Category Archives: Catholicism
We say homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered” at most; mostly, however, we blubber things like everyone being a sinner etc, drowning this extremely grave perversion in an ocean of niceness.
The fags say that we are like slave drivers or Ku Klux Klan members.
Perverts call themselves “gay”.
We call them… “gay”.
Perverts call for so-called “gay marriage”.
We are in favour of civil partnerships.
Guess who will win?
It does not work that way. Thinks must be said straight, and truth must be said whole.
The Western world will start to win again when the call for tough Christian legislation rises again. Sodomy laws, and all that stuff.
You can't say to a pervert that he is such a nice person, only a tad – perhaps; who knows? – more sinful than others; be called a racist pig whilst you don't even dare to call a pervert a pervert; and expect to win.
When I was a child, every child knew the Confederate Flag. It was in countless movies, and it was in the consciousness of the people. No one ever took it to mean anything more racist than, say, the Roman Eagle. As I grew up, I learned to know the flag as a symbol of the cultural specificity of the former Confederate states. No US colleague or work relation ever spoke about it to me as “racist”.
Well, this is about to end. All it took is an idiot, and the Leftist Nazis are now marching against the Confederate Flag itself. It’s not that they care anything about racism (Margaret Sanger pushed abortion to destroy the Blacks), it’s that they want to destroy any symbol remotely connected with social conservatism. If you are not like them, you must be reeducated, or banned.
Breitbart tells us the support for the Confederate Flag is still very high, and the flag is obviously not seen as a symbol of “racism” (duh?). But this obviously does not count.
You see, the US are now governed not by their elected representatives, but by a caste of judges headed by the nine judges of the Supreme Court. The lower courts will now start to ban the flag out of pure judicial activism (for the good of you, the children), and the thing will take its course out to a lesbian-ridden Supreme Court, where at least five of them will decide that the Confederate Flag violate the human rights of someone or other. As the Supreme Court has just showed its willingness to extract human rights out of its hat like as many rabbits, this one will be a doddle.
Say farewell to the Confederate Flag, then. In the time of the Rainbow Flag, there’s no space for normality or common sense.
Francis is stupid. He has the brain of a slow man without an education ranting at the pub. Only add microphones, and journalists.
Among the many senseless statements of the Pope there is the – recently repeated in Turin, but not new at all – sweeping condemnation of the arms industry.
Firstly, the common sense: to condemn weapons as evil is as intelligent as to condemn Nutella, or kitchen knives, as evil. Yes, you can kill yourself with Nutella: but this makes you stupid, not Nutella evil. Yes, you can butcher people with kitchen knives, but this makes you, not the knife, evil.
But let us look at the Gospel:
Jesus states he has not come to bring peace, he has come with a sword. (Mt 10:34). It is clear even to my cat that the sword here has an extremely positive connotation. The sword is, symbolically, what Christ brings to us.
Poor Francis is and old nincompoop. If he weren’t, he would notice the huge statue of St. Michael the Archangel at the top of Castel Sant’Angelo. Brandishing a huge sword.
Jesus also ordered the Disciples to buy swords, at the cost of having to sell their cloak if needs be.
But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one
It is obvious even to my cat that Jesus does not have anything against either weapons used as self-defence, or entire armies.
He actually even speaks of twelve legions of angels, directly referring to the Roman military structures (Mt 26:52). He could have said great multitudes, he said twelve legions. You are supposed to think of a huge, well-ordered, perfectly efficient, absolutely deadly army of angels, not simply “a great quantity of them”.
I have long thought alcohol may play a role in the ramblings of this man, and I have not changed my mind. However, when the man goes so far as to write an encyclical full of extremist rants and third-hand, fully discredited fake “science” you know that he does not need fernet to talk like an idiot, because in his sober state he fulfills the requirements brilliantly.
By the by, I have read a beautiful article about the sophisticated weapons of the Swiss Guard (The site? Arms.com! Oh the irony!) , and their training not only with modern firearms, but even with the old ones. These are people who could hack an aggressor with their own short swords, or make of them “aggressor on a stick” with their pikes, in no times. Using… what, again?
Summa summarum? If you ask Francis, Jesus was evil. Armies protecting our freedom and property are evil. Those who protect Francis himself are evil. Those who sold weapons to all of the above mentioned are evil.
But Francis, who profits of the very weapons defending him; he is, as you all all know, humble and good.
If you read my several posts about Predestination and Reprobation you will see that God, Who is omnipotent and omniscient, has decreed from all eternity that certain people – the Reprobates – will willingly merit hell for themselves, whilst others – the Elect – will willingly cooperate with His grace in a way that merits them, normally after the necessary purification in Purgatory, heaven.
In a mysterious, but not incomprehensible way, the system works in both directions. God has decreed, and I willingly do what he has decreed I would be doing.
How does this apply to the dark times in which we are living? In my eyes, it applies to it in a very simple way: that when the clergy and the laymen betray God, He punishes not only the generation in question, but also sends them an awful lot of Reprobates, so that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons. I am, obviously, talking of great numbers here; not of your aunt Dahlia who, I am sure, is quite all right.
The generation who willingly decided that abortion is not only fine, but a right to be protected will be punished – inter alia – from knowing, in hell, that their children rot in hell with them forever. The sin of the fathers are – collectively speaking – visited upon the sons. Those who treat “luv” (not a real love, of course; a perverted, monstrous caricature of it) as if it were God will pay a price for their blasphemy commensurate to the rank of the One they have offended.
More in general it is, in my eyes, very fair to say that even among the baptised Catholics not all generations have the same amount of Reprobates. How can anyone with some logic think that Satan will have the same harvest from the baptised Catholics born in, say, 1910, 1950 and 1990? If this were the case, it would make no difference – and it would make, in the end, utterly irrelevant – if a generation has good priests and strong faith, or not. No. In the average, is stands to reason that the one born in 1910 is much more likely to have a healthy fear of the Lord than the one born in 1940, and the one born in 1940 is more likely to be at least disgusted by sexual perversion, and possibly fully aware of how sodomy offends God, than the one born in 1970 by people who, even if they still had their children baptised, did not care a straw for anything else than their own, extremely convenient moral compass. Following the same logic, it is not surprising at all that many of the children born in 2010 are not baptised at all.
We live, very clearly, in a generation of Reprobates; now arrived at the adult stage of their existence and thinking and acting like perfect heathens, feeling – probably, more than the heathens of pre-Christian times did – perfectly fine with themselves in the process.
No generation of evil people was so sanctimoniously persuaded of their own saintliness than this one; very probably, not even the Sodomites themselves. This, if nothing else, gives you the scale of the horrible tragedy that is unraveling under our very eyes.
A reckless generation chose abortion and mass contraception. In time, God sent them what their abortion and contraception were calling for: an enormous mass of reprobates as children, who then paved the way for even worse evil, and even worse suffering in hell, for the generation after them. This vicious circle will go on until the Lord, in His Mercy and Justice, decides that the wicked have been punished enough and, from another point of view, enough wicked have been punished. At that point, sanity will be restored and the newly sent Elect will take care that things are put right.
No generation was, of course, exempt from sin. But I fail to detect in history another example of such a mass abandonment of a Christian Truth already revealed. What we are living is, compared to the French or the October Revolution, less cruent in blood shed, but so much vaster in scale. It is as if the Lord had decided that if the Christian West wants to nuke itself, it should be allowed to do so and enjoy the nuclear fallout to the end.
We have to live in the age of the nuclear self-destruction of the very soul of the Western world, and will have to go through the fallout as long as the Lord in His Mercy decides we should do do. But at some point, we will be called, and sorted among the many Reprobates or the, most certainly, much smaller number of the Elect.
Let us work every day, in the middle of this nuclear wasteland, so that, when our day comes, we are called among the second.
Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis, voca me cum benedictis.
Pope Francis’ just released disgraceful encyclical has, among its extremely numerous vices (see an excerpt of them in my Francis Papers page above, just scroll to the bottom), the one of being strongly influenced by atheist thinking.
Worse (even) than this, Francis has already given more than a hint (actually, he has screamed from the rooftops, only not in encyclicals yet) that an atheist can be saved by following his conscience (see here and here).
The Bishop of Rome, unhappily reigning, wants you to believe and profess that atheism can be perfectly fine not only for salvation, but as a general way of thinking. Francis has no qualms whatsoever with people claiming to be “good without God”; he even asks them to send him “good thoughts”, or the like (alas, this time no link…).
This is today, in the Age of Sodomy.
But how was it before?
We only need to look back 65 years and we find a wonderful encyclical of the great Pope Pius XII, Anni Sacri. The encyclical is very pithy and can be read in its entirety in a short time, so I encourage you to do it. There are no great discussions about why the atheist is logically wrong (remember when Mr Smith bought a new watch?). The letter is entirely devoted to the necessity for the bishops to fight against the atheist mentality within the families and in the public sphere.
The Pastor Angelicus would not even dream of telling you that an atheist can be saved in his atheism, is he “follows his conscience”. This is the thinking of an atheist or a very confused deist. he says instead (emphases mine):
As you know, once religion is taken away there cannot be a well ordered, well regulated society. In this point lies the urgency to spur on priests under your guidance in order that, especially during the Holy Year, they spare no efforts so that souls entrusted to them, with their false prejudices and erroneous convictions cast aside, and hatreds and discords settled, may nourish themselves on the teachings of the Gospel and thus participate in Christian life so as to hasten the desired renewal of morals.
You can’t found a societal order on anything else than Christ. Those who think otherwise must change their mind. Unless they get to understand the truth, they will be spiritual starving individuals.
There are other very interesting points touched in the encyclical, that are – that cannot but be – completely opposite to Francis’ Castroite Weltanschauung. But this here seemed to me the most relevant: those who Francis considers good guys helping him to do what is really important (not Christ, no; redistribute income and have a world government that tries to prevent you from using the aircon) are to the Pope of Fatima a veritable poison of society, one that every bishop and priest must do his best to extirpate.
How the times have changed. What a sad joke the papacy has become.
It is, undoubtedly, a compliment when someone writes to you in a comment (as happened today)
“Hope you realize how much you are doing for those of us occasionally tempted, gravely so, to despair”
I thank (again) for the kind words. However, the words are scary; and they are scary in such a way that I feel the need of writing a couple of lines.
Firstly, I hope “despair” is meant here (as in other readers) in the generic sense of “not knowing where to turn or what to do”, rather than in the religious sense of “voluntary and complete abandonment of all hope of saving one’s soul and of having the means required for that end”. The first is rather human, if very weak, in the present circumstances; but the second is a very grave sin whose thought should never be entertained by my esteemed readers.
Let us, them, assume that the reader wanted to say (as I think she wanted to say): “Hope you realize how much you are doing for those of us occasionally tempted to think that we are being left alone by pretty much everyone in this fake Catholic wasteland”.
Whilst I am pleased, I do think that every reader should make a conscious effort of strengthening of his own spiritual defences.
I would not want for the readers to see this blog as a log they turn to when they think they are drowning. Rather, I wish for my readers to see this blog as a place where they go to get additional strength; to carry it with them the following day and feel a bit, just a bit, more reassured in the Catholic Truth. And the following day, a bit more so. And the following one, another bit. At some point, this reassurance will become a very solid rock.
If I were to be kicked down by a bus, I love to think that I would leave behind a blog read by people who – in part, and through my unworthy effort – have been made stronger by it; strong enough, in fact, that in case of my sudden departure from these blogging pastures they would be perhaps saddened at the loss of a keyboard friend; but would not feel lost in the world, and would not look around in desperation at valid sources of Catholic teaching.
My dear readers, please use this blog to train yourself for a life without this blog. You may find this blog useful, but you do not need this blog. You need prayer and penance, and a heartfelt request to Our Lord to help you and give all necessary strength and faith in whatever difficulty life (and the Gaystapo) should throw at us. If it does not work I know the solution: more prayer, and more penance. If it does not work… you get the drift.
Every day you should think that this is the last day you read a new post on this blog. Is your faith strong? If your faith is strong you will tap in the immense wisdom of two thousand years of perfectly sound Catholic literature as you look around for other favourite blogs and magazines (which, by God’s grace, are out there in abundance, and far better than mine to boot). If your faith is weak you aren’t doing it right.
I am not your fix for your hour of weakness. I am the protein for a lifetime of strength. After reading this blog before going to sleep you must switch off your computer feeling like a lion, not a reassured lamb.
We have already won. We.Have.Already.Won. Those idiots at the Supreme Court and elsewhere are but reckless idiots thinking they can mock God. God will not be mocked. They will be punished.
You do not need this blog. Prayer and penance, and a heartfelt request for the Lord’s help in giving us the grace necessary to live through this astonishing bad time. God does not deny the necessary graces that are asked for devoutly, insistently, in prayer. This is what you, and I, all need.
Courtesy of Father Z, the first three paragraphs of the statement of the USCCB, released by Archbishop Kurtz:
Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history,the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.
The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.
Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.
The statement is beautifully written, and so un-Franciscan in its concise and pithy way. Particularly the first three paragraphs are, if you ask me, impressive coming from US bishops.
This leads me to talk about the huge problem represented by… the US bishops. There are few examples on the planet of Catholic bishops who have more consistently abandoned the teaching of Our Lord, and tried to appease everything and everyone. There are few other nations in which the bishops have, to such an extent, preferred to focus on easy demagoguery (on immigration issues, say) rather than administering to their flock the hard, but salutary, medicine of Truth. I do not remember Cardinals from other Countries marching on a debauchery feast together with debauched perverts openly proclaiming their own perversions. There aren’t many Countries whose Cardinals go around saying they have “no sense of shame”, and “good for him”, about an idiot “coming out” with his own perversion.
Dolan isn’t the only one, obviously, and the amount of rubbish coming out of the mouth of these wolves exceeds by far Dolan’s vast frame. But Dolan is the most representative face, and therefore will have to stand as example for all the others.
The US clergy have betrayed their sheep so systematically, so ruthlessly, so shamelessly that the few paragraphs of censure now released sound extremely hollow. Not only they had it coming, but they contributed to this mess every step of the way.
If the US bishops and cardinals think that, when their hour comes, they will get away with it because of a couple of press releases they will, I think, be very surprised when they die. And one wonders, even today, where the excommunications are, and in how many other period in history people of such power attacked Christianity with such virulence whilst professing themselves Catholics, and they are not excommunicated. I am not only talking of judges here, but also of senators and governors at the very least.
These here are crocodile tears.
And one has to wonder whether the crocodile is crying at all; or, rather, secretly smiling as he shows his tears.
As the Supreme Court of the United States published its long-known satanical decision about sexual perversion, not a few foreigners (like me) are left to stun how the most powerful democracy in the world can leave the most important decisions in the Country to nine men, or women, or dykes; this, after allowing homosexual judges to attack voter-sanctioned constitutional amendments without recusing them, seen that they did not have the modicum of shame necessary to recuse themselves. More than thirty US States voted in favour of basic reason, and decided it to be enshrined in their state Constitutuion. Nine judges walked over all of them, both the voters and the Constitutions.
The repercussions of this will be, as expected, vast. An army of lemmings will now decide that to join the bandwagon is the only thing to do, and we can expect the Constitutional courts of other European countries to follow down the same perverted lines in the case where they have not done so. One can only hope the respective legal systems will be more resilient to judicial ingerence than the US.
prepare yourself for a tidal wave of Satanical stupidity. When I open my WordPress page this morning there was a rainbow band at the top. Frigging idiots. Google hasn’t “reacted” yet, nor has Yahoo, but I do not doubt when they see others trying to garner some feel-good feeling from this they will not be slow in following.
We must pray that God’s punishment to us (in this life; I can’t even imagine in the next one) may cease soon, and sanity restored.
I expect Pope Francis’ next encyclical to be devoted to endangered butterflies.
I have just written a blog post explaining that Francis is evil, but stupid too.
The man makes me the courtesy of confirming my words in the funniest of ways: he blasts those who talk too much, listen little.
I quote, and if you are at the office with a cup of coffee in your hands, put it down now.
“When Jesus warns people to beware of ‘false prophets’, he says: ‘By their fruits ye shall know them’. And here, by their attitude: so many words, they speak, they do wonders, do great things but they do not have an open heart to hear the Word of God; they are afraid of the silence of the word of God and these are the ‘pseudo Christians’, the ‘pseudo pastors ‘.
Can you believe this guy?
Now, I am not saying Francis is describing himself: he is not a false prophet, does not do great things, much less wonders, and everyone with a brain sees what a dimwit he is.
But that he should go around shooting himself in the foot in this way, without even noticing, is hilarious.
Pity St John The Baptist. The poor man did not have the fine insights of prime Judas like Baldisseri, Kasper, or Francis.
If he had had, he would have understood that the situation was simply “irreversible”. Look, They say, it would have been ideal if Herodias had remained with her husband. But clearly, there was now a new situation of which St John had to take account; a new reality to which he should have reacted with compassion and sensitivity. Then there was a child, in her teens; a very delicate age, in which separation from the father can lead to lifelong scars.
Where was St John’s compassion? Did he know anything about inclusiveness? Had he ever heard of mercy? Why did not prepare a path for Heros and Herodias? Why this cruel exclusion?
How could St John ask Herodias and Herod Antipas to… just split? Destroy a new family? Destroy a new reality? With a child in it?
I cannot imagine what would happen to St John today. He would probably be beheaded by Michelle Obama (she needs only one hand for the sword) after Barack Hussein Obama has played for her the dance of the seven faggots (a gender-neutral celebration of diversity), in front of an audience of screaming feminists, lesbians, and assorted man-pussies.
Now as then, the motivation behind the justification of sin is the desire to sin, to cover sin, or to profit from it.
God will not be fooled.
I cannot avoid imagining that Herod, Herodiades and Salome, upon knowing of Francis’ and his minions’ last push, commented “this is a bunch of people we will get to meet rather soon”.
Every one of my readers certainly remembers Pope John Paul The Not-So-Great kissing that blasted Koran, instead of burning it.
That disgraceful episode had, at least, two extenuating circumstances: the Pope was clearly not compos mentis, and the Vatican officials tried to hide the act of a man now clearly gaga from the world. Alas, the Muslim side couldn't believe their luck, and ran to leak the photo. V II happens.
I see no extenuating circumstances in the Evil Clown kissing a Valdensian bible. Whilst a Valdensian Bible is not a Koran, it is a heretical book, and there can be no doubt that the kissing of heretical work is offensive to God.
In addition, even a Patheos blogger and my cat understand that this kissing was not the act of a man who is “not there with his head”, but the deliberate act of celebration of a Protestant attitude as expressed by their heretical texts. Francis is, as always, promoting heresy and trying to put into your head that it's perfectly fine to have a preference for vanilla, strawberry, or stracciatella if you don't like the Catholic Chocolate. Hey, we are all united by our love for ice cream! Ah! Uh? No?
John Paul II was clearly gaga when he kissed the Koran. But Francis is the very epitome of a Papacy gone gaga. A Pope not missing one occasion to sabotage Catholicism, and reproaching Catholics for believing in Catholicism at the same time.
I stop here.
They say one should not grossly insult the Pope.
In times past, the son of an adulterous relationship was called a “bastard”. Unpleasant as this was for the young person in question, the custom had an obvious social control function: very simply, it made it much less than desirable to be born a bastard.
Was the bastard “guilty” of his parent’s sin? No, he wasn’t. They had sinned, not him, if we exclude the original sin which affects us all. But the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons, and the bastard will have to accept this like everyone else. The sin of the parents created a disadvantageous situation for the son. It had to be so, if Christian family had to be protected.
The bastard was also – in many Countries, like Italy – either excluded or partially excluded from the inheritance. Was this fair? It certainly was it in consideration of the higher interests at stake. It was so, because the need to protect the Christian vision of society was considered more important than the private drama of the poor boy or girl, however unfortunate his own situation.
Now, in this as in the other matters just discussed (the son of the scandalous adulterers) the attitude changed when the priorities changed. When God’s rules were the priority, there was no discussion about these matters. But when the West began to de-Christianise, suddenly the destiny of the illegitimate son was seen as “cruel”.
Lose sight for the priorities, and all the rest will crumble.
As Christianity retreated from First Priority to Great Embarrassment, the rules had to change. The child is illegitimate, but he must be made a legitimately illegitimate child. He will share equally in the inheritance, thus compromising the patrimonial integrity of the family and taking away the idea that it… pays to be born in a proper family. He must also not be called “cruel” names, thus obliterating the sin and placing another huge bomb under the stool of Christian society. The rise of the bastard (around half of the children currently born in the UK as I write this) is largely the result of the decline of Christianity.
All this PC thinking hides a de facto Paganism, in which Christian rules are seen as an impediment. When Christianity is seen as cruel, the rules must be bent to accommodate them to the new religion: inclusiveness; at this point, Christian values can be stuffed. They are the impediment. Popes and other Kasperites will run to invent a new vocabulary of fluffy heresy to persuade us of what no generation of Christians ever believed.
At some point, is it a surprise that these new Pagans will see it as “cruel” that the adulterers and the open fags do not receive communion?
Lose sight of your priorities, and everything else will crumble.
The Satanic Prelates want to introduce the category of “irreversible adultery”. Yes, they say. It’s kinda bad; but it’s “irreversible”, so let’s be “pastoral”.
Let us examine this.
If Joe Bloggs makes a child with her cohabiting sister, Emma Blogs, should he remain with her because their incest is – how was that again – “irreversible”? No. It’s incest. It’s scandal. Therefore it must be reversed.
“But the child? The chiild? Why must the chiiiiild suffer???”
Because it’s a scandal, you simpleton! The scandal must end. It is infinitely better that there be inconveniences for the member of the scandalous union, rather than the scandal to be perpetuated for the sake of mere individuals. The Christian community is more important than individuals. The necessity not to give scandal must prevail over the convenience of members of scandalous arrangements.
When a man is convicted for murder, he goes to jail for a number of years, or even to his execution. He might leave behind a family (even a real one, born of a marriage) destroyed. Does the murderer avoid jail, or execution, because of the “irreversible” situation of having a child? No, he doesn’t. Does the child suffer at being deprived of his father? Yes, he does. Why does he suffer? Because it must be so. Because there is a superior interest at stake than his desire to grow near his father.
Does this apply only for murder? No. One can be jailed for many years for a number of reasons (say: tax evasion). Whenever this happens, a family can be “reversed”, and children deprived of their father. Where’s the cry of the Catholic nation?
When a husband is violent to his wife, she leaves him. This means the children lose almost all contact with a – let us say, in these cases – perfectly adequate, loving father, as being violent to the wife does not mean not being good, or needed, as a father. Does the Catholic world say that the wife should suffer the violence because of the irreversible situation? No. The Catholic world says that the child will have to cope with the new situation, period.
Adulterous scandal is continued attempted perdition of two souls, to which the danger of perdition of other souls through scandal is added. A Christian society understands this. A Christian society has its priority in order. A Christian society considers adulterous scandal much worse than tax evasion, a real murderous attack on many souls.
It is only when the priorities are not in order, that suddenly the child becomes so important. It is only when the greater damage made to society is willingly downplayed or not understood in the first place, that suddenly scandal must be tolerated for the sake of the child. Do we leave murderers free to roam our roads for the sake of their children? Do we really understand the gravity of adulterous scandal as a big bomb put in the middle of Christian communities? Do we really understand the nuke bomb effect of giving “ways” or “paths” for these unions to be “included”? If we care for Christ, we do. If we don’t, we don’t care for Christ.
Make no mistake: most of those who cry so loud about the children of adulterous couple would not hesitate in justifying the wife and mother leaving her husband caught cheating. Suddenly, the children are not so all-important. Suddenly, the situation is not so “irreversible”.
No. Let me put it straight: the more you care for individual destinies, the less you care for God. When you do not care for God’s laws, individual destinies become all-important, and God becomes the embarrassment that must be outmanoeuvred and mercy-talked away. But then those very interests are readily discarded for civil offences, or for offences to women.
Where do your priorities lie?
Irreversible, my foot. The couple of the murdered is “reversed” all right when he is jailed. The child is separated from his father because it must be so. That’s it.
Get your priorities all right, and your thinking straight.
Show if you care more for God’s laws, or for civil offences.