I knew feminists are hard cases of resentful, bitter ugliness – I have written about it in the past -, but this article actually drives home the extent of the madness.
It was already evident that by every feminist – feminism is, as an “ism”, unavoidably angry bitches – lesbianism can’t be far away, as it is in the nature of such an hostility toward the other sex to refuse any contact with it; or more probably, the other’s sex utter refusal to touch a feminist with a barge pole slowly pushes the already abnormal angry nutcases from latent dykedom into an outright one.
What is amusingly tragic is the concept that every God-given intercourse of the God-given way – yes, the one used in order to make children; dykes not excluded – would now have to be classified as rape. Which clearly means – if words have a meaning – that it should be outlawed and punished with a jail term.
From here it gets obviously funnier and funnier. How do these dykes imagine the continuation of the species, assuming they do not hate themselves so much as to wish their own (good!) and the human race’s (bad!) extinction? With artificial insemination of an all-lesbian, rape-free couple, one thinks. But how to obtain the necessary ingredient of healthy male sperm, considering no sane man would be interested in giving his semen so that two dykes can pervert a child? By raping the males, perhaps? Or, perchance, by keeping them in slave farms until they get to the appropriate age? And which dyke “couple” would, then, not prefer to abort the baby in the womb upon knowing it’s going to be a boy, instead of giving birth to another exemplar of the hated, violent, penis-armed, raping oppressor?
I am sure the dykes have some theory about that. I would not be surprised.
I am more surprised that they are allowed to vote, and not locked in some psychiatric institution where something useful could, if at all possible, be done for them.
Obama’s vanguard, no doubt.
If you have the stomach to watch the video in its entirety (frankly, I hadn’t) you will see ugly dykes – yes, dykes are ugly. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be dykes – strutting their unimpressive naked stuff in front of extremely patient boys, whose only answer to being spit in the face (as in: being spit in the face. No trace of police) is… continuing the recitation of the rosary.
Truly, hell and heaven separated by centimeters.
I commend the reaction of the boys, and their truly heroic patience (way beyond my means) in the face of provocation.
Still, let me tell you this: it is not right that in a traditionally Catholic country things have to come to this point, and reaction to such provocations is entirely legitimate.
If yours truly were to be the last of a long list of dictators in Argentina, these satanical people would get to feel the stick on their backs; and a blessed stick it would be that helps them to see reason, if at all possible.
You can say what you want of the Duce, but he knew how to deal with these people. I miss his, as they say today, “can do” attitude.
The Germans have a beautiful way to say it: Wer nicht hoeren will, muss fuehlen: “He who does not want to listen, must feel”. For the sake of clarity, the “feeling” is here the physical pain inflicted to them.
God willing, a time will come when those vicariously spitting on Christ and painting His followers with spray (and obviously spitting on Christian values besides spitting on people) get to feel , in this life, a small part of the suffering awaiting them in the next.
Please don’t give me any of the Gandhi stuff. Look at the video and see whether punishment would not be fully in order here.
All this, whilst our unworthily reigning Pope boasts about the great number of people who are baptised. I bet most of the dykes in the video are baptised, too.
We need to wake up. And Francis first.
Pray for those brave people in the video. God knows how they could keep the calm.
I fear I would have made a massacre.
I never thought I’d see the day someone asks for the priest to be fired because he doesn’t give communion to an unrepentant lesbian.
Most tragically, I never thought I’d see the day another priest would scold the lack of “pastoral sensitivity” of the first priest. If you ask me, it is priest number 2 who should be fired.
The New York Daily News has a whining article about a monster looking like Johann Hari on steroids. This circus article had a catholic funeral of her deceased mother, apparently a devout Catholic.
Fine. She had her funeral, though, didn’t she?
The trouble started when the lesbian daughter of the deceased, a lesbian of many years with the relevant “I truly think I am going to hell” look, thought that being at her mother funeral gave her right to receive communion.
Father Guarnizo, who seem to care for his job, refused to do so, even stooping so low as to tell the “woman” why she would not receive communion, something as a Catholci she should know like the Hail Mary. This, the good Father did, methinks, in an extremely, nay perhaps too gentle way.
You can read here the emotional report of the journalist (I have checked: a woman) stating the lesbian was “clearly distraught” (not,mind, at being a pervert looking like a joke; but at being denied Communion….) and describing the prompt reaction of her brother, who “immediately walked over” to assist the poor (one can say it) wretch.
If the story had ended here, there would be nothing much to report: “openly perverted woman is refused communion” shouldn’t even make headlines. The problem his, the circus article complained to the Archdiocese of Washington, probably asserting her “right” to receive communion (which is too absurd to mention) or perhaps meaning that even if the Church doesn’t give communion to openly practising lesbians looking like Johann Hari, she should do so at her mother’s funeral (even more absurd).
And here is where the scandal happened, because some “sensitive”, cowardly priest called Barry Knestout is said to have written a letter with these words:
“I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,
“I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”
Apart from the usually stupid refrain of the “celebration” progressive priests can really not live without, this chap seems to think giving communion is a matter of “sensitivity”. Heavens, when I was a child every child knew if you are in mortal sin you can’t receive communion, but Father Knestout has not been made aware of the circumstance or, more probably, doesn’t care two straws. I can also tell you from experience reported to me by friends, that even today, in XXI century Italy, being a public unrepentant sinner (say: convivence more uxorio; and we are not even talking of perverts here) is considered obviously sufficient for the priest to deny communion, and no one blinks. “Sensitivity” is what Father Knestout cares about, not Christ; neither can he see that if the woman was really “distraught” this might be what saves her from hell, towards which she is most surely directed. There can be no doubt the woman had made her “lifestyle” public, apparently even apprearign at the function with her “lover” and introducing her as such. For Heaven’s sake, if one can’t refuse communion in such cases, when then….
Note also here “healing and reconciliation” doesn’t mean the lesbian repenting and starting to live a halfway decent life; it means Father Knestout hopes the pervert will overcome the shock of being told she cannot receive Communion. In the Archdiocese of Washington, it appears, communion is a right and to refuse it “against church policy”.
Once again, if someone should be kicked out it is the likes of Father Knestout. And please, please let us stop being always so damn “sensitive” with these tools, shall we? If you are an unrepentant practising lesbian you can’t receive communion, period.
What is so difficult to understand in this?
EDIT: some changes in this rather shocking story. It appears father Barry Knestout is auxiliary bishop in the Washington diocese. This I got from other sources, and (for what it’s worth) Wikipedia confirms.
Read on American Papist the incredible story of Ken Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. Mr Howell has been told that he will not be able to teach about Catholicism because his course “Introduction to Catholicism” mentions that Catholicism condemns homosexual acts; also that he has been so cheeky as to follow up with emails on the subject, after one student’s strong opposition to this Catholic teaching.
The episode is disconcerting for several reasons:
1) The course is about Catholicism. You can’t ask Catholicism to be what it is not. You either “introduce people to Catholicism” or you don’t.
2) The University in question has – as it appears from Mr Howell’s letter – an “Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered concerns”. I kid you not. No trace whatsoever of an “Office of Catholic concerns”. The world has probably gone mad. Some universities certainly have.
3) The idea that people against a certain religion may find any “concern” about what that religion teaches is preposterous. Pure thought control. Not even I would have dreamt of saying that I have “concerns” with Hindus believing in reincarnation or Buddhists subscribing to metempsychosis.
4) Mr. Powell’s reaction is also entirely disconcerting. He presented the argument that if Catholic teaching about homosexuality is offensive, than he should be advised not to touch the matter in his course! This is an astonishingly weak reaction and one which defeats itself from the beginning. If you accept the idea that Catholicism may be censored, you can’t complain when it is. The idea of an “Introduction to Catholicism”excluding the controversial bits is as ridiculous as saying that there should be no “Introduction to Catholicism” if one is so bad as to……talk about Catholicism.
As always, the United States leads the way in political correctness gone mad. The case is now under judicial review and I do hope that the stance will be on the harsh side of “we are ready not to talk of anything which is of concern to lesbians, homosexuals, and other deviants”.
Kudos to the “American Papist” for having the guts to relate such extraordinary events instead of hiding behind the “we don’t discuss controversial topics” stance of so many Catholics, who are interested only in a quiet life and “going along to get along” with everyone.