Francis has, then, appointed the first squad of his demolition troops. They are the avant garde of the army meant to make Catholicism barely recognisable in the years to come. My first thoughts in casual order:
1. No US Americans.
Chaput, head of the extremely prestigious Archdiocese of Philadelphia, might have been considered. Too Catholic, perhaps? On the other hand, one can not imagine Che Guevara would, if elected Pope, have done differently. Perhaps some US observers hoped for a red hat for Archbishop Kurtz, the newly elected head of the US Bishops’ Conference. The latter won’t be waiting for long, I would say. On the former, I have more doubts.
2. Mueller makes it.
Further evidence it is good to be the text editor of a former Pope, even if you doubt (or, ahem, re-read) Catholic dogma. It is astonishing that this man manages to pass for somewhat “conservative” among the uninformed, though there are (even) worse people than him around. Mueller is a friend of Liberation Theology. This probably saved his skin when the new man came in power. At least one hopes his red hat will give him some weight in the months to come (see below).
3. No Other Germans.
This must be worth a bottle. Zollitsch, the Archbishop Emeritus of Freiburg and Head of the German Bishops’ Conference, is in the front line on the unholy battle to sanctify adultery. He is now retiring, but is clearly still very influential and very “exposed” as the main nuclear warhead of the German clergy. If he had received a red hat it would have been very bad indeed. A thought: the Germans might be just “lio” enough for Francis, but perhaps they are just too rich, too “First World”. No favelas by you? Tsk, tsk…
4. Loads of “periphery”.
Argentina, Brazil, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua. Can’t imagine there are many “hawks” among them. Poli is most certainly one of the “Bergoglini”. I will have to read more about the others. Whilst this is a relatively small sample, it seems to be Central and South America fared pretty well. I think it’s fair to forecast an increase in populist statements and enthusiastic support of Francis’ confused anti-capitalist wannabe economics from these corners.
5. Four Italians.
I’d be glad if I could trust them as being orthodox Catholics. Nowadays, who can?
6. Quisling gets a hat.
Vincent “Quilsing” Nichols also made it. Unsurprisingly. He is just the kind of enemy of Christ Bergoglio would want to promote. Of course, Murphy O’Connor is now above 80 so one could say this is “expected”. But it is also generally “expected” that the archbishop in Philadelphia makes it to Cardinal, which doesn’t happen if the man in charge appears to be a Catholic.
It is, of course, too soon to see whether Francis wants to give a new balance to the college of Cardinals, away from powerful countries like US and Germany and on to the “peripheries” of the “oppressed” poor countries.
In the next days, we will no doubt get a lot of coverage about the past statements of at least some of the new men. I don’t thing this will make good reading.
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.
After posting about the end of the Homo Masses in Soho, I received this very interesting comment from Misericordia:
Mundabor, I do not understand why everybody appears to be so jubilant about this news. It seems that the homosexual community who gather at Mass once a fortnight in Soho, are merely moving to the Jesuit Church at Farm Street , where before their social gatherings there, they may attend Mass at 6.30pm. So the Soho Masses will just become the Mayfair Masses! Archbishop Nichols is still giving his support to this, and in his letter to the organisers, has promised to be at Farm Street on March 3rd to greet them.
I found this comment so interesting as to deserve a post in answer.
Yes, I do think we should be jubilant about the news. We should do so for the following reasons:
1) Things have a symbolic meaning, besides having their own factual side. The “homo masses” were a scandal because they were clearly meant to be “particularly welcoming to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Catholics, their parents, friends and families”. They were, basically, a public platform for perversion under the umbrella and protection of (perverted) Catholicism, as abundantly clear in the video circulated several months ago. The ending of the Soho Masses will not end perversion, but it will end the scandal.
2) The “dating service” will continue (for now, if you ask me) in Mayfair; but again, it would be strange – and I think not even allowed to him – for ++ Nichols to forbid some (very) strange Jesuit to gather active sodomites around them, or for a group of militant faggots to go to Mass together. The suppression of the Mass certainly does not mean the suppression of those among the clergy who condone or approve or abet (or practice) sodomy. What it means is, again, the suppression of the idea that the Church can smuggle such activity as a charitable one. Take it from me, we will continue to have sodomites among the Jesuits for a while.
3) As always, no one knows the future. In theory, this decision could even spark a more vocal pro-homo activity: more playing victim, more barking, more queens in drags, in short: more scandal. In practice, it is fair to say ++ “Quisling” Nichols is now a person observed in the Vatican with a special attention, and he will not be allowed to play games on this. As a result, the (former) Soho Jesuits will be very well advised to keep a low profile, and ++ Nichols to act swiftly if they don’t.
4) We must consider how the Church works. The Church always tries to save everyone’s face. An exemplary rebuke of the pro-perversion Jesuits would have caused the loss not only of their face, but obviously of Nichols’ too. What they do instead is to throw a bone to the dog, and when the matter of principle (the existence of “gay masses” as such) is out of the table they will deal with whatever issue arises with much more freedom. We would all love to see Catholic orthodoxy openly and assertively upheld, but these are not the Popes and the Archbishops to do this. If Popes and Bishops were different, we would not have “gay masses” in the first place, and I have no knowledge of such masses during the reign of Pius XI or Pius XII.
What we have here is a Pope who thinks agnostics are good for Christianity appointing a chap who doesn’t really – on a practical level – believe in the dogma of Mary Ever Virgin to be the head of the CDF, with the latter reining in an Archbishop who thinks that homosexual couples are something good and worthy of protection provided you don’t call their living together “marriage”; an archbishop, mind, also appointed to his actual position by the above mentioned Pope.
The situation being what it is, I’d say the announcement about the Soho Masses justifies something rather akin to a very loud “yeeesss!!”, possibly accompanied by the uncorking of a good bottle. After which, of course, ++ Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will be just as bad, the sexuality of the relevant Jesuits just as questionable and the attitude of the queens just as disgusting. No one of them will disappear in thin air, but all of them might well feel the approaching of a rather cold breeze…
I have just reblogged a post of some months ago about the strange case of the two Archbishops at odds concerning the “Homo Masses” in Soho (or Sodom), London, England.
The BBC informs us today this abomination is now stopped as such masses are (says the BBC; no direct quotes)
not in line with the church’s (sic) central teaching on sexuality.
I feel like reading that 2+2=4; but truly, in this day and age these are real news.
Firstly, let me tell you that when something so beautiful happens we must be grateful to the men behind the decision, however questionable they can be in other matters.
Secondly, we must reflect whether Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has suddenly discovered the basics of Catholic teaching, or whether he has been “encouraged” to do so by his strange, irascible, theologically more than questionable but certainly unpleasant colleague in Rome.
Reading my reblogged post you will have no doubt as to what my opinion is. I must say the man might not be entirely useless after all.
Of course, this being England things are not going to be made in the right way in one go: the Catholic Herald informs us the Jesuits will continue to be the catalyst for a bunch of sodomites wanting to use Church organisations as a dating agency; or, as the Jesuits so suavely put it, “the pastoral care of the community will continue at the Jesuit Farm Street church in Mayfair on Sunday evenings”.
Particularly spicy seems to me the detail that
the church where the Masses took place will be entrusted to the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham
and I do not doubt the new priests will lose no time in causing the church to lose the bad odour it has had these six years.
So we have the proverbial two birds with one stone: the shameless parody of the homo mass is at an end, and the Ordinariate receives a church in a central position in London, optimally placed for Christian evangelisation. No thanks to the Archbishop, I am sure, but what counts is the result.
Next time you eat your yogurt, consider saying a short prayer for the man who made this possible.
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host –
by the Divine Power of God –
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Cameron has, in the end, decided to try to get sodomarriage approved, against obvious massive opposition within his own party but clearly counting on the votes from the heathens within the Tories and elsewhere. Excluding that Cameron may ever have moral motives, the background of this move is clearly to be seen in his necessity to give the LibDems something to chew after the humiliations they had to suffer on the Lords’ reform affair. I don’t think this is politically wise, but I do not know how bad the mood is within the coalition, and Cameron – who is a political prostitute with no second in the land – has evidently decided the advantages for the coalition will be greater than the obvious opposition he will face within his own party.
In what could be remembered as an astonishing sign of stupidity – or the knowledge the party and the Country are so rotten this can now be made without problems – Cameron has also decided to go the full monty and decide sodomarriage should be “allowed” in churches, if the relevant congregation wishes to do so.
Only a very stupid man – or an Anglican – could now fail to see where this leads: what is now “allowed” will, in just a few years, be claimed as a “human right”. Think of the Bad & Breakfasts, who were “allowed” (but obviously not obliged) to have sodomites under their roof, until the Gaystapo sued their “right” to do so.
This legislation – if it passes; more below – will pose huge problems and cause years of legal controversy as surely as the night follows the day. Teachers will at some point not be allowed to dissent from a clearly heathenish ideology, and the lame assurances of the Government they will be allowed to “dissent” will go the same way as the right of B&B owners to refuse to have sodomy under their roof. The Established Church will be the first to face the onslaught of the suddenly so pious satanic troops, and the Catholic Church will follow immediately afterwards (and who shall fight for us? Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols? Ha!).
Our best hope are, at this point, the Muslims; but in order for them to make a serious move it might be necessary for the perverts to sue them for compliance to the Gaystapo; which isn’t easy, as the Gaystapo is scared of them.
Cameron uses, this time, a different strategy. He doesn’t even try to force the party to obedience as he did with the Lords’ reform, getting pummelled as a result; he leaves them “free” instead, hoping to get the measure passed whilst avoiding the worst of the internal damage. This is the same Cameron who applauded the decision of the courts to force B&B owners to have sodomites under their roof, so you know exactly how much his promises of respecting the religious beliefs of Christians are worth.
In the next months and years we will know how much the rot has advanced in this country; a country once able to fight bravely against Hitler, but now either scared of the whining of perhaps 1% of the population, or too stupid to call a spade a spade and see the abyss of heathenism it is getting itself into. Make no mistake, open persecution is what will come after it; then Satan doesn’t stop his march just because “nice” people have decided civil partnerships are a good thing, and we shouldn’t be rude.
Will, though, this measure be passed? This is not sure at all, but if Cameron manages to ride Labour MPs the numbers aren’t encouraging. The main argument against such a proposal was for Cameron that the party might have taken his scalp directly if he had tried to impose this new madness on him; but he avoids this from the start, riding the heathens of the other parties instead. The mere fact he might survive this tells you all you need to know about the rot within the Tory party; they would get rid of him on the spot if he tried the same trick on, say, European matters but seem – for now – unwilling to do the same on sodomy. Congratulations.
As I write (and yes, I write because I can’t sleep…) I see only few positive elements for us, none of them safe:
a) The House of the Lords. The probability that this law be massacred in the House of Lords is not remote. This in itself would not stop the process, but would constitute a strong obstacle to the definitive approval of the measure. Seldom are the cases of legislation stopped by the House of Lords and pushed through nevertheless. A prolonged fight might also give Cameron a death of a thousand cuts, if the public opinion reacts.
b) Opposition within the other parties. This is not probable, but possible. Dissatisfaction among Labour voters is said to be palpable, but as socialists never where good Christians it is everyone’s guess how much weight this will carry (if you ask me: not much). If the Christians within labour manage to remember what Christianity is, the matter will become more and more embarrassing for their own party leaders. Milliband & Co. are largely goddamned atheists, but they are still politicians and will have their nose in the air to see where the wind blows.
c) Open Labour opposition. This was just seen with the Lords’ reform: Labour wanted a reform in principle, but they didn’t want to give Cameron a success he could not get with his own coalition and of which he would unavoidably have reaped the glory; therefore, they have decided not to like the details, and to shoot at the Government for all they’re worth. It worked a treat.
In this case, Milliband & Co. must seriously ask themselves whom they are working for: this measures will most surely be sold by Cameron & Clegg as a coalition success, and Labour runs the risk to look seriously stupid. Labour being far more disciplined than the Tories, if and when they decide to shoot at the measure Cameron can say goodbye to his piece of legislative crap, then without Labour votes he is dead in the water in the Commons, and easily steamrolled in the Lords.
d) The courts. make no mistake, this is going to keep the courts occupied for decades, in a long battle of attrition reminiscent of the right for conscientious objection in case of abortion (eventually won; not before many years, though, or without the sacrifice of many brave doctors and nurses ready to lose their jobs at the NHS and even emigrate). This law impinges on so many pieces of legislation – as in the end it is nothing less than the attempt to re-invent the Christian basis of society – that the legal controversies will be countless. Many so-called Church of England parishes will also sue, as will religious schools, hopefully with the best Catholic schools at the head. This is going to be good for lawyers, and will go on for a very long time.
Cameron has just showed how much he has in contempt both his own party and Christianity. He might get away with the first, he won’t get away with the second.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
The pervert organisation “Stonewall” has honoured Cardinal O’Brien with the “Bigot of the Year” award, as EF Pastor Emeritus reports.
I invite all right-thinking readers of this blog to join me in my congratulations to the Cardinal for this well-deserved achievement. I cannot imagine a more telling evidence of his Christian spirit, and will to fight the good fight in the face of perverted bigotry.
His Grace will be proud, no doubt.
Perhaps the day will come when even simple bloggers – like yours truly – will be able to aspire to such high honours. For the moment, the prize seems to be the monopoly of high-profile figures. I also hope that in the coming years, Catholic personalities will monopolise this prize.
Well done, Your Grace! Your colleague Vincent “Quisling” Nichols certainly does not run any risk of winning such an award!
Keep them coming, Stonewall!
Strange news today with a mini-consistory announced and six new red hats to be created in November.
None of the new Cardinals is from Italy; five work outside of the Curia, and actually outside of Europe; only one appears – for what I know – to have a reputation of “liberal”; and one cannot avoid noticing both Nichols & Mueller have missed this train.
If I were to dare some reflections, they would be as follows:
A mini-consistory might indicate the Holy Father feels the time allotted to him might be coming to an end. I can otherwise not imagine why he would not wait another six months, perhaps twelve, and then have a more substantial Consistory. Perhaps he wanted to send a signal to countries where Christian are at risk of violent persecution. Perhaps, again, he feels his time is running out.
Archbishop Mueller has been left out. I am not very surprised as the man came to Rome mainly because he is a pal of the Holy Father, and has managed to make a lot of damage since. Whilst I am sure the Holy Father likes and protects him, there are clearly limits to the reputational damage he is ready and willing to bear.
No doubt, he plans to deliver for his Kumpel before long; Mueller certainly wishes him good health.
III) Nichols is also (provisionally) out and this is in my eyes more surprising, particularly considering the extreme prestige of his position and the fact he has been a Cardinal-in-waiting for w hile now. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is the notorious enabler of the dating service for sexual perverts usually going under the name of “Soho masses”. Rumours of action from Rome have been around for some days; I can easily imagine the two matters are linked, and the bad Archbishop is now asked to deliver at least in matter of blasphemous, openly practiced perversion.
I can also imagine the very tepid resistance put by “Quisling” Nichols to the “homo marriages” in the UK (Lord Carey is very active and the most recognisable face of this campaign; Nichols tries to be noticed as little as possible) might have not helped him much.
Again, this is a high-profile appointment of the current Pope, and a rather scarily young Archbishop of Westminster to boot. I find it entirely possible the Holy Father is now concerned about the way he will remembered, and a red hat for Nichols might – perhaps – be more than he wants to be remembered for.
IV) The news of the Consistory was leaked a couple of hours before the official announcement. If the leak was “steered”, there should be no excessive surprise at other, unwanted leaks happening; if it wasn’t, well it’ s worrying.
I will gather more information about the new six Cardinals in the next days. It seems to me, though, that all in all it could have been worse.
Archbishop Mueller may be ( no, let me correct this: is) a very confused theologian and an enemy of sincere and orthodox Catholics, but at least in matters of homosexuality he has to my knowledge not yet managed to say anything stupid.
There are now signs the man might go for a little confrontation with Archbishop “Quisling” Nichols in the matter of homo masses. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has not only been almost entirely silent in the matter of UK so-called “gay marriages” ( which are, let us remind ourselves, neither) but he has continued to allow “bespoke” masses for perverts (basically a dating service for lesbians and sodomites; it is difficult to imagine a more satanic abuse of the mass) without wincing, and merely ordering one of those never-ending “reviews” when a video revealed the extent of the mess.
It will be interesting to follow this battle of the heretic wannabe titans, with the irascible Mueller attacking our Quisling and the latter accusing his German colleague of not being “nuanced” and “pastoral” enough. On better reflection, though, such battle is unlikely to ever be fought, as Archbishop “Quisling” Nichols would probably prefer to get rid of the hot potato by announcing the retreat as the result of the “review” or, far more probably, hiding himself with the fag community behind the “orders from Rome”; a popular archbishops’ pastime, this (Abp Schoenborn has developed it to a high art) and apt to allow Abp “Quisling” Nichols to avoid trouble, save face and get rid of the queens.
Still, one should not refuse the good because it come from the bad, and if Archbishop Mueller manages to do something orthodox and put an end to this scandal he should get some kudos from us; as he will get them, I think, from the SSPX.
On the Catholic News Agency, we are depressed with a very lame intervention of ++ “Quisling” Nichols and Smith about the defence of marriage.
I will, just for today, charitably assume ++Nichols is really interested in protecting marriage.I know, it’s pure fiction, but for the sake of reasoning.
On the one hand we have the most sluttish Prime Minister the United Kingdom has seen in a long time. A man able to invent phrases like the one that redefining marriage be good, because encourage individuals to “make vows to each other and support each other.” In Cameron’s world (but no, really: he is a just a whore. He will say what he thinks will sell, is all) “vows” and “support” are something good in themselves. With this brilliant reasoning, vows or support among criminals, or terrorist, or child rapists would be just as good. Not only is Cameron a moral vacuum; he is just a cretin.
On the other hand, we have our brave heroes. One would expect these heroes to take the sword and say to Cameron that in a Christian society, good and bad are decided according to their compliance with God’s rules, not according to their sounding good as a slogan or in headlines. Therefore, talk about “commitment” is utterly senseless unless it be commitment to something good, & Co. As a result sexual perversion, which obviously flies in the face of Christianity as even a whore like Cameron very well knows, cannot qualify for any kind of protection, or be considered “good” or “positive” in any way whatsoever.
Now, the problem our two not so brave heroes have is that in order to do this, one (particularly Nichols) needs to have the proper track record. This is simply not the case.
In the case of Nichols, the record is as follows:
‘We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,…………‘As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.’
The entire armoury of political correct bollocks is there. The only element which is absent is that this institutionalised perversion, which the Archbishop even considers good (“protection and legal provision”) should not be called marriage. A man with this track record can, of course, never defend with any credibility either marriage, or any other Christian tenet. He is just a heathen masquerading as a Catholic, and uttering some timid meowing when the necessities of the job command it.
Before you say that I am too harsh, please read again the words mentioned above and then tell yourself in conscience whether anyone who had dared to even think such words in, say, your great-grandmother’s environment (you can pick any European country, Catholic or Protestant) would not have been considered a heathen, and a completely rotten one at that.
Vincent Nichols reminds me – and here I ask the ladies to gently look somewhere else, and not want to read further – of that kind of girl once not so uncommon in Southern Italy, who would specialise in oral sex but would consider herself still virtuous because, technically, a virgin. In the same way, Nichols goes all the way in bed with Cameron (and if I wanted to press the simile, I could press it farther) and the heathen society the latter has prostituted himself to, but he possibly considers himself still virtuous because, hey, he makes one or two lame press conferences in defence of marriage.
Some days ago, Father Ray Blake posted the text of the letter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith about that logical impossibility some people call “homosexual marriage”.
It was, at that time, not clear yet whether the Abp would instruct the priests to read the letter during the homily. It appears this was the case, so let us say two words about this.
To say that the text is lame is still not enough to do justice to it. This text is not lame, it is outright cowardly. Whilst (semel in anno) ++Nichols even defends (at least formally) the Church’s position on sexual perversion, it is very clear this letter is meant to do no harm, and to let everyone with a bit of salt in his head understand the real message: “we are not going to prepare ourselves for a fight; please understand we must make some rumours for the sake of the job, but really, you can count on our collaboration”.
Listening to the letter this morning as it was read in the church I, again, was confirmed in my analysis of the text: weak to the point of complicity.
If we had Christian bishops in this land I would not need to point out this is not a discussion about the opening times of pubs, or about the proposed abolition of the 70 miles/hour speed limit. This goes at the root of a Christian society. In every country in which the bishops fear hell, this would occasion such a conflict to let Mr “Chameleon” Cameron understand that with his politics he has made a great number of enemies for himself; some of them influential, some of them wealthy, all of them now fully determined to see him out. Not one tenth of this is happening now in the UK. On the contrary, “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Smith are, in fact, reassuring Cameron no war will be waged.
This attitude reminds one of Paul VI who reacted to the Dutch Schism by writing to the bishops and explaining them how they were supposed to think, without taking further measures. Clearly, such a behaviour confirmed the Dutch bishops they had nothing to fear, and the schism went on for many years until JP II, after several years of pontificate, decided that perhaps the time to act had arrived.
Abp “Quisling” Nichols’ letter now has the same effect: it persuades everyone the way is free, because the Church will not give battle on this.
The despicable, cowardly, unChristian mentality behind this behaviour is the more contemptible because on the other side is not a paladin of some strange secular cause, a man of conviction, one who would even welcome and relish the fight. No, on the other side is the most shameless whore of British politics in the XXI century; one who wouldn’t have any qualm in throwing the legislation in the rubbish bin the second after he realises it can harm him. It would be fairly easy to persuade him he can have the numbers, but he doesn’t want to have the sworn enemies, and this is going to be his grave in time. Prostitute that he is, Cameron would immediately understand the refrain and start talking about the recovery of traditional values, & Co. Even before he came to power, they didn’t call him “chameleon” for nothing. Also, Cameron’s position as party leader has already put heavily into question, and he certainly doesn’t wish a renewal of the troubles of the last months.
So, we are now facing a battle where the main opponent (the Church) has already said – in so many words – he doesn’t want to fight. Opposition will come from other corners, and the battle will not be so easy for the once blue, now pink “Conservatives”. If the Church had put herself “at the head of the movement”, the conservative fringes of the Anglicans would have been motivated in putting a harder opposition – or be more effective with it – whilst it would have been easier for real Conservatives within the Party to express their disagreement in a definitive way – like “get rid of it, Dave, sharpish” – rather than now having to fight an uphill battle.
This was so bad, it can only have come from Abp Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.
But seriously, I wonder how blind and deaf are those in Rome, and how long will it take before they get rid of this bunch of cowards and give us Bishops who believe, erm, all that the Church believes.
The new Hungarian Constitution has entered into force on the 1 January.
I have written about the matter here
I can vividly see the green faces of the BBC troops in commenting this. The matter must also be rather embarrassing for the Prime Pansy, Mr Chameleon, who says the country must go back to Christian values whilst actively promoting institutionalised sodomy. No doubt, he must think it very Christian.
I also wonder whether this Constitution (being Christian) is after the liking of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, or whether he would have preferred a more “nuanced” position, for example making clear that civil partnerships are not in contradiction with Catholic teaching, as everyone knows there is, (erm, cough…..) no sexual intercourse involved.
May the Almighty bless the Hungarian people, and crush the wolves in sheep’s clothes.
From several corners, one hears voices of concern about what the plans of the bishops of England and Wales for the Ordinariates are.
We know that in their vast majority, the bishops of E & W do not see the Ordinariates with favour. We also know that they see in them a danger that the faithful will shift on the Conservative side, many of the converts probably being rather opposed to the tambourine crowd.
It appears this hostility towards the Ordinariate goes toward an interpretation that negates the Roman dispositions about it: the incardination of the Ordinariate in the respective diocesan structure, the avoidance of which is one of the main reasons why the Ordinariates were born in the first place.
Up to here all would be, as they say, SNAFU.The matter becomes, though, a bit more complicated when we consider who is, in the last analysis, the responsible for this.
Rome is “well aware” of the situation, we are told, and “discussing it”; therefore, if awareness and discussion were a valid substitute for acting one could be satisfied with that. The problem is they aren’t, and so one isn’t.
The E & W hierarchy is not something grown from the soil like a bad weed, or fallen upon England like the Spanish flu, or delivered on its soil courtesy of German bombers. The bishops of E & W, every single one of them, have been appointed by Rome, and for every one of them a Pope has taken the responsibility, in front of God and his fellow Catholics, for what he was doing. Therefore, the problems of the Church in E&W are entirely (as in: 100%) the result of Rome’s doing.
Therefore, it seems to me that the discussion about the Roman “awareness” is a rather academic one or, more likely, one piously trying to persuade the readers that no, the ultimate responsibility – and blame – for what is happening in this country cannot be put there. Yes, it can, because this is simply what happened.
It seems, therefore, rather a waste of time to wonder what those who have created the problems will do to deal with the problem they have created. They will do what they always do: send a faint signal here and adopt a weak disposition there, in the sure knowledge that the signal will be overheard and the disposition flatly ignored.
If this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have this situation in the first place and the idea that suddenly the Roman pussycat would transform itself in a tiger is as illusory as the belief that a weak teacher may become a severe one, or an indulgent father start to impose a rigid discipline.
The buck stops at the very top, and the very top is what – ultimately – caused the situation we have today. The situation will only change when it is considered not good (pick your adjective here: charitable, sensitive, pastoral…) to be a pussycat anymore, and tigers will start to roar instead.
We will come there one day, as in this only unavoidable that after the excesses of the past fifty years the pendulum starts one day swinging the other way. I have merely lost all confidence that the present reign will ever effect anything remotely similar to roaring. This pontificate will be remembered for ground breaking instructions and dispositions, for which lack of obedience was passively accepted, and lack of enforcement confused with a charitable approach.
At least, some plans have been laid. Let us pray that the future may give us builders able to translate projects into a concrete edifice.
It is almost Christmas, and yours truly has decided to write a short post about the way Christianity has traditionally dealt – in charity – with the issue of same-sex attractions.
We all know that, whilst the Church has always condemned the actual act of sodomy – we say this in a very low voice of course, as we understand the Holy Ghost is sending different signals now, as he has been doing these last 60 years – Christianity has always been very understanding of the actual luuv experienced – no doubt, because of the influence of the Holy Ghost – by many saintly couples with same-sex attraction.You know by now that an enormous number of saints was homosexual (Saint Elton The Adopter, and Saint Stephen Fry come to mind) as was an inordinate number of bishops, cardinals, Popes, Roman Emperors, and Jedi like, say, Lucia Skywalker and Yodaola The Minute Lesbian.
Already in Roman times, same-sex ceremonies were celebrated everywhere. It is recorded what one of the first bishop, Vincentius, had to say on the matter:
“We do not oppose same-sex partnership. We recognise in Roman Law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that this are not the same as marriage”.
This is the reason, dear reader, why for two thousand years the Church has known two parallel institutions:marriage (destined for those of opposite sex, and having as their aim procreation) and civil partnership (destined for those with same-sex attractions, but living together in an oh so edifying chaste life; actually an example for us all, wretched sinners…..).
As you can see from the writings of this early Veterinary of the Church, same-sex couples were basically everywhere, and their oh so chaste life celebrate by other Christians as a true example of Christian virtue.
This is why we read in Romans the following words:
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
But those who, being filled with deceit, malignity and malice, did not have sexual intercourse, received in themselves the recompense which is due to their virtue, and stability was given to their relationship*.
As Vincentius already explained to us – and as it has been constant teaching of the Church these two thousand years – the Church’s censure does not refer to same-sex attractions, but merely to the sodomite act. The sodomite act is – at risk of being uncharitable; which we are not; or course we aren’t; perish the thought – not the best choice; suboptimal at worst; somewhat short of the ideal; and who are we to judge, anyway…
At the same time, said Vincentius, same-sex fellowships are different. For those, he said,
“we are very nuanced”. “Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation within the Roman Empire use a civil fellowship to bring stability to a relationship”.
This is, my dear readers, why same-sex civil partnership have become such an indissoluble component of Christian civilisation, without which the Christian West would have been unthinkable. This is why, from time immemorial, the Church has celebrated chaste homosexual partnerships and honoured them in poetry, music, painting, and the like. Think of Raphael’s “Marriage of the Eunuchs”, or Masaccio’s “Peter Tatchell and his child-bridegroom”. This is also why your grandmother, who was justly terrified at the idea of global warming, did not object to her neighbours living in an homosexual – chaste, of course – relationship in the least, and participated to “orgoglio allegro” (which then spread to the Anglo-Saxon world, and became known as “gay pride”) together with all her female and gay friends; all of them celebrating tolerance, inclusiveness, and being oh so nice with each other. That was, you see, a Christian world. So nice!
It is really, really unfortunate that after two thousand years of celebrating diversity, of authentic Christian tradition of homosexual partnership, these miserable Birkenstock-wearer and assorted Sixty-Eighters should try to re-invent Christianity and tell us same-sex attraction is….. a perversion!
I blame Vatican II!
Just stop and think……
how charitable we all were!
* this is an ancient text, in the past believed an interpolation but now proved authentic after it was found in Vincentius’ own Bible text.
I call “The Nichols Challenge” the attempt to comment on the latest heretical statement of our not-so-beloved – though much in need of our prayers – Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols without falling in mortal sin.
I have made a couple of attempts, but really if I start to write what I think of the man, it doesn’t serve anyone.
Therefore, I ask you to enjoy (ha!) Rorate Caeli’s take on the matter.
Please, please don’t let me say more.