We all know homosexuals want a stage and revel in public attention, which is why so many of them become actors or politicians. Gene Robinson, the strange man – I hope he does not find the word “man” offensive; in which case, I will revert to “bitch” without any problem – who thinks he is a retired “bishop”, is clearly both.
In his endless goodness – or desire for a stage; one of the two – the probably best known man (oh, that name again… so…sexist! As if one were not, oh, free to oh, choose his own, oh, gender…) among the US so-called “Episcopalian” sect wants to instruct Pope Francis on how to run the Church properly. The suggestions aren't very Catholic, as you can expect from a scandalous inverted. Still, Mrs Robinson's suggestions aren't the reason why I write this blog post. The reason is that he dares to open his mouth in the first place.
Mr Robinson says many Catholics experience a “painful disconnect” between what the Church teaches and what they “feel in their heart”. So what, would a Catholic say, it's a clear sign those Catholic must stop “feeling” and start thinking… Not so for Robinson, who evidently thinks with his… well, certainly not with the brain.
It is not only that the concept of Truth, or even universal moral values, has gone entirely lost in one of the countless acts of sodomy the, ahem, man will have to answer for. It is that Robinson fails even at the standard that he has himself chosen.
If the faithful being “disconnected” is a sign of being wrong, how wrong must be one whose so-called “church” is dying fast, and of whose decline he is without any doubt one of the most evident causes? Seriously, how stupid is that? Where's the argument?
The inverted goes on saying many Catholics want (in their “hearts”, I suppose) abominations like so-called same sex marriage, and atrocities like abortion. This keeps, he goes on dreaming, many people outside of the Church.
Let us forget for a moment that one must really have no idea of what the Church is to even think she might change the Truth like Robinson changes sex of his “partner”. The point here is that he suggest that the Church adopt the same policies that are killing his own ridiculous Mickey Moise church so fast…
Therefore, dear Francis – says Robinson – you should listen to what I, the charitably self-appointed head of your marketing department, says and “embrace” all these perversions and atrocities. Then, you'll become like the Episcopalians.
Now, that is a road to success!
Laura L. Iberal
The DMAOLA (Dog, Mule and Alternative Oriented Lovers Association) has yesterday demanded that the State of New York recognises their right to lawfully wed their loved ones.
“It is a pure matter of justice”, says their national speaker, Mr Dan B. Ass: “Now that the gay community has finally succeeded in obtaining that their right to love finds legal recognition, we DMAOL community demand that the same criteria be used with us”. The “Smarts” (this is how the members of the DMAOLA call themselves; Mr Ass informed me that every other definition will be considered extremely offensive, hurtful and, as he says, “lovephobic”) have made very clear that their human rights are at stake, and that they are going to fight the battle for their right to love until final victory.
“We don’t need to win any referendum anyway”, says again Mr. Ass, “as we plan to win our battles largely through judicial activity, following the example of the GLBT community”. Mr. Ass expects the general population to remain against them for a while, as – as he puts it – “the lovephobic prejudices of the conservative, most notably of the Christian population are not going to go away overnight”. Still, he is adamant that “the fight for our human rights will go on” and “you can’t stop love”.
I have asked Mr. Ass how the DMAOL community reacts to some problems that will be posed by critics: isn’t marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman? “Nonsense”, says Mr. Ass whilst caressing his female Great Dane called Valeria, with whom he has been romantically involved since 2009; “It is clear that marriage is now, from a legal point of view, completely detached from every gender definition. The New York Legislative clearly states so. We only propose to go a little step further and to state that marriage is a union between loving beings. To deny us our right to love is to oppress our most elementary human rights; an expression of sheer, blind lovephobia”.
What about the consent? Isn’t consent necessary for a valid marriage? “It is as long as the law says so”, replies Mr. Ass. “A man and a woman were necessary too, but they aren’t anymore. As the recent example of New York shows, you only need to change the legal parameters to adequate them to the result you wish to obtain. Besides, if desired the consent can be either legally presumed until proof to the contrary, or ascertained with other means” [he goes “woof! woof!” and Valeria, the female Great Dane, enthusiastically joins him].
And what about the money? Are dogs, mules and other animals allowed to become heirs of their partners? [“spouses”, Mr. Ass corrects me somewhat peeved]
“This is possible, but not necessary”, answers Mr. Ass again. “Our non-human spouses could be given title to a patrimony administered by trustees, as it is the case now for human minors; at their death, the money would be distributed according to normal law of succession, unless the original donor has disposed otherwise. But we don’t insist on this; rather on the legal recognition of our right to love”.
In the end, says Mr. Ass, “we want to work to put an end to the endless prejudices of a culture based on the oppression of those who prefer alternative loving. This oppression is based on the supremacy of the strictest conformity to Judeo-Christian values that has damaged humanity for so many years. The recent legislation de-coupling social institutions from Christian values makes it not only perfectly possible, but socially imperative that the same criteria be applied to us. We only demand the right to love, and ask that our civil rights be respected”.
But what about harming the animal? Is this not going to be hurtful? “Hurtful? Ha! – laughs he – do you think that sodomy is a walk in the park? This hasn’t been an obstacle, has it?”
But do you really think that you will change the mind of the people? I ask Mr. Ass again. “In time, of course I think so”, he answers, “I am absolutely persuaded of it! Look at homosexuality! Only two generations ago, homosexuality was considered a disgusting perversion not even to be mentioned in front of children, and at the same level of being smart! Nowadays, children are taught in “sensitivity classes” about homosexuality, and are given books with homosexual penguins and dolphins!” I must admit that he has a point here. “And look at the churches! The Episcopalians have women priests, women bishops, even gay and lesbians bishops! Give them some time, and they will have alternatively loving priests and priestesses, bishops and bishopesses! Haven’t they always followed the evolution of the general mentality?” I reflect, and stay silent. He is unstoppable: “If someone had told you sixty years ago that in two generations the Episcopalians would have priestesses, bishopesses, and gay and lesbians everywhere, even in bishop’s positions, would you have believed him?”
I can’t contradict Mr. Ass here, either. “You see”, he continues now fully animated whilst Valeria, the female Great Dane, wags her tail, “just give us the right President, and we’ll even have a smart judge at the Supreme Court! Heck, who knows – he continues – perhaps we already have! There are so many smarts forced to remain in the closet because of society’s lovephobia! We calculate that we are at least 5% of the population. Julius Caesar, Dickens, Beethoven, Napoleon, Queen Victoria and Gandhi were certainly or very probably smart”.
“What you really need to understand”, says Mr. Ass now entirely animated, “is that you either follow religious principles, or you don’t. You can’t stop in the middle. Once you have decided that religious principles aren’t the foundation of civil legislation, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? The lovephobic prejudices against us is purely the result of a Judeo-Christian reflex, totally opposed to the rights and freedoms of our modern, inclusive society! How can you decide that the gay community should be included, and the smart community should be excluded? I know, some excuses can be found for us as they were found for the gay community. But in the end, it’s on the Judeo-Christian prejudices that they’ll be based.” I listen with interest. He is not deprived of logic. “Besides, we don’t think that real Christianity condemns alternative loving. Jesus is love!”.
“Our society is based on freedom, tolerance, inclusiveness, love, change, and doing no harm. We demand that you truly embrace these values. We harm no one, we do not want to take any right away from anyone, and we are accepting of any lifestyle. Who is more modern and democratic than us smarts?”
Interviewed about the matter, Mr Mario C. Uomo, the Governor of New York, has stated that “whilst the smart lifestyle is not one I would personally endorse, I fully understand the desire for equality of the DMAOL community”. He will not actively seek to promote legislation in that sense, but “if the state legislature finds that this can be done” he doesn’t feel that it is in his duties to “impose his conviction on those having different opinions”. Mr Uomo, who said that his Catholicism is “sincerely felt”, made nevertheless clear that he wishes the DMAOL community every success “in their fight for equality, human and animal rights”.
For the Poofington Post,
Laura L. Iberal
On Insight Scoop, an interesting blog post dealing with the matter of “why dissenters remain in the Church”. After all, Luther & Co. at least had the intelligence and logical thinking of drawing the consequences of their revolt.
The blog post article (in turn mentioning an essay) opines that in the end it is a matter of power: the power-obsessed liberals do not want to go away, they want to conquer and reign over nuChurch. The same would be true, says the article, when the dissenters say that the Church “infantilise” them. Like a rebellious child, they are looking for….. power at the expense of the legitimate authority of the Church.
I found the theory very interesting and it is in my eyes unquestionable that the quest for power is an important part of liberal thinking. One is reminded of school and university, where the most vocal leftists were clearly looking for personal advantages and a political career and whenever you heard “we must this” and “we must that” you knew who was supposed to lead the “collective” effort.
Nevertheless, I would like to offer other three elements; of which two I would attribute largely to the female public (and please note that among “dissenters” women are clearly very well represented).
1) Ego or, if you wish, pleasure. Human beings as such tend to do what gives them pleasure, and to eschew what gives them pain. Dissenters act in a way that is not different: they please their ego by feeling “modern”, “progressive”, “inclusive” and “rebellious in a comfortable way”. But they mostly abstain from thinking this to the end, because to draw the consequences would be traumatic.To say “I have decided to leave the Church” would be very painful, because it would force them to really feel the gravity of what they are doing. As long as they don’t say that they want to go, they think themselves free to feel like “reformers” instead of what they are: heretics.
To make a parallelism with everyday life, think of the “wannabe rebel” adolescent who questions parental authority but continues to be fed and cared for by them. Were he to be kicked out of the parental home – or to decide to leave it and fend for himself – his rebellion wouldn’t be much fun anymore. Therefore he will choose to be rebellious from the comfort of the family. The well-fed, shirt-ironed, college-paid “rebels” are, and always will be, the vast majority.
2) Emotions. Some people (particularly women, but not only them) tend to put a huge premium on how they “feel”. In this perspective, thinking is merely an optional. Therefore, many dissenters (particularly women) will stay within the church (or thinking they do) because of the fuzzy feeling they get by calling themselves “Catholic” and still feel part of the oh so big family. This is the religion of their fathers and mothers, and they just don’t see as “fuzzy” to say to them (or to their tomb) that they have become Episcopalians, even if they are. “I have always felt comfortable in the Catholic Church”, they’ll say clearly revealing the inability to add 2+2 if it feels bad.
3) (Macho alert! Feminazis please look away now!!) Approval. The day a woman stops kidding herself (between seventeen and nineteen, mostly), she realises that women have in their genes a strong need for the approval of men. You see this happening anywhere, with women fighting for male approval in the office and dissing the female colleagues in their presence with an energy and passion men would never find (or care to find) to diss other men in front of women; or berating each other in what makes them cheap in the eyes of men (ever heard men calling each other “slutter”?). I could make much stronger examples, but the important thing for us is that the same mechanism is at work here. These “emancipated” wannabe priestesses badly need to be approved by the same men they accuse of being oppressive to them. It’s…. dad all over again! They can’t do their own thing, leave the church, get a beer with their friends, go to a bar and never give a dime for what the people of the opposite sex in the church they have left think, as men would. No. They must get men’s approval, and in their deluded minds they think that if they only nag men for long enough, they’ll get their way. Foolish but, I must say, very gender typical. Works rather well on an individual level, anyway.. 😉
And so there we are, with this singular mixture of ego trips (“the Church doesn’t satisfy my needs“), emotional orgies (” I always feeeelt that I was born a priesteeeeess”) and starvation for men’s approval (“I’ll not be satisfied until men approve of women priest”) causing what we are seeing: the strange phenomenon of rebellion without severance, and seeking approval from those rebelled against.
I have already written in the past about all the outrageous things happening among our Proddie brothers and sisters in , I hope, Christ.
Today, I’d like to give you a further example of what happens when one belongs to a so-called Church the Holy Ghost (alreadyhaving His own Church, which is the Only One) doesn’t touch with a tadpole: Christianity mixes with political, or politically correct, ideas and what comes out of this mess is a tragic banalisation of the Christian message or, worse, outright disrespect for our Lord.
Take this, for example, from which the following words of wisdom reach us:
The Episcopal Church’s office of Economic and Environmental Affairs released a statement urging followers to stay mindful of global warming, recycling and reducing carbon dioxide emissions while celebrating the ancient Christian holiday in 2011.
“This year Earth Day falls within Holy Week, specifically on Good Friday, a profound coincidence,” said Mike Schut, a church spokesman. “To fully honor Earth Day, we need to reclaim the theology that knows Earth is ‘very good,’ is holy. When we fully recognize that, our actions just may begin to create a more sustainable, compassionate economy and way of life.”
“On Good Friday, the day we mark the crucifixion of Christ, God in the flesh, might we suggest that when Earth is degraded, when species go extinct, that another part of God’s body experiences yet another sort of crucifixion — that another way of seeing and experiencing God is diminished?”
From this, the unenlightened learn that:
1) The Episcopal Church, rapidly approaching self-extinction, has an “office of Economic and Environmental Affairs”. This is Episcopalian in so many ways: supposed religious people wanting to meddle in politics, the bold statement that economic and environmental affairs be clearly inseparable, and the smugness of the entire operation. It reminds one of “Yes, Prime Minister”, with Sir Humphrey reminding the premier that nowadays politicians talk like religious, and religious like politicians.
2) The desire to “honour Earth Day”. This is so very nuChristian.
3) The chaps are seriously worried that Good Friday well take some light from earth day. I kid you not. Read it again.
4) To make 3) more clear, Good Friday is called “ancient Christian tradition”. It is not said how infinitely more important Good Friday is, but there is simply a parallel: the new day “to be honoured” here, the old, “traditionally” honoured day there. Congratulations. You must be Episcopalians.
5) In the same spirit, earth day must be “christianised”. Never mind that for 2011 years Christianity never felt the need to have an “earth day”, instead concentrating on trifles like the Death and Resurrection of Our Lord. No, the earth as a whole must be made a new Christ, so that it may be worshipped.
6) Proof of this is the astonishing remark that when you (according to their metre of judgment, of course), neglect the environment, the earth experiences a sort of crucifixion. In no clearer way the complete loss of the meaning of the Crucifixion and its dumbing down to the level of the environmental protection could have been better expressed.
These people have simply lost their marbles or – more probably – have lost their faith. Were this not the case, such comparisons would instantly and instinctively sound deeply disturbing to them.
When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing— they believe in anything.
~ G. K. Chesterton