Daily Archives: March 13, 2012
We have been all bored to death in the last days with the fantasy tale about the 98% of the Catholic women apparently using contraceptives. We have, also, been amused by the strange theories according to which this, provided it was true, would be proof that the Church is wrong on the matter.
Theology by democracy. Very funny. What’s next? Elective bishops? Priestesses? Communion to dogs? Homo marriages?
But really, as a person raised up in a Catholic country and then moved here in Blighty, I can clearly see the differences between Catholic and… wrong thinking on this and many other matters.
In Catholic Countries, it is not that people do not behave wrongly. Of course they do. The big difference is that in those Countries people know they are sinning and are intelligent enough not to try to persuade themselves they aren’t.This creates the well-known phenomenon of the Anglo-Saxon speechless at how Southern Europeans get along with their sins, which leads them to believe they just do not care. They do care, my dear boy/girl/transgender Proddie. They care, very probably, much more than you’ll ever do on your saintliest day! They simply accept that they will never stop sinning more than the sun will stop shining. It’s not about being more sinful; its about being wiser.
Different is, it seems to me, the traditional approach in Protestant countries. Here, strong veins of puritanism run through the country, even among those who don’t really care for religion. Sin is, actually, not accepted in the sense that it must be obliterated. Therefore, the puritanical oriented will ruin their lives in the vain – nay, childish – attempt to overcome their sinfulness through a straight jacket of extremely severe prohibition, and general severity of demeanour. The others – nowadays, the vast majority – will solve the problem obliterating the sin, and deciding the Holy Ghost has now told them pretty much everything goes, provided you love Jesus and don’t kick the cat.
The ones likes the others can simply not live with the simple, human, Catholic concept of just knowing that by all our effort we will never stop sinning, because sinfulness is attached to us like breath and the one will only cease when the other does. The first will try to kill their sinfulness killing joy of life and common humanity in the process; the second will act after the motto: If you can’t win it, abolish it.
This being the mentality, it is not entirely surprising – though not less stupid – there should be people around thinking if Catholic women use contraception, it means they think it is right to do so. Please!
The reality is, of course, the opposite of this funny theory. Whilst many Catholic will not be entirely aware of the sinfulness of contraception, vast numbers of them will be aware of it at some level, a level which – due to their dismal catechesis – never becomes more than a discomfort at knowing oneself at variance with the Church, but seldom becomes rebellion because the Church is at variance with them.
We are all sinners, and we are all weak. We continue to do what we know we should not do, and this we do because we are wretched sinners. As we become better instructed, a life of prayer slowly induces us to look with horror today at our failings of yesteryear; but it is a very gradual process, and a process which generally starts in earnest only when people go back to regular Mass attendance and generally ends only at death. Outside of this circle, disobedience to Church teaching is seen with no more than discomfort readily set aside and not really worrying, like the child who steals the marmalade and knows stealing is wrong, but still refuses to see himself as dishonest, and to recognise his act as theft.
Still, most children will say to you it is “somewhat” wrong to steal marmalade, and only a very small minority of Catholics will dare to tell you they are better judges of Catholic rules than the Church.
The Proddies don’t get this, and the liberals don’t get pretty much anything else so I am not surprised. In their world, one can’t be a wretched sinner: either they stop being sinners or the sin must stop being a sin; not in the theological sense of course, but in the way they approach the problem in everyday life. Thus, the abortionist “bishopesses” (Episcopalians), the homo bishops, and the catalogue of assorted madnesses, next in line the so-called homosexual marriages and one day, who knows, euthanasia.
The liberals do not even have the cultural means to understand the Catholic thinking. They apply to Catholic thinking their own utterly flawed reasoning patterns. They can’t conceive someone admitting himself guilty, when they themselves obviously never are. They know nothing of wanting to be strong enough, and failing to do it. They cannot even conceive that a person might do what is wrong, and know it is wrong. Hey, if put in the same situation they would just decide it is not wrong anymore! So there, Catholics think the Church should change Her rules on contraception!
This is the internet site informing US citizens about the rally (multiple locations) planned for te 23 of March.
It also gathers the war cries of those non-Catholics who rightly perceive the issue is one of religious freedom, and impinges on their own freedom directly and dramatically, if not immediately.
Reblog of the day
From The USCCB blog, and put together for your own convenience, our own edification, and the shame of the English bishops. The blue is theirs, the green is mine.
1. The Mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them “religious employers” worthy of conscience protection, because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.
2. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious…
View original post 874 more words
On the Catholic News Agency, we are depressed with a very lame intervention of ++ “Quisling” Nichols and Smith about the defence of marriage.
I will, just for today, charitably assume ++Nichols is really interested in protecting marriage.I know, it’s pure fiction, but for the sake of reasoning.
On the one hand we have the most sluttish Prime Minister the United Kingdom has seen in a long time. A man able to invent phrases like the one that redefining marriage be good, because encourage individuals to “make vows to each other and support each other.” In Cameron’s world (but no, really: he is a just a whore. He will say what he thinks will sell, is all) “vows” and “support” are something good in themselves. With this brilliant reasoning, vows or support among criminals, or terrorist, or child rapists would be just as good. Not only is Cameron a moral vacuum; he is just a cretin.
On the other hand, we have our brave heroes. One would expect these heroes to take the sword and say to Cameron that in a Christian society, good and bad are decided according to their compliance with God’s rules, not according to their sounding good as a slogan or in headlines. Therefore, talk about “commitment” is utterly senseless unless it be commitment to something good, & Co. As a result sexual perversion, which obviously flies in the face of Christianity as even a whore like Cameron very well knows, cannot qualify for any kind of protection, or be considered “good” or “positive” in any way whatsoever.
Now, the problem our two not so brave heroes have is that in order to do this, one (particularly Nichols) needs to have the proper track record. This is simply not the case.
In the case of Nichols, the record is as follows:
‘We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,…………‘As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.’
The entire armoury of political correct bollocks is there. The only element which is absent is that this institutionalised perversion, which the Archbishop even considers good (“protection and legal provision”) should not be called marriage. A man with this track record can, of course, never defend with any credibility either marriage, or any other Christian tenet. He is just a heathen masquerading as a Catholic, and uttering some timid meowing when the necessities of the job command it.
Before you say that I am too harsh, please read again the words mentioned above and then tell yourself in conscience whether anyone who had dared to even think such words in, say, your great-grandmother’s environment (you can pick any European country, Catholic or Protestant) would not have been considered a heathen, and a completely rotten one at that.
Vincent Nichols reminds me – and here I ask the ladies to gently look somewhere else, and not want to read further – of that kind of girl once not so uncommon in Southern Italy, who would specialise in oral sex but would consider herself still virtuous because, technically, a virgin. In the same way, Nichols goes all the way in bed with Cameron (and if I wanted to press the simile, I could press it farther) and the heathen society the latter has prostituted himself to, but he possibly considers himself still virtuous because, hey, he makes one or two lame press conferences in defence of marriage.