Daily Archives: January 2, 2012
“Gay Wedding at St Bartholomew’s EC1” by the Revd Dr Peter Mullen.The Bishop of London is in a high huff
Because Dr Dudley has married a puff;
And not just one puff – he’s married another:
Two priests, two puffs and either to other.
“It isn’t a wedding, for that’s not allowed;
They’ve just come together and promised and vowed
To shack up and snug up, to have and to hold:
Ooh aren’t we radical! Ooh aren’t we bold!”
Now here’s a most queer and most wonderful thing:
He’s given his hand, he’s offered his ring;
And each to the other forever will bend,
After their troll in the coach up West End.
Not a flash wedding, no pics in Hello!
Just a honeymoon cottage, convenient so.
Of such Dr Dudley a goldmine has found,
From shaven-head puftas the nuptial pink pound.
The new Church of England embraces diversity,
A fresh modulation on ancient perversity:
“I’m C of E and PC so don’t think it odd of me
To offer a licence and blessing for sodomy.”
Yes, I know the chap is not in good standing with the so-called C of E (which might be a good thing) and he has been forced to resign for adultery (which is, undoubtedly, not a good thing).
I found this little work refreshing anyway.
From the blog of E F Pastor Emeritus
Twenty-six pastoral workers–including 18 priests, four sisters, and four laity–were killed in 2011, according to the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. Seven were killed in Colombia, five in Mexico, three in India, two in Burundi, and one each in Brazil, Paraguay, Nicaragua, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Tunisia, Kenya, the Philippines, and Spain.Twenty-six pastoral workers–including 18 priests, four sisters, and four laity–were killed in 2011, according to the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. Seven were killed in Colombia, five in Mexico, three in India, two in Burundi, and one each in Brazil, Paraguay, Nicaragua, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Tunisia, Kenya, the Philippines, and Spain.
Perhaps I was not paying attention, but I didn’t notice anything along these lines reported on the BBC.
But just let a real or – more probably – supposed case of “homophobia” come up, and you can hear them barking and bitching around like there’s no tomorrow…..
Just to start the year with a piece of exciting news, here is another example of a bishop too concerned with not displeasing anyone to care for his own job.
Bishop Bonny of Antwerp is on record with the following piece of genius. The first part is reported only to give a context, what interests me is the second one:
I fully understand it. The Church can not avoid the debate about the criteria for ordination. Personally, I strongly believe in the value of the unmarried priesthood and a full availability for Christ and the Church community. But I also think that the ordination of a number of married men or deacons to the priesthood can be an enrichment for the Church. In the eastern Catholic Churches married priests are more the rule than the exception. That fact is therefore not unfamiliar for the Catholic Church. The ordination of women to priests is theologically far more difficult. In the west that concern is present in broad layers of society, but worldwide the support is extremely small. But I do think that there needs to be more discussion about the place and role of the woman in the Church. Women must be allowed to take on responsible duties in the Church, on all levels.
This way of thinking is covertly heretical and/or overtly cowardly in several elements. Let us see them:
The ordination of women to priests is theologically far more difficult
The ordination of women priests is not difficult in any way. It’s impossible. Im-pos-si-ble. A bishop must know this, because my grandmothers did. Bishop Bonny most certainly does. He is merely being a coward, because he can’t find in himself the very modicum of strenght necessary to be a halfway decent bishop.
I can’t imagine Padre Pio listening to such crap and not slapping him in the face, but then I reflect in padre Pio’s time bishops didn’t go around saying such things, and even illiterate peasants would be aware of the enormity of such words.
In the west that concern is present in broad layers of society, but worldwide the support is extremely small.
This is so wrong it’s embarrassing. Firstly, I do not know how female priesthood is seen among homosexual belgian priests (possibly the pool from which the bishops takes his idea of “support”), but among Catholics the “support” for such jokes is minuscule, and actually only coming from people who aren’t Catholics anymore, though they might be baptised in some cases. Secondly, the Church is not about support, but Truth. Thirdly, a bishop happily talking of theological matters as if they could be seen according to the “support” they have is an open scandal.
It gets worse…
Women must be allowed to take on responsible duties in the Church, on all levels.
Here, the typical doublespeak of our modern chicken bishops is apparent. “All levels” means, well, all levels; which must include, if words have a meaning, priests, bishops, cardinals and Popes. Therefore, the chappy first doesn’t have the gut of saying that about male priesthood there’s nothing to discuss, and one second later expresses himself in a way which – if words have a meaning – expresses support for the heretical agenda; without saying explicitly so of course, then a coward is always afraid of both sides of a controversy.
These are the sheperds of Catholic souls in the West: disgraceful cowards helping lies and spreading doublespeak wherever they turn. I am sure, no one will ever question their being in full communion with the Church, much less call them schismatics.
Bishop Bonny is an appointment of Pope Benedict XVI.
The new Hungarian Constitution has entered into force on the 1 January.
I have written about the matter here
I can vividly see the green faces of the BBC troops in commenting this. The matter must also be rather embarrassing for the Prime Pansy, Mr Chameleon, who says the country must go back to Christian values whilst actively promoting institutionalised sodomy. No doubt, he must think it very Christian.
I also wonder whether this Constitution (being Christian) is after the liking of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, or whether he would have preferred a more “nuanced” position, for example making clear that civil partnerships are not in contradiction with Catholic teaching, as everyone knows there is, (erm, cough…..) no sexual intercourse involved.
May the Almighty bless the Hungarian people, and crush the wolves in sheep’s clothes.
Beautifully politically incorrect post from Left-Footer about people “welcoming” other people to Mass. I can say that I have never been “blessed” with such a treatment, but I find it so post-Vatican II I do not struggle in believing such a circus must go on in many churches.
In my cynicism, I have in front of me a HD picture of the typical busybody-ing, old-ish Sixty-Eighter aunt (I am talking of a stereotypical aunt here; present readership excepted) smiling at me with the broadest of “look at me me me “- expressions, and presenting me with her old-ish “I can’t believe how good I am” stretched hand.
Of course, such behaviour grates one because it is – among many other things – abuse of the Mass, which is meant to be a meeting with Christ rather than a social occasion in which more or less intelligent people try to show us how good they are, or to make themselves important in some strange way.
Once again, I must impart on you some traditional Italian wisdom, and point out that in past times such habits were not only non-existent, but unthinkable. It is the decaying of religious practice and its degradation to a mere social occasion that makes such behaviour thinkable in the first place. As it is today, religious practice becomes a “we” exercise, with Him nothing more than the pretext.
Unfortunately, the very presence of such people – prevalently old ladies, one is tempted to think out of personal experience; though this must not be the case – poses questions as to what lies behind such practices.
Does the parish priest know of the greeting troops? Does he approve of it? Why? Once again, we must ask ourselves: were countless generations of past Christians wrong, or not nice enough? Or are we, very simply, missing something?
Sadly, the laity seems to be parroting modern priests (again, no trace of this in traditional Catholic societies), who can’t wait to greet you when you get out of church in case you should feel lonely after so much time alone with Christ, or in case you should be confused as to who is the real protagonist.
The present generation often misses the point, because they often miss Christianity. Their religion is, as so often nowadays, “niceness” and an obsessive quest for attracting attention and approval.
I can’t wait for the old lady near the priest, saying an emphatic “thanks!” to me because I am in line for communion.
If you wonder why the Pope is not obeyed and nothing happens to those who disobey to him, look no further than here, where the always excellent Rorate Caeli has some rather bad news for you.
It so happens that the “liturgy” of the Neocatechumenal Way is now – as it appears very probable – going to be approved by the Holy Father. This, after the Holy Father himself had ordered them to drop some of their most shocking peculiarities, his instructions being, as so often, largely ignored without any serious consequence.
The brutal truth of the matter is the Pope isn’t obeyed because he doesn’t show much interest in his will being respected, and even tends to reward disobedience after a while. It is as if he had decided that to talk is enough, the acting being something that can be safely postponed and left to his successors.
I am afraid age doesn’t seem to be helping the Holy Father in this respect, and the signals have been multiplying for some time that the advance in years is paid with a marked decrease of his ability, or will, to operate for the hermeneutic of continuity for which his pontificate will be very probably remembered.
Look, if you dare, at the videos posted on the Rorate page (I do not dare doing it myself; have looked at the first minute of the first and my adrenaline level went through the roof) and tell me what this is to do with any continuity, or with Catholicism come to that. On the contrary, it is clear to me the Pontiff is actively sabotaging his own work, as seen not only by this last probable initiative, but also by the continued impunity of all those bishops actively sabotaging Summorum Pontificum, by the utter inability to have a robust ruler caress the gloved fingers of the Nichols and Schoenborns of the world, and by the rather populist drive most recently shown with the Assisi III initiative. If memory serves, Assisi III was also announced at the very beginning of the year; a period I will now dread for the duration of this pontificate.
I have just published my blog post of comment to the latest utterances of Cardinal Ranjith regarding the Vetus Ordo. I have the horrible feeling that, if asked, he would use similar words – and, no doubt, throw V II into the bargain – to defend the mock liturgy of the Neocatechumenal Way. The fact is, the only clear direction seem to be not to have any, and rather try to appease everyone by sending some praise here and some approvals there.
One is clearly reminded of British Leyland in the Seventies.
Thankfully, British Leyland didn’t have the Holy Ghost on its side, which is why it went belly up in comparatively few years.
Then we wonder why the SSPX has not accepted the preambolo dottrinale. Imagine full reconciliation and something like that happening, without the SSPX feeling free to make fire from as many cannons as they think fit.