You might be asked (as I was) whether it is possible that the unrepentant sodomites killed in Orlando might have escaped hell because (don't laugh) “they did not know sodomy is a mortal sin”.
I replied (as you should) with the following arguments:
Firstly, sodomy goes against natural law. No one can claim ignorance of natural law, because its rules are “imprinted” in every soul at birth. The argument of the sodomite who “did not know” dies already at this point. Note also the vaguely blasphemous undertone of this “question”: that sodomy may be a kind of accident due to lack of information.
Secondly, we must not lie to ourselves to the point of idiocy. It is more probable that a snowball in hell does not melt, than a sod in Orlando, Florida, USA “does not know” what the Church says about sodomy. You can safely assume that – even leaving aside the first argument – everyone among the victims in possession of a halfway functioning brain knew.
Thirdly, “ignorance” in Catholic doctrine never extends to “I have deluded myself into believing that the Church does not mean what she has always meant”. If this were the case, one could claim innocence for any atrocity. It would be pure “Francis church”: if you follow your “conscience”, you will be fine. Hitler, Biden, Pelosi & Co. would be as pure as snow. Francis would be a wonderful Catholic.
Fourthly, the entire propaganda lie of the last decades is based exactly on this assumption: that Christians condemn perverts as sinner. Everything these people say and do (from calling themselves “gay” to congregate in “gay bars”) is the result of their being in opposition to traditional, and therefore Christian, morality.
No, it does not work that way. The argument is non-existent.
The question is not whether an unrepentant sodomite will be saved. Of course he won't, or Christianity is a lie; and woe to those (as be they Popes) who try to smuggle a new religion of “niceness” as Christianity.
The question is, on the contrary, whether the single sodomite was saved by being given the grace of final repentance. We can hope for this or that good outcome in individual cases, well knowing that the fox at the bottom of the hole is, on hearing the hound approaching, greatly encouraged to a fox-ish contrition. However, Catholic doctrine teaches us that unrepented mortal sin will not even be forgiven – outside of valid confession – thank to an imperfect contrition, and that a perfect contrition is required instead. Imagine what a mockery and an exercise in futility and stupidity Christianity would be, if “ignorance” could be used by merely claiming it.
The “man” texting to his mother “I am gonna die” should have texted after that: “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner”, and one could have pointed out to this as a reason to have some hope for him. Coincidentally or not, such messages never seem to make it to the Mainstream Sodom Press. But honestly, I think the majority of the victims never thought about contrition. The idea of persevering in faith and trying to live a good life is that this strengthens our resolution, provides us with good habits, and as a result increases our chances of salvation. It is absurd to think that a person may dig for himself a hole of depravity and lye in it without this greatly increasing the probability that he is a reprobate. There is a difference between striving to live a Christian life (sinners as we all are) and striding towards hell day in and day out.
The bottom line is this: God will not be mocked, and those who think they can mock God by kidding themselves into their own convenient set of beliefs are, exactly, kidding themselves.
We wish salvation to everyone, even to those disgusting sods who were “celebrating” their perversion until they heard the first shots. We hope that many of them may have been saved, though we can reasonably assume that their number was limited. But we know as a certainty of the faith that all those who died unrepentant of their sin of sodomy are now in hell, because God shall not be mocked.
Sobering, uh? But that's how it is.
Beware of those (and may they be Popes) who suggest to you that one only needs to kid oneself out of natural law to avoid damnation.
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.
I have written some days ago about the astonishing Feminazi murdering her baby and (allegedly) documenting the feat on the internet (satanic, one can safely say. Thankfully, I have avoided clicking the site to make sure of this).
I would like today to spend a couple of words on a phrase reported in the article. Speaking of the Feminazi butcher, the author of the article wrote:
She noted the content of numerous “hate” e-mails was some variant of the message: “Maybe you do not know God or that abortion is a sin? Praying for you!”
I sincerely hope those who have written such rather sugary words were not Catholics. A Catholic who has been properly instructed – or has simply switched on his brains – knows that there is no way a mother can kill her baby and think it’s all right. What is she, a hamster?
Hamsters have no soul and as such behave according to their instincts. But humans have a soul, and God has put into everyone of them a basic concept of what is wrong and what is right, in such a way that no excuses are possible. The idea that a mother could kill one’s own child without “knowing” this to be a sin is, in fact, so outlandish, so out of this world that only very few civilisations have coped with such practices, which are considered abominable by most souls – and when it happened, like in Sparta, I doubt the practice was welcomed by the mothers themselves -. Still, even thosepeople had to know that it is a sin, because God has written it in their heart, however much they decide to ignore it. It is called natural law, and every murderous abortionist ignores it at his own peril.
Strangely enough, no one ever asked Himmler: “you do not know God, or that the extermination of Jews is a sin?”
Abortion is a Holocaust of much, much vaster proportions, brought about by degenerated democracies in nothing short of the cruelty of Nazism. I know this is difficult to accept because our generation has been raised up in the cult of democracy, but the reality is under everyone’s eyes. Abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, we have a vast range of atrocities on the rise in a fairly efficient democratic environment.
Like Hamsters, democracies are killing their own little ones.
But the fact is, their voters aren’t hamsters, and will have to answer for what they do.