Daily Archives: March 3, 2012
Many months ago I linked to a beautiful site, a private (and anonymous) blog in which the shameless betrayal of basic Christianity by our walking (and talking) scandal, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, was exposed. The site contained videos, excerpts from interviews and links to external sources.
Some months ago, I noticed the site had been taken down and – as it is natural – suspected some intervention from the Archdiocese, possibly linked to the fact the blog had the rather cheeky name “vincentnichols.blogspot.com” though the site is clearly meant to expose him. I decided to leave the link in its place, firstly because I hoped the site might be restored and secondly to allow those who wanted to link to make their own conjectures as to why the site had been taken down.
I am gladly to report I have clicked again and the site is now alive and kicking.
There are, as you will notice if you had clicked the old site, some changes. The site abstains from any open accusation against the Archbishop and, basically, allows the man to do all the work himself. There are no external links of interview excerpt now, and everything is in video and from the voice of our Quisling himself. The entire layout is very sober, and devastating in the efficacy of the accusation.
This site is – though certainly not complete, and actually only dealing with (homo)sexual matters – a live monument of the huge disgrace Archbishop Nichols is for the Church and the danger he represents for the soul of English and Welsh Catholics, of whom he is the nominal local supremo.
If you ask me, you should link to this if you are an English or Welsh blogger – and actually, even if you aren’t – in order to help to spread the lie that is Vincent Nichols.
Enjoy the site and, if you can, say a Hail Mary or three for this intelligent, anonymous blogger saying it as it is, and putting in front of everyone the opprobrium of having such a disgraceful man as the head of E & W Catholics.
Rorate Caeli has a very timely excerpt from Casti Connubii.
This great Pope was not one to mince words, not even in official documents. It is interesting to read today what he wrote not one century ago, and wonder how progressive priests would see a priest who would dare to use the sam e words today. But again old priests believes in Jesus, and many modern bishops don’t.
[S]ince, in order that the deceits of the enemy may be avoided, it is necessary first of all that they be laid bare; since much is to be gained by denouncing these fallacies for the sake of the unwary, even though We prefer not to name these iniquities “as becometh saints,” yet for the welfare of souls We cannot remain altogether silent.
Look, he says, there comes a point when one has to speak, and to speak plainly. If we don’t, the simple will suffer. If we do, we will behave charitably. How different from the “sensitive” mantra of our times, rather trying to persuade us that you can’t say to a sinner that he is wrong, because he could…. persevere in his sin! Genial!
The great Pope then goes on to demolish the idea that marriage be a human, rather a Divine institution, and to point out to the consequences of such error:
The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs
First of all, note the word “evil”. I am grateful for any reference you may email to me of any modern (Post V II) Pope or Bishop who has defined commonly held tenets of the modern thinking as “evil”. Methinks, nowadays references to “evil” have become rather rare (very “insensitive”, you know; people could be shocked, and sell their mother to an itinerant circus); I have more than the suspicion than when the word “evil” is used, this is done in a way that doesn not offend anyone: for example, denouncing “greed” or “the destruction of the planet”: so convenient.
Secondly, notice the argument: the consequence of this thinking – namely: that the laws governing wedlock might be changed according to the shifting circumstances of human affairs – is an evil in itself. The late Pope doesn’t stop – here, at least – to explain to you why a human-based regulation of wedlock is evil. It isn’t Christian, and this is proof enough of its being evil. How different from the attitude of the modern heathen a’ la Archbishop Nichols; people who have the gut to tell us that they are “nuanced” in regard to “civil partnerships”, and are satisfied to only point out that it shouldn’t be called “marriage”. I cannot imagine a Pope XI leaving him at his place, whereas you see that Popes greatly differ in energy and incisiveness of action.
But the good old Pontiff is not satisfied yet, and continues to hammer the errors of his – and every – time. Continuing the explanation fo the consequences of the above mentioned evil thinking, he sees as one of these
that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony – hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.
Read these words slowly and carefully:license of a base fornicating woman. Here, I am rather sure you have never ever read such words from a post V II Pope or Bishop. The lack of “pastoral sensitivity” of such words is such that a priest who would dare to express himself in such a way today would be very probably severely reprimanded by his bishop, whilst the latter would profit from the occasion for another show of “sensitivity” towards unrepentant sinners, obviously at the cost of his expendable priest.
I also wonder how, say, Archbishop Vincent Nichols would answer if plainly asked whether the fornicating woman should have the same rights of the lawfully wedded wife. With some politically correct waffle, very probably.
Pius XI was a strong, energetic, vigorously Christian Pope. He didn’t do “sensitivity” much, though you can plainly see he was more charitable than the entire present body of E&W bishops together.
O for a return of Popes likes the ones of the past.
I have written here about the “Coalition for Marriage” petition.
It was the 27th February, and the signatures were already more than 50,000.
We write today the Third of March, and we are at almost 100,000.
This is nothing less than astonishing if you think I haven’t heard absolutely anything of this on the BBC or other mass media.
Please continue to spread this one if you live in the UK, or know people who do. Mail, tweet, post on facebook, put on your blog.
Again and again.
Read here on the Vestal Morons a very long post – actually more like an essay – about the parallelisms between Mary Poppins (as seen and loved in the unforgettable Walt Disney movie; above an excerpt in the language of angels) and the Blessed Virgin.
This is a very long post and it seems to me its (brilliant) author went a bit too far in the parallelisms, which become more and more vague and forced as the reading progresses (starting, say, from the Chimneys; with an undeservedly severe treatment of Traditionalists). Still, the first part is extremely enjoyable and, besides being very instructive – and from what I can judge, very accurate – from a theological point of view, is written with wonderful homour and thoroughly enjoyable.
Before anyone should cry “scandal” and lament the irreverence of the comparison, mat I point out that J.R.R. Tolkien himself explicitly aimed at putting in his characters (and speaking of the Blessed Virgin, in Galadriel) those traits he though fitting in order to give the reader a gentle but effective Catholic lookout on things. If one like Tolkien didn’t see anything irreverent in doing this, nor do I see it in finding or theorising traits reminding of the Blessed Virgin in the beloved Mary Poppins.
Enjoy this beautiful post!
Reblog of the day
From the (protestant) blog Wisdom for Life, an interesting contribution about the strategy used by sodomites to try to get acceptance for their perversion.
I copy and paste the seven points in their entirety,
1. Using the language of civil rights: For several decades we’ve heard increased association of gay rights with battles for racial and gender equality. A desire for homosexual sex (we’re told) is an inborn condition, not a choice. Although a false comparison, the aim is to view gays and lesbians as we would people of different race. If successful, those who oppose gay marriage will be viewed as racists.
2. Using accusations of hate and irrational fear: The goal has been to convince the public that opponents of gay marriage are bigoted hate-mongers with irrational phobias. They are homophobic and full of venomous prejudice — not just people who choose to see things differently. They are…
View original post 526 more words
I never thought I’d see the day someone asks for the priest to be fired because he doesn’t give communion to an unrepentant lesbian.
Most tragically, I never thought I’d see the day another priest would scold the lack of “pastoral sensitivity” of the first priest. If you ask me, it is priest number 2 who should be fired.
The New York Daily News has a whining article about a monster looking like Johann Hari on steroids. This circus article had a catholic funeral of her deceased mother, apparently a devout Catholic.
Fine. She had her funeral, though, didn’t she?
The trouble started when the lesbian daughter of the deceased, a lesbian of many years with the relevant “I truly think I am going to hell” look, thought that being at her mother funeral gave her right to receive communion.
Father Guarnizo, who seem to care for his job, refused to do so, even stooping so low as to tell the “woman” why she would not receive communion, something as a Catholci she should know like the Hail Mary. This, the good Father did, methinks, in an extremely, nay perhaps too gentle way.
You can read here the emotional report of the journalist (I have checked: a woman) stating the lesbian was “clearly distraught” (not,mind, at being a pervert looking like a joke; but at being denied Communion….) and describing the prompt reaction of her brother, who “immediately walked over” to assist the poor (one can say it) wretch.
If the story had ended here, there would be nothing much to report: “openly perverted woman is refused communion” shouldn’t even make headlines. The problem his, the circus article complained to the Archdiocese of Washington, probably asserting her “right” to receive communion (which is too absurd to mention) or perhaps meaning that even if the Church doesn’t give communion to openly practising lesbians looking like Johann Hari, she should do so at her mother’s funeral (even more absurd).
And here is where the scandal happened, because some “sensitive”, cowardly priest called Barry Knestout is said to have written a letter with these words:
“I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,
“I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”
Apart from the usually stupid refrain of the “celebration” progressive priests can really not live without, this chap seems to think giving communion is a matter of “sensitivity”. Heavens, when I was a child every child knew if you are in mortal sin you can’t receive communion, but Father Knestout has not been made aware of the circumstance or, more probably, doesn’t care two straws. I can also tell you from experience reported to me by friends, that even today, in XXI century Italy, being a public unrepentant sinner (say: convivence more uxorio; and we are not even talking of perverts here) is considered obviously sufficient for the priest to deny communion, and no one blinks. “Sensitivity” is what Father Knestout cares about, not Christ; neither can he see that if the woman was really “distraught” this might be what saves her from hell, towards which she is most surely directed. There can be no doubt the woman had made her “lifestyle” public, apparently even apprearign at the function with her “lover” and introducing her as such. For Heaven’s sake, if one can’t refuse communion in such cases, when then….
Note also here “healing and reconciliation” doesn’t mean the lesbian repenting and starting to live a halfway decent life; it means Father Knestout hopes the pervert will overcome the shock of being told she cannot receive Communion. In the Archdiocese of Washington, it appears, communion is a right and to refuse it “against church policy”.
Once again, if someone should be kicked out it is the likes of Father Knestout. And please, please let us stop being always so damn “sensitive” with these tools, shall we? If you are an unrepentant practising lesbian you can’t receive communion, period.
What is so difficult to understand in this?
EDIT: some changes in this rather shocking story. It appears father Barry Knestout is auxiliary bishop in the Washington diocese. This I got from other sources, and (for what it’s worth) Wikipedia confirms.