Rorate informs our of the first Corpus Christ procession in decades in Warrington, England. Follow the link for some consolation in these dark times.
However, I read the news and I could not avoid thinking for how long this will be possible. The UK have been more resilient to gender ideology than other Countries like Canada, but this does not mean that the situation is good (and Canada is very, very bad). The UK is still a Country in which, as a B&B owner, you are forced to have perverts under your own roof, in the same bedroom, giving scandal and practicing sodomy; and this, mind my words, with a “Conservative” Government in power, and with the open approval of the “Conservative” Prime Minister.
I can see a trend here, and a trend that will very likely, one day, overcome the still existing forces of sanity (and be it that in the form of freedom of expression). The danger that Catholic devotion will be confined to private spaces in the future – possibly in the near future – is very, very real.
Still, let us savour the good news when we read them, and may the Lord give us the fortitude to fight the good fight for as long as we breathe.
Once upon a time there were, and there still are in our present day, the Nice Catholics. The Nice Catholics considered it rude, or otherwise inappropriate, to condemn sodomy. Whenever confronted with the issue, they preferred to just change the subject or mumbling fluffy words about the fact that the Church “accepts everyone”. More recently that huge deception was put on the table, that “homosexuality is not a sin”. Pedophilia isn't a sin either, of course; but that wasn't said, and the distinction between the perversion (pedophilia, homosexuality) and the sin of acting upon the perversion (the act of sodomy, or of child abuse or child rape) was very conveniently ignored.
It was so nice to get along, you see.
When some people (among whom a somewhat cantankerous chap of your acquaintance) pointed out to the huge danger for our Christian societies represented by the creeping acceptance of sexual perversion, it was fashionable to call them (and him) “obsessed”, and dismiss the problem as secondary and not relevant.
Fast forward five or six years later, and a wholly new vocabulary has entered the political arena. “Marriage equality”, a word unknown before – outside perhaps of the lunatic asylum – is now all the rage.
It's all about “equality”, you see. Therefore, if you disagree with the perversion of pretty much everyone (bar pedophiles; for now) you are just “oppressing” others, and limiting their “human rights”. You are no better than a racist. You are the Ku Klux Klan.
The stupid will obviously laugh at this; but they would have laughed, ten years ago, at the concept of “marriage equality”, too. They will now find other ways to be “nice”, and will begin to say that the perverts down the road are not sinning, merely making a somewhat uninformed choice; whilst of course never forgetting the many “blessings” they have: because isn't having a son always a blessing?
One is tempted to say that one hopes the stupid surrender monkeys of niceness will be persecuted first; but the truth is, they will never be persecuted. They will simply adapt to the PC mantra of the day, and after marriage equality they will celebrate “love equality”, and welcome the threesome down the road, or the “nice” lady married to her Alsatian. Hey, aren't we all sinners after all?
We, the Catholics who still deserve the name – sinner as we all are, of course – will be treated as pariah, face discriminations of all sorts in our lifetime, and perhaps open persecution – as in: jail, or reeducation camp – in one generation or two. We are on our way to become the Ku Katolik Klan, and there's no saying we did not have it coming.
Is there a lifeline here? The Catholic hierarchy is now studying new ways to avoid saying what must be said whilst falling short of openly denying it. There is, in the natural sphere, nothing to expect from them, and the worthy minority of good priests and prelates will see their message drowned in the ocean of politically correct clerical inclusiveness. It will not work.
A more solid defence than our own clergy might well be the Muslims, of which there are far too many in Europe already. The Muslims – not the Catholics – were a major concern in 2006, when a proposed new project of “hate law” would have made not only the Bible (Blair & Co. didn't care for it, of course) but, very obviously, the Koran itself illegal. Therefore, the whole thing was killed in the cradle, or I shall say late term aborted.
Then there is the love for individual freedoms very developed in most – not all – Western Countries, and which will let many understand that what is about to happen to Catholics today may happen to that tomorrow. But this is a weak line of defence, because the tactics of the Gaystapo do not go through the official denial of freedoms, but through the KKK-isation of Christian morality. I am not illiberal. They are monsters.
The ultimate, and in the end only line of defence is Our Lord, and the loving assistance of Our Blessed Lady, and the commander in chief of the heavenly army, St Michael the Archangel. Persecution may come, but destruction won't. Even if Christianity is eradicated in our own countries – never officially, possibly; but it is obvious that a rite of reception of a Trannie in the Anglican community in his new “identity” is to all intents and purposes a new, pagan religion – we know that the Church will never die.
We must get the habit of praying St Michael more often. We must get into the habit of thinking that we must never cease our fights with words and acts, but we must at the same time conduct “parallel warfare” with our prayers. We must understand and interiorise that the heavenly army is aligned in heaven and ready for battle, and when the trumpet sounds there will be no chance and no hope for Satan and his minions.
Still, as we write the Year of Our Lord 2015, I think it's fair to say the Muslims in Europe are a far better guarantee for persecution than our clergy.
Which really says it all.
Nine attention whores who desecrated Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in a “protest” occasioned by Pope Benedict's abdication have been acquitted.
This means, more or less, that it will now be possible to repeat such “performances” with very little fear of big trouble; like, for example, a real conviction with real jail time. As there is no scarcity for this kind of exhibitionist whores, expect these episodes to be on the increase.
I wonder what would happen if the very same whores did the same in a Parisian Mosque? Perhaps they should try? It would be interesting to see whether the judges put them in jail, or it has to be ritual beheading.
The persecution is coming. Fuelled, among others, by all those marshmallow Catholics always ready to have understanding for everyone and everything, and for whom being a Christian means firstly, secondly, thirdly and lastly to avoid any confrontation.
After the decision of the Australian Anglos to ditch the mock confessional seal of their mock confessions, the Catholic Church will be put under pressure to do the same. This may seem a trivial matter (“who will go to a priest and confess himself a pedophile?”), but it is an extremely serious situation for at least two reasons:
1. If a lawgiver can decide how to deal with one sacrament, it can do so with all the others. Who says a priest can be obliged by law to go to the police and denounce a penitent, but he cannot be obliged to give consecrated hosts to an atheist who feels “discriminated against” that he is kept out of a free food distribution? Or of a church marriage ceremony? Or who thinks he has a “human right” to receive first communion? If this seems outlandish to you, think how many would have thought, only 50 years ago, of a lawmaker obliging a priest to report a criminal offence heard in the confessional. Once a legal system starts to tamper with the sacraments, they will… continue to do just that. When the door has been first opened, given time there’s no limit to the kind of rubbish that might get through it.
2. Catholic priests could be targeted just because of their refusal to denounce the culprit. Every activist fag and their friends could go to the confessional with the recorder on his smartphone switched on, and make a mock confession of a criminal offence, giving away enough of his fictional “self” that the priest could have the police identify him (“you see, I live in the little brown house by the railway crossing in South Sodom, Indiana, and see the children on the playground nearby”; or “it’s easy for me to approach young boys, because I am the janitor in such and such school”). Then, they could go to the police because the priest has not gone to the police giving all the details he has about the self-confessed pedophile living in the little brown house by the railway crossing in South Sodom, Indiana, or who is the janitor in such and such school. At this point it would be to the priest to show that, say, he thought the indication a fake one and not worth checking; but hey, if he has an obligation to go to the police then he should have done just that, right? If the criminal offence is in not denouncing the alleged crime, every Catholic priest would be exposed to a behaviour like that.
Do not take this confession matter lightly. This has serious consequences both for the freedom of the single priest and for the precedent that it would establish.
The sensitive natures among you had better not to follow this link, containing Messa in Latino's blogpost – and many shocking images; a number of them containing nudity, and nudity in church – about the desecration and vandalising of one of the most famous churches worldwide, the Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Montmartre, Paris.
In a shocking (absence of) reaction that has been linked to also in the article, the Cardinal of Paris minimises the events, in substance saying that not Catholicism per se is the target, but rather this is generic “anticlericalism” that has, this time, expressed himself in the vandalism and profanation of a Catholic church; but hey, it could have been a Mosque, right?
In doing this, Cardinal Vingt-Trois follows the most basic instinct of the Western clergy: minimise, stick the head in the sand, and hope the problem goes away by itself.
Things are happening in France and all over the West that would have been unthinkable only a decade ago. The shepherds do perfectly nothing. Instead of giving three interviews a day and declare open war to the open anticlerical spirit of the French government (as abundantly documented in the linked article: I spare you the disgusting details) and demanding that the people rise against this desecration and shame, the Cardinal deflects toward a vague, very effeminate whining about some generic people who, in some generic way, seem not to like the generic notion of religion. Pissing on the altar and writing blasphemous and obscene phrases on the very floor and wall of the Cathedral must then be considered a generic expression of generic anticlerical spirit. They haven't anything against us, you know! Phew!
One does not know who are the worst enemies of the Church, the idiots desecrating it or the prelates surrendering to the mob without any reaction worthy of the name.
The persecution is not coming because of the people who would love to burn churches to the ground. Those have always been around. During the decades of Communism there were probably many more of those around.
The persecution is coming because those who have been entrusted with the defense of Catholic values and places of worship have chosen to be silent.
Yours truly cannot but look with some concern at the views and the mentality with which many of those opposed to a US intervention in Syria present their argument. Let me describe some of them, and add my two Catholic cents on them.
1. The US might become involved in a new war.
I do not know you, but I always thought that with power comes responsibility, and a superpower should have correspondent responsibilities. If we look at the past, it was the richest and most powerful who were asked to make the biggest effort – be it concerning the Crusades, the feeding of the poor, or the building of the next cathedral -. To be a superpower involves the continuous risk of being involved in undesired conflicts; the obvious counterpart, by the by, of the possibility of influencing each one of them.
2. War is bad/no more war/make love,not war/give peace a chance (and similar rubbish).
This kindergarten pacifism (a favourite pastime not only of hippies and assorted potheads, but also of Pope Paul VI, and Bishop Francis) has the consequence that Neville Chamberlain must be considered an excellent man at least until September 1939, and Winston Churchill a war-thirsty bastard who led countless young lives to a useless death. Every wholesale expression of war as a never acceptable option not only does not take account of reality, but positively helps evil fanatics the world over. At times, evil regimes must simply be kicked/bombed out of existence, and again to deny this means to be a Chamberlain of a particularly obtuse sort. Unfortunately, the bishop of Rome cannot escape this kindergarten logic; a logic which makes him look good with the kindergarten masses, and which he must therefore think very smart.
3. Violence must make way for negotiation.
The continuous calls for peace where peace is clearly not in the cards is, if we are honest, another piece of kindergarten stuff; whilst I expect calls to peace from a Pontiff, when it is the only plan of action this is what we hear from people who wants to look good on the cheap, and without taking risks. Wars – most of all, civil wars and/or religious wars – aren’t fought because the parts aren’t aware that there is the option of negotiations. As long as the military option seems more promising to at least one of the fighting parties, an armed confrontation is what you will get. Actually, in the presence of an extremely ideologically motivated side – say, Al Qaeda-near fighters; or the Vietcong – any ceasefire will only be used to regroup and go better prepared into the next military campaign, which is why in this situation any ceasefire now is probably going to be paid with more violence later. More in general, to ask what is clearly unrealistic merely in order to look good and please the crowds – yes, I am thinking of Francis again – is nothing to do with a serious analysis of the problem or an intelligent proposal for its solution. It is merely what Francis does all the time: pleasing the crowds.
4. Every Syrian was born equal.
This is very un-PC, but I think that it must be said. I am sick and tired of those appeals to peace who are generically addressed to the Syrian people as if its Christian population were not the most endangered part of it, and those who have most to fear from the collapse of the Syrian regime. It is the height of ecumenical stupidity not to have the interest of the poor Christians in Syria on a higher plane than the one of the Muslim population. If it were so, we should welcome a new regime merely because, say, deemed more honest, efficient, democratic, or near to the needs of the people. It is not so. One regime would treat Christians much, much worse than the other, and I see it as the duty of every Christian to put their safety before other consideration like “freedom” or “democracy”. When Bishop Francis manages to put Christians and Muslims in the same basket without addressing in a compelling way the special dangers of the Christians in Syria, I shudder.
“Well then, Mundabor” – you will say – “what is it, then, that you propose?”
What I propose is that we sensible Catholics stop the easy slogans – which lead nowhere and are only useful to let us feel good with ourselves – and start acting, in our own little sphere of influence (we aren’t Popes, are we…) according to well-probed principles of realism.
Personally, I consider the condition of Christians in Syria as far more important than the increase of prestige and power for Hizbollah if the Syrian government wins this war. Similarly, I consider the danger coming from mad Islamist militants – ready to uncork the fanatical madness that must be present in every prevalently Muslim country in virtue of its being… prevalently Muslim – as a far greater menace than the Assad regime they want to overthrow. A menace, I mean, immediate and all too evident for the Syrian Christians, but certainly very concrete for all Western Countries, as every child – bar Obama – must certainly see.
Therefore, I do not think that the usual empty calls for a “peaceful solution” should be supported. You won’t have any peace until Muslim fundamentalists are around in forces. What you will have is either violence now, or a ceasefire now in preparation of more violence tomorrow.
The sensible behaviour here, if you ask me, is not a generic call to “peace”, much less a “humanitarian” help to the destruction of Assad’s regime as the “help” pushed by the First Gay President. The solution is, on the contrary, massive military support for the Syrian government. There are many ways to do this avoiding both a painful loss of life from Western countries – say, with massive air strikes, and/or an extensive use of drones – and a massive re-armament of Hizbollah. The Syrian army isn’t the South Vietnamese one: the Syrian soldiers have been fighting rather well for years, and they well know what might happen to them if the other side wins. In no way can be said that the rebels have won the “hearts and minds” of the Syrians; actually the contrary is more probably the case.
The British Government, the Vatican and the other big and little powers should let the White House know that they have picked the wrong side, and the smart thing to do is: a) to help Assad’s regime to survive and b) to use its army to give the rebels a lesson that those of them who manage to survive will remember for a while. I never thought I’d see the day where Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel are de facto on the same side and the US are, to all intents and purposes, on the other, helping Al Qaeda and the persecutors of Christians. Many European countries are, behind the peace rhetoric, seeing the light, and are now listening to the likes of Israel rather than to an idiot in Washington only worried to look good and appear “concerned for the welfare of humanity”.
A pacific attitude is a beautiful, Christian thing. Pacifism, on the other hand, is the mother of holocausts, world wars, communist dictatorships and other horrible calamities.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. He who loves peace will have to be ready for war; he who does not want war will attract it, and his empty slogans will be of no use in the end.
I fear much for the destiny of the Syrian people, but most of all I fear for the destiny of the Syrian Christians. They should be, I think, our first concern, and we will not address this concern with generic calls for peace.
Two sides. One must lose.
Draw your conclusions.
Interesting article on LifeSiteNews about Graf Clemens Von Galen, Bishop of Muenster, Germany.
Galen had the gut of being openly critical of Hitler’s euthanasia plans (oh, how history repeats itself…) in a time when thousands of Catholic priests were already toiling and dying in concentration camps (a circumstance, this, which is never remembered by the anti-Catholic nutcases); and in wartime to boot, when he could have been liquidated even more easily than in peace time. The claim that he expected martyrdom is, for everyone who knows a bit about Nazi Germany, completely realistic.
It didn’t happen. This time, Hitler felt that he couldn’t afford an open confrontation with a high prelate and backed down in the way he generally used to do it (that is: making in a hidden way what he wouldn’t consider prudent to do in an open one).
I have written already about the pathetic show of the UK bishops (and not only of the UK ones) about abortion. This courageous man of God provides a beautiful contrast to their behaviour.
Mind, though: I am not asking from our Bishops for martyrdom, or concentration camp. But if only two generations ago, amidst the most terrifying of circumstances, bishops had the courage to say the Truth out loud, I don’t think it is too much to ask that a tiny fraction of this courage be found in today’s Western Europe, with no martyrdom or concentration camps in sight.
You can find here the content of an E-mail complaint sent to the University of Illinois concerning the teaching activity of Dr. Howell. This is apparently not from the anonymous student who gave origin to the contention, but it would appear that the two have the same forma mentis and are perhaps friends; the attached E-mail (not showed) might well be *the* one.
Let us examine the highlights of this E-mail, because it gives numerous clues about the way these people (don’t) think. I will not make the joke that they can’t think straight.
1) The author of the E-mail never assisted to Dr. Howell’s lessons. He refers what he has heard. This is the worst possible start for a complaint. The author is blissfully unaware of that.
2) The core of the complaint is that Dr. Howell would say “things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith”. The expectation that a system of belief should be taught in a way that is “sensitive” to people of a different faith is downright absurd. If Islam says that I have to be converted or pay extra taxes or die I can be angry at Islam, not at the fact that I am informed of this. Most people have problems with other faiths. This is why they don’t belong to them.
3) The author goes on saying “I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable”. Well no he is – a gay activist, I mean; I have my doubts about his sexual orientation, too – and in pure activist style he introduces the term “hate speech” without giving one example, one phrase, one word to support his assertion. “My friend says the chap is inflammatory” is the only support. This is an opinion out of hearsay, not an argument. Again, the boy is blissfully unaware of this.
4) “It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes”. Here the mask falls off entirely. The problem is not how Dr. Howell teaches Catholicism, but that Catholicism is taught. How one can teach Catholicism without people learning it or its values being perpetuated is a mystery to me. But perhaps the author knows better.
5) “Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation”. It gets worse. Catholicism being taught is confused with the University “having a religious affiliation”. It gets more and more obvious that the problem of whining homosexuals is that there are Catholicism lessons.
6) “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another”. This is again very confused and shows that the boy needs a course of introduction to Catholicism. That homosexual acts violate the natural laws of men is – beside being evident to every right-thinking man free from sexual perversions – part and parcel of Catholic teaching. Always was. Always will be. The objection is therefore a contradictio in adjecto.
7) “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course”. Here we are again. I might feel uncomfortable at a course about, say, Hindu or Buddhist spirituality. But this would be entirely my problem. I don’t have any right to feel comfortable. These people are pampered boys refusing to accept that they’ll meet people whose opinions they don’t like. Besides, following this line of thought one shouldn’t teach that it is a sin to rape children, because “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a student convicted for child rape would feel if he/she were to take this course”.
8 ) “I am a heterosexual male”. Not very credible, old boy. Heterosexual males aren’t homo activists and homo activists aren’t heterosexual males. Whatever they may think about it.
9) “My friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma”. It gets more and more absurd. A dogma is, by definition, something which does not allow any room for opposition. You accept the dogma (then you’re Catholic) or you don’t (then you aren’t). Again, the man needs an introduction to Catholicism himself, sharpish.
10) the “founder of the queer studies major” has been copied. The author is acquainted with him. This is the man saying he is not a homo activist. Go figure.
We are still waiting for the decision of the University of Illinois about what to do. Dr. Howell’s lawyers have given today as the deadline to reintegrate him or face litigation.
Still, I thought I would give you my thoughts about this to illustrate the confusion reigning in these people’s minds and their absurd demands that nothing be taught which offends their sensitivity. How very intolerant, how very absurd and, well, how very effeminate.