Daily Archives: February 3, 2013
Interesting blog post from His Hermeneuticalness about the way UK Muslims are living the proposed changed in legislation concerning same-sex marriage.
You can read the details in the article, but what I would like to do is to add, as always, some spice of my own as follows:
1. The UK Muslim community has been strangely silent up to now. It is difficult to say what is happening, but I suspect some of them wish for the Christian West to slide down the already very slippery slope of corruption and degradation, and others (particularly local community leaders) do not want to embarrass the Labour party – who are now officially on the fence after the uproar, but clearly favour the measure – who is often their political referent. If the religious communities start to wake up, though, this might get very interesting, then….
2. … whilst Catholics can be shot at without any trouble by anyone who wants to feel “progressive”, in the UK Muslims are more protected than the Panda; therefore, if they start to seriously complain about their religious freedom you won’t see many champagne socialists crying foul, bigot, and so on.
If you think their voice has no weight, think again. In 2006, an utterly idiotic legislation proposed by the Labour Government foresaw the banning of every book containing “homophobic” remarks and other “discriminatory” content. The Labour people then in power were obviously stupid, but when it was pointed out to them that not only the Bible, but the Koran would have been then officially banned, they listened and the initiative was heavily modified and, in fact, watered down to the point of harmlessness. I seriously doubt the Christians would have been enough to avoid the adoption of the measure, and am persuaded that it was Labour’s fear to touch the Muslim electorate to make them think thrice. The same happened with the several attempt to change name to Christmas, initiatives which generally fail when the Muslim community says they actually like Christmas and do not care for “Winter Lights”, or the like…
There is a problem, though….
3. … and it is that in my experience, Muslims in the London area are often rather secularised themselves, and whilst a tiny minority has a fundamentalist outlook the vast majority – at least among the sufficiently educated ones – seems not to care much. What I think happens is that the fundamentalist types reject the West together with Christianity, and the Westernised types (more or less) reject religion as they embrace the West. This isn’t good on an occasion like this, because it will limit the ability of the religious communities to make their voice heard.
Still, I hope the Muslims will start making some noise soon, then this would be one of the very few occasions multiculturalism really has some use.
Again, I do not have any hope whatsoever for next week’s vote, but the vote will, if the opponents are smart, only the start of the serious confrontation.
The machine took a very long time in moving, probably because of the little enthusiasm of most UK bishops (led by Archbishop Nichols, a man who favours and openly defends so-called “civil partnerships” and who has not been defrocked for reasons unknown to me; you might ask the Vatican…) for something as unpleasant and uncomfortable like Christianity. Still, there is some movement now, and the ferment is palpable.
Next week should be seen as the beginning of the war, not the decisive battle. There’s still much to be done, and the vote in the Lord’s may well go the way of the Lord’s reform.
Be not discouraged. Call or write to your MP and let him feel your anger. Let him feel it rather than writing the usual polite disagreement. If he dares to vote with Satan, he has lost you forever. Not if the other candidate is Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot will you ever vote for him again. You’ll say this to all your relatives, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and association members. You will never forget.
Let him know. Be assured you are not the one. Let him think if he has a brain, and be scared if he – as it more probable – hasn’t.
Nota bene: this blog post was written before, but scheduled to be published after the preceding one. The blog post before this has the latest info.
We knew that “Chameleon” Cameron had failed to carry the party with himself on this disgusting issue, but what has happened today is only one step short from the ousting of the Prime Minister.
Only days before the vote, the situation is as follows:
1. 180 Tory MP seem ready to vote against their own PM. Six whips are among them, and four members of the Cabinet.
It is astonishing to me how a party can be so blind they are unable to understand that the moment to sack the PM is now, not after the certain defeat in 2015. Cameron has proved he doesn’t care not only for Christianity, but for his own party base. This is something you invariably get to pay at the ballot.
2. The call for postponement of the vote “after 2015” (which means, sine die) made today from more than 20 former and present constituency chairmen is a serious, serious signal. In this country, constituency chairmen are influential people, but at the same time they always have the temperature about what is happening among party members. When they say that “resignations from the party are beginning to multiply” (and this is, mind, before the vote…) this is something that even an heathenish cretin must begin to take seriously.
3. The last, public slap from the PM is in the way the chairmen describe the entire procedure: no adequate consultation, and a legislative measure pushed through in a way they define “extremely distasteful”. Make no mistake, the party base is enraged, and there’s no way the PM can silence or ignore this anymore.
Pathetic Mr Hague (a man whose positions have “evolved” over the matter; I won’t write the adjective for such behaviour) today tries to defend the indefensible by saying if they do not vote now, the party will have to deal with the issue at the next election. As if the last chances of winning the next election wouldn’t depend on exactly this matter…
Hague and Cameron have the unspeakable arrogance of believing the party is now making some rumours to appease the old ladies, but once the vote has passed the matter will be soon forgotten, and the country will happily march to vote an idiot without faith, without principles, without ideas, without any trace of Conservatism and with a face astonishingly similar to a pair of buttocks (which fits, by the way) back to Number Ten.
Fools, both of them.
What is becoming increasingly clear, is that this issue is going to play a crucial role in the years to come, unless a couple of millions of over-sixty decide to leave this vale of tears all at the same time. The matter will also remain in the public attention, because the long parliamentary procedure and the increasingly more realistic prospects of foundering in the Upper House will make of this – bar collective insanity among conservative.. Conservatives – a very heated battle.
I have written only some days ago what I think are the real motives of the Prime Minister. It would appear more and more members of the party (and of core voters) seem to disagree the PM’s urges should come before basic Christianity.
It is still astonishing to me how they do not make two and two and get rid of the man altogether. They are very possibly doomed already without this disgusting abetting of abominations. If they go on with it, they are really done for.
Archbishop Mueller really can’t stay away from journalists. Not only does he like them, but they like him. They sense the man is always good for something politically incorrect, or controversial, or simply short-tempered. He always delivers, and they know it.
This time, Archbishop Mueller has given an interview to the German so-called prestigious German weekly Die Zeit, reported in English by Vatican Insider. As Vatican Insider is part of La Stampa, a highly professional Italian daily newspaper, I will not check that the English rendition faithfully corresponds to the main points of the German text.
Yours truly, who likes Yogurt inordinately (though he prefers Weihenstephan to Mueller) would like here to make some comments himself. The points of the interview I’d like to say two words about are the following ones:
1. Systematic media attacks on the Catholic church.
The Archbishop doesn;t mince words (he never does, anyway) and compares the anti-Catholic atmosphere created in many Western countries to anti-Jewish pogroms. Now this is Germany, and in germany when you compare yourself to the persecution of the Jews it means you are really angry and people have to pay attention to what you say, because of the all-present Vergangenheit, the past. This Vergangenheit is a bit of a joker you can employ on pretty much everything: illiberal laws, the persecution of Kreuz.Net, and the creeping Nazi attitude of German homosexualists and their friends.
The Cardinal points it out in general, but does not say what in wrong in particular. In a country whose biggest Catholic site has been more or less forced to silence by the Nazi attitude of politicians, media and homosexualists, this is not good enough. Alas, it seems the Archbishop wants to play victim without mentioning the bigger victims, because he happens not to like them.
2. No to so-called same-sex unions.
Same yogurt here. Read to the translation of the Archbishop’s words:
“It is impossible for the Catholic Church to accept a relationship between people of the same sex, as such relations cannot in any way be considered equivalent to marriage,”
Notice he doesn’t say such “relationships” are evil, perverted, satanic. He says they are (and I quote) “not equivalent”. This is exactly like saying that the Church does not accept pears being called apples, because pears aren’t apples. Then Church officials complain they are attacked. But it is so surprising they are attacked as backwards and bigots, if they even renounce to say why they are so opposed to perversion? If I were to tell you all day that you simply should not eat pears, would that be enough?
I also notice the Church in Germany has kept, in practice, shtum when the German Government legislated against marriage with the civil partnerships, and that the Archbishop himself never openly attacks those colleagues of him, like the infamous Cardinal Woelki, who express themselves in favour of such abominations. One gets the impression Mueller is rather willing to bully the SSPX, but not so aggressive when his own colleagues and countrymen are involved; and that in this he fully reflects the attitude of the German clergy.
3. Priest celibacy.
For what it’s worth, I give full notes to the Archbishop here. He points out not only to the role of the priest and why celibacy is important, but also makes a very counter-cultural statement, that sexual activity (outside of marriage) is not a natural necessity. Bravo.
4. Criticism of the “dialogue” between lay people and priests in Germany
This is one of those things people who live outside of German can not even easily grasp. Germany is a country where the laity think they must “dialogue” with the clergy about issues like (you got it) so-called priestesses, and the clergy think they must engage in the “dialogue” with the laity and discuss those issues again and again. Come on, this is not even Catholicism anymore.
The Archbishop points out to this, and adds he thinks this must stop. Again, kudos to him.
5. (Umpteenth) Warning to the SSPX
This is another (predictable) serving of yogurt turned sour. It truly seems the Archbishop can’t open his mouth without expressing his anger at the SSPX, an anger which has personal besides Church-political reasons. It also seems to contradict what the Archbishop had said previously, then if memory serves (and it serves) it was Archbishop Mueller himself who declared the talks failed and the door closed, whilst Archbishop Di Noia insists in saying the door is still open (if you drink the poison of V II, that is). Now Mueller takes Di Noia’s position, “we are still waiting for your answer”, but his attitude is diametrically opposite to Di Noia’s one.
I frankly this the Archbishop needs a reality checks if he thinks this kind of message will have any effect whatsoever on the SSPX. More probably, he knows it won’t, but he says it anyway. It might have been wiser to say that there is a man specifically appointed to the task (Archbishop Di Noia) and he would therefore prefer not to touch on the subject. This would have been, methinks, the more diplomatic and intelligent answer, and the Archbishop would have looked much better without giving away an inch. But again, he is short-tempered.
The “Deserve Victory” reblog.
The Obedience Reblog
Reading on the Internet here and there one gets the impression the SSPX depends on the Vatican’s goodwill to survive. The reasoning goes along the lines of “the SSPX should take what is offered now, because the Holy Father’s patience is now rapidly depleting, and he is the last chance for them to reach an agreement, after which they will be crushed/declared schismatic/ordered to disband”.
It seems to me this kind of comment is made in ignorance of what the SSPX is all about. Let me explain.
The idea at the basis of the SSPX is that the fidelity to the teaching of the Church comes before the fidelity to the Pope. Whilst generally the two coincide, and obedience to the Pope is due every time fidelity to the Church is not in question, when the Pope insists in wanting something that is against the teaching, then the faithful find…
View original post 630 more words