Daily Archives: March 3, 2013
From Bioedge, something as tragically funny as the modern word of “empowered” women’s right is:
A fascinating case is unfolding in Israel pitting a anonymous sperm donor against a woman who demands his sperm. The arguments are worthy of a novel – or at least an afternoon soap opera.
As reported in Haaretz, Galit (not her real name), a 39-year-old single mother living in Florida, has conceived a daughter with the sperm of an Israeli donor. She purchased five more samples and stored them in a sperm bank. However, when she decided to conceive another child, she was told that the man had withdrawn his consent. After a religious conversion he felt remorseful about allowing his sperm to be used by a woman he did not know to conceive a child he did not love.
Galit was outraged at this injustice and launched a lawsuit. Her daughter must have a biological full-sibling, she contends. “It is out of the question for a sperm donor to change his mind,” she told Haaretz. “I planned a family, and then, one fine day, after donating sperm – and who knows how many children he has already – he changes his mind. He changed his way of life, but what about my way of life?”
The High Court of Justice was sympathetic, but supported the sperm donor’s right of autonomy. “One can understand the viewpoint of a person who, after thinking it over, reached the conclusion – which he had not entertained when he decided, for various reasons, to donate sperm – that he does not want children to be born from his sperm, because he did not choose them or their mother, has no ties with them and will not raise them.”
Galit begs to differ. “All through the judgment the justices refer to his feelings, but no one mentioned my feelings. I am a mother raising a daughter alone.” She plans to appeal the ruling.
One would almost feel sympathetic for the struggle of our heroine, the single-mother who complains she is a single mother but wants to be a single mother of two (at taxpayer’s expense, I wonder?), and God forbid her sister should not have a sibling with the same genetic sperm donor. She must be able to tell her sons that they are both the sons of the same man they have never seen. I mean, this is really important. Clearly a human right.
I have tears in my eyes. I’ll have to try to stop laughing…
Think of this: she is bitching with the father of her children without having ever managed to even see him…
“Mom, do Jessica and I have the same father?”
” ‘course you do, Janice”.
“And where is he, mom?”
“erm, ahh, well…”
Brave new world…
I have not written anything about the O’Brien “inappropriate conduct” thing, because it seemed to me there was much of allegation and private revenge, and you never know…
This evening I read the following statement from the Cardinal:
“I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.
Basically, the man was on the wrong job for his entire career.
Now, one can only praise the intellectual honesty of the Cardinal for having the guts to attack homosexuals behaviour whilst being afflicted by homosexual tendencies; but for heaven’s sake, why does a man like that decide to become priest?
I always had an ambivalent attitude towards O’Brien, as he was conservative in his moral outlook, but not concerning the liturgy. He had, though, definitely fallen from grace (at least in this blog) after his extremely stupid interview about priests who might find it fine to have the option to marry (to marry as priests, he meant; not to be ordained priests after they married).
It is good that such scandals happen. It is good that the Church wakes up to the filth infiltrating her up to almost the very top, and another fruit of the immense tragedy called Vatican II, which cause a number of homosexuals to be admitted in seminaries, with the consequences we see today. O’Brien was born in 1938 and might have been there before Vatican II, though; still, it is clear V II made things much, much worse.
I am curious to know how many in the higher echelons knew, and did nothing.
I am also curious to see now what Stonewall will say.
They gave him the prize “bigot of the year”.
Turns out he was one of them.
This shocking piece of news reaches us from Australia, where two hopefully hallucinated ethicists (unfortunately, both of them with Italian sounding names) talk of after birth abortion like I talk of the necessity to cull badgers.
The mentality behind these two satanic minds is that at times a child is born with circumstances “which would have justified abortion”, and in that case the abortion should be justified after birth.
Now, I do not know of many circumstances in Australia in which abortion is not justified. It is probably on demand, after going through the obligatory motions. Therefore, the Nazi argument shows its astonishing cruelty already at the start.
Still, the two “ethicists” (hell must be full of them, I think) seem to restrict, in their compassion, the circumstances in which abortion would have been “justified”. Say, the child has Down syndrome. Then, it is “justified” to abort it. Therefore, if after birth it turns out the baby has Down Syndrome they will say to him “we are sorry, chap, but you shouldn’t have been admitted entrance, therefore we’ll have to, erm, ah, oh, well, abort you”.
Notice also the two well know that in Australia the costs for the families of children with Down Syndrome are largely paid and therefore not an issue, but their point is that:
“such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
It is, therefore, an unbearable burden for the State to pay for the welfare of children with Down Syndrome.
Seriously, these people have the brown shirts in the closet, and no mistake.
More in general, though, I must make here the usual considerations about the logic of all this.
The two brown-shirted “ethicists” are, in fact, only thinking to end the abortionist mentality. If one is allowed to kill a baby in the womb, why not outside of it? Is there anyone in a state of sobriety who does not know inside the womb is a perfectly formed baby?
Monsters like the two disgraceful offspring of Italian ancestors therefore do nothing else than point out to the utter monstrosity of abortion.
Still, even abortionists generally try to at least appear compassionate.
These two here think like Heinrich Himmler on a bad day.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
The German heretical church is truly on a roll. Not that they had ever much fear of the German Pope, but they seem most comfortable without a Pope, at all.
The last one of these disgraceful muppets now making an ass of himself is the notorious Cardinal Kasper, who with the typical levity of the German clergy proposes women deacon.
Note that the Cardinal does not want to lose his job, and therefore makes a couple of distinguo.
The “deaconesses” wouldn’t receive holy orders, only a blessing. So, they are deaconesses, but they don’t have holy orders. Clearly, either the difference would be totally lost on 99.99 of the faithful, or the cry would rise about the “discrimination” of the “deacons”, who are deacons but can’t receive holy orders “just because they are women”.
Total stupidity, and willed confusion. “Let us give the progressives what they want by calling it that way”, the Cardinal thinks.
How genial. Must be Vatican II.
One can apply the same (assumed) logic of the Cardinal and propose, ahem, “women priest” à la Kasper. These would, though, not have holy orders, only a blessing. So we would have the deacons who have orders and those who haven’t, and the priest who have orders and those who haven’t. Wonderful, and so conducive to a right understanding of the role of the priesthood and the significance of holy orders.
Think of it: this man will soon fly to Rome to elect the new Pope. In theory, he could even be elected (for five days. Damn!) .
I’ll stop here, because you wouldn’t want to read what I might write.
Cardinal Kasper is an appointment of Blessed Pope John Paul II.
Brilliant article from Randy Engel concerning the astonishing affirmation of William Levada that
“By nature homosexuality is a not a predatory activity, it is a sexual activity that the Catholic Church does not condone.”
“pedophile priests are violating the sanctity and purity of young people.”
Mrs Engel (the author of “The Rite of Sodomy”, so she might know a thing or two about the subject) disagrees in refreshingly blunt terms.
I quote from her intervention:
The Homosexual Collective recruits like the Army. Individual homosexuals proselytize and seduce new recruits. For the homosexual, every male is a potential homosexual, either overt, latent, or suppressed.
In the words of psychiatrist Dr. Samuel Nigro, “homosexuals colonize and recruit as if by ‘binary fission’ both in and out of the workplace to produce a state of ‘homotoxicity.'” At the collective level, he says, “Homosexuals infiltrate and metastasize, taking over any and every group possible by a compounding of their cognitive defects.”
Is [the CardinaL] ignorant of the fact that pederasty has been the most enduring and universal form of homosexuality in the recorded history of mankind?
Has he ever asked himself, why the Homosexual Collective consistently lobbies for lower and lower age-of-consent laws or their removal altogether?
The author’s conclusion is obvious, but still worth mentioning:
It seems to me that if he cannot bring himself to face the truth about sodomites and sodomy, then he should do faithful Catholics everywhere a big favor. He should enjoy his retirement years out of the media spotlight and keep his mouth shut on the subject of homosexuality.
If I may add one or two observations of my own, I would like to also say the following:
1) The Cardinal has had a happy life if he has never been approached by homos seeking whom they might pervert. I can say from personal experience their attitude is predatory all right, to the point of not being able to renounce to an attempt even when they know perfectly well it is not going to lead to anything, or to lead to a punch in the nose. Perversion breeds obsession.
2) The Cardinal hasn’t paid much attention in seminary. If he had, he would know that sins are such because they offend God, not (necessarily) because they harm someone. Consequently, the gravity of the sin is measured by the gravity of the offence made to God, not by the age of the victim. The gravity of the offence of sodomy cannot be put into question, since even the Cardinal must know it is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance.
It says something of the state of the Church that even Cardinals now seem to think “do not harm” is the basis of Christian thinking.
Let us say once again this is the man Pope Benedict (emeritus) placed at the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
O Lord, please give us a strong Pope…