I have written some days ago about the Argentinian lesbians now about to have “their” child baptised in the presence of the satanical Mrs Kirchner. The “confirmation” of the dykes was also announced.
Some press sources now state the confirmation will not happen, and one of the dykes has spoken with the press about it without authorisation. This means, I think, that the priest has tried to avoid being punched on the nose by the dyke saying vague words like “we'll see if you both are ready”, and the dyke has thought as they are obviously ready, it's a done deal. Anyway, I can't imagine even a dyke inventing two confirmations without any reason to do so.
Therefore, the situation appears – if the news was no April Fool's joke: online publication is 31 March, perhaps for print publication on the 1 April – to be as follows: the two “parents” are deemed to be unfit for confirmation, and therefore unsuitable to ground a solid hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. Of the – as far as I know – three godparents, one is Mrs Kirchner who is there merely as attention whore, another is a friend of the “family”, of the third I do not know anything.
How can one, then, be so naive as to think that the child has any realistic chance to be raised in the proper way?
Will Mrs Kirchner regularly visit the couple to teach the child Catholicism? What kind of Catholicism would that, pray, be?
Will the “friend of the family” go in the education of the child frontally against his own conviction, as one who is “friend” with dykes living in sin clearly has no problem with what they do?
Will the unknown third godparent, assuming he is orthodox, be allowed to teach the child something as blatantly in contrast with the dyke's “morality” in their own home? If you believe this, there's nothing you can't believe if you want to.
If anything, in this absurd matter the news that the absurd confirmation of the two dykes will (might) not take place highlights even more the absurdity of baptisms given not only for the asking, but clearly serving an homosexual agenda; either because those who consent to it are perverts themselves, or because they are so uncaring for Christ that they would simply do everything that advances their own popularity.
But what we are really seeing is something different: a perversion of Catholicism, fuelled from the highest place, in which “seeking the Lord” is the only requirement. Strangely enough, Mafiosi aren't allowed to go on and hope in Salvation if they “seek the Lord”, but dykes and fags can, no questions asked.
This thinking is so secular, you know it has Francis written all over it. For a Christian, though, wilful murder and sin of the Sodomites belong in the same ballpark; and one could even add that most Mafiosi go through life without ever executing, ordering or witnessing a murder – the Mafia is not a street gang in Los Angeles or Naples – whereas sodomites tend to have an extremely high number of sodomy acts with a multitude of perverts like them.
But no: in Francis' new religion there is no place for Catholicism. Bring on the dykes, there's a good photo-op for the likes of Francis.
Beware of the wolves.
I have read the “corrections” concerning the matter of the stupidly named boy “Lennon” and his even more stupid Facebook post and frankly find the attitude shown, of all people, by Catholics rather disturbing.
Firstly, it is good that a boy be denied Confirmation because in blatant conflict with Catholic values. It would be tragic if this were not the case. As a consequence, the subsequent news that the problems were antecedent to the posting do not change an iota in the fundamental matter.
Secondly, to accuse the liberal press of being slandering when stating the boy with the stupid name was excluded from confirmation because of the Facebook post is to imply that such a post would in itself not be a sufficient ground for refusal. Of course it is! If that isn’t, I truly do not know what is!
What transpires here is that the stupidly named boy had already given cause for concern, and the priest had – as he should – discussed the matter with his parents. But even so, it is clear that the Facebook post was a smoking gun that would have made the matter extremely thorny, and a valid confirmation under the circumstances impossible anyway. It was, therefore, for the boy a clear case of going before being kicked out, and I wonder that not many noticed this.
Please, please let us not start to relativise the importance of the sacraments ourselves: if the priest had denied the (stupidly named) boy confirmation purely and exclusively on the ground of the Facebook post, he would have done the only right thing anyway.
Let us call a spade a spade here, and a Sacrament a Sacrament. Quibbling about who walk away when does not help.
Several contributions have been written in the last days about the boy who was denied confirmation because in favour of so-called “gay marriage”.
What I would like to point out is, though, something different, which perhaps hasn’t been mentioned by other commenters and bloggers.
1) the Christian (sic) name of the young man is, apparently, “Lennon”. What kind of Christian name is “Lennon”? This points out to a malpractice that has started to explode some decades ago (cela va sans dire, after Vatican II) and whose consequences the clergy have refused to see: if one gives his child a heathen name, heathenism can’t be far away. Where I hail from (Italy) when I was a child there wasn’t anyone, not one, who didn’t have the name of a saint, and our Jewish classmate also had a Biblical name. The idea of calling one’s son or daughter “Moon”, “Led Zeppelin”, “Katana” or things like that would have been inconceivable, much more so in the case of the name of an openly atheist, drugs-taking, feminism-abetting, deluded cretin as in this case. When priests have allowed children to be baptised with stupid names as a matter of course without any resistance, they have paved the way for the situation we are living today. A priest would be expected to at least question the Christian spirit of parents who want to christen their son “Testarossa”, “Touring Superleggera” or whatever other madness goes through their mind, even when they are not – as in this case – explicitly atheistic in their meaning. A Christian name is supposed to be…. Christian.
2) I commend the priest for his decision, but according to how long the boy had been under instruction one wonders how things could have gone so utterly wrong as to let the boy think he can be in favour of sodomarriage and ask to be confirmed. Whilst I wasn’t there, it is not improbable – and irrespective of this cases it is certainly what happens in many other cases – that the priest either left the instruction to people not much better in their Catholicism than (uummphh…) “Lennon”, or did so in such a hushed, softly softly, weak way that the poor boy just did not get that one can’t be a Catholic and a supporter of sodomarriage at the same time. Which is a simple message, and should not be difficult to convey.
3) I have read around that the parents have told themselves “surprised” (or such like expression) at the priest’s decision. More of the same. Beside the fact that I am not surprised that people calling their son “Lennon” should tell themselves “surprised”, once again one wonders what has gone wrong. The parents should have been, methinks, ashamed for their son’s antic and should have apologised for it; alternatively, they should have said that whilst they respect their son’s decision and blabla, it is clear to them confirmation is out of the question under the circumstances. I have read nothing of the sort, but wait for developments. Obviously, questions can be asked as to the Christian instruction the boy has received; but come on, he was called “Lennon”…
In the simple world of Mundabor, people either are Christian with an acceptable degree of seriousness (which I seriously doubt in people calling their son “Lennon” in the first place) or they call themselves heathen and have the gut to accept the consequences; also because the consequences are going to come to them whether they public accept them or not.
As was, very probably, the fate of the original “Lennon”.