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.
There is in Italian a rather imaginative expression, “strofinarsi alle gonne del Potere”, or “to rub oneself to the Power’s rocks”, which describes the behaviour of those who seek proximity with the powerful in order to gain personal advantages of any sort.
I must think of this expression rather often, as this is exactly the behaviour I see in countless prelates of the Church.
It would be wrong to believe that such behaviour is moved by the desire to obtain truly tangible material advantages: I do mot think Archbishop Nichols prefers to dine out rather than using the services ( I imagine) of his own cook, nor do I think they find the luxury hotels or sumptuous banquets particularly worth eating (ok, in Cardinal Dolan’s case the doubt might be justified; but I digress…). I even exclude that the search for favours for relatives and dear ones will play a major role.
In my opinion, two factors are here heavily at play: loss of faith and vanity.
An archbishop, say, who believes in the Christian God would never even THINK of abetting sodomy under any guise whatever, as in “we are oh so nuanced” (Nichols) or “it’s a commitment so it can’t be so bad” (Woelki & Co.). No, one who is able to say such things has lost his faith a long time ago, perhaps converting to some strange dalai-lamaesk wannabe cult of sort, more likely having lost faith in the supernatural altogether.
Only at this point can, I think, vanity set in, perverting the innate and in a way unavoidable sense of self-esteem and desire of recognition in an utter prostitution to the worldly gods of popularity and mass approval. Everyone has an ego of course, and in some of us this ego will have a rather strong character; but it is when the gratification of the ego comes before everything else – for example the sense of obligation to the habit, even if one has lost the faith – that things become really serious.
When, therefore, loss of faith and vanity meet, the above mentioned episodes happen; or, on an almost equally worrying scale, one insists in being photographed together will the very powerful and very evil, merrily laughing as if the said evil and powerful were not staging the Holocaust every day and even threatening the very freedom of Catholics.
But this does not seem to really matter. What matters is that the one or the other (Brit or German or American; fat or thin; Archbishop or Cardinal) is seen to be at the very top, and very much in “tune” with the “times”.
May God forgive them.
Unless they repent, I don’t bet my pint He will.
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.
United Kingdom, Year of the Lord 2022…..erm, no, apologies: Year 2022 of the Common Era.
The UK Government has recently approved a law recognising “Civil Fellowships”. Through “Civil Fellowships”, the “smart” community (that is: those who have sexual intercourse with dogs, sheep and other animals; the word “bestiality” is now considered “smartphobic”, and a criminal offence) are allowed to have their “union” recognised by the Government, with various provisions to protect, say, the dog in case of death of his “partner”. Obviously, civil fellowship gives the couple right to adopt children, or dogs, or other animals. Nothing new in that, right? It has always happened and Old MacDonald had a farm, too….
The smart community is very proud, and Liberal England rejoices at the new legislation. “Inclusive” and “Progressive”, it is defined. The PM David Chameleon defined it “Conservative”, because “Civil Fellowships” are, clearly, family and the Conservative Party protects the family.
In an interesting development the Catholic Archbishop of Soho & Sodom, Vincent Jokeson, declared:
“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose smart civil fellowships. 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.”
So, says the Bishop, provided you don’t think this is a marriage, it is actually fine. We are “nuanced” here in Britain, and Christianity be stuffed.
There is a little problem though, because the reigning Pope, Christinger, had expressed himself – not saying anything new of course, but doing nothing else than repeating the most banal concepts of Christianity – already in 2017 as follows:
Although the particular inclination of the zoophile 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 zoophile activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
We have therefore, as we write the year 2022, an evident conflict between basic Christianity and the “nuanced” bishop of Soho & Sodom, Jokeson.
Criticised from, well, the Christians, and in particular from the “Catholic Harold”, Bishop Jokeson “answered” as follows:
Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation in England use a civil fellowship to bring stability to a relationship
It is clear that to our bishop, relationships between – or among; you never know – sexual perverts is something to which “respect must be shown”. More so, he recognises their “relationship” as something that must be helped to achieve “stability”. The bishop clearly thinks that if zoophiles do not have stable relationships, this is bad. “Let’s help Jonathan and Bella to bring stability to their relationship”, he says to himself, “as “respect must be shown” to their civil fellowship. “Clearly”!
In order to make his thinking more clear, Bishop Jokeson
said the key distinction between civil fellowship and marriage is that the former does not “in law contain a required element of sexual relationships”.
It is not clear what this means, as the Civil Fellowships were legalised for no other reason than to give a legal sanction to the sexual behaviour of those afflicted by such a perversion. Zoophilia is not being “friend” with Fido. It really isn’t! Please don’t let me get into the details, but it seems as we write the year of.. em, the year 2022 of the Common Era, bishop Jokeson is the only one pretending not to know what this is all about. Truly, this is hypocrisy beyond belief.
More on the subject from the Bishop:
“One-love fellowships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does,” he explained. “And that’s the distinction that I think it’s important for us to understand, that marriage is built on the sexual partnership between a man and a woman which is open to children, to their nurture and education.”
“Pay attention, children”, says the bishop, “this is an important distinction! Marriage is open to nurture and education but screwing Bella, the female Belgian shepherd, isn’t! Therefore, we must call the latter relationship (to which, as we have said, “clearly” “respect must be shown” and which must be helped to “stability”) with a different name! Don’t confuse the two, little ones!”
Bishop Jokeson concluded his argument with the following words:
So while bishops Jokeson said we must “respect the existence of one-love fellowship in law,” he said, “the point we are at now is to say that they are not the same as marriage.”
Ah, now Christians all over the world will be satisfied. We have said it isn’t marriage, therefore everything is fine! How “nuanced” has England become in 2022!
That’s the point “we are at now”. Christianity, now, has no point.
Apart from the frontal conflict with the most elementary Christianity – that I will not even start to explain, as even the most tragically retarded liberal would exactly know what the point is – there is an additional matter, on which the Catholic Harold takes position as follows:
There’s one new element in that answer: the preposterous argument that “one-love fellowships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does.” In other words, they’re not like marriage at all. But of course they’re like marriage in one very important respect: that they have as a fundamental defining element that those in such unions have the legal right to adopt children.
The “Harold” is, of course, right, then in 2022 England, one-love fellowships have the right to adopt children (and dogs, and other animals). This is something considered too absurd even to think about only 50 years before, but now part of the common feeling of the nation, of which the PM Minister Chameleon is an enthusiastic supporter. So much so, that Bishop Jokeson himself thinks these unions are worthy of “respect”, and the civil fellowship are good because they help to “bring stability” to them.
Aren’t we all oh so inclusive.
The Harold again:
“This isn’t the first time Archbishop Jokeson has said he accepts and supports these unions, and has attempted to father his views on the bishops’ conference: in the immediate aftermath of Pope Christinger’s visit, in September of 2020, he claimed that the bishops weren’t against them and was on record with saying”:
“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose smart civil fellowship. 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.”
Get this? “We persistently say it’s not the same as marriage”.
Job done, then! Bravo! !
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
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.
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.
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.
A parallelism has been made from some quarters between the usual strong opposition of the liberals to everything Vatican and justified with the “spirit of Vatican II” on the one side, and the fact that the new translation of the Mass will be implemented without major traumas (or better said, without overt opposition: how many priests will implement the new mass perfectly on time is another cup of tea) on the other side. The implication here is that the “spirit of Vatican II” is slowly going out of fashion.
I would like to comment on this as follows:
1) I so wish journalists would refrain from the temptation of seeing “trends” everywhere, or inflating things out of proportion for the sake or an article, or of a headline.
2) Priests will implement the new Mass just because they have to, open refusal to obey leading to serious consequences for their livelihood. As (supposed) martyrdom has never been a speciality of the liberal priest, there is no overt opposition to be awaited.
3) The “spirit of Vatican II” is being taken care of by the professional category of the undertakers. Their action will become more and more incisive in the years to come, but I can’t notice old sixty-eighters becoming any less sixty-eighters or just more tired of being obnoxious morons, let alone rediscovering the beauty of a reverent Mass.
Such “movements” usually end because they land in the same place as their promoters: six feet under.
4) If anything, the British clergy is more heretical today than it was twenty or thirty years ago. No English bishop would have, decades ago, publicly declared that he “doesn’t know” whether the Church will accept the “reality of gay partnerships” and no bishop would have dreamt of ever saying that he is “nuanced” and does not oppose civil partnership. Actually not even people in open revolt to the authority of Rome like Henry VIII would have ever dreamt of saying such absurdities.
Nowadays even an Archbishop of Westminster is allowed to say such things and remain unpunished.
The “Spirit of Vatican II” is alive and kicking. It goes together with dissent or open heresy of all sorts and – in the absence of any strong action from the Vatican, nowhere to be seen at the time – it will die only as its proponents kick the bucket in increasingly larger numbers.
This is the sad (but encouraging in a sense, as the undertakers are clearly on our side) reality of the Church in England. Supposed trends out of thin air do not help to deal with the many, serious problems.
I have never written about a beautiful Catholic publication and Internet presence, Christian Order, so it is a particular pleasure to do it today.
Apart from the extremely orthodox views reflected in the editorials (which you can all read online), what I find particularly enjoyable is the very clear, wonderfully politically incorrect, no-holds-barred way of presenting the argument. If you think that this blog is too harsh, you may want to pay a visit.
Christian Order’s January 2011 editorial is one of those pearls. It is very long and deals with several issues, but if your time is counted I’d ask you to focus your attention on the second part, “Tragedy”, because there is really no other way to describe the present situation in Arundel and Brighton’s, and in Westminster’s diocese.
Tragedy, Part One: Bishop (alas!) Conry declares, before the Papal visit, that Pope Benedict
May well be relieved to be coming to a place where, unlike some of his other recent trips, there are no big problems for him to sort out.
One is speechless at the disingenuousness (that my grandmother, God bless her soul, would have called “dishonesty” and “bad faith”) of such affirmations. A country where abortions hover around 200,000 a year; divorce and cohabitation are widespread; perverts “marry” perverts with the blessing of the government; drug use is on the rise; wiccans get recognised as members of a “religion”; loss of orientation is everywhere and shallow TV programmes seem to be the new unifying faith is to bishop Conry a country with “no big problems to sort out”.
Either for bishop Conry 200,000 abortions a year are not a big problem and the fact that perverts can “marry” is a fully normal and democratic occurrence, or the man has obviously lost his marbles. Unfortunately for us and for his soul, the first hypothesis is by far the more probable.
The scandal of such an ideological blindness was too much for a good man answering to the name of Edmund Adamus, aid to Archbishop Nichols. Adamus gave a well-publicised interview in which he described the United Kingdom as “a selfish, hedonistic wasteland” and “the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death”, which actually pretty much hits the bull’s-eye. Punctually, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols felt the need to let us know that Adamus’ opinion “did not reflect his own”. I have blogged about Adamus’ courageous interview here.
This was probably too much of an invitation for BBC lefties, and here the tragedy’s second part took its course. Asked by a BBC journalist about how he sees Adamus’ comments and whether he sees the UK society as “extremely secular”, Nichols answers:
“Well it’s not how I would describe our society at all actually. I think our society is characterised as much by generosity and by genuine concern one for another, and I think religious faith is taken quite seriously by probably a majority of people in this country.”
A roar of laughter would be here the most appropriate answer, if the person making such an ass of himself were not the most prestigious Catholic of the Realm. I know that an Archbishop of Westminster must live a rather sheltered life, but only an extraordinary amount of self-inflicted blindness (which my grandmother, God bless her soul, would have called “dishonesty” and “bad faith”) can move one to even think of making such extraordinary utterances.
John Smeaton, the intrepid blogger and head of the society for the protection of the unborn children, said it very aptly:
I can’t think of anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, religious or non-believer, who believes that “religious faith is taken quite seriously by probably a majority of people in this country.”And with 570 babies killed daily in Britain and with well over two million embryos discarded, or frozen, or selectively aborted, or miscarried or used in destructive experiments since the birth of the first IVF child was born over thirty years ago, how can the Archbishop blithely dismiss the culture of death without having his head kept, deliberately, buried in the sand?
Deliberately is the operative word here. Meaning with cynical disregard for Catholicism, for countless murdered babies, for the way the country is morally going down the drain. Provided that stupid, sugary songs continue to be sung in front of a greying audience slowly not even remembering what rebellion to the Pre-Vatican church was like but liking the idea anyway, Nichols and Conry think that the world is in good order. They’ll just have to ignore the irrelevant details of the 200,000 abortions a year, of the institutionalised sexual perversion and of the galloping de-christianisation of the country at all levels (are they aware of a drive to legalise euthanasia in this country? No? Shouldn’t they be informed?) and occupy themselves with the next statement that says nothing, sounds good and lets one appear oh so good.
Mala tempora currunt.
Truly beautiful contribution (on the Archdiocese of Washington’s internet site) of Msgr. Charles Pope. The contribution comes in two forms: the excerpt from the funeral sermon held by himself and the very insightful, crystal-clear reflections posted on the Internet site of the Archdiocese.
I allow myself to suggest that you listen to the sermon first. It is nothing shocking for those accustomed to this blog but certainly unusually clear for those who are not. For people not even accustomed to darken the doors of a church on Sundays – and told all the time that “their heart is in the right place” and therefore everything is fine – it must be outright shocking.
Msgr. Pope delivers truth in copious quantity and without any meaningful dilution. I will mention here only some of the many brilliant statements he makes:
[..] the usual approach at funerals has been to be “nice” and if sin, or purgatory, or judgment (or, God forbid, Hell), are mentioned at all it should be subtle, so subtle as to barely be noticed. Vague attestations of ”we at the parish will surely pray for Joe’s happy repose and for you the family.” Somewhere the doctrine of purgatory is lurking in the saying but only a trained theologian could really see it.
I had tried the more subtle approach for years. It didn’t really work and no one really took it seriously, if they even understood what I was “getting at.”
I think prophecy needs to be clear, strong and unambiguous. I get a much better result that way. I can surely attest to the fact that more have returned to Mass on a regular basis as a result of strong words than ever happened in the years when the usual reaction to my ministration was, “Oh Father, you’re such a dear. What a heart-warming and consoling message!
I have over 50 funerals a year. And for most of them the Church is packed with people I will only see once, or perhaps not until the next family funeral. I cannot wait for a “less delicate” time
Preaching is about saving before it is about consoling
A lot of times powerful preaching takes people through a cycle of: mad, to sad, to glad.
I think we have long enough tried the “nice guy” preaching that is extolled by many, as the model. But all through these past 40 years with that model largely operative, Mass attendance has steadily dropped.
Fr. Bill Casey defines superficial preaching as: “watered-down, filled with generalities and abstractions, devoid of doctrinal content and moral teaching, more akin to pop-psychology than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not scriptural, it does not move, it does not inspire, it generates no enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, his Church or the Gospel and it has got to change”.
The fact is, I think there is a general hunger for a return to vivid and strong preaching. I think this is more common among younger people, many of whom have had enough of polite but abstract sermons that preach ideas more than unvarnished Catholic and Biblical truth.
Mgr. Pope hits the bull’s head so many times that there’s no space for the darts left. Not only does he get the nature of the problem (as, I am sure, many others do), but he has the nerve to speak it out, and to do so when the majority of lukewarm priests with oversized political antennae would not dare to do it. He reports (and chastises) the thinking of colleagues of him who say that they wouldn’t be able to get away with talking as he does.
Get…. what?! Since when has a priest been ordained to reflect about what he can “get away with”? Since when has a priest seen it as his job to avoid saying what his parishioners don’t want to hear? What kind of priesthood is this? These questions seem to escape Mgr. Pope’s colleagues: you picture them smiling and saying “aahhh, I could not do that…”
If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle? In the modern age what we see is that many shepherds (often Bishops or Archbishops) are very well aware that their trumpet is barely audible. But you know what? They just don’t care! They’d never allow the Truth to come in the way of their popularity among the crowds, making them acceptable to vast cohorts of, often, non-Catholics or even non-Christians.
What a difference between Mgr. Pope and many of our shepherds.
I wish he were Archbishop of Westminster.
The rumours are more and more frequent on the blogosphere and it would seem that a new consistory is imminent.
As the date of the appointment would be the Feast of Christ The King, which falls on the 21st November, and as it is the usual praxis to announce the names one months in advance of the official appointment it would seem that within a few days we’ll have the name of the new red hats.
Whilst one does not doubt that unpleasant names will be inserted in the list (I think here in particular of His Disgrace Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, often the object of less than pleased entries on this blog), there is reason to hope that this new batch of Cardinals will, on the whole, give us conservative Catholics added security that the successor of Benedict will be a step forward; or at the very least, not one backwards.
Besides the unavoidable disappointment here and there (Benedict has already disappointed more than once in his UK appointments and he is obviously not willing to risk an open confrontation with the clergy of England & Wales) it will be nice to examine the new candidates one by one and try to assess how much the new appointments shift the average toward the conservative side. I am also glad that this consistory finally arrives as – always speaking in general- the more Cardinals of Benedictine appointment there are, the better it is.
But we still don’t know and we’ll have to bear some uncertainty for a couple of days.
As I think Pope Benedict would say: Abwarten, und Tee trinken…
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
The Daily Telegraph has interviewed Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the Archbishop of St. Andrew and Edinburgh, for their “Sunday Telegraph” edition, though I could only find the link to a “Telegraph” blog.
The Cardinal (who makes a beautiful contrast to the usual appeasement practised by our Craven-in-Chief, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols) finds clear words to describe what is happening. This must be given great attention because it does not happen often. Try this:
“Our detailed research into BBC news coverage of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, together with a systematic analysis of output by the Catholic church, has revealed a consistent anti-Christian institutional bias.”
Please mind the words “consistent” and “institutional”. What he is saying is that the BBC is rotten to the core.
One is surprised that “detailed research” be necessary to become aware of such a self-evident reality, but I think he refers to the fact that they have gathered data in a statistically meaningful and provable manner.
The Cardinal again:
“Senior news managers have admitted to the Catholic Church that a radically secular and socially liberal mindset pervades their newsrooms.
“This sadly taints BBC news and current affairs coverage of religious issues, particularly matters of Christian beliefs.”
Also note here: radically secular and socially liberal mindset. This is not a problem of this or that journalist not taking his job seriously. This is the entire institution devoted to propaganda work. It is at least consoling to see that BBC senior managers have the candor to admit what everyone in the Land can see, but make no mistakes: BBC managers “admit” anti-religious bias to improve their chance of advancement within the organisation.
Also (not so) surprising is that the BBC wastes tons of our money but does not think it necessary to hire a religious editor. This explains to an extent the appalling ignorance of everything concerning Catholicism and Christianity in general.
Basically it would appear that these people talk of religion without specific knowledge and without a serious instance able to ensure basic standards of information and that this is official and approved policy. Which is what they do anyway, so my assumption must be right.
Dulcis in fundo, we are informed that the BBC will air on September 15 a documentary about the Pope, care of…. a homosexual former Dominican Friar. This is not a joke, you can read it with your own eyes if you follow the link. I wonder where do they take such people from. It appears nowadays noone can make a documentary about the Pope who is: 1) a career journalist and/or 2) not homosexual.
BBC has long ago become the parody of information. It has created a system of dominant secularist, “minority-ist” and homosexual-ist culture within the organisation which takes care that only people with a certain agenda get to the key positions. The good news is that such a massive bias is evidently nothing more than a nuisance for those the BBC obviously considers its enemies; cue the packed churches during Easter after particularly virulent attacks against the Church and the Pope.
Kudos to the Cardinal for speaking out loud and for doing it in a timely fashion before the arrival of the Pope and before the airing of the “documentaries” made from politically correct deviants like Tatchell and the dominican friar turned pope expert and tv journalist. What he should now do is to continue to stay on the issue after the Pope’s departure. In time, this will undoubtedly cause some changes. But it must be a continuous campaign to increase people’s awareness of the problem, not the occasional outburst before days of particularly fanatical attacks against the Pope.