Search Results for nichols

Reblog: Vincent “Quisling” Nichols At Work

Vincent “Quisling” Nichols at work.

Father Nicholson Is The Perfect Nazi

I generally devote to Father Nicholson the attention I dedicate to the blathering Dumbos: zero. I would love to continue with this, in my eyes, very sensible praxis; but Father Nicholson has left such a pool of stinking piss all over the floor, that the very pungent smell compels me to say a word or two about this disgraceful, intellectually challenged man, a disgrace for the habit he wears.

As many of you will know, Father Nicholson has not only compared the SSPX to satanists; he has maintained that the SSPX-promoted reparation mass for the black mass in Oklahoma is… worse than the black mass itself!

Stop here, and calm yourself. Do you generally get angry at the senseless blathering of a child? Thought not…

Let us first see where Father Dumdum is leading us here.

The Pontiff Emeritus has lifted the excommunication on people who are, in their acts, worse than Satanists; the Vatican has structures devoted to the dealing with people worse than Satanists; the Vatican has declared that these people, worse than Satanists, are in communion, though they embarrassingly (for them) tend to call this communion “imperfect”; a Cardinal has received people worse than Satanists only a few days ago, and released a very gentle communiqué about the matter.

I could go on, but you get the gist: Father Nicholson is just plain thick.

But let us now try to start a journey in the workings of this child's brain, and discover the reason for his extremely stupid affirmation, and childish pooping outside of the WC.

The man is, at his core, a Nazi. Better: he is a Nazi child. In his little mind, obedience to the Pope is all that matters, and there is nothing demanding from us a higher allegiance, on earth or in heaven. This is 100% Führerprinzip, and Father Nicholson has devoted to it all the scarce neurons at his command; with the smelling result I have just described.

These people may be stupid, but they are dangerous. Particularly so, when the clerical garb they wear induces other not-too-bright people to give credence to their absurd blathering. This is the most extreme form of clericalism you can find; a de facto deification of the Pope perfectly identical to the Nazi de facto deification of Adolf Hitler. This is purest heresy.

If I do not say an angel, but a Pope comes to him and tells him things in contrast with truth, not only Father Nicholson believes him like the dumdum he is; but he also accuses everyone who happens to side with 2000 years of Christianity of being… worse than Satanists!

Boy, this is one who has to be sent back I do not say in the seminary, but in the kindergarten.

Father Nicholson is the perfect Nazi. Hitler would be very proud of him.

Satan is, I am sure, rather pleased too.

Pray for Father Dumbo. He is in great need of it.

M

 

How To Be Disobedient To The Pope: Archbishop Vincent Nichols

The “Cardinal Vincent Quisling Nichols” Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

From the Pope’s address to the bishops of England And Wales (emphases mine):

Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth.

[…]

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a…

View original post 792 more words

Archbishop Vincent Nichols Gives Scandal And Confuses The Faithful

Red Hat Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

And so the Pope came, saw and conquered. People were moved, crowds were gathered, even journalists felt stupid (which happens to them much less often than it should) and for some days toned down the Anti-Catholic propaganda.

Still, those accustomed to observe the British Catholic clergy knew that this wind of orthodoxy would not last long, with the local bishops bending to said winds like a birch and coming back to normal as soon as the nuisance ceases.

This is exactly what has happened; but in this case, the desire of the British clergy to show that the Papal visit was just an unwanted nuisance was so strong that the Head Scoundrel, Archbishop Nichols, couldn’t wait more than one day to launch himself in an open attack to the Teaching of the Church. Make no mistake, the message here is emphatically clear: I am still in charge and now it…

View original post 1,265 more words

Archbishop Nichols’ Views On Homos Endanger Childrens’ Souls, Says SPUC’s Head

The Nichols Reblog

Vince’s Farm: Archbishop Nichols Good, Blogs Bad.

Vince's World: a transvestite reads the bidding prayer at the so-called "gay Mass", Soho, London.

Vince’s World: a transvestite reads the bidding prayer at the so-called “gay Mass”, Soho, London. Rainbow flag included.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols truly is a piece of work. It makes me cringe that such an unworthy, petty man be at the brink of getting a red hat (which he will at some point, I am rather sure).

This man has been, in the controversy about so-called same-sex marriage, conspicuous for his almost total absence and – coherently with his general way of life – his cowardice with the power by not taking any undue risk with the Vatican. This makes sense, since Archbishop Nichols is a friend of sexual perversions, as abundantly proven by his open support for scandalous so-called gay masses.

The man is always all to happy to confuse the Faithful provided this keeps him in the nice circles. The head of the Society For the Protection of the Unborn Children rightly thinks he endangers the soul of his children.  Just try the “Nichols Challenge” to see if I am exaggerating it.

In short, the man is a walking disgrace, and utterly unworthy of his habit.

Unfortunately, this very unworthy man is also regularly criticised by the authors of Catholic blogs. Why? Because he is a heathen. 

If you think that the Archbishop would take this is as occasion for some serious reflection about whether, perhaps, he is doing the work of the Devil, think again. Rather, he thinks the blogs are the problem; or, as he himself put it, he think his critics should “hold their tongue”.

In his latest homily, also published on the internet site of the Archdiocese, he was on record with the following words of foolishness:

Pope Francis understands this in practical terms. He has already identified two kinds of behaviour that destroy love in the Church. They are complaining and gossiping. He is a practical man. He knows that we live in a society in which complaining and gossip is a standard fare. They sell newspapers and attract us to blogs because we love hear complaints and to read gossip.

Firstly, notice the unspeakable cowardice of hiding behind the finger of Pope Francis’ words in order to twist his message. The Pope has said “do not give in to the temptation of gossiping”, and the Archbishop translates “the Pope has said you must not read blogs that criticise me”.

In fact, it is very clear this utterly shameless man is aiming his broken sword at orthodox catholic bloggers regularly pointing out to what a disgrace he is. How he managed to hide behind the Pontiff to  criticise his critics is indicative of what a person he is. 

The Archbishop is, methinks, angry at the bloggers because by relentlessly exposing his cowardice, double tongue and complicity in sodomitical behaviour they have, up to now, prevented him from getting the red hat he so evidently covets.

If I were in his shoes, I would be more worried about another type of promotion or demotion. After all, he isn’t the youngest anymore.

Mundabor

Archbishop Nichols’ Views On Homos Endanger Childrens’ Souls, Says SPUC’s Head

The Vincent Nichols Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

Just in case you had thought that I am the only one jumping from the chair when he reads what our disgraziato wants to smuggle as Catholicism, I refer here about the reaction caused by the same Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols on Mr. John Smeaton, the head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Mr. Smeaton has, as previously reported, his own blog, and an excellent one at that.

The ire of Mr. Smeaton was referred to an interview given by Vincent “Quisling” Nichols to the Daily Telegraph (the once conservative, now pinkish-PC daily newspaper) on the 11 September.

In this interview, Nichols is asked whether he thinks that the Church will ever “accept the reality of gay partnerships” (notice here: the “Telegraph” doesn’t write “homosexual”. “Gay” is the word of choice. As everything in the DT, it exudes political correctness. How very gay.) and…

View original post 605 more words

Vincent Nichols Gives Scandal Again

 

This man is truly a plague. An unspeakable disgrace. A heathen. An enemy of the Church.

Read from the “Telegraph” what he has now the gut to say, utterly unafraid of sanction from incompetent people in Rome.

The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, said he appreciates some same-sex couples want to be joined in wedlock

He said…WHAT??

When ever have you heard, in the entire history of Catholicism, an Archbishop saying such things?

Asked what he would say to a gay Catholic couple who approached him for marriage within the Church, the Archbishop said: “I would want to say to them that I understand their desires, that I understand their experience of love is vitally important in their lives…”

He… WHAT??

experience of… WHAT??

Has the Archbishop ever heard of sodomy? Or does he pretend not to know what happens during the “experience of love”?

“I would want them to be respected, but I would want them to have a vision in themselves that what they are called to is not marriage but a very profound and lifelong friendship.”

Here, the usual weasel words. “Friendship”. Let’s pretend this friendship is not sexual. This is the usual Jesuitical Nichols for you. Let us encourage sodomy. Let us institutionalise it. Let us allow sodomites to have “rights” as sodomites. Just ignore the sodomy, would you?

With this logic, I can’t wait the day Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will praise the “experience of love” between a man and his seven years old lover, telling them he “wants them to be respected” and calling them to a “lifelong friendship”.

What society says, I believe, is the best circumstances for conceiving and bringing up children is the partnership between two natural parents.

God, give me strenght. This man goes on saying children can be brought up by sodomites – or lesbians – but this is not the best way. Ideally, we would have natural parents. But hey, Elton John and the other circus tool aren’t so bad, either.

The article goes on referring the delirious consideration of Nick Herbert, Home Office Minister. Things that would have been sufficient to consider whether a madhouse is not the right place for him, only two generations ago.

In this generation, madmen are in government. And in this generation, Archbishops reinforce the message that same-sex relationship are fine and must receive institutional protection with the lame excuse of wanting to protect marriage, in the very same breath as they undermine it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Make no mistake, Nichols is one of the devil.One who would have been considered evil even by anticlerical atheists in, say, the Italy of the Fifties, where even Communists had rather rigid – and correct – ideas about sexual morality.

Quo usque tandem? Alas, as the current Pontiff is occupied in saying to the SSPX they are not obedient enough, I doubt anything will happen during his pontificate.

Let us pray the next Pope will show more will to clean the Augean Stables of the E & W hierarchy, as wonderfully represented by Nichols.

And seriously: thank God for the Society of St. Pius X, helping us all to keep sanity well in mind as our shepherds want to lead us to ruin with them.

Mundabor

 

 

Abp Nichols Is An Accomplice Of Cameron

No Catholics were present.

Some days ago, Father Ray Blake posted the text of the letter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith about that logical impossibility some people call “homosexual marriage”.

It was, at that time, not clear yet whether the Abp would instruct the priests to read the letter during the homily. It appears this was the case, so let us say two words about this.

To say that the text is lame is still not enough to do justice to it. This text is not lame, it is outright cowardly. Whilst (semel in anno) ++Nichols even defends (at least formally) the Church’s position on sexual perversion, it is very clear this letter is meant to do no harm, and to let everyone with a bit of salt in his head understand the real message: “we are not going to prepare ourselves for a fight; please understand we must make some rumours for the sake of the job, but really, you can count on our collaboration”.

Listening to the letter this morning as it was read in the church I, again, was confirmed in my analysis of the text: weak to the point of complicity. 

If we had Christian bishops in this land I would not need to point out this is not a discussion about the opening times of pubs, or about the proposed abolition of the 70 miles/hour speed limit. This goes at the root of a Christian society.  In every country in which the bishops fear hell, this would occasion such a conflict to let Mr “Chameleon”  Cameron understand that with his politics he has made a great number of enemies for himself; some of them influential, some of them wealthy, all of them now fully determined to see him out. Not one tenth of this is happening now in the UK. On the contrary, “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Smith are, in fact, reassuring Cameron no war will be waged. 

This attitude reminds one of Paul VI who reacted to the Dutch Schism by writing to the bishops and explaining them how they were supposed to think, without taking further measures. Clearly, such a behaviour confirmed the Dutch bishops they had nothing to fear, and the schism went on for many years until JP II, after several years of pontificate, decided that perhaps the time to act had arrived.

Abp “Quisling” Nichols’ letter now has the same effect: it persuades everyone the way is free, because the Church will not give battle on this. 

The despicable, cowardly, unChristian mentality behind this behaviour is the more contemptible because on the other side is not a paladin of some strange secular cause, a man of conviction, one who would even welcome and relish the fight. No, on the other side is the most shameless whore of British politics in the XXI century; one who wouldn’t have any qualm in throwing the legislation in the rubbish bin the second after he realises it can harm him. It would be fairly easy to persuade him he can have the numbers, but he doesn’t want to have the sworn enemies, and this is going to be his grave in time. Prostitute that he is, Cameron would immediately understand the refrain and start talking about the recovery of traditional values, & Co. Even before he came to power, they didn’t call him “chameleon” for nothing. Also, Cameron’s position as party leader has already put heavily into question, and he certainly doesn’t wish a renewal of the troubles of the last months.

So, we are now facing a battle where the main opponent (the Church) has already said – in so many words – he doesn’t want to fight. Opposition will come from other corners, and the battle will not be so easy for the once blue, now pink “Conservatives”. If the Church had put herself “at the head of the movement”, the conservative fringes of the Anglicans would have been motivated in putting a harder opposition – or be more effective with it – whilst it would have been easier for real Conservatives within the Party to express their disagreement in a definitive way – like “get rid of it, Dave, sharpish” – rather than now having to fight an uphill battle.

This was so bad, it can only have come from Abp Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.

But seriously, I wonder how blind and deaf are those in Rome, and how long will it take before they get rid of this bunch of cowards and give us Bishops who believe, erm, all that the Church believes.

Mundabor

Cardinal O’Brien Intervention Exposes Archbishop Nichols’ Complicity With The Homo Mafia

You truly are, Davie boy...

Cardinal O’Brien is the Head of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland. Being a Cardinal whilst Nichols still isn’t (though I do not doubt he will soon get his red hat, no matter how shameless he is; he knows that too, by the way) he is the most senior cleric active in the United Kingdom.

Now, this very same Cardinal has fired with rather powerful cannons at the degenerate proposals of our Friends of the Perverts, the Prime Minister Dave “Chameleon” Cameron, to redefine marriage to suit the needs of a minority of perverts, and make himself beautiful with that part of the population become insensitive to the same concept of perversion (“orientation” is the word they use).

You can read the article here and I do suggest you click the link and take the time. I will limit myself to some short comments:

1) Boy, this is strong tobacco. I had complained only yesterday the post Vatican-II clergy can’t speak plainly anymore, and the Cardinal shows me I am wrong the very same day. The tone is more than severe, it is outright harsh: the cry of “madness”, the accusation of the government to want to “redefine reality”, the warning that the measure would “shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world” are all meant to show what a cretin the Prime Minster is. His Grace can’t say that in so many words of course,but the meaning is clear. Try this:

Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”. Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?

(I’m sure Nichols would be “nuanced” on that. But you knew it already…).

2) The Cardinal makes very clear how stupid it is to give the perverts one hand, hoping they will not want to take the entire arm. Try this (emphases mine):

Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.

When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.

Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.

This is the usual modus operandi of the sensitive Nazi: the demolition of Christian society one piece at a time, promising every time this is the last one.

Note when the Cardinal says “Those of us who were not in favour” he clearly implies some of the bishops were in favour. We know who they were (and are), and I think the Cardinal wants us to take notice some of the bishop naively (to say the least) tried to defend the measures, and receive now the bill of their (to say the least) naiveté.

3) An intervention of such tenor from a Scottish prelate in an English matter is an open indictment to Archbishop Nichols: it is obvious O’Brien had to intervene with energy, because Nichols won’t. The cowardice, nay, complicity of Nichols in what the Government is trying to do is exposed the more openly by the harshness of Cardinal O’Brien’s words. Of course, I do not doubt Nichols is not against emitting some vague rumour about his disapproval of the proposed measures. He simply has to. But really, he can’t fool anyone anymore.

Nichols is a shame and a daily scandal. His complicity with Cameron and the homosexual Mafia is beyond disgusting. He is the worst enemy of Catholicism in this country, then if we had a Catholic at his place a first-class coward like Cameron would not even dare to think about homo-marriages.   

Please click the link and read the entire interview. It is a pleasure to read a British prelate show some teeth. And please pray we can be freed of  Nichols one day, and never too soon.

Mundabor

“Vincentnichols.blogspot.com”: The Video Evidence

Giotto - Judas' Kiss - Detail

 

Many months ago I linked to a beautiful site, a private (and anonymous) blog in which the shameless betrayal of basic Christianity by our walking (and talking) scandal, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, was exposed. The site contained videos, excerpts from interviews and links to external sources.

Some months ago, I noticed the site had been taken down and – as it is natural – suspected some intervention from the Archdiocese, possibly linked to the fact the blog had the rather cheeky name “vincentnichols.blogspot.com” though the site is clearly meant to expose him. I decided to leave the link in its place, firstly because I hoped the site might be restored and secondly to allow those who wanted to link to make their own conjectures as to why the site had been taken down.

I am gladly to report I have clicked again and the site is now alive and kicking.

There are, as you will notice if you had clicked the old site, some changes. The site abstains from any open accusation against the Archbishop and, basically, allows the man to do all the work himself. There are no external links of interview excerpt now, and everything is in video and from the voice of our Quisling himself. The entire layout is very sober, and devastating in the efficacy of the accusation.

This site is – though certainly not complete, and actually only dealing with (homo)sexual matters – a live monument of the huge disgrace Archbishop Nichols is for the Church and the danger he represents for the soul of English and Welsh Catholics, of whom he is the nominal local supremo.

If you ask me, you should link to this if you are an English or Welsh blogger – and actually, even if you aren’t – in order to help to spread the lie that is Vincent Nichols.

Enjoy the site and, if you can, say a Hail Mary or three for this intelligent, anonymous blogger saying it as it is, and putting in front of everyone the opprobrium of having such a disgraceful man as the head of E & W Catholics.

Mundabor

 

 

Archbishop Nichols Continues To Shame The Church

They all stink from the head down. Not unlike the Church.


Very courageously, His Heremeneuticalness has published a scandalous video of “bidding prayers” in a so-called “gay mass”. You find the video here.

If you have the stomach to listen to it, not only you will hear the usual passive-aggressive “oh how I am persecuted” crap, but you will notice the lectern covered with a rainbow cloth. In a sacred place. At Mass.

When you are already wondering whether this is a joke, or some fake staged by right-wing extremists, you’ll see a strange guy dressed in drags, the very epitome of a carnival figure, reading some of the prayers with a desperate attempt to look and sound like a stupid woman, and only succeeding in making a very sad joke of himself.

Of course, we know that such people exist. People not only perverted in their sexual orientation; not only utterly refusing to do anything against it – and be it a daily prayer that they might be freed from their, erm, perversion rather than being proud of it – but even hijacking what is most sacred for the sake of their propaganda. We know these people exist, and we know they will find priests – homosexual themselves, or without any sensible notion of their job and duties – ready to be their accomplices.

What really makes me angry, is that from the very top of the E&W hierarchy, such desecration and perversion of Christianity is tolerated and silently or openly approved. Archbishop Nichols, the man who allows so-called “gay-masses” in the heart of London, has openly expressed his support for “civil partnership” legislation (just use the search function of this blog, and you’ll find more than you wished for). In this country we are at the vigil of the introduction of so-called gay-marriages, a pet of our disgraceful Prime Minister, and his opposition to this has been limited to the murmur of half-disapprobation ex officio which clearly gives to understand he is not contrary at all, he merely must say so.

Archbishop Nichols is the single biggest problem of the Church in E&W today. If we had a Catholic as Archbishop, the fight he would start on these issues would make it impossible for the likes of Cameron to act the liberal and progressive without paying a heavy political price, and at that point even Cameron would get that there’s nothing to be gained. Not so with Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, possibly the most shameless accomplice of secular values and betrayer of Catholic truth this country has ever seen. Archbishop Nichols abets perversion every day with his words, with his acts and with his silence. He sells Catholic – nay, elementary Christian – values for the sake of an easy popularity among those who don’t care for the Church; he is every bit as bad – nay, worse still, much worse – than the pitiful pervert in drags you can see in the video: then the pervert may claim ignorance of the very basis of Catholicism and has no responsibility for so many sheep.

Yes, we must pray for the Archbishop. But we must also pray that he be removed, at once.

Mundabor

The Nichols Challenge

I call “The Nichols Challenge” the attempt to comment on the latest heretical statement of our not-so-beloved – though much in need of our prayers – Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols without falling in mortal sin.

I have made a couple of attempts, but really if I start to write what I think of the man, it doesn’t serve anyone.

Therefore, I ask you to enjoy (ha!) Rorate Caeli’s take on the matter.

Please, please don’t let me say more.

Mundabor

 

How To Be Disobedient To The Pope: Archbishop Vincent Nichols

The international symbol for deafness

From the Pope’s address to the bishops of England And Wales (emphases mine):

Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth.

[…]

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

I do not know where Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols was when these words were pronounced. In the loo, possibly, or perhaps outside for a cigarette. The most probable hypothesis is, however, that he was there, heard the words, read them afterwards, and never cared.

This is the same Vincent “Quisling” Nichols who, you will remember, had to make clear, in the very weeks of the papal visit, who is boss by stating that he doesn’t know whether he would “recognise the reality of gay marriage”. This is, also, the same person who, when the ink on Universae Ecclesiae was not yet dry, was already on record stressing that there would be no instruction in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in seminaries.

Many, and most of them scandalous, are the achievement of this champion of imitation Catholicism. I have recently reported that his penchant for getting at odds with Catholic teaching has recently received the honour of an internet page ad hoc, that I have linked on the right (Catholic links) under Bad Shepherds: The Vincent Nichols Files

I am now informed – from whom I understand to be the same good soul who has set up the internet site, and many thanks to him – that Vincent Nichols is striking again: he is allowing premises of the diocese to be used by an openly dissenting (means: clearly heretical) homosexual and lesbian group (plus other assorted perversions) called Quest. The excellent site of John Smeaton has the story , and provides you with several links to the astonishing affirmations of these people. Please send the children to bed in advance.

If you read the words at the beginning of the message, you’ll understand what mockery Archbishop Vincent Nichols is making of the Pope’s words. We are far away, here, from Catholic teaching “always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended”. We are, actually, by its exact contrary: Catholic teaching not presented at all, and openly undermined.

All this, on the Diocese’s premises, which gives the group a kind of at least indirect endorsement. The 1986 “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons” (link on this site, under “Catholic links”; and another document that Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols must have misplaced) expressly deals with the matter, stating as follows:

“All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous”.

I am, alas, not a mother tongue, but the meaning of these words seems rather clear to me. It seems to me that the then Cardinal Ratzinger says to the bishops:

1) you may think that to allow “dissenters” to use diocesan structures is just and charitable, but it isn’t;

2) to do so is:
2.1) contradictory to the purpose of teaching sound Catholicism;
2.2) misleading, and
2.3) often scandalous.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols is, also, accessory to these perverts’ heresies not only by silence, but – in giving them the space – by partaking. Not bad for the head of the Church in England & Wales.

John Smeaton wonders whether this time, Archbishop Nichols will “surprise us with a new found fidelity”. I appreciate the humour, but I’d say that it is safer to try to have him surprised by a phone call from Rome:

The place where to address your concern is:

Congregazione per il Clero

Palazzo della Congregazioni, Piazza Pio XII, 3 – 00193 Roma

tel. 06 69884151 fax. 06 69884845

Email: clero@cclergy.va

You can, I think, simply send Mr. Smeaton’s link (more diplomatic than mine) with some short words of concern. Please forward his link or mine to people you know and ask them to also send an email or a letter.

I do hope that our anonymous good soul will update Mr. Nichols’ site with this latest exploit. It might, one day, make Rome’s work easier.

Mundabor

The Vincent Nichols Tapes Are Online

The "nuanced" Archbishop, Vincent Nichols.

Some good, brave, patient soul has set up an anonymous blog with a collection of rather astonishing (if we didn’t know the man, that is) utterances of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols in video, audio and printed format.

The title is brutally truthful: “Archbishop Vincent Nichols”; subtitle: “An unofficial record of sights, sounds and sayings from the Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster”.

From the numerous recordings, a very disquieting portrait of this spectacularly failed appointment to the Archdiocese of Westminster emerges. A man who, when he is not openly in contradiction with the Church, does everything he can to avoid saying what the teaching of the Church is. A man who, as one of the video shows, surprises even his anti-Catholic detractors, with the poor anti-Catholic man having to admit – obviously without having any idea of the implications  – that the Church in England is not aligned with Rome in matters regarding that logical and biological impossibility some call “gay marriage”. And in fact, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols really, really wants to be on the side of the world rather than the one of the Church; it is merely that he cannot always say so openly.

I have dedicated the attention of this blog to Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols more than a couple of times already. Just to make two examples, there was the time when he wanted us to know how “nuanced” the E & W Church is in matter of so-called “gay marriage” is, or the time when he said that he didn’t know whether he would celebrate gay marriages . But the link I introduce you to today is different, because on the one hand it puts together what I have already written, and a lot more; and on the other hand lets us hope that it will be updated in future, thus constituting a sort of “Nichols Report”.

This meritorious work is already inserted in my own list of Catholic links (“Bad shepherds: The Vincent Nichols Files”). Please forward this link around: mail it, tweet it, facebook it, spread it, make it known.

Recent examples (the blasphemous degenerate so-called art of the late Mr Hrdlicka, a feat of Cardinal Schoenborn; the “Western Mass”, another feat of Cardinal Schoenborn; and the thingy with women ordination, this one the work of Cardinal Policarpo) show that Rome is increasingly more attentive to these kind of episode, and increasingly more inclined to act fast(ish) to put an end to them.

Oportet ut scandala eveniant. Unpleasant as it is to have to read (let alone: to write) about questionable or disgusting or blasphemous or heretical episodes, their public condemnation is the only way abuses can be reined in and orthodoxy made the duty of everyone, starting from those who should care for it the most.

Better days ahead. A prayer for the brave and patient soul who has done this work gratis et amore Dei is certainly in order.

Mundabor

Universae Ecclesiae: Archbishop Nichols Starts The Hostilities

After the release of "Universae Ecclesiae", activity was intense.

You would have imagined that the bishops would have been not slow in reacting to Universae Ecclesiae, but I’m sure the speed with which Archbishop Nichols has started to fire his Big Bertha against the Tridentine post is nothing less than remarkable.

Mere hours after the publication of the Instruction, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols was already intent at the first trial shots. His analysis of Universae Ecclesiae doesn’t stress the huge importance of the work in terms of the obligations it puts on bishops, or the renewed statement of the importance given to the Tridentine Mass, or its being every bit the equal in rank to the Novus Ordo.

Instead, his analysis focuses on the (now reduced, though he doesn’t say) powers of the bishops and, most importantly, on the stressing of the only weak point of the Instruction: the absence of compulsory instruction in the celebration of the Tridentine in Seminaries.

It is really telling of the Archbishop’s forma mentis that he would immediately point out to the only point that is not overtly in favour of the mounting tide of Catholic conservatism. It is, at the same time, very telling about the spirit and attitude with which at least the bishops of England and Wales will react (react is here truly the right word) to Universae Ecclesiae.

Just a few hours after the release of the instruction, ++ Nichols’ trumpet has gathered his own around him and made clear to them that they may start preparing to battle. As so often in life, the why something is said tells you much more about an issue than what is, in the specific case, being said. This is clearly the case here, with the first distinguos clearly giving the start for the slow, silent, relentless work of sabotage now approaching. The Italians call this seemingly innocuous, but in fact very dangerous sabotage muro di gomma, or “rubber wall”. It is clear here that Archbishop Nichols’ message to his troops is “we may not be able to stop this, but we will certainly try”.

We will see whether he has any success. In my opinion, a prompt enforcement from the part of Ecclesia Dei will cause things to run smoothly from the start, whereas uncertainties in the enforcement will condemn this instruction to certain, if perhaps rather slow, death.

Let us hope the first will be the case.

Mundabor

Why Archbishop Nichols Doesn’t Like Catholic Doctrine

Would give ++Nichols a lesson or two on the Church's social doctrine: Leo XIII

Read on the once-conservative, now pinko-sexual and cameron-cutie “Daily Telegraph” this article from Christina Odone expressing her surprise at Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols not liking the concept of “big society” because, basically, it is not socialist enough.

Now Ms. Odone wouldn’t have hovered much around the “Telegraph” some twenty or thirty years ago – when the newspaper was seriously conservative, and seriously Tory – and the fact that she herself writes “I had never so much as flirted with the Tories until David Cameron came on the scene” tells you a lot about her (absence of) Conservative credentials.

Still, Ms. Odone understands the most important part of the matter, that is: that the “Big Society” concept is, in the way it is supposed to work, intrinsically Catholic. This is rather elementary, as the simple fact is that in Catholic thinking help to those in need must come from the mutual assistance of citizens moved by Christian charity, rather than from an administrative behemoth destroying charity and creating conflict and egoism.

The socialist state destroys charity because it doesn’t force them to voluntarily make an effort and give a part of their own to help those in need, but rather expropriates them of what is theirs. Similarly, the socialist state doesn’t instil in the needy the gratitude for the help charitably received by those better off,but rather encourages them to think of handouts in terms of their rights. This way, you have resentful rich and resentful poor, and the socialist state manages to keep the voters (the poor will always be more than the rich) always hungry after the next expropriation and thinking that they have the right to expect money not theirs to flow to them.

This is, as you have already understood, exactly the thinking of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols. His accusation of the “big society” lacking “teeth” basically means that he doesn’t like it, because this way the state will recede (a bit) from welfare expenditure and leave the citizen to organise themselves, activity which they will obviously do much more efficiently than the huge red tape machine craved by the Socialist state in order to promote entitlement thinking and provide employment opportunities for its minions.

That the charity of the citizen would provide for the (most immediate: no welfare thinking) necessities of the needy is something which doesn’t even cross ++Nichols’ mind. He is just too socialist for that. To him, “big society” makes sense if it provides even more welfare, but if it is used to utilise sensible citizen action in stead of senseless waste of resources and rampant entitlement thinking, he can’t approve of it anymore.

Archbishop Nichols is a socialist dressed as a socialist, talking as a socialist and giving interviews as a socialist. And this is just one of his many deficiencies.

I have written yesterday a blog post about Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that the Holy Father, by sending him to Westminster and by (for what we know) not considering his removal after the many disappointments he has given (homo masses continue undisturbed; clear support for homo partnerships; bullying of Cardinal Vaughan school are just three of the many), has acted and his still acting more like Pontius Pilate than like he should as the successor of Peter: putting the desire to avoid conflict and strife before the desire to do what he knows is right.

With the important difference that Pontius Pilate’s hand were bound by his superiors’ desire to avoid confrontation, whilst the Holy Father himself has no superior to whom he has to answer.
No earthly one, anyway.

Mundabor

Archbishop Nichols Is A Shame For The Church

Failed Catholic, but successful careerist: Archbishop Vincent "Quisling" Nichols.

My last post was in defence of Michael Voris complaining about those religious who seem to have forgotten (probably because they have) what Christianity is about.

If you want an excellent example of such behaviour, look no further than to the Numero Uno of English Catholicism, our well-known disgraziato Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.

Nichols is already notorious for the zeal with which he undermines Catholic doctrine and Catholic principles. His clear support for so-called same-sex couples speaks volumes about the heretic Pope Benedict has made the mistake of putting at the top of the English Hierarchy (and the even bigger mistake of not removing when it became clear that the man doesn’t care a straw for Catholic orthodoxy), and his continued refusal to put an end to the scandalous homo masses in Soho should leave even the most naive supporter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols in no doubt as to what side he has chosen. He has also managed to pick another scandalous battle in the Cardinal Vaughan School matter. In short, wherever he can undermine Catholic values, he relishes the job.

On another occasion (when our anti-hero decided to bash bankers; a very popular and risk-free activity at the moment and therefore an ideal occupation for this disgraziato) I have written about him as follows:

++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols lives in a world where abortion kills 200,000 a year and the womb has become the most dangerous place to be, easily eclipsing war zones. He has witnessed the disintegration of British society through the widespread recourse to divorce and easygoing, taxpayer-financed, future securing teenage pregnancy. He has seen the mockery of the family through the legalisation of so-called civil partnerships and has had the nerve to say that he was not against, and that the Church’s opinion on the matter is “nuanced”. He presides over a society where no Hollywood comedy thinks it can do without the obligatory faggot and the BBC even has the temerity to re-write the recent rendition of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead revisited” in very pink tones. He sees every day how every kind of monstrosity (from old couples, let alone old men, adopt children to the renting of uterus to the slow crumbling of opposition to euthanasia) gets a foot in the door of British society, and he complains about ……bankers!

This applies – verbatim if you exclude the miraculously let aside bankers – to the present situation; with the important exception that we are now in the middle of the Holy Week.

You would think that the UK Catholicism Supremo would profit of the Holy Week (when he is bound to have more media attention) to:

1) point out to the many ways in which our society behaves in an an-Catholic or at least un-Christian manner (say: abortion; divorce; sexual promiscuity; homosexuality) and
2) extol the virtues of the Catholic way as a sure remedy to those evils.

You would think that he would do it, if he cared for Catholic values. But the simple fact is that Archbishop Nichols doesn’t care a straw for Catholic values.

He really, really doesn’t. All he cares for, is to speak every now and then over economic social issues, which should be the preserve of politicians, whilst he is supposed to be, first and foremost, occupied with the cure of souls. If he believed in their existence, that is.

We are now well into the Holy Week, and our astonishing Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has been on record as follows:

1) On Sunday (Notabene: Palm Sunday!) on the Sunday Telegraph. He gets a big interview on a major newspaper on Palm Sunday and what does he talk about? Yep, that Cameron’s “Big Society” is not “social” enough for his liking.

2) On yesterday’s Evening Standard (not as prestigious as the “Telegraph”, for sure, but read nationwide) our chap is on record as intervening to ask a brewery not to change the name of a pub entitled to Cardinal Manning. And do you think that he did so defending Cardinal Manning’s lifelong battle for everything Catholic? Of course not! He does it because in this way Manning’s commitment to “social good” would be played down.

“Social good” is everything Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is interested in. It is the only issue he wants to go on record during the Holy week. This is a mickey mouse of an Archbishop, if there has ever been one.

I can’t wait to hear about our completely de-Christianised Archbishop talk about earth day on Good Friday, or on the immediately following weeks. But I’m sure he’ll put some social issues in the middle; just to be on the safe side, you know.

This man is a scandal through and through.

Mundabor

Cardinal Pell Vs Archbishop Nichols

True Shepherd: Cardinal Pell

I am pretty sure that the readers of this blog like Cardinal Pell. It will therefore please them to know that our valiant soldier has taken Christ’s Sword in his hands and is, once again, vigorously whirling it around.

His very effective communication style is miles away from the mellifluous and innocuous  tone of our Bishops here in Blighty. His sentences are rather short and rather clear. They are rather uncomfortable, too.

Apparently, in Australia the year 2011 will see parliamentary debates about two issues directly involving Catholic teaching: so-called homo “marriages” and euthanasia. As it happens so often, many local Catholic politicians are bravely deciding to shut up in the hope that no one notices that they’re supposed to be good Catholic when it’s uncomfortable, too.

Cardinal Pell has noticed.

Some snippets of a true Shepherd’s prose:

“If a person says, ‘Look, I’m not a Christian, I’ve a different set of perspectives,’ I disagree but I understand,”

If a person says to me, ‘Look, I’m nominally a Christian but it sits lightly with me,’ I understand that.”

“But it’s incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they’re as good a Catholic as the Pope, then regularly voting against the established Christian traditions.”

Cardinal Pell doesn’t make any discount to Catholic politicians trying to draw political capital from their religious affiliation and clearly tells them what this entails. He says that

“If you’re espousing something that’s not a Christian position, don’t claim Christian backing for that.”

He is totally unapologetic about his position, too. Try this (emphasis mine):

“I’m not telling people how to vote,” […] “I’m telling people how I think they should vote. I’m an Australian citizen and I have as much right to do that as any other citizen.”

“I’m telling people how I think they should vote”. When was this last heard in England or Wales? Alas, such clarity of Catholic message is unheard-of among those who have the task of proclaiming and defending it among us.
Do you want proof? Look no further than here.

I rest my case.

Mundabor

Archbishop Nichols’ Views On Homos Endanger Childrens’ Souls, Says SPUC’s Head

Don't bother trying to spot the Catholic.

Just in case you had thought that I am the only one jumping from the chair when he reads what our disgraziato wants to smuggle as Catholicism, I refer here about the reaction caused by the same Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols on Mr. John Smeaton, the head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Mr. Smeaton has, as previously reported, his own blog, and an excellent one at that.

The ire of Mr. Smeaton was referred to an interview given by Vincent “Quisling” Nichols to the Daily Telegraph (the once conservative, now pinkish-PC daily newspaper) on the 11 September.

In this interview, Nichols is asked whether he thinks that the Church will ever “accept the reality of gay partnerships” (notice here: the “Telegraph” doesn’t write “homosexual”. “Gay” is the word of choice. As everything in the DT, it exudes political correctness. How very gay.) and he answers “I don’t know”. I admit to have read the article and to have given “Quisling” the benefit of the doubt; not being a mother tongue, I thought that this “I don’t know” could be meant in the same way as the “I’m not sure about that” used to express your clear disagreement; I have, therefore, not blogged on the matter.

Interestingly, though, Mr. Smeaton points out to another affirmation of the same man, interviewed by the BBC on the same matter and answering: “”I don’t know. Who knows what’s down the road?”

“Who knows what’s down the road?!” Well for one you are supposed to know what’s down the road, Mr. Nichols!!

I have already mentioned yesterday, but repetita iuvant, what Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is bound to know and to say about these perverted “unions”:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

I will also, like Smeaton, mention CCC 2357 here as I didn’t do it yesterday:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I’ll avoid sending my adrenaline sky-high just writing what I think of this disgraziato. Read and reach your conclusions for yourself. Unbelievably, this is an archbishop of the Only Church. It’s like listening to a Nancy Pelosi with some brain; or to an Anglican with some fear of actually being disciplined.

John Smeaton’s conclusion is perfectly logic:

“..as a Catholic parent, I am in a position to say, and on behalf of Catholic parents I meet up and down the country, that Archbishop Nichols’s, my archbishop’s, comments are dangerous to the souls of my children”

He later quotes from Evangelium Vitae and points out that:

“it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection”.

Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is not interested in all this. He doesn’t give a penny for two thousand years of Christian teaching; he pretends not to know Vatican documents on the matter; he pretends (we have seen it yesterday) that Pope Benedict is even of his opinion; he even pretends to completely ignore what JP II’s Catechism very clearly says on the matter.

This man is just a disgrace for the Church and an enemy in our midst.

The address where to send your email of complaint is clero@cclergy.va

Please point out to this scandal. Let us help those of good will in the Vatican (I’m sure there is someone, and more than someone) to clean the Church from their enemies.

Mundabor

Archbishop Vincent Nichols Gives Scandal And Confuses The Faithful

The enemy in our midst

And so the Pope came, saw and conquered. People were moved, crowds were gathered, even journalists felt stupid (which happens to them much less often than it should) and for some days toned down the Anti-Catholic propaganda.

Still, those accustomed to observe the British Catholic clergy knew that this wind of orthodoxy would not last long, with the local bishops bending to said winds like a birch and coming back to normal as soon as the nuisance ceases.

This is exactly what has happened; but in this case, the desire of the British clergy to show that the Papal visit was just an unwanted nuisance was so strong that the Head Scoundrel, Archbishop Nichols, couldn’t wait more than one day to launch himself in an open attack to the Teaching of the Church. Make no mistake, the message here is emphatically clear: I am still in charge and now it is back to normal.

Nichols is among the interviewed of the usual BBC “let’s be inclusive” interview (he loves doing that); interviewed with him is the also usual token homo, in this case an Anglican professor.

As LifeSiteNews reports, Vincent Nichols denies that – to put it with LSN – “the Church is opposed to the homosexualist agenda”. Please read this again. 1) There are homosexualists (= homosexual activists) around. 2) The Church is opposed to them. 3) The homos complain about the fact. 4) Nichols denies the fact. He denies that the Church be opposed to their agenda.

At this point, Nichols embarks in a defence of what the Church in England has done for them. His words are:

“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”

If this is not enough to let your adrenaline level go through the roof, I don’t know what could. Let us see what this disgraziato is saying:

1) “in this country”.That is as to say: “we are different from the rest of the Church here. We are on your side”. He must know that in countries like Italy the Church has made such a strong opposition when civil partnership were proposed, that the proposal died before a vote. He must know that in countries like USA, Mexico and others the controversies rage and the local Church is invariably on the right side. But he doesn’t care. He clearly says on whose part he is. He speaks for his fellow bishops too. In this he is probably right.
Disgraziato.

2) “we were very nuanced”. This is oh so typical of people like Nichols, who must have lost his faith in his youth. No right and wrong anymore, just “nuances”. Far more convenient. Just compare with those idiots in Italy, Mexico, USA; primitive, uncharitable people unable to be “nuanced”.

3) “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships”. “Gay” is not a theological word. In Vatican documents you find “homosexual”, not “gay”. And he did not oppose them. Vincent Nichols pretends to be unaware that he can be accessory to another’s sin by silence, by consent, by defense of the ill done, by flattery. He pretends to have completely forgotten what then Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote in his letter to the bishops (that is: to him personally):

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
(Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons)

Vincent Nichols is expected to teach homosexual that homosexual activity is not in order. He is not supposed to pretend not to know that homosexual activity is what happens within a civil partnerships and that through it sodomy becomes legalised and made socially acceptable.
There is an hypocrisy here, a brazenness, an open revolt to the Church and to common sense, that is breathtaking and beyond contempt.

4) “What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage”. Please. Every idiot knows that two people of the same sex living together are not “married”, even the perverts pretending to be “married” know it. But this is not the point. The point is that you can’t be so hypocritical as to say that you can accept civil partnerships whilst pretending to still condemn sodomy!

I can picture Vincent Nichols in pastoral visit in Sodom literally saying to the locals “we are very nuanced in this city; we do not oppose your civil partnerships; we recognise that in Sodom there might be a case for those; what we persistently say to you is that these are not the same as marriage”.

To think that this is an archbishop. It beggars belief.

As an Archbishop, Mr Nichols should be aware of the existence of a document called “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” (link under “Church Teaching”). Notice: “unions”, not “marriages”. No nuances here. In this document we find written:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Which part of “clear and emphatic opposition” is Mr. Nichols not able to understand? Which part of “duty” is not applicable to England and Wales? What is so difficult to grasp in the words “gravely unjust laws”?

It doesn’t end here I am afraid. This despicable man goes to the point of implying that homosexuality is not a big deal after all, and that …… Pope Benedict thinks the same! In Vincent Nichols’ word, if a Pope has been consistently preaching the same ( and the Church’s) message both as a cardinal (with letters he pretends not to have read) and as a Pope, but avoids dealing explicitly with the matter for four days, hey presto, he has changed his priorities!!

Nichols expresses himself with the following words:

“I think it’s very interesting, and I don’t think for one minute it’s accidental, that when the pope wanted to raise this question, [in his address at Westminster Hall] where are the moral standards on which we base our activity, he chose as his example the financial crisis. I think that’s very important and not to be overlooked.”

I must say I have never found a worse example of falseness and a clergyman more brazenly disrespectful of the Holy Father. This man openly provokes the Holy Father by openly saying that his own homo agenda is shared by the Holy Father himself.
I never thought I’d see the day where an Archbishop of Westminster has the temerity of openly make a mockery of a Papal visit one day after its end.
Disgraziato!

Vincent Nichols has already attracted serious criticism and John Smeaton has said that his words are “fatally undermining (as distinct from denying) the security and even the legitimacy of Catholic teaching on the nature of human sexuality”.

Nichols is an enemy of the Church who doesn’t dare to openly attack the Pope, but prefers to undermine Church teaching through allusive words, a show of independence from Rome (even recognised by his homosexual interlocutor, as you can read) and a “British way to Catholicism” which is, to say it plainly, heresy.

The address where to write your complaint is
clero@cclergy.va

You don’t need to write a speech. Make it simple. Just post the link to the interview, advise that he is giving scandal and ask them to act.
No insults, no ranting, just the facts. In case, please wait until you can write with the necessary composure. I know it can be difficult, but it is the only way to be taken seriously.

Mundabor

A Sheep in Sheep’s clothing: Archbishop Vincent Nichols

Spot the error.

Some of you might remember a Michael Voris video posted some weeks ago about two bishops rebuking one of their own priests, one for being a heretic and the other for being a … Catholic.

The same has happened now in England, where none less than the Homo Mass Supremo, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, has distanced himself from declarations made from Mr. Edmund Adamus, one of his own aides.

Let us see the content of Mr. Adamus’ declarations:

1) “Gay rights”  and the commercialisation of sex have turned Britain into a “selfish, hedonistic wasteland” and “the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death”

Fair enough, says I. As far as the hedonism is concerned, this is actually the same stuff people like Nichols go around saying all the time, though they’d never dare to say it in a way that offends perverts. What is different here is that whilst Archbishop Nichols and his ilk always formulate their criticisms in a way that makes clear that they do not want to pick a fight with anyone and are perfectly happy with not being heard, Adamus actually cares for Catholic values and for human life and therefore expresses himself with great charity. It is not surprising that this charity be not liked by Nichols. Archbishop Nichols does niceness a lot, but charity is not one of his strenghts.

2) There is an “aggressive anti-Catholic bias towards the church and the pontiff”

In general, this is as clear as the sun and everyone with a bit of understanding can easily realise that the English Bishops not only don’t do anything to counter the bias, but are rather happy to leave the Pontiff alone when the rabid feminists and homo groups at the BBC and elsewhere fire from all cannons. It is rather fair to say that large sectors of the Catholic hierarchy look with pleasure at criticisms to the Pope, seen as an ally of the traditionalists/conservatives.

As to the matter itself, I’d say the bias in the country is primarily anti-Christian rather than specifically anti-Catholic. The attacks against the Catholic Church are particularly virulent because the Catholic Church still has a much better grip on his faithful than the Anglicans & Co. and because the forces of secularism clearly recognise in Her the biggest enemy. Therefore whatever anti-Catholicism there is, is in my eyes rather a reflection of Catholics being Christians than – as in the past – of their being Catholic. The Anglicans themselves are able to largely escape criticism because they largely shun Christian values.

3) He urges Catholics to “exhibit counter-cultural signals against the selfish, hedonistic wasteland”

Please help me because I am lost here. To spread such a message should be the job of the bishops from the Angelus in the morning to the Compline in the evening and in every moment in between. This is the reason Mr. Nichols’ exalted (and, let us not forget, rather privileged) job exists in the first place. This is what the English clergy should be shouting from the pulpits Sunday in and Sunday out. Unless I am missing something and the Church’s task is not to upset the world. Or where does the Archbishop thinks abortions, broken families and neglected children come from?

Still, we are informed from a spokesman of the Archbishop that Adamus’ comments “do not reflect his opinion”. From a sponsor of homo masses, one is not surprised at all.

If we want to fight against the culture of death and of sexual perversion, a good start would be to have bishops who are truly Catholic and truly charitable instead of being cowardly “diplomatic” and relentlessly “nice” as the present Archbishop of Westminster.

Mundabor

Archbishop Nichols and Catholic Values or: How Not To Do It.

The fashion has changed. The thinking hasn't. Source: The Daily Telegraph.

The Catholic Church in England has launched a 32-page booklet in preparation of the Papal visit. The aim of the booklet is to explain, well, what Catholicism is and of course to hover once again over the child abuse scandal, the “Telegraph” reports.

Leaving aside the usual imprecision of daily newspaper journalism (Archbishop Nichols is not the head of Catholics in England and Wales. The Pope is.) what once again transpires is the desire to leave the Catholic message to very expensive PR exercises. Sadly, this is never going to work as the Church in England and Wales will never have so much money to squander on such initiatives that it may make a permanent impact on the faithful and the country.

What we need is a continued effort of serious catechesis. As everyone living in England knows, this is – with some fortunate exceptions like the Oratorians and the rare courageous priest here and there – certainly not the case. Most emphatically so in the case of Archbishop Nichols who – among other things – still continues to tolerate homo masses in Soho, in the heart of his diocese, in an outrageous initiative set in motion by his predecessor and scandalously not yet repealed by him notwithstanding the repeated calls of Conservative Catholics from England and abroad. As per today, no other English diocese (not even among the champions of trendy Catholicism, like Arundel And Brighton) tolerates such a shame.

Archbishop Nichols thinks that he can avoid telling it straight (and hard) and substitute the necessary and salutary harshness of the Catholic message with expensive booklet printing, press conferences and other media initiatives of dubious efficacy. Not so. Catholicism is defended at the homily every Sunday; with a serious catechesis and catechism lessons for children; with RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, the obligatory course of those wishing to convert) classes that are more than a collection of platitudes with some vague notions of Catholicism thrown in, and only provided that they are not too uncomfortable.

The way out is not in booklet printing. The way out is in promoting the teaching and relentless defense of undiluted Catholic values again. Catholicism is not a PR exercise, but a pastoral work which belongs in the church, through the priest. Catholicism in this country has become an exercise in playing down the differences with Anglicans and other Protestants, rather than of stressing them; a continuous effort in not angering people, rather than pointing out to their errors; a relentless attempt to not go against secular values (“niceness”, “tolerance”, “inclusiveness” at all costs) rather than a daily challenge to them.

Actions speak louder than booklets. Particularly in the case of Archbishop Nichols.

Mundabor

Nineteen Brave Men

The Open Letter accusing Pope Francis of pertinacious heresy was released with only nineteen signatories.

Stop a moment to reflect that these brave men chose to publish the letter well knowing that the wrath of the Vatican would be focused on their little number, and that Francis would have a fit of vulgar rage including both several crude swear words and the demand that they are hit whenever the Vatican can, in every way it can.

In particular, but without in any way diminishing the courage of the others, think of Aidan Nichols. Nichols is likely the most prestigious theologian alive in the United Kingdom. He is a member of the Dominican Order. Francis will try to go after him with the wrath of one thousand very stupid suns.

Pray for the Nineteen Brave Men; that any measure taken against them may spectacularly fail and, if it is God’s will that they get to suffer for their testimony, their suffering may greatly increase their glory in Heaven.

 

 

This is What The “Aggiornamento” Led To

Nichols Dublin

This shocking photograph is from the big, fat, nuCatholic FrancisCircus called the “world meeting of families”.

No less than a Cardinal is giving no less than the keynote address.

Look for yourselves.

This is where the “dialogue with the world” ends. This is what happens when “aggiornamento” means allowing homos to enter the Seminaries. This is the unavoidable outcome when families decide that the best thing to do for them is to stay away from clergymen of every colour. This is the result when rabid pro-homo speakers, themselves wearing the habit, are invited to speak to such events.

Burn, FrancisChurch, burn.

We, the Catholics, will look at your destruction and stoke up the fire that consumes you.

Because we know that the Church is Indefectible, and when the thick strata of mud of almost 60 years of V II (now topped by the stinking manure that is the current pontificate) is removed we will see again the radiant, wonderful, Church that Christ established below it. As hard and as beautiful as a diamond, One and Holy as She has always been and will ever be, ultimately untouched by all the strata of mud (or manure) that evil men may throw over Her, as they have done often in the past and will do at times in the future, until time ends.

This stupid bunch of homos think they can persuade us that the Church has changed, that the diamond is now a vulgar stone painted in rainbow colours.

Let the picture above tell the story of what fools they are.

M

 

 

 

Fr Aidan Speaks. Francis Will Not Be Pleased

 

 

Fr Aidan Nichols has, for the first time, publicly criticised Amoris Laetitia, and the attack was devastating. Nichols, a well-known name in England, not only points his finger on the many errors and heresies in the notorious documents, but he also states a very obvious, yet certainly one to be said, fact: it cannot be said that the Pope was negligent or unguarded in his language, because the CDF warned him about the dangers and he simply chose to ignore the warning.

This, I add, in addition to the relentless work made by the Evil Clown in officially promoting the heresies; with the letter to the Argentinian Bishops probably the most blatant, official among them.

Father Nichols will now, sadly, be persecuted, and he will not even have the protection normally afforded to a Bishop. Please pray for him.

It is very sad to see that priests feel the need to publicly criticise the Pope and undergo certain persecution when not one of the bishops besides Schneider, and no darn Cardinal at all, dares to openly confront and condemn this evil man and the damage he is causing.

Father Nichols also theorised a procedure, sanctioned by Canon Law, to discourage heretical statements of future Popes; but I frankly find the endeavour futile, as a heretical Pope would block such ordinary ways. By definition, a heretical Pope can only be an extraordinary event; which will, then, require extraordinary measures outside of the usual legal ways and channels.

The Extraordinary Council generally seen as the remedy for such actions is just this: a counter-revolution for Christ against a revolutionary Pope. There can be no manual for such things, which makes it wise for such situations never having been regulated by Canon Law.

But this is just side news. That even the Catholic Herald publishes such a scathing condemnation is rather more relevant.

Pray for Father Nichols. And for Bishops and Cardinals willing to do their job already.

M

 

A Tale Of Two Clerics

circus-tent

The following is from the latest blog post from Father Blake (emphasis mine): 

When we ask for clarification from the Cardinals of the Church, as we are bound to do, we are met with either silence or told, as we were in England, by many of our superiors that Cardinal Nichols ‘was displeased’ that we should even voice such a concern in a private communication to him and his fellow Cardinals, that is the absolute moral low ground, though maybe a not entirely unexpected response.

Yep, it’s “officially official”. Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols let England’s priests know, by way of their own bishops, that he “was displeased” that they should voice their concern to him.

We understand from this something of what is going on behind the scenes in England: a reckless hierarchy scolds those among the priests who dare to think their job is to be Catholic, and the job of their bishops more so.

“Absolute moral low ground” says it very well.

I hope the retaliation against Father will be slow to come, and not too painful. Though that it will come at some point and in some form seems likely. 

In the meantime, notorious Jesuit is full of girlish excitement after having been given an “award” by a homosexualist group condemned by the Church. 

Welcome to the (earthly) church in the time of the Evil Clown: a place where perversion is celebrated without consequences, and fidelity to the Church causes “displeasure” in her own Princes. 

M

   

 

 

Political Correctness Vs Reality

With many thanks to reader Maccuscuria.

———–

“I pray, too, for the Muslim communities in France, and here in England, that they may not be victimized because of the actions of these violent and ruthless extremists, but strive always for the way of peace and cooperation with the wider society.”
(Cardinal Vincent Nichols)

“Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.”
(Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul, Amel Nona)

Involuntary Heresy?

We all know conversion may happen to anyone. It can be the result of a slow and gradual process, as in the case of the commenter of this blog who stopped to examine the simple perfection of a flower, and decided it could not have been the result of “coincidence”. Or it can be the result of a traumatic or painful event in one's life, which leads one to at least accept that there is a God: the death of Mussolini's brother, or of Putin's mother, come to mind.

When the conversion is, so to speak,fully successful, it changes one's entire outlook. In the already mentioned novel “The Betrothed”, the character known as the Innominato already has nagging doubts, and a sense of uneasiness with his evil and godless life that gnaws at him with irregular, but increasing force. The big crisis – and the providential conversion – of the Innominato is, however, precipitated by the contact with the purity, and the pure faith, of Lucia, the simple heroine of the novel and the woman he has accepted to have ravaged, and ruined.

A strong event, in instalments or not, will be normally required for one to see the light. A strong event will, I presume, also be required to lose it. not that this justifies it, but at least it gives one one key to understand what went on. I once watched on TV a man candidly admit he lost his faith following the death of his child daughter. Terribly wrong, of course; but you get my drift…

I do not think a man of strong faith ever slipped out of the faith inadvertently, one bit at a time. If your faith is strong, it is as strong and as luminous as the Sun. You simply don't forget the existence of the sun. It's just there. The evidence of things not seen. This is the faith; a grace given – thankfully – even to wretched sinners like your humble correspondent.

Why do I tell you old this?

Because whenever I see a prelate going head on against the Magisterium, it is very difficult for me to believe that he might just have slowly, imperceptibly changed, a millimetre at a time, until he became the contrary of what he once was.

No. I believe that when a prelate gives such a spectacle of itself he either never had the faith – the most probable case, if you ask me – or, far more rarely, some cataclysmic event led him to culpably lose it, with the sudden, massive assault of Satan being more than he can muster. The man thought he was guarded, but he wasn't. He felt safe in his conviction, but they weren't very strong. Perhaps he had not amply considered that only God's Grace allows him to remain on the right side anyway.

I simply do not believe in falling into heresy just through slow attrition. Too strong must the defence of sound faith be for that; and if it isn't, then it probably never was.

Why I say this? Because it seems to me that we are confronted with a generation of heretical prelates so numerous in number, and so aggressive in thinking, that I cannot believe all these people were, so to speak, emotionally earthquaked by some horrible circumstance in their life. No. What seems very probable to me is that the Church has been breeding a brood of vipers for decades now; people who never had a sound faith or a sound vocation, saw their role as the one of provider of people's emotional – as opposed to spiritual – needs, and were content to masquerade their unfaithfulness to Christ behind a lip service to the Church as they transformed more and more into social workers. In Francis they see one of them in power, and push to make him transform the Church in the direction they always wanted to have it: away from Christ, but near to “the people”; that is, the world.

Have we ever had signs of strong faith in, say, Jorge Bergoglio? Can we recognise in his life a phase of strong Catholic convictions, then mysteriously disappeared? I can't. Rather, what I see is the coherent picture of a man who never gave a straw, but played his cards well.

We know that he smoked pot; that he loved and still loves tango; that he stole a crucifix from a corpse in its coffin and even as Pope has the effrontery to brag about it; and, last but not least, that he consorts with perverts. He admits some of these things – including the pot, but don't forget the stealing from the dead – en passant as if they were minor incidents; or even great feats, fully to be expected in the life of your average Pope. Is this the stuff of priests?

Francis truly makes the impression of one whose biggest credit to orthodoxy is not to have married the line of the most fanatical proto communists within his orders; which firstly is no merit at all, and secondly would have put him in Rome's blacklist post haste; something a prudent man like him would not do anyway. Was he even known for the passionate defence of Catholicism? Did his sermons ever inflate his sheep? Do we have any sign of assertive, faithful apostolate? I can't find any.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same could be said of the Kasper and Marx, Voelki and Nichols, Murphy O'Connor, Dolan and Mahony of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if they all had all this in common: that they never even had a strong faith to lose, and perhaps some of them nevervhad any faith at all.

A Cardinal (and much more a Pope) advocating communion for adulterers cannot simply have forgotten the basics. He cannot have just “slipped” into the very contrary of what he believed. These things don't just “happen”. Shall we believe that an army of bishops and cardinals just “happened” to side with the world?

I don't buy it. I think in very many cases there was no conversion, no problem with lying, no identification with the Church, no fear of the Lord, or even no faith at all to begin with.

This, I think, is the most logical explanation for the Marxes and Kaspers, or for the Bergoglios of our time.

Right doesn't just slip into wrong.

M

 

Off-The-Cuff Comment

NicholsHindu07a

 

And it came to pass Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols celebrated Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in the splendid liturgical setting of the Brompton Oratory, packed to the brim on a day which, in England, is not a day of obligation.

As Quisling was genuflecting in front of the altar (which at the Oratory is invariably ad orientem) I could not avoid a thought:

“Has he been told this is not a Hindu temple”?

M

 

%d bloggers like this: