The singer Michelle Shocked performed a rather strong tirade against so-called “gay marriage” some days ago, apparently during a concert. I do not have any idea who the woman is, or whether I would like her music (rather not, methinks; but you never know). What I do know is that over the Pond she is known enough to make a “US Tour”.
This tour now appears to be in tatters, as following Shocked's utterances several venues have hastened to cancel the scheduled performance. Faggots all over the country are rejoicing.
Now, it appears Shocked expressed herself in rather robust tones, including the “God hates Fags” so hated by those who hate God. Now, it is certainly wrong to say that God hates fags as creatures made by Himself, or as immortal souls. God loves each and everyone of his children; but to love one's child does not mean to approve of everything he does, or even not to punish him when he has richly deserved it.
God does not hate fags as human beings, but God most certainly hates faggotry in extremely high measure. He did not send an angel to destroy Sodom (which means, let us be clear about it, killing everyone in it, including women, children and elderly) because they made loud music at night, but because they were, erm, sodomites.
This simple fact escapes the modern apostles of the new religion of tolerance, to whom God is “homophobic” and should not be allowed to “discriminate” against sodomites, much less exterminate them.
They are entitled to their opinion, stupid as it may be (you can't outlaw stupidity after all, and I value freedom of expression, at least outside of my blog), but they should be coherent enough not to tell themselves Christians as they do so.
God hates faggotry. He hates it so much, that he punished it with a genocide, not sparing even little children. I really can't imagine how He could have made his point in a more forceful way than by exterminating everyone.
Michelle Shocked expressed herself, being a Proddie, in an inaccurate way, but she went far nearer to the Truth than her critics on the liberal camp.
God hates faggotry all right.
Brilliant article from Randy Engel concerning the astonishing affirmation of William Levada that
“By nature homosexuality is a not a predatory activity, it is a sexual activity that the Catholic Church does not condone.”
“pedophile priests are violating the sanctity and purity of young people.”
Mrs Engel (the author of “The Rite of Sodomy”, so she might know a thing or two about the subject) disagrees in refreshingly blunt terms.
I quote from her intervention:
The Homosexual Collective recruits like the Army. Individual homosexuals proselytize and seduce new recruits. For the homosexual, every male is a potential homosexual, either overt, latent, or suppressed.
In the words of psychiatrist Dr. Samuel Nigro, “homosexuals colonize and recruit as if by ‘binary fission’ both in and out of the workplace to produce a state of ‘homotoxicity.’” At the collective level, he says, “Homosexuals infiltrate and metastasize, taking over any and every group possible by a compounding of their cognitive defects.”
Is [the CardinaL] ignorant of the fact that pederasty has been the most enduring and universal form of homosexuality in the recorded history of mankind?
Has he ever asked himself, why the Homosexual Collective consistently lobbies for lower and lower age-of-consent laws or their removal altogether?
The author’s conclusion is obvious, but still worth mentioning:
It seems to me that if he cannot bring himself to face the truth about sodomites and sodomy, then he should do faithful Catholics everywhere a big favor. He should enjoy his retirement years out of the media spotlight and keep his mouth shut on the subject of homosexuality.
If I may add one or two observations of my own, I would like to also say the following:
1) The Cardinal has had a happy life if he has never been approached by homos seeking whom they might pervert. I can say from personal experience their attitude is predatory all right, to the point of not being able to renounce to an attempt even when they know perfectly well it is not going to lead to anything, or to lead to a punch in the nose. Perversion breeds obsession.
2) The Cardinal hasn’t paid much attention in seminary. If he had, he would know that sins are such because they offend God, not (necessarily) because they harm someone. Consequently, the gravity of the sin is measured by the gravity of the offence made to God, not by the age of the victim. The gravity of the offence of sodomy cannot be put into question, since even the Cardinal must know it is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance.
It says something of the state of the Church that even Cardinals now seem to think “do not harm” is the basis of Christian thinking.
Let us say once again this is the man Pope Benedict (emeritus) placed at the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
O Lord, please give us a strong Pope…
I am no friend of JP II’s papacy. If you ask me, he has supervised and administered a 25 year-long decay of Christianity, undermining the Church’s strength with unspeakable episcopal appointments and not seeing (or not caring for) the decomposition of Catholic instruction all over the West; the last phenomenon, a slow but effective cancer whose effects we are experiencing now, poisoned an entire generation of Catholics who live and go to vote with only vague ideas about what they are supposed to believe and why. As a result, Catholicism has been slowly withering in the Western world, whilst the growth in Asia and Africa and the media successes of the Pontiff (full airports, and “icon status”) lulled the Vatican in the illusion everything is, more or less, fine.
Still, looking back at JP II’s pontificate, one can see an area where his work has been, at least in words, persistent and very counter-cultural: abortion. John Paul’s insisted returning on the issue did in time leave traces, and the slogan of the “culture of death” has now become mainstream. It is impossible not to notice that the slow swing in the abortion battle was made possible also through the contribution of an honest soul who, by all his shortcoming as a Pontiff, knew how to be stubborn on issues particularly near to his heart.
In my eyes, the times are ripe for the start of a second crusade: the War On Sodomy. If a Pope were courageous enough as to put the matter square in the middle of the sociopolitical debate, we would not have to wait many years before the entire planet starts to listen.
A Pope insistently pointing out to the total opposition of Sodomy and Christianity, and to the utter and total impossibility for everyone who aids and abets or even condones sodomy to call himself a Christian (not a Catholic, mind; a Christian) would certainly cause a huge uproar among the blaspheming classes, but would inevitably attract, in due course, the attention of the Catholic masses.
It takes time before the masses move; what you notice is rather a small shift in perception, due to natural causes as generations themselves shift, and to the natural tendencies of most to follow what they think most think, confusing error with wisdom whenever the error is widely spread. In order to shake the masses from their torpor you need a kind of shock treatment, a shift of paradigm able to bring the world to attention in a relatively short time.
What we need is a roaring Church rather than a meowing one; a Church ready to give battle rather than timid counsel; a Church not shy in letting their opponents understand once she has chosen an enemy, she will go on until his complete political annihilation (Obama and Andrew Cuomo immediately come to mind). This can ,very probably, be done in the smart way without even losing tax privileges, though tax privileges should never be in the way of Christianity and I do not think tax consideration should really be an issue. Never did a courageous Church lack conversions, martyrs, and the necessary means.
A roaring Pope starting a true war on Sodomy would in time not fail to shift the public perception on the matter. This war should not only be wages with words through encyclical letters, radio and TV speeches, tweets if he likes, and so on; but more importantly it should be founded on actual actions like the appointments of only the most rigidly orthodox as bishops, the purging of seminaries from every heretical tendency, a massive cleanup among dissenting nuns and friars, and an aggressive intervention in all political debates involving Christian values. In just a few years, sodomy would soon be seen again as a disgusting, abominable perversion that is just the epitome of everything that is wrong with Godlessness, instead of a strange but very fashionable quirk of people unjustly persecuted by bigots. The narrative of the progressive citizen who “loves his gays” and feels so inclusive and tolerant works because the progressive citizen isn’t told he is an idiot bent for hell, and even our prelates seem unable to miss any one occasion to say how oh so caring they are.
What we need now is a frontal attack, not inclusive waffle.
One quarter of the English Catholic clergy signs a letter, and be assured in Westminster and Downing Hill there are preoccupied faces already. If there was an all out attack be assured the meetings at Number 10 would have as only issue out to get out of the mess and try to save face. They are scared of a couple of perverts’ lobbies, knowing the Church is out for their scalp would scare them witless.
We have Cardinals inviting enemies of Christianity to prestige dinners instead, and even when there is a reaction (see sodomarriage in England), this is too little, and with people with no credibility whatever in the matter. The best example is Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, a man already compromised with so-called civil partnership and the least fit to tell us why we should upheld Christian values.
If you had any doubt the Anglican Muppet Show would continue after the departure of the much-lamented (because extremely hilarious) Rowan Williams, you should now not have any doubt the new leader of the so-called C of E is now frantically driving the organisation to the wall with renewed enthusiasm.
The recent decision to allow openly homosexual wannabe priests to become wannabe bishops even if they live with their wannabe “partners” provided they (ahahahah!!!!!) promise to remain celibate is as credible as appointing Jimmy Savile head of the orphanage provided he promises not to abuse the children. Actually no, it’s even more stupid, because child abuse is a criminal offence and even Jimmy Savile would have to pay attention, whereas sodomy isn’t and therefore the wannabe bishop wouldn’t.
The new measure is, of course, the latest exercise in Anglican hypocrisy, this time on a scale embarrassing even for Anglicans.
Other provinces of the Anglican Communion do not seem to see it in the same way, though: Anglican wannabe bishops in Nigeria, Uganda and Kenia have stated in no uncertain term they’ll not tolerate this, and this move could “shatter” whatever “hopes for reconciliation” between the opposing camps there might have been. Strong tobacco, methinks.
I do not know what so-called Archbishop Welby (make no mistake, he is no more an Archbishop than the above mentioned Jimmy Savile) has in mind with this genial shoot in his foot. Perhaps he sees the riff within the Anglican communion as irrecoverable and the Christians destined to detach themselves from the Inclusives anyway at some point; perhaps he hopes this push forward will force the Christians to choose separation or abandonment of basic Christian principles and they will choose the latter after some symbolic sweetie is given to them to allow them to pretend they have saved face (they are Anglicans, remember…); perhaps he and his are just too stupid to look forward and see what they are doing.
Be it as it may, the process of decomposition of the so-called C of E continues unabated, and every steps getting them further from Christianity increases the danger of damnation for the souls of their already extremely disinterested members, for whom Christianity seems now definitely on the way to becoming a completely new home-made parody of the original, and proudly rooted on satanic perversion.
At this point I can seriously see the day they will appoint Satanists as bishops, provided they promise not to celebrate any black mass.
All this would be extremely serious, if I were able to take the Anglicans in any way seriously. As it stands, I cannot but look at them with the same amused condescendence with which you look at children playing office, or army; with the big difference that children who play office or army do not endanger their soul.
From Gloria TV.
Saint Gregory the Great delves deeper into the symbolism of the fire and brimstone that God used to punish the sodomites: “Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.” (St. Gregory the Great, Commento morale a Giobbe, XIV, 23, vol. II, p. 371, Ibid., p. 7)
How very “uncharitable”, “hateful” and, of course, “homophobic”.
Or you could say: what a great Saint, and a great Christian.
Imagine one day your Government, following the “call” of the times, would decide that sexual intercourse with animals does not constitute a criminal offence. It is still horrible of course, but it has now been decided that prosecution (with the added expenses) is now not the way anymore.
In just a few years, behaviour once considered criminally perverted would be considered merely disgusting; after a while, purely very strange. Disquieting people would emerge from anonymity, beginning to give themselves as zoophiles names like “smart” or “spiffy”. Soon, they would begin to consider themselves a ” minority”, and the carriers of a “culture”, and this culture would be, of course, “discriminated against” by the “hypocritical” followers of “bourgeois morality”.
Give them just a few years more (the time to infiltrate Hollywood, and be considered “normal” by a generation of people who cannot even remember zoophilia was once a criminal offence) and Bob’s your uncle: they will be accepted. This point – when people start to say “some of my best friends are spiffies” without being ashamed; nay, feeling modern and alternative and “with it” – is the turning of the tide. After a while, calls for “civil partnerships” will be heard, and when one already has a neighbour living with an extremely nice female of German Shepherd it might not sound so absurd at all because the abomination was there, to be seen every day and shamelessly practised under the sun already; after a while, the calls for “marriage” will follow, and those who refuse to congratulate Bella (the German shepherd) and Adam (the English accountant) for their beautiful relationship will be called, by the then deputy Prime Minister, “bigots”, whilst the Prime Minister of the day will call their “commitment” something “conservative” and give his blessing. In the end, they say, Bella and Adam are “happy”, and how can anyone be so cruel as to be against, oh, oh, “happiness”?
What is this all to do with the so-called “gay marriage”, you will ask?
The debate about the so-called “gay marriage” (which isn’t gay; much less marriage) is not the product of some strange combination of planets; it is the unavoidable consequence of the abolition of sodomy laws. How was it not to be expected that the toleration of perversion would not, in time, lead to calls for its normalisation? One can’t be half against abominations. Either one refuses them altogether as taboos, or one will be forced to “include” what he is afraid to condemn.
Our forefathers, much smarter than we are and with no false gods of tolerance at all costs, knew this. We know this ourselves when some types of sexual perversions (paedophilia, say) are concerned. But again, after only one and a half generation without sodomy laws many people would struggle to even link the two and put them in the same ballpark, which countless generations before us did without any problem. This happens because, as I have often repeated, the laws of one generations are the morality of the following one. Those legislators who decriminalised sodomy in the Sixties certainly did not favour the so-called “gay marriage”, but clearly did not think this through. We now pay the consequences of their folly, and it might be a long time before sanity (and with it sodomy laws) returns.
We live in such senselessly stupid times that we have lost sight for elementary truths just because they impact some neighbour or colleague or “friend”. God is not part of the picture anymore, and no average “British Neighbour” wonders anymore whether he must really tolerate scandalous perversion out of his own front door. This happens, because he has not been taught to call a spade a spade; and whilst he feels all the disgust he has no heart to say what he thinks, lest he should appear a Neanderthaler in the eyes of his neighbours; many of whom, no doubt, think exactly as he does.
This cycle of cowardice - which generates more homo screaming; which generates more cowardice – has to stop. It has to stop if we want to go back to basic Christianity and elementary decency, instead of allowing Satan to manipulate us everywhere whilst we say to our friends how modern and tolerant we are.
So-called “gay” (I’d love to see the suicide statistics of such “gay” people) “marriage” is not fought against saying that civil partnership is enough of a civil right, because this invites the problem rather than avoiding it. If perversion is right, why should only half perversion be accepted? Isn’t the very institution of “civil partnership” the statement that sexual perversion is absolutely normal? If it’s normal, what’s the fuss?
So-called “gay marriage” is fought against by calling s spade a spade, and a pervert a pervert, not by giving perverts almost full recognition and then telling them they are ok, but really, they should not ask to be treated as such.
Bring back the sodomy laws.
In a rather astonishing show of social conservative spirit, and in a world where more and more institutions begin to bow to the common madness and accept homosexuality as normality, and the indecency of proclaiming one’s perversion out loud a civil right, it is extremely comforting to know the Boy Scouts of America have shown a very long finger to the madness of our times.
This is, mind, no fringe group, counting in the US more than 2.7 million young member and another 1 million volunteers. The Episcopalians would be proud of being able to boast such figures.
You may say it is surprising the Boy Scouts of America reviewed their policy in the first place, but with the benefit of hindsight (and considering this is not a Catholic organisation) it is fair to say this might have been the best way to put the calls for “reform” to rest once and for all.
This is how the Chief Scout Executive of the organisation puts it:
“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting. While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”
Behind the thinly veiled political correctness, you can read a couple of very clear messages: the parents are overwhelmingly on the side of reason, and those who disagree are very welcome to leave the organisation.
Expect now the usual avalanche of indignation from champagne-sipping, more or less straight, adulterous urbanites (those kind of people unlikely to send their boys to the boy-scouts anyway), and the usual screeching of the organised faggotry. I read around about a chap with two lesbian “mothers” complaining about the policy, clearly not complying with the moral standards which have (not) been transmitted to him. You don’t say?
The population of the United States is, in their vats majority, still sound thinking and with some fear of the Lord remaining in them. It is now their duty to attack the work of corrupted and satanic judges and use democracy to restore sanity.
The appointment of Archbishop Mueller to the CDF was the signal for the Modernist troops to start an attack in defence of the money they cash from the not-so-faithful in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
This time, the openly heretical assertions come fromt he youngest Cardinal, Woelki, an appointment of Pope Benedict both as Archbishop and Cardinal.
Woelki, whose diocese lies in Berlin (last time I looked, the city in Europe with most lesbians compared to the population), is reported by the Tablet as follows
Commenting on gay men in relationships he said he tried not to see them as just violating natural law but as people trying to take responsibility for each other in lasting partnerships. “We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching,” he said.
I do not know whether the Cardinal really said (the Tablet might have twisted his real words) about perverts “trying to take responsibility”, which is as intelligent and as Christian as to say that a paedophile is trying to take responsibility for the child he rapes, or a zoophile for the dog he screws. I do not doubt the Cardinal’s concept, as truly expressed, were alarming enough. But the words literally quoted are of the same heretic content: in the view of the Cardinal, it is not people who have to conform their actions to church teaching, but the church teaching which must be conformed to their actions; they can, otherwise, evidently “not live”.
This is another brilliant appointment of Pope Benedict. This man will contribute to the election of the new Pope. The Vatican – this man is a Cardinal, remember – is rapidly becoming a theological madhouse, with particularly the German prelates doing whatever they can in order not to lose the money of the Kirchensteuer, which makes of the German church the wealthiest on the planet.
I sincerely hope the Cardinal (who according to Wikipedia had a rather good start as Archbishop, saying that homosexual acts are against the order of creation: which is obvious, but in these times not automatically said) will now correct the “Tablet” and either point out to their mistake and interpretation errors, or else make it very clear that he is true to the line. Possibly without V -II quibbles and explanations as to how freedom is slavery, and war is peace.
Otherwise… otherwise, what? Can you imagine Archbishop Mueller really forcing this man to orthodoxy? Really?
It may well be that Pope Benedict has plunged us in the most serious crisis in the history of the church. This new phase of the crisis might develop with assorted – mainly German-speaking – Cardinals expressing themselves in the usual duplicitous, slimy way – see above – against every Church rule and doctrine staying between them and the money of their poor sheep. The Vatican would, then, do nothing beyond the usual feeble meowing every now and then, in order to hide behind the fig leaf of pretended orthodoxy whilst allowing the German (and other) Cardinals to be perceived to be “modern” and “on the side of the people” by their sugar daddies.
The Holy Father will in the meantime, no doubt, work on his next book.
Larry Brinkin, S.F. Sodomite “Icon”, Jailed For Child Pornography (Achtung! Really Disgusting Material!)
My dear readers,
sensible people like you most certainly know when one allows the Devil to enter in the living room, the latter will make himself comfortable and occupy the entire place. You also know homosexuality and pedophilia (two of the most atrocious perversions, unspeakable taboos, considered very much akin during 2000 years of Christianity, before it became fashionable to say “gay”) are very closely linked together.
You know the explosion of homosexuality among priests in the wake of V II was what mainly fuelled the explosion of paedophile scandals in the decades following Vatican II. You also know “notable” faggot activists like Peter Tatchell have in the past become vocal for the reduction of the age at which they can have safe (in the sense of: legal) sex with very young boys.
If you are, my dear reader, the slender type, you will also know that you will attract the attention of the fags, as the latter are – as seen by the countless examples of perverts you see on London streets – rather attracted by the slender or, better still, ephebic type.
You know all this, my dear readers; but many people out there, living in a boundless ocean of ignorance – and tepid complicity – concerning perversion, tend not to know.
It turns out the main Fag Icon in San Francisco, a Mister (?) Larry Brinkin, has been arrested under the accuse of possessing child pornography. We are not talking here of perverts amusing themselves with films of barely illegal other faggots, but rather (and I warn you, this is strong tobacco; something I did not even imagine, let alone know, could exist)
images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men
As you can read in the linked article, these images were sent by email, through an account allegedly paid for with Mr Brinkin’s card, and the police thinks the email address used by the culprit is directly linked to him.
Talking of perverts, Mr Brinkin is allegedly “married” to, cela va sans dire, his “significant pervert”, but I do not know whether this other chap-ess is also in trouble…
Be it as it may, it appears at least some faggots (I say this in general, as Mr Brinkin himself could still be found innocent of the accusation of possessing child pornography; though certainly not of grievous mortal sin) cannot even leave racism aside when abandoning themselves to their own satanic (read the above again, and tell me…) perversions. It appears the person operating the email account used for the transmission of the diabolic material is on record with the following:
“I loved especially the nigger 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bitch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White Dick Rules!”
So, yours truly had to reach and pass the half century of existence before knowing such things actually exist. Mind, I don’t feel stupid for that; merely normal. What astonishes me, is that the unspeakable cesspool of sodomy is still considered, by most contemporary “urban” people, something fit for a conversation at a cocktail party, perhaps mixed with good-sounding words like “human rights” and “bullying”.
Perverts, that’s what they are. No, really, disgusting perverts. And whilst the person who acknowledges his perversion and sets up to fight against it – in my eyes, basically starting a path of spiritual growth; then where spirituality goes in from the door perversion must get out of the window, in the same way as water can’t co-exist with fire – is worthy of our prayers, the faggot engaged in undermining basic Christianity and perverting souls must be flattened under a steamroller of contempt and ridicule. And please, let us stop with the usual obsession with niceness. Great Christians of the past were not afraid at all of not being “nice” and, methinks, they were the truly charitable ones.
So there you are: it is not only that some fags are paedophiles, in the same way as, undoubtedly, some heterosexual people are perverts in other ways. The fact is that homosexuality and pedophilia are intimately linked, as the shocking recent experience of the Church Herself abundantly shows. Mr (or “Mrs”; or “Pervert Partner No.1″, or “No.2″; ah, how complicated it has all become…) Brinkin is merely the last example of a diffused side-effect of homosexual perversion too conveniently ignored by the media, because to touch the subject means to slaughter the holy cow of so-called “gay culture”.
Scratch the fag, and you might discover below the skin lies a paedophile. It does not have to be so, of course. Still, the link is too strong to be denied.
Don’t believe me? Ask the Vatican…
It is truly sad to see this proud and great, great country (a country which is, whatever the BBC may tell you, tenderly loved by millions of Europeans seeing in it the factual savior of our very spoiled Euro backsides during the Cold War) marching toward ruin in this way. One is reminded of the Roman Empire, but apparently the lessons of the past count for nothing if compared with the political expediency of the present.
Obama can’t be kicked out of the White House one day too soon, and there’s only to hope Romney will not be a chicken on this once he is in power.
Marriage supporters in Maryland have announced they have gathered more than double the signatures required to place a new law legalising and institutionalising sodomy and same-sex perversion before the people.
The vote will apparently take place in… November, together with the Presidential election.
Maryland has almost 6 million inhabitants, and 30% of them are black. It won’t be an easy time for many of them, as a Presidential campaign increasingly focused on social/religious issues puts them more and more violently in front of the clear heathenism of their candidate.
Of course, it is not that Obama’s “coming out” will immediately alienate him “the Black vote”; but it will certainly make it more difficult for his traditional supporters to follow him. If even one in thirty abandons him it will be a big blow; if it is one in ten or twelve he will probably not survive it. By choosing – or possibly: after being forced by Biden’s stupidity – to alienate the moderate electorate, Obama is staking everything on a massive mobilisation of the minorities (particularly blacks) and angry fringes (sodomites, lesbians, child rapists, dog rapists, coprophagists, and their friends and supporters).
It seems very difficult to me that the strategy may work, and I struggle to think of a democratic President who fled to the left and was greeted there by enthusiastic multitudes securing reelection.I notice, on the other hand, that this brand of hard liberalism never secured Ted Kennedy a nomination, and when McGovern and Mondale were chosen to represent “change” they were more or less mercilessly filleted by Nixon and the Gipper respectively. Life at the left border of the political spectrum seems to be short and ending in painful death, at least if you want to become or remain President.
Of course, Obama will not lose in Maryland, as even Kerry was able to easily win the State in 2004 and Obama himself won in a landslide in 2008. But he is making it more and more difficult for him to win the race, and considering 10 of 16 key battleground states have passed amendments to protect marriage I think Barack Hussein is making his job as difficult as possible. I can’t imagine this to be the result of a cold calculation, rather of a necessity created by the insistent flirting with extreme positions, coupled with the immense stupidity of the VP.
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.
First of all, my dear reader, ensure that you are calm and relaxed. Then consider going in the kitchen and preparing a good camomile. Valerian drops will also do, I think.
When you are in such way prepared for what I am going to point out to, you may want to say a Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. After that, if you really feel ready, click here, where you will be able to see with your eyes that the smoke of Satan, far from merely finding a way true a fissure of the Church, has been smoking out many an important room within the place for some considerable time.
I will not repeat the arguments against the latest blasphemous and heathenish monstrosity of the old Cardinal. I do not think that having Parkinson’s disease can be an extenuating circumstance. Whilst Parkinson’s disease can go together with dementia, a demented former Cardinal does not get his books published. Although in this case “demented” might seem appropriate, as the Cardinal talks like one who has, literally, lost his mind.Only he hasn’t. Soul, more likely.
You will read in the brilliant blog post the well-exposed considerations, about which I have written several times, based on which the Cardinal can be said firmly in the hands of Satan. I think of the times when one could have landed on the stake for doctrines like that, and wonder whether our society is really so civilised as we think, or merely weak and stupid. Very weak, and very stupid.
You can read the considerations of the case over there. here, I would like to make a couple of ancillary considerations:
1) This man is rumoured to have been papabile. I do not think he ever was, firstly because the Holy Ghost does not allow such catastrophes and secondly because after the tragedy of Paul VI the Popes have all been clearly more conservative than Martini by any conceivable standard. Still, if it is true that the man managed to coagulate around him the support of the liberal wing, it tells you everything you need to know about how serious the situation within the Vatican is.
2) I keep reading around readers – good souls in perfect good faith, I imagine – whose only approach to the SSPX-Vatican controversy is that the SSPX must “submit” to the Vatican or, even, to “Vatican II”. It is basically like saying that if her mother moves in a brothel, an obedient daughter will follow her over there because this gives plenty of opportunities for conversions, whereas the daughter who stays out and keeps saying her mother to be reasonable and get out of the place is the disobedient, rebellious one.
3) This is rather strong tobacco, as Martini was in his day more influential than our Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will ever be, and his book will most certainly get the echo it does not deserve. One would think the Pope would immediately intervene and force him to immediate abiura; isn’t it? I mean, this will certainly happen, right? Right?
Truly, the Church has no need whatever of external enemies.Those inside are already doing an excellent job.
This is not mine, but comes from a homily recently listened to.
The reflection is very simple: was everyone in Sodom a sodomite? The rational answer is “no”. Still, we know from the Genesis that even after a rather tiring negotiation, Abraham (Abram, I think, at that point) could not bring the number of righteous people there down to the number necessary to save the city, though as a good Easterner he had negotiated down from 50 to (if memory serves) 10.
Therefore, not even 10 just people were present in Sodom, which implies the number of the unjust was certainly bigger than the number of the Sodomites.
Fast forward to modern times, and the Genesis picture is in front of our eyes. How many are the homosexual? Very probably not much more than half a percent among the adult population in average, and certainly not more than a good two-digit percentage even in places like Soho. How could, then, Sodom be destroyed? The answer is: because of the “niceness” reigning even where sexual perversion hadn’t entered; because, speaking of today, of the too many who look the other way and do not want to miss the civil partnership ceremony of the neighbour, or even congratulate him on his achievement; because of all those for whom a perfectly wrongly understood Tolerance is a new god, to whom everything, even Christianity, must bow; because of all those who just don’t care, and can’t be bothered to ask whether they could; because of all those who would not at least promise to themselves they will, at the right time, try to influence the (literally) poor sods in the right way.
The thought is rather scary if we think how many have nowadays, particularly in modern Sodoms like London, embraced the New Religion of Tolerance. It really lets one think that the day the situation gets out of control and not even a tiny number of people who still think with their own brains can be found, the next heaven-sent genocide cannot be very far away; genocide which, by-the-by, would be in itself a rather eloquent answer to the New Religion.
We are, hopefully, far away from that situation, as even in a place like London conservative Catholicism and conservative Christianity still resonate with a non indifferent minority of the population. How long will this last, is rather the question. Unless Christians (and notably Catholic) hierarchies wake up in this country, Christianity as it has been understood and practised in these last two thousand years might one day become a strange collection of old rituals no one really understands anymore, like those squares and street names everyone knows, but whose name’s origin is understood just by few. One has the impression this is already happening in vast strata of the soi-disant Christian population, as it is shown by examples like the “priestess” giving (fake) communion to the dog with most of the present finding the gesture “natural”, and only one person complaining afterwards.
Niceness is the new enemy and it is literally everywhere, corrupting every idea of moral justice into an indistinct, tofu-like, sugary minestrone whose ingredients are still written on the can, but have long disappeared from the content.
We must stay vigilant and not allow ourselves to slip by degrees into this mentality of celebrating everything. It will only attract countless disgraces in the best of cases, and a huge amount of brimstone in the worst.
To you in the United States or Europe this name might not be terribly familiar, but here in Blighty Tesco is, very simply, everywhere. I never really understood why as I prefer Waitrose for quality and Sainsbury’s for value, but it takes all sorts…
Either way, Tesco is here probably better known than the Queen. For this reason, it was no small
provocation fact when such a company decided to unite its name to the Great Cause Of Sodomy.
A masterstroke, someone of dubious sexual orientation and/or of zero moral values must have thought: in one fell swoop we make ourselves oh so beautiful, polish our image with “the young” (who are supposed, of course, to be perverts and supporters of perversion) and get a huge boost in popularity at, in the end, very little cost compared with, say, a huge nationwide TV ad campaign.
It turns out the initiative wasn’t a masterstroke, the country was rather angry and let Tesco know what they thought of them, and an ocean of points was in danger of going down the drain whilst their owner simply walked elsewhere.
The entire exercise reminded one of the embarrassing Marks & Spencer initiative, with some – certainly below thirty – cretins promoting slogans like “Plan A, because there is no Plan B” and causing the loss of, I am sure, many clients beside yours truly.
Still, whilst Marks and Spencer deflated the environ-mental craze rather quietly and trying not to lose face, Tesco clearly couldn’t afford such a luxury in front of popular opposition, which must have been brutal and such as to demand a decided backpedaling. But how to ddo it? In these cases you are in front of a quandary: you must throw the fags out of the window without appearing to having sponsored them just because you were looking for some cheap publicity.
The result is, it appears, Tesco’s announcement of the last days: “we’ll be pro-sodomy until the next Pervert Pride event, after which we are going to sever our ties with organised sodomy”. Brilliantly stupid.
This is so embarrassing, it reminds one of “The Office”, and the flies on the walls of Tesco headquarters must have cringed, too. The Tesco PR, erm, cheesy poofs are basically saying to us their “values” have – pun not intended – a “best before” date.
Sorry boys – or however you “feel” – it just doesn’t work that way. Such a behaviour exposes your hypocrisy even more; it takes every doubt out of the most naive that you were just being the serfs of the public opinion, and the servants of Mammon.
This wasn’t little. And it certainly did not help.
It appears more and more evident that among the black population in the United States the support for sodo-”marriage” is rather in the minority, even in places like California where you would expect people to be, in a way, more liberal or at least more prone to listen to the Democratic party.
The last piece of information comes from this poll conducted in Maryland, which among other things (look at the Obama approval rate numbers if you want to have a laugh) states that opposition to re-defining
logic marriage is 59% among the black population, a massive 10% more than the average.
I know, I know, statistics….
Still, from what one reads around even from this side of the Pond, it seems to me that the black support for traditional marriage is a fact.
This means that all those homos and their liberal friends playing the hate and human rights card have, how should I put it, a slight problem…
Extremely interesting blog post from the “American Papist”, Thomas Peters. In his blog post, Peters point out to a clearly visible, but often not sufficiently considered reality: that the overwhelmingly liberal mass media greatly increase the feeling of inevitability of homo marriage by stubbornly ignoring their many defeats, and giving enormous space and “historic significance” to their very rare victories.
Stop for a moment and reflect what the liberal media (that is: the vast majority of the mass tv channels in the US and Europe, and the majority of mass newspapers) would have said if in the US there had been thirty popular consultation about the so-called homo marriages and the perverts had won all of them. And now please think that the reality is that they have lost them, all of them. It’s 31-0 for Christian values, and counting!
If this kind of results had been achieved by the other side, the call for the end of the debate would be deafening, and every opposer treated as an undemocratic nazi.
Or let us examine the legislative part of the battle, the arena where the homos try to transform their clear minority in the country in a majority by attracting representatives of the people ready to please them in exchange for favours. Well it turns out that this year they have already lost in Maryland and Rhode Island, and only won in New York; it’ 2-1 on the legislative front then, but there are at least other six states – let us count them: Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Pennsylvania preparing themselves to reinforce marriage as the only…. marriage, or to reverse past decisions favourable to the homos.
Not persuaded yet? Look at a liberal state like California, where the homos have lost several times through either popular vote or law initiatives, and are now trying to overturn the people’s decision through an homosexual judge living together with his lover (or mistress, I suppose; or both; no idea what disgusting “arrangements” these people make).
Or perhaps you think that wherever homosexual so-called “marriage” legislation is passed, the situation is irreversible? Think again! Iowa and New Hampshire are two points in case, California is another example of sort (with the victorious Proposition 8 being the people’s answer to pink judicial activism). Wherever you look, people don’t sit and say “oh well, it had to happen I suppose”, but they react.
This, mind, even before the massive Catholic machine has been mobilised. If the US bishops started to say it as it is in a way that can’t be ignored, things would change in a matter not of decades, but probably of years, and the great risk for puppets a’ la Andrew Cuomo to be wiped out would soon let them decide that it is better for them to shut up like as many children when the headmaster enters the classroom.
Thankfully, in the United States more and more people are starting to understand what your humble correspondent has been saying from pre-blog times: homosexuality is the front line of the Christian war. Re-establish a Christian attitude to this, and abortion and euthanasia will be won on the momentum created by this recovery of Christian values.
Sad as it is to say so, too many people are still numbed to the atrocity of abortion, as – as they say in Italy – “the laws of one generation are the morality of the following one”. Not so for homo “marriages”. This is a battle that every Christian can fully grasp now and the re-discovery of his Christian values in one matter will unavoidably lead to a more mature reflection on all others.
Therefore, be in good spirit and wait for 2012, when pro homo representative and senators will hopefully get a pounding (these things can be pretty brutal, look here and tell me if you’d want to be in one of the pictures) and the people will wake up to the reality that they have the right to demand a Christian country and a legislation fruit of the will of the people rather than of judicial activism, or corridor politics. When the pendulum starts to clearly swing back in the US, it will only be a question of time before the same happens in Europe. At least in Southern Europe, where the ability of the Church leaders to mobilise the masses and shape future generations would still be very high, if they did as much as to wake up.
On the Vivificat blog, this beautiful blog post about “Why I oppose same sex marriage”.
It is so pithy, beautiful and charitable (charitable in the right way), that the best thing to do is to reproduce it in its entirety, including the emphases.
There you are:
Why am I strongly opposed to same-sex “marriage”?
Because it is an offense against the institution of marriage? Yes, but not really: that institution has already been demolished by our modern Godless society.
Because it will most likely wind up forcing me, as a citizen of this nation, to in some way participate? Yes, but not really: I am ready and willing to be persecuted for my beliefs.
Because this is a democracy and most Americans oppose same-sex “marriage”? Yes, but not really: I support many things that most Americans oppose and oppose many things that most Americans support.
Because it is a slippery slope that may lead to legalized polygamy, incest, etc.? Yes, but not really: that would be like opposing abortion because it could lead to condom use (Sodomy is the greater evil)
Because it will likely lead to more disease and economic devastation in our nation? Yes, but not really: those are fleabites compared to my real concerns
Rather, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I love homosexuals. Because I do not want to see just another enticement (which is what this would be: a legal endorsement of that behavior) for them to remain in that wayward lifestyle and for young people to join that lifestyle. It is a lifestyle that tears apart their souls, makes depression rampant, and motivates suicide to an astronomical degree. For the government to bless their unions with same-sex “marriage” is to say “Come and partake of this banquet, for there is nothing wrong with it. Come and appease your passions and give in to your temptations, we will bless your efforts. Come and reap the fruits of your actions, that you may spend eternity with us.” In other words, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because it turns the government into the very mouthpiece of Satan.
Is this “theocratic” of me? In violation of “separation of Church and state”? Label me as you will. My stance here is a stance of love, in obedience to the Almighty through His Church, and it will never change.
As for myself, I don’t give a hoot how many from the glitterati, the elites, Hollywood, government in all three branches give their secular blessing on this so-called same-sex “marriage”. Call me what you wish, I will never set this lie above the Truth.
Congratulations to Teofilo de Jesus and Dan O’Connor, the authors of this beautiful witness of Christian love.
I have written only yesterday about the extraordinary times we live in; times when an old pervert who, together with his perverted (er, what….. mistress?) decides to have a new and unusual toy can easily “rent a uterus” and, through the help of sperm of not yet revealed origin, provide to what he probably calls “procreation” and certainly “fatherhood”.
Today, the “Telegraph” has an additional article about that. The article shows at the same time the pit in which the “Telegraph” has descended, the indifference to perversion of its journalists and more broadly the indifference with which vast parts of society – even among those calling themselves “conservative” – looks at abominations of this sort before happily moving back to the enjoyment of Cheryl Cole’s secondary sexual characteristics.
The article’s position first. It is in the “celebrities” section of the Telegraph’s “news” internet presence. From this we infer that a) the “Telegraph” finds it necessary to have a “celebrity” section, and b) the “Telegraph” considers celebrity gossip “news”. Not many years ago such rubbish would have been considered something for the working classes; which, by the way, is still the case.
The content of the article is also revealing. Elton John’s childishness is heavily criticised, his decadent habits utterly (and, I must say, rather amusingly) exposed. Still, not one word about his perversion, the scandal he gives, the monstrosity of men “adopting”. Yes, the sperm-uterus-concoction used in this case does cause a certain discomfort, but I fail to detect any moral message in that. Basically, the fact that the man buys a tram and has it shipped through a couple of oceans is seen as morally reprehensible, the fact that he is an openly homosexual old perv living with his concubine isn’t.
So much so, that the article’s author considers clearly reprehensible that an Ukrainian child suffering from Aids could not be adopted by the “couple”. How backwards, these Ukrainians who continue to insist on a family being….. a family! “With a rubber stamp, a small boy’s life chances were crushed”, says Ms. Woods in an emotionally charged, X-Factor-cum-Dickens moment….. (I failed to cry, though. It must be me).
What? Crushed because the poor child has not been adopted by….. a couple of homos? What “adoption” is this? What “family” is this? And for Heaven’s sake let us set aside the donations. Donations don’t buy one the right to be above the Law and I am rather pleased that the Ukraine showed more integrity than Madonna’s Malawi (or whichever other tin-pot African post-colonial disaster it was).
So there we are: two homos go around a) trying to adopt children and – failing that – b) proceed to hire alien uteruses (and perhaps even sperm; who knows, they might have quarrelled about who is “the father” and I really wouldn’t want to see two aged homos in a kitchen fight…..) and the “Telegraph”‘s journalist doesn’t criticise the obvious monstrosity of all this, but merely the infantile, ego-driven, diva-like character of one of the two (good Lord, there we are again…) “fathers”.
Sometimes I have the impression that just as we speak, up above dear old Abraham is haggling with God again, trying to spare us the angel’s visit…….
We are now informed of the following statement from our beloved Lombardi:
I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no.. The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.
This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point, Lombardi said…
Now from this we learn as follows:
1) What here is all about is: the taking of responsibility towards human life. A chap went around totally not caring whether he would kill himself and many others in the process, but in what might be the first step towards taking responsibility he continues to do what is evil, but at least avoids killing an undetermined number of people.
2) If this is true of a man, it must be true of a woman too as it is not the case that a male prostitute at risk of aids would kill an army of homos, but a female prostitute at risk of aids wouldn’t kill an army of heteros. Makes sense.
3) What the Pope (or Lombardi, come to that) still hasn’t said is:
a) that the use of condom is endorsed or justified in any way;
b) that there is a general principle by which the Church says that whenever you are going to put someone in danger, you may use a condom;
c) that Church teaching has been modified in any way.
I am, therefore, at a loss to understand the following:
1) why the fact that the example would apply also to a female prostitute should change anything of what the Pope wanted to say.
2) On which ground this new distinction should be seen as “compassionate” toward the person using the condom. The Church is still saying that the sinner has not to sin. This is compassionate!
Let us make no mistake here: the Church is still saying to the homosexual what She has been saying from the start: repent, and sin no more. To say anything else like: “use a condom, because now I am compassionate” would be to become accessory of the sodomite’s sin.
Let us say it once again: the moral law is not concerned about suggesting ways by which sinning can be made less harmful. The church doesn’t say “if you really, really have to have an abortion, at least avoid using dangerous poisons”. The Church doesn’t say “if you really, really have to have premarital sex, at least be sexually faithful to your girlfriend”, & Co. What the Church does is saying an emphatic “no” to sodomy, to abortion, and to premarital sex.
That as a matter of fact the prostitute sodomite in question might start using condoms as a consequence of a first awakening to the value of human life doesn’t make his use of condom justified. Not in the least. Sodomy is not justified and the Church doesn’t suggest “justified” or “endorsed” ways to deal with what is not justified.
P.s. the continued discussion only enlightens how inappropriate the example was.
I have written yesterday about the drama of Anglicanism, where more and more people are discovering that they belong to the wrong shop without being able to draw the uneasy, but necessary consequences.
Today I’d like to point your attention to an article from the Anglican “Church Times” giving some insights of what is happening within the Anglican Communion and how most Anglicans will react.
Last weekend, a South East Asian representative of the Anglican Communion put to the vote the proposal to….. kick their American province out. It does make sense: once acknowledged that their theology has become so fundamentally different in a lot of key areas, it is plainly absurd to continue to pretend the existence of a unity which is not there anymore.
As a Catholic, one understands them all too well. To be united in one religious community means to believe the same things, failing which we have different communities. The Arians, the Nestorians, the Pelagians etc. have been declared not to be part of the Church because…. they didn’t believe what the Church believed.
Anglicanism seems to work differently, at least in its (as the Church Times says) “overwhelming majority”. No theological difference is so big that it would justify a separation. Rather, compromises are sought (and invariably found). For an Anglican, a separation would (and I quote again) “inhibit dialogue” and be therefore “unhelpful”.
As a result, the Anglican Communion will continue to have in its midst people who believe everything and its contrary; in transubstantiation, in consubstantiation, or in none of the two; who are in favour of bishopesses and priestesses, in favour of priestesses but against bishopesses, or against both; who consider themselves Catholics of the One Catholic Church (funny, this), Catholics of a separated church (funny that, too) or (correctly) Protestants; who believe in apostolic succession, or select their bishops through a democratic process; who consider homosexuality a perversion, or fine until one doesn’t commit sodomy, or jolly good and perfectly in order whatever one does; who want their bishops straight, or homosexual provided they are celibate, or homosexuals and living with their lover provided there is no sex (it gets funnier and funnier), or homosexual with a lover and full-blown sodomy and this is absolutely spiffing.
This is modern Anglicanism. Its only commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Split”. No difference is so big that it should “inhibit dialogue”, even when the differences are clearly insurmountable. Some of them will one day, unavoidably, recognise that this has become a parody of a Communion (and Anglicanism in vast parts a parody of Christianity) and will leave; but they’ll be a minority, no doubt considered “intolerant” and “judgmental” from the rest.
Imagine now Christianity of the first centuries. Imagine the Church saying to the Arians that there are differences, but they will be dealt with in a spirit of dialogue; telling the Nestorians that to declare them heretics would be “unhelpful”; telling the Pelagians that they will not be excluded from communion because the work of the Church “would be diminished if it lacked a range of opinions”.
“Ahh – I hear you saying – but the Church would never do that because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and these ecclesial communities aren’t; which is why they change theology, split continuously or remain together with different creeds and end up believing in inclusiveness and niceness as only guiding values”. And you are right, very right.
It remains a mystery to me how Anglicans can see the scale of the mess and still believe that the Holy Ghost is in any way, shape or form behind the Anglican Communion; how they can see the transformation of their communion into something completely different, nay, into many things completely different from each other and still pretend that it is the same thing as, say, only 100 years ago; how they can see the Holy Spirit inspiring one generation to believe the exact contrary of what former generations have been inspired to believe.
When we Catholics complain (as we should) that the one or other priest is heterodox, the one or other bishop socialist or the one or other cardinal outright devilish we should still reflect that no Pope or Council has ever said that divorce, abortion, sodomy, priestesses, bishopesses, consubstantiation & Co., & Co. are, henceforward, to be considered just fine. We should consider this and say: Thank God I’m Catholic.