Search Results for sodomy

The Heretic Between Adultery And Sodomy

Heretic

As the days of the Synod approach, we know that two main points are on the heretics' agenda: adultery and sexual perversion.

Some very interesting contributions have been written to the effect that the adultery issue was meant to be the Trojan Horse for the “laundering” of homosexuality. I personally have the following views on the matter:

1. As numbers go, adultery is a far more pressing issue for Father Heretic than sodomy. Among the nominal Catholics in his parish there will easily be 50 public adulterers for every public dyke or sodomite, and whilst fags have relatives who may well “symphatise” this is no less true for the adulterers. Basically, if the German Pater Haeretisch wants to garner consensus and Kirchensteuer-money around him adultery beats sodomy hands down. Adultery's laundering is also, undoubtedly, his main economic interest.

2. However, Pater Haeretisch may well be a pervert himself, and in this case the matter of sodomy will touch him in a rather more striking way, the usual conflict of the sodomite – the knowledge that he is wrong, dirty, and a pervert – being amplified by his supposedly being a man of God. One can imagine for many of these Pater Schwulette the issue is more pressing than even the Ka-ching of the parish tills.

3. The one aim does not negate the other. Adultery is, grave as it is, a sin that still goes with nature. Sexual perversion is, as going against nature, a completely new ball game. There is no imagining that the laundering of sins against nature would not achieve, a fortiori, the result of laundering sins according to nature. Even an atheist immediately recognises – though he may not admit it to you – the substantial difference between the two situations, because sins that go against natural law are etched in the conscience of every man however big his effort to conceal it.

Therefore, at the Synod we will have a highly explosive mixture of issues which touch the wallet of the heretics and issues which torments them. They have Francis on their side, but Christ is against them.

How thus battle will end in the end, you already know. But we want it to have an end, actually, sooner that “in the end”.

We must continue to denounce adultery as well as sodomy; the faggot priest as well as the avid or simoniacal one; the sins that go with nature as well as those that go against it.

Francis and his army of clowns will not prevail. Not in the end but, preferably, not in October either.

M

Jesus Condemned Sodomy And Homosexuality in The Strongest Terms

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15). 

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Mark 6:11)

I can’t hear anymore that now widespread lie according to which “Jesus does not mention homosexuality”. Let us clarify a couple of things, shall we?

It is known even to Elton John that for around 6,000 years both Jews and Christians have said “sodomites” to indicate those culpable of practising sodomy and other forms of same-sex sexual perversion. If anyone is so stupid that he believes that 200 generations could be wrong concerning what the Bible means, than he is also too stupid to be helped. But the others, they certainly will not have any doubt.

Also, whoever has a minimum of acquaintance with the Gospel knows the fiery, imaginative, powerful language often used by Our Lord. He makes his point in a very emphatic way. He hammers it down the ears of the listeners. He uses expression like “depart from me, you cursed, in everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” instead of “I should make you aware that when you die you might get in some big trouble because you did not help the poor”.

It must also be said that the Jews in the time of Jesus (and all Jews and Christians afterwards) had no doubt whatsoever about the gravity and depravity of the homosexual acts. We all know that the refusal of such sexual perversion was very strong among the Jews, and that they took the Genesis episode extremely seriously.

Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. (Genesis 19: 24-25). 

There can be no doubt, no hesitation whatsoever in the realisation that every single adult listener and reader of Our Lord’s word in the following 2,000 years was perfectly aware of the sins in question, of their gravity, and of the gravity of the perversion that gives rise to them.

In the episode mentioned above, Jesus is making a very simple point: those who refuse to receive the Apostle and hear their words – those, in a word, who refuse to accept the message and authority of Christ through those he has sent to spread it – are culpable of an extremely grave sin; a sin whose gravity has quite a new quality, in obvious correspondence with the new situation created by the Incarnation. Therefore, Jesus expresses the gravity of the refusal to receive His truth in a very emphatic way: saying that those who make themselves culpable of such a sin will be punished even more gravely than those culpable of the very epitome of extremely gravely sinful behaviour: the Sodomites and the Gomorrheans, in which drawer all sexual pervs, trannies, and assorted freak shows find easily a place. 

The point is so simple, so evident, and made so loudly that there is no explanation how anyone could say that Jesus does not mention homosexuality, other than the fact that the ones who talks in such a way has never read the Gospel.

Here, the obfuscation artists try to hide behind the usual V II finger and state that Jesus is speaking of sodomy qua behaviour, not homosexuality qua “attraction”. This is a typical madness of the new times, and one that no one applies to any issue other than homosexuality. No one says, for example, that pedophilia as attraction is not a problem, only raping children is. A perversion can never be a behaviour, and therefore never a sin in itself; but there is no doubt that logic and sanity demand that the perversion be condemned as perversion with the same energy with which we condemn the behaviour as behaviour. 

Here, Jesus is speaking of an extremely bad behaviour. A behaviour that was considered, so to speak, almost – and bar blasphemy, and the like – the mother of all bad behaviours. But no sane person can have any doubt that the perversion is grave in the same proportion as the act following upon it is sinful. There is no way the inclination to commit incestuous acts can be considered something, in the sphere of perversions, lighter than the act of committing incest in the sphere of behaviour; or that the inclination to screw one’s own dog is little matter, and it only gets bad when one actually does it.

No. If you have a functioning brain you must recognise that Jesus has chosen the extremely grave perversion of homosexuality to express, in the extremely grave sin of sodomy it originates, the sin of all sins bar the direct refusal of God. There is simply no way you can accept the gravity of sodomy whilst downplaying the perversion that originates it. This is not the way logic works, and is not the way every single reader or listener of the Gospel in these 2,000 years would have understood it.

Jesus did not touch on homosexuality? Please, please let us stop with this nonsense.

M     

Methodists Vote Their Own Theology On Sodomy. For Once, They Vote Right.

Mundabor's Blog

As a Catholic, I never cease to be amazed at the very concept a group of faithful calling themselves a church can think of voting their own theology, the same way as a council would vote whether they want a new bridge or to enlarge the hospital. Apparently, the thinking behind that is that  the Holy Ghost guides them. So if community A is guided in a way and the neighbouring community B is guided in a different one…

This, let me say this, utterly ridiculous and childlike system of deciding what is right and what is wrong must not necessarily lead to the wrong results.  Let us say, there is on average a 50% probability they will do what is right. This happened to the biggest US mainstream Protestant denomination in the US, the Methodists.

The Methodists have defeated attempts to modify their own theology in a way which…

View original post 287 more words

Before “Who Am I To Judge?”: The Church About Sodomy

This undoubtedly makes for some reading.

What a difference with “who am I to judge?”-Francis or “we are more nuanced”-Nichols.

Mundabor

 

The Rape Of The Church: Pope Francis Celebrates And Encourages Sodomy

Faggot is who faggot does.

Faggot is who faggot does.

 

I had missed this, but it was posted yesterday by two readers on my comment box.

Words fail.

Let us stay calm (if we can; I have been trying since yesterday) and let us see what is happening here.

1.

The faggot priest (real, or honorary) gives to the Pope a set of wooden chalice and paten. The use of wooden chalice and paten in the Mass is explicitly forbidden. It is, it can be safely said, a clear sign that the Mass in question may well be invalid, and that the celebrant does not believe in the Transubstantiation. In this case, the wooden chalice and paten are an obvious sign of defiance of Church teaching, as everything the faggot priest (real, or honorary) says and stands for.

The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift.

2.

The faggot priest (real, or honorary) also give Francis a copy of his most recent book. There can be no doubt whatever the book is scandalous in its every part, and promotes sodomy exactly as his author does. Sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance.

The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift, too. 

3.

Not happy with thus giving an obvious, public endorsement of sodomy, Francis concelebrates Mass with the faggot priest (real, or honorary). This, he does with the man who is about to give him a wooden chalice and paten.

My adrenaline has been on alarm levels since yesterday, so I will avoid to expand much on this. I have already cancelled several lines of this post. And I don’t think any of them was untrue in any way.  

The facts are in front of you. There is nowhere to hide. This is so openly the work of the Devil that I am embarrassed for your mother if you are so thick that you don’t get it. 

One would hope that all those who had refused to see anything bad in this disgraceful man appointing his sodomite buddy to head of the Vatican Bank (where he still sits) would open their big blue eyes and start looking at reality as it is: a Pope who is an accomplice of, and encourages sodomy for the sake of his own approval. But they very probably won’t, because if they had had some sense they would have understood then, rather than needing this open, shocking, shameless endorsement of sodomy now. 

This Pope, who thinks angels inferior to men, truly causes them to cry to heaven for vengeance. His approval of sodomy is so explicit that it cannot be made more clear. I ask you what is a Pope to do to let even the last idiot understand that he – if he is not homosexual himself – is most certainly an accomplice of sodomites. I can’t imagine any endorsement more open than this one, short of “mercifully” appearing in some “gay porn” movie.

Which, let me state this very clearly, I do not consider beyond him, at all.

Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. A sin. That cries. To heaven. For vengeance.

If Francis had some sense in that stupid, or evil, head of his, he would avoid even thinking of giving such scandal. He would know that his being such an overt accomplice of the sin of the sodomites would attract on him the most terrible punishment, perhaps only short of those reserved to sodomites themselves (and perhaps not, because he is the Pope). If he had, he would. But he hasn’t, so he doesn’t.

I think the reality is a very sobering one: this man does not believe in God. He is, consequently, not afraid of punishment. He berates angels, because he considers them fantasy creations. He does not believe in Transubstantiation, and therefore accepts a wooden chalice and paten as a gift without wincing; actually, with his acceptance he encourages further liturgical abuses, and sends a very open signal of his lack of belief in Transubstantiation.

He is not afraid of any punishment, whether earthly of heavenly. He believes in only one thing: Jorge Bergoglio. The promotion of this agenda, of the “Humble Pope” brand is, to him, the only thing that counts, and to which everything else – from the Transubstantiation to the Blessed Virgin, from Our Lord to the  most elementary teachings – must give way.

All this is then conveniently  masked as “mercy”, thus clearly indicating God is, with his approval of Christianity of the past 2000 years, unmerciful.

What a disgrace of a Pope.   

The bride of Christ is being raped every day, by the same man who should protect Her. The perverts of all sorts and their friends applaud, and rejoice. The tepid masses do not understand, but prefer to look the other way. The professional idiots say if the Pope rapes the Church, then it means for some reason it is right that the Church be raped. There must be things we do not know, you know… Christianity has always been so inscrutable, after all…

I know that the angels in heaven look at all this. I call on them to cry to heaven for God’s righteous vengeance on this man, relentlessly working against God in the most evident, most shameless way, and only bent on the edification of his own cult.

This is a papacy fit for the perverts, the atheists, the satanists, the heathen, and the stupid. 

They are all having a party, whilst Francis rapes the Church every day.

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sodomy: Maria Miller Made To Practice What She Preaches.

Painful on impact. And say thanks I have not posted the other thing...

My affectionate readers already know Maria Miller, because I have already written how – bar a desirable but improbable repentance – she is going to hell.

What many of my readers might not know is that said Mrs Miller was forced to resign this morning, after her political backside had looked more and more threatened by that kind of torpedo-shaped same-sex loving she so eagerly celebrates.

In Mrs Miller case, the scandals had compounded. A first enquiry about her expenses had led to veiled threats to the press, as the female put – through third parties – her role in the proposed regulation of the press into play. Not very classy; not very intelligent, either; and in short, very Sicilian: capisci? Needless to say, the press was, erm, not impressed, and the female in trouble.

To these two scandals others were adding. The fine of around £50,000 proposed by an independent commission for the expense matter was reduced to around a tenth of the original amount by a committee of MPs, which in itself was scandalous and self-serving enough. But the same-sex-loving female made it worse, appearing in Parliament and giving the shortest and most arrogant of apologies. The men at the chronometer dissent here: some said 32 seconds, some 34, some actually 28. Whichever it was, it was another demonstration the woman is unfit to represent her cat, and a prime example of MP entitlement and arrogance.

When it turned out she had, finally, sold a property with more than £1m profit and not paid a penny of Capital Gain Tax through a trick legally allowed to MPs but morally not acceptable – and not open to the likes of us – it was clear she was, as the Italians so beautifully say, a political walking corpse. It is, in fact, indicative of the incompetence and lack of contact with the common people of this Prime Minister that he thought he could save himself and his government this embarrassment by defending her when the flak was massive and, even, strongest from his own party. But then again Cameron never cared for his party, so all normal here.

On Tuesday afternoon, even my cat was moving his head in disbelief. By late Tuesday evening, Cameron had given Mrs Miller, in a personal meeting, a huge Celebration Dildo – a metaphorical one, I know; but surely a very painful one nevertheless – as a “thank you” for her useful work on the side of the nation's perverts. Time to practice what she preaches, I am afraid. This does call for a celebration. By mid-morning today, the gift – and his metaphorical use – had been made public.

Good riddance to Mrs Miller. She will go – bar an always welcome repentance – to hell anyway. But it is nice to know that her political career, built very largely upon the promotion and celebration of sexual perversion, has now ended with her nose in full contact with a pavement concrete slab, and her name is now running for the prize of Most Arrogant MP After The 2009 Expenses Scandal.

I hope she enjoyed the metaphorical same-sex loving.

She deserved – metaphorically speaking, of course – nothing less.

Mundabor

 

 

The War On Sodomy

Rather stubborn when he wanted: John Paul II.

Rather stubborn when he wanted: John Paul II.

I am no friend of JP II’s papacy. If you ask me, he has supervised and administered a 25 year-long decay of Christianity, undermining the Church’s strength with unspeakable episcopal appointments and not seeing (or not caring for) the decomposition of Catholic instruction all over the West; the last phenomenon, a slow but effective cancer whose effects we are experiencing now, poisoned an entire generation of Catholics who live and go to vote with only vague ideas about what they are supposed to believe and why. As a result, Catholicism has been slowly withering in the Western world, whilst the growth in Asia and Africa and the media successes of the Pontiff (full airports, and “icon status”) lulled the Vatican in the illusion everything is, more or less, fine.

Still, looking back at JP II’s pontificate, one can see an area where his work has been, at least in words, persistent and very counter-cultural: abortion. John Paul’s insisted returning on the issue did in time leave traces, and the slogan of the “culture of death” has now become mainstream. It is impossible not to notice that the slow swing in the abortion battle was made possible also through the contribution of an honest soul who, by all his shortcoming as a Pontiff, knew how to be stubborn on issues particularly near to his heart.

In my eyes, the times are ripe for the start of a second crusade: the War On Sodomy. If a Pope were courageous enough as to put the matter square in the middle of the sociopolitical debate, we would not have to wait many years before the entire planet starts to listen.

A Pope insistently pointing out to the total opposition of Sodomy and Christianity, and to the utter and total impossibility for everyone who aids and abets or even condones sodomy  to call himself a Christian (not a Catholic, mind; a Christian) would certainly cause a huge uproar among the blaspheming classes, but would inevitably attract, in due course, the attention of the Catholic masses.

It takes time before the masses move; what you notice is rather a small shift in perception, due to natural causes as generations themselves shift, and to the natural tendencies of most to follow what they think most think, confusing error with wisdom whenever the error is widely spread. In order to shake the masses from their torpor you need a kind of shock treatment, a shift of paradigm able to bring the world to attention in a relatively short time.

What we need is a roaring Church rather than a meowing one; a Church ready to give battle rather than timid counsel; a Church not shy in letting their opponents understand once she has chosen an enemy, she will go on until his complete political annihilation (Obama and Andrew Cuomo immediately come to mind). This can ,very probably,  be done in the smart way without even losing tax privileges, though tax privileges should never be in the way of Christianity and I do not think tax consideration should really be an issue. Never did a courageous Church lack conversions, martyrs, and the necessary means. 

A roaring Pope starting a true war on Sodomy would in time not fail to shift the public perception on the matter. This war should not only be wages with words through encyclical letters, radio and TV speeches, tweets if he likes, and so on; but more importantly it should be founded on actual actions like the appointments of only the most rigidly orthodox as bishops, the purging of seminaries from every heretical tendency, a massive cleanup among dissenting nuns and friars, and an aggressive intervention in all political debates involving Christian values.  In just a few years, sodomy would soon be seen again as a disgusting, abominable perversion that is just the epitome of everything that is wrong with Godlessness, instead of a strange but very fashionable quirk of people unjustly persecuted by bigots. The narrative of the progressive citizen who “loves his gays” and feels so inclusive and tolerant works because the progressive citizen isn’t told he is an idiot bent for hell, and even our prelates seem unable to miss any one occasion to say how oh so caring they are.

What we need now is a frontal attack, not inclusive waffle.

One quarter of the English Catholic clergy signs a letter, and be assured in Westminster and Downing Hill there are preoccupied faces already. If there was an all out attack be assured the meetings at Number 10 would have as only issue out to get out of the mess and try to save face. They are scared of a couple of perverts’ lobbies, knowing the Church is out for their scalp would scare them witless.

We have Cardinals inviting enemies of Christianity to prestige dinners instead, and even when there is a reaction (see sodomarriage in England), this is too little, and with people with no credibility whatever in the matter. The best example is Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, a man already compromised with so-called civil partnership and the least fit to tell us why we should upheld Christian values.

Mundabor

 

Priests Against Sodomy

Defend us in battle!

Defend us in battle!

In a rather unprecedented show of defiance of modern secular values, 1,000 Catholic clergymen have signed a letter to our honorary “gay” PM, asking him to put an end to the craze of so-called same sex marriage. The letter was strategically published on the “Telegraph” on Saturday and will, no doubt, cause more than some uneasiness among the elected prostitutes currently leading the country towards total transformation into a huge modern Sodom only waiting for the Exterminating Angel to be ordered to get on with his work (more selectively than the last time , I hope).

The event is, as far as I know, unprecedented at least for England, and puts “call me a whore” Cameron on collision course with an awful lot of Catholics; then if things have a logic and common sense still counts for something this is not going to stop at the letter writing stage.

The elements that emerge are, as I see them , the following:

1) The English Catholic clergy pays now, with steep interest, the price of their cowardice in the past. The “civil partnership” madness is less than ten years old, and geniuses like today’s Archbishop of Westminster were full of appreciative, oily, slimy, subservient “nuances” about it, uncaring even for the salvation of their own soul provided they can go on with their lives undisturbed. Make no mistake, many of the priests and bishops react now because, hard headed as they are, they have realised their lives are not going to go on undisturbed for very long if the Gaystapo isn’t stopped. The erosion of Christianity in this country is going one day to impact their daily lives and this, they cannot allow.

2) Some very harsh passages in the letter (the reference to Henry VIII, and the total discounting of the ridiculous legal protections allegedly awarded by people who think you don’t even have the right to refuse sodomitical couples a room in your Bed and Breakfast, and think a Christian has no right to wear a cross at work) show that, for once, the English clergy has been perceptive: the Gaystapo can’t be appeased, and every concession one makes to them will lead to the request for further concessions, until a priest has the choice between celebrating mock marriages in a Catholic Church or go to jail; and at that point it would clearly have to be jail, then not even Paul VI would cave in on this.

3) Still, it is revealing the initiative appears not to have started by the Bishops, but to be the initiative of priests who understand if they leave things to their shepherds they’ll all be devoured by the sodomitical wolf; as these things always take a dynamic of their own, said shepherd were not (or will not be) able to ignore the pressure and have decided (or will decide) to jump in.

So this is where we are now: a reaction from the bottom that, whilst still weak in itself, promises to become far more interesting in the future, as the ball is now rolling (no thanks to you, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols) and it appears difficult to think further pressure will not be applied. The announced approaching of 65 MPs in marginal constituencies is a thinly veiled anticipation of things to come and a clear warning there will be blood on the carpet, and this battle will cost politicians’ careers.

I have already said several times that with the usual exceptions, an English MP is a be-suited (or tailleured) prostitute. They have no fear of the Lord, no thought about their death and judgment, and mostly no religious convictions they could write on a napkin. The de-ideologised state of the country and the horrible first-past-the-post system favour a mentality of utterly shameless flip-flopping, with the MP as the servant of whatever wishes of his constituents, which in practice means the slave of tiny but organised pressure groups, like the fags. Still, what really terrifies them is getting in the sight of some pressure group that is massive and well-organised.

As stated, most of them are already scared stiff by a bunch of queens, and will do whatever the latter say as long as they think the mass of the indifferent sheep will go along and be content with some well-sounding waffle about “commitment”, “happiness” and the like. Until another group wakes up, that is, and scares the Cameron out of them.

Unfortunately, we are here far away from the determination that would be required. If we had real shepherds instead of timid sheep, an all-out fall-out would take place, and the entire Westminster world would soon understand Cameron, Miller, Johnson and a couple of other bonzes have become political toxic waste promising to destroy the career of whoever dares to even hint he might support them. “Look”, must be the message, “we are going to go against them until they are destroyed and made an example for the others, and who cares if it takes 3,000 years and a civil war. Therefore, choose your side carefully”. This is, in the practice if not in the words, the style of the Italian clergy. If they let you fall once, there will be no return in their graces: they will do whatever they can (which may be more or less, but more than you want) to make scorched earth around you, and boy they do have time!
Even Mussolini knew it, but you may want to ask Berlusconi for security.

You think the Church in England can’t make scorched earth around Cameron and his pervs? Think again. A small group of perverts has managed to almost outlaw every criticism to their so-called lifestyle. Just imagine what the weekly attacks to Cameron, Miller, Johnson & Co from a group representing millions of voters (plus the Anglicans, Atheists, agnostics, Jews and, importantly, Muslims who have the pockets full of this) would do to them.

Ah, if we had brave leaders instead of the likes of Nichols, how much could still be achieved! As it stands, his priests are forced to literally force Nichols’ hand, but he will only do as little as is absolutely necessary, and his shameless, satanic “nuanced” support for civil partnerships will haunt him every step of the way and deprive him of all credibility. It’s like having Neville Chamberlain (or, well, Vidkun Quisling) leading the charge against Hitler.

Let us pray and hope for the best anyway. The pressure is mounting, the House of Lords might stop the law, the litigation would be on an unprecedented scale, the general mess promises to be on an epochal scale and more and more MPs might soon start to think about their future and have second thoughts.

This isn’t over yet, by far.

Mundabor

The Case For Sodomy Laws

What he says.

Imagine one day your Government, following the “call” of the times, would decide that sexual intercourse with animals does not constitute a criminal offence. It is still horrible of course, but it has now been decided that prosecution (with the added expenses) is now not the way anymore.

In just a few years, behaviour once considered criminally perverted would be considered merely disgusting; after a while, purely very strange. Disquieting people would emerge from anonymity, beginning to give themselves as zoophiles names like “smart” or “spiffy”. Soon, they would begin to consider themselves a ” minority”, and the carriers of a “culture”, and this culture would be, of course, “discriminated against” by the “hypocritical” followers of “bourgeois morality”.

Give them just a few years more (the time to infiltrate Hollywood, and be considered “normal” by a generation of people who cannot even remember zoophilia was once a criminal offence) and Bob’s your uncle: they will be accepted. This point – when people start to say “some of my best friends are spiffies” without being ashamed; nay, feeling modern and alternative and “with it” – is the turning of the tide. After a while, calls for “civil partnerships” will be heard, and when one already has a neighbour living with an extremely nice female of German Shepherd it might not sound so absurd at all because the abomination was there, to be seen every day and shamelessly practised under the sun already; after a while, the calls for “marriage” will follow, and those who refuse to congratulate Bella (the German shepherd) and Adam (the English  accountant) for their beautiful relationship will be called, by the then deputy Prime Minister, “bigots”, whilst the Prime Minister of the day will call their “commitment” something “conservative” and give his blessing. In the end, they say, Bella and Adam are “happy”, and how can anyone be so cruel as to be against, oh, oh, “happiness”?

What is this all to do with the so-called “gay marriage”, you will ask?

Everything.

The debate about the so-called “gay marriage” (which isn’t gay; much less marriage) is not the product of some strange combination of planets; it is the unavoidable consequence of the abolition of sodomy laws. How was it not to be expected that the toleration of perversion would not, in time, lead to calls for its normalisation? One can’t be half against abominations. Either one refuses them altogether as taboos, or one will be forced to “include” what he is afraid to condemn. 

Our forefathers, much smarter than we are and with no false gods of tolerance at all costs, knew this. We know this ourselves  when some types of sexual perversions (paedophilia, say) are concerned. But again, after only one and a half generation without sodomy laws many people would struggle to even link the two and put them in the same ballpark, which countless generations before us did without any problem. This happens because, as I have often repeated, the laws of one generations are the morality of the following one. Those legislators who decriminalised sodomy in the Sixties certainly did not favour the so-called “gay marriage”, but clearly did not think this through. We now pay the consequences of their folly, and it might be a long time before sanity (and with it sodomy laws) returns.  

We live in such senselessly stupid times that we have lost sight for elementary truths just because they impact some neighbour or colleague or “friend”. God is not part of the picture anymore, and no average “British Neighbour” wonders anymore whether he must really tolerate scandalous perversion out of his own front door. This happens, because he has not been taught to call a spade a spade; and whilst he feels all the disgust he has no heart to say what he thinks, lest he should appear a Neanderthaler in the eyes of his neighbours; many of whom, no doubt, think exactly as he does.

This cycle of cowardice  – which generates more homo screaming; which generates more cowardice – has to stop. It has to stop if we want to go back to basic Christianity and elementary decency, instead of allowing Satan to manipulate us everywhere whilst we say to our friends how modern and tolerant we are.

So-called “gay” (I’d love to see the suicide statistics of such “gay” people) “marriage” is not fought against saying that civil partnership is enough of a civil right, because this invites the problem rather than avoiding it. If perversion is right, why should only half perversion be accepted? Isn’t the very institution of “civil partnership” the statement that sexual perversion is absolutely normal? If it’s normal, what’s the fuss?

So-called “gay marriage” is fought against by calling s spade a spade, and a pervert a pervert, not by giving perverts almost full recognition and then telling them they are ok, but really, they should not ask to be treated as such.

Bring back the sodomy laws.

Mundabor

How BBC Introduce Children To Sodomy

The BBC Sodomy Reblog

How BBC Introduces Children To Sodomy

Vicarettes: the reality can be even more pathetic than the fiction.

The BBC has, as you would expect, a morning program. It should be one of those programs where two people (one man and one woman; pleasant but not too attractive; pleasantly communicative but not too invasive; you know the type) sit on a couch and inform us about a variety of things: the hose pipe ban, what’s happening on the M25, your five a day, and the like.

Not so in Beebistan, the planet where political correctness reigns unopposed, and liberal propaganda does not spare anyone, not even children. Saturday morning, the viewers were served a fat, uncommonly ugly woman dressed like a priest. I am sure she was in black because it helped to mask her more than generous proportions, but by the way she behaved she could have had a red nose and no one would have noticed anyway.

The woman was one of those middle-aged fuglies trying to look modern, and happy, and careless, and oh so in tune with the world. As always in these cases, she only managed to look pathetic. The argument about which she was “invited” (with no counterpart to represent the contrary opinion; hey, it’s a morning broadcast and not a political debate, right?) to talk was the (so-called) Church of England’s opposition to the (also so-called; what a world we must live in) “gay marriage”; an issue on which the said wannabe church seems to be willing to fight an unprecedented battle against our perverted Government, whilst archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols shouts his silence.

In a very debonair, “let’s have a chat” way, the two presenters introduced her to the matter (morning program, remember! Sodomy with your muesli!) , and the wannabe vicar of Dibley started to talk agitatedly about how much she doesn’t care if a man wants to marry a man and a woman a woman, and she would find it so nice to have it in church. Asked how she reconciles this with the position of her hierarchy, she said she didn’t really care, because the beauty of the c of E – and the reason why she had become a wannabe vicarette of Dibley – is that said “church” always allowed such a breadth of opinions…

Not one word was said of Christianity, of the commandments – I doubt she knows them – or of the fact we are talking very, very basic Christianity here. What was worse – and made the matter truly disgusting – was the fact the woman tried to appear so youthful and full of enthusiasm and “with it” all the time, moving her fat bottom on the couch as if she had been a teenager talking about her new favourite boy band. I truly had the impression she was either advertising herself to the male audience (good luck with that) or else trying to look stupid for no apparent reason.

I know the c of E is a pathetic outfit as it is, but I could not have imagined that their personnel can arrive to such a point of adolescential stupidity. As to the BBC, I notice once again there was no debate, and no contrary position. The BBC uses the morning program to pervert the youth, and wannabe religious people to undermine Christianity. I can only hope there will be consequences for the fat vicarette, but the c of E being what it is I rather doubt it. That there will be no consequences for the BBC, I do not doubt at all. The BBC has become an Indian Reserve for the worst type of liberal; people completely detached from the real world outside, but determined to remake it in their own image.

A pox on them all, one would be tempted to say. I think it’s sinful, though.

Better still: the end of the TV Licence regime.

Mundabor

Methodists Vote Their Own Theology On Sodomy. For Once, They Vote Right.

As a Catholic, I never cease to be amazed at the very concept a group of faithful calling themselves a church can think of voting their own theology, the same way as a council would vote whether they want a new bridge or to enlarge the hospital. Apparently, the thinking behind that is that  the Holy Ghost guides them. So if community A is guided in a way and the neighbouring community B is guided in a different one…

This, let me say this, utterly ridiculous and childlike system of deciding what is right and what is wrong must not necessarily lead to the wrong results.  Let us say, there is on average a 50% probability they will do what is right. This happened to the biggest US mainstream Protestant denomination in the US, the Methodists.

The Methodists have defeated attempts to modify their own theology in a way which “includes” perversion. The political correctness on the proposed formulations leaves one speechless: what does it mean to say homosexual are “people of sacred worth?” As human beings, of course they have sacred worth. But is their perversion worth anything?

To have an idea of the errors of Protestantism,  please consider another motion called for the acknowledgment we have “limited understanding” of homosexuality and (hold fast) should  “refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices until the Spirit leads us to new insight.” This is absolutely fantastic: if something is not after my liking, I will “refrain from judging” until the “Spirit” mysteriously changes his mind and “leads me to a new insight”.

This is not even Christianity a’ la carte. This is Christianity wanting something that is not even on the menu.

Then there is the idea one shouldn’t use “incompatibility language”. Whence they do get all these stupid expressions is beyond me, but they must feel smart.

Still, even in the middle of this democratic madness it appears a majority has refused to throw Christian values out of the window, and has rejected all motions seeking to water down the Christian position on sodomy. This, notwithstanding a debate tending to persuade them that if they aren’t inclusive, they will be responsible for many suicides.

Some of the delegates maintained some freshness, like the one comparing homosexuality to bestiality; which should actually be rather normal; unless you are a Methodist, in which case it’s use of “incompatibility language”.

The incestuous and pedophiles now want to be made “compatible”, too.

Otherwise, they will commit suicide.

And it will be all your fault.

Kudos to our proddie friends, anyway. At least, to that 54% who got it right.

Mundabor

Starbucks Says “Sodomy Good, Insects Bad”.

The always rather biting Daily Mail informs us Starbucks (the politically correct, probably homo-ridden  coffee-house chain for the perverts and those who would like to be it, but only if they can pay too much for the privilege) wanted to go away from artificial dyers and, in a move to please the limp wrists of their clients, moved to natural ones. In this case, they took many little cochineal insects and squeezed them to a red pulp, which then landed in the frappuccino of some wannabe Elton and his, as they call each other nowadays, “civil partner”.

Things turned sour for Starbucks when a group of vegans (sexual orientation not known, but I never found one who doesn’t eat meat an archetype of masculinity, either; more fitting to querulous women, for sure) complained they don’t want to be eating little red animals with their frappuccino without even knowing it; and when they know it, they don’t want in the first place.

Now, Starbucks is a very, very faggoty company. Sodomarriage is, apparently, one of their core values, or something like that. Therefore, they must have imagined their clients abandoning themselves to shrill little cries of disgust at knowing those horrible, horrible animals are in their favourite strawberry latte skinny non macchiato something. As a result, they have decided to abandon the little insects and switch to a tomato extract. I am waiting for the next group of fanatics to complain this is against their principles.

My reflection on this is that Starbucks is so gay one has to be afraid of even being seen there. Look at Eddie Murphy above, and think if you want to be put in the same basket with them.

Avoid Starbucks, folks. You don’t want to be seen there.

It’s so, so, so gay.

Mundabor

If Sodomites have “Human Rights”, Why Should Incestuous Couple Not Have Them?

Keep-Calm-and-Catholic-On-RED

 

It had to happen at some point. 

An incestuous “couple” (mother and son; just so you know why you are vomiting) have just started their very public “human rights battle”. 

Can’t say they are wrong. 

They are both adult, and willing. Thinking with the stupid XXI century, they are “not doing harm to anyone”. Actually, they are not causing any physical harm, whilst sodomy causes a lot of physical harm (ask any sodomite on the receiving side. Thankfully, I can’t say anything about the other one). So, let me ask stupid England once again: why should they not be allowed to live like Elton? 

The truth is this: people have Truth inscribed in their hearts. As they get perverted by strange religions (like the religion of peace, and the church of niceness) they forget the truth inscribed in their hearts, or better said these truths become so faint that they are easily overridden by the prevalent religion of tolerance. 

But this does not happen all at the same time, or in one generation. It happens gradually. One generation is “pitiful” of the fags they despise. Their sons think the fags should be able to “marry”, because they “lurv”. Their nephews will think it “lovephobic” than people do not want that a man screws his own mother.

It’s all in these little words, “not doing harm to anyone”, you see. Those who think that way have forgotten what a sin is, what fear of the Lord is, what decency and purity are. They have been so brainwashed by the “lurv” society, that they drift one sin at a time; and every time, they cannot understands why they were resisting that particular sin in the first way.

The next generation might call you “lovephobic” like this one calls you “homophobic”. The following one will cal you “dogphobic” or “sheepphobic”, and you know why…

The worst thing is that they might dare to call themselves Catholic.

They might  even have a Pope, Francis III, who encourages them in this thinking via ambiguous apostolic exhortations and extremely verbous and just as stupid encyclicals.

The good news is: Truth can never change. Unless they repent, those who scream “homophobia” in this generation, “lovephobia” in the next and “dogphobia” in the following one will at death go there, where they get an awful lot of time to reflect about their rebellion.  

We keep praying our Rosary, like our grandfathers. Keep believing what our Grandfathers believed. Keep praying, and waiting that this punishment goes to an end.

 M

 

Ratzingergate. Part I: The Downfall

downfall 1

The downfall is coming. 

The Pontiff Emeritus is about to release another book, and Repubblica (yes, that one) has some tasty bits of it, meant to awaken the reader’s appetite and to open their wallet.

However, these is not the usual pre-publication snippets. These declaration equate to a complete loss of face for the – we can now safely say – tragic and pathetic figure of the Emeritus.

Let us see the downfall in detail. Emphases are mine, and not made without pain. 

“There were numerous commitments which I felt I was no longer able to carry through,” Ratzinger explained. “Notably, the World Youth Day which had been scheduled to take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in the summer of 2013. I was very certain of two things. After the experience of the trip to Mexico and Cuba, I no longer felt able to embark on another very demanding visit. Furthermore, according to the format of these gatherings, which had been established by John Paul II, the Pope’s physical presence there was paramount. A television link or any other such technological solution was out of the question. This was another reason why I saw it as my duty to resign.” 

  What an embarrassing statement to read. 

I had always thought that Pope Benedict had decided to resign because he felt unable to gather the strength necessary to fight the long and brutal fight that announced itself after the famous report about sodomy within the Vatican. I can still understand he might have decided to be too weak for the job tout court (remember he was very frail at the time). But to read from a Pope that he decided to resign because he felt he was now unable to be the main attraction, the chief clown of a worldwide travelling circus is truly beyond the pale. Even more stupid, if possible, is the linked assertion that, since JP II had started the circus, Ratzinger felt it could not be stopped, and he the Pope. What a total lack of leadership. What a total lack of… manliness. 

Embarrassing. I am ashamed for him. I am literally red in the face thinking of the way he has put shame on himself. 

It goes to show: you scratch the V II Pope and what comes out can only be pus. 

Alas, it goes on. Let us see what a Pope Emeritus has to say about an extremely cruel Communist bastard, a prime candidate for Hell and decades long friend of all the wrong causes: 

I need scarcely remind you of how impressed I was in Cuba to see the way in which Raul Castro wishes to lead his country onto a new path, without breaking with the immediate past.

 Seriously, what is this? A Pope (emeritus) lauding one of the Castro brothers for trying to keep Communism alive for as long as he can? Is this man on drugs? Drunken? Gaga? He can give interviews that become books, so one must infer he is decidedly “there” with his head.

I think the reality is far simpler: Ratzinger is, and always was, a gregarious type; an order-taker; one always ready to fall in line.

This interview will certainly mark the lowest point of Ratzinger’s public career. It is a complete denouement of a little yes-man. It is the embarrassing spectacle of a former Pope now towing the Francis line in a way inconceivable only a few years ago.

I never thought Benedict a hero of orthodoxy. I always thought Benedict was always V II, and Francis is V II on steroids. But this interview here is tantamount to Benedict taking the first dose of steroids himself, and saying to the world how much he likes it.

Let me say it again: a supporting rider, not a leader; an order-taker, not an order-giver.

What a tragic figure.

M   

%d bloggers like this: