It isn't difficult.
For a Christian, Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God.
If anyone says that the God of the Muslims is the same god than God, he denies both the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Holy Ghost. One can only hope that this unfortunate person simply does not know what he is talking about, because otherwise his punishment will be, if he dies unrepentant, both fearful and eternal.
As a Christian, I cannot agree with a Muslim that he believes in the same god as we do. I can concede to him that, in his misguided ignorance and wrong belief, he thinks that he believes in the same God. I will, with prudence and charity, make him aware of his fateful mistake, which is exactly why Christians properly call Muslims infidels. But I will never, ever, as a Christian, state that his is a right statement.
We only need to read the Athanasian Creed to fully understand the enormity of the blasphemy of equiparating in any way the false god of the Muslim to God.
We cannot in any way downplay the Trinity without denying it. We cannot pretend to momentarily forget both the Son and the Holy Ghost because the Father bears, it would appear, some resemblance to the false god of the Muslims.
And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
The Three Persons are Co-Equal. The Son and the Holy Ghost are just as great as the Father. They aren't appendices of a father who would, then, be the most important part, and the same for both religions. If there is no place for Son and Holy Ghost, clearly there can never be the same Father. We can't just ignore two of the Persons, distort the third up to the point of making it unrecognisable, and make an equivalence with an imposture. It would be like saying that Muslims have the same traffic lights we have even if they have no use of both the amber and the green, which they consider both evil. In fact, in that case not only the traffic lights would be different, but even the red would have a different nature and function.
I could go on with this until tomorrow morning, as Christ as Lord (that is: as God) is so much an integral part of Christianity that every attempt to deny it and maintain the deity of Islam as the same god must seem absurd at every step. I believe that God became man and died to redeem us. They think it an unpardonable sin to believe exactly the same thing. How on earth can anyone think that we believe in the same God? How can a god be the same as God, whose believers maintain that he “has no son?”
Then let us look at our beliefs and theirs. The Mohammedans believe in a grotesquely sensual heaven, in which the elect, erm, go at it the whole time with dozens of women, eat like pigs and and drink like fish (yes, they drink too!), and are surrounded by servants and untold luxury all the time. How on earth can this be the same god as the Christian one? This is a deity for goat-rapists, drunkards, gluttons and slave drivers, bearing no resemblance to God.
Again, one can go on ad infinitum. However, I will conclude with a couple of quotes from Our Lord Himself:
Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Heavens, what more does one need… To say of God that he is merely a “prophet” isn't being nice, it's being blasphemous, it is being insulting to God. It is a blaspheming, and therefore despising, of the Son that can only be, ipso facto, despising of the Father. You can't just say:” the Son and Holy Ghost I refuse; but I'll get the Father, thank you so much….”
Therefore, Muslims despise not only the Son and the Holy Ghost. They despise the Father, too!
Firstly, I suggest you make a camomile tea.
Then, I suggest you follow this link and instruct yourself about the blasphemy with which the Evil Clown has thought he would best end (or almost end) the year 2015.
When you have read the entire thing, I would like to add a couple of considerations of mine.
- The extremely charitable treatment given to the Pope by the conservative priest and theologian who authored the article does not hide – nor does it make any effort to – the bare fact at work here: blasphemy.
- As a proud Italian, I can tell you the word scappatella (a word carrying the meaning of “little escape”, or rather “temporary escape”) has an extremely well-defined meaning. Nine times out of ten it is used to describe the philandering of the husband who, whilst weak in his attraction to other women, is nevertheless totally committed to his marriage. Now, the way the Catholic Italian (and, I am sure, Argentinian) mentality works is that whilst the word expresses the sweet, almost amused attitude of forgiveness of our very sweet Catholic women towards the behaviour that has taken place, the concept and idea that a sin has taken place is always there. Italians aren’t Anglos. They do not declare that a behaviour is not a sin because they – or the ones they love – are culpable of it. They do not proceed to declare God wrong – or “homophobic”, or “oppressive” – because it is uncomfortable for them to look at reality in the eyes. No. They call a sin a sin, and never try to escape the reality of human sinfulness. I note here that the Evil Clown was born in a household of native Italians: there is no way in hell he does not perfectly well know the meaning of the word in his commonly used acception.
- Francis does not make an “off the cuff” comment. His little satanic talk clearly pivots about the concept of Jesus causing an unjust suffering, for which he has to apologise. This is not a slip of the tongue.
- The inescapable conclusion is that, whilst Francis is certainly not accusing Jesus of anything comparable to philandering, the concept of a wrong behaviour that unjustly hurts other people is certainly there, and it is willfully there. There is just no way to escape this conclusion. The man himself leaves you in no doubt about this, as he not only uses the universally known word scappatella, but goes on with the following words (emphases mine):
Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, provoking great suffering to Mary and Joseph, who were unable to find him. For this little ‘escapade’ [scappatella in the original Italian], Jesus probably had to ask forgivenessof his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.”
One does not know where to start. The man casually declares that God provokes what is clearly an unjust suffering; for which injustice, God had to apologise; and hey, that is contrary to everything Christianity ever taught, and would let every half-instructed child cringe; but this arrogant ass thinks he can safely presume the blasphemy, because he is oh so smart.
I call blasphemy here. Cold-blooded, planned, willed blasphemy.
Allow me to be a tad less graceful than the theologian linked to. This Francis here is an evil tool of Satan, a traitor and fifth column through and through, and a disgrace of biblical proportions.
It is time for our bishops and cardinals to face the reality of a heretical, blasphemous Pope and to act to put an end, as much as they can, to this scandal.
What you can do in the meantime is to sign the petition mentioned here, and do your best to spread it among your circle of friends.
It seems to me the more The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) feels isolated, the more he tries to counterattack with assertions that can only be defined as opposed to Christianity, if not outright blasphemous at least in their end result.
Firstly, Francis has taken on this disgusting (heretic, possibly blasphemous) habit of telling us that whoever does not follow him in whatever heretical (blasphemous?) novelties he preaches displeases God, has no God, is dead inside, or something of the sort.
This time, as you might have read, it is “dialogue”. For two thousand years, Christians wanted to convert. In the age of Francis, suddenly conversion is nowhere to be found. Instead we have “dialogue”, which basically boils down to giving legitimacy to error against a very vague hope that our blabbering may persuade someone to convert out of us telling him to hold on to his Koran.
Who the heck is this old nincompoop; this ass in white; this fat, arrogant, lewd old man to tell us that not only God has changed (an heresy in itself, and a blasphemy in that it obviously denies a fundamental attribute of God’s Divine Perfection), but that he is the legitimate authority, the Chosen One to tell us exactly how God has changed, and how we must behave in order not to displease this, erm, new god Francis apparently knows so well? Give me a stake, and I’ll show you how such arrogance should be fittingly punished (after due deposition, of course; see above in the fixed “pages” for more details).
Then there is the other habit, which enrages me beyond words (even the strong ones), of always comparing Christians to Pharisees.
The evil clown obviously wants to persuade you that the Christians of today are exactly what the Pharisees of yore were: wrong. As the Pharisees were stubbornly attached to an old religion, made obsolete by Christ, Christians who believe in everything in which Christianity has always believed are now obsolete, passé, and left behind by a new god and a new religion; a religion consisting in adoring the Goddess Of Mercy and Francis, her Fat Prophet.
These two heretical, and in the end blasphemous habits both point out to a core message: forget Christianity. We are in a new time of mercy, and this new time has a new god and new rules, and those who follow the Only God and the (forcibly) immutable rules are the bad ones.
My blood boils everytime I read Francis’ pagan preaching; a preaching coming from the Pope, of all people; a satanical cocktail of lies and deception that can only be explained with God’s wrath at his faithless and stupid children; so faithless and so stupid, in fact, that they even reject the concept of God’s wrath. It pains me beyond words that whenever this heretical (or blasphemous) propaganda is spitted by that disgusting mouth, I seldom read more than polite disagreement.
Call him an idiot, a nincompoop, an evil man. That’s who he is, and you know it. Polite disagreement will not make him stop. Worldwide ridicule might.
Let us say it again: the stake is what this man has deserved. I doubt it would be enough to save a man as rotten as this, but you never know.
I am, at least, all in favour of making the attempt.
Stephen Fry’s recent blasphemous rant – with sodomitical undertones – is a good occasion to write three humble words about the planet in which we live. I am sure I have dealt with the matter already, but repetita iuvant.
Fry, and many others, confuse this planet with heaven. Well I am sorry to bust their childish notion, but it just isn’t.
I was, literally, in Kindergarten when I first heard a perfectly sound explanation of the evil in the world. Adam and Eve were disobedient. Disobedience leads to punishment. Our punishment is to live in a world very different from the Garden of Eden. As we are all children of Eve, we all share the punishment. As children of Eve, we also share the disobedience. Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross allows us, if we are good, the way out from the ultimate punishment. But if we are bad, a much worse punishment await. That’s it.
These simple concepts were explained to children who were not yet six years old, with gentle words but in a clear way. Nothing was spared. Hell, evil, the devil, all of it was part of the standard programme. No child of my age was in the dark about hell when he was six at the latest. I can’t remember any child crying at being told that he shares Eve’s disobedience. I also cannot remember any child saying that God is unjust, or evil, or – make a sign of the Cross here – a bastard. For that, you need Fry. Who thinks himself smart.
My kindergarten class consisted of around six years olds, all of them far wiser than him.
“Siamo nati per soffrire”, “we were born to suffer”, says an Italian adage. The “Valle di lacrime”, “vale of tears” usage remained after the “Hail, Holy Queen” fell into disuse. Your normal Italian boy or girl of my age grew up with the basics taught to him at a very young age. It went with the air you breathed.
What this also led to – though this goes beyond the simple but brutal story we were told in Kindergarten – was a very strong feeling of the utter impiousness of … questioning God. An attitude which was seen not primarily as something stupid – which it is – but as something profoundly evil – which it is, too -. Strange times, when such a behaviour is seen as virtuous.
Let us now compare those six years olds with Stephen Fry. The children realised that suffering comes from disobedience; Stephen Fry thinks that happiness is something simply due to him, a blasphemer. The children prayed for other children who suffered; Stephen Fry laments their suffering, but it does not occur to him to pray for them. The children accepted a God-given order with sweetness and innocence; Stephen Fry finds the world something vastly below his moral standards, and he a scandalous sodomite.
The modern world is raised without God. As a result, a deeply secular and man-centred mentality paves its way in the consciousness not only of sodomites, but of normal people. Suddenly, we are the measure of every judgment. Suddenly, God must stand our scrutiny. Suddenly, the reason why this is a vale of tears instead of an earthly paradise is disregarded as fable, or forgotten altogether.
Together with Eve, sinfulness is forgotten, banned from the world’s very touchy consciousness. Disease becomes inexplicable. Earthquakes absurd. People proceed to deify and canonise themselves. If they aren’t really sinners, how dares God tell them they are, and treat them as such, and punish them with the punishment they have themselves (in a diachronic but still very concrete way) wanted? The rudeness of that! How can God just be so, so, so harsh to them, who protect the baby seal and care so much for the environment?
The absurdity is that these people don’t see that they provide evidence for God’s argument – and further reason for God’s punishment – with the very breath with which they complain about Him! The stupidity of that! It’s like complaining that the Police shoots one whilst throwing Molotov cocktails at them!
As to the innocence of children, it’s not that our grand-grandmothers were too stupid to understand that a child is innocent. But you see, no child is innocent of Original Sin, and is therefore born in a world that bears the mark of a rebellion that is, diachronically, also his own. Our grand-grandmothers would suffer immensely when their grandchildren died young – and many of them did -; but they had the children baptised, and the sadness for their death was greatly tempered by the simple, solid faith that the little child was now in heaven, as the Church promises. There is a logic in Christianity, and only the fools refuse to see it.
Then there is the argument – very emotional, and rather effeminate – of the “horrible diseases”. Give me a break. Almost everyone of us would vomit without pause on reading an illustrated manual of medical praxis. Everyone of us knows that there are horrible diseases around.
It’s the Original Sin, stupid.
But no: Fry, a man not disgusted in the least at having another’s penis (And who known what disgust ed other objects to boot) inserite in His own sphyncter, or into another’s, suddenly becomes oh so delicate at knowing that there are terrible diseases around. Boy, what a whining bitch.
We, the Christians, refuse to bitch together with a disgusting pervert seeking validation for his own disgusting person. We know that God allows evil, and that this evil must not be necessarily man made. Earthquakes, famines, pestilences are all phenomena our ancestors knew for from nearer than us, and it never dented their faith. But we, we must have a fat fag telling us what he thinks of God when something happens that he does not like (not talking of sodomy, clearly).
God allows evil. Every time that God allows some evil, this evil is providentially ordered so that out of it some sort of good may be born. The dying child circa 1620, who prayed the Blessed Virgin and hoped for Paradise, was infinitely smarter than Stephen Fry, and other than Fry he inspired so many. The virtue of San Domenico Savio makes of his short life not a waste, but a huge gain, and the Saint himself had several siblings dead who died in their childhood. Do you wonder whether Savio’s parents ever blasphemed after the loss of many children?
And what about one of the most beautiful saints of the XX Century? Who is the decent man who can think of Santa Maria Goretti and not be moved to tears? Even, mind my words, If he does not believe? What will, I wonder, Saint Maria Goretti think, from heaven, of a tool like Fry?
“Dio non turba mai la gioia dei suoi figli, se non per prepararne loro una più certa e più grande”.
“God never unsettles the joy of His children, unless to prepare for them a more certain and bigger one”.
These words are pronounced by Padre Cristoforo in that most wonderful novel, “I Promessi Sposi” (“The Betrothed”). They are sculpted in the consciousness of millions of Italians, because the very Catholic heart of the nation is represented in them.
In one phrase, Alessandro Manzoni destroys the perverted arrogance of the wannabe deities à la Stephen Fry; an individual who thinks he can look into a medical book and suddenly discover he is smarter than 2,000 years of Christianity.
Fool, and blasphemous.
Fool, blasphemous, and pervert.
But hey: he is so good, God Himself doesn’t measure to the Fry Standard.
Uebersodomite Stephen Fry has just given to us another lesson on “how to go to hell with the express train”.
If you have the stomach to listen to the rubbish above, you will notice the following:
1) Fry is, or so he thinks, utterly superior to God. So much so, that he considers Him “monstrous”, and many other such expressions. The logical impossibility of the very concept escapes him.
2) Fry declares that if he were to discover that God exists, he would not want to enter Paradise “on God’s terms”. Lord, give me strenght! Not only is here another contradiction in terms, but again the proud affirmation that Stephen Fry has made of himself god. This obvious, public, televised self-condemnation to hell does not seem to bother him in the least. Satanic.
3) Fry doesn’t know the first thing about Christianity, because he complains about children suffering, and the like. He talks as if Christians would listen to him and go: “look, he is right! There is suffering in this world! Look at those children suffering! We had not thought of that!”. But in his utter senseless, the man (if I may call him so) states he would prefer the pagan gods of the Greek, because… they have no divine attributes. Sorry, girl, but this is just stupid.
Fry is not an intelligent man. His being the conductor of a TV show in which he gives answers to people which he reads from a paper in front of him makes him appear smart in the eyes of the stupid, but every eight years old with a functioning brain thinks better than he does.
It’s not difficult. If there is a God, this God can only be the very embodiment of all perfections. It must be so, if He is to be God. If there is a Creator, this creator must necessarily be infinitely superior to his creatures: superior not only in wisdom, but in providential goodness.
Therefore, Fry’s answer should have been on the lines of: “I do not think that there is a God because yada yada. But if there is one, it is obvious that He is utterly right and I am utterly wrong, and that I have been evil and blasphemous all my life. The moment I knew that there is a God would be the moment I know that I am not only utterly evil, but utterly screwed”.
Fry isn’t capable, in his childlike arrogance, to think (ahem) straight. He assumes that even if there is a God, this little obese faggot is morally superior to Him. I am sure there are smarter ways to be blasphemous.
This, my dear readers, is a think process common to many perverts. “God says I am an evil bastard, and unless I repent I will go to hell. Therefore, I will erect myself as superior to him, call Him a bastard and, by feeling or at least appearing good, I will for the moment lightly assuage the deep misery of my miserable existence and my very strong hate of myself”.
Satan works in us. He tries to get a foot in the door exploiting our sinful nature. Prayer and a constant effort of a life without sin help us greatly, with God’s grace, to avoid hell. The more we sin, the more we allow Satan to eat our soul like a cancer. In the case of very grave sins – like perversion acted upon – it is clear Satan’s cancer can easily metastasise. In this case, it is very clear it has.
Fry rebels to God by willingly embracing his disgusting sexual perversion. At this point, he has no other choice than either repent, or sink deeper into rebellion. The interview above is the result of a lifetime of disgusting behaviour, and of the rebellion to God this behaviour demands of him if he does not want to reform.
Fry is not an intelligent man. He is, in fact, just plain stupid. He is unable to think logically, and his love for sodomy clouds his judgment in the most obvious way. But as the Country as a whole isn’t much smarter than him he will probably get away with his blasphemous kindergarten slogans, and help those who want to be lost with him to reach their objective.
Pray for this man. Pray for this man. Think of his poor Guardian Angel! This is an immortal soul obviously so ensnared by the Devil, that he openly declares his refusal of even a hypothetical Paradise! (no sodomy there, you see).
Pray for him. But consider that the stench of Reprobation is strong in this one, and warn all those who would express their admiration for Fry who is “oh so intelligent” that the man thinks like a poorly instructed eight years old, but he gets TV time because he happens to be a pervert with some rather good acting skills.
There is from some quarter the call to institute blasphemy laws to avoid – or so it is thought – the explosion of Muslim fanaticism or just because hey, we are such sensitive sissies and we suffer if the Mohammedans are upset.
In order to understand how wrong this would be we must merely reflect that this legislation is envisaged now, when Muslims complain about what they call blasphemy. You wouldn't hear much of it if French journalists weren't massacred by the dozen. But let us see this in good order.
Would you support a legislation that bans blasphemy and at the same time legalises child rape, because our religion obviously forbids blasphemy? Certainly not. You wouldn't pave the way for such an evil, so that something good may also happen.
The problem is that as things stand now, any anti-blasphemy law that were to be passed would have less chances than a snowball in hell of being something useful to Christianity, but would help to 100% to islamise the legal framework of European societies. In addition, it would put an immense amount of power in the hand of the European governments and judges, both of which would not hesitate to make a very PC, and very deleterious to us, use of it.
“Blasphemy” is, for us, something different than for Muslims. To them, it means an awful lot of things, including every picture of their fracking child-rapist, let alone calling him a fracking child-rapist. If they were to succeed in introducing such measure, we would have a good chunk of Sharia Law introduced in Europe in order to… well, in order not to displease the Muslims. You got to be kidding me.
Now, grievous as it is that the True God be insulted by blasphemers, it is not a duty of Christians to press for blasphemy to be made a criminal offence no matter what the consequences (see the example at the start of this post). Necessarily, every such legislation must be assessed according to what it does for Christianity, including in that the possibly unintended, but very massive consequences.
Apart from this, such a law would present conflicts that would be left to the legislation and judiciary to solve, which is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with our religious freedom (remember: religious freedom is not the best, but it is preferable to persecution). It would be a Pandora's box with no end to the possible devastation.
Countless Saints have said things about the Mohammedans and the fracking child-rapist that orthodox Muslims would certainly consider blasphemous, and that are in print as I speak. Should these books be banned? The Catechism of the Catholic Church denies that Mohammed is a prophet, and Allah a true god. Shall it be banned? What else does Islam consider blasphemous? I don't know exactly. But I am sure it's an awful lot.
The blasphemy game helps only one side: the Muslims. It introduces a good chunk of Sharia Law within our shores. It can be even used for a gruesome persecution of, at the very least, Christian thinking and speaking, if not worshipping (and who knows about that).
We must face reality, and act with the wisdom the Church has often showed in the past. Never in Her long history did the Church ask for the islamisation of Western laws so that atheism might be countered.
You counter atheism with your faith, with your logic, with your prayers, even with your tears. You use the democratic system at our disposal to obtain as much Catholicism as you can. You push for – ideally – Catholicism as State Religion; for blasphemy laws insofar as they only protect the True Faith; for Sunday shop closures, and the like.
But most certainly! You do not give the Mohammedans a Trojan Horse to enter our citadel. If this were to happens, we would seriously run the risk of ending up like Troy.
No, thanks. For as long as no better result can be obtained, leave it to God to deal with blasphemers. His Justice is perfect anyway. But do not help your enemies in pursuit of an ill-advised, extremely counterproductive, and outright dangerous religious zeal.
You would have thought the BBC is really the worst, but this is not always – if often – the case.
The Second Channel of the Italian State Television, RAI2, has broadcasted an infamous, blasphemous, dirty, perverted “comic” piece, in which Jesus is offended to the point of making him appear the lover of St. Peter, with a clear allusion to Sodomarriage.
The Italian prosecutors have been informed.
If the legal system has not changed since my time, an investigation will now have to take place.
RAI has refused to apologise or retract.
A petition is now ongoing.
I attach the link in Italian.
Click on “Firma” (“sign”) and follow the link. “Cognome” is “family name”.
You can sign from anywhere in the world.
You would not have believed this possible – nor would I, to be frank – but even in France there is still the one or other Bishop who dares to be… Christian.
The Bishop of Toulon, Mons. Dominique Ray, has dared to do what many of his colleagues would consider an affront to democratic institution (and Christianity be stuffed): he called for the ban of a blasphemous piece now on its way to France from, you guessed it, Spain.
Yes, to get it right: the good man supports the ban of the work, because by all love of freedom in front of blasphemy every Christian is supposed to draw a line and, in a Christian country, to ask that this be respected by the community in which he lives.
I will not anger you with a list of the blasphemies contained in the work. Suffice it to say that possibly even Cardinal Schoenborn – a man able to promote blasphemous crap like this, besides going to bed with his heretical priests and supporting the lies of Medjugorje – would find the piece a bit, well, risqué.
We should not get too optimistic, of course. This is still the land of the Nourrichards, and if I were asked who between the two is more representative of the state of the episcopacy in France I do not think I would be able to give any other answer than the terrifying one.Still, it is good that every now and then, a Western European bishop even remembers to do his job.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Everyone knows that it is a logical fallacy to believe that two events are connected only because they happened in order. Nevertheless, at times one just stops and ponders.
Let us take Sony, then. The once celebrated company, at one time seen as the very epitome of technological innovation for the consumer market (like Apple is today), has been in the last years collecting misfortunes with beautiful regularity. Whether it was the self-burning laptop batteries affair in 2006, the PlayStation fiasco in 2007, or the attacks on the PlayStation network of this year and the damage through the Japanese earthquake also of this year, it would seem that rather alarming things are happening. And so the losses are now at record high and counted in billions of dollar, emergency plans are prepared, work force is laid off. No, I am not talking of General Motors. The once proud makers of Walkman are now limping, big time.
When did it start? Well, did it perchance start with the decision to make a film out of a fashionable but very blasphemous book? No doubt, to bring “The Da Vinci Code” on the big screen must have looked like a brilliant idea to some. Alas, the US Christians soon organised themselves and were not slow in expressing their outrage; as a result, not only the film didn’t perform as hoped in its main market, but Sony even had to hire a firm to minimise the reputation damage. Yep, not a very smart move after all.
The situation doesn’t seem to have improved much in the last years, and the sky is actually becoming increasingly more clouded. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
As Catholics, we must avoid plunging into this kind of superstition. We don’t do that. We are rational, soberly thinking creatures. Still, it will be allowed to:
1. register the coincidence.
2. note how outlandish some of them are. Batteries starting to take fire, or hackers paralysing a big conglomerate for a month. Good Lord, this would be good material for a best-selling novel, and a movie!
3. notice, as the author of the above article brilliantly states, that the hypotheses that Sony’s woes may be traced back to their blasphemous greed is still easier to believe that the Da Vinci Code itself.
I do not want to indulge in Schadenfreude here as jobs, savings and pensions are involved.
But perhaps Sony would consider some big film production about, say, the life of Padre Pio?
Please click on this link to send your electronic petition against a blasphemous play, depicting among other things the Blessed Virgin as a lesbian, staged at the University of Oklahoma.
As the petition says, “blasphemy is not a legitimate form of artistic expression”.
Please take a minute of your time to help on this and forward this or the link to everyone you know.
O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Please imagine (I won’t show you the video, and you’re welcome) a so-called work of art depicting the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy. Not something highly symbolic and abstract, mind; no, I am talking of shocking realism here; with nude bodies, penises dangling around and all the rest you can, at least in part, imagine.
I can’t express with words the disgust that I prove for people who are able to even conceive such kind of blasphemy. The fact that I chose not to link to the video is, I believe, evidence enough that this is truly strong tobacco; but if any of you really, really want to see it, gloria.tv has the story and more than one video.
It turns out that the author of such (never word was more appropriate) entartete Kunst, or degenerate art, is Alfred Hrdlicka, a self-confessed (gloria tv again) “Atheist, Communist and Stalinist” but evidently friend of the Archbishop and/or some of his friends. Mr Hrdlicka, a true man of the Enemy, died some time ago without any public trace of repentance, so that it is rather reasonable – and in conformity to the user’s manual – to assume that the scenes of perversion he produced are much more real to him now than they were at the moment of his, erm, creative effort.
You would obviously assume that never would a believer even think of giving his own exhibition space to give publicity to such blasphemous excrements as the ones copiously produced by Mr Hrdlicka, as every consideration about the (assumed) artistic value of the work must certainly be completely wiped out by the obvious reflection that there can be no excuse whatsoever for blasphemy.
On the other hand, you would also – I think – conceive that in these disturbing days, when anti-Christian feelings are very much à la page, some atheists without any consideration for propriety and decency and without any fear of the Lord could well conceive of such vulgar display of blasphemous atheism as the one I did not show. Perhaps, someone like Stephen Fry would condone such vulgarity and aggressive atheism; but I’m not so sure that even Stephen Fry, an avowed enemy of Catholic values, would want to link his name to such overt attack to Christianity; to such vulgarity; to such outright indecency.
You would, I think, be right on both accounts.
And this is why the exhibition was organised by the Museum of the Cathedral of Vienna, which is very near the Cathedral itself. This is also why cardinal Schoenborn waited for the exhibition to become an international scandal (again, as reported by Gloria tv; there are several videos on the matter; they all show the “work”, though) before arranging for the removal of the blasphemous excrement.
When a Cathedral museum shows work of such blasphemy that just a couple of decades ago not even the most obdurate satanist would have dared to show in public; and when an Archbishop and Cardinal waits for the matter to become an international scandal before acting, one can certainly be forgiven for thinking that from many extremely wide openings (say: all windows, and all doors) the smoke of Satan has entered into the Archbishop’s offices and surrounding buildings, has made a barbecue, organised a bonfire, smoked the entire place pitch black, then proceeded to call Satan and invited him to make himself comfortable in the premises for as long as he wants, and to organise exhibitions in the nearby museum as he pleases.
Quo usque tandem…
Interesting blog post on the Domine, Da Mihi Hanc Aquam blog. The blog post makes clear that, whilst Catholics avoid the noisy excess of screaming Protestant preachers, repentance for our sins is still – bar a Divine mercy that we have no right to expect – mandatory to avoid Hell.
The author of the blog post puts it in simple and very clear terms:
…refusing to repent of one’s sins constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and such a refusal will not be forgiven. In fact, refusing to repent cannot be forgiven. God will not save us against our will. He will love us right into hell.
Foreseeing the scandal of the liberal crowd, the author hastens to add:
This sounds harsh, I know. But this a truth of the Catholic faith that cannot be spiced up or sugar-coated or hidden away.
Everytime I read phrases like this I think of the many priests who have made of “sugar-coating” and “hiding away” an accomplished art – nay, a new religion! – and shiver.
The concept – so difficult to understand for some atheist – is brilliantly explained in more detail:
We have two truths in balance here. First, God wills that all His people return to Him through Christ. Second, He wills that we do so freely. So that all may return to Him through Christ, the invitation to salvation is made unconditionally, without limits, to everyone
Note here that the invitation is made to everyone (that is: even to non-Christians), but the return must be through Christ, with Allah & Co. not giving any entry rights, nor will a generic “I have been such a good chap” be of much use. Salvation is – bar an act of extraordinary mercy, on whose odds no one should ever stake his salvation – the result of a free decision to make the right choice.
Still another perspective is given by making clear that:
….. we send ourselves to hell by stubbornly refusing to repent. Our final refusal, our last rejection of God’s invitation to join Him in love is called “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
When your friend or colleague or relative says to you (with the shamelessness of our times) that “there is no God”, you can calmly tell him that he is being blasphemous and endangering his soul; when he replies that he doesn’t care as he doesn’t believe in any God, feel free to point out that the fact that he doesn’t believe in God doesn’t make him any less blasphemous, nor his soul any less endangered.
He’ll probably still not agree with you; but it is still a free choice that he makes. Put in front of a clear hypothesis of damnation, he can’t say that by not believing in damnation he has not chosen it.
Given the choice whether to believe, he has chosen not to; given the choice whether to be blasphemous, he has chosen to be; given the choice whether to choose Christ, he has chosen to ignore Him. Therefore, “but I truly, truly didn’t think that you existed!” will, one day, not go very far.
Until the last moment before death, there is still time. Until the last moment before death, Christ may still fish a soul out of his self-inflicted destiny. But if one really insists in refusing His help, then it is not logical to demand from Christ that help that one has always refused, nor can it be reasonable to demand that Christ saves one against one’s own free will, after one’s free will has been given God’s rank.
At death, rien ne va plus.
If there was any need to persuade ourselves that the perception of Christianity is fading away in large parts of the Christian world, the writer Anne Rice and many bloggers around have given us another convincing example.
Some days ago, Ms. Rice decided that she is “quitting Christianity in the name of Christ”. Please don’t laugh. Her lines are amusing, so I do not want to deprive you of this little diversion:
Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”
At school we would have been asked: “what does the author want to say?”. She wants to say that she is so superior to all those people commonly called Christians; that she will not accept to be in their company anymore; that she is so good that in her eyes Christians are an “infamous group”; that by accusing them of being “quarrelsome, hostile and disputatious” she is not showing all these qualities herself; that her conscience is so pure that it will not allow her to do anything else. Poor lamb. I feel like crying.
This would be enough to let you understand the abyss of self-delusional, home-made, fantasy Christianity some people want to live in. But it gets better. Try this:
In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
We learn here that Jesus was clearly in favour of homosexual activism; a feminist; a supporter of contraception; obviously “democratic” and, in general, perfectly aligned with the lady’s thinking. How unfortunate that those quarrelsome Christians never understood Christ!
Ms. Rice was – or said she was – a Catholic. Not being illiterate (she is a writer after all) she had to know some ten years ago, when she came back to Catholicism, what the Church’s position on a lot of things she doesn’t like is. She can’t say she didn’t know. She can’t say she took ten years to better reflect. She must, on the contrary, admit that her conversion was a fake one from day one and what has now become intolerable is its obvious hypocrisy.
Let us reflect, though: perhaps has the lady some private, personal agenda to let her conclude that “Christianity is wrong”? Maybe has she, say, a homosexual son? A homo activist, perchance? Could it be that the lady “opts out” of Christianity just because her Church forces her to look his son’s perversion and road to perdition in the face?
Much easier, then, to take refuge in a cosy self-made “mummy knows best”-Christianity, happily adapted to all the errors, heresies and outright abominations which the lady happily supports either because they are, alas, in the family or because they match a system of values totally antithetical to the message of Jesus, but nevertheless defended in His name. What a shamelessness, and what a blasphemy.
Not more persuasive is the other remark, that Christians be “quarrelsome”. Of course they are. The idea of a Christianity of the past in which all lived a wonderful life of mutual love shows that the lady not only doesn’t know her history, but hasn’t even read the Acts of the Apostles or many of the Letters! This is a fantasy world, opposed to today’s life merely to avoid reality. The reality is that Christ demanded that his faithful take the sword and this is what they have – imperfectly, of course – done since.
Not more encouraging are many of the reactions on the blogosphere. “What has become of Christianity”, they ask themselves as if Christianity had ever been pro-homos, feminist, democratic and all the other things which would have made it acceptable to Ms. Rice. One can vividly imagine all these people supporting contraception, abortion, sodomy, priestesses and what not sighing at the thought of the lost innocence of the first Christians, and feeling so good….
Without any doubt, the recovery of proper catechesis is the first step to the recovery of Christianity in the West.
The “American Papist” reports a very disrespectful – and possibly blasphemous – adv from Hyundai on occasion of the Football World Championship.
The adv (I will not do Hyundai the favour of putting it here) makes a mockery of Catholicism by showing a caricatured version of a Catholic Mass. Whilst the message is probably not intended to be directly offensive to the feelings of Catholics, it is obvious that the Catholic love for liturgy has been chosen as an easy target for the rather shallow slogan of the advertisement: “for someone, football is a religion”.
One wonders whether the genial minds of those responsible for this TV spot would have chosen to make a mockery of, say, a Muslim or Jewish religious ceremony to present the same slogan. They obviously wouldn’t, because they well know that in the contemporary cultural climate mocking the Catholic Church is fair game but mocking Islam or the Jewish faith would put them in a dangerous and unpleasant position.
This is a beautiful example of the double standard used by the media in religious matters.
The right answer to this kind of behaviour is: remember this adv and next time you are shopping for a new car do not buy Hyundai (or Kia, the sister company).