Daily Archives: August 24, 2012
This blog post here is a beautiful example of everything that is wrong with the blasphemous concoction of victimhood and passive-aggressive heresy nowadays going under the name of “progressive Catholicism”. It is, therefore, unsurprising the blog post would come from a “Tablet” contributor.
The lady is then, one day, told that her son is bent. Her reaction?
“complete acceptance on my part and happiness that my son had felt able to tell me; anxiety, knowing the negative reaction he would no doubt receive from some other people”.
Complete… what? If her son had told her he is a paedophile, or a zoophile, would she have been “accepting”? If no, why on earth? If it’s not about perversion, but about “acceptance” we should be “accepting” of everything under the sun, surely? But no, the boy being her son, he must clearly be above criticism. It is the others, those evil “some people”, who are oh so not “accepting”. Tut, tut.
Obviously – and to express it in the usually brutal Italian way – every cockroach is beautiful to her mother, and this is not the first mother defending her son against evidence and reason. The big difference, though, is that once upon a time a mother would still have had an inkling of the danger for her son’s soul; whilst perhaps saying other are too harsh on him she would have never even conceived to say that homosexuality is fine, because her son is homosexual.
Alas, we live in times of “acceptance”, as if it were some sort of virtue. No it isn’t. A homosexual boy must be told to pray and pray that he might be freed from this terrible affliction; that God did not make him a pervert because God doesn’t do perversion; that it is on him to embark on a prayerful journey toward sanity and normality rather than to be “proud” – or in any way “accepting” – of his perversion; that sodomy is a lurid abomination sane people cannot even think about without feeling like vomiting; and so on, and so forth.
I can vividly picture Padre Pio “accepting” homosexuality. What you did you say? Really? Oh well, he must have been one of those “some people”…tut tut to Padre Pio too, then…
It goes on with almost every line.
My other children, my family and my friends have been completely accepting. Other acquaintances, including some church goers have raised eye brows while being embarrassed to discuss their views. A loyal priest from another diocese quite understandably reiterated the Church’s teaching including the need for celibacy.
Look, nowadays one does not even have the right of being embarrassed in front of sexual perversion. They are supposed to say “hey, your son is a pervert, let’s celebrate our acceptance”!
I wonder what “some people” drink in the morning.
As to the very feeble but at least apparently half-orthodox Catholic priest, one is happy to know the lady finds the teaching about celibacy “understandable”, only one wonders why. If homosexuality is ok, why should the “natural expression” of the homosexual’s “love” not be ok too? Where does the tale come from that homosexuality is just fine and only sodomy a problem?
True, inclination (read: perversion) is in itself not sinful. But this does not mean that the inclination is good, or even neutral!
The inclination is, literally, perverted (per and versio, “wrong direction”) and a terrible deviation exactly because it can easily lead to a sin crying to heaven for vengeance! Because it goes against nature even before committing sodomy! Because it is repellent to common decency even before every act of sodomy having been committed!
If one would tell you that his son has an inclination to rape hens, or to have intercourse with dogs, would you think that the “inclination” is fine and dandy, and worthy of “acceptance”, provided the son in question does not act on his “inclination”? And please let us stop accepting the trite argument of the sodomites “not hurting anyone”. Firstly, they do hurt each other, a lot! Secondly, a sin is measured by its offence to God and not by the harm made to other people, or animals. The word “inclination” is also in itself suspect. One can have an inclination for tiramisu’, or strawberries with clotted cream. If he is attracted by people of his same sex this is actually called, erm, perversion.
Still, the lady seems to accept the idea of celibacy… apart from the fact that she doesn’t. Try this
While the Church teaches that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ – in my opinion, a very wrong view –
Apart from the absurdity of saying “it is (traditional) Church teaching, but this is very wrong” (the lady writes for the Tablet, therefore she is perfectly at ease with absurdities) , you notice the underlying current of thinking: if my son desires to insert his penis in another man’s shit hole, why should the Church tell him not to do so? Amazing, nicht wahr?
I wonder which mother in the past would have ever dared, however strong her affection for her son, to help him to go to hell in such a way. But then again nowadays a mother feels free to give scandal saying that her son is “gay” and is even offended when others are “embarrassed”. What narrow-minded “some people” they are. They should be joyously accepting! Mala tempora currunt.
I would like to go on commenting, but I would go on until tomorrow morning and this threatens to reach 1000 words already. You can have a go at the countless absurdities disseminated everywhere (“My son is generous, loving and kind and I am proud of that”: what is this to do with the matter? When has being “kind” helped someone in mortal sin to avoid hell? In the “church of nice”, perhaps! In Christianity, nope! And how can a mother who even thinks the Church is wrong in condemning sodomy hope to avoid being considered accessory in her son’s sins, sins she encourages with everything but openly spoken words?). If I had had such a perversion, I truly hope my mother would have remained at my side with true love and charity, rather than helping me to go to hell (and probably going to hell herself in the process) so that she can feel “accepting”.
Again, continue the reading yourselves if you so wish. This is not even angering, merely amusing. The lady writes for the Tablet.
By all the noise about the heretic and constantly bitching witches we hear so much about, it is good every now and then to be reminded that scandalous as they are, the above mentioned witches are not a fair depiction of the, if you allow me to say so, breed.
This here is just another example – and not the first I have posted, if memory serves – of nuns who are devoted, obedient and, well, Christian.
Their communities are getting bigger and younger, and the author of the article says they have the same number of vocations of the LCWR (if the latter can be called vocations, rather than a way for old frustrated feminists to live comfortably for the rest of their lives) without saying they are around a quarter of the latter’s number.
It does one good to know there are still orders around who can afford to accept women below 30, and still grow (let the LCWR-type “communities” do the same and see what happens to their vocation figures…).
Devoted, obedient, and Christian.
In one word, nuns as God intended.
Paul Ryan reblog
A beautiful blog post on Rorate Caeli about the way Capitalism and Catholicism are compatible (or not).
The matter is, of course, one of definitions. If by Capitalism we mean, with dictionary.com
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
then it is clear that not only is this system not in any way in contrast to Catholicism, but by encouraging the production and distribution of wealth and free time like no other system in the hystory of humanity (you would not, and I mean not, find any other system allowing so many to become so successful by so humble origins; not a system creating such a huge means to support the less fortunate) it is certainly conducive…
View original post 813 more words