Blog Archives

Fags Hate Fags

Oh, those poor, poor sodomites, don't you feeeel for them? They are so discriminated against, “judged” by an unjust society (I know: this is a judgment…) and driven to suicide by the “bullying” of those who call them… faggots! Which obviously is what they are, but it's so cruel, so cruuuel! To think that they are so good!

(Now please, as you say this, stop a moment and savour the feeling of smug superiority; the squatting on the moral high ground; the enjoyment of one's own advanced spiritual state. Then prepare to wake up to reality….).

Alas, it turns out the “good faggot” is, in the majority, rather an aspiring killing machine, and willingly so.

Who would, knowing that he has contracted a disease that could be deadly in others, expose them to this very dangerous disease only to increase his own sexual pleasures? Two faggots out of three, that's who.

Notice here that the percentage mentioned is not of those who abandon themselves to disgusting acts of sodomy, but of those who do not wear condoms as they do so. Full knowing they are HIV positive. Merely to increase their own perverted pleasure. Of course they are supposed not to commit acts of sodomy in the first place, but this is an act of sodomy (alas, not a criminal offence anymore almost everywhere) with the addiction of what must be, surely, a criminal offence in many Countries!

It boggles the mind. It squarely makes of fags the enemy number one of fags, their own willed target for potentially deadly infections. Gaystapo as it breathes and sodomises.

What people still seem not to understand (because they don't know jack of God, sin, or the devil) is how damaged the soul of an homosexual already is. Whilst not every homosexual acts with faggoty behaviour to satisfy his perversion, unless we understand the gravity of this truly satanical perversion we wil not be able to understand its consequences. Only people firmly in the hand of the devil can be so astonishingly, diabolically self-centred as to put not even their own pleasure, but merely its maximum enjoyment at a premium over other people's health and perhaps life.

I do not know whether Fags hate the humanity at large, but there can be no doubt only self-hate and hate of the other fag can drive people to such level of depraved cruelty. Only Satan's hand could deform a soul to such an extent of dehumanising use of other people's body.

The Nazi doctor who performed cruel experiments on his Jewish victims might, perhaps, have deluded himself he is advancing the progress of humanity. He also did not have any personal relationship with his victim. But the HIV-positive faggot consciously exposing others at the risk of infection perfectly well knows he is only advancing the cause of his maximum pleasure, and must have at least a fleeting personal relationship with the man (oh well…) whose life he is putting at risk for no other reason than the most perverted, most short-lived of advantages.

Scratch the Sodomite, and you will see the monster. It is in the logic of Satan's work, and it is a master accomplishment of the same Satan to have persuaded so many that with the act of sodomy the faggot, rather than Christ, is the lamb that was slain.

People have no idea of what sin is anymore. You tell them sin is what offends God – and therefore sodomy, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance, is one of the greatest offences imaginable – and they look at you incredulous, lost, or in utter mockery. They also have no idea of who Satan is, or what he can do to us. To them, everything is good until someone gets hurt. Unless it is a sphyncter, of course. Or an unborn baby.

God might not hate fags, though he most certainly hates their faggotry.

But boy, do they hate each other.

Mundabor

 

Condomgate And The Supposed Impossibility of Not Having Sex

From their friends you'll know them.

Condomgate continues to rage and, if it was necessary, shows with increasing evidence the damage made to the Catholic cause by the careless example chosen by the Holy Father.

As I have (easily) predicted in the past, the discussion is now – among cafeteria catholics and all those who don’t want to accept Church teaching whenever it doesn’t suit them – about the Pope not having justified the use of condoms in certain circumstances, but having justified it anyway or, in some other version, being wrong in not doing it. In both cases, dissent is rearing its ugly head. This is a serious matter because we are not talking of individual weakness here, but of rebellion. Rebellion is the realm of Satan and his minions. A Catholic must accept the teaching and when he sees himself unable to understand it he must pray that he may get the right understanding. If he fails, he must pray more. Submission to the Church is first, understanding of it is second. Credo quia intellegam, non intellego ut credam.

With the basis of reasoning clear, let us examine the condom question again. I have often repeated that a sinful behaviour doesn’t justify particular modalities to carry the sinful activity. It doesn’t, because the activity is unjustified. This must be the cornerstone of every reasoning in the matter.

A killer is not justified in his killing his victims in a less cruel way. A violent husband is not justified in punching his wife whilst wearing boxing gloves. A sodomite is not justified in wearing a condom whilst committing sodomy. Therefore, it can’t be said “Pope Okays use of condom by sodomy” any more than it could be said “Pope Okays use of boxing gloves in beating wife”. This must be clear because these are simple facts (and rather basic facts) of Catholic moral teaching.

Now, the army of “understanding” journos goes on saying “oh well, what about the case of husband and wife? Should the Church not give her assent to the use of a condom by a husband with AIDS to protect his wife’s health by an intercourse we know is going to happen?”. This is as logical as to ask: “Should the Church not give her assent to the use of boxing gloves to protect his wife’s health by an attack we know is going to happen?”.

The answer to this is: the husband with AIDS must refrain from intercourse exactly as the violent husband must refrain from beating his wife. That the use of boxing gloves might be, from the part of a husband, a first step & Co, & Co. doesn’t change an iota in the answer to the questions.

This is where the profoundly secular thinking of the “compassionate” troops clearly shows up. In their reasoning we find the complicity with sin so typical of the anti-Christian world. Wrong behaviour is simply seen as inevitable. People are, in fact, not even asked to avoid it because I can’t credibly say to a violent husband that he is supposed not to beat his wife whilst endorsing his use of boxing gloves.

The simple truth (a truth with necessitates of a Christian prospective to be properly understood) is that not having sex is not more impossible than not beating one’s wife. Whilst there might be difference in the degree of difficulty to achieve this (some people have a very strong sex drive) there is no doubting the fact that none of the two are impossible to achieve.

The lawmakers all the world over reason the same way. They don’t give to imprisoned child rapists sheep and hens so that they have something to rape whilst in jail; nor do they give to the jailed violent husband some substitute animal in order for him to perform his  necessary bodily function of being violent. They both land in a jail with no way to give in to their tendencies and – unsurprisingly – they don’t die.

Similarly, even in the changing world of criminal law felonies remain forbidden even when due to compulsion and the compulsion may diminish the severity of the punishment , but can never exclude it. You can’t decriminalise violent drunken behaviour because one is a drunkard, or child rape because one acted “compulsively”. Simple common sense.

Also, lawmakers never say “let us find authorised ways of practising child raping or bestiality, because they are going to happen anyway”. That’s not how it works. Moral imperatives don’t tolerate justified way of violating them because when you accept the justification, you are destroying the moral imperative. No raping. No domestic violence. No bestiality. No sodomy. No infection of your spouse. These are the only acceptable answers.

Sex is not unavoidable. Sodomy, as exceptionally pervert, is even less unavoidable. Hundreds of millions of people live in chastity every day and he who thinks that the army of singles – even in the most corrupted Western countries – is composed of people who just need to have sex has a very skewed perception of the real world outside of the film industry.

We live in a world where progressive (often: homosexual, or lesbian, or promiscuous) journalists tell us that sex is something that just must happen. Bollocks. Every village of Christian Europe, everywhere, in all centuries past, tells a very different story. Not in the sense that people were saints, but that celibacy was something accepted and lived in a way simply unacceptable (because inconvenient) to the modern thinking by a great number of people.

The argument “but they are going to do it anyway so let us find ways to limit the damage” smacks of saying “but rapes through african militias are going to happen anyway so let us find ways to have the girl raped in a more gentle way”.

He who says that shows that he hasn’t a great problem with rape, after all.

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Condomgate Strikes Again!

Integrity and courage in matter of contraception: Paul VI

We are now informed of the following statement from our beloved Lombardi:

I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no.. The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.

This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point, Lombardi said…

Now from this we learn as follows:

1) What here is all about is: the taking of responsibility towards human life. A chap went around totally not caring whether he would kill himself and many others in the process, but in what might be the first step towards taking responsibility he continues to do what is evil, but at least avoids killing an undetermined number of people.

2) If this is true of a man, it must be true of a woman too as it is not the case that a male prostitute at risk of aids would kill an army of homos, but a female prostitute at risk of aids  wouldn’t kill an army of heteros.  Makes sense.

3) What the Pope (or Lombardi, come to that) still hasn’t said is:

a) that the use of condom is endorsed or justified in any way;

b) that there is a general principle by which the Church says that whenever you are going to put someone in danger, you may use a condom;

c) that Church teaching has been modified in any way.

I am, therefore, at a loss to understand the following:

1) why the fact that the example would apply also to a female prostitute should change anything of what the Pope wanted to say.

2) On which ground this new distinction should be seen as “compassionate” toward the person using the condom. The Church is still saying that the sinner has not to sin. This is compassionate!

Let us make no mistake here: the Church is still saying to the homosexual what She has been saying from the start: repent, and sin no more. To say anything else like: “use a condom, because now I am compassionate” would be to become accessory of the sodomite’s sin.

Let us say it once again: the moral law is not concerned about suggesting ways by which sinning can be made less harmful. The church doesn’t say “if you really, really have to have an abortion, at least avoid using dangerous poisons”. The Church doesn’t say “if you really, really have to have premarital sex, at least be sexually faithful to your girlfriend”, & Co. What the Church does is saying an emphatic “no” to sodomy, to abortion, and to premarital sex.

That as a matter of fact the prostitute sodomite in question might start using condoms as a consequence of a first awakening to the value of human life doesn’t make his use of condom justified. Not in the least. Sodomy is not justified and the Church doesn’t suggest “justified” or “endorsed” ways to deal with what is not justified.

Mundabor

P.s. the continued discussion only enlightens how inappropriate the example was.

%d bloggers like this: