asked how she reconciles this with the position of her hierarchy, she said she didn’t really care, because the beauty of the c of E – and the reason why she had become a wannabe vicarette of Dibley – is that said “church” always allowed such a breadth of opinions…
Not one word was said of Christianity, of the commandments – I doubt she knows them – or of the fact we are talking very, very basic Christianity here. What was worse – and made the matter truly disgusting – was the fact the woman tried to appear so youthful and full of enthusiasm and “with it” all the time, moving her fat bottom on the couch as if she had been a teenager talking about her new favourite boy band. I truly had the impression she was either advertising herself to the male audience (good luck with that) or else trying to look stupid for no apparent reason.
I know the c of E is a pathetic outfit as it is, but I could not have imagined that their personnel can arrive to such a point of adolescential stupidity. As to the BBC, I notice once again there was no debate, and no contrary position. The BBC uses the morning program to pervert the youth, and wannabe religious people to undermine Christianity. I can only hope there will be consequences for the fat vicarette, but the c of E being what it is I rather doubt it. That there will be no consequences for the BBC, I do not doubt at all. The BBC has become an Indian Reserve for the worst type of liberal; people completely detached from the real world outside, but determined to remake it in their own image.
A pox on them all, one would be tempted to say. I think it’s sinful, though.
Better still: the end of the TV Licence regime.
I have repeated only this morning my appeal to the UK resident to participate to the government consultation on so-called “gay marriage”. I refer to the considerations therein made concerning the nature of the “consultation”, what it says about the perverts we have in power and how the Government might try to manipulate the numbers if decent Christians fail to participate en masse.
Cranmer blog now informs us the Queen of Fags in the country, Ms Peter Tatchell, clearly had privileged access to information about how the consultation is going.
Ms Tatchell does not seem very pleased with how things look up to now, and he/she/it has made an appeal (I will not post the link, but Cranmer has it) asking the perverts of the realm to support the cause. A rather desperate battle if the mobilisation of non-perverts has had any success, but obviously a plan with some chance of success if only one part is mobilised.
Now, the attentive readers of this blog will have followed the astonishing episode of the same blogger, “Cranmer”, being the target of unprecedented bullying from the Advertising Standard Authority. The ASA subsequently ( and desperately) tried to backpedal, (and were exposed as pathetic liars by Cranmer’s response) but in the meantime it had come out the head of the organisation, Chris Smith, is a militant homosexual clearly abusing his position to further his own despicable perversion. Obviously nothing happened to Chris Smith who, being a sodomite, is in this country entitled to a protection Pandas can only dream of. Still, the episode told all of us to what extent the homo mafia within the government and quango apparatus abuses their office to further their own agenda.
Now Ms Tatchell appeals shows he/she/it knows something we don’t know, and what he knows is that probably the consultation is going the same way as the petition and the election.
Am I wrong in supposing some highly-placed pervert has passed him the information in order to allow him to mobilise his people and at the same time trying the other side to be made aware of this?
How is it that “Vatileaks” causes so much outrage among perverts, but this episode doesn’t?
Still, I invite again every UK resident to take part to the consultation: you see how desperate the Government is to manipulate the results and try to, at least, save face.
You had, I am sure, never imagined some priests actually side with the sodomites. I understand you are shocked at this news, as it known to all of us the Church has remained, in these 2000 years, blessedly free from heretics of all sorts.
We all know now (when the “Spirit” incessantly talks to us, letting us say all we wanted to think anyway) Judas was actually misunderstood and the victim of “judgemental” people, Luther merely a bit of an emotional chap, and all the others presumed heretics merely good intentioned Christian moved by the “Spirit” with whom the Church failed to deal with the due pastoral care.
Alas, Minnesota State Radio now mentions – incredibile dictu – not one but even three (three! Imagine! What has the world come to!) priests who side with the sodomites for reasons, erm, it would be better not to investigate.
One of them is particularly shocking for us, because the extreme depth of his argument makes the case for the blessing of sodomy extremely compelling. The chap (a priest ordained in 1957, and who should know better) is on record with the following earth-shattering observation:
He said his views on homosexuality changed decades ago after he watched an interview with a lesbian woman who described how she was different. “She began to cry convulsively and I said, ‘We’ve got the wrong position on this,’ ” Garvey recalled.
This had a aha-effect on me. Suddenly, it became clear to me how priests and bishops have covered perverted clergy for decades: the perverts must have started to “cry convulsively” and the priests and bishops in questions then said “”we’ve got the wrong position on this”.
Take my napkin, boy/girl/however you define yourself. If you’re crying convulsively, we must we wrong. There’s really no alternative. It stands to reason.
Tellingly, the chaps (they are, says the Minnesota broadcasting thingie, around 80. Can’t believe that. They have forgotten a zero or two, surely?) express themselves (with the words of one of them, ordained in 1966 and, therefore, in highly suspicious times anyway) in term of “party”. Let us read his enlightening thoughts:
Power said he was compelled to speak out by the collective silence of other priests.
“People [were] saying to me, ‘Where is the voice of the priests that believe the way we do? They can’t all believe the party line,’ “he said. “And I’m thinking too, ‘Yeah, where are they?’ That’s us.”
“The party line”. “Us”. “Believe the way we do”.
Really, this alone says it all.
Interesting reflections on the American Spectator about the stance of the Republican Party towards sodomites.
Unsurprisingly, the picture is one of a party increasingly more detached from his own supporter, in the increasingly more aggressive push to gain voters from the legendary “centre ground” that must be the mother of most Republican defeats in the last fifty years.
I see the problem as twofold: on the one hand, you have the usual RINOs desperately chasing for support: I’d say the hypocrisy of Rep. Allen West is very indicative of this group, with the claim of being “kept awake at night” from unemployment, but sleeping very well where his own salvation is concerned. On the other hand, you have the neocons and those who simply fail to get the proper religious side of things, with Coulter and Christie two obvious examples. I think the first group is lost to every good cause and should be kicked out and replaced with Republicans, and the second group should be moved to endorse Christian value either by the evolution (real one, this time) of their system of value of by the implicit threat posed by a clearly Christian electorate who will soon accept no bullshit from their representative concerning the matter. The very fact an openly homosexual group is recognised within the party says it all about the situation in today’s GOP.
Still, outside of the party corridors, in the real world, we can clearly see the American people are waking up. If you do not believe the Gallup polls showing a dramatic decline for support to so-called “gay marriage” among Republican, you have only to look at the real thing – the extremely eloquent outcome of the North Carolina vote – to see where the wind is blowing.
It is to me a source of never-ending amazement that so many politicians be intent in chasing a minuscule percentage of the electorate, with the risk of alienating vast part of the mainstream and the certainty of becoming the enemy of the hard-core conservatives. Even reasoning only from an electoral perspective, this might have worked when the issue was not such as to involve a vast part of the voters, but is more and more a suicidal policy as the voters take a stand and recover their Christian values.
I hope that come November a fresh wave of truly conservative – and I mean not mere neocon, but also religious conservatives – legislators will make their ingress in the corridors of power, and shift the Republican policy both in the legislative activity and in the party stance on the matter.
We are in for some very interesting months, with religious issues now destined to take a prominent role and the two camps more opposed than I dared to hope. The recent “outing” of the president will leave less excuses to committed Christians to vote for him, and I do not doubt but a number of them will draw the conclusion and deny him his vote. If the Church keeps pounding on HHS and starts a fresh battle about sodomarriages, the double pronged attack from Catholics and Protestant will make things very difficult for Mr B Hussein O.
After 2000+ years, Christianity is in need of a remake, our hero must have thought. Why not introduce a Chris 2.0 version then, full of PC applets for the gullible.
Here it is:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” - President Barack Obama
Christianity counts for nothing. What counts in Chris 2.0 is to have an “incredibly committed monogamous same sex relationship”, and one wonders how one can be so confused.
Someone should tell this chap, unbelievably become President thanks to an astonishing episode of reverse racism, that in Christian societies monogamy is a virtue because Christianity says so. An incestuous couple wouldn’t be considered “moral” because it is “incredibly” monogamous. A person sleeping with his dog wouldn’t be considered a fine chap because he is so committed to only commits acts of bestiality with his “lover”.
Logic doesn’t count in Obamaland. Read it again and notice the sugary emotionalism, the hollow fake sentimentalism. O the poor, poor faggot who can’t marry! How sad does the President feel for him after he has been fighting on his behalf! If the american soldiers fighting on his behalf implore him not to allow sodomites among their ranks, will he listen to them?
You would say the man, having been raised a Muslim, simply doesn’t know Christianity. But there are a couple of problems with this reasoning:
a) Muslims aren’t more favourably oriented toward “incredibly monogamous same sex couples” than Christians are, and
b) this man is the sam eon record for saying as follows:
“I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Look, in 2004 Obama still had some traces of logic: he acknowledged to be a Christian means to consider marriage something sanctified between a man and a woman. If one doesn’t believe this, it follows, one is not a Christian.
This doesn’t count now.
Not even if the Christians fight on his behalf.
It is sad to see the most powerful nation on earth is run by a complete moron. But at the same time it is reassuring to see he has made another mistake (perhaps he didn’t have any choice, after his VP’s gaffe; but it’s still a dangerous step to take) and has decided to take position on this matter on the day it was shown to him it is tantamount to ask not to be reelected.
North Carolina shows this will cost him a part of the black vote. Not a huge one, but one big enough to put him in serious trouble. With the Catholics he is following the same “strategy”: alienate the moderates, and gain the vote of those who would have voted for you anyway. Who does Obama think will re-elect him in November? There aren’t so many perverts after all…
Still, we should be rather satisfied today. The mask is off, Obama will not be trusted anyway as even the left will smell opportunism, and we have another beautiful battleground, one where North Carolina has already shown what happens when the black vote abandons the President.
Surely, the world need change.
From the Dump Starbucks website. Emphases mine.
We are urging customers across the globe to ‘Dump Starbucks’ because it has taken a corporate-wide position that the definition of marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become equally ‘normal’. As such, Starbucks has deeply offended at least half its US customers, and the vast majority of its international customers.
On January 24th, 2012, Starbucks issued a memorandum declaring that same-sex marriage ‘is core to who we are and what we value as a company.
Starbucks also used its resources to participate in a legal case seeking to overturn a federal law declaring marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
In many areas of the world where Starbucks does business, the concept of ‘gay marriage’ is unheard of and deeply offensive to cultural, moral and religious values.
In taking these actions, Starbucks has declared a culture war on all people of faith (and millions of others) who believe that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman is worth preserving.
A portion of every cup of coffee purchased at a Starbucks anywhere in the world goes to fund this corporate assault on marriage.
We urge consumers across the globe to join the ‘Dump Starbucks’ campaign.
Please sign the petition to register your protest.
I encourage everyone to:
a) sign the petition;
b) forward the page on twitter, facebook etc;
c) spread the word among friends and family.
After his latest intervention, it is absolutely clear Joe Biden is a great weapon in the hands of Mitt Romney. A man able to say his “evolving” president isn’t “evolved” enough, whilst he is absolutely comfortable with so-called same sex marriage, exposes the hypocrisy of both: of Obama, who clearly wants to be perceived as the one who will deliver the goods, but can’t say it before the election; of Biden, because he shows the falseness of the official B.O. opinion.
Or perhaps Joe Biden is simply stupid; so stupid that he cannot understand he makes his boss look false even in the eyes of his own supporters. Now they’ll have to explain how the President can’t come out in favour of sodomy, but his VP can; or alternatively, how they want to try to be smart, but if Joe Biden is in your ticket this is not in the cards.
I can’t wait now for BO’s spin doctors trying to persuade us this is part of an intelligent strategy by which they let the one look very stupid and the other extremely false, which will then lead people to trust them because…. well, because they are so smart.
I am glad Joe Biden is the VP candidate again. I truly am. There is only one thing which would make him an even more suitable VP candidate.
“Gay Wedding at St Bartholomew’s EC1″ by the Revd Dr Peter Mullen.The Bishop of London is in a high huff
Because Dr Dudley has married a puff;
And not just one puff – he’s married another:
Two priests, two puffs and either to other.
“It isn’t a wedding, for that’s not allowed;
They’ve just come together and promised and vowed
To shack up and snug up, to have and to hold:
Ooh aren’t we radical! Ooh aren’t we bold!”
Now here’s a most queer and most wonderful thing:
He’s given his hand, he’s offered his ring;
And each to the other forever will bend,
After their troll in the coach up West End.
Not a flash wedding, no pics in Hello!
Just a honeymoon cottage, convenient so.
Of such Dr Dudley a goldmine has found,
From shaven-head puftas the nuptial pink pound.
The new Church of England embraces diversity,
A fresh modulation on ancient perversity:
“I’m C of E and PC so don’t think it odd of me
To offer a licence and blessing for sodomy.”
Yes, I know the chap is not in good standing with the so-called C of E (which might be a good thing) and he has been forced to resign for adultery (which is, undoubtedly, not a good thing).
I found this little work refreshing anyway.
I call “The Nichols Challenge” the attempt to comment on the latest heretical statement of our not-so-beloved – though much in need of our prayers – Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols without falling in mortal sin.
I have made a couple of attempts, but really if I start to write what I think of the man, it doesn’t serve anyone.
Therefore, I ask you to enjoy (ha!) Rorate Caeli’s take on the matter.
Please, please don’t let me say more.
You know how credible certain types of “celebrities” are (beautiful, granted; but come on…) when they:
a) support so-called “gay marriage”, and
b) divorce after 72 days.
The blind are leading the blind. One thinks that these people do have an influence in mainstream culture, and shivers…
(No…. no photos of Kim Kardashian…)
A strange country, Mexico; at least seen from the other side of the pond.
On the one hand, Christian values seem to be deteriorating rather rapidly, with sodo-marriages now allowed in parts of the countries (strong federal structures, apparently, with wide-reaching powers for the individual states).
On the other hand, the 2007 decision of the Constitutional Court to allow abortions for the first 12 weeks after conception has caused a real pro-life run, with 18 of their 31 states approving state constitutional measures meant at keeping abortion away from their own territory. A bit the equivalent of Proposition 8 regarding sodomy, but without the sodomite judge.
The widespread move to keep abortion away from the relevant state has prompted one of the judges of the constitutional court to try to impose the overruling of the single states, that is: the decision that it is unconstitutional for a state to put measures in place meant at banning abortion from its own territory.
Whilst it would appear that abortion is still legal in 13 of the 31 states, one can only salute a decision that allows vast parts of Mexico to continue to give themselves, at least in this respect, Christian rules.
This is really, really good news.
The allegedly oh so liberal, sex-and-the-wiener New York has soundly defeated the democratic candidate, the soi-disant orthodox Jew, but liberal pro-homo candidate Weprin and sent a daily communicant, Catholic Republican to replace Anthony Weiner.
If you liked this, you’ll love the 2012 elections.
Weprin was literally steamrolled, losing with a 8% difference in a district formerly considered solidly under Democratic influence.
No, it is not that the voters in New York have suddenly become right-wing Catholic Republicans. It is rather that the anger at the treason of the democratic and republican prostitutes who have sold themselves for the sake of electoral campaign money was strong enough to overcome partisan disagreements, and persuaded an awful lot of voters to side with Christian values in the midst of a Sodom offensive.
Please note that this vote humiliates a Democratic candidate in a rather safe democratic district. What will happen to the republican rats, I do not even want to think…
This result will now echo all over the United States and send a very clear message to what happens to the Jezebels of liberal politics.
I have said already often in the past that the Christian giants only needs to be properly awaken to destroy every secular/liberal/sodomite enemy on his way. No better proof than today’s.
I know it sounds trite, but it never sounded so true: if we could make it there, we’re gonna make it anywhere!
Words of wisdom from this blog (emphases mine):
You may have noticed that I do not use the term “same sex marriage” very often. In fact, I am making a conscious decision not to use the term at all any more. I think the term gives away too much ground to our opponents. Continually using the term makes it possible to believe that such a thing as a marriage between people of the same sex is possible.
I don’t use the term “square circle” because such an entity is not possible. Likewise, I think it is not possible for two people of the same sex to be married to each other. So, I use another term that I believe is more accurate.
I use the phrase “redefinition of marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage,” or in a pinch, “genderless marriage,” depending on the context.
Even “genderless marriage” is questionable because it is naming something that is an impossibility. Gender is essential to marriage. The move to make same sex unions the legal equivalent of opposite sex unions requires that gender be removed from the understanding of marriage. If this legal movement to redefine marriage succeeds, it will be creating something entirely new. Nothing will be left of marriage but the name, as I have said in articles and lectures called, “The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage.” But at least the term “genderless marriage” calls attention to what is at stake in the debate.
Whilst I do not get the one with the “genderless marriage” either, a very important point is made here: if we acquiesce to the demands of political correctness, we allow the enemy to shape the debate.
You see this everywhere, for example when whining homos complains that their “existence” is denied if one criticises their mentality. But more in general, even the use of that most stupid of words, “gay” to say “homosexual”, must be fought against with great energy.
A vocal homosexual must be an object of laughter and ridicule. The day we have started to suffocate our laugh for fear of “hurting” the pervert is the day we have started to allow them to give a shine of legitimacy to their requests for legitimation of their perversion.
I am pleased to see that whilst only six months ago I felt rather isolated in condemning the use of the word “gay” and using “insensitive” language, the decision of the State of NY is clearly shifting the debate toward a more aggressive language.
This is National Organisation for Marriage‘s Brian Brown:
“When the Iowa Supreme Court did the unthinkable in 2009 and invented a right to gay marriage in Iowa’s state constitution, they set off a powerful voter reaction that is still unfolding. First, voters threw out all three Supreme Court justices who faced voters in the retention election, including the Chief Justice. Next, Iowa voters will elect a presidential candidate who has pledged to take concrete steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Finally, Iowa voters will elect a pro-marriage majority that will put forward a proposed constitutional amendment reversing the activist decision by the Supreme Court.”
Of course, you may say that the NOM has all interest to amplify the real situation on the ground, but from what can be seen from the other side of the Pond he is not very far from the mark, though perhaps a bit premature if we extend his statement to the US as a whole.
Still, it is rather probable that NY’s decision on institutionalised sodomy will have nationally sa bit of the effect that the 2009′s decision of Iowa’s Supreme Court had – and is still having – locally.
As it happens so often, it is only when shocking things happen that we understand the scale of the attack brought to Christianity as the basis of Western civilisation. Paradoxically, the decision of the State of NY might have contributed to the awakening of too many people whose only reaction to homo propaganda was indifference or a kind of benevolent smugness.