Please imagine (I won’t show you the video, and you’re welcome) a so-called work of art depicting the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy. Not something highly symbolic and abstract, mind; no, I am talking of shocking realism here; with nude bodies, penises dangling around and all the rest you can, at least in part, imagine.
I can’t express with words the disgust that I prove for people who are able to even conceive such kind of blasphemy. The fact that I chose not to link to the video is, I believe, evidence enough that this is truly strong tobacco; but if any of you really, really want to see it, gloria.tv has the story and more than one video.
It turns out that the author of such (never word was more appropriate) entartete Kunst, or degenerate art, is Alfred Hrdlicka, a self-confessed (gloria tv again) “Atheist, Communist and Stalinist” but evidently friend of the Archbishop and/or some of his friends. Mr Hrdlicka, a true man of the Enemy, died some time ago without any public trace of repentance, so that it is rather reasonable – and in conformity to the user’s manual – to assume that the scenes of perversion he produced are much more real to him now than they were at the moment of his, erm, creative effort.
You would obviously assume that never would a believer even think of giving his own exhibition space to give publicity to such blasphemous excrements as the ones copiously produced by Mr Hrdlicka, as every consideration about the (assumed) artistic value of the work must certainly be completely wiped out by the obvious reflection that there can be no excuse whatsoever for blasphemy.
On the other hand, you would also – I think – conceive that in these disturbing days, when anti-Christian feelings are very much à la page, some atheists without any consideration for propriety and decency and without any fear of the Lord could well conceive of such vulgar display of blasphemous atheism as the one I did not show. Perhaps, someone like Stephen Fry would condone such vulgarity and aggressive atheism; but I’m not so sure that even Stephen Fry, an avowed enemy of Catholic values, would want to link his name to such overt attack to Christianity; to such vulgarity; to such outright indecency.
You would, I think, be right on both accounts.
And this is why the exhibition was organised by the Museum of the Cathedral of Vienna, which is very near the Cathedral itself. This is also why cardinal Schoenborn waited for the exhibition to become an international scandal (again, as reported by Gloria tv; there are several videos on the matter; they all show the “work”, though) before arranging for the removal of the blasphemous excrement.
When a Cathedral museum shows work of such blasphemy that just a couple of decades ago not even the most obdurate satanist would have dared to show in public; and when an Archbishop and Cardinal waits for the matter to become an international scandal before acting, one can certainly be forgiven for thinking that from many extremely wide openings (say: all windows, and all doors) the smoke of Satan has entered into the Archbishop’s offices and surrounding buildings, has made a barbecue, organised a bonfire, smoked the entire place pitch black, then proceeded to call Satan and invited him to make himself comfortable in the premises for as long as he wants, and to organise exhibitions in the nearby museum as he pleases.
Quo usque tandem…
If you don’t know what the American Catholic Council is, don’t worry: you are not alone.
In short, this is one of those ridiculous outfits which claim to be Catholic whilst clearly being Protestant. From thinking that everyone should be priest, to being in favour of wymmyn priest, to encouraging the usual pervert sexual behaviour, they serve you the whole enchilada of the “dissent” madness. You may ask why they don’t become Protestant as they clearly… already are, but intelligence and logical thinking are graces clearly not given to everyone.
It so happens that this mickey-mouse “catholic” organisation holds a conference in Detroit in the next few days, featuring some of the usual heretical muppets. The event will (would; was supposed to) also host an “ecumenical mass”, which considering the ideas of the organisers screams “liturgical abuses” from very, very far away.
Now the local Archbishop is a certain Vigneron; a man who might possibly not be a sword of Catholic orthodoxy (I seem to recall his diocese being pretty harshly criticised by Michael Voris in the past; I might be wrong) but has certainly the energy to avoid tolerating such a load of manure without reaction.
Therefore, Archbishop Vigneron has made the following:
1) he has not authorised the mass, and
2) he has written a letter to his priests and deacons stating that his questions about the mass have not been answered to his satisfaction, that the whole thing screams of liturgical abuse, and that therefore any deacon or priest who should entertain the unealthy thought of participating in this liturgy runs the risk of being dismissed from the clerical state.
I can picture the “dissident” Protestants-telling-themselves-Catholics now faced with the unpleasant reality of even a “moderate” archbishop throwing around threats of laicisation for deluded feminist/homosexual hotheads, and posed in front of the unpleasant task of having to find a priest in good standing but ready to risk the soutane (if he ever wore one) for them or show that the archbishop can well and truly block them.
Alternatively, they may ask some layman to celebrate a fake mass; or some wymmyn; and what about the dog……
I think of their situation and try to feel sorry for them in their quandary.
Thankfully, I can’t.
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.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan* has given an interview about the homosexual priest abuse scandal. He is not particularly measured in his tone, calling the entire affaire “hideous” and “nauseating”. Up to here I do not have any problem as it seems to me that the homosexual priest scandal cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, called with softer tones than those.
Where I personally start to dissent with the Archbishop is when he goes one – or three- steps forward and goes as far as to say that the homosexual** paedophile priest scandal “needs to haunt” the Church. The expression is so strong in its self-flagellating intent that the cbs news link gave it both the headline and a very prominent place in the article. Can’t imagine that this was not what was wanted, and agreed beforehand.
Now, if you ask me one thing is a clear, honest admission of past faults; an entirely different one is the semi-permanent and professional self-harm about it. I have seen it happening in Germany countless times and I assure you, it is both sickeningly pathetic and with the effect of letting you lose every bit of esteem for the self-flagellating whino performing the act.
Whatever the faults of the past (and the Church has her own faults, but she fares rather stupendously compared with any other institution of comparable size you would care to mention, bar none), it seriously cannot be that high members of the Church decide to henceforward permanently apply the cat o’ nine tails to the Church that Christ founded for a bit of easy popularity, and to react to every accusation moved toward her with a further salvo of self-accusations and self-flagellations. As I said before it doesn’t even work, it really doesn’t.
Archbishop Dolan is certainly too expert in the ways of the world to seriously be surprised by the supervisor of a child abuser reassigning him, or otherwise attempting to cover up the scandal. As a career man, he knows perfectly well how strong the temptation to cover your institution is, particularly if you love that institution. He doesn’t say to the interviewer that in most cases, the bishop so covering did not count with further abuses; he doesn’t point out to him that by all the shame, priests still fare better than teachers, or fathers (you can find a wealth of information on this; I never save it on my computer because the matter makes me, well, sick). He doesn’t even say that the idea that a sex offender could easily be cured and rehabilitated was utterly normal in the Eighties, and shared by other religious communities.
He doesn’t point out to any of this. On the contrary he – as the Italians say – “shoots on the Red Cross”. A bit too easy, methinks, and certainly not his job.
Frankly, I slowly wonder whether this kind of behaviour is more motivated by a strange, but in hypothesis vaguely justifiable desire to “wash your dirty linen in public” (which, if you ask me, is wrong anyway) or by a desire to extol one’s own blamelessness by pointing out to the filth around one.
Slowly but surely, what makes one sick is the fact that almost no one of our bishops and cardinals (starting, alas, from the very top) has the gut to say that enough is enough and that it is time to look at things in a sensible way. A sensible way means that one doesn’t overlooks the mistakes, but can put them in the proper context. You don’t hear teachers constantly punishing themselves in such a way, do you now?”Ah, but they were simple teachers, you see; these are priests….”. I am rather surprised that those who are the first to deny to the priest his moral role and what he is and represents (namely: the Church that Christ Founded) are, of all people, those who expect from them a superhuman absence of every vice or weakness. Similarly, you won’t see many of those complaining about paedophile priests express their approval to the kicking out of the homosexual ones. Liberal logic, what a mystery…..
All the while, Dolan’s behaviour contributes to the widespread opinion among anti-Catholics that you should better not allow your child near a priest and slowly damages their reputation as public figures; which is no surprise, really, if this is the way the shepherds themselves defend the reputation of those entrusted to their care.
Archbishop Dolan has the questionable privilege of having, in the middle of his diocese, one of the most scandalous pro-homo soi-disant “Catholic group” of the entire Christianity (of the one who believes in Christ, at least). If he really wants to be haunted, he’d be better to be haunted by the scandals he continues to tolerate and of which he is directly co-responsible rather than from scandals of the past, and in which he was never involved.
* what is this thing Americans have with the middle initial? Do people really say “Timothy M. Dolan?” Do they really remember it two minutes after they’ve written it?
** well he doesn’t say “homosexual”, does he? I wonder why?