How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
In another show of how some Presbyterians are exactly the opposite of Christians, we are informed a “transgendered” freak show is going to preach in a big Presbyterian so-called Cathedral, in an event to which the omnipresent Fag Supremo, Mrs Robinson, is also going to take part.
The amount of sugary nonsense waffled about by the organisers of the event is stunning. Not only is Christianity never to be seen – reminder: every heathen can be good to plants and dog puppies; but this is not what Christianity is about -, but it is transformed into its contrary, or I am tempted to say “transgendered”, by a purely self-celebrating worship of one’s perverted self.
Interestingly enough, the perverts’ organisations involved in the event say this is nothing special, and was “long overdue”. Which makes sense: in the world of perverts, being a pervert or a pro-perverts does not make of one anything special at all. The perverts will only ask one why he has not perverted himself before…
I wonder what kind of people take part in such ceremonies from the pews. I would bet my pint these places attract those who have a desperate need to silence their own conscience, and think the best way to do it is to declare their conscience wrong, and themselves right, hoping their conscience will shut up at last. Sodomites, lesbians, adulterers, abortionists, sexual sinners of any kind must find some superficial comfort in an edifice looking like a real Cathedral, inside which sexual perversion is celebrated as, no less, God-given.
And in fact, these people do not confront Christianity frontally, like an atheist pervert would; they simply proceed to reinvent it, and inform us 2,000 years of Christian thinking was wrong. They, the perverts, are right.
The tranny wannabe priest is the best example of the transgendered wannabe Christianity these people are trying to promote. They want to make of Christ one like them, so that they may forget they are, in fact, his very enemies.
Truth does not change.
Now as then, there will be wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
We can, and actually should, pray for the poor bastards. But it is, I think, perfectly fine to also say, in the traditional way:
Flammis acribus addictis
Voca me cum benedictis
Some of you might have wondered why I have not endorsed the UKIP for last week’s elections.
The reason is that the UKIP is giving up to organised faggotry at alarming speed; therefore, whilst I would see with pleasure the once conservative Party bring harmed by them in a very same-sex way I did not think I could, in conscience, support them through this blog.
Today I got a further confirmation why. It has transpired the party has now suspended one of his just elected Councillors for calling Elton John and his live-in aberrosexual “perverts”, besides referring to perverts in general with fitting terms like “fags” and “dykes”.
Heavens, this is exactly the kind of people the Country needs! People who are not afraid to exercise their right of free speech, and forcefully react against the Gaystapo now trying to invade every aspect of this Nation’s life! But no, a party occupied with becoming as stupid as the Tories decides that facts are too much of an inconvenience, and decides to give itself the usual oh so tolerant face that is, in actual fact, a hammering on Christian values.
This is the first generation since the outset of Christianity in which perversion cannot even be called such without incurring the ire of people who call themselves “Christians”.
A clear sign that this is the first post-Christian generation in the history of Europe.
How fitting that even Popes would have as unofficial slogan “who am I to judge?”.
I have posted a short while ago – after my adrenaline level has stabilised, albeit to a very dangerous level – a blog post about Pope Francis’ endorsement of and encouragement to sodomy.
Reading around on the Internet, you find the various comments: with the professional blind, the closet homosexuals talking of “mercy”, and the “I don’t know how, but this must all make sense in some way” types.
Some commenters, though, seem to make a very dangerous mistake: they choose orthodoxy by half, thinking that this is a kind of “golden mean”, or a way to protect orthodoxy whilst remaining “charitable”. It isn’t orthodox, and it isn’t charitable.
A clear example is in the approval of the so-called “third way” concerning homosexuality. From what I could read around, this “third way” would consist in declaring oneself openly and proudly homosexual, whilst choosing chastity because… Christianity says so.
This is a clear example of senseless bollocks, invented by someone who wanted to bend over backwards to appease the culture of the times, or wanted to promote homosexuality profiting of the culture of the times.
Homosexuality is a perversion. There’s nothing good in homosexuality. Nothing whatever. Homosexuality is not to 98%, or to 99%, but to 100% of the devil. It is, therefore, utterly impossible to be afflicted by such a perversion and be “proud” of it, in the same way as it is impossible to openly declare oneself a pervert without giving scandal.
Thinking logically, the entire concept defies its purpose. To make something public already means to imply a search for approval; an approval that is then forcefully imposed on the community by the very assertion that there should be any “pride” in it.
One truly wonders what the purpose of this “third way” is: to lead homosexuals to accepts chastity, or to lead Christians to accepts homosexuality of something to be openly proclaimed, and to be proud of. Tellingly, no one of the promoters of this strange “way” seem to ask himself why there was never any need of it before. Was Christianity unmerciful these last 2000 years?
Beware of this kind of “moderate” positions. They aren’t Christian, at all.
The same happens with some Catholics who say that they are contrary to so-called same-sex marriage, but are not against so-called civil partnerships. They do not understand that if Christianity has done without civil partnership for 2,000 years it was because of … basic Christianity.
Unfortunately, nowadays the very concept of scandal has disappeared. Accommodating people’s real or perceived need is the real priority, and people therefore start to think, in all seriousness and without seeing any problem, how Christianity can be bent to do it.
The idea that it should be a problem at all that a faggot living with his “partner” would not have his “relationship” with him legally regulated, or would not be able to visit him in the hospital, or would not have any right to his “pension pot” by “divorce” would have caused justified scandal, mixed with amused irony and salacious comments, in every generation before ours. Nowadays, people very seriously think about them, and think them a societal issue. This is how de-Christianised our societies have become.
These are merely two example. There are many others.
Be always vigilant, and reflect whether what you are reading on the internet would have been considered sound by your grand-grandmother.
Truth never changes. It’s as simple as that.
Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
This come from an important document issues in 1961, “Religiosorum Institutio”, a document written when the Great Mess had been already announced, but the Church still abounded in good, orthodox men not afraid of facts.
Many are the sound points made by this document, and certainly there is no trace of the modern desire to please. This is a document written to be approved by Jesus, not the adulterers in (or rather, outside of) the pews.
Please read carefully the expression above, and take note as follows:
1. Pederasty and homosexuality are put in the same ballpark. This is a point on which this blog continuously insist, and could never insist for long enough.
2. The tendency to homosexuality is called evil, because it is. And it is because homosexuality is evil, exactly as pederasty is evil. It is a madness of the modern, V Ii church, fueled by a mighty homosexual mafia, that the two are now often kept strictly separated, and homosexuality is only mentioned to remind one that the Church “loves the sinner”, at least implying she is fine with his homosexuality. She is not. She cannot be.
Homosexuality cannot be a sin, in the same way as pedophilia cannot be a sin, because only an action can be a sin. But this does not make them less wrong in the least. It is because the tendency is so evil, that the sin is so sharply condemned. And again, this is the first generation that is so stupid that it cannot even make these elementary distinctions, and waxes lyrical saying that fornication is also a sin, therefore the church considers sodomy in the same way as fornication. My foot.
The sin of sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance, ladies and gentlemen. There is a fundamental difference between sins going with nature, and sins going against nature. That our generation is so blinded from political correctness that it refuses to see such evident facts – therefore normalising perversion – is another testimony of the way the V II generation is trying to annihilate common sense, and with it every sensus catholicus, in a desperate fight against sanity shared with the secular world, and applauded by it.
It is a great consolation to know what wherever one looks in the Church of the past one finds all the Truth, all the reassurance, all the sound doctrine the present hierarchy is utterly unwilling and, I suspect, even unable to give us.
The First Fag President of the once glorious United States has invited the first so-called “gay” so-called “bishop” of a so-called “church” to give the final so-called blessing at some speech or other some days ago. With the usual class, the “bishop queen” twitted “OMG!”, thinking he is a screaming, stupid, self-centred adolescent girl. Which he is not. Adolescent, I mean. Anagraphically, at least.
On reading this, I reflected on the perversion of modern times, when Christianity has become such a faint remembrance, and perversion so mainstream, that even a POTUS can get away with what Barry just did without being flayed to death.
Today, on Good Friday, we can reflect on how many, in a position of power, crucify Christvevery day not (only) with their private sins, but by openly attacking Christian morality at every level: social, legal, and religious.
And then I thought: what if Barry would, faithful to his “inclusive” creed, suddenly discover a same-sex attraction for the girlish “OMG” “bishop”? Look, Obama is enough of a spineless wimp, to the point that he has even openly admitted he doesn't smoke out of sheer fear of his wife. And then there's Michelle O.: a woman with jaws good for a Spielberg movie, and whose entire demeanour and attitude to life says she would so much have wanted to be born with a willie, but she had to find an emasculated puppet in order to become the President Of The United States By Proxy. Oh, the injustice of modern times…
What if, then, Barry were to embrace his already rather developed inner faggot, and discover a sudden same-sex attraction for the ageing wannabe bishop “OMG!” Robinson? Let's look at it.
The so-called bishop's “lover” would have to recognise that the “Spirit” has led the so-called bishop to this new “experience”. He would have to be “supportive”, of course. That's the first obstacle gone.
Michelle “Jaws” Obama would have to recognise, at least in public, that even her husband – whom she certainly considers a third-class loser, first-class nuisance and utter idiot – has a “right” to his “happiness”, and it would be too late now to start defending traditional roles. The daughters are also, in fact, old enough to be “punished with a baby”, so they should not be shocked too much at something so “normal” like their father undergoing a “new phase”. That's obstacle two (and, as far as they count anything, mini-obstacles three and four) gone.
And then there is the most important obstacle: the voters. But you see, the beauty of being a POTUS at the second mandate is that you don't have to stand for an election ever again. If your name is Barry O. you can just sit and relax, polishing your image for the well-paid speeches to come. Playing more golf, if possible. Things like that. Voters are not your concern anymore. Your wife is, of course. But only if she is near enough to strike.
The voters would be, obviously, severely tested. One thinks of the Black vote, to a good extent not consisting of atheist trannies. But hey, if they plaud the POTUS when he invites the faggot bishop to bless people, why should they criticise him when the President himself practices what he preaches?
And so we are nearing the happy end: in this XXI century of ours the President of the United States could leave his wife and family and run away with an homosexual so-called cleric and the majority of the Country would have no other choice, if they have a shred of coherence left, than to look and applaud.
Then Michelle would be free to go on and have – if technology allows – her own little operation herself.
Happiness all around.
Read on Rorate about the latest antics of Cardinal Dolan (already mentioned on this blog). The key passage is this:
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York praised University of Missouri football star Michael Sam for coming out as gay, saying he would not judge the athlete for his sexual orientation. “Good for him,” Dolan said in an interview with NBC's “Meet the Press” airing Sunday.
“I would have no sense of judgment on him,” Dolan continued.
Note the following:
1. Dolan mentions, as Satan himself would do, the Bible. His Christianity is the hearsay version, “do not judge”. Dalai Lama style. Francis-cum-Nelson Mandela. Woodstock galore.
2. the Cardinal obviously quotes Francis. Michael Voris will criticise Dolan, but not Francis. Mysteries of TV production.
3. He (Dolan) puts on the same plane faithful spouses and clearly sodomite – at least implicitly – athletes. “Bravo”, he says to both.
You see? The ones follow the Bible by being chaste spouses, the others follows the Bible by inserting their accessory into the dirtiest hole (and probably, not the only hole) of another man (and probably, many men). Both of them – the chaste couple and the sodomites – are, says the Cardinal, deserving of praise.
No sense of judgment. Bravo.
Now: if the athlete had said “I am afflicted by a homosexual attraction, but I believe all that the Church believes and will therefore avoid the sin of sodomy and pray the Lord that he may give me the grace to overcome this affliction”, the Cardinal would still have been wrong, because homosexuality is a sexual perversion and something about which one does not go about giving scandal. Would the Cardinal say the following words about a person who had outed himself as a pedophile?
“God bless ya. I don't think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, 'Bravo.'”
But it is actually far worse than that. Dolan's satanical words are clearly an endorsement for the homosexual lifestyle, proclaimed and lived in scandal. This is a Prince of the Church. What times we live in.
It seems to me here that the Francis effect is making all his devastating effects heard. Cardinal Dolan would very probably never have dared to say anything similar to this, had Benedict been still in power. But now that a new wind is blowing, our over-nourished weathervane promptly changes direction, and plauds sexual perversion in the spirit – not the actual words; but the spirit, yes – of what Francis says.
And so the game goes on. Francis starts the mess and clearly indicates, without going all the way, where he wants to lead the Church. His colonels promptly take the hint, and deliver. Lio ensues.
In the nuChurch of Francis that oh so sharply condemns careerism, they are all aligning to follow the new party line, knowing the man will reward a certain type of prelate. They know the Peron in Rome will appoint others like him to bishops, archbishops and cardinals. Dolan obviously has one aim in mind: to be the new Humble One. I doubt he will encourage the practice of fasting, though.
When I think of the Vatican hierarchy of today, “Brothel without boobs” is what comes more frequently to my mind. No, it's not a strong image. I'd prefer the chances of salvation of any prostitute than those of Cardinals like this one.
Francis is, as we all know, not one to judge. If you smell of favela and come from the “outskirts”, or else say to him you are “of good will”, he will leave you free to do whatever you please without as much as raising an eyebrow. Actually, though, it seems he does perfectly nothing even when the Head of State (Italians would use “head” in another context now; but I digress…) of France, the old teenager Francois Hollande, comes to visit.
Last time I looked in the news, sodomy was not part of the agenda between the two. Why is that? Because Francis is not interested in talking about it, of course.
Think of this: even when Western leaders met Soviet leaders, there were always mentions of the value they share. No Western Head of State would visit Russia without at least having on record that the situation of perverts over there has been addressed. The Pope, though, does not think that the issue of sodomy be worth at least a polite statement about the Vatican's and the Teenager's total disagreement on the matter.
This, as just another wave of Manif pour Tous takes place in France.
If Francis were a decent Pontiff rather than a disgraceful… bishop of Rome, he would not miss one occasion to support the brave men and women fighting for basic morality in France. Instrad, he abundantly shows that to him they are an embarrassment.
Being Francis, he will certainly throw some bird food to the pigeons every now and then: he does have to if he want to show he is Catholic, uncomfortable as this will let him feel. But everytime he can show to the secular society how much he does not care he will do, as the Hollande visit clearly shows.
Hollande should have come back to France with every Frenchman knowing he is the enemy of Christ and his Church. This can be done diplomatically but effectively. Again, look at the West's behaviour toward Putin: is there anyone in the West not knowing what the stance of the Post-Christian Western European States is? As it is, Hollande came back knowing from that corner he has nothing to fear.
This is how Francis betrays Christ and His Church, whilst he collects magazine covers from the adoring godless world.
“A lot of people complain and don't tolerate it but with all respect I say that homosexuality is a defective way of manifesting sexuality, because that has a structure and a purpose, which is procreation,” Sebastian told Malaga newspaper Sur.
The interview was published Sunday, a week after the Spaniard was named as one of 19 new cardinals chosen by the pope, to be officially appointed February 22.
“We have a lot of defects in our bodies. I have high blood pressure. Am I going to get angry because they tell me that? It is a defect I have that I have to correct as far as I can,” said Sebastian, who is the archbishop emeritus of the northern city of Pamplona.
“Pointing out a defect to a homosexual is not an offence, it is a help because many cases of homosexuality can be recovered and normalised with adequate treatment. It is not an offence, it is esteem. When someone has a defect, the good friend is the one who tells him.”
These words come from the interview the non-voting soon-to-be Cardinal Aguilar gave a couple of days ago. Predictably, the Gaystapo is having a hissy fit.
Let me make a couple of short observations:
1. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion, not a physical “defect”. To put it on the same plane as high blood pressure (something that can be simply hereditary, and is simply that: a health issue) is to downplay the entire issue atrociously. The way the Cardinal puts it, homosexuality simply “happens”; one “has it” just like he might have high blood pressure. Don't expect many to be impressed by his words. Unless we start to call things with their name, things will never change.
2. The cardinal wanted to speak out, but what came out was a meow. He says “with all respect I say etc.” Would he say “with all respect I say pedophilia is a defective way of manifesting sexuality?” By being such a pussycat, he is formally asking the Gaystapo to attack him. They would attack him anyway, of course; but to attack a lion is rather more difficult than to attack a pussycat.
Political correctness has led to such an oblivion of the most elementary rules of Christianity that even those very rare princes of the Church who dare to say something against homosexuality do so in a whisper, not without saying “with all respect” beforehand, and making the most harmless of comparisons.
Meowing never changes anything. Roaring does.
That ridiculous tool in drags going around under the usurped name of “Archbishop of Canterbury” has given another little proof of his total ignorance of the very basics of Christianity.
He is quoted by Vatican Insider with the following words:
[it is] “completely unacceptable and profoundly wrong to look down on, belittle, isolate and cast out those who have different sexual orientations. Homophobia is a huge sin.”
“Mundabor” – they used to say at school – “what does the author want to say”?
He wants to say the following:
1. Every “looking down” of “belittling” of a faggot is “homophobia”. (Yes, ma’am; this is very gay).
2. God makes faggots, as it is clear from the context in which he uses the word “orientation”.
3. To “belittle” a faggot is a huge sin, but we are not told what the sin of the sodomites is. Hey, it’s an “orientation”, though, so come on…
Welby is the typical example of the effeminate society we live in; a society for which God’s laws count for nothing, and the protection of perverts come to the point that even the “belittling” is a “very grave sin”. One would be tempted to ask Mrs Justine what a “sin” is according to her. It can’t be what displeases God, then in this case sodomy would be right there at the top.
It must be what displeases modern sensitivities. Then the wannabe archbishop in rags is spot on. Very grave indeed.
This man is seriously confused. Or perhaps a closet homosexual.
Just what the so-called “c of e” needs to go to hell as soon as possible.
This, my dear readers, is the problem when a President tries to polish his image by honouring and being photographed with fags: fags are perverts, and they are going to get themselves into trouble, and the President with them.
The young fag in question, a Caleb Laieski, was managing to build a rather precocious political career as “fag liaison”, or “youth and diversity liaison”, for the mayor pf Phoenix, who obviously considers it extremely important to know first hand what young faggots think and, it is to be supposed, how they act. Clearly, Obama could not let such a photo-op go to waste. Unfortunately for all parties involved, the “think” part may make them look beautiful among Libtards, but the “act” part led to statutory rape.
Alas, it turns out the young fag was even completely aware he was committing statutory rape and resisted at first; but in the end his perversion got the better of even his political ambition. One horny fag, this one.
Lesson for everyone past kindergarten age: a pervert is a pervert is a pervert. Scratch the veneer of White House respectability, and the truth will come out.
Notice that the fag doesn’t write to his young victim “this is wrong”. He writes to him, in so many words, “this could damage my career”.
So selfless. I am moved to tears.
Also notice that – as some of the commenters have pointed out – there seem to have been no fathers around, and it is alleged the mother of the youngest was in agreement with the sodomitical activity of her child. This is the liberal society at its best; that is, its worst. No father figure around, mommy thinks with her liberal v@gin@, and allows her son to be thoroughly perverted so she can continue herself to do what she pleases in an utterly non-judgmental environment. Unnatural parents begetting unnatural sons. The sins of the… mothers, and all that.
I know, I know: dyed-in-the-wool Liberals can cope with Roman Polanski sleeping with a thirteen-years-old child, so they will not have for this fag anything else than sugary understanding. To them a fag is more worthy of protection than a Panda cub, or the Polar Bear.
Still, many other people, who are not so blind, might begin to see behind the thin veil of liberal progressivism, and discover the ugly truth of satanical perverted behaviour.
Well done, Barry Boy.
You deserve the photo with the statutory rapist fag, for future memory.
In another blunder, probably not unintentional, the Vatican has awarded a young faggot an honour for some medical advancement I do not even care to copy and paste here.
I do not know whether this is an attempt to show “faggotry friendliness” or just that the people responsible did not know the young chap is a homo, but there you are, “Vatican honours “gay” scientist” is now everywhere.
Now, it is not known to me the Vatican pre V II ever honoured Soviet scientists, or Nazi medical researchers. Why? Because to honour a single accomplishment – even if useful in himself – would have meant to unavoidably further, or be seen to further, the much bigger ideological issue behind the fact.
If one is a Communist, he must not receive any honour, period. Why? Because it’s not honourable to be a Communist, it’s an infamy.
The same applies to sexual perverts, like this young chap. To honour him means to allow him to further promote his diabolical agenda. Those who honour vocal perverts simply make the work of the devil.
This was a big mistake. The Church is there to promote Catholicism, not faggotry.
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
For many years now has the Gaystapo tried to force their perverted views into the cinema screens and living rooms of the West. Due also to the extreme infiltration of perverts and their friends in Hollywood, where Liberalism is the only accepted religion, they started to make inroads in cinema productions, not as object of more or less amused disgust, but as “new normality”.
At first, faggots were the “friend of the protagonist” in, say, romantic comedies. Visible, horrible, but not at the centre of the action. Then came “Brokeback Mountain”, and faggotry claimed, for the first time in mainstream cinema, “equality” with normality. Needless to say, real and honorary faggots (like David “brown nose” Cameron) were all there queueing at the cinema in front of the press.
After a while, it became endemic: I particularly remember the trailer of a faggot comedy with Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor (not only did I not see the movie, but I never went to see a film of either again), but there were several example both sides of the Atlantic, with the BBC (the Buggers Broadcasting Corporation) having the faggot element in basically every film they co-produced (the “History Boys” one, and the one with the “Marigold Hotel” to mention just two).
Then something, I am told, started to happen. Besides the at times questionable success at the box office, the DVD and TV sales started to lag. Families do not buy or rent the romantic comedy with the “positive” faggot very much, and TV stations must pay more attention than liberal film producers to what they do. Suddenly, things started to go back (or forward…).
I am a rather attentive and frequent cinema goer, and the turnaround seems very clear to me. I haven’t seen “faggot friends” of the movie star for a while, and I have actually seen a movie (“Seven Psychopats”) with a beautiful quip just at the end that only a couple of years before would have caused a storm (remember: Vince Vaughn had to “apologise” for his character saying that the Toyota Prius “is gay”; which, by the way, it certainly is).
The last episode of this slow faggoty Stalingrad is the recent movie about Liberace. Notwithstanding two Hollywood heavyweights and a very media effective, if very stupid, campaign around Michael Douglas, the movie didn’t work. In Germany it is considered the flop of the year, and I was yesterday informed in the US it did not even find a distribution network, ending as a “straight to DVD” that is the best sign of a production that bombed. Now think of this: in order for the movie not to even get a chance it must have been considered radioactive, and the danger of losing money far worse than every bullying and threatening of the Gaystapo. In the end, consumers choose, and I think we can now confidently say the consumers have spoken and said they do not consider perversion normal: they keep their children away for it, have no time for it, have no money for it, and have no interest in pushing the faggoty agenda beyond the ideologically motivated “token gay friends” of some of them.
The people have chosen, and the Gaystapo can go wherever they please. I do not doubt it will be many years before the cleaning has completed, but I can’t imagine there is a going back now.
How the times have changed. From Brokeback Mountain to broke production houses. It serves them right.
This video is forty minutes of pure Catholic teaching, as our shepherds cannot give us anymore.
The likes of Archbishop Nichols, Cardinal Woelki, and Bishop Francis of Rome could do much worse than listen to this.
They are in great need of Catholic instruction.
Note the approach of Father Rodriguez: absolute fidelity to the teaching of the Church, and no “respecting of persons”. Splendidly, he quotes Pope Francis exactly to explain what Pope Francis is not doing. Please also note he does not read Francis through Benedict a bit.
This is truly, truly good. Don’t miss it.
Yes. It’s as bad as this.
Guido Barilla just gave us a wonderful example of stupidity and cowardice united in the same person.
First he gives an interview in which he says Barilla is for the traditional family and faggots are welcome to buy their pasta somewhere else; when the latter predictably get screeching like it’s going out of fashion, he backpedals in such a furious and shameful way you wonder if he isn’t one of them himself.
This is so gay.
One can one be so stupid that he does not understand that these days if you say a word against the Gaystapo you must expect retaliation, at least in words. How can he be so shameless that he does not understand he will look like the French army in 1940. How can he, most of all, be such an hypocrite as to first try to play the “family” card and then tell all supporters of the family they are so utterly wrong.
Punish Barilla and do not buy their pasta and other products anymore. It’s not that there is lack of choice. Among the mainstream producers, smart buyers buy De Cecco anyway, and they know why.
Stupid, hypocrite and coward Guido Barilla will now hopefully be boycotted by perverts and normal people alike.
It would serve him right.
What a faggot.
In the hope this may give you some slight consolation – or at least a laugh; though the problem is very serious – in the midst of the antics of the Bishop of Rome, I thought it fitting to report about a layman styling himself as a priest, a Desmond Tutu, certainly known to those of you who appreciate comedy.
Said Mr Tutu participated to another of the many satanic ways in which the satanic UN waste our money: the opening of a “gay-right campaign” in Cape Town.
The man – if he is a real man; at this point it is legitimate to doubt – is on record with the following, utterly and entirely satanical, statement:
“I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.”
It is difficult to explain to a Christian in a better way the mechanism through which people pave their way to hell.
This man ticks all the boxes: he is in open rebellion to the undisputed Christian tradition of 2,000 years, and his rebellion is so strong and so explicit that it leads Tutu to the extreme, and actually rather logical, consequence: to him, it is better to go to hell than to accept God's “homophobic” rules on sodomy.
Wannabe little god against One True God. Who is going to win?
Read the statement, if you will, again, and then again. The pride of it. The arrogance. The shamelessness. The blasphemy.
Lucifer couldn't have said it better, and Tutu has openly chosen to belong to him, in a very public way.
Many people seem to believe no one really desires hell, and those who end up there are actually “surprised” by an unexpected outcome. This is, clearly, not Mr. Tutu's case. Unless he repents – and he better do so publicly, methinks – it is extremely difficult to imagine how he can avoid that his will be done; unless, of course, God gave us His rule as a form of joke, or to allow us to change them according to the wishes of the UN, or of satanical individuals on an ego trip.
Now you might say: “but Mundabor! Who are you to judge?”.
I reply that I am certainly not condemning Tutu to any hell – though if it were for me to choose, of course I would. I would like a shot. – Here, though, it is very clear that -bar an always welcome repentance – Tutu has condemned himself to hell in the most obvious of ways. Not because I say so, but because God says so.
I know, I know.
The Bishop of Rome would tell Mr. Tutu: “but do good, we will meet there”.
I must say that if you ask me, the suspicion is more than legitimate that the two will, in fact, meet there.
It should be evident to many already – and it will be more, I am afraid, in the years to come – that Western democracies are becoming the biggest threat to Western freedom.
In a world more and more devoid of Christian values, and made more and more stupid by lack of proper education, freedom is dying a slow death.
In Anglo-Saxon countries, millions of young men and women think they are educated because they have a degree, though they cannot even write. Their cultural horizon stops at the X-Factor and Lady Gaga. They inform themselves from the crappy free “newspapers” they find at train stations. They are children making children – outside of marriage, now almost as a majority; but hey, “who am I to judge?” – who would not be able to assess any situation other than by following what the army of equally ignorant sheep around them does.
Add to this that, more than twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism as a global threat, the West has remained without any significant external enemy, and even the wave of highly-organised Islamist terrorism has been, if we are realistic, almost completely destroyed and certainly reduced to a social irrelevance in less than a decade by virtue of smart intelligence work, and determined military action.
As a result, the already dumb sheep, unable to even spell but – other than the illiterate of centuries past – with an extremely high opinion of themselves, have never experienced a real threat to their societal structure, and have never had in front of their eyes the spectacle of a vast number of European countries deprived of elementary freedoms. They have, therefore, neither the intellectual not the practical instruments to understand the value of freedom.
To these people, other perceived “values” are more important than freedom. Not believing in God, they make gods of themselves and need to be utterly persuaded of the fundamental goodness of the little gods they think they are. Everything that threatens the perceived picture of their own goodness will have to be sacrificed in order for them to continue to feel good with themselves.
At this point, words like “hate crime” begin to emerge; the sheep, too stupid to understand that in a free society hate – even the real one – can never be a crime, will soon run to the help of the allegedly “hated”, firstly because they feel like as many little gods of niceness, and secondly because they desperately need to feel they are not the dumb idiots they in the end know they are. In an orgy of self-satisfaction, the measures against “hate” will become more and more harsh, and their application more stringent. “Hate” will become everything the majority of dumb sheep clearly sees as different from themselves. All this, cela va sans dire, in a perfectly democratic manner; then when the majority doesn't care for freedom, their democracy will make the work for them without the need for any blood to be spilled.
This society – the society the West is creating every day – will be eerily similar to Nazism, at least to the Nazism perceived by the usual German sheep in the Thirties: nice, harmless, friendly people loving their beer and pretzel, and seriously persuaded they are actually the best people on Earth whilst living in the middle of abortion, euthanasia, heathenism, and ferocious thoughts-control. It will be instructive to keep in mind that, though certainly in different circumstances, the Nazis went to power in a fully democratic way.
It is a legend that democracies protect freedoms. Democracies do not protect freedoms. People do. If a people's understanding of basic freedom deteriorates, their democracy will soon reflect the change.
If you think we are very far from a situation like this, I seriously invite you to think again. More likely than not, some of yours neighbours already wouldn't really object to you being put to jail for expressing “hate” if they think it is a serious threat to the image they have of themselves (say: by being a Christian, and saying it). The number of such people is clearly on the increase. They might not necessarily oppose your faith as long as it remains in your bedroom, but will consider it not tolerable – and worthy of detention – if it goes against the pagan god of their own goodness and, astonishingly, tolerance. They are stupid, and illiterate. They do not understand freedom, much less Christianity. They are in love with themselves, and will desperately cling to their love until the day they will have to die, and their friends will “celebrate” their “goodness”. This cult of one's own goodness requires the “intolerant” to be punished without any… tolerance.
Some people think the usual Nazi of the Thirties was a “hating” beast filled with hate for a world or perceived enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazi Germany was a perfectly ordered, peaceful, prosperous society enjoying their tranquility and defending themselves against the, erm, “haters”; haters clearly recognised as such by society and one's better, and therefore uncritically accepted as such whilst enjoying one's tea and scones (or rather, beer and pretzel).
Do not make the mistake of thinking your own neighbour is much different that the friendly lady or lad in Nazi Germany. Your own neighbour already accepted “hate” legislation and homosexual marriage, and would say to you “bullying” is so very bad, it must be severely punished, surely? They might soon start resembling their counterparts in, say, Magdeburg circa 1937. It will merely take more time.
The world was freed from the horrors of Nazism by kicking and bombing their ass to the tune of around, if memory serves, eight million dead when both soldiers and civilians are added (the number might be different, but you get my drift). But there is no seeing what earthly power can be a threat to the extremely wealthy, technologically advanced, and militarily powerful Western societies, now slowly sliding toward Nazism out of lack of faith in God, and a strong belief in their own goodness.
We must pray, and pray more. We must stop being appeasers now, if we want to have some chance of becoming the persecuted of tomorrow. Most of all, we must resist this horrible climate of political correctness, and stop being nice with the Nazis.
If you think yourself too fine to say “faggot”, you will one day have to be fine enough to have them instructing your children, making your laws, ruling your life, and oppressing your religion.
Still is not too late. But the number of Nazis next door is growing. Only a robust cultural offensive – also consisting in the rejection of political correctness – will stop the Nazi sheep.
Some “who am I to judge” Jesuits might do worse than reading a bit of St. Catherina of Siena.
I am reliably informed (though in my ignorance I have never read extensively from this great Saint; a lack I will try to remedy soon) that the words Our Lord had to say to her about the matter of sodomy are as follows:
“They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature] . . . but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them. . . . It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”
Interesting words, isn’t it?
Extremely homophobic, I know. What a hater. His website should be taken down. Perhaps the police should be called. Who does he think he is, this Jesus? And why does he believe in demons?
Doesn’t He know Bishop Francis has said to atheist words on the lines of “but do good. We’ll meet there”?
Doesn’t He know sodomy can be just a little “sin of the youth”?
Doesn’t He know sodomy isn’t forbidden in any European countries?
Seriously, this Christ here should take a long, hard look at himself.
It’s no surprise Bishop Francis doesn’t like Him.
This one is exactly the kind of man who would count rosaries.
Funny short article from the often very funny “Onion” which, though written from the wrong perspective, shows the Bishop of Rome is widely perceived to have made a mess of Catholic things – from our perspective at least -.
If you have strong objections to the “f word”, don't click.
Let us imagine that it were – absurdly – discovered that homosexuality is a genetic malformation that can be discovered and cured before birth.
Do you think many “liberal” parents would choose to have their own baby born homosexual?
In the wake of a controversy between the blogging priest and the blogging queen (search, and you shall find) I would like to offer my two cents in matter of what I see as proper terminology, and proper behaviour for everyone.
I use the word homosexuality to describe the perverted attraction toward people of the same sex. Concerning this, then Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say:
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
There can be no mistake here: the churche hates homosexuality, because homosexuality is intrinsically evil. This not only corresponds to 2000 years of Christian teaching, but also to sanity and common sense. The one who is not disgusted at the thought of sodomy isn't better than the one who is not disgusted at the thought of incest, bestiality, or child rape. Still, the Church will tell you that the inclination of a person to incest (or homosexuality; or child rape) is in itself not a sin as long as no consent has been given to the thought. I never see this argument used to say that the Church “loves child rapists and hates child rape”. I wonder why?
Therefore, yours truly uses the following words to mean the following:
Homosexuality: that particular kind of sexual perversion consisting in sexual attraction for those of one's sex. Homosexuality is a perversion, and it is in the same ballpark as incest, & Co.
Homosexual: the person afflicted by this particular sexual perversion. This person might try to be a good a Catholic, and not consent to his perversion. In this case he might not sin, but he is still a pervert, and the fact that he fights the good fight may exclude the sin, but it will not negate the perversion.
Faggot (Fag, Sod, Sodomite, Queen): the man who commits the sin of the sodomites. Often, he is vocal about it, adding scandal to sin.
Homosexuality is a perversion. It is extremely bad, revolting, disgusting, an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The homosexual who does not consent to his homosexual attraction may not sin in the particular instance, but he is not less of a pervert than the paedophile who does not consent to his own kind of abomination. Whilst we try to be charitable to everyone, we can't make what is bent straight for the sake of niceness, and I personally wouldn't want either as neighbour (thank you very much; and you're welcome), particularly if I had children.
“Oh, but he is sooo chaste”
Bully for him. Wish him all the best. My next rosary is for him, that he may get rid of his perversion by God's grace. Sincerely.
But would you have a pedophile as neighbour because he says – or you think – that he is reforming himself? Thought not. If in doubt, ask your wife.
The faggot is, in all probability, Satan's fodder. He bears very clear signs of reprobation, and extremely strong ones if he also gives scandal. I can't imagine many of them repenting, and I can obviously not imagine a single one of them escaping hell who does not repent.
It is a great mystery to me how modern Western societies have de-coupled their judgment of the child rapist from the one of the sodomite, but the most probable reason is because they have forgotten what a sin is: the violation of God's law, rather than the act of ” harming” someone. Sheer stupidity might play a role, though.
The question remains how a homosexual is supposed to behave concerning his affliction. I get rather angry when I read of homosexual, and allegedly pious ones, insisting that they be allowed to “out” themselves.
Does society allow people to say “I am a Caholic and I would love to foxtrot my dog, or my mother, or the neighbour's little child?”. No, it doesn't. The one who has such perversion is required to pray very much and shut up more, lest he gives scandal.
In every demand that one's perversion be “acknowledged” lies the implicit demand that such perversion be accepted. There can never be anything like “Homos for Christ”, because the very shouting that one is a homo goes against the very idea of shouting that one is a Christian.
In fact, the very fact that one is a homo precludes him the Priesthood, and for extremely good reasons. Here it is recognised that a great flaw is present: a flaw that is there even in those instances in which no sin occurs. Said in a blunter way, it's never OK to be a “homosexual Christian”, because it's never OK to be a homosexual.
Therefore, the homo is required to think, speak, and behave straight, without any “born that way” bullcrap. There can be no excuses of “it would be as absurd for me to play straight as for you to play bent”. God does not make any man a homosexual, He makes every man man. Therefore, the homo who adopts a manly behaviour is still going with, not against, his nature, and is conseuenly rightly required to behave accordingly.
Any other behaviour is scandalous, implies the desire for acceptance of one's perversion, and unavoidably leads to the demand of its approval.
There. Now you even have Mundabor's code of conduct for Catholic homos.
What more can you want.
And it came to pass the British Fag Government decided words mean what they would like them to, and brains can be switched off at leisure.
As a consequence, men can be called “wives” and women “husbands”.
One would say this is too stupid even for Maria Miller and David Cameron, but this is not the case.
Not only David Cameron and Maria Miller are so stupid, but so is a country that has decided not to think, in order that it might feel good with itself.
Satanical. Preposterous, but still satanical.
Read here on the usual Rorate a well-written (and beautifully translated) article appeared on an internet site of the Orthodox.
Besides being well argued, the article points out to something about which I have written often in the past, and will continue to insist upon on this blog: God doesn't do sexual perversion, and a sexual pervert most certainly can't be a priest.
One of the safest ways to recognise a sound thinking Christian from one polluted from the modern religion of “inclusiveness” is his attitude towards homosexuality. The sound Christian considers homosexuality as being in the same ballpark as other sexual perversions like pedophilia, incest or bestiality, whilst the polluted one subscribes to the “born that way” mantra. At this point he will start to say “gay” instead of homosexual, and slowly but surely this sexual perversion will become just another way of being normal. From there to not objecting to a homosexual priest the step is automatic, and the most confused might even consider him “a saint” because he is a celibate pervert. Erm, let me think….
The article points out to another hard but salutary truth: far from seeking the friendship and, so to speak, embrace of other homosexuals (with actually fairly predictable dangers) the homosexual priest must recognise his utter lack of fitness to be a priest and leave the priesthood. There is simply no other way, in the same way as it is unthinkable that a priest may be a celibate pedophile and think he is in any way, shape or form fit for the priesthood.
Whilst it is sad to see the Orthodox also have to deal with a liberal strain among them, I reflect the struggle between popularity and appeasement on one side and straight defence of Christian values on the other side is as old as Christianity himself. When history gives us the picture of a solid, monolithic Church it is not because those ages were deprived of dissent or internal subversives, but because the one and the others were effectively fought against. The Church is now doing a horrible job of this fight, and in some of them -even wearing black shoes – the doubt is justified as to whether they want the fight in the first place. We, the sound Christians, carry on regardless.
Well, I am just informed through the excellent Veneremur Cernui blog that, hear hear, over half of all sexual assaults in military are of a homosexual nature
That’s some busy faggot, I daresay.
Faggots now “working” in what is supposed to be the most powerful army on earth, and is rapidly emasculating itself in a way that would remind one of the Roman Empire, if the latter had ever tolerated fags among their soldiers.
Have some fun with the figures in the article (brutal number reality, not sociological analysis) and reflect on the effect the “gayness” (English: faggotry) now paving its dirty way in the US Military will have in five or ten years. Manly men will be more and more unmotivated to choose the profession, as the bitches slowly take over the shop. The homosexual culture will advance without pause, until they have “sensitivity courses” for soldiers.
Oops, I think they have…
This is going to be very bad, and very “gay”. Like the so-called Anglican priests, but without the collar.
Allow me to quote the author of the blog post.
This is insane.
Damon and Michael Douglas put in great performances, as does the rest of the (star-studded) cast, who all deserve sincere praise for their commitment to this project, which others in the industry were reportedly too scared to touch. However, whilst both leads put in commendably watchable performances, I am not quite sure how much they were really able to feel some of the emotions they perform.
Read here (or perhaps not) the considerations of a chap who appears not to be a religious, but who is still published by the web site of the British Jesuits. I have written and reblogged about these people already.
The entire article does not mention, not even en passant, the sin of the Sodomites as being reprehensible in any way, shape or form. People simply are homosexual in the same way as they are, say, blond. There is a mention of “darker issues”, but one is not given to understand whether they relate to sodomy in any way. “The Big Sleep” was also very “dark” in its issues, come to that.
But the author goes further than that: whilst he questions the credibility of the source used for this movie, he notices the initial story was rejected as “too gay”, and the fact he says this movie is now one of the straightest he has seen in years not only tells you something about the movies he must normally watch, but also clearly indicates the movie lacks “gayness”.
The pearl is at the end: the actors must be “commended” for their “commitment” to a project other were “too scared to touch”; but you see, the main characters still aren’t, in real life, homos, so he wonders whether they are really “able to feel some of the emotions they perform”. In this man’s mind homo actors would have been better, of course. They would have had the right “feelings”, you know. Again, this film is not faggoty enough.
I thought actors are supposed to portray emotions they do not feel, which is why they can portray serial killers, and the like; but apparently a film about perverts requires perverts to be made properly, though the commitment to the portrayal of perversion deserves, how can it be otherwise, “sincere praise”.
Yes, this review must be from a Jesuit site. I wish I could say to you that if a religious instead of a layman had written the review, the Christian content would have been at least vaguely perceptible. Alas, this is not the case, and more likely than not such a writer would have abused of the initials after his name to be even more supportive of the sin of the sodomites. Jesuits are so keen to let you know how open minded they are. Heck, nowadays one must wonder about the odds of a Jesuit being straight in the first place.
This once great religious order is dying. The Pope complains such orders cling on their own money. The rot they have everywhere, he is unable or unwilling to see, much less correct.
I have read around in a blog I prefer not to mention an interesting post concerning “intrinsic disorder”. Leaving aside the sugary parts (the “thoughtful debate” therein mentioned, with the perfectly meaningless conclusion that “the Church must listen to the gay community”, but also “the gay community must listen to the Church”, which is a soundbite meaning perfectly nothing) what surprised me is the analogy between gluttony and homosexuality. The very fact that such an analogy could be made is in my eyes another example of a subterranean Protestant current easily to be found in Anglo-Saxon countries, perhaps not at an explicit level (the blogger in question does not make the comparison; many of the author’s readers will), but certainly at the level of underlying mental and moral category.
To an Italian, to even think to put gluttony and homosexuality on the same plane of “intrinsic disorder” flies in the face of common sense, and means to be no more than 2.5 inches away from Protestantism.
Common sense and Christian tradition have always made a great difference between those sins that go with nature, and those sins that go against it. Gluttony is certainly a capital sin, and at some point it will become a mortal sin, too. But the desire for food is, in itself, perfectly natural, rather indispensable for the human existence and completely God-given. This is absolutely not the case for someone whose “intrinsic disorder” consists in wanting to screw a dog, or his mother, or a person of the same sex, or a child. These kinds of behaviour all blatantly go against the very fabric of our human nature; far from being a wrong use of, or excessive dependence from, or even obsession with what is a God-given desire, they go frontally against the way God made us. God makes every healthy man with the desire for good food, but none with the desire of the abominations described above.
This seems to me such an obvious thought, that a discussion about it appears perfectly superfluous; but this is not the first time the way of thinking explained above is, if not openly professed (again, the post merely makes the point one can send yourself to hell with gluttony, and to get the excuse that “it is part of me” won’t help much in the end), at least invited, or involuntary suggested, in a public area.
We must recover sound thinking and common sense in the discussion about Catholic morals; and we can do it only if we serenely acknowledge, and openly profess, that there is an intrinsic gulf between the immoderate or misguided use of desires that are supposed to be there, and the perversion (per and versio, “wrong direction”) resulting in desires that are utterly disgusting, and conflicting with natural law.
This lack of proper focus, or if you wish this inability to see the forest of reason and common sense because of the obsession with the trees of this or that verse, or this or that public statement, of this or that desire to be “inclusive”, appears to me another speciality of the Protestant world, where the madness of sola scriptura has caused a century-long tradition in word-picking and a high specialisation in self-serving private interpretation of Scripture; until the point comes when the forest is completely out of sight.
We must reacquire the habit of talking straight and call a pervert a pervert and an abomination an abomination. There is an intrinsic and ontological difference, not merely a variance in degree, between the sin of a glutton and the sin of a sodomite. We must say this straight, because to mix up things in that way isn’t charitable, merely extremely dangerous for human souls, potentially including ours.
We recover proper Catholicism by recovering healthy thinking, and accepting that Christianity – and more so Catholicism – never go against sound wisdom and elementary common sense.
The Boy Scouts Of America (and not only of America; in other countries the situation is much worse) remind one of the Presbyterians: when the number started to dwindle, they gave away their values thinking marketing comes before ideals. The problem with that is that you generally end up failing on both sides.
I must smile when I read the pro-faggot faction claiming the decreasing membership can be countered by angering many of those who are still members, as if their belonging to the organisation were due to coincidence, or fate. It makes the same sense as to think that as boxing is declining, it is now fitting that aspiring boxers should also learn ballet.
I find the idea also stupid because it is not that the Boy Scouts have some special monopoly on their activity. They are based on territorial units which can easily detach themselves from the mother ship, or be cloned into rival organisations faithful to Christian values. The “brand” of the Boy Scouts may well still have some traction, but only as long as the existing organisation does not collide with the values of the generations before them, after which they will go, in the public perception, the way of the Presbyterians.
I do not have much hope Thursday's vote will go the right way: it is obvious that a caste of paid functionaries scared for their jobs will do all they can to have things their own way; but when the defections come, redundancies among them will be unavoidable anyway.
Loss of value, loss of prestige, and ultimately loss of jobs. This is what happens when an organisation formerly inspired by Christian values sells itself to the fashions of the day, and allows bad marketing to take the place of sound thinking.
Farewell, Boy Scouts of America? We'll soon know…