Monthly Archives: January 2013
I have already reported the rumour that Samantha Cameron would be the driving force towards the “inclusiveness” drive of the disgrace we have to tolerate as Prime Minister. There are several cues to this, not least the multiple faux pas of the same PM in matters of political correctness (the joke about the “one legged Icelandic lesbian” was memorable, though the man predictably apologised profusely afterwards) and the well-known fact he comes from a different environment.
This is a man who was known, before the “inclusiveness drive”, as a rather non-inclusive person, a member of an, erm, exclusive St. James’ Gentlemen’s club that still today does not allow membership to women, until all this became embarrassing for a PM in pectore. So, the man who lived rather well for a couple of decades with club members who think women should not be allowed to set foot in their club should suddenly not be able to tolerate that homosexuals be…. excluded from marriage? Really? Really?
Cherchez la femme, says yours truly….
We have now further rumours this would be the case, with further rather embarrassing revelations about the daughter of a Baronet, “consultant” for some firm and living in a world full of fags, seems very bent to.
Now, the impression can’t be avoided here that this entire mess is caused by the fact that a stupid man has married the wrong wife and, put in front of the choice between no sex for a long time and going to hell, clearly prefers the second option. The Germans have a word for this; which, whilst not very fine, is very apt: Schwanzgetrieben, or cock-driven. Alas, this is the destiny of many men who end up the puppets of their spouses because they have, simply, been driven by their own lust to marry a woman who will lead them through their own willie like a beef is driven through a ring on his nose. This is their private tragedy and we can only pity the poor idiots for the price of their folly. But when the cock-driven nincompoop happen to be Prime Minister, it is the country which must be pitied; though the country itself is, like the man, responsible for its own tragedy.
Faber Quisque Fortunae Suae, people used to say who did not contemplate sodomarriage and built a huge empire whilst putting sodomites to death. The sodomites aren’t put to death anymore, but the saying remains just as valid.
Considering the price to be paid for it, at least one would hope for the PM the sex is good.
Considering the woman, I doubt.
I have written several times in the past that the strong abortion debate in the United States will unavoidably cause the same discussions to be started in Europe. It’s not that there are no pro-life organisations in Europe, or that the matter is completely absent from the public debate; but certainly we are several steps behind.
This is one of the new European Citizens’ Initiatives aimed at reaching 1 million signatures. When an ECI reaches that objective, its object can be directly brought to the attention of the Commission, which has the power to initiate EU legislation in the matter. I know the idea that you need one million signatures to attract the attention of politicians and technocrats is not really smart, but I think this is made to make clear only those initiatives should be launched which have a real EU breadth and can command the attention of the public in several European countries. The initiatives must also be limited to those matters in which the Commission can propose legislation; which are, as everyone here in the UK knows, far too many.
In this case, if you visit the site you will notice the multi-lingual experience. Whilst in Europe we are undoubtedly less advanced than in the United States, it is beautiful to see how the stronger pro-life movement in the United States starts to cause a certain stir here in the Old (as in: old) Continent.
If you are more technically or legally inclined, you can jump here to read about the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case Bruestle vs Greenpeace (astonishingly, Greenpeace seems to be able to do something good at times…).
I found these lines particularly enlightening:
[Al]though [the EU] seeks to promote investment in the field of biotechnology, use of biological material originating from humans must be consistent with regard for fundamental rights and, in particular, the dignity of the person.” Id. at ¶ 32. Therefore “any human ovum after fertilization, any non-fertilized human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted and any non-fertilized human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive.”
It is a sad reality that for the vast majority of Europeans abortion is a given, a reality of life accepted without question. It will take time before more and more people start to think that this situation must change, and I am very much afraid that the biological factor will play a role as the hippies generation is largely irretrievably lost. Still, it is beautiful to see a new conscience concerning the protection of life emerging.
The Ottaviani reblog
This is given without commentary, as truly no commentary is necessary.
Please say a prayer for these brave souls, who fought from the very heart of the Church to try to avoid the biggest damage, in what was certainly the darkest hour of the post-V II madness.
The entire document – also giving background information and making clear that the translation may seem strange in order not to compromise a strict adherence to the Italian original – may be found here.
You will note that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci made entirely theirs the conclusion and tone of a study of a group of Catholic theologians, led by Marcel Lefebvre. The fact that Lefebvre could have his position so fully approved by Cardinals in such high standing within the Vatican tells you everything you need to know about the dramatic events of those years.
Ottaviani and Bacci signed the letter…
View original post 873 more words
Reblog of the day
From the otherwise rather sleepy and windy Wales, news of some importance reaches us: it says here (I know it’s the BBC, a lair of pedophiles and other perverts; but this they should have managed right) that a mother has beaten her son to death with a stick, as a punishment because the boy could not learn the Koran fast enough.
The detail gives a lot of interesting details: the woman (forget “lady”) is a university graduate; when she discovered that her son had died out of the injuries inflicted to him she set fire to the body of her dead child; she said she did so in order to avoid being killed by her husband upon discovery of the death; she also managed to accuse her husband of the killing. What a delicate person.
You might wonder: why does Mundabor bore us with this individual case of a loony…
View original post 426 more words
One of the advantages of getting old is the slow but unstoppable change of perspective age induces. When I was younger, the afterlife was for me (though by the Grace of God I have always believed in God) something so far removed into the future as to make the prospective of death an extremely remote one; something you know, about rather feel about.
Where I am now, the prospective is already rather different. I am now most certainly well past half of my existence, which means that the Day of Reckoning has now become for me an event I can see in the future in light of my past experience, because it will fall upon me in a shorter time that the one that has passed since my childhood. When one reflects about this little mathematical exercise, one begins to experience the Last Four Things as something very concrete, almost palpable. It is there, it is approaching rapidly, it is something I can easily measure with my own experience. I am, in fact,,well on my way towards it. The sobering thoughts this simple calculation provokes are in themselves enough to let one consider the aging process a very salutary one.
In a way, you can compare our perspective with investments. A long-term investment expecting to yield results in 60 or 70 years would be considered unattractive by most individual investors; when you reduce the temporal investment to perhaps 20 or 30 years, things change already. Continuing the comparison with investments, becoming old one understands how astonishingly good is the investment is that Jesus’ death on the Cross has made possible for us. There is no risk of default on the interest payment; you know there will never be a bankruptcy or “chapter 11” to destroy in all or in part your equity; the yield offered is infinite (as in: infinite) compared to your initial investment in time and effort, and the sovereign risk is clearly zero.
The deal is so good, that through the indulgences you get a huge rebate even on the (late) paying of your equity investment. Last but not least, one does not need to be smart. Provided one are disciplined in making deposits in one’s investment accounts (Mass attendance, of course; regular confession; a lively prayer life; and the Rosary, the Rosary!) one does not need to be proficient in the matter, and in fact I do believe many servants, labourers and peasants of old have obtained a much better yield than their more sophisticated, perhaps more intelligent masters and landowners.
As you get old, things start falling into place. Injustices and abuses (of which this existence is full) or even the thousands apparently blind inequalities of this world (the one is born intelligent, the other stupid; the one attractive, the other ugly; the one rich, the other poor; I could go on for very long) are seen in the different perspective of the return on investment I have just considered: painful as it is to be poor, or mistreated, or befallen by misfortunes one has not seen coming and cannot be held responsible for, these pains open the doors of an investment club of unimaginable prosperity, and the “equity investment” one makes with its own suffering and misfortunes properly employed (that is: invested in Christ, rather than in hatred or even self-pity) are by far the best opportunity he’ll ever have in life, and might well make him more prosperous in heaven, and more prosperous for all eternity, than many others who simply never found the means or the will to make a comparable investment in their eternal happiness.
This thinking puts, by the way, the usual secular thinking of “if there is a God, why am I so stupid” (or other disgraces) in perspective. The boy who died in a trench during WWI hasn’t really “lost” so much; actually, perhaps he has, just because he died to protect his Country and loved ones, actually made a great gain; similarly, the hard existence of generations of poor peasants bearing with Christian spirit an entire life of, one can easily imagine, abuse and humiliation will very probably rank higher, in the Celestial order, of those of us who manage to escape hell and can bring to the party not much more than a comfortable existence as, say, obnoxious bloggers banging on a keyboard with a fresh glass of orange juice, and classical music in the background.
Seen in this perspective, this life is like a huge opportunity open to everyone, and where more often than not the lack of opportunities here below may lead to an increase in “investment” opportunities concerning the other world.
You might say – and you would be right – this is all very well-known at least since the Beatitudes; but I do think that the older we get, the more the concept of accumulating treasures in heaven takes more defined contours, as the Day of Reckoning slowly but constantly warns us of its approach.
I do not know how good Cardinal Stafford was when he was in active service, but from what I read around one can easily think he was (and is) one of the good guys. The US Cardinal, now 80 years old, has given an interview saying he weeps for his country after the devastations brought by the big societal changes of the Sixties and Seventies, devastations that have left him “deeply disillusioned” and “alienated” from his own country.
The man is actually old enough to personally remember the Fifties and give us all a reminder out of his own life of how big the difference is between a Christian and a secularised Country. He also makes a couple of rather intelligent considerations as to the cult of “freedom” as a founding value in the United States, a concept which can degenerate in the idea that killing unborn babies is in the end a matter of “freedom”. One hears what the Cardinal says, though I would also observe for almost 200 years of the United States’ history this was not the case, so the problem might well lie elsewhere.
It must, though, be saddening and refreshing at the same time for an US Citizen to read of a Cardinal simply looking in dismay at the state his own Country has reduced itself to. It if can be of any help, I can’t say countries like Italy are so much different, though in a way they still are: the militant atheism is still rather absent and most people still have a varnish of Catholicism, but the mentality isn’t so much different and abortion is legal over there, too. The concept that freedom is freedom to do what is good and not freedom to do what one pleases is, for example, rather poorly spread, because the local priest is more likely to talk about social issues.
Kudos for the Cardinal on this occasion, though. We need more like him, and we need them assertive enough as to make it to wider circles than the readers of the “Catholic News Service”.
If you were at Mass yesterday (and if you are one of my three UK readers I’d dare say you were) you will have noticed the initiative of the letter to be sent to your MP against the Cameron, Clegg and Miller abomination squad. One can debate whether it was smart to wait until so late (I don’t think it was, at all), but there’s no doubt there was a sense of urgency, and our (as, I am sure, most) homily was devoted to the issue.
I have read somewhere (alas, I can’t always remember where I read things…) some Tory MPs admit in private they receive eighty complaints about sodomarriage for every one about Brussels. This is encouraging. I am resigned to a clear defeat in the lower house (again, also due to the fact that the Church started too late to set the wheels of opposition seriously in motion), but I want to be halfway confident we’ll have much better cards in the House of Lords, and one never knows whether the Tories wake up, finally realise Cameron has mutated them in a bunch of wannabe stiletto-heeled trannies, and decide to act.
There are rumours about a coup this at regular intervals, the latest ones only some hours old and for the moment unfounded. Still, the way I know the Tory party they have the stabbing of their leaders down to a fine art, so there’s at least a modicum of hope. This, particularly if the Church starts an insisted work of demolition of the kind of abomination that minions of Satan like Maria Miller call “inclusiveness”.
If you are one of my three readers, I know you have filled your letter, and unfortunately it is now rather too late to ask you to spread the word about the letter among your relatives and acquaintances. This initiative might be successful, or it might flounder for lack of preparation and proper tam-tam. If this were to be the case, I hope no one will be discouraged, or will lend any ear to the usual prophets of doom and assorted Wormtongues preaching the embracing of defeat in order to avoid a worse one (one is reminded of some French bishops…).
We shall see. It is good wheels are getting in motion, but one always the impression this is an army with the worst generals ever appointed.
“they claim the equality of different points of view until they get control of power, and then enforce their view on everyone else, all the while continuing to claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.”
These are words of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone on occasion of his recent stay in London, and they photograph rather well the historic phase we are living. The Archbishop’s words are brilliant, and I do not think they need any comment from me.
What I allow myself to add is a couple of ancillary considerations, which I think connect well with the beautiful words above.
1. What the archbishop describes is made possible by the degeneration of most modern education systems in the West, whose only aim seems to be to create an army of nincompoops barely able to write, utterly unable to think, and extremely worried about looking good with their peers. This is particularly evident in England, the only country I know whose natives can say with a smile “I can’t spell” without realising they can’t write. In this country, there are people unable to even get the most elementary things right, like the difference between “its” and “it’s” or “theirs” and “there’s”. Many of them have an academic title of sort. They can’t write, but they can vote, and many of them in fact do; which is why the thinking lamented by the Archbishop translates into legislation.
2. Dim people have always existed, and have been allowed to vote for a long time; but in past times the prevailing Christian mentality avoided the worst, and generally prevented shameless politicians from using them to sabotage Christianity. You can put it in this way, that in our once Christian countries even the slowest benefited from a robust dose of truth and simple common sense, given to them for free and courtesy of their social and religious environment. The collapse of Christian instruction in the last generation or two has created an army of very ignorant people, the more easily manipulated because they are not even aware of being ignorant, or even illiterate. This is the favourite pasture of the modern homosexual lobby, whose aim is to lure the idiots with emotional appeals of zero logical content but great emotional impact (“I just want to be happy! Oh why, why you do not want me to be happy?”). The result is, once again, the drive to the dictatorship of idiocy we are now observing.
It is my personal opinion that all modern Western democracies have contracted a cancer; a disease which might or might not be incurable, but is certainly malignant. Democracy without Christian values becomes the dictatorship of the stupid, and I can’t imagine how this will not lead to a lot of blood being shed at some point. It is also not clear to me why political systems used to promote evil should not be punished by Our Lord, and I would think it rather more probable that the punishment will be as vast as the support for, or indifference to, the evils and perversions allowed or celebrated by most Western democracies.
Western democracies have been digging their own grave for a while, though the astonishing technological superiority and the collapse of Communism have masked the phenomenon for a while. They have now entered a phase of accelerated decay, of whom openly homosexual US Marines are perhaps the most striking example (last time I looked, even the Italian army didn’t want fags. Go figure).
We are digging our own grave, both spiritually and politically. We don’t even have the guts to say “faggot”, but we want to upheld Christian values.All in a very nice way, of course, whilst the Gestapo plans to silence every teacher and parent, and to pervert the very children.
I sometimes wonder how thick people can be.
In a rather interesting article appeared here, the author remarks on the rather clear words the Pope has been speaking in the last few weeks (particularly concerning “gender” issues), and notices with dismay the Holy Father’s words have been uniformly ignored by the media. As the author appears frustrated at the lack of attention given from media outlets to the Pope’s utterances, I dare to hazard a couple of explanations as to why this is so.
1. The secular media mention the Church only if they think it is the right time to attack Her. If, therefore, the Pontiff’s words had been picked up by the press, they would have been picked up with the exclusive aim of criticising the Pope and slandering the Church, and with the usual procession of offended lesbians and convicted pedophile priests thrown in as an added bonus. This time it did not happen, another time it will…
2. The Pope’s words are not picked up, because they aren’t news. “Pope is Catholic” isn’t going to win any Pulitzer Prize. Generally, the Press needs an angle they can exploit, like “Pope preaches against gender equality” so you can trumpet the story of “equality”, but again only if you need a story. If, say, BO’s inauguration and the anniversary of Roe vs Wade are considered news enough, no news will be built around the Pope’s words.
3. The world at large doesn’t consider a warning Pope relevant, but it would immediately notice a roaring one. As long as the Pope isn’t considered a real obstacle for the advancement of the secular cause, he will be either attacked for the fun of it or, more often, happily ignored. If, though, they should see that the Holy Father means business and is set on a frontal attack on secular society, you would experience a huge wave of abuse and slander, then the secular, abortionist, perverted euthanasia Nazis would soon understand they are now fighting for their existence as a meaningful, society-shaping social group.
Let us imagine the Vatican were to announce the removal, on the same day, of a dozen among the worst English bishops and their replacement with young hardliners with spotless reputation. Do you think this would not make headlines? Not even when he repeats the exercise in France, Germany, Italy? Really? How would the reaction be if the Pope were to say every politician promoting the homosexual agenda is a tool of Satan, and those who vote him might well pay for it with their soul? Would this attract attention? Or imagine the Pope would announce the return – after a transition phase for training – of the Mass of the Ages as the Standard, leaving the NO to those priests too old or thick to (re) learn it. Would the world start to notice that something is happening? My answer is: yes it would, and the hounds of hell would be unleashed against the Church; but even if the secularists preferred to be in denial for a while (basically, the behaviour the Catholic hierarchy has been exhibiting for now several decades) the time will soon come when a wave of new bishops and new priests, a new assertiveness or (much better) an outright crusade would force them to notice that they only have the choice between fight and death; which is, by the way, what the Catholic hierarchy will understand very soon concerning their existence in more than some Western countries.
This is, therefore, why the Pope is ignored. This is a time whose needs will not be satisfied with eloquent preaching, but with a war cry to make the blood within every elected politician in the West freeze. This is what works, not speeches in the Vatican only picked up by Catholic agencies, blogs and magazines (some of the latter, of course, very critical of the Pope for being Catholic).
Alas, and said with all due respect, you can’t teach an old Pope new tricks, and I very much doubt Pope Benedict (whose later utterances seem to indicate he is becoming increasingly more aware of the enormous threat hovering over the Christian West) will ever be ready, let alone willing, to transform himself into a roaring lion.
We must hope his successor will be made of a stronger cloth, and will perhaps trade some of the intellectual finesse for a desire to really act (in the dioceses, in the seminaries, in the religious orders; in the eradication of heresy made without waiting a couple of decades; in the excommunication whenever possible of bad Catholic politicians and in the relentless, assertive confrontation of head of states and governments). Only an open fight, and a Pope ready to really fight it, can change the narrative and lead to the turning of the tide.
Catholicism is under attack and has been for some time, and the new generation of mini me antichrists like Obama and Andrew Cuomo are becoming more and more brazen in their hostility to Catholicism; they see very well they have really nothing to fear, and the fat Cardinal will invite them to a prestigious dinner for a photo-op and a good old guffawing between friends.
After all this, should we surprised that the Pope’s words are largely ignored?
I have written only some days ago about the different perceptions in traditionally Catholic, and mixed countries, of the probability of salvation.
Today I would like to spend some words on the different views about Purgatory. Those of my generation were taught (at school, at the Catechism, and from our grandmothers) to abandon every illusion that Purgatory would be a pleasant walk in the park. “Painful” and “long” were the adjectives you would hear more often linked to it, and even as a child you knew this was something to be taken seriously. Therefore, one can safely say that the same people who were equipped with a sane optimism about their and their beloved ones’ salvation were also those with a very sobering expectation concerning the consequences of human behaviour and of their innate sinfulness. I remember here, in a rather personal matter, my grandmother already in bed with cancer assuring me, a little child, she was ill of cancer because of her sins and she hoped to land in…. purgatory after death. We are talking here (without giving too many personal details) of one of those pious women, tutte casa e chiesa (all home and church) you think are not produced anymore (except they are I think, only in much smaller numbers). I do not remember my grandmother asking me to pray for her after her death, but I think it’s fair to say the thought must have been there, and my mother teaching me the “eternal rest” the very day my grandmother died and asking me to say it every day before I go to sleep could, I reflect now, perhaps have been in compliance with my grandmother’s asking (and I know my mother prays for her every day to this day herself).
In all this, you see the working of a traditional Catholic society, in which people took salvation extremely seriously but with a fundamental optimism, worked on their salvation until the very end without gloom and without presumption, with fear and trembling but also with childish abandonment, and knew death would not mean the end of the hard work.
What would a person in the same situation today think, I wonder. If they should happen to talk about death with their small nephews, they will probably never mention Purgatory and I doubt they would mention death at all. If they do, Grandma will probably said to be going to play with the angels, utterly destroying decades of devoted daily prayers for her. As the “promotion to heaven” is considered a given by her daughters, these would not even think of asking their children to pray for the dead, or to pray for the deceased themselves. If a permanence in Purgatory in envisaged, this will be something very short, mainly a formality. Masses for the dead will, obviously, not be needed. God will certainly be nice and not cause sufferance, surely? Rex tremendae majestatis is not even in their vocabulary, let alone in their hearts.
So here we have the modern conception of purgatory: no prayers for the dead, no devotions, no Mass attendance, no need to even be properly instructed, and we all go straight to Paradise – bar the few who will have to make a short pit stop in Purgatory and, probably, Hitler and Stalin – because we are nice people, very inclusive, and always so nice with everyone.
I’ll stick with my Grandmother, thank you very much.
Interesting article about theological courage as the Cardinal virtue of Fortitude. This article seems written by two Protestants, and it is at least a small consolation to know some Protestants share our worries about the world evil atheists are trying to engineer for us, and even notice the little the Church is doing against it.
The article even mentions mega churches whose pastors still are truthful in matter of sexual perversion; this surprised me greatly, then the echoes of the mega churches we receive here in Europe is of big “minimum common denominator” churches focusing on easy issues (optimism, prosperity, health, prosperity, happiness, prosperity and prosperity) but with one and a half eyes firmly set on the easy marketability of their own particular Gospel, and I for myself have never seen a mega church (of the five or six I could experience on European TV) I would call even halfway “militant”.
What is important is that there are growing appeals to have guts, and to have guts in our everyday lives; a theme yours truly touches rather often.
To make an example, twenty years ago it would have been, in my experience, difficult to even know of a colleague strongly opposed to abortion. Today, I would immediately be able to indicate to you two or three of them. Already knowing that intelligent people have a certain stance is enough to lead other people to think, without necessity of exaggerated, invasive or obnoxious behaviour (I thank God I am a Catholic whenever I see those people in Oxford Street preaching to… er, well, no one…).
This growing consciousness is part of the slow changes we are seeing in the matter of abortion, even in Europe, and this is the way to go until our clergy wakes up.
Which, unfortunately, might take a long time.
I am no friend of JP II’s papacy. If you ask me, he has supervised and administered a 25 year-long decay of Christianity, undermining the Church’s strength with unspeakable episcopal appointments and not seeing (or not caring for) the decomposition of Catholic instruction all over the West; the last phenomenon, a slow but effective cancer whose effects we are experiencing now, poisoned an entire generation of Catholics who live and go to vote with only vague ideas about what they are supposed to believe and why. As a result, Catholicism has been slowly withering in the Western world, whilst the growth in Asia and Africa and the media successes of the Pontiff (full airports, and “icon status”) lulled the Vatican in the illusion everything is, more or less, fine.
Still, looking back at JP II’s pontificate, one can see an area where his work has been, at least in words, persistent and very counter-cultural: abortion. John Paul’s insisted returning on the issue did in time leave traces, and the slogan of the “culture of death” has now become mainstream. It is impossible not to notice that the slow swing in the abortion battle was made possible also through the contribution of an honest soul who, by all his shortcoming as a Pontiff, knew how to be stubborn on issues particularly near to his heart.
In my eyes, the times are ripe for the start of a second crusade: the War On Sodomy. If a Pope were courageous enough as to put the matter square in the middle of the sociopolitical debate, we would not have to wait many years before the entire planet starts to listen.
A Pope insistently pointing out to the total opposition of Sodomy and Christianity, and to the utter and total impossibility for everyone who aids and abets or even condones sodomy to call himself a Christian (not a Catholic, mind; a Christian) would certainly cause a huge uproar among the blaspheming classes, but would inevitably attract, in due course, the attention of the Catholic masses.
It takes time before the masses move; what you notice is rather a small shift in perception, due to natural causes as generations themselves shift, and to the natural tendencies of most to follow what they think most think, confusing error with wisdom whenever the error is widely spread. In order to shake the masses from their torpor you need a kind of shock treatment, a shift of paradigm able to bring the world to attention in a relatively short time.
What we need is a roaring Church rather than a meowing one; a Church ready to give battle rather than timid counsel; a Church not shy in letting their opponents understand once she has chosen an enemy, she will go on until his complete political annihilation (Obama and Andrew Cuomo immediately come to mind). This can ,very probably, be done in the smart way without even losing tax privileges, though tax privileges should never be in the way of Christianity and I do not think tax consideration should really be an issue. Never did a courageous Church lack conversions, martyrs, and the necessary means.
A roaring Pope starting a true war on Sodomy would in time not fail to shift the public perception on the matter. This war should not only be wages with words through encyclical letters, radio and TV speeches, tweets if he likes, and so on; but more importantly it should be founded on actual actions like the appointments of only the most rigidly orthodox as bishops, the purging of seminaries from every heretical tendency, a massive cleanup among dissenting nuns and friars, and an aggressive intervention in all political debates involving Christian values. In just a few years, sodomy would soon be seen again as a disgusting, abominable perversion that is just the epitome of everything that is wrong with Godlessness, instead of a strange but very fashionable quirk of people unjustly persecuted by bigots. The narrative of the progressive citizen who “loves his gays” and feels so inclusive and tolerant works because the progressive citizen isn’t told he is an idiot bent for hell, and even our prelates seem unable to miss any one occasion to say how oh so caring they are.
What we need now is a frontal attack, not inclusive waffle.
One quarter of the English Catholic clergy signs a letter, and be assured in Westminster and Downing Hill there are preoccupied faces already. If there was an all out attack be assured the meetings at Number 10 would have as only issue out to get out of the mess and try to save face. They are scared of a couple of perverts’ lobbies, knowing the Church is out for their scalp would scare them witless.
We have Cardinals inviting enemies of Christianity to prestige dinners instead, and even when there is a reaction (see sodomarriage in England), this is too little, and with people with no credibility whatever in the matter. The best example is Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, a man already compromised with so-called civil partnership and the least fit to tell us why we should upheld Christian values.
Some of the most most impressive statements made by speakers on occasion of the March For Life in Washington yesterday:
“How many of you were born after 1973?” Kristina Garza, leader of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, asked the crowd. Almost every hand went up. Garza nodded. Young people, she said, were conceived “with a target on our backs. If you were born after 1973, there were people out there who wanted to kill you for money.”
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said this generation has grown up around technology that makes it impossible to deny the humanity of the unborn. “We’ve seen our brothers and sisters on ultrasound,” she said. “We’ve Googled abortion and seen the bloody images.”
“Talk about abortion everywhere you go. Do not shut up until we’ve abolished abortion. When someone tells you to stop talking about abortion, say, ‘Join with me to stop abortion and I’ll be more than happy to.’”
Another speaker, Kellly Clinger, told the crowd about her own abortion – an abortion she tried to keep secret from everyone, including her doctor. When she developed an infection after the procedure, however, her secret was revealed. “I didn’t tell my doctor I had an abortion,” she said, “but when I awoke after an invasive exam to see what was wrong with me, my doctor was in tears. When I asked her why, she said, ‘Because I found hands and feet inside of you.’”
It will take time and effort, but I have no doubts in my heart one day will come, possibly still in my lifetime, when people realise abortion is murder, full stop.
The Heretics Reblog
Martin Luther, prominent heretic of the XVI century, believed in Mary Every-Virgin.
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact
Ulrich Zwingli, another prominent heretic of the XVI century, expressed himself on the perpetual virginity of Mary as follows:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.
I do not have texts concerning that other prominent heretic of the time, John Calvin, but I am informed from an EWTN link (whence the other quotations also come) that he upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Now let us see what a prominent heretic of the XXI century, Gerhard Mueller, thinks about the…
View original post 150 more words