Daily Archives: June 9, 2012
I have repeated only this morning my appeal to the UK resident to participate to the government consultation on so-called “gay marriage”. I refer to the considerations therein made concerning the nature of the “consultation”, what it says about the perverts we have in power and how the Government might try to manipulate the numbers if decent Christians fail to participate en masse.
Cranmer blog now informs us the Queen of Fags in the country, Ms Peter Tatchell, clearly had privileged access to information about how the consultation is going.
Ms Tatchell does not seem very pleased with how things look up to now, and he/she/it has made an appeal (I will not post the link, but Cranmer has it) asking the perverts of the realm to support the cause. A rather desperate battle if the mobilisation of non-perverts has had any success, but obviously a plan with some chance of success if only one part is mobilised.
Now, the attentive readers of this blog will have followed the astonishing episode of the same blogger, “Cranmer”, being the target of unprecedented bullying from the Advertising Standard Authority. The ASA subsequently ( and desperately) tried to backpedal, (and were exposed as pathetic liars by Cranmer’s response) but in the meantime it had come out the head of the organisation, Chris Smith, is a militant homosexual clearly abusing his position to further his own despicable perversion. Obviously nothing happened to Chris Smith who, being a sodomite, is in this country entitled to a protection Pandas can only dream of. Still, the episode told all of us to what extent the homo mafia within the government and quango apparatus abuses their office to further their own agenda.
Now Ms Tatchell appeals shows he/she/it knows something we don’t know, and what he knows is that probably the consultation is going the same way as the petition and the election.
Am I wrong in supposing some highly-placed pervert has passed him the information in order to allow him to mobilise his people and at the same time trying the other side to be made aware of this?
How is it that “Vatileaks” causes so much outrage among perverts, but this episode doesn’t?
Still, I invite again every UK resident to take part to the consultation: you see how desperate the Government is to manipulate the results and try to, at least, save face.
Of course it won’t come to pass.
But the hypothesis is highly amusing – in its own tragic way – anyway.
The Home page of the Coalition For Marriage has two buttons: one to sign a petition (I have linked several times to this) and one to answer directly to the Government “consultation”.
The “consultation” will end in the next days. if you are a UK resident, please participate now if you have not done it already.
Even is this consultation is as stupid as usual (officially, it is a consultation about the “if” of sodomarriage, it being understood that when the Chameleon and his girlfriend have decided you are allowed a word about the modalities at the most) and shows the usual contempt of the Government for common decency, Christianity and democracy, in my eyes you should consider taking part anyway, so that the sodomy-friendly fringes of the Government cannot try to use data skewed by their own friends.
The recent administrative election have already given what seems a mortal blow to this initiative, but some corners of the government still desperately insists this remains part of the agenda.
Please give them a bitch slap.
Reblog of the day
Father Ray Blake’s latest blog entry starts with these words:
Obvious. Vatican II. Failed.
Sadly, so many years after one of the most dangerous attempts of the Church to commit suicide in instalments (there have been others; but this one is certainly running for the title of “best effort ever”), we hear these words all too seldom, particularly from priests.
Father Blake points out to the phenomenon of the local allegiances: local groups perpetuating themselves and putting forward for honours and appointments only those made in their own image, whilst the others are scared into silence or simply ignored.
What can be done, is the natural question. My answers are as follows:
1) Abolish the Bishops’ conferences, and give every Bishop full responsibility for his sheep. The time of happily hiding behind the finger of one not being responsible…
View original post 1,115 more words
There are concerns around the internet that wealthy people would try to influence the Pope concerning the episcopal appointments, and more in general. Letters are written and are, through apposite channels – like other influential, but progressive churchmen – put to the personal attention of the Pope.
I am not surprised, but cannot share the dismay.
If wealthy traditionalist Catholics would try to inform the Pope of their concerns in the appointment of bishops, I am sure none of us would have anything to say against it. I am, in fact, rather sure wealthy traditionalist Catholics do it already, nor do I think this attempt to influence the Pope can be seen as anything else than a good deed, if made in good faith.
In addition, it is often said – particularly around the blogosphere – that the Pope is “isolated” and at the mercy of the elusive “wolves” apparently circling around him. It is, therefore, surprising how the attempt to jump the “wolves” and communicate directly with the Holy Father – be it made from traditionalists or “progressive” Catholics – should be seen in a negative light.
As we have all too clearly seen in the last weeks, the Pope does not live in a bubble and there would be much to be afraid of if he did. He will be unavoidably – and rightfully – exposed to a continuous stream of information coming from people who want to influence him for the most various – some commendable, some less so – reasons. The question is in my eyes not whether the Pope is exposed to such an influence – which he is – but whether he will pursue a line of coherent and logical conduct according to the tone he has decided he will give to his Papacy, or will be led to make one concession here and another there to try to make everyone happy and avoid controversy; with the usual result that he will make no one happy, and will foster controversy.
What in my eyes remains the most tragic example of this certainly wavering pontificate – a pontificate with two faces to such an extent, that “wolves” must be invented to justify the activity of the “progressive” Pope, whilst the “conservative” actions are seen as coming from the “authentic” Pope – is the episode of Gerhard Maria Wagner, the appointed auxiliary bishop of Linz, an appointment to which the Pope renounced after the reaction of the Church hierarchy in Austria and the predictable media uproar. The signal was here sent in the most evident of manners, that the Pope was clearly willing to be influenced and ready to change his mind whenever the price of keeping it would be a prolonged controversy.
The problem is not in those who write letters. The problem is, in case, in those who receive them.