Daily Archives: September 2, 2021
And it came to pass that the Supreme Court provisionally left alive a Texan law forbidding abortion from when a heartbeat is detectable, that is, around six weeks. Six weeks is good, then, unless and until technology advances, most women will discover too late that they are pregnant. One can also see a powerful argument in the collective imagination here: when a heartbeat is detected, how is this not a baby? I know, life begins at conception; but very many who don’t believe it will find it difficult to resist the heartbeat argument.
I have no illusion that this Texan law will survive the scrutiny to come, as I can’t imagine that jellyfishes like Kavanaugh and that traitorous other woman will find the fortitude to make the right choice here (a fairly easy one btw, as they could state that modern technology makes things known today that were, officially, not grasped in January 1973). Still, this decision is important.
It seems to me that there is a growing pressure against abortion, and that all these legislative measures officially doomed to fail are slowly but surely chewing the Nazi Wall away. In the end, the stolen 2020 elections have made clear to everybody in the most brutal way what everybody with a brain already knew: the important, society-changing decisions of the Supreme Court are eminently political. The Justices pretended that the Constitution gives the right to abort and to live in abominable circumstances because that was the perceived climate of the day among the urban elites and the press, and the Justices were either all too willing to go with it, or too cowardly to oppose it.
In the next years we might see something like that, but in reverse. As the pressure mounts to put some limit on the senseless genocide, the Supreme Court might, at some point, pick some excuse to do just that, whilst claiming to stay within precedent. In time, when the climate is further improved, Roe vs Wade could be ditched with some other argument picked to hide what the Justices very well know: the times, they are a’ changing’, again.
The Evil Side used this tactics to promote perversion and, at least in other countries, abortion.
I think we should use the same tactics to oppose both perversion and abortion.
A Bishop in Spain, who even fancied himself a conservative one, “retired” at the tender age of 53. The reasons? He “fell in love with a woman for the first time” and “wants to do it right”.
Let’s talk about this a bit, shall we?
Firstly: if a priest (even more so a Bishop) leaves the Priesthood and starts his little romantic tragedy with a woman, why is he allowed to draw a pension? Why is he not defrocked and deprived of everything, food, money, roof? And what the heck is a pension at 53?
Secondly: how can such children be allowed to become priests, let alone Bishops? Has he not been told in the Seminary that forever means for ever, and no circumstances of life allow exceptions to this?
Third: how does this guy, at his age and in his position, dare to put his personal feelings before his duties and before Christ?
Fourth: in which effeminate, perverted universe does a Bishop think that abandoning post and deserting Christ is “doing it right?” Right compared to what, peddling drugs?
Fifth (leading from fourth): in what deranged Francisplanet the guy thinks that all possible actions (double life, retirement) include his following his juvenile lurv, and no option includes abandoning the relationship, asking to be moved elsewhere, possibly to Chile, and, in general, behave like a damn man?
Sixth: how can this grown up boy think as if lurv were something that happens to one, like the flu? How many times has he consented to his desire and allowed it to grow to the point of depriving him of reason and manliness? A priest needs to cultivate his love for Christ and the Church, to which he has already consecrated, donated his entire life, to the point of getting a new name to signify the death of the old man. This guy has just no right to fall in love. He does not belong to himself anymore, but to Christ. His heart is not his own anymore, to give away as he pleases.
Seventh: how can this adolescent pussycat not recognise that there is nothing good, nothing holy, nothing chaste in a woman leading a man belonging to Christ to such a situation? Unless (which is nowadays unlikely) the love is unrequited and the poor woman is nothing to do with Boy Bishop falling in love all of his own, how can he think that anything good at all will come out of this? How can he not see that Satan has used the woman as a means to have both those souls for him?
Eight, and last: what king of age is this one, that points one to seven need to be made in the first place? But no, expect the usual celebration of lurv, and this little boy called courageous and the like.
If these are the “conservative” Bishop, it’s further demonstration that it is not enough for a priest to be V II “conservative”. One must be traditionalist.
Then traditionally, this whole post would not have been necessary.