Father Z reports of the ways rich perverts give grants to – get ready for this – Catholic institutions to promote their perverted agenda within the Church. All this is done under the sun, and in tax-efficient way.
One is not surprised at the extent of such evil: sexual perversion is evil, and it is fully illusory to believe that when Satan has got hold of a soul to the point of making her desire what is most disgusting, he will not try to push these souls more and more deep into a cesspool of hatred of Good, and open war to it.
What one, though, asks oneself is the following:
1. How much does the local hierarchy know of this? Or better said: how can they claim they do not know about this? Any trust or entity under the supervision of the Diocese must surely have yearly reports of their ins and out, regularly scrutinised by their supervisors. Every University must, surely, be subject to the diocese's scrutiny if it wants to carry a link to the Church in her name? We are not talking of pocket money here, but of substantial amounts which, being the objects of tax records, must certainly make it possible to trace their movements and ascertain their destination, to the last cent.
2. One reads such news and wonders to what astonishing degree of incompetence and cowardice the Church in the West must have sunk, if perverts even think it possible to undermine it by openly giving fodder to the enemies inside of her. If our prelates did their job in a halfway acceptable way, the Gorilla-friendly Homos would at least fight their satanical battle from the outside. As it is, they are indirectly told: “welcome! Help us lose souls! Can you spare some change, Gov?”
But then one reflects that this a country where a leading member of the hierarchy has the courage, in one of the rare moments in which he is not eating, to shout “Bravo” to someone not only outing his sexual perversion, but endorsing a sodomitical – and his sodomitical – lifestyle.
I therefore wonder who is worse: the homo Apes undemining Catholic teaching, or the obese Gorilla doing exactly the same, under his red hat.
Nancy Pelosi's astonishing tirade against Archbishop Cordileone – an attack that in his virulence surprises even coming from her – should, after we have stopped laughing at the heathen cow, tell us a couple of things.
Firstly, the first that Pelosi dares to defend so-called same-sex marriage as support of… marriage and even dares to lecture the Archbishop with it without the entire Catholic planet laughing out loud tells us to what level of degeneracy Christianity has arrived in the West. I wonder to what extent a person can be called “Christian” who does not get the very basics. This problem is not limited to the heathen cow, rather the cow is very much indicative of the utterly de-Christianised pastures in which she ruminates.
Secondly, the root of Pelosi's attack is also, in the last analysis, to be seen in Francis' disgraceful pontificate. It becomes increasingly more clear that the new theology of “who am I to judge”, launched by the Unholy Father to the stupid masses for the sake of his own aggrandisement, is now emboldening all kind of rubbish religious and rubbish politicians, who see in Francis' continued antics a more and more robust guarantee that they can shoot at Christianity and its representatives without fear of retaliation.
I do not know whether Cordileone (San Francisco) or Wuerl (Washington) is the one who is responsible for the shameless cow's soul, and it might well be the latter. But if Archbishop Cordileone has any possibility to excommunicate Pelosi, he should well and truly act; even at the risk, which is very concrete, that Francis would then proceed to lift the excommunication because hey, who is he to judge…
When this madness has gone, the future generations will look with a mixture of horror and – if they have a robust sense of humour – amusement at the times when an important politician of the Super Duper Power dared to openly rebuke an Archbishop and “teach” him something so shamelessly perverted as true Christianity; and they will shudder at thinking that a Pope allowed all this, and was an accomplice of this destruction every step of the way.
I truly hope Archbishop Cordileone does not soften his stance, and sends the cow to the slaughterhouse by excluding her from communion or outright excommunicating her. I have reasonable hopes on the first, but not much hope on the second.
Unless more and more religious start saying clearly what is what, in ten years' time the vast majority of those living in the West and calling themselves “catholic” will be unable to understand what is wrong with sodomy in the first place, and deem themselves good “Christians” for supporting faggotry.
Satan truly is having a home run.
I generally do not indulge in such rhetorical questions, but this time the question doesn’t appear very rhetorical.
For you non-Americans, the story in very short format. In 2000, the citizens of California vote in a referendum a proposition (“Proposition 22”) to ban homosexual so-called marriages. In 2008, the California Supreme Court strikes down the referendum decision because “unconstitutional”, that is: the court decides that the people are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count.
The citizens of California then proceed to held a second referendum on Election Day 2008 to have homo-marriages banned (“Proposition 8”) and give it a majority for the second time; this time the approved proposal is that the ban be inserted in the Californian Constitution so that the judges of the California Supreme Court will not be able to play God or to decide that they are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count, again.
With the California Supreme Court now out of the game a single man, a judge of the Federal District Court called Vaughn Walker, has decided once again that the citizens of California are naughty and so their will doesn’t count. This will now go to the appeal court (the notorious 9th circuit, secular and liberal as they come and therefore largely expected to upheld the ruling) and then to the Supreme Court. In his gracious omnipotence, the judge has apparently decided that the ruling be suspended pending appeal.
I will write in a different entry about the sentence in itself; details are starting to get through and the sentence seems to me an astonishing show of idiocy and ideological blindness, but this is for another day.
What I am thinking now is: what is happening to the American democracy? Do the American citizen really think that the sovereignty should ultimately rest by the judges?
I do not even want to begin the discussion whether a ban of homo marriages be “moral” or not. Of course it is, but it is not about that. It is about the fact that the people have chosen, and they have even chosen twice. We have here a situation where the electorate continues to decide in one sense and the courts continue to decide that they are wrong. To me, this is courtocracy battling against democracy.
This is sheer madness. It is as if there was a sort of Ayatollah of Political Correctness deciding that every piece of legislation must comply with the Supreme Mantra or be struck down. But the fact is: this is NOT democratic thinking. Democratic thinking is to accept that once a decision has been democratically achieved, this decision is respected as long as the voters do not take (in whatever form, through a referendum or through their democratically elected representatives) a new decision.
Take Italy. Once a Referendum has led to a decision a new referendum on the matter is forbidden for five years and never has the Corte Costituzionale dared to question a democratically formed decision. In a democracy, you just don’t walk over the electorate like that and when the people have spoken, no judge can interfere about the fundamental “morality” of the decision.
Here we have the absurd situation that several million people have voted for a very clear question involving fundamental moral principles and a single judge decides that the will of these several million people should just not be considered. One man! This is not a democracy anymore, this is dictatorship of the courts. The fact that further rulings are now expected does not change an iota in the fundamental matter that it will still be judges deciding whether the will of the people applies or not. Also the fact that the decision is suspended pending appeal does not change that it was the judge himself deciding so. Madness.
If the people of California are not free to even decide about the most basic ethical and religious principle of life in common anymore; if even fundamental expressions of the people’s will must be “cleared” by a judge after the vote; if several millions decide in one sense, but one man can decide that they were not entitled to do it, where has democracy gone?
I say it once again: in a country like Italy (with a fairly recent experience of dictatorship and therefore a high degree of sensitivity towards “expropriations” of this power through other powers of the State) there wouldn’t be such discussions in the first place. A referendum must be approved beforehand by the Corte Costituzionale to make sure that it is in harmony with the fundamental principles of the Italian constitutional system (say: you can’t have a referendum to abolish democracy, because democracy is a constitutionally protected principle) but once the referendum has been held the people have spoken and that’s that. Also unthinkable is the concept that the Court may feel authorised to decide about the morality of the decision. This is not for them to decide, but for the people themselves.
If someone (perhaps: American?) can give more colour, I am grateful. As it is now, the entire system appears bonkers to me.
You can find here the content of an E-mail complaint sent to the University of Illinois concerning the teaching activity of Dr. Howell. This is apparently not from the anonymous student who gave origin to the contention, but it would appear that the two have the same forma mentis and are perhaps friends; the attached E-mail (not showed) might well be *the* one.
Let us examine the highlights of this E-mail, because it gives numerous clues about the way these people (don’t) think. I will not make the joke that they can’t think straight.
1) The author of the E-mail never assisted to Dr. Howell’s lessons. He refers what he has heard. This is the worst possible start for a complaint. The author is blissfully unaware of that.
2) The core of the complaint is that Dr. Howell would say “things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith”. The expectation that a system of belief should be taught in a way that is “sensitive” to people of a different faith is downright absurd. If Islam says that I have to be converted or pay extra taxes or die I can be angry at Islam, not at the fact that I am informed of this. Most people have problems with other faiths. This is why they don’t belong to them.
3) The author goes on saying “I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable”. Well no he is – a gay activist, I mean; I have my doubts about his sexual orientation, too – and in pure activist style he introduces the term “hate speech” without giving one example, one phrase, one word to support his assertion. “My friend says the chap is inflammatory” is the only support. This is an opinion out of hearsay, not an argument. Again, the boy is blissfully unaware of this.
4) “It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes”. Here the mask falls off entirely. The problem is not how Dr. Howell teaches Catholicism, but that Catholicism is taught. How one can teach Catholicism without people learning it or its values being perpetuated is a mystery to me. But perhaps the author knows better.
5) “Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation”. It gets worse. Catholicism being taught is confused with the University “having a religious affiliation”. It gets more and more obvious that the problem of whining homosexuals is that there are Catholicism lessons.
6) “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another”. This is again very confused and shows that the boy needs a course of introduction to Catholicism. That homosexual acts violate the natural laws of men is – beside being evident to every right-thinking man free from sexual perversions – part and parcel of Catholic teaching. Always was. Always will be. The objection is therefore a contradictio in adjecto.
7) “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course”. Here we are again. I might feel uncomfortable at a course about, say, Hindu or Buddhist spirituality. But this would be entirely my problem. I don’t have any right to feel comfortable. These people are pampered boys refusing to accept that they’ll meet people whose opinions they don’t like. Besides, following this line of thought one shouldn’t teach that it is a sin to rape children, because “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a student convicted for child rape would feel if he/she were to take this course”.
8 ) “I am a heterosexual male”. Not very credible, old boy. Heterosexual males aren’t homo activists and homo activists aren’t heterosexual males. Whatever they may think about it.
9) “My friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma”. It gets more and more absurd. A dogma is, by definition, something which does not allow any room for opposition. You accept the dogma (then you’re Catholic) or you don’t (then you aren’t). Again, the man needs an introduction to Catholicism himself, sharpish.
10) the “founder of the queer studies major” has been copied. The author is acquainted with him. This is the man saying he is not a homo activist. Go figure.
We are still waiting for the decision of the University of Illinois about what to do. Dr. Howell’s lawyers have given today as the deadline to reintegrate him or face litigation.
Still, I thought I would give you my thoughts about this to illustrate the confusion reigning in these people’s minds and their absurd demands that nothing be taught which offends their sensitivity. How very intolerant, how very absurd and, well, how very effeminate.
I have reported some time ago about Dr. Ken Howell. Dr.Howell’s Catholic courses at the University of Illinois were terminated after the complaint of a student and the “concerns” of the – unbelievably, truly existing – “Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered concerns” about, well, what Catholicism teaches.
Fortunately, the reaction of many Catholics (a facebook support group with 1600 members, the University obviously bombarded with protest emails) are producing some effects. The American Papist blog reports that the University of Illinois now at least pretends to be interested in protecting Catholic freedom of expression from the fanaticism of deviant groups.
In another positive turn, we are informed that the relevant Diocese of Peoria has taken action with the University, though this had not been made immediately public and had therefore given cause to concern and criticism.
I will continue to follow this unbelievable story, which seems taken directly out of Philip Roth’s The Human Stain. This is certainly not going to be the end of the politically correct madness and of the thought control aspirations of a bunch of perverts but there is some hope that, at least in this matter, reason will in the end prevail.