This is, apparently, what a “working group” for the Church in Scotland thinks.
It beggars belief.
People went to Mass during the Black Plague, during the world wars. They went to Mass under the bombs. They went to Mass in churches that had no roof, in the bitter cold. Now this bunch of girls want to be exempted from work until they are totally and completely assured that they are safe? They are stating it very clearly. At some point, they will make them reopen the churches. But work? Thanks, but no, thanks.
Please don’t tell me that it is to protect the faithful. Have they asked the faithful?
I think I will develop a very strong allergy to donations to the NO Church.
Then I will say that I will be glad to resume my donations, when a vaccine against my allergy is found.
This, I would say, is for everybody’s safety.
My allergy is very infectious, you know.
The Scottish Government may be moving toward an official and direct ingerence of government officials in the education of a child.
This is not the social worker checking that the “vulnerable” mother remembers to feed her baby, or is sufficiently sober during the day, or does not beat her child to death. This is about checking – if not immediately, very soon – that every child is raised in a way that pleases Big Brother.
Do you want to instil Christian values in your children? Well this is obviously homophobic and otherwise intolerant, and cannot be tolerated. How can the child become an “inclusive” member of the Scottish Society, if the “human rights” of the LGBTRSARSLF people are denied and the child raised in a “racist” environment? Well, this clearly cannot be tolerate. Big Brother to the rescue!
This initiative might well fail, this time. But it clearly shows what the trend is, and how the social engineering Nazis want to take control of absolutely everything.
You have been warned.
We are informed there are more so-called “humanist weddings” than Catholic weddings in Scotland.
Now, Scotland has long been in the hands of the Proddies, which these days means falling in the hands of atheism. Still, it goes to show to what extent the Scottish society has de-Christianised itself, and to what extent the Church in Scotland has failed to do a proper work of evangelisation in the decades of meltdown of Protestant Christianity.
If the local bishops had been assertively Catholic for some decades, we would not have this situation now. Perhaps the Scottish society would be more polarised, but certainly there would be a clear light shining for those who are ready to follow it. It is to me self-evident that with all its real or presumed shortcomings, the Pre-Vatican II church would not have failed to reap a rich harvest from the Protestant collapse; the post-Vatican II church goes on struggling instead; terrified of losing “sympathies”, and unwilling to be harsh.
The simple fact is that in modern Europe as a bishop one is required to quarrel with everyone and be ready to become a much hated man; if he doesn’t, he is just not doing his job.
So the devil advances, and the bishops look on.
As you will read a bit everywhere, Scotland’s elected representatives have decided not to honour those whom they represent and to proceed to not only legalise, but institutionalise sodomy within a few years. They’ll have plenty of time in hell to repent, unless they do it before – many of them will not even dream of doing it, I am afraid – but today I would like to compare the situation in Scotland and England.
In England, the so-called CoE (or better said, the smarter part of it) has mounted such a quarrel, that it would have been very difficult for the coalition government to pull it through, merely to give Cameron’s civil partner a scalp to show to his party girls as a proof of competence and/or achievement. The Catholic opposition, whilst reduced to the usual hypocritical meowing from official side (++ Vincent Nichols, a notorious heathen, would be “nuanced” about zoophilia if he had to), seems to have worked well on the ground, in the schools and in the churches. Add to this that middle-class Britain, whilst largely de-Christianised, has not (yet) perverted itself to the point wrongly presumed by the Chameleon and you have the ingredients of the rather inglorious defeat suffered – for everyone who has eyes to see – on this occasion. A fourth element is, perhaps, that Englishmen are historically rather sensitive to MPs trying to take important decisions behind their back, and the Brussels matter shows how raw the nerves are in this respect.
Should Labour get back in power in 2015, things wouldn’t become much easier for the organised faggotry either. The Conservatives would, very probably, immediately get rid of the Chameleon and go back to solid Conservatism, which means every attempt to introduce sodo-marriage would give them a field day, and with Catholics and CoE on their side, plus the many Labour MPs who have reason to fear for their seats if they do the wrong thing. It wouldn’t be easy at all, not even with a Labour majority.
Not so, I believe, in Scotland.
The Catholic church is very probably by far not as influential as in England; the Protestants are on their way to perfect irrelevance; Labour voters and people culturally belonging to Labour are far more numerous than in England, and I have not yet noted any angry reaction to the proposal to radically change the Christian face of the country without even asking the electorate. As everywhere else, the cowardly absence of a furious fight on so-called “civil unions” now makes it difficult to organise an angry protest against sodo-marriage.
Witness, in ten years, the same battle – with probably the same outcome – when the faggots will insist on marrying in church, at least in those churches who belong to an established “church”. Clegg and Cameron already begin to make noises in this direction, and they are – we think – heterosexual.
Some bishop in Scotland should wake up and realise unless fire, brimstone and excommunications comes back massively in the political debate, they will be in the position of doing pretty much nothing. It is necessary now that open war is waged against perversion, abandoning the effeminate protestations destined – and meant – to remain without consequence.
Don’t hold your breath, though.
So, piece by piece, Western democracies lose every legitimacy to be the ruling political system; then a system betraying the laws of God and openly working against them has no moral right to exist, and when it unavoidably weakens and degenerates into a spineless sum total of single egotisms and single perversions the next Cromwell or Franco or Mussolini (or Lenin or Stalin) appearing on the scene will take it down.
Democracies seldom die because an even stronger opponent appears on the scene. They die because they have been slowly dying for years, and have lost the will to live. Then you have Spain with the communist threat and Franco’s reaction, Italy with the biennio rosso and the Fascist rise as a result, and Germany with the utter absence of spine of the Weimar Republic.
Scotland just made another step in that direction. England, thank God, seems to be a bit more resilient.
And so we are informed the referendum asked by Cardinal O’Brien on whether the Scots should institutionalisesodomy will not take place. Too much democracy, the Scottish MP must have thought. Democracy is good to pump money out of Westminster or procure jobs and privileges for themselves , but it can’t be allowed to interfere with the plans of the local political class, surely?
Granted, Scotland isn’t such a big affair in the great economy of things, and equates to roughly 1,5% of, say, the US population. One can safely say if the battles in front of us are won in the US, it won’t be long before Scotland also sees the light. Still, it grates me exceedingly that Scottish politicians, of whom so many always have the mouth so full of self-determination, should decide the Scots cannot determine for themselves on matters as this one.
Of course, the Scots as a whole aren’t much better than their elected politicians, as it must perforce happen in a democracy. Still, if they had been asked they would, as it appears increasingly more evident, not have allowed the legislation to pass.
Better introduce it against their will, then, whilst lulling them with populist ideas of independence. They certainly won’t stage any sort of democratic revolt for a matter like that, and the local political class will be able to court the 1% or less of the perverts without fearing much damage from the others. That’s how they think it’ll go, and notwithstanding the latest mini-delay (probably just a way to make absolutely sure this doesn’t become a boomerang; also note on the link the faggoty photo and faggoty bias of the “guardian”) this is very probably how it is going to be. Needless to say, homo-organisations salute the decision to NOT let the people have their say, so everything must be fine.
I have been for a long time a fervent supporter of Scotland’s independence, but now more than ever it is vital that they go their own way – or are kicked out if they don’t – and help England become more Conservative (both politically and socially) as a result (how many Tory constituency in Scotland, again?). If Scotland can’t be saved, there might be more chances to save the rest, mainly England.
On Scotland’s head be it, say I. Methinks, they’ll go along with their elected politicians without much fuss and, in time, who knows how many of them will go to hell. It will teach them to look on whilst their country is given to Satan and to consider such matters more or less innocuous “social changes” not worthy of their attention.
Horrible accent, anyway.
I gather from “Rorate Coeli” that in today’s Angelus the Holy Father announced that
on the 25th anniversary of the visit of Pope John Paul II to Assisi for the meeting of different religious leaders in 1986, he will visit Assisi in October 2011 for a meeting with “Christian brothers of the different confessions, leaders of the world’s religious traditions, and, ideally, all men of good will”.
My first observations, a caldo as we say – are as follows:
1) I wonder how long will it take before the Church stops repeating JP II’s mistakes, just because he made them. JP II’s “franchise” might still be strong, but whether it is useful to orthodox Catholicism is a different matter altogether. Methinks, it isn’t. Not in the least. The old Assisi gatherings were a goddamn disaster and a shame. They should be remembered only to be ashamed about them. For details even more shocking than the photo posted above, please follow here (yes, it’s about “interreligious” projects in Fatima. No German? Ahiahiahi….).
2) I am absolutely sure that this will not be allowed to become another new-age-cum-Buddha heretical fest like the former occasions, particularly 1986. Pope Benedict is the one who stopped the original Assisi-gatherings (of which a further one was planned already when he became Pope) in the first place. In the matter of orthodoxy, nothing untoward is going to happen. Those who have experienced the Pope’s visit in England & Scotland know that he can talk very, very straight.
3) I do think, though, that this is a mistake. Whilst the Pope is never shy of pointing out that to him ecumenism means “you come to me”-ism, in this case the choice of the historically and emotionally laden Assisi seems to me the worst possible. It will easily – nay, surely – become a battleground among conflicting tendencies: the Holy Father’s desire to come to Assisi to point out what real ecumenism is, and the Birkenstock-clad cohorts of pacifist, third-worldist, socialist and covert-liberation-theology troops (many of them, I am afraid, Franciscans) that will unavoidably try to hijack the event for their own agenda.
In my opinion, the Assisi gatherings should have been left alone as an example of how not to do ecumenism. This initiative is bound to create false hopes in all those who don’t really get the Pope’s message and are always waiting for an excuse to say that the Holy Father is aligned on their position.
If you ask me, this is a bad start of the year.