Mark this name, you reader from no matter where, because what has been published today will make Rotherham a byname for ignominy.
What is transpiring in these hours is, literally, beyond belief. Duckduckgo “Rotherham” and “child abuse” and you will read things you never imagined; on a scale that indicates more than even a systemic failure, rather a nuclear meltdown.
More shocking details are emerging, as it appears that the ethnicity of many of the perpetrators, now generically defined as “Asian”, was an obstacle to the filth emerging. In XXI Century's Britain, the fear of being called “racist” or suffer loss of reputation or even employment seem to have played a role, in a Country that has now become such a pit of political correctness that not even horrible violence on an unprecedented scale manages to emerge on the surface for who knows how many years.
And as the bomb explodes, other question emerge (or should emerge: this will be an interesting one to watch…). Why only in Rotherham? Is it reasonable to assume the violent people all move to the same council? Is it so outlandish to think that if the police (finally) digs deep into this, it will turn out Rotherham was only the tip of the iceberg?
Finally, let me say two or three words about the institutions involved: after the way the Church has been crucified for decades I know fully expect – nay, demand!* – that henceforward every Policeman and every council worker, particularly if working with children, be seen as an aider and abetter of child abuse of the worst kind, in a scale and horror beyond imagination.
This, of course, without considering the ethnicity involved in this particular scandal. Can't wait to hear all those ready to throw the Church en bloc into hell explaining to us that this is only a problem of individuals…
Today we live to see the ripening of possibly the most atrociously poisonous fruit of the political correctness and the culture of “diversity” to which this country has literally sold its collective backside. Did we not know that in certain Asian Countries children are routinely sold by the poorest families? Did we not know that in other Asian countries women still die “mysteriously” in “domestic accidents” weeks after the death of their husbands? Can we expect that when non-Christian society are allowed to export themselves en bloc, without correction or apology, the worst traits of their mentality will tend to come to Europe together with them? Do you think Europe is free from infibulation, forced marriages, or (I can say today; not yesterday) what has happened in Rotherham?
How can it be only Rotherham? How stupid must we be to pretend that this problem was isolated, and the tragic, massive failure to act was due to something they put in the water in Rotherham, and there only?
I can't remember the last day I was so disgusted, at least if we exclude the day of the approval of so-called same sex marriages. But again, tutto si tiene: a Country choosing to live with atrocious perversion will discover that the Devil has raped it in more than one way.
I would so much like to tell you that I hope that the Country will now wake up, shake away from itself this self-castrating attitude and recover the sense of decency. But how can I? The sense of decency has gone utterly lost, most people believe in the religion of themselves, and their religions do not allow them to even think – let alone act upon it – that Rotherham happened because of the collapse of Western (Christian) values, a collapse promoted during many decades of willing, self-pleasing, lurid collective blindness.
Sink in the dung, Britain; or rediscover the virtues of your forefathers, the tenacity and resilience that created a beautiful Empire and defeated Hitler, and start working on the recovery of your own very soul.
It's a dung of your own making. Now it's time to start shovelling.
* not really! actually. But you get my drift…
The Unholy Father has regaled the media with another exercise of humbleness that, in fact, enhances his perception in the world as it damages the reputation of the Church.
I am, hopefully, not the only one who says that these disgraceful things must be put in context (in this country the BBC, the NHS and the very corridors of Westminster are now under scrutiny for events happened several decades ago, and which had been covered under a thick layer of silence), and that it would be high time that the Church – and therefore the Pope – would stop accepting the role of the world's villain without any resistance.
But he doesn't, and looks rather good as he speaks of his “shame” for something for which he is not personally responsible. This should make for a couple of good headlines: “Francis ashamed of Catholic Church”, or the like. Atheists and perverts will like it a lot.
But wait: if Francis is so ashamed, he will be ruthless in his exposing scandals and caring that no wrong behaviour is covered up, surely?
How is it, then, that a certainly explosive 300 page report about homosexuality and sodomy within the Vatican takes dust – or, who knows, was perhaps even destroyed – under the watch of the suitably ashamed Pope oh so concerned that Truth emerges and Justice is restored?
Take it from me: this oh so ashamed, humble man is a six pound note.
[…] the bishop sat quietly, his right hand trembling slightly as he ran his index finger along his mouth, chin and the cleft between his nose and upper lip.
He was dressed in a grey sportcoat, khaki pants and a tan shirt with the top few buttons undone. He wore glasses and his grey hair was neatly combed and gelled.
The bishop in question is Raymond Lahey, a man found in possession of hundreds of pornographic photos concerning nude boys, some of them extremely graphic and even concerning torture. In case you think the photos had been put there by, well, chance (??) his computer also had tales concerning torture.
The article doesn’t mention with one word the homosexuality of the chap. It doesn’t even waste one word to wonder how on earth can it happen that a homosexual becomes a bishop.
I know that I am being unfair here, but at times I get the impression that in the Sixties and Seventies if one wasn’t scum one didn’t have the possibility of becoming priest, at all. I know, it’s the magnifying lens effect of the press, but for heaven’s sake it can’t be that they didn’t see what kind of rubbish they were getting in. I wonder whether this chap, for example, ever had the possibility to exercise any direct or indirect influence regarding acceptance of seminarians.
If he had, it’s not difficult to imagine of which sort it was. How many others like him?
I’d bet a pint that this bishop wasn’t a staunch defender of the Tridentine Mass, but rather one of the liberal types. Am I wrong?
NuChurch: the gift that keeps on giving.
I have posted today about a beautiful blog post from Gerald Warner, the intrepid “Telegraph” blogger.
In two words, Warner lucidly recognises in the mess of Vatican II the origin of the properly called homosexual paedophile priest scandal. As he very fittingly puts it,
“once you have debauched the Mystical Body of Christ, defiling altar boys comes easily”.
Warner is also of the opinion that 95% of Catholic bishops worldwide deserve the sack and when you read here you’ll soon know why.
This contribution of another excellent Catholic blogger, Chris Gillibrand, points our attention to a recent homily from the Bishop of Menevia, Tom Burns.
Bishop Burns must deal with the very uncomfortable reality of the homosexual paedophile priest scandal. Besides being his job, the starting point is not different from Gerald Warner’s one. But Bishop Burns is a bishop interested in talking Vatican-II-ese and he can therefore not afford the luxury to look at reality as it is. He reacts by denying reality and apportioning the blame somewhere else, namely where it is convenient to him. I think this is what is called “cognitive dissonance”, but I might be wrong.
In Bishop’s Burns widely warped world, the (homosexual, though he obviously wouldn’t say so) paedophile priest scandal has been caused by clericalism; this is, says the Webster’s dictionary, “a policy of maintaining or increasing the power of a religious hierarchy”.
You won’t be criticised by me for maintaining that this already shows a remarkable degree of blindness, but it gets better than this. Bishop Burns’ target is not a generic clericalism, but is alarmingly similar to Catholic conservatism. In his own words,
Some want to put the priest on a pedestal, whilst the people are consigned to be privileged spectators outside the rails. Flamboyant modes of liturgical vestments and rubrical gestures abound. Women are denied all ministries at Mass: doing the Readings, the serving, the Bidding Prayers, and taking Communion to the Sick. To many in our Church and beyond, this comes across as triumphalism and male domination. This clericalism conceals the fact that the Church as an institution has often acted in collusion with what I can only regard as structural sinfulness. It has paid dearly for it and is untrue to its humble Founder, Jesus Christ.
Make no mistake: “flamboyant vestments” here are the traditional ones, not the clown mass ones and the entire statement is a clear linking of conservative Catholicism and (homosexual) paedophile scandal. In Bishop Burn’s vision, the respect traditionally associated with the figure of the priest and the pomp and circumstance linked with traditional Catholic practice has been the enabler of the scandal. He sees in this a structural problem and in those who want to restore these traditional element people who collude with the relevant abuses.
I will refrain, out of respect for the habit, from saying what I think of the man as a Bishop. I will limit myself to say that the poor man sees an elephant in the porcelain shop making a mess of everything and says that the culprits are the porcelain makers.
This Bishop is a serious candidate for what in Italy would be jokingly called “Mongolino d’Oro 2010”. I won’t translate what it means because, as so many Italian expressions, it is deliciously politically incorrect and, as such, not fitting for delicate Anglo-Saxon ears.
Old-ish, but absolutely delightful blog post from Gerald Warner (hat tip to Lux Occulta’s Shane for the hint).
Together with Delingpole, Warner is by far the best blogger of the Daily Telegraph and is most notable for being very away from the politically correct, lavender-reeking tone of the majority of his blogging colleagues.
Warner gives us, with the usual punch, his own take about the attitude of many people (in Ireland and elsewhere) regarding the so-called paedophile priest scandal (correctly: homosexual paedophile priest scandal) and shines with a very lucid analysis of both the origin of the problem and the way to put an end to it.
You should really click the link and read the contribution in its entirety, you will certainly enjoy Warner’s beautifully vitriolic style. I allow myself here to quote some of the brilliant statements contained in the blog post:
Abolish clerical celibacy? The last thing a priest abusing altar boys needs or wants is a wife
Celibacy goes against the grain of today’s “unrepressed”, “non-judgemental”, let-it-all-hang-out attitude to sex; its continued existence is a reproach to the hedonist Western world; so Rome must be persuaded to abolish it – likewise its condemnation of divorce, abortion, contraception, homosexuality and all the other fetishes of liberal society. Dream on, secularists.
These offences took place in the wake of Vatican II, when doctrines were being thrown out like so much lumber. These offenders were the children of Paul VI and “aggiornamento”.
Once you have debauched the Mystical Body of Christ, defiling altar boys comes easily.
In the period when this abuse was rampant, there was just one mortal sin in the Catholic Church: daring to celebrate or attend the Latin Tridentine Mass. A priest raping altar boys would be moved to another parish; as for a priest who had the temerity to celebrate the Old Mass – his feet would not touch the ground.
“I am so shocked by the abuse scandal I am leaving the Church.” Right. So, the fact that some degenerates who should never have been ordained violated young people – in itself a deplorable sin – means that the Son of God did not come down to earth, redeem mankind on the cross and found the Church? This appalling scandal no more compromises the truths of the Faith than the career of Alexander VI or any other corrupt Renaissance Pope.
Should bishops be forced to resign? Oh yes – approximately 95 per cent of them worldwide. These clowns in their pseudo-ethnic mitres and polyester vestments with faux-naïve Christian symbols, spouting their ecumaniac episcobabble, have presided over more than sexual abuse: they have all but extinguished the Catholic faith with their modernist fatuities. They should be retired to monasteries to spend their remaining years considering how to account to their Maker for a failed stewardship that has lost countless millions of souls.
This man has more understanding of Catholic orthodoxy than many Bishops have felt the need of in their entire life. He speaks clearly because he knows that problems are not solved by ignoring perverted priests, or simply moving them around whilst feeding easy platitudes to the customers, er, the fold.
This blog post is several months old (pre-Mundabor blog times, in fact), but it truly has lost nothing of its beauty.
A good way to start the new year, which we hope will mark another little step towards the return of orthodoxy.