Guido Barilla just gave us a wonderful example of stupidity and cowardice united in the same person.
First he gives an interview in which he says Barilla is for the traditional family and faggots are welcome to buy their pasta somewhere else; when the latter predictably get screeching like it’s going out of fashion, he backpedals in such a furious and shameful way you wonder if he isn’t one of them himself.
This is so gay.
One can one be so stupid that he does not understand that these days if you say a word against the Gaystapo you must expect retaliation, at least in words. How can he be so shameless that he does not understand he will look like the French army in 1940. How can he, most of all, be such an hypocrite as to first try to play the “family” card and then tell all supporters of the family they are so utterly wrong.
Punish Barilla and do not buy their pasta and other products anymore. It’s not that there is lack of choice. Among the mainstream producers, smart buyers buy De Cecco anyway, and they know why.
Stupid, hypocrite and coward Guido Barilla will now hopefully be boycotted by perverts and normal people alike.
It would serve him right.
What a faggot.
The recent news – largely expected, but shocking nevertheless – that perversion will soon be called “marriage” in a country obviously longing for damnation is occasion of some reflection as to how we could come to this.
However I turn it, it seems to me the usual suspects are not the most important players in Satan's chess game. Besides being rather obvious that perverts in the hands of the devil make his and their work, it must be noted that these are very probably less than 1% of the population. They alone would have never been more decisive than my cat in bringing about this abomination.
No, the culprits are among us, and in order to find them you only need to look around you on the bus, in the train, or at the farmers' market.
The nice old woman who always thought it beneath her to be hostile to “gays”; the teacher who has been blabbering about “tolerance” without having a clue of what tolerance really is; the law-abiding citizen who pays his taxes and cares more about the state of his garden than of his soul; the growing army of emasculated manginas, raised by frustrated single mothers desperately looking for you-know-what, but teaching their sons to eschew anything remotely resembling virility, and their daughters to hate the female role; the army of deluded people thinking they are “conservative” because they read the “Daily Telegraph”, but are unable to even notice what a den of faggotry that rag has become; in short, polite Little England with the tea and the scones, the tennis and the cricket: I blame them first and foremost for this, because if they had wanted to see – metaphorically speaking – the blood of Cameron and Miller on the pavement, the little whores of XXI-century British politics would have never thought of even starting this.
If this country has some balls left, Cameron and Miller will be (politically) massacred in the next very few years. Highly improbable, though, because if this had been the case the Camerons and Millers of the world would have noticed it, and would have refrained from jumping into the abyss for the sake of a couple of perverts.
In this life, Cameron and Miller will probably get away with this whilst Little England goes merrily on with its afternoon teas; but make no mistake, bar an always welcome repentance their punishment will be horrible in the life to come. Also, be under no illusion that millions of souls in this once great Contry are now at risk, and will discover in the next decades – as the big drip works its magic – what fools they have been. An entire country takes leave from basic Christianity, and very few seem to notice, let alone care.
More tea, Mrs Nice? Perhaps a dollop of eternal torment, too?
And it came to pass the British Fag Government decided words mean what they would like them to, and brains can be switched off at leisure.
As a consequence, men can be called “wives” and women “husbands”.
One would say this is too stupid even for Maria Miller and David Cameron, but this is not the case.
Not only David Cameron and Maria Miller are so stupid, but so is a country that has decided not to think, in order that it might feel good with itself.
Satanical. Preposterous, but still satanical.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
In his remarks to Welby, Francis said he hoped they could collaborate in promoting the sacredness of life “and the stability of families founded on marriage.” He noted that Welby had recently spoken out on the issue, a reference to his House of Lords speech.
Significantly, though, Francis didn’t specify that marriage should be based on a union between a man and woman, which is how Benedict XVI and John Paul II routinely defined it in a way that made clear their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Vatican officials said Francis’ phrasing was a diplomatic attempt to make his point without making a provocative pronouncement, particularly during an inaugural meeting with Welby that was aimed at getting to know one another. Francis though has steered clear of the gay marriage debate as it has recently roiled France and Britain, and in general has refrained from making headline-grabbing public comments on hot-button current issues.
In these few phrases is condensed all the paucity and moral bankruptcy of this very chatty, approximate, shallow, half-socialist, scandalous, but oh so humble Papacy.
The Pope’s address to Mr Welby – not an off-the-cuff remark, but an official address to one who thinks he is the number one Religious of his country – mentions family and a marriage in a way which implies that families can be either founded on traditional marriage, or not; or alternatively, that marriage is either the Catholic one, or not. Of the two, the Pope deigns himself to prefer the Catholic one. Alleluja.
This obviously looks very much like a huge white flag concerning the issue of sodomitical so-called “marriage”; something the Pope should know it’s sexually perverted and logically inconceivable. Therefore, journalists start, once again, to knock at the door of various Vatican officials and ask - not for the first time -”did he really mean that”?
The tragic, but so credible answer is printed above: the Pope doesn’t like to say the Truth, because the Truth would be “provocative”. I thought that to say the Truth is charitable, and Truth said in charity saves souls. But again I’m not a Jesuit, so what do I know. I am so confused I even think one is accessory in the sin of the sodomites if he is silent on the issue, and anyone who thinks the Pope is not being silent because of the one or other very indirect remark made unrecognisable in order not to be “provocative” is insulting his intelligence.
Even more pathetic is the excuse found for this open capitulation: this was the first meeting with Welby, and the man is such a sensitive flower that his delicate constitution might not have survived the “provocation” of basic Christianity. An argument which also forgets Welby did speak against so-called “gay marriage”, albeit in the usual Anglican way, so we may conclude he would have, very probably, survived the shock.
More brutal still are the words of comment to the Pope’s inactivity in the matter: Pope Francis ” has steered clear of the gay marriage debate as it has recently roiled France and Britain, and in general has refrained from making headline-grabbing public comments on hot-button current issues”. Very truthful observation. The Pontiff has, though, generously made his wisdom about gossip & co. – let alone salvation for atheists – available to the man and the woman on the street; who are – unsurprisingly – very impressed.
Every Italian knows a novel I have often mentioned on this blog, and may end up mentioning in future – much as I dearly love this novel – more than I would like to. In the immortal I Promessi Sposi (“The Betrothed”, here or here, or here in the Original) one of the main characters is Don Abbondio, a timid, weak, and rather cowardly priest ready to betray his priestly duties in the most scandalous of ways when the price might be an awful lot of discomfort or – as he thinks being a weak man – his own life. This character (like the entire novel) has become so much ingrained in the Italian psyche, that un Don Abbondio is still today a favourite way among the better educated to indicate this kind of weak and accommodating priest, “not born with a lion’s heart” and ready to betray his vocation; a vocation for which he must be ready, as Don Abbondio is reminded at the opportune juncture, to die.
In the case of Don Abbondio, the two henchmen you see above threaten him in case he were to celebrate “a certain marriage” between two good people living in the village; a marriage which, as they make clear, “must not take place”. The parallel with today’s situation is striking, with “a certain marriage” (the perverted caricature of the real one) that “must take place”. The Pope, timorous to cause controversy and to be “provocative”, is happy to do what he can to accommodate the wishes of his two bravi, Satan’s henchmen Obama and Cameron.
If you want an even more striking example, look at the letter the Pontiff sent to the British Prime Minister David Cameron ahead of the G8. The Pope is here addressing a Prime Minister who, as he writes, is doing all he can to introduce so-called same-sex marriage, a measure now imminent. Still, his letter does not address the question with one word. In the same letter, though, the Pope accomplishes the unprecedented feat of giving abortion a “social justice” profile, as if for him every Christian principle were worthy of being followed because it’s social, not because it’s God’s law.
Don Abbondio has become Pope, and his thinking, speaking and acting have a striking resemblance with the original’s.
Allow me to finish this blog post with the following words (emphases mine):
“How’s our faith? Is it strong? Or is it sometimes a bit superficial? (all’acqua di rose – “like rose water”, meaning banal, an insufficient substitute, shallow, inadequate)” When difficulties come, “are we courageous like Peter or a little lukewarm?” Peter – he pointed out– didn’t stay silent about the Faith, he din’t descend to compromises, because “the Faith isn’t negotiable.” “There has been, throughout history of the people, this temptation: to chop a piece off the Faith”, the temptation to be a bit “like everyone else does”, the temptation “not to be so very rigid”. “But when we start to cut down the Faith, to negotiate Faith, a little like selling it to the highest bidder”
You know who this is, right?
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
The Lords, on whom Christian hopes rested, have yesterday turned down the proposal to kill the law about so-called “same sex marriage” with a majority of two to one.
The good news is that this was only a preliminary vote, a sort of “sudden death” proposal that would have killed the measure without even examining it in detail. There will be further votes, and continued lobby work.
The very bad news is that I personally do not think anything will change in the future. Let me explain why.
The excuse used by cowardly peers to justify their vote in favour of the exam of the law is that they need to look at things in detail before making a decision. This makes as much sense as to say that one needs to look in detail at a law legalising incest with one's own child before deciding whether it's, erm, an advisable piece of legislation. In my eyes, it is very naive to think that a Peer who did not have the guts to vote against abomination in principle will vote against it on technical reasons. Christian groups are not the only one who will apply pressure, and Number 10 was reported to have worked massively on this in the last week.
Add to this that the Lords is not the chamber it used to be. Once the largely hereditary preserve of wealthy – and therefore naturally conservative and financially independent – families, it has now become the emergency exit for politicians whose career within the party has been spent and are, as the saying goes, “kicked upstairs”. Lord Mohammed of East London Ghetto, or Lord Proll of Working Class Constituency, are nowadays more likely representative of the breed. These people are in the Lords not because of their cost allowance, but because of the well paid perks they can get or hope to get from the network of firms wanting to ingratiate the government. They may be elected for life, but they are not independent in any way in which wealth would make them independent.
To tell you how bad it is I only need to mention that even Mr Welby, the Mickey Mouse Archbishop of Mouseton, erm, Canterbury, has seen it as fitting to leave his own archbishops (around a couple dozen of them in the Lords, if memory serves) free to vote according to “conscience”. Go figure.
As to our own idiot, his silence has been deafening for many months now, and from the beginning of this mess he has limited himself to the strictly necessary, preferring to avoid appearing on the radar screen most of the time.
This is the situation we are in, and you can make your own guess about the probability of success.
I have reblogged some days ago my old blog post about Our Lady of Quito. It is reassuring to know that the Blessed Virgin – in whose apparition I believe – had warned about a massive attack on marriage. Everything is, so to speak, under strict observation from above and whilst we knew that already, it is beautiful to be told from the Blessed Virgin, too. We must go through this as well as we can, drawing strength from prayer and, in more serene days, thanking the Lord we live in times allowing us to fight the good fight against the perverts as our fathers and grandfathers did against Communism.
On a not unrelated note, yesterday was also the day our Cardinal Ravasi hobnobbed with other idiots amidst prosecco, finger sandwiches and perverts, trying to be one of them like a spot-plagued adolescent desperate to mix with the “cool people” at school. I have also not read the latest rumblings, erm, homily of the Pope, but I do not doubt it was not about the greatest issue of our time, more likely about the need to pay attention not to spill the milk in the morning (eh? no?) or to wait when we meet all in heaven (yes, yesss! Even the atheists!! Come on in everyone!) as we “do good” so well.
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.