Can you imagine the first community of Pilgrims celebrating the harvest feast together with “couples” of sexual perverts? No? Ever wondered why?
It was, if you ask me, because in the mind of a Christian it seems the utter absurdity to thank God for an abundant harvest as one offends Him by openly giving scandal, or being accomplices to this scandal.
God gives graces of all sorts to men, and then expects them to conform to His laws. Whilst we are all sinners, it is certainly absurd to act in a way that says “Thank you, Lord, for this abundant harvest that will assure our survival in these new territories. Thanks! Have a slap in the face!”
If a Christian does not see Thanksgiving as a profoundly Christian moment, and an eminent Christian festivity, then he can celebrate the Day of Mother Earth, The Week of Auntie Rain, as well.
It's a Christian festivity. Don't allow the atheists and the secular people to say it's not so. For a Christian, it must be so.
Which leads us to the topic touched at the beginning: Faggotry must stay out. This is do always, of course; but particularly so on a day in which, of all things, God's bountiful generosity is gratefully remembered.
I am sure none of you, faithful readers, would dream (or have a nightmare) of inviting the faggot friend of the faggot relative for Thanksgiving. This is not charity. This is complicity In the iniquity.
Similarly, I invite all of you who have been invited to such a place to reflect where their allegiance really lies. I know, there are wheels within wheels, and many could say “but in my case it's different”. Perhaps auntie is 109 years old and has so insisted that you accept the invitation. Perhaps wifey has told you her sister might commit suicide if she sees herself “rejected”. Perhaps the “boyfriend” is dying of AIDS and could, oh, uh, no? Be “converted” at seeing the “warm embrace” of the family…
Many of these scenarios are thinkable. No one works.
Auntie will be helped to die in clear danger of damnation. Sister must stop manipulating people, and take responsibility for her (gravely wrong) actions. “Boyfriend” is helped by making very clear to him that he is bound for hell. You get my drift.
I invite each one of you who, perhaps out of a very misplaced sense of charity, should have accepted such an invitation to say “no”, in the way you consider more appropriate. Have a headache if you really have to, but I invite you to be a real witness of charity by saying why you do not participate. And let the wife or husband go alone, if he or she so wishes. And let there be discusdions, if discusdions have to be had.
But you, dear reader, you will not be another brick in the normalisation of sexual perversion.
Not a long time ago, fathers smashed their daughters on the street, doomed to utter poverty and very possibly prostitution, for much less than open, shameless lesbian scandal. They would chase away and disinherit their first born for something as atrocious as proclaimed, openly celebrated sodomy.
You may say they were too harsh, and I – a man of my time after all – agree with you. But you can't deny that It was a Christian world, that would have never thought it fitting to put one's emotions simply before one's duty to uphold Christian thinking. A Christian father of the Victorian era would take his salvation, and the one of his beloved ones, very seriously instead of wallowing in effeminate sentimentalism.
It is astonishing that our times should be so unChristian, and so effeminate, that even refusing an invitation to an open faggot – and declining to accept such an invitation – should be seen as too much, too harsh, or in any way “uncharitable”.
Even after the felicitous departure of Cardinal Roger Mahony from the Diocese of Los Angeles – last time I looked, the biggest diocese of them all as far as the number of faithful is concerned – strange things continue to happen over there, hovering like ghosts over the diocese like the horrible Cathedral left to us as a memento of irreligiousness, wasteful megalomania and outright stupidity.
We are informed ( I have it from Father Z, who mentions the CNA, which mentions other sources) that a Los Angeles priest has been suspended for openly supporting what he astonishingly calls “gay marriage”.
Not so surprisingly, the chap describes himself as “a gay man and a celibate gay priest”.
Now, one can only approve of the decision of the Diocese to suspend the obviously heretical man from making further damage among his sheep; but the question is not this one.
The real question is: how likely it is that the man decided to “out” himself at the same time as he made public his support for the logical impossibility of so-called “gay marriage”? How likely it is, on the other hand, that the man was openly homosexual and had outed himself some time, perhaps a long time, before the event?
I write this because it strikes me as odd that the Priest be suspended because he “supports gay marriage”, whilst the fact that he is openly homosexual does not seem to have been a factor in the decision.
More gravely, CNA reports that the priest “will be suspended as long as he remains politically active”. What! Without making a complete abiura, and apologising for the damage done? Should he be, then, allowed to go back to his parishioners as an openly gay priest who used to publicly support “gay marriage” but is not able to do that anymore? What is this, an Anglican province of Los Angeles?
Even the notoriously weak and “nuanced” authorities if the Church in England made very clear, when the Ordinariates were announced, that no openly gay Anglican so-called priest would be accepted in the priesthood in the Catholic Church, for the simple and elementary fact that a priest cannot be more allowed to be homosexual than to be a paedophile or a lover of dogs, and that whilst the Church cannot enquire into the mind of people, once one has told that he is a sexual pervert the game is up, period.Good Lord, has the Diocese of Los Angeles not had enough problems in the past thanks to the ingress of sexual perverts (in great part homosexual) among her ranks? Are they so eager for the next payment of several hundred million dollar?
One reads such news, and wonders. There are dioceses that manage to make bad headlines even when they are supposed to make good ones, because the mismanagement, corruption or worse are so widely spread that it is difficult to give glimpses of the diocese’s workings without the rot emerging.
“Suspended as long as he remains politically active”, my foot.
Abject apology or kick him out, say I.