The planet is alight with newspaper articles, comments, tweets, Facebook posts and blog articles about the terrible tragedy of Flight MH17 over the Ukraine.
A terrible tragedy, for sure. I am sure you all have prayed for the victims, and may the Lord have mercy of their souls.
(No, they are not going to go to Paradise just because they met an untimely death. No, really…).
Perhaps it would be, though, useful to put such tragedy in its proper place.
1. No sensible man can doubt that the aeroplane has been taken down by mistake. Actually, occasions like this are, if you ask me, very good to tell people who think sensible from the usual conspiracy theorist; of which, there is no doubt, there will be an awful lot around before the sun has risen again. (There are people who think Jews are behind 9/11. The mother of the idiot is always pregnant. But I digress…).
As I was saying, reasonable men will, today, all say that this has been a very tragic mistake. Terrible as the loss of life is, there is still a difference before the involuntary killing and the willed murdering of hundreds of innocent people.
2. 298 dead is around the number of a couple of major Boko Haram actions in some village in, say, Nigeria. Village, alas, not exposed to twitter and Facebook, and in which the Buggers Broadcasting Communism have no great interest. Those people are, though, all intentionally murdered, in cold blood, by people moved by blind religious fanaticism and the purest, most evil blood lust. They seem to be, almost invariably, Muslims. Or you could compare with the numbers of people (not only Christians) massacred by ISIS in Iraq and Syria; or by Islamist fanatics in Libya and Egypt only in the last two years. I assure you, in this perspective, 300 is not an impressive numbers.
It seems to me that the Buggers Broadcasting Communism – and most of the others – not only look at massacres as they would a field of wheat (=wondering what the harvest will be), but clearly prefer those tragedies in which not only the media impact is assured, but some enemies of them (here: Mr Putin) can be accused. There is no clear evidence of Russian involvement, but the BBC et al. are all full of condemnations coming from all over the planet; this morning I have even read a proposal to (further) sanction the Russians if they have provided the weapons to the rebels. Which, ipso facto, makes the West liable to auto-sanctions for almost all the major African conflicts and civil wars of the last 50 years.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
Now let me make a thing or two clear: if Putin has given such weapons to the rebels (which I personally doubt, seen the level or expertise, technology and costs involved), he did it so that they can take down military aeroplanes, that is: legitimate military targets; something which, by the way, has been happening regularly in the last weeks with far less sophisticated weaponry (the shoulder-carried “manpads”). The same is, of course, true of the other side, which had announced only days ago a massive deployment of “Gadfly” missiles, and one wonders how well trained their personnel is.
A terrible tragedy, no doubt.
But in the end: a mistake.
Let us not confuse with the countless Christians (and not only Christians) butchered with a very clear criminal intent from Muslim fanatics, in cold blood, whilst the BBC et al entertain us with the evil Putin.
The ongoing revelations concerning the astonishing abuses and disgusting perversion of Jimmy Savile are most notable in this, that there is of the horizon no form of generalised condemnation of the very institutions that covered him.
It must be clear to the most stupid and ideologically blinded BCC journalist that Savile could remain unpunished only through a decade-long collective blindness within both the BBC and the NHS. Still, I do not detect any call to brand each of these unworthy institutions in any way even remotely comparable to what has been done with the Church.
This is the most absurd, as the NHS is the greatest Nazi mass-murdering organisation in the country (I think we are still north of 150,000 babies murdered a year), and the BBC is the one who has treated the Church with the B2 bomber for decades, as in their very corridors abuses of all kind very simply ignored.
Jimmy Savile should be worth one thousand Cardinal Laws, because no one can say the Church has protected any one priest for decades in an even remotely similar way to how countless BBC employees and managers have chosen to turn a blind eye to what, as it now emerged, was abundantly clear for a very long time.
Still, the BBC, always oh so ready to take the moral high ground, does not proceed to indict itself; nor do the libtards proceed to question their role and their very legitimacy. The same goes for the Mass-Murderers, who will no doubt downplay decades of known and covered abuse as an unfortunate series of single episodes.
The BBC and the NHS represent two of the worst realities in this country; they are two satanical strongholds fully sold to a murderous and/or perverted ideology. No, it does not mean everyone working for them is bad, and heroic battles have been fought by brave doctors and nurses inside the NHS. But again, these heroic battles have become necessary exactly to counter the way the NHS understands itself; a circumstance, this, which today is conveniently forgotten.
Jimmy Savile exposes, with his undoubted evil, the evil of the organisations which allowed him and his perversions to thrive.
But no: the enemy number one, particularly of the BBC, will remain Christian morality and the Church Christ founded.
That notorious den of iniquity and perversion, the BBC, informs us more and more men in California use that strange tentative, “I am not really sure of what I’m saying” tone effected by raising the pitch at the end of the sentence.
I did not know the phenomenon (totally unknown in my neck of the wood) until I came in contact with Americans who had a strange way of answering your question, almost as if they were asking a question themselves rather than give an answer. This was not only by straight answers, but by every expression of opinion or judgment, often mixed with qualifiers like “I suppose” or “I guess”. I heard it mostly from women, but also from men, and whilst it might have had a girly charm in a woman (particularly if young) I found it extremely emasculated in a man.
Question: “Where do you come from?”
Answer: “Los Angeles?”
John Wayne, it ain’t.
It now appears the trend is spreading. How can you be surprised? More and more boys are growing in dysfunctional families, either without a father or with an absent one, whilst the schools have less and less male teachers. Even the priest is – probably if you are a catholic, and very probably if you aren’t – not a model of masculinity. These poor boys, who must in many cases nowadays not even be allowed to play “Cowboys and Indians” by their politically correct, possibly men-hating single mothers, will forcibly grow up in an effeminate environment. Worse, in an environment where masculinity is seen as threatening, or otherwise not desired. Is it a surprised that these poor boys grow up speaking like girls? They speak like girls because, even if the environment will not succeed in make of most of them faggots, it will succeed in making them sissies. A life of whining and bitching awaits them, in which the expectation of handouts from the ever-growing State will prevail over the traditional masculine virtues of going out there “hunting”, possibly taking risks and always accepting responsibilities, and seeing themselves as the providers and protectors of the women in their life. Make no mistake, such a sissy is very likely to vote Obama and his successors for his entire life, expecting the Government to take over every aspect of his life whilst he waffles about women’s rights.
Your typical product of the Californian liberal-single-mother culture (I shudder at thinking how many they must be, sipping their caramel faggoty skinny latte macchiato grande at the nearest Starbucks while making burnt offerings on the altar of inclusiveness) will clearly absorb the ways of their mothers and their (bitchy; yes, bitchy; yes, I know it) female friends and start to behave accordingly.
The Starbucks generation is upon us. Clearly, they’ll have to rely on the Government as their provider.
Children, we are informed today, as young as nine.
The country is, understandably, shocked.
Now let me think…
Wasn't there another famous chap who also screwed a little girl of nine?
How was his name?
Ah, now I remember!
One struggles to believe the BBC was once considered a professional broadcaster.
This rubbish has been online since the 28 February, so it has been online for now 8 days undisturbed. It truly beggars belief.
It is difficult to pick where to start, but let us select some of the most outlandish observations:
1) “Two-Pope Problem”.
I though it was Two Popes, but I am not a mother tongue. Still, at the moment there is no Pope, and when one is elected there will be one Pope.
One. Then zero. Then one. Not difficult.
When a BBC Director-General resigns, the BBC does not write any article titled “the Two-General-Director Problem”.
Cue the outlandish “Antipope” theory; not read anywhere else, not picked up by anyone, not taken seriously even by my cat; but apparently good enough for some BBC hack. “Antipope” must sounds good; one of those words of which few people really know the meaning, but of which many more love to hear the sound; like “Antichrist”.
3) “Exploit such ambiguities”.
This confused chap says he is a papal historian, but again he sounds more like an incompetent hack asked to write some rubbish before lunchtime for £25 and a McDonald voucher. The idea there are “ambiguities” as to who is the Pope is just as stupid as the idea the new Pope might introduce such innovations on – how do you get this wrong? – “the role of the women” as to cause some people to, ahem… do what exactly?
In addition, notice the suave “there are those in the Church”. It matches well the “two theologians”, of which one isn’t mentioned. I though this was a professionally run site, paid by the British people with a compulsory licence, with professional writers and professional editors.
The astonished Catholic learns from this supposed “papal historian” the SSPX are “schismatics” and “out of the Church”, which suggests Mr Walsh may smoke very strange substances in the morning. We are also informed the SSPX “have been long on the verge of declaring a sede vacante“, a circumstance of which the SSPX should be informed immediately, or in alternative whatever Mr Walsh is smoking should be taken away from him at once.
The SSPX is also now a “separate church, yet another division within Christianity”. When you stop laughing about the “separate church”, consider the “papal historian” is insinuating the baddy baddy Christians are oh so much divided.
5) “Muddling the waters”, “quasi alternative Pope”.
This man is clearly not a Catholic; still, even a Protestant or an atheist should know better than that. Not even illiterate peasants will be in any doubt as to who is Pope, or will consider the waters “muddled”, or will even imagine the existence of a “quasi alternative Pope”. The BBC’s “papal historian” apparently will. Oh well…
6) “Confusion gets worse” because of Gaenswein.
This is as stupid as the rest, but even more naive. How there should be any “confusion” because Gaenswein remains Benedict’s secretary is beyond me. The new Pope will decide who is his private secretary, and if and what other task he will have. End of.
Wake up, Mr Walsh.
7) “Pope Benedicts was always happier with books (and cats) than with people”.
First blow below the belt line. We are here informed Benedict doesn’t like immortal souls. He prefers cats instead. This airy comment, this miserable hack dares to make about a man called Holy Father the world over, whose very name (Papa) reminds of his function of spiritual father of all of us, seeing in all of us his sons. This remark from our historian hack is, simply, despicable.
Second blow below the belt line. I have not heard anyone accusing the former Pontiff of “pride” because of the title he has kept. Even Mr Walsh should get – on a good day – that in this case he would not have resigned.
Thankfully, this astonishing pack of lies, deceitful hints and veiled accusations at this point comes to an end.
Again: this is a professional site, fed by public money. Don’t they have editors? How can it be that rubbish like that is cleared for publication? Who authorised this? Is there one single person at the BBC who knows something about Catholicism?
The BBC’s incompetence is only equaled by their arrogance. The sooner they get shut down, the better.
I am afraid we’ll need another couple of scandals for that, though, as Jimmy Savile apparently wasn’t enough.
The extent of Jimmy Savile’s perversion has now emerged in all its shocking dimension, easily realising yours truly’s prediction that the first wave of revelations was merely the tip of the iceberg. It has also become more than apparent Savile skilfully used his popularity to deter from personal attacks to him. Part of this game was, of course, seeking the vicinity of popular people, and using their own charisma, prestige or simple notoriety to build a protective shield. His ability to intimidate must have helped him, but he could only intimidate because he had his popularity and vicinity to the power to allow him to do so.
Among others, the Prince of Wales, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II had photo-opportunities or were linked to him; this has originated, from the usual quarters, the usual predictable criticism.
Still, there are important distinctions to be made. Neither John Paul II nor Margaret Thatcher ever worked with Savile on a regular basis, and for an intelligent man like him it must have been automatic to realise when in the company of prominence even for an extended time – as it was the case, it appears, of the Prince of Wales – he had to be on his best behaviour and do not give rise to any suspicion the vicinity to him might one day become a huge liability.
On the contrary, it is on Savile’s favourite hunting ground, the BBC, that his behaviour must have been noticed, as it is absolutely inconceivable he could have worked there for decades without his true personality as an extremely creepy person – to say the least – emerging. This we know because we know the freedom and impunity he enjoyed there. You don’t brag or make jokes about sex with 12 years old with the Prime Minister, but if you do with your colleagues at the BBC (as he most certainly did), well it must have reached a lot of ears, intimidation or no intimidation.
Why, then, was Jimmy Savile left untouched by his own bosses for so long? Very simply, because the BBC is an evil organisation filled with utterly immoral people with no clue about basic decency and no problems with perverted behaviour. When you see the BBC produced TV version of Dickens’ “Little Dorritt”, with strong lesbian undertones inconceivable in the original; or the BBC co-produced version of “Brideshead revisited” with a grotesque homosexual twisting of the main characters; or again many other BBC co-production like “The History Boys”, where the homosexual issue is heavily present, as it is in ” The best exotic Marigold Hotel”, another BBC Co-production unavoidably exhalting faggotry and sodomy, you know what these people’s plan is.
Basically, the BBC puts our money only in productions pushing their own perverted agenda, and they go so far in their madness they do not hesitate to sully classics of English Literature for the same purpose. Is it a surprise that in such an environment a Jimmy Savile may go on undisturbed for decades? What has happened with Savile is merely another facet of the general decay and perversion reigning undisturbed within the BBC walls. When Satan infiltrates such an organisation with his stupid champagne cretins, he will obviously not be happy with merely one perversion.
All this, of course, with money we are obliged by law to pay so that the Buggers Broadcasting Communism may go on undisturbed.
Well done, BBC. You should ask for an increase of the TV Licence.
One of the most tragic consequences of the deterioration in education is the progressive abandonment of those disciplines specifically aimed at training people to think; like for example logic, philosophy and theology.
What we nowadays have instead is an excessive reliance on technical knowledge, without considering that this in itself is no guarantee of sound thinking. Therefore, whilst in the past we used to have a sufficient number of people thinking right enough as to influence the public discourse, today we have a tragic absence of people promoting sound thinking , whilst we drawn in (useful, but ultimately sterile) technical knowledge.
This is why we live among people who would know how to build a bridge or write a software programme, but never stop to think of the many absurdities of modern life, let alone act upon this knowledge.
Look at the UK. A country which allows the slaughter of (if memory serves) 180,000 unborn babies a year is so worried about whether the hounds will kill the fox in a “humane” manner (!) that it delivers itself a decade-long battle on the issue, concluded with the great advancement of civilisation that the fox may be killed with a gun instead (very natural, you see…). Of course the subtext is political here – the envy for the well-off finding an outlet valve in the supposed “care” for the foxes, of which many times as many die horribly and unnaturally on motorways and other roads without anyone thinking of banning the roads; the same mentality, by the by, is at work with the “global warming” – but this is further confirmation of the emotion-driven, logic-free way politics is made in this country.
It goes on in the same fashion in so many other aspects of real life: think of the frontal attack to our most elementary liberties from self-appointed nannies for which our health must be imposed on us against our will (again, whilst children get murdered); or the now defunct, but until very recently fiercely raging global warming hysteria. I could go on, but you get my drift: never has this country had so many people who think of themselves as well-educated but are unable to think logically, and live in a world of media-driven emotional craze instead. Their ancestors ( factory workers perhaps; or miners, or domestic servants) were in the end smarter than they are, because they lived in an environment shaped by logical thinking rather than brainless emotionalism, and the very thought of world where you can kill children but hounds cannot kill the fox would have been dismissed as a very, very bad joke. The decline of religious instruction – both Catholic and Anglican; the Methodists & Co, are apparently already extinct, and if they aren’t they don’t want you to know…) has obviously gone hand in hand with this, dumbing down religious knowledge at the same time as sound thinking was going down the drain…
Not so today: more and more babies get killed so that those who are born may be made more and more dependant from an omnipresent state teaching them that the government is needed even to breath, that is the source of morality (this is very important; religion is a hobby one can practice in private, but should never be allowed to challenge The Supreme Good, State Morality) and that it wants them to live in a un-thinking, obediently voting, semi-vegetative and, no doubt, very healthy alcohol- and smoke-free state (they’ll be able to contracept and abort at their heart’s content, though… these kiddies are so expensive…).
A country where education was progressively eroded is now experiencing a deterioration of political, moral and social thinking at all levels; because again, even if once higher education was open to only a few the mainstays of the thinking of these educated people would percolate down to all social classes, making the principles of sound thinking and acting work for everyone. Nowadays, you’d think million consider Jeremy Paxman a moral instance, are utterly unable of logical thinking, and do not know the Ten Commandments.
I have glanced a couple of articles today describing Mark Thompson as a “practising Catholic” and fuelling some hopes about his editorial behaviour in his new position. I must say I had to smile; in case you should think Mark Thompson, the new CEO of the New York Times, is a person vaguely approaching decency as far as Christian values are concerned, I suggest you abandon every hope now.
As a resident of the United Kingdom, I have witnessed for years the relentless anti-Christian bias and utter enmity of basic morality this man incarnates. I have written a couple of blog posts about the Beeb, but the examples are truly countless.
This is a man who led an organisation who refused to call the 7 July bombers (more than 50 dead) “terrorists”, preferring “fighters” in pure Osama Bin Laden style. This is also the kind of person who uses double standards for Islam and Christianity and defends his choice, whilst calling himself a “practising Catholic.
The examples are really countless. I haven’t noticed any improvement in the last years. The contrary is the case. The BBC is the aider and abetted of everything that is perverted in this country. Starting from their own corridors, as it is now well known…
On the other hand, how could anyone expect that the NYT would suddenly accept a Christian ( I mean a real one) as commander in chief? It would be more likely that Obama converts to Christianity.
Make no mistake, the NYT will continue to be as bad in future as it was in the past; the only difference might be dome attempt to masquerade as “Christian” the one or other satanic fad. Hey, he says he is a “practising Catholic”, doesn’t he now…
It was clear that something huge was happening in the matter of the paedophile pervert known as Jimmy Savile when, hours before the announced broadcast of the ITV documentary, allegations and anecdotes had started to grow like it was the new sport of the autumn.
More importantly, the new allegations were all very precise, and all gave the same portrait and described the same behaviour (the jokes; the Rolls; the hotels; the BBC changing rooms; and the underlying threat coming from the position of power of the man inside the BBC).
Predictably, the dams have now been broken and, predictably, this is only the start. A couple of dozen episodes have come to the light in just a few days. We are talking here of a dead man, and of episodes happened up to several decades ago; it is easy to think that many will prefer to shut up, or have died; also, here there’s no Church or Michael Jackson to blackmail with a clever move Now the Metropolitan Police has taken the lead on a complex investigation that will involve several other police forces around the Country. Against a dead man. At least they have recognised how serious this is.
Amusingly, the BBC is now discovering – in instalments, so to speak – how bad the entire Savile affair was, and have now decided to be officially shocked, and very ready to collaborate with the police now that the place swarms with them.
This would be bad enough if the BBC had been, say, an obscure orphanage in which unspeakable things happened, unbeknownst to the public opinion. But the sad reality is that Savile operated in the same corridors, and was protected by the same hierarchy, who went on for a couple of decades slandering the Church in the most despicable and populist of ways, even to the point of condescendingly implying that priest celibacy had a role in it (no it had not: homosexual priests had).
Now, it must be very clear that I do not want to condone or downplay the faults of some among the Church hierarchy in that matter – the biggest fault, of course, the allowing of homosexuals in the seminaries, in the stupid hope that perversions would not generate further perversion; nay, in the satanic conviction that some perversions aren’t perversions at all… – and if I think of the late Pope John Paul The Not-So-Great I could remind my reader of an episode or three that should not have happened at all. Still, I find it tragically amusing that the same organisation which does not hesitate to slander a body of 400,000 clergymen (an extremely tiny minority of whom, let us remind ourselves, ever even accused, let alone convicted; and in percentages all too similar of those of Anglican clergy and English teachers, if you care to google the facts; comparisons, these last, you will not easily read or hear from the BBC) lived with the filth in their own corridors for decades, and tried to cover it up until, basically, the day before yesterday.
Truly, there can be no possible excuse for such astonishing hypocrisy. It is as if the Cardinals around the Pope had had a number of twelve-years old on the side – do not be distracted by the side stories of “inappropriate touching”: we are talking of libidinous acts with ten and twelve years old here, and even of nights in hotels; without even the elementary decency of keeping it secret within the BBC environment; truly satanic…) for their own personal amusement for decades, and the Pope, knowing all this, had preferred not to see and to thunder against very occasional failures within the BBC instead. God – and my readers – know I am no admirer of either the present or the former Pope; but truly, compared to the BBC fat cats they must be angels.
This is going to stay with us for a while, because the police has made very clear that even if the main suspect is dead the matter is serious enough to be examined very thoroughly. Bad, er, news for the BBC…
The Beeb now faces a major crisis of authority and credibility; not among us sensible people, who have always known what a cesspool they are; but among the mass of the unwitting viewers, still thinking there is something like professional integrity or even unbiased information going on over there.
What has been going on inside the BBC – and not just in the past, but basically up to two weeks ago – has only one word: omerta’.
Soon George Entwistle will have to drop the last ridiculous defence: the absurd and pathetic claim that the internal Newsnight documentary was shelved for reasons other than the desire to cover up the scandal. The claim is so stupid even Nick Clegg would consider it an insult to his own intelligence.
When this happens, then Mr Entwistle ( a man not new to U-Turns in the last days: he has now magically remembered he knew about the allegations; but only in December, not in the decades before….; oh what a tangled web we weave …) may have to start thinking about a carefully worded letter of resignation allowing him – if he can – to get out of the mess before the tsunami of mud swallows him whole.
Be it as it may, “Buggers Broadcasting Communism” will probably have to be rephrased in “Buggers Broadcasting Paedophiles”.
Jim will not be able to fix this, and rather probably the BBC will fail, too.
Every day brings new accusations, anecdotes, episodes, some of them shocking, some of them “too graphic to be printed in a family newspaper”, as the generally rather “uninhibited” Sun writes.
In all this, the BBC looks and more like an Anglican bishop caught groping the valet, and they have today releases a very embarrassed statement blabbering about helping the police who is knocking at their door anyway, and being oh so solicitous in launching an internal investigation now that the entire country knows.
Sadly, it appears their own team of Newsnight had investigated rather well, but had been silenced for reasons the BBC still has to explain, and which will probably revolve around “we do not care to say that Jesus had a wife without a shred of evidence, but if one of ours is tought to be a paedophile we’ll only talk when others have proved it beyond reasonable doubt”.
Also please think what the oh so concerned people at the BBC would have said if a Bishop had told of one of his priests that the diocese will collaborate with the police… after the police is investigating him and there’s no real alternative to collaboration.
The situation is now surreal: the BBC (Buggers Broadcasting Communism, I am told it means) now claims there is “no record of complaints”. Really? What have they done with them, then? Or were they unable to write?
Today there was also a dramatic change in the tone used: “horrified” if the word used at the moment; which is a marked, police-induced improvement already. The claims of “no records” also lasted (thinking logically) just a few hours, as it is now openly admitted allegations were there from the Seventies.
Ah, all baseless rumours, must our heroes at the Beeb have thought. “Where will it end” – they must have said to each other – “if we start doing something serious after only ten or twenty years of allegations”. And they accuse of cover-up… the Church, with the Vatican hierarchy often sitting thousands of km away?
Yes, “horrified” is truly the word; but referred to the BBC, too.
What the Daily Mail calls an humiliating U-Turn looks with the hours more and more like a rout. The simple fact is that the BBC was caught with their pants down just in the matter by which they most love to pretend they have caught the Church with theirs. Most worryingly, it seems that this was not the action of one or two isolated friend of Savile making some cover-up for him, but something many had to know. How the BBC can even think of pretending they are not involved up to their chin is beyond me.
At 23.10 tonight, ITV will broadcast an investigation with the shocking and graphic revelations. Whatever it is, it is difficult to believe the BBC did not have a vast hint, if not a detailed knowledge, of what had been happening for decades within their own walls; that is, before ITV first went on the scent. I think it is now very appropriate to ask that the silenced Newsnight report be also broadcast in full and without censorship. We could see if the product was so unsubstantiated and below the BBC “professional” standards, as it is more or less vaguely hinted at.
It appears the BBC were if not the accomplices, at least the willing enablers of Savile’s perversion not for one year or two, but for decades, and I am really curious to hear how they will really explain how is it that nothing serious was ever done.
I do hope the name f the BBC will in future not be mentioned in any other TV or newspaper without mentioning the name of Jimmy Savile, and that a lot of mud will deservedly stick. Is this not what they have done with the Church (the entire one: the Church as an institution) for too long?
If you want to know whether they knew, just read Savile’s BBC Obituary: (emphasis mine)
His eccentric personality, unconventional lifestyle and irrepressible self-belief all defied convention, invited personal speculation, and bemused many an interviewer over the years.
Some questioned the motivation of the man behind such a singular public persona, but his energy and ability were beyond doubt.
What a very British way to say a lot of people inside the Beeb knew, and pretty much everyone was afraid of being the first to talk.
If I were a BBC journalist, I’d now suggest they introduce BBC employees’ celibacy as I would see in it the root of their scandalous involvement in decade-long child abuse and/or child rape.
If you live in England, you cannot avoid noticing the growing waves concerning Jimmy Savile, an extremely well-known presenter, disc-jockey, “charitee”-activist, BBC icon and what not. Oh sorry, I forgot: apparently a serial pedophile, too.
Now, I am not a private investigator or a policemen, and even if I think Mr Savile’s memory will very soon be deservedly covered in dirt, my point today is not to shoot at him. Not because I do not think he was a bastard (I truly think he was; an 1a bastard with certificate of authenticity, and it seems like a veritable dam of omerta’ is now going to get busted), but because what I would like to point out to you is how the BBC behaved in the matter.
The same organisation who is never tired of shooting against everything Catholic, has the microphones permanently full with “pedophile priest” stories and is oh so sensitive and politically correct when dealing with poof wanting to “marry”, and Anglican vicarettes wanting to play bishop, clearly tried to cover up the embarrassing matter of a BBC icon having been a pedophile for several decades, with the complicity of the Beeb.
It has now emerged the Beeb moved only when it was too late; that is: when a rival station demanded to know from them what they knew. Before that, material was suppressed and information clearly available not aired. And this is not a secondary matter, as the man was – apparently; I can’t say I have any remembrance of the man – a real heavyweight in the history of televised Britain.
So you have the BBC in short: ferociously biased against the Catholic church, and ferociously protective of people belonging to their own “clan” and perceived patrimony, and doing that for which they most criticise the Church: the cover-up of paedophiles among their own ranks.
White City: the home of whited sepulchres.
Interesting film, this one, and most certainly not only for young adults.
I will not give any spoiler, but what I found striking was the following:
1) The theme (not new) of the omnipotent Central Government, the absolute ruler of its subjects. Rather an actual theme, I would say.
2) The absence of every Christian message, in a desolate world that has – leaving aside the theological implications of this – forgotten Christianity. This is not “The Descendants”, where there is no Christianity because in the mind of the writers and director everyone is too cool to believe in God. This is exactly the contrary, and you rapidly understand this world can only be cruel, because there is no Christianity.
3) The open criticism of the growing kitsch dominating our lives. The hair and general clothes of most of the “leaders” (not, crucially, of the two main and of the “positive” characters) is characterised by a grotesque absence of taste. Interesting, because the way most people dress, their haircut and , in some circles, their tattoos would have been considered disgusting and worse than ridiculous just a couple of decades ago.
4) The dig at the “inclusive” culture. The movie – I have not read the book – sends some unspoken messages: the hair and clothes clearly mean this is a “liberal” dictatorship, where no one is “discriminated” or “made to feel excluded” for his personal taste and at least the ruling class can “express” itself as it pleases. Similarly, there is a clear message that in this fake “liberal” world, in reality extremely cruel and devoid of any ethics, homosexuality is considered normal. I see in this a criticism to the Nazism our liberals are trying to build around us: violently illiberal, but open to every perversion in sexual morals, or simple taste.
5) This is a clean movie. A movie completely centred on adolescents of both sexes, but without sex, actually without even sexual innuendos. Mind, this is not a movie for 12 years old, and I would not bring a 12 years old to see it. Say, 15 to 18 must be the main target, but even as an adult there are no limits to its fruition.
Nowadays, when teenagers are confronted with sexual messages in every aspect of the trash “culture” dished to them, to make an expensive movie of this kind is more than laudable. I couldn’t avoid thinking that if the movie had been co-produced by the BBC, some of the “good characters” would have been most certainly perverts: the BBC does it without exception, with “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” being only the last example.
The movie is more than a bit upsetting, because the viewer is plunged in a world of brutal fight for survival for a longish time. Again, I wouldn’t bring there a 12 years old.
Still, I think you wouldn’t waste your time and money, and many of you would agree with me in my interpretation of some of the aspects of this movie. Again, I haven’t read the book – nor do I plan to – so I cannot tell you whether these issues run through it.
Fantastic post from His Hermeneuticalness.
Please go there, read and click around.
For those who don’t know it, Guido Fawkes is one of the most beautifully vitriolic blogs I have ever come across, and a true bastion of freedom in a country where freedom is more and more often confused with the will of the liberal and gay mafia.
From the blog of E F Pastor Emeritus
Twenty-six pastoral workers–including 18 priests, four sisters, and four laity–were killed in 2011, according to the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. Seven were killed in Colombia, five in Mexico, three in India, two in Burundi, and one each in Brazil, Paraguay, Nicaragua, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Tunisia, Kenya, the Philippines, and Spain.Twenty-six pastoral workers–including 18 priests, four sisters, and four laity–were killed in 2011, according to the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. Seven were killed in Colombia, five in Mexico, three in India, two in Burundi, and one each in Brazil, Paraguay, Nicaragua, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Tunisia, Kenya, the Philippines, and Spain.
Perhaps I was not paying attention, but I didn’t notice anything along these lines reported on the BBC.
But just let a real or – more probably – supposed case of “homophobia” come up, and you can hear them barking and bitching around like there’s no tomorrow…..
It is highly ironical that basic tenets of Catholic thinking (besides the Church being……. the only Church, She is the country’s second largest Christian organisation after the largely atheists or indifferent Anglicans, and the largest if you consider the number of churchgoers) need the endorsement of a senior judge to make some headlines.
The judge in question is Sir Paul Coleridge talking to the BBC, which reports the conversation as follows:
On the day official figures showed that nearly half of all babies are now born to unmarried mothers, Sir Paul blamed family break-up on social changes including the shift in attitudes towards cohabitation and increasing numbers of children born outside marriage.
He said that 50 years ago ‘on the whole cohabitation was regarded as something you didn’t do, to have a child outside marriage, so that created a framework that stopped very much breakdown.
‘We’ve had a cultural revolution in sexual morality and sexual behaviour,’ the judge said. ‘We need to have a reasonable debate about it and decide what needs to be done – and I don’t mean Government,’ he said. ‘They didn’t cause the problem.’
He added that the change in social attitudes over the past five decades had given people ‘complete freedom of choice’.
This was ‘great’ when they behaved responsibly, he added, but some seemed to think it was a ‘free-for-all’. Sir Paul said the rate of family breakdown among unmarried couples was far higher than among married ones.
It was statistically proven parents were far more likely to stay together until their children’s 16th birthday if they were married, he said.
Official figures suggest that an average marriage lasts around 11 years, but a cohabitation is likely to break up in three if the partners do not marry.
One would give kudos to the judge – a good chap, probably – if what he says were not the most elementary, purest common sense. And in fact the very same fact that his words made headlines shows a typical trait of today’s Britain: the loss of basic common sense.
I personally see as the cause of this a typically English disease, that has been worsening and spreading like a metastasis as the religious sense disintegrated: niceness.
Niceness has slowly become the unique moral criterium, the be-all and end-all of all moral considerations, the golden calf of a new religion. Nice, good. Not nice, bad. The idea that there be values to which niceness might be sacrificed has – encouraged by the “church” of England – all but disappeared. When values disappear from the pulpits, don’t expect to find them much longer in the sitting rooms of the pewsitters. When the “church” of England eliminated Christianity from morality, niceness took its place.
Still, a society in which everyone wants to be nice to everyone is condemned to doom. As divorce became more and more frequent, no one dared to say a word about that as this just wasn’t “nice” towards those among our acquaintances that were in that situation, or knew someone who was. If “nice” is the moral criterium, you have lost your argument – and every hope of avoiding that the country goes down the drain – the very instant someone says he’s “hurt”. Welcome to Nice Britain.
It went on, as more and more couples started to live together in concubinage and no one said a word, least of all the oh so nice vicar (and, all too often, the still-too-nice priest). The country was all too happy with its “Vicars of Dibley”, and didn’t care about the consequences as long as it was convenient to do so.
This obviously led to more and more births of children born outside of wedlock, born from people who were either adolescents or were remained such, the illusory quest for a never-to-be-reached personal happiness more and more frequently put before their own children. Those who went around saying that marriage is only a piece of paper were those who were most prone to leave their partner and children; but to say that was, of course, not nice.
The stigma also went. Being divorced is something, if not almost expected, clearly within the realm of normality. The very idea that there should be a stigma associated with being divorced is considered something bad because, erm, not nice. Strangely, I grew up in a country which – covertly or overtly – used to send the message that if you are separated/divorced, you are a failure irrespective of whatever other achievement you may have, because you have failed in the most important endeavour of your life. How “rude”! How “judgmental”! But you see, in such an environment you think twice before you marry, and thrice before you divorce. Of course there is social pressure: it is because it is good!
The entire “niceness” madness is perfectly epitomised by our Prime Minster, “Call-me-Dave”-Cameron; the friend of everyone, the supporter of every idea and its contrary, the man called “chameleon” even before seriously starting to be a politician, the prostitute of every lobby, and the undoubtedly brownest nose of the Kingdom. Cameron is the kind of person able to say that he is in favour of marriage, and that “marriage” includes homosexual couples. This doesn’t scandalise much. You see, he is being nice.
This is where we are now: a country where marriage is defended with words, without saying that to defend marriage means to condemn alternative forms of convivence; a country where it is recognised that a child needs stability, but its destruction is never stigmatised; a country where there is a lot of talk about values, without ever saying what behaviours these values necessarily exclude.
The country drowns in niceness; starting from the vicar down the road, and the local politician.
It drowns to such an extent, that common sense makes headlines.
I complain very often about the BBC, a nest of liberal vipers all too ready to forget any balance and abandon themselves to the most scandalous liberal/atheist/anti-Catholic bias.
I must say, though, that even on the BBC I have never heard anything remotely approaching the total lack of balance and basic religious literacy of the incompetent wannabe journalists living from the public purse at this sender.
You would think that the article has been written by some thirteen-years-old girl playing journalist, so cretinous the entire presentation of the matter is.
The author of this piece of misinformation truly seems to believe that it is possible to con the Church into creating what can’t be created. To even think of being able to write that “women were secretly ordained” as priests is on the same level of intelligence as believing that in 2002 seven women were secretly appointed Dobermann Of The Year, or Second Moon Of The Earth, or Secret Presidents of Middle Earth.
There cannot be women priest, because being a man is a constitutive element of being a priest. There can’t be women priests more than there can be barking cats. It’s as simple as that, and even a girl journalist – even if entirely stupid – should be able to get this.
Sadly, simple logical thinking doesn’t seem to be a requisite for journalism anymore. The newspaper ludicrously talks of “ordinations” as if a real ordination – instead of a pathetic masquerade – had really taken place. It talks of “domino effect” as if a mickey-mouse priestess would be able to validly confer holy orders to another mickey-mouse priestess. This is so stupid that every seven years old child, properly instructed, would find it completely unworthy of his time and an insult to his intelligence.
The bias truly knows no boundaries. The wannabe barking cats
“made their way down the aisle, beaming like brides”.
Good Lord! What is this, the screenplay of a third-rate comedy? The excited little scream of a Justin Bieber fan? This is below stupid.
But this is not all:
The two-and-a-half-hour ceremony ended with Holy Communion — the moment they’d been waiting for.
No it didn’t. They ate some bread after having dressed themselves and were blasphemous and sacrilegious in so doing. I’m glad that the idiots attending were punished with two and a half hours of this, though.
Each woman performed the rites for the first time as a priest, breaking bread and serving wine as tears of joy flowed down their faces.
Our little girl journalist is here fully losing control, or perhaps she thought that she was writing an email to some, no doubt, stupid girlfriend of her. Whatever this is, this isn’t journalism.
Following these pearls of wisdom and journalistic talent, the mind (if any) of these nutcases is explained or, better, unwittingly exposed:
Fellow ordinand Patti LaRosa had a similar experience growing up. She came from a close-knit Italian family and always felt comfortable in the Catholic Church.
So the lady felt “comfortable” in the Catholic Church. Hey, why leave it then? If I decide that I now am, say, a Mullah, why not to appoint myself “Catholic mullah”? I feeeel so comfortable with that!
And it so happens about this lady that:
Several times a week she would go to church during her lunch break, and one day she realized, “I’m supposed to be a priest.”
So she sits there and one days she thinks, “I’m supposed to be a priest”. She could have thought “I’m supposed to be an elephant”, and the logical content would have been exactly the same.
I suppose the lady doesn’t feel comfortable with elephants.
There should be less money for useless public radios, and more money for serious mental health care.
It is hard to believe, but countries like Canada have TV programs that can deal with Catholicism for three-quarters of an hour and being seen nationwide. If the BBC were to do something comparable, the program would obligatorily include a parade of sexual perverts explaining to us why the Church is evil; all interspersed with seemingly sympathetic comments from seemingly unbiased journalists aiming at pushing their secular agenda under the cloak of “tolerance” and “diversity”, which means approving pretty much everything under the sun.
Well, not so in Canada, where the Michael Coren show* deals with Catholicism for very long and in a serious fashion, inviting Michael Voris (well-known to the followers of this blog) to talk about it.
From this (longish) programme, several facts emerge:
1) Michael Voris has already been downloaded 5.5 million times in the last around two years. That’s some 7,500 downloads a day, give or take and with the trend going up (350,000 in January 2011; do your math). Very admirably, Voris says they don’t work “for” downloads, but can’t avoid noticing their growing number.
2) Criticism of Voris tends to come from people who think him “not charitable” (usual liberal excuse to attack those who are Catholics).
3) Voris makes clear that his role is to teach Catholicism. By a trend to 4+ million downloads a year, this gives all the scale of the failing of the Catholic clergy regarding their first duty: teaching the faith.
4) Voris makes an excellent job in explaining to the his viewers (composed of many non_Catholic, I can easily imagine) that to criticise what Church men do doesn’t mean that the Church is not infallible. The Church is doctrinally infallible, the people who compose her are prone to all sorts of errors. This is very important and must be explained again and again to your friends and colleagues when they are (naturally, seeing that they are not properly instructed) confused. This is also a huge source of prejudice against the Church, so it is very good that it was addressed.
5) Coren says it very clearly: Catholics schools teach people to be good citizen, but not to be good Catholics and in fact, even when they go out of school they can’t even define what their being Catholics is all about. I’d say these reflections can be shared by most people; they are the strongest indictment against the Catholic hierarchy in the West.
6) Voris is very clear: the problems started when Vatican II became a conduit for heterodox tendencies already contained in the conciliar documents. It is not the documents themselves that were heterodox, but they were so bad that they could be interpreted so and in the cultural climate of those years they predictably did.
Voris also cites the recent appeal of Bishop Schneider of a new “Syllabus of Error” regarding V II: this must be surprising and at the same time refreshing for non-Catholic viewers: seeing that the Church has not really ever changed, but has merely done her work badly for a handful of decades.
7) Coren is very perceptive: he notices that the liberal voices are the most intolerant ones and that “liberals” are only “tolerant” with those who “behave the way they want them to behave”. You’ll never hear that from the Beeb. Hat off to Mr. Coren.
8) “A lot of liberalism is about sex”, says Coren in another brilliant statement. He understands that liberalism is about doing what you please, and being Catholic is about trying to do as Jesus asks. The man is disarming in that he says things that in England would cause calls of hate speech as if he was saying the simplest facts on Earth. Refreshing.
9) Coren says it again in a very communicative way: he understands that “the teaching from Rome is perfect”, but that the problems lie in the provinces of the Empire. Voris has no problems in explaining the scale of the problems coming from the clergy. This must be, again, both shocking and refreshing for the viewers, who have the opportunity to see an organism sacred in her essence, but fallible in her workings.
10) Even Coren notices that younger priests and bishops tend to be much more orthodox than older one. He is 52, and a convert. I think he is spot on. Again, this is rather known among Catholics but it must be most interesting for non-Catholics viewers. An extremely instructive programme for them.
11) “Judas is the Saint of Social justice”. This Fulton Sheen line criticising the “militant social stance” of many priests is another statement you’ll never hear on the BBC.
12) The hard arguments come out around 27:00: the losing of the West’ soul, the hard truths about Catholic “unpleasant” messages, the necessity to hammer the hard messages to the people, the fact that your moral view will influence the entire society in which your children live. Coren reacts to Voris’ hard statements with grace and humour, his clear Catholicism never becoming obnoxious to those who don’t share his persuasion but clearly showing where his preferences lie. Again, I think that a non-Catholic can see this programme and be pleasantly instructed and entertained.
13) Moving details are revealed: Voris’ mother asking for a cross so that their children may come back to the faith, and dying of cancer in a prayerful way. Looks a bit like “Brideshead revisited”, but in real life. Voris avoids the emotional outburst, but one clearly understands that the event touched him profoundly.
14) Coren deals with the main criticism liberals move to orthodox people: being not charitable. Voris has the chance to explain what true charity is, and what false charity leads to.
No interruptions whilst he explains. Simply good journalism.
15) “It is not the role of the Church to blend in with society”. Another strikingly relevant statement from Voris. No English bishop I know would have ever the guts to say it so strikingly.
16) Some bishops apparently said to Voris something on the lines of “keep on saying what you say, because I can’t”. Sorry, but these are bad bishops. It can’t be that Voris may have the guts, and the bishop can’t afford to. Voris is there because they just don’t do their job. See point 15).
There are some other interesting points, but I’d like not to go beyond 1000 words. This is an excellent example of good, informative journalism, though clearly coming from a Catholic journalist. Coren respectfully listens to his guest allowing his viewers to get 45 minutes of solid formation in Catholicism. I can easily imagine that whilst Coren is clearly Catholic himself, his journalistic style may appeal to many non-Catholics and help them to get nearer to the Catholic truth. The chap has the warmth, the graceful ways and the smoothness of tone of an Italian in a good mood.
I so wish the BBC could learn a bit from him instead of being the miserable hotbed of secular anti-Catholic propaganda it is.
* as always, you may have to register. Free of charge and certainly worth your while.
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.
If you go here at around 2:10:00 (make haste, because it might disappear in the next days) you’ll have a good example of what doesn’t work with the Church in England.
The BBC journalist insists in posing irritating, but actually very fitting questions to Archbishop Longley. Thankfully, the journalist has got it that the Pope was, during Condomgate, “not saying anything terribly new” and he therefore asks – understandably, from his ungodly perspective – whether the Church is going to “change” Her opinion about condoms and, more fittingly, whether the average English Catholics accepts “lock, stock and barrel” the Catholic doctrine.
This would be an ideal occasion to launch oneself on a passionate defence of Truth, on BBC’s “Today” programme, on Christmas Eve. Which is, I was told, what an Archbishop is supposed to do anyway.
Instead, Archbishop Langley’s answers oscillate between the inane, the cowardly and the pathetic. He goes on and on remembering the success of the Papal visit; talks about how much the church is looking for “dialogue”; insists on Cardinal Newman in a way clearly meant to avoid the show of “tough love” required of him; tries not to answer the journalist’s questions and even says that he thinks that Catholics in England accept “lock, stock and barrel” the Catholic teaching, “otherwise they wouldn’t be Catholic”. Good Lord; do we live on the same planet….
The buzz words, though, are all there. Dialogue is obviously there and change is also felt as appropriate. “The Church is constantly changing”, says he when he talks of the ways the Church talks to the people. This is meant to sound positive, I suppose, but the guts to say loud and clear that the Truth doesn’t change and everyone must come to terms with that is clearly more than he can muster. So we have on the one side the hurt feeling of perverts – explicitly and emphatically championed by the Beeb man – and on the other hand we have a man insisting with you that the Church “changes” because now the Pope talks to you on the radio. Brilliant.
Archbishop Longley (not one of the worst, for sure; for the English standard, I mean) has given a wonderful example of why the Church struggles in this country: because it is afraid to say it straight and prefers to hide behind successful visits, blessed Cardinals and easy slogans of “dialogue” and “change” instead.
You can read on Rorate Coeli (you’ll have to scroll down to the 21st December) the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “on trivialization of sexuality” (American spelling, apparently. Fair enough…).
This is nothing less than an official statement about Condomgate. If you take the few minutes to read it, you’ll notice that the arguments it makes are not in the least different from the comment made on this and other orthodox blogs at the time of the controversy.
What one notices is that at least here in the UK the media have chosen to completely ignore this statement in the same way as they had – once it became clear that they had once again pissed outside of the pan – conveniently decided to move to other topics.
As a result the truth didn’t get one hundredth of the media attention given to the lie and untold non-churchgoer Catholics must be somewhat under the impression that after all the Church can change Her teaching and therefore, well, must change it in order to become, ehem, more similar to them.
This is further prove that the media landscape of this country – largely dominated by champagne liberals, liberals who can’t afford the champagne and socialists who think they’re liberals – is not interested in information, but in manipulation of the (license-paying) public.
As we all know, heterodoxy lurks from all corners. We find it among bishops (look at the United Kingdom, and seek no further); among priests (the last “strange” homily was from that Jesuit from Wimbledon saying on the lines of “hell is a way of saying that we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves with second class choices”); we find it among politicians a’ la Nancy Pelosi and – obviously – we find it among journalists a’ la BBC.
Now how would a progressive, heterodox journalist describe the notorious excerpt? “A change in Church teaching” would be a way; a “softening” would be another; a third one might be a show of “compassion”. Let us see why this is wrong.
1) Church Teaching doesn’t change. Circumstances are always changing, but moral categories never change. We live and die in a world confronting us with exactly the same moral choices of St. Thomas Aquinas’ time. If this wasn’t the case, we’d need a new Gospel and a new Christ. We need no new Gospel and no new Christ; the Truth has been transmitted to us and it is valid for all times and for all (ever changing) circumstances.
Right is right even if no one is right and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong. There is no way on the planet the use of a condom should be considered any differently in 2010 than in Humanae Vitae’s time (sodomy had already been invented; sexually transmitted diseases too) or, come to that, in Romans’ times. We are dealing with moral categories here, not with technological advancements.
2) The one with the “softening” is also funny. It implies that the Church’s teaching about the use of condom is, well, wrong somehow. That it should be “improved”. Poor little sodomites, to whom the Church, which tells them not to commit sodomy in the first place, also makes it impossible to enjoy sodomy in the proper way…..how cruel is that! Don’t ya feel for them, mate? Such a thinking can earn one some kudos in a homo bar or in a BBC studio, but is certainly not Christian. The Church says hard words when she is confronted with harsh situations, with hardened sinners, with abominations, with serious danger to one’s soul. Not only is this the charitable thing to do, but it is the most practical advice. Condoms will never eliminate the risk of infection, chastity will. Condoms will never be conducive to eternal salvation, chastity will. There’ s nothing hard in telling the truth, and nothing to be softened. Truth will make you free and will, possibly, lead you to a long and healthy life instead of a painful agony of spiritual and physical self-destruction.
3) Third one is the one with the compassion. To allow a sodomite to commit such an abomination would be “compassionate”; to suggest the best way to multiply the number of his unspeakably lurid (in all senses) acts would be “compassionate”; to satisfy the desire of the sinner to sin with as few conscience pangs as possible would be “compassionate”.
What has become of us. When the moral instance gives way to the consideration for the comfort of the sinner, we have a clear case of false compassion. When not the sinner as human being is being helped, but the sinner is helped on his way to sin, we have false compassion. When “compassion” is not seen as eliminating the sin from the sinner, but the danger from the sin, we have false compassion. When the physical health of the sinner (through the use of condoms) is considered more important than his spiritual health (through chastity), we have false compassion.
Really. What has become of us.
After the storm of the past days (promptly ceased after the secular press has discovered that they just got it wrong, but without giving the fact any relevance anywhere near to the screaming with which the “change in Church’s position” was announced) it might be good to say two words about lesser evil and double effect.
The idea of the “lesser evil” is the concept that if one evil is a given, than it is justified to act in a way that the evil is at least minimised. The concept is not a religious, but a political one. The examples are too numerous and too much of a day-to-day occurrence to bother giving them. Diplomacy is made of just that.
Christianity, though, doesn’t think in this way, because morals and politics operate on different planes. In morals, the question cannot be seen in terms of “if you must do evil, at least do the lesser evil”. The moral approach to evil can only be “don’t do evil”. As I have said yesterday, evil will at times be tolerated, but this doesn’t mean that the evil is justified or endorsed in any way.
Catholicism doesn’t know any “lesser evil” doctrine. When Christianity says that you shouldn’t kill, it means exactly this. Discussions about the endorsed way to kill a man are not part of Catholic moral teaching. To use Ronald Reagan’s immortal words: it is not about explaining how to do it, it is about explaining not to do it*.
Catholicism does know, however, the doctrine of the double effect, that I have briefly mentioned yesterday. I suggest that you make yourself acquainted with it, because in the next months or years you’re going to be unnerved by those “Christians by hearsay” who want to teach you about Catholicism and inform you that you are out of date because “The Pope has changed his teaching about condoms”. I feel my adrenaline level rising already.
You can find a nice (and beautifully short) explanation here. When you have read it, you’ll see that this is much different from the case where evil is chosen in the first place and you are dealing with the modalities of the evil. There are no justified modalities of committing evil (I mean here excluding the unavoidable evil coming from the double effect), because the evil act is not justified in the first place.
Let us elaborate on yesterday’s example of the mexican gang member. The Church can’t possibly say “where a Mexican gang member really wants to execute a member of a rival gang, it is justified to kill him with a pistol shot rather than raping and torturing him savagely before finishing him”. This can’t be said because the murdering of the man is not justified. Still, it is undeniable that the torture and rape of the man are further evil acts compared to the murder seen in isolation. Therefore, if the Mexican gang member decides to at least have some respect for the humanity of the rival and murder him with a shot in the head without first raping and torturing him, this “can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants”.
In this case, not even the BBC would say that the Pope has “endorsed in limited cases the shooting in the head”. The teaching is exactly the same and neither torture nor murder are endorsed. Only, it is very rare that redemption simply explodes within a man’s consciousness; rather, there will be in most cases a progressive process of awakening. The male prostitute will, possibly, start using a condom, thus avoiding adding a potential massacre to the sodomy.
Why, then, all the mess? Because the matter of double effect and lesser evil cannot be simply implied by quoting a couple of sentences in a book without causing a great stir in people accustomed to a more brutal and simplified (particularly if journalists) way of thinking. It might be that the book in his entirety is such that no wrong impression is caused, but there can be no doubt that if you mention homos and condoms after the interviewer has asked whether the Church is, then, “not opposed in principle to the use of condoms” you are clearly looking for trouble.
What I am angry at the press for is not that the statement might have misled them, but that:
1) they don’t bother to ask the Vatican first, and
2) no one seems to notice that Catholic moral teaching just doesn’t change.
I mean, if a Muslim tells me that he has heard that the Pope has changed the Church’s position about condoms I can still understand the poor chap. Less so if he is a Catholic (of sort). Much less so if he is a journalist. But if they are Catholic journalists, then we are really in a bad shape.
*A short prayer for the Gipper is in order here, I think…
After today’s announcement of five bishops of the Anglican church, that they will cease every function within the Anglican church at the end of the year and join the Ordinariate when such one is created I am supposed, I think, to be satisfied and see the future of the Ordinariate with some optimism.
Then why I am not?
I am not because it seems to me that, so to speak, the new blood coming within the church is – at least judging from the still scarce information – not really good.
Let us take this interview to the BBC of Mr. Burnham, one of the five swimmers.
If you listen from 0:25 onward, it appears very clearly to me that Mr. Burnham announces his conversion to the Only Church, but still doesn’t have the slightest problem in continuing to consider the Anglican so-called church “part of the one universal Church going back to the time of Jesus”. His problem is not with the Anglicans NOT being part of the Church. His problem is that in recent times the so-called cofE has started “making his own rules”. The several centuries from Edward VI to 1992 don’t seem to be a problem, the very legitimacy of the so-called church of England a given. It is only when the so-called coE started with the novel ideas of priestesses & Co. that he was forced to choose between the “two Churches” and he decided for the “older body” (clearly meaning, make no mistakes, that both “bodies” are “Catholic churches”).
Furthermore, he sees his conversion as a way “for the churches to move closer together”.
Pardon me, Mr. Burnham, but a Catholic cannot, absolutely cannot see “two churches coming together”. There is only the One Church – which is right – and an ecclesial community – which is wrong – and no other decision than the one to leave the wrong community and join the Only Church.
All this talking of the “two churches”, of continuing to see Anglicanism as a part of the Church, of wishing a union between two supposed churches is the explicit confirmation of what many had feared: that the new “converts” do not bring any Catholic orthodoxy with them, but rather introduce an element of heresy within the organisation they want to join.
It would have been very easy and very beautiful and very orthodox for Mr. Burnham to say that the events of the last decades have started in him a painful but necessary process of discernment; that at the end of this process he has come to the conclusion that the Only Church is.. the Only Church; that he has come to recognise where is the truth and where is the error; and that he hopes that many other faithful still within the Anglican so-called church would reach, in time, the same conclusion.
Nothing of the sort. Not one word. From one who is publicly announcing his conversion. On the contrary, explicit legitimation of a heretical body as “church”.
If the UK Ordinariate is going to work along these lines I wish it a painful death, from the heart.
This is not conversion; this is invasion.
I will blog today about the extremely grave episode that has happened in one of the cradles of Western civilisation, Florence and has since dominated world news.
As in the meantime everyone who doesn’t live on the Moon knows, an extremist Christian has succeeded in entering a Mosque in Florence and has violated and desecrated a place of worship. The entire action was filmed and has been on youtube & Co. for some days now. This caused widespread outrage among the Muslim community the world over, repeated threats from the Iranian government, calls to Jihad in all major Muslim capitals, great burning of Western flags, the killing of several priests and Christian laymen and in general frightful tensions between the Christian community and the Muslim one.
I am sure that every reader of mine will agree with me that such acts are extremely shameful and and that sincere Christians feel ashamed at what their co-religionist has done.
For this reason, it is also not surprising that the NY Times, CNN, BBC, the “Guardian” and in general the world media have condemned the action as one man, echoing the world wide outrage this senseless act has caused. This has been going on for days now so if you haven’t noticed, you must have been sleeping all the time or more probably, you are dead already.
This was to be expected, I hear you say. You can’t violate a place of worship of a religion with a worldwide following and around a billion faithful without the entire media world making a huge uproar about that, can you?………………………
Oh well apparently (and to use a phrase very much en vogue, at least until the beginning of November) yes, you can!
The only thing you must do is avoid targeting Islam. Best thing to do is to target Christianity. This way, you will be sure that you will be able to dance on the high altar of the Florence cathedral without the world media noticing the episode in the least!
Now if you had proposed to, say, burn a Koran, this would have been different of course. One just doesn’t do such things unless he is a racist Nazi Ku Klux Klan fundamentalist bastard deserving of death by stoning and subsequent frying in camel’s urine.
But if you desecrate an altar to the point that it will possibly have to be reconsecrated, then it is very fine and no world wide outrage will erupt.
Similarly, there will be no calls to a Crusade, no danger for the life of Islamic clerics in European countries, no world wide self-flagellation from soi-disant intellectuals and no global media coverage to the point of nausea.
Which probably explains why nothing has happened in this case.
Absolutely brilliant entry (some months old, but with all its freshness intact) of One Timothy Four about the various distortions of how the media and public opinion deal with the issue of the (homosexual) paedophile priest scandal. This article is notable because it comes from someone who, though in the meantime a full-fledged Catholic (and I mean real Catholic, not soi-disant one) had indirect but credible experience of the Anglican part of the matter. This is not to say that the Anglicans are particularly affected from the problem, or that the problem is exclusive competence of Christian denominations; only that it does help to put a thing or two in the right context.
Let us see the most salient phrases of this extremely interesting contribution:
there is good evidence (largely ignored by the media) that the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church and elsewhere grew in direct relationship to generalized sexual liberation
The BBC will never tell you this. The winds of “modernity” (or modernism) blowing after Vatican II carried with them a kind of “tolerance” bound not to stop in front of any sin. If we start saying in the seminaries that “it doesn’t help to see things in terms of sin” – I think this is another pearl of wisdom from our less-than-beloved Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent “Quisling” Nichols; but I smell a “fashionable” turn of phrase here – how can we be surprised if any kind of sin, even the worst, will be seen “not in terms of sin”? What is the concept of sin for, if not for the sin to be seen as such?
Growing up in the cofE, I can remember from a very young age being aware – thankfully not through personal experience – of Anglican clergy who had been allowed to quietly fall from grace because of ‘little boys’
(all emphases mine)
It would seem that this is not something suddenly exploded within the Church and before non-existent outside of Her.
And as an adult in the cofE, one continues to be aware on a slightly too regular basis of Anglican clergy who have been caught with child pornography on their computers or having been more directly involved in child sexual abuse.
This is not the golden past, this is the actual situation. Something the BBC never tells you anything about. Particularly if there’s a Pope coming, or some homo shouting “discrimination!”.
Limiting myself to my direct contemporaries at Anglican theological college, one has certainly been convicted of having child pornography on his computer and others have suffered directly and indirectly through Anglican clerical abuse. The one who has been caught is male, as most but not all abusers are, but also married (with children of his own) and is an enthusiast for women priests – so those who like to blame clerical abuse of children in the Catholic Church on priestly celibacy and negativity towards women need to think again, and stop using abuse to further other agendas.
This is very beautifully said. Abuse within the Anglican so-called church seems not to spare priestesses and to also affect married men with children. Oh well, this is the same that happens all over the world then! Very strange, I thought that in order to become a child abuser one had to have chosen celibacy…..
But the Anglican examples barely and only momentarily make the press, and – to throw the net wider – what about the widespread abuse of children and young people in secular care systems, and at the hands of the members of other caring professions where the breach of trust is surely every bit as heinous despite the fact the perpetrator does not wear a clerical collar?
Another very perceptive observation: not only are the Anglicans generally spared from the ire of the press, but for example the NHS seems to make headlines more for superbugs than for reasons related with their own people. The superbug allows the liberal press to attack the government at ease, the abuse issue would pose uncomfortable questions and demand a wider debate about the (homosexual) Catholic priest abuse issue, too.
The particular and real phenomenon of abuse by men who should never have been ordained as priests in the first place is being used: a) to distract us from the other many and varied forms of child abuse to which secular society continues to turn a blind eye; and b) as a generally useful and hefty stick with which to attempt to beat the Catholic Church into submission over other issues on which it and its teaching challenge secular society – such as describing homosexual inclination as a psychological and moral disorder.
Nothing to add here…..
…there is no excuse for using the abuse of children by particular Catholic priests to misdirect the attention of society away from its manifestation in institutions and contexts that are dear to the liberal heart but which haven’t shown anything like the same will as the Catholic Church now does to do something about child sexual abuse, and all because it doesn’t present a useful opportunity to bash the Pope.
…. or here.
A brilliant analysis. We should repeat these concepts and defend these arguments everytime the issue comes out among our friends and acquaintances either seriously misinformed or in the mood for an ego trip. In time, the wider public will start having a wider and more balanced perception of the problem.
And so the Pope came, saw and conquered. People were moved, crowds were gathered, even journalists felt stupid (which happens to them much less often than it should) and for some days toned down the Anti-Catholic propaganda.
Still, those accustomed to observe the British Catholic clergy knew that this wind of orthodoxy would not last long, with the local bishops bending to said winds like a birch and coming back to normal as soon as the nuisance ceases.
This is exactly what has happened; but in this case, the desire of the British clergy to show that the Papal visit was just an unwanted nuisance was so strong that the Head Scoundrel, Archbishop Nichols, couldn’t wait more than one day to launch himself in an open attack to the Teaching of the Church. Make no mistake, the message here is emphatically clear: I am still in charge and now it is back to normal.
Nichols is among the interviewed of the usual BBC “let’s be inclusive” interview (he loves doing that); interviewed with him is the also usual token homo, in this case an Anglican professor.
As LifeSiteNews reports, Vincent Nichols denies that – to put it with LSN – “the Church is opposed to the homosexualist agenda”. Please read this again. 1) There are homosexualists (= homosexual activists) around. 2) The Church is opposed to them. 3) The homos complain about the fact. 4) Nichols denies the fact. He denies that the Church be opposed to their agenda.
At this point, Nichols embarks in a defence of what the Church in England has done for them. His words are:
“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. 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.”
If this is not enough to let your adrenaline level go through the roof, I don’t know what could. Let us see what this disgraziato is saying:
1) “in this country”.That is as to say: “we are different from the rest of the Church here. We are on your side”. He must know that in countries like Italy the Church has made such a strong opposition when civil partnership were proposed, that the proposal died before a vote. He must know that in countries like USA, Mexico and others the controversies rage and the local Church is invariably on the right side. But he doesn’t care. He clearly says on whose part he is. He speaks for his fellow bishops too. In this he is probably right.
2) “we were very nuanced”. This is oh so typical of people like Nichols, who must have lost his faith in his youth. No right and wrong anymore, just “nuances”. Far more convenient. Just compare with those idiots in Italy, Mexico, USA; primitive, uncharitable people unable to be “nuanced”.
3) “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships”. “Gay” is not a theological word. In Vatican documents you find “homosexual”, not “gay”. And he did not oppose them. Vincent Nichols pretends to be unaware that he can be accessory to another’s sin by silence, by consent, by defense of the ill done, by flattery. He pretends to have completely forgotten what then Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote in his letter to the bishops (that is: to him personally):
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual 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 homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
(Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons)
Vincent Nichols is expected to teach homosexual that homosexual activity is not in order. He is not supposed to pretend not to know that homosexual activity is what happens within a civil partnerships and that through it sodomy becomes legalised and made socially acceptable.
There is an hypocrisy here, a brazenness, an open revolt to the Church and to common sense, that is breathtaking and beyond contempt.
4) “What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage”. Please. Every idiot knows that two people of the same sex living together are not “married”, even the perverts pretending to be “married” know it. But this is not the point. The point is that you can’t be so hypocritical as to say that you can accept civil partnerships whilst pretending to still condemn sodomy!
I can picture Vincent Nichols in pastoral visit in Sodom literally saying to the locals “we are very nuanced in this city; we do not oppose your civil partnerships; we recognise that in Sodom there might be a case for those; what we persistently say to you is that these are not the same as marriage”.
To think that this is an archbishop. It beggars belief.
As an Archbishop, Mr Nichols should be aware of the existence of a document called “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” (link under “Church Teaching”). Notice: “unions”, not “marriages”. No nuances here. In this document we find written:
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.
Which part of “clear and emphatic opposition” is Mr. Nichols not able to understand? Which part of “duty” is not applicable to England and Wales? What is so difficult to grasp in the words “gravely unjust laws”?
It doesn’t end here I am afraid. This despicable man goes to the point of implying that homosexuality is not a big deal after all, and that …… Pope Benedict thinks the same! In Vincent Nichols’ word, if a Pope has been consistently preaching the same ( and the Church’s) message both as a cardinal (with letters he pretends not to have read) and as a Pope, but avoids dealing explicitly with the matter for four days, hey presto, he has changed his priorities!!
Nichols expresses himself with the following words:
“I think it’s very interesting, and I don’t think for one minute it’s accidental, that when the pope wanted to raise this question, [in his address at Westminster Hall] where are the moral standards on which we base our activity, he chose as his example the financial crisis. I think that’s very important and not to be overlooked.”
I must say I have never found a worse example of falseness and a clergyman more brazenly disrespectful of the Holy Father. This man openly provokes the Holy Father by openly saying that his own homo agenda is shared by the Holy Father himself.
I never thought I’d see the day where an Archbishop of Westminster has the temerity of openly make a mockery of a Papal visit one day after its end.
Vincent Nichols has already attracted serious criticism and John Smeaton has said that his words are “fatally undermining (as distinct from denying) the security and even the legitimacy of Catholic teaching on the nature of human sexuality”.
Nichols is an enemy of the Church who doesn’t dare to openly attack the Pope, but prefers to undermine Church teaching through allusive words, a show of independence from Rome (even recognised by his homosexual interlocutor, as you can read) and a “British way to Catholicism” which is, to say it plainly, heresy.
The address where to write your complaint is
You don’t need to write a speech. Make it simple. Just post the link to the interview, advise that he is giving scandal and ask them to act.
No insults, no ranting, just the facts. In case, please wait until you can write with the necessary composure. I know it can be difficult, but it is the only way to be taken seriously.
The “Independent” had certainly hoped in empty roads, the embarrassment of the catholic hierarchy only disturbed by the noise of the perverts protesting against him.
Alas, things have gone badly wrong for the usual alliance of liberals and sexually deviant. Turns out that everyday Britain still understands when something special is happening and doesn’t start to insult the Pope at the command of a bunch of wannabe intellectuals.
Put in front of a reality televised live and not to be ignored even by the strongest effort of liberal will, the editorial cut of both article is rather a dry appraisal of the facts and an utter silence about what can only be called popular enthusiasm for the visit. There are even – rara avis – some facts which the “Independent” reports correctly, like the Pope being drafted into the Hitlerjugend, then deserting; facts that only a minority would have subscribed to months ago and that are now so much into the public domain that not even the “Independent” can deny them.
This damage control of the “Independent” (whose criticism of the Holy Father is then outsourced to some predictably unintelligent readers’ comments) is the first element that takes the attention. But there is another one: in the day in which the entire experience of the visit is reflected upon, the protesters are not thematised. So utterly ignored they have been, so insignificant they have been in countering the enthusiasm of ordinary people, that even the Independent prefers not to mention them.
The “protesters” have managed to get as much public attention as the “propagandamentary” of Mr. Tatchell, that is: almost zero. They have utterly failed in making of this trip a public outcry against the Pope; on the contrary, they have shown the extent of their own irrelevance in the Country at large. When even the “Independent” is embarrassed at mentioning you, you know you’re in deep trouble.
One can hope that even the one or the other pro-pervert politician will now listen and learn. Whatever the liberal press and the BBC may say, popular support is not on the side of Stephen Fry & Co.
Interesting article from Daily Mail’s Stephen Glover.
Mr. Glover is the son of an Anglican vicar and, as such, not the least biased to consider everything Catholic. His deficiencies in matters of Catholicism are crudely shown by his assertion that the Anglican orders have been invalid since 1896 (which is obviously wrong: they have been invalid since the reign of the Bastard King, Edward VI; in 1896 it was merely repeated that they are invalid because many Anglicans were trying to pretend they weren’t) and that the Pope has been infallible since 1870 (obviously wrong for the same reason, the Pope having always been infallible and the Papal infallibility being merely declared dogmatically in 1870). He also gets it totally wrong when he says that Benedict was “slow to grasp” the extent of the homosexual priests’ child abuse problem, when the evidence shows that the man was uncommonly perceptive and decisive in his actions.
We can therefore see that this man has everything one needs to be virulently anti-Catholic: wrong religious background, erroneous conceptions about the Church and even what he thinks is, basically, an offence done to dad. (His comparison with a “witch doctor” in reference to his father is again totally irrational and wrongly emotional: the comparison with a lay preacher, albeit one in grave error, is the more appropriate one).
Still, even a person with such a biased background can reason and point out to some interesting facts:
1) there has been so much talk about the costs of the visit but I can’t remember (nor can he) the same kind of talk by the visit of African dictators, or the like. It is only when the Pope comes that suddenly everyone is interested in the costs. That the British government doesn’t pay for the cost of the pastoral visits and the £10m mentioned are largely forked by Catholic faithful also seems not to interest anyone. In fact, Mr. Glover also seems to have overlooked this simple fact;
2) Even an Anglican like Glover admits that “Pope Benedict expounds what he believes is Christian doctrine in a courageous way” and “does not bend to fashionable secular trends, and holds fast to beliefs which are those of the traditional Church”. Once again we see that unless one is completely blinded by his ideological hatred (Dawkins, C. Hitchens) or, probably more often, by his sexual perversions (Tatchell, Fry) one is naturally inclined to show proper respect to those who have ideals bigger than their own existence and fight for them. “Isn’t it admirable?” is the rhetorical question Glover asks his readers and we all know the answer.
3) He criticises the fanaticism of the hard-core atheists and more importantly the space given to them by the media, in primis by the BBC . If even biased Anglicans start to see that the BBC is truly crossing a line, perhaps there’s hope that something will change. Mr. Glover explicitly agrees with Cardinal Keith O’Brien on the matter, about which I have already reported here.
Let me conclude with the beautiful words of Mr. Glover:
Notwithstanding all the hatchet jobs that have been executed and others that are planned, Pope Benedict’s visit will probably make a deep impression on many people, including non-Christians.
We may not agree with everything he says, or even with his most fundamental beliefs. But his visit should be welcome because he is something rare in the modern world. A decent man of principle.