The Archbishop And The Loose Virgin

Archbishop Nichols said this t-shirt is not "nuanced".

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.

Mundabor

Posted on March 13, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. I wondered at the time that civil partnerships were mooted why the English biships could have done the country, themselves and morality a favour by asking why the ‘civil partnerships’ were not being made available to other people whose financial arrangements and home owning were interdependent such as unmarried siblings, people of other blood relationships or even friends of either sex. If this had been pressed hard enough and enacted (and who could have objected?), then civil partnerships would not have been seen as the next step to ‘marriage’ but purely as a financial arrangement where financial interdependency existed.

    • But this is exactly the question, Steve.
      If the arrangement you state had been made, then the homo mafia would not have been able to claim a “victory” against Christian society.
      Legally, many of the financial consequences of civil partnership could have been regulated through bilateral agreements anyway. Again, it is a matter of homo propaganda, a propaganda the Archbishop actively supported.

      M

%d bloggers like this: