The Expense Account Philantropist

Stupid spectacles, but cunning mind.

Let us play a game.

Let’s imagine that you are a famous rock star. Fame, money, girls, the lot. Your ego balloons dangerously. At the same time you have a lot of more or less penniless friends who are now slowly expecting that you do something for them. You would like to of course, but you won’t certainly pay for fake grace and favour jobs for all of them. I mean, even in “Entourage” they are only a handful and when you have a driver, a manager and a cook that’s pretty much it.

But then your ego continues to grow and you are tired of being perceived only as a successful singer. You want to become more than that. You want to be a kind of messiah.

As a third problem, there’s the fact that you want to travel in style without paying, and you want to meet famous people.

And then there’s your agent, who has been saying for years that you need to stay more in the headlines because fame is a cruel mistress. Look at madonna (little m) and Angelina (big…. lips), how many children they adopt and how much popularity it brings them!

You must, then, do something which allows you to:

a) place a lot of friends and friends of the friends (and mistresses, and the like) in well-paid jobs, without costing you a penny;
b) make yourself important at no cost to you;
c) use other people’s money to tell foreign Governments how to use taxpayer’s money.

At the end of the story you will be the idol and they will be the idiots, because the game can be played ad infinitum: you will always be able to say that the West “doesn’t do enough” whilst the crowds adore you and the government will always be interested in getting near you.

This is the killer media magnet. Beats adopting third world children any day.

If you’re lucky, you’ll be able to let it grow up to 120 people (that’s a lot of friends even if you include the friends of the friends and the mistresses) and even make good weather with journalists, which is rather important for a pop icon anyway.

Yup. You must create an advocacy group.

Mundabor

Archbishop Vincent Nichols Gives Scandal And Confuses The Faithful

The enemy in our midst

And so the Pope came, saw and conquered. People were moved, crowds were gathered, even journalists felt stupid (which happens to them much less often than it should) and for some days toned down the Anti-Catholic propaganda.

Still, those accustomed to observe the British Catholic clergy knew that this wind of orthodoxy would not last long, with the local bishops bending to said winds like a birch and coming back to normal as soon as the nuisance ceases.

This is exactly what has happened; but in this case, the desire of the British clergy to show that the Papal visit was just an unwanted nuisance was so strong that the Head Scoundrel, Archbishop Nichols, couldn’t wait more than one day to launch himself in an open attack to the Teaching of the Church. Make no mistake, the message here is emphatically clear: I am still in charge and now it is back to normal.

Nichols is among the interviewed of the usual BBC “let’s be inclusive” interview (he loves doing that); interviewed with him is the also usual token homo, in this case an Anglican professor.

As LifeSiteNews reports, Vincent Nichols denies that – to put it with LSN – “the Church is opposed to the homosexualist agenda”. Please read this again. 1) There are homosexualists (= homosexual activists) around. 2) The Church is opposed to them. 3) The homos complain about the fact. 4) Nichols denies the fact. He denies that the Church be opposed to their agenda.

At this point, Nichols embarks in a defence of what the Church in England has done for them. His words are:

“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”

If this is not enough to let your adrenaline level go through the roof, I don’t know what could. Let us see what this disgraziato is saying:

1) “in this country”.That is as to say: “we are different from the rest of the Church here. We are on your side”. He must know that in countries like Italy the Church has made such a strong opposition when civil partnership were proposed, that the proposal died before a vote. He must know that in countries like USA, Mexico and others the controversies rage and the local Church is invariably on the right side. But he doesn’t care. He clearly says on whose part he is. He speaks for his fellow bishops too. In this he is probably right.
Disgraziato.

2) “we were very nuanced”. This is oh so typical of people like Nichols, who must have lost his faith in his youth. No right and wrong anymore, just “nuances”. Far more convenient. Just compare with those idiots in Italy, Mexico, USA; primitive, uncharitable people unable to be “nuanced”.

3) “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships”. “Gay” is not a theological word. In Vatican documents you find “homosexual”, not “gay”. And he did not oppose them. Vincent Nichols pretends to be unaware that he can be accessory to another’s sin by silence, by consent, by defense of the ill done, by flattery. He pretends to have completely forgotten what then Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote in his letter to the bishops (that is: to him personally):

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
(Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons)

Vincent Nichols is expected to teach homosexual that homosexual activity is not in order. He is not supposed to pretend not to know that homosexual activity is what happens within a civil partnerships and that through it sodomy becomes legalised and made socially acceptable.
There is an hypocrisy here, a brazenness, an open revolt to the Church and to common sense, that is breathtaking and beyond contempt.

4) “What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage”. Please. Every idiot knows that two people of the same sex living together are not “married”, even the perverts pretending to be “married” know it. But this is not the point. The point is that you can’t be so hypocritical as to say that you can accept civil partnerships whilst pretending to still condemn sodomy!

I can picture Vincent Nichols in pastoral visit in Sodom literally saying to the locals “we are very nuanced in this city; we do not oppose your civil partnerships; we recognise that in Sodom there might be a case for those; what we persistently say to you is that these are not the same as marriage”.

To think that this is an archbishop. It beggars belief.

As an Archbishop, Mr Nichols should be aware of the existence of a document called “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” (link under “Church Teaching”). Notice: “unions”, not “marriages”. No nuances here. In this document we find written:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Which part of “clear and emphatic opposition” is Mr. Nichols not able to understand? Which part of “duty” is not applicable to England and Wales? What is so difficult to grasp in the words “gravely unjust laws”?

It doesn’t end here I am afraid. This despicable man goes to the point of implying that homosexuality is not a big deal after all, and that …… Pope Benedict thinks the same! In Vincent Nichols’ word, if a Pope has been consistently preaching the same ( and the Church’s) message both as a cardinal (with letters he pretends not to have read) and as a Pope, but avoids dealing explicitly with the matter for four days, hey presto, he has changed his priorities!!

Nichols expresses himself with the following words:

“I think it’s very interesting, and I don’t think for one minute it’s accidental, that when the pope wanted to raise this question, [in his address at Westminster Hall] where are the moral standards on which we base our activity, he chose as his example the financial crisis. I think that’s very important and not to be overlooked.”

I must say I have never found a worse example of falseness and a clergyman more brazenly disrespectful of the Holy Father. This man openly provokes the Holy Father by openly saying that his own homo agenda is shared by the Holy Father himself.
I never thought I’d see the day where an Archbishop of Westminster has the temerity of openly make a mockery of a Papal visit one day after its end.
Disgraziato!

Vincent Nichols has already attracted serious criticism and John Smeaton has said that his words are “fatally undermining (as distinct from denying) the security and even the legitimacy of Catholic teaching on the nature of human sexuality”.

Nichols is an enemy of the Church who doesn’t dare to openly attack the Pope, but prefers to undermine Church teaching through allusive words, a show of independence from Rome (even recognised by his homosexual interlocutor, as you can read) and a “British way to Catholicism” which is, to say it plainly, heresy.

The address where to write your complaint is
clero@cclergy.va

You don’t need to write a speech. Make it simple. Just post the link to the interview, advise that he is giving scandal and ask them to act.
No insults, no ranting, just the facts. In case, please wait until you can write with the necessary composure. I know it can be difficult, but it is the only way to be taken seriously.

Mundabor

“God Bless Our Cheeky Holy Father”: Michael Voris On The Papal Visit

Westminster Hall: Pope Benedict defended Thomas More where he was condemned.

Michael Voris has an interesting “vortex” (*) about the recent Papal visit.

The elements I’d like to emphasise are as follows:

1) He stresses the fact that whilst the Pope was kind in his word, he was hard as steel in the message he delivered. Truth soaked in charity, not falseness soaked in false compassion.

2) He very aptly points out to the fact that the Pope has centered his message on the salvation of souls instead of the social instances so often espoused by those who have stopped believing and want to undermine or downplay the Teaching of the Church.

You may want to listen to this video attentively and keep in mind both points above, because the videois a good introduction to the next entry. The next entry will deal with the utter betrayal of Catholic values from a disgraceful individual fully bent on confusing Catholics, spreading scandal, undermining Catholic teaching and pandering to the political correctness of our times: Archbishop Vincent Nichols.

Mundabor

(*) you might have to register, which is free and easy.

The Muppet Show goes on: Rowan Williams On Homosexuality

Dr. Rowan Williams has given an interview to the well-know liberal and anti-Catholic newspaper, “The Times”, about homosexuality.

As amply known, Times bizarrely thinks that people will be ready to pay in order to read their internet site, which I find very funny.
It would anyway appear that the interview contained an amazing new concept: sodomy is fine unless you’re Anglican clergy. This is astonishing even by Anglican standards.
Still, I do not like to post if I can’t link to exact words and phrases.

In substitution, here is an interview (short, but highly representative of RW’s positions) given by Dr. Rowan Williams.
It is some years old now, but still of great actuality; I’d say that it reflects his positions well.

Mundabor