Mirror, Mirror On The Wall: Who Is The Gayest Of Them All?
I have not written anything about the new Cardinals, because little has come to my screen, up to now, concerning them.
But if this chap is indicative of the general quality, we are in for a very rough ride.
The new Cardinal-designate Dew is such a Kasperite he should get the t-shirt. Nothing in what he says would let you think he is a Catholic. He sounds like a Presbyterian wannabe-bishop, bitching and whining around as he reflects on what shade of pink would make him look better.
We do not know about the sexual orientation of this walking disgrace. But the emotional “argument” of the man is so effeminate that one truly wonders.Are there no men left among the leftists?
Firstly, note the expression, apparently used already as early as 2005:
“the scandal of hunger for eucharistic food”.
This is a purely emotional appeal letting the Church appear an oppressive institution unjustly starving the faithful. “Scandal”, “Hunger” and “food”, three words with undisputed high emotional content, are here abused in the most stupid of ways in order to promote a sacrilegious agenda.
If this is the right logic, Catholicism is no more. Better said: if this is the right logic, Catholicism has been a fraud for 2,000 years: an oppressive religion bent on starving the faithful rather than encouraging them on the path to virtue. I am sure the Presbyterian Mr Dew is fully aware of this; he just doesn’t care, or perhaps he even believes it.
The purely marketing-based, emotionally charged, whining and bitchy approach of this man to the job he is supposed to do is just as infuriating. The non-existent logic of the chap is explained as follows:
When the bishops were preparing for the synod, they had a “huge” response, he said: “25 percent of the people responding were nonpracticing Catholics and the message was that ‘It’s impossible when we’re told that because we’re using contraceptives we’re intrinsically evil or that we’re living in an irregular situation — the language is so negative that it doesn’t help us.’
“So, my intervention was: Let’s not be concentrating on rules, but looking for language that helps people and encourages people in their journey toward God.”
This is so gay it runs already for the Elton Prize 2015.
As he sees things, the problem is not that the behaviour is sinful. The problem is that the language is negative! Therefore, we must change the language! But look: if you tone down the language you will destroy the very message, because the harsh language is there exactly to point out to the gravity of the behaviour!
‘course, says the man. It is so obvious to him that the biggest problem is that… there are rules! Let’s not be concentrating on rules, then!
How someone who cannot even hear that his behaviour is “intrinsically disordered” and get all in a tizzy even at being told that his situation is “irregular” (“irregular”? “Irregular”, my foot! Concubinage! Grave scandal! Mortal sin! Satan at the door!) would, then, be encouraged to abandon it once he is told that he will not be told anything unpleasant to him and no one will concentrate on rules is beyond me. Only an idiot with no experience at all of life, or an effeminate priest, could ever come to this kind of conclusion.
It’s not only that this is a complete capitulation and renunciation to basic Christianity. It is that the entire thing is made in such an emotionally effeminate way that even the reading of it induces vomit.
The “hunger”; the “food”; the “negative language” that “doesn’t help us”.
Get a pair.
I cannot avoid imagining that Francis went to his luxuriously appointed but oh so humble entire hotel floor and asked: “Mirror, mirror on the wall: who is the gayest of them all?”
“It’s John Dew, the Archbishop of Wellington!”, the mirror promptly answered.
“I am surprised you even asked”, I think it added.
—-
If this chap is in any way representative of the average quality of the Cardinals appointed by Francis, I can only conclude that TMAHICH’s dagger is now aimed at the very heart of the Church.
St Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
M
Share this:
Posted on January 6, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged Cardinal Dew, communion for adulterers. Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
As a New Zealander, let us say that he was lauded to the skies by the local press, who make the UK press (or the US press) look conservative.
Gay? unsure. Stupid and Spineless… more like it.
Yes, I agree. Probably somewhat straight.
I mean “gay” as in “the Toyota Prius is Gay”.
I generally use “faggot” (more rarely, “homo”) to indicate the perverted sodomite.
Not surprised the chap is now quite in fashion…
M
The Toyota Prius is as camp as a row of Guardsmen: agree
I don’t know why a row of guardsmen is camp, but to me a Prius is the embodiment of gayness, at least when driven by a man. It’s up there with the wide v-neck shirt and the tubular jeans.
M
Another example of antipodean moral laxity- I am an Australian,thus a citizen of a country that excels in moral and spiritual laxity
I just found this:http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-laments-gay-marriage-approval-in-new-zealand/
(and yes, I am hoping against hope!)
You are hoping against hope.
This intervention is better than nothing, but it is a “defence” in which words like God and Christianity do not appear.
One of the effects of this rapid decay is that a gay bishop seems less gay because once he dared to meeow some words that vaguely resembled Chritianity.
M
Remind me again what the canonical penalty for knocking the living crap out of this guy would be? In my world, the only real answer would be a good old fashioned ass kicking.Just saying..
It’s a mortal sin. As a bishop, he enjoy physical inviolability.
The way I understand it, the way our smart ancestors dealt with the problem was to defrock these heretics.
Then they could be put at the stake without any concern.
M
This anonymous comment I read hits the nail on the head –
“The more I think about this, the more scared I get. There is only one explanation for picking Cardinals from obscure places like Tonga, that has a Catholic population of 13,000. These cardinals have no paper trail. We don’t know anything about them. If Pope Francis selected a whole bunch of well known heretics of Cupich and Forte, he could have provoked a revolt. So he selected heretics that are unknown, he gets heretics and avoids a revolt. How did Pope Francis pick these men? These men are probably all part of the underground homosexual mafia of priests and bishops. I am sure Francis has been asking around for names of homosexuals in obscure places who have no paper trail and keep a low profile. They all probably have had a homosexual relationship with one of his buddies on a trip to Rome. The average homosexual has something like 500 relationships in their lifetime.”
I think this is more than a bit far-fetched.
If these cardinals are subversive on, say, communion for adulterers, they’ll have to deal as such and Francis will have exactly the same problem. The Synod is in October, and there will be nowhere to hide.
The question of how many of them are closeted homos is far more interesting, though…
M
The scandal is bishops, priests such as himself promoting mortal sin and sacrilege of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament! Lord, have mercy!! Smite thy enemies!
I reread his remarks, and this jumped out: ““Marriage is the essential human institution that predates religion and state…”
If he is trying to use a natural law argument, this is ham-fisted for sure. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought marriage was a divine institution whose origins are revealed in the first book of sacred scripture!
Exactly. Marriage is a divine institution which is the fundamental blueprint of social organisation. Whilst it is true that it predates statual organisations, it does not predate religion as there was never a time predating religion.
The man sounds like an atheist, somewhat socially conservative man.
M
While you make some good points about his theological weakness, your consistent characterization of Dew as effeminate is a non-point and completely irrelevant. I do not care if he appears effeminate in his mannerisms. What counts is his theology and how he lives it out. The guy could look and talk like John Wayne, but if his theology is incredibly liberal-leaning, it doesn’t really matter does it? Furthermore, you seem to be saying that no woman (most of whom are of course effeminate) is capable of being theologically stringent; that they are somehow naturally weaker when it comes to their faith just because they are women. I don’t think that’s a position you really want to take.
I do not care what you do not care for.
An effeminate man could be effeminate even if theologically stringent, and I would still criticise the effeminacy. But in this case – and in general – the effeminacy is given by the fact that the man uses emotional (non) arguments.
By their nature, women tend to be more emotional, and therefore less, as you say, theologically stringent. There will be exceptions, but that’s what it is. One of the reasons, for sure, for which Jesus kept women out of the priesthood.
M
The best compliment I ever received was,”You think like a man.” (I am a woman.)
Beautifully said.
Unfortunately, there are many men around who would be told “You think like a woman” and deem it a compliment.
The sexes are complementary in that too, that in women a natural sweetness of character and inclination tends, if not carefully watched, to err on the side of goodness. Many women are aware of this, but there is no denying that the influence becomes unavoidable in women with no solid Christian foundation. I remain persuaded that if women had not had the right to vote, we would not have had abortion legislation. But as Christianity progressively lost its grip on Western societies, women became easy pray to emotional appeals. We see the same happening with “gays” and, in a not so distant future, possibly euthanasia.
M
No, women are feminine, not effeminate. Effeminacy does not reside in the truly feminine. Effeminacy is a false, effected quality where it does not naturally belong, in a man.
Well said.
M