Archbishop Nichols’ Views On Homos Endanger Childrens’ Souls, Says SPUC’s Head

Don't bother trying to spot the Catholic.

Just in case you had thought that I am the only one jumping from the chair when he reads what our disgraziato wants to smuggle as Catholicism, I refer here about the reaction caused by the same Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols on Mr. John Smeaton, the head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Mr. Smeaton has, as previously reported, his own blog, and an excellent one at that.

The ire of Mr. Smeaton was referred to an interview given by Vincent “Quisling” Nichols to the Daily Telegraph (the once conservative, now pinkish-PC daily newspaper) on the 11 September.

In this interview, Nichols is asked whether he thinks that the Church will ever “accept the reality of gay partnerships” (notice here: the “Telegraph” doesn’t write “homosexual”. “Gay” is the word of choice. As everything in the DT, it exudes political correctness. How very gay.) and he answers “I don’t know”. I admit to have read the article and to have given “Quisling” the benefit of the doubt; not being a mother tongue, I thought that this “I don’t know” could be meant in the same way as the “I’m not sure about that” used to express your clear disagreement; I have, therefore, not blogged on the matter.

Interestingly, though, Mr. Smeaton points out to another affirmation of the same man, interviewed by the BBC on the same matter and answering: “”I don’t know. Who knows what’s down the road?”

“Who knows what’s down the road?!” Well for one you are supposed to know what’s down the road, Mr. Nichols!!

I have already mentioned yesterday, but repetita iuvant, what Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is bound to know and to say about these perverted “unions”:

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.

I will also, like Smeaton, mention CCC 2357 here as I didn’t do it yesterday:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I’ll avoid sending my adrenaline sky-high just writing what I think of this disgraziato. Read and reach your conclusions for yourself. Unbelievably, this is an archbishop of the Only Church. It’s like listening to a Nancy Pelosi with some brain; or to an Anglican with some fear of actually being disciplined.

John Smeaton’s conclusion is perfectly logic:

“..as a Catholic parent, I am in a position to say, and on behalf of Catholic parents I meet up and down the country, that Archbishop Nichols’s, my archbishop’s, comments are dangerous to the souls of my children”

He later quotes from Evangelium Vitae and points out that:

“it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection”.

Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is not interested in all this. He doesn’t give a penny for two thousand years of Christian teaching; he pretends not to know Vatican documents on the matter; he pretends (we have seen it yesterday) that Pope Benedict is even of his opinion; he even pretends to completely ignore what JP II’s Catechism very clearly says on the matter.

This man is just a disgrace for the Church and an enemy in our midst.

The address where to send your email of complaint is clero@cclergy.va

Please point out to this scandal. Let us help those of good will in the Vatican (I’m sure there is someone, and more than someone) to clean the Church from their enemies.

Mundabor

Religious Anglicans And The Problem With The Truth

"Astonished" at his past beliefs: Cardinal John Henry Newman

Surfing around in Anglican pastures I have found an interesting article from Mr. Michael Gollop, an Anglican Vicar writing on a blog called The Anglo-Catholic.

The entry is very interesting because its author seems to guide the reluctant convert (and there must be many out there, torn between the fidelity to the church of their fathers and the growing, unpleasant awareness of ……. those fathers being actually wrong all the time) toward conversion in a way which is gentle and absolutely honest at the same time.

The main arguments of the author seem to me the following:

1) so-called Anglo-Catholicism has in the past been useful to maintain at least a part of Catholic thinking within Anglicanism, but this is now not the case anymore. He quotes the prophetic words of Cardinal Newman, that “the Nation drags down its Church to its own level…” . More than 100 years later, these words seem prophetic in a way that Newman would have considered not even possible, the so-called c of E of today not even Christian anymore.

2) It is an illusion to think that the process may be reversed. The so-called church of England is now firmly in the end of the liberals and this is not going to change. The liberals will soon finish to massacre its theology and whatever Christianity is going to remain in the form of rebel evangelical provinces is clearly not going to be after the taste of those with catholic tendencies.

3) The experience of the past brings the author to see what he sums up, again, with the words of Cardinal Newman. These words are charitable and hard at the same time (better said: they are charitable because they are hard):

“…and, unwilling as I am to give offence to religious Anglicans, I am bound to confess that I felt a great change in my view of the Church of England. I cannot tell how soon there came on me,—but very soon,—an extreme astonishment that I had ever imagined it to be a portion of the Catholic Church. For the first time, I looked at it from without, and (as I should myself say) saw it as it was. Forthwith I could not get myself to see in it any thing else, than what I had so long fearfully suspected, from as far back as 1836,—a mere national institution

This is so beautiful that I had to re-read it several times. Newman’s words leave in no doubt as to who is in error and he makes no mystery of his astonishment at having ever thought that he could be a Catholic whilst an Anglican. But his beautiful words also beautifully express the serenity now attained, the safe haven from which he sees his past errors but also knows that the he has now found Truth, and peace.

The truth is hard, but liberating. And the hard truth is that one can’t be Anglo-Catholic more than he could be Capitalo-Communist or Buddho-Christian. One thing excludes the other and the desire to remain in a place of comfortable illusion is now (providentially, I’d almost say) smashed under the ruins of the crumbling edifice of what is rapidly becoming the former so-called church of England.

Newman expresses this certainty with the usual lucidity, powerfully expressing the correct perception of Anglicanism born of the now acquired Truth. His words are hard, but they are serene. To every Anglican torn by doubts they must sound as a blow; but with a glimpse of the serenity to be found on the other side of the doubts and the promise of the serenity being attainable by him too, if he is but ready to take this merciful blow.

I wouldn’t want to have been one of the many conservative Anglicans probably looking at the Pope on TV, comparing him with their funny bearded muppet believing everything and its contrary and being suddenly struck by the acute and painful feeling that they belong to the wrong shop.
Still, the discomfort coming from such a realisation can lead to a future of safety and serenity in the Truth. The same serenity so beautifully expressed by Blessed John Henry Newman.

Mundabor

“Boycott Mass Sunday” Is A Complete Failure

She "boycotted" Mass yesterday

I am extremely disappointed in having being informed only yesterday that it was the “boycott Mass” Sunday.  Had I known it before, I wouldn’t have missed the bigger part of the fun. Pity, really.

I attended at the Brompton Oratory, as usual. Eleven am Mass. Full, as usual. Perhaps (just perhaps) a bit more mantillas than usual. I might be wrong. Otherwise no, no differences. Surfing around it would seem that mass attendance was rather higher than usual, as in places where the initiative has been drummed people have chosen to show the wymyn what they think of them in the right way. The ways of the Lord….

Anyway: for those of you who don’t know, apparently some soi-disant “Catholic” wymyn has called for Catholic women to “boycott Mass” (I kid you not!) to protest against the oppression of the wymyn not allowed to be Popess, not even Bishopess, not even Parish Priestesses! The ignominy!

I am now waiting for their demand to have an artificial penis implanted at taxpayer’s cost, but I think for that we’ll have to wait a couple of years yet and it might be necessary to “boycott Confession”. It will be fun.

The concept of boycotting the Mass is so stupidly blasphemous that one is afraid that not even the stupidity of these wymyn may save them from actual mortal sin. To willingly, deliberately skip Mass was, last time I looked, already an objective mortal sin. I am scared of thinking of the subjective element in people inviting not to attend Mass for…… feminist reasons. I truly am!

What is really funny, though, is the idea that you can boycott a religious  organisation by just not showing up. This is like saying that I have damaged Islam on Friday by not showing up at the local mosque. Or perhaps wymyn think that they are indispensable because of, well, the dough? This is rather strange, considering that for 20 centuries said dough has not really come in from women in any significant amount and the Church has expanded everywhere.

I would, anyway, encourage the wymyn to not call themselves Catholic and – most importantly – not to dare to receive the Most Holy Communion. If one thinks attentively about it, it can well be that this initiative has avoided 10 or 12 unworthy and sacrilegious attempts to receive the Real Presence. I therefore heartily invite all the unreformed feminists to continue with their protest until repentance or death. Better to die in mortal sin without a huge string of desecrations than with them. 

Feminists of the world, wake up. You just don’t count. No, really.

Mundabor

The Belgian Bishops and The WSJ Poll About Priest Celibacy

Nothing better to do, folks?

I would have tought (in a cynical moment; it happens)  that nowadays the main occupation of Belgian bishops was to try to stay out of scandal and help rebuild some reputation.

Funnily, though, it would seem that they still have time to question priest celibacy. Now it is true that priest celibacy is a matter of discipline rather than of doctrine, but one would really think that the gentlemen would have something better to do than to question an extremely old church institution and one which has worked so well all these centuries, accompanying the growth of the Church through the entire planet.

I might be an idiot (and there are people around saying I am, though knowing them I am reassured they do), but in the little world of Mundabor if your national church is ridden by scandals and covered in shame you want to react with more orthodoxy, not with less; with coming back to doing things as they were done and paying attention that you reconstruct church life from their very foundations.

I wouldn’t expect you (as in “you hypothetical Belgian bishop”) to react by starting a debate that must be confusing to most local Catholics, particularly considering that they’ll wonder whether there aren’t more pressing priorities themselves. I would also expect that you, as one of the shepherds, realise that the departure from orthodoxy is what caused the problems in the first place; that when you kick orthodoxy out of the door you  have Satan coming in from the window; that you can’t expect to start corrupting the Teaching without the same corruption penetrating the very walls of your organisation, affecting the very people entrusted with the Teaching and who have now made themselves unfitting to protect it.

The Belgian bishops seem not to live in the little world of Mundabor. Fair enough. But the “Wall Street Journal” has set up a poll asking the public to have their say.

Turns out that as I write 85.5% are in favour of priest celibacy. I am curious to see how it ends, but this might well be another “Papal Visit Moment”, when one discovers that what the press publishes is pure fantasy created with a political agenda or because it makes for some nice headlines.

Mundabor