If you have followed the recent events in Uganda, you will have noticed a strong contrast between the useless waffle of much of the West and the robust Christianity in Africa.
Here in the satiated – actually, obese – West, “who am I to judge?” is the order of the day, and the entire Church apparatus bends over backward to be as much aligned to secular values as they can get away with. As the Bishop of Rome is the one who can get away with pretty much everything, it is no surprise he is very much at the head of the movement.
Meanwhile, in regions of more recent Christianisation – like Sub-Saharan Africa, where Christianisation has been largely absent, albeit with some notable exceptions – Christianity is taken far more seriously, and the local prelates fulfill their role of shepherd in a way most Western ones would never think of, or dream about. This is why the Ugandan clergy – can you believe it – supports the Ugandan law against sodomy and homosexual propaganda.
Mind, though, that they do not shout “God hates fags”. God hates faggotry, and He hates the fact that one person is a fag. But he certainly loves him as an immortal soul. Still, the love for the person does not mean the condoning of the abomination; something African clergy would not do more than they would child abuse, or incest. Note that, in doing this, they are not only very sound, but also very charitable.
All this escapes our very corrupt – from the Bishop of Rome down – hierarchy, most of whose adherents would very probably describe sodomy laws and the punishment of homosexual propaganda as “homophobic”; either because they are blissfully unaware this is what Christian countries – being Christian – have always done, or because they find it more convenient to ignore the facts than to confront the world.
This creates, on reading of the news coming from Uganda, the clear impression that the Church is split in two: an ailing body, sullied with all the filth of the world in the Western world broadly intended – that is: including Central and South America – and a far younger, healthier, clearly pugnacious one in parts of Asia and vast parts of Africa, where “who am I to judge?” is rightly ignored in favour of the sensible, Christian, and charitable “why should I be an accomplice?”.
And in fact, when the Ugandan bishops approve the law – whose explicit aim is to avoid the corrupting influence of the satanic Western mentality – they are not only stating their refusal of the Western secular society; they are, and emphatically so, also rejecting the bogus Christianity preached everywhere from Western Catholic prelates and priests, from the Pope down, who would obliterate the Christian message and substitute it for a vague, fluffy, effeminate emotionalism in which only God's mercy has remained.
Being Christian, they are not worried in the least of being called “homophobic”. In fact, the very use of the word “homophobia” is a very worrying sign the person who uses it might have strayed already so far from Catholicism and Christianity at large, that his ability to promote sound Catholicism is now severely impaired.
Let us take an example from the brave Ugandan government, and the sound Ugandan Catholic clergy.
We do not need measures against “homophobia”.
We need to bring back Sodomy laws.
The Proto-commie Daily Mirror reproaches the so-called church of England for “snubbing” the perverted abominations about to be introduced by the reprobate Government and Parliament of once Christian England.
I do not think they should be worried – ok, they aren't; they just want to feel good with themselves -; it is only a matter of time, and probably a short one at that, before the so-called church of England follows the world in this as in everything else. Heck, the article even says they allow so-called “civil partnerships” of their perverted clergy, if the “partners” promise to be “celibate”. What caricature of Christianity, and what unspeakable hypocrisy.
No, they certainly shouldn't be worried. The church of Fagland will accompany them all the way. They will merely do it remaining a couple of step back all the time.
It must be rather funny, these days, for the army of people with a very thin varnish of Catholicism – you know the type: the “I am a baptised Catholic, but my theology is so evidently superior” types – who have thought, as many of them must have thought, that it’s so simple really: you stop obsessing with the remnants of an ancient past and embrace modernity , and peace will be declared between the world and the Church. I am rather sure many of these people, tambourine priests among them, were wondering why it had not happened before, and we had to wait the year 2013 for a Pope who just “gets the people” and is “in tune” with the world.
Whilst I never underestimate human blindness or plain stupidity, I dare to hope in the months and years to come some people will open their eyes and recognise a simple truth of life: the Church and the world cannot be more reconciled than the devil and the holy water; not now, not ever.
The recent lecturing of the Vatican – which is, in fact, a lecturing of the Church and Her Truths – from the side of the United Demons is the clearest signal to day of this, again, inescapable fact of life. Appeasement has never worked, does not work, and will never work, because the Church Herself exists because of the fundamentally irreconcilable ways of the Church and of the World.
If the Church could make peace with the world, the Church would simply have no reason to exist, and an impressive demonstration of this is that when vast parts of the earthly Church try to at least get to a truce, or a ceasefire, with the world, the Church herself is gravely wounded and reduced to factual irrelevance in vast territories in the short time of one or two generations; with only the promise of Indefectibility saving her from the self-destruction to which this stupid attitude would otherwise condemn her in another two or three generations at most.
And so there we are: the church – I mean, the people who represent Her as an institution – tries to accommodate the world’s demands; but the world is insatiable, and will never stop posing new demands after the old ones have been appeased.
You “don’t judge” sodomites, and the world will demand that you recognise their inherent goodness; you “don’t obsess” about abortion, and the world will demand that you support it; you want to be “in tune” with the world, and the world will ask you to practice what you preach.
No black shoes, simple cars and other more or less subversive shows of “humbleness” will ever change anything on this, because in this matters the conflicts deals with the very essentials.
If Francis thought his lack of teeth – or worse – in matter of sexual perversion and abortion will persuade the world to leave him alone, now he will be forced to learn his lesson and understand that, much as the world may flatter him, it will require his tribute from him anyway; a tribute so high, in fact, that not even Francis will ever be able to pay it; this, even assuming he would want to, which I sincerely hope is not the case.
If, on the other hand, Francis has no illusion on the inevitability of conflicts, and merely hopes to increase his own popularity in the world as the man who “does what he can, though he can’t do more” (a strategy clearly followed by the German and Austrian clergy with their rebellious sheep), then his chances are vastly better, but I still think at some point the world will get tired with one sitting on the fence, and be him the Pope.
The Church is at war with the world. She must be, because this is why She exists. No Pope will ever be able to get rid of this war as easily as he can get rid of the Mozzetta. Therefore, the only way is the Christian way: to fight against the world frontally and without any desire for truce.
Our side will win in the end. Actually, it has won already. So go on and fight the good fight, good and less good men at the Vatican, instead of trying to appease an enemy that will never be satisfied.
I remember very well my sadness at the rapid disappearance – and most people said: inevitable extinction – of the traditional mechanical wristwatch in favour of the new quartz one. It seemed to me an entire world was dying, and an entire planet was embracing a soulless technology and killing the beauty, the magic and, yes, the poetry of craftsmanship. Small firms – then – like Blancpain and Chronoswiss decided this was too stupid, and the surrender to the power of quartz by no means unavoidable. They started producing watches for people who love beauty, and do not live by the second. This was the turning of the tide. A few years later, the mechanical wristwatch was already established as the timepiece at the wrist of the discerning – if, back then, pretty solvent – man of taste. Today, mass production of perfectly affordable, excellent mechanical wristwatches is all but back, and back with a vengeance in terms of general quality and value for money.
Then there was the matter with Communism. Once progressing all over Africa, rolling over vast part of Asia, heavily influencing South America and even infecting many countries in Western Europe, its advancement seemed unstoppable. In those years, the US administration spoke of “containment” of Communism, as if a tsunami was obviously coming their way and the only thing they could do was to avoid being flattened by the impact. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher changed all this. In my eyes, Reagan’s election was the turning of the tide. Ten years later, Communism was all but bankrupt.
Then there was the “global warming” craze, by 2006 the pet ideal of the stupid and by 2008 clearly advanced to State Religion in countries like the UK. A few people kept swimming against this immense tide, unafraid. I mention here the Cato Institute with its brilliant work, and most of all an homosexual, Proto-communist, far leftist environmentalist with the rare courage to recognise he had been completely wrong all the time: Bjorn Lomborg, the author of “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg was persecuted for years, as the Climate Mafia tried to deprive him of income and dignity. He was, last time I look, vindicated, and the new religion was – thanks also to new taxes, heavily challenging the masses who are only in favour of “good causes” when they do not have to pay for it – dead and buried by 2011. This time, the turning of the tide was, even, exceptionally fast.
Another tide is now turning: abortion. One must be blind not to see that what seemed only twenty years ago an unchangeable “new reality” all over the West, but particularly in Western Europe, is now crumbling under the pressure of a new generation of people not ready to accept murder as a way to solve a problem, and not willing to swallow the tales of the self-serving murderesses. This was a slow turning, and it will unfold very slowly in the other direction; but it’s undeniably there. What changed matters here is more difficult to point out. The army of aging women haunted by abortions committed decades before certainly played a significant role; the demographic also helped; the beautiful work of John Paul II was without doubt another big factor. This was a very slow turning, but I don’t think any Cuomo or Obama will be able to do anything against it.
And then there is another tide, that has not turned yet: Sodomy. As perverts and their helpers advance in the Western countries and try to have perversions recognised as human right, a strong opposition develops. Russia, under Putin’s guide, exposes the West’s godless stupidity with admirable energy, and may it long last. Many African countries refuse the drink the homosexual Kool-aid. Resistance develops in countries like France. I am under no illusion that the turning of the tide will come soon here. Rather, years of bitter fight await us. I am also afraid it will get worse before it gets better, as I see Italy unable to resist to the new wave of sugary goodism, and rapidly advancing towards legal protection of sodomy under the benevolent look of the “who am I to judge” Pope. It will get worse before it gets better, but when it gets better it will be because of those who have not shut up when it was very bad; and if we were to shut up now, who knows when it will become better.IN the matter of sodomy, I think the wake-up call will come when the children “adopted” by them will turn up to be victim of sexual abuses in percentages unknown among heteros. Unless, of course, by that time things will be bad enough that no one will be able to see the problem in the first place. hey, if forty years ago anyone had told me one day sodomy would be celebrated, I’d had laughed out loud, too.
Still, let us not lose courage, and let us stay in good spirits.
The same as for the watches, communism, global warming and abortion, one day this tide will turn, too.
It was observed that at the demonstration in Rome in defence of both the only marriage and the freedom of expression – the Italian parliament is currently debating a law concerning, oh what a great surprise, “homophobia” – there was only one Cardinal present, Burke. How many Bishops and Archbishops, then? Zero, apparently.
In a city that generally does lack red hats, one wonders what might have prevented other prelates from participating.
My hypotheses are the following:
1. The Great-Aunt had to be brought to the hospital.
2. The cat was gravely depressed and in dire need of company.
3. He did not know.
4. He knew, but thought it was the following day.
5. He knew, but it was on a Saturday, so the Sabbath had to be observed.
6. He was in the bathroom.
7. He was not in the very central Piazza Santi Apostoli, but in the “periphery”, as the Bishop of Rome said he should.
8. He was out trying to urgently find “Eau de Sheep No. 5″, following the Pontiff's recommendation.
9. He doesn't like the cold.
10. He was afraid of pickpockets.
As always, those baddies at Rorate are very eager to spin this according to their own anti-everything agenda.
They have no concern for cats, you see. Or Grand-Aunts.
I wonder when the Pollyannas will start to realise that the enthusiasm of libtards and assorted perverts for Francis does not come from them misunderstanding him, but from them understanding him all too well.
The last piece of evidence is here, with the crowd of perverts “honouring” Francis because he “changes the perception” of perverts abandoning themselves to abominable practices.
How can you deny they are right, and the Pollyannas are wrong? Francis downplays both homosexuality as a perversion and sodomy as a sin crying to heaven for vengeance, in front of a global audience, and obviously being very pleased with the result.
Let us not be blind and let us see reality as it is.
Whether out of sheer stupidity, or appalling ignorance and arrogance, or outright evil intention, this man has been working for the enemies of Christ since March 13.
From their friends you'll recognise them.
Beware of the wolf in black shoes.
Particularly in the United States, the cry of the pro-life and other Catholic militants who feel abandoned by Francis is rising high.
They rightly observe that when Francis says they are “obsessed” with issues like sodomy and abortion he is basically devaluing their battle, and rather making of them an example of a behaviour not to be followed: an “inflexible”, “ideological” attitude that leaves “mercy” aside to privilege “legalism”.
This is all very true, of course. By subtly – or less subtly – sabotaging their work, Francis is saying that it is good to be “pro-life” only as long as this remains at the level of a pious wish, of the “I know what the Church says in the matter, so we don't need to talk about it” kind. When, though, the teaching translates into real action – and, forcibly, in controversial action – then the boundaries of “mercy” have been transgressed, and the realm of Pelagianism has begun.
Still, when all is said and done the Truth remains exactly the same Truth, and the fight remains exactly the same fight. One can be abandoned by the Pope, but one can never be abandoned by Truth.
Fights are fought for the Truth, not for the Pope. The Pope is supposed to fight the same fight, but there is no guarantee that he will do it properly, or that he will do it at all. The only way is to do what we ought, come what may, and to let the Pope be a bad Pope if this is his wish. The day will come when both – the pro-life activist and the professional saboteur – will get their reward.
For the same reason, I was never worried in the least about the effect that the antics of the Bishop of Rome will have on my blogging activity. We write our blogs because the Clergy don't do their job; that there should be a Pope even much, much worse than the already bad average seen after V II is, if not entirely par for the course, certainly within the cards now that a mad generation of blind, stupid, heretical, deluded clergy gone out of the seminaries in the Sixties and Seventies reach positions of great power and influence, up to the very top of the tree.
Let us do our job of little but determined Catholic fighters, like as many stubborn hobbits who love to eat and be merry, but can put a rather determined fight if they have to (ahh, Tolkien. So good, and so Catholic…). If Francis wants to sabotage our work – which he does – let us redouble our effort. We don't need to have the Pope on our side. We fight at the side of two thousand years of God-given Catholic tradition, not of fifty years of popes more or less drunk on modernism, up to the one who is completely plastered.
V II hasn't produced anything good anyway; merely degrees of bad. When we realise this, we will be able to fight our little fights – within the family, with friends and acquaintances, with colleagues – without looking left or right. Yes, we will probably die without seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But we might be rewarded, in time, with an infinitely better one.
Ah, the brave new world of liberal thinking: completely God-free, and with as much Satan as you can eat.
Read here about a new “sexual orientation”: the “minor-attracted”.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
If sodomy is only a matter of orientation, one does not see why this “orientation” should be condemned when it is directed towards children, dogs, or one's own relatives. Either a society decides that certain grave sins are forbidden for the simple reason that they go against natural law and God's precepts, or hell is the limit.
Yet, some people – many people, in fact – are now so ignorant and stupid that they espouse the mantra of “if there is no violence, people should be free to do what they want”.
Say hello to a world where homosexuals – and some heterosexual, presumably – have sex with their own adopted children, obviously within the framework of “love” the liberal society knows so well. As for the case of euthanasia, and so slimy itself, the work of “persuasion” of these monsters will at some point make abomination seem normal, and there will be no lack of subtle and less subtle ways to pervert little innocents. One can hope the phenomenon will – horrible as it is – be at least limited to the sons of the liberals themselves, but I fear much for the orphans. And then of course the perverts will try to pervert your children already at school. Isn't this exactly what they are trying to do with sodomy already?
This stupid society does not understand that one cannot be satanic by half. If one is ok with sodomy, it will only be a matter of time until he – or his children, or grandchildren at the latest – are fine with every other sort of abomination under the sun. Then the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children, as it is supposed to be.
Naturally, give it a couple of decades and every expression of opinion against such abominations will be accused of being intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, & Co. “Phaedophobe!”, will the same people yell at you who now call you “homophobe”, among the applause of liberal journalists and self-appointed “intellectuals”.
As we have just seen, it works.
The liberal society has clearly no problems with the use of light drugs, or with sodomy, but when a bishop contracts Hepatitis A he makes headlines worldwide because he might, or so they say, have infected hundreds through the chalice.
Notice the double standard: when sodomites die of AIDS no one is guilt, and we must spend huge amounts of money in medical research for something that, to a vast extent, will only be useful to perverts, instead of having a saner approach and direct a great part of the funds towards, say, cancer research; but when a bishop accidentally and without any malice exposes others to infection the undertones abound.
Do the authorities in North Dakota feel the need to warn the populace of the dangers of having sex with sexual perverts? Surely, even in North Dakota the latter problem must be far more concrete than the theoretical, admittedly “low risk” of infection for the parishioner of five churches?
I know, I know. You can say the authorities in North Dakota are making their job etc, but I do not think I am the only one who smells a rat here. Perceptions shape reality, and I cannot imagine this case was such that it required – as opposed to: made it look advisable – this kind of intervention.
Again, it's a funny world. Obsession for health questions – possibly red-tape induced, as in “let us justify our jobs by sending health warnings around” – on the one side, extreme political correctness on the other.
If the health authorities of any place in the West really had health as their priority, they would invest time and money in a relentless work of sensibilisation concerning the health risks of a sodomitical “lifestyle”.
But no, they must let the world know a bishop might have infected hundreds.
Yes. It’s as bad as this.
The older I get, the more I am persuaded that Catholicism's problems are to be looked exclusively among Catholics; then if the latter had not become afflicted by bad clergy and the dreaded aggiornamento disease, they would still be so powerful that no homo lobby, no Nazi prosecutor, no Merkel, no Cameron and no Obama would dare to go head on against them.
The last example of the advanced state of decomposition of Catholic thinking in the head of people who define themselves as Catholics comes from a well-known forum, where a commenter seriously asks what is the problem if a couple of wannabe “married” sodomites want to receive communion.
The commenter opines that the two wannabe “married” fags might live a oh perfectly oh chaste oh life, and why should we, therefore, conclude that they are doing anything wrong?
There are people for which even public scandal isn't enough to deviate from their usual “who am I to judge” mentality, and who would probably need for the very sin of the sodomites to take place under their very eyes before contemplating the possibility that something fishy is happening.
The very fact that scandal is happening is nothing to them. Even the fact that these two people choose to add to the scandal the further attack to Christianity of their mock “marriage” isn't a problem. They will insist in being blind, and stupid.
You might say that such a one is probably an homosexual troll trying to infiltrate a Catholic blog with a fake “charitable” attitude meant to confuse the poorly instructed, but I doubt this is the case. It is far more likely that comments like the one mentioned are more obvious cases of the same effeminate, brainless, and utterly uninstructed mentality that has taken hold in so many Catholic heads in the last decades.
When Catholicism is reduced to soppy sentimentality, the desire not to see the evil becomes a very comfortable way to avoid having to confront it, and to “feel good” in the process. This mentality is obviously encouraged and amplified by the “do not judge” crowd, of whom Francis, disgracefully reigning, has now become the undisputed leader.
It's not the Obama and the Cameron that will, ultimately, cause the persecution of the Church.
It's the stupid Catholic clergy, and their even more stupid sheep.
Some “who am I to judge” Jesuits might do worse than reading a bit of St. Catherina of Siena.
I am reliably informed (though in my ignorance I have never read extensively from this great Saint; a lack I will try to remedy soon) that the words Our Lord had to say to her about the matter of sodomy are as follows:
“They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature] . . . but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them. . . . It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”
Interesting words, isn’t it?
Extremely homophobic, I know. What a hater. His website should be taken down. Perhaps the police should be called. Who does he think he is, this Jesus? And why does he believe in demons?
Doesn’t He know Bishop Francis has said to atheist words on the lines of “but do good. We’ll meet there”?
Doesn’t He know sodomy can be just a little “sin of the youth”?
Doesn’t He know sodomy isn’t forbidden in any European countries?
Seriously, this Christ here should take a long, hard look at himself.
It’s no surprise Bishop Francis doesn’t like Him.
This one is exactly the kind of man who would count rosaries.
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.