The Proto-commie Daily Mirror reproaches the so-called church of England for “snubbing” the perverted abominations about to be introduced by the reprobate Government and Parliament of once Christian England.
I do not think they should be worried – ok, they aren't; they just want to feel good with themselves -; it is only a matter of time, and probably a short one at that, before the so-called church of England follows the world in this as in everything else. Heck, the article even says they allow so-called “civil partnerships” of their perverted clergy, if the “partners” promise to be “celibate”. What caricature of Christianity, and what unspeakable hypocrisy.
No, they certainly shouldn't be worried. The church of Fagland will accompany them all the way. They will merely do it remaining a couple of step back all the time.
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.
One must really be amused at the way the so-called Church of England works: on the one hand, they think – some of them pretend they do at least – that they have Apostolic succession. On the other hand, they have organs deciding with a normal majority vote fundamental tenets of their religion, like for example whether they should have male priests like the Christians or add priestesses like the Pagans.
At times, the democratic decision progress doesn't reach the results the very democratic bishops want to achieve, so when the organ of the laity culls the proposal for wymyn bishop the idea of accepting the democratic principle doesn't enten their minds for a second, rather they all start to whine and complain that the introduction of bishopettes has now been delayed at least two years.
It doesn't make sense to any sensible person, but then Anglicans aren't sensible persons so it's par for the course. This is why they accept that bishopettes are discussed in the first place, when twenty years ago they were told they would have priestesses but, God forbids, no bishopettes. Again, though, if one is so thick as to think a priestess is remotely compatible with Christianity, then one has richly deserved the bishopettes. Similarly, those not very bright minds who thought twenty years ago they could carve their own niche of conservatism and have things the way they like in their own backyard are now going to get what they deserve, so that they learn – albeit too late – that Christianity is more than having a parish life tailored to one's preferences.
In the meantime, one third of the Mickey Mouse “priests” – no holy orders, remember – are wymyn, which roughly suggest two thirds or more or the mickey mouse ordinations in the last two decades were of said wymyn. Add to this the tragic problem of homosexuality among the male clergy and you will have a clear idea of where they are.
Not that there is much to save, mind: around 3% go weekly to Mass, and one wonders why seen that these people change their mind every few years. Perhaps they want to keep current with the latest changes. In twenty years' time we will have the newly appointed Archbishopette of Canterbury getting drunk in a bar, desperately looking for an old divorced man willing to take her home for the night. The country will salute it as very modern. You see, this is an outfit of which its former boss has said that it must catch up with the civil society out there. Complete bending over to every fad and every fashion, even the most unchristian ones.
Now that's Anglicanism for you. Make no mistake, there's no salvation among this bunch of muppets.
The so-called Archbishop of Canterbury has given another impressive demonstration of what happens when Christianity is taken away from a Protestant ecclesial community.
In the case of the so-called CoE, Christian thinking has now disappeared from the very top, and it is only a matter of time before the Anglicans go the way of the worst Presbyterians.
“Archbishop” Welby (remember: he is no more an Archbishop than Sylvester the Cat) tells us he is “stunned” at the “quality” of some of the so-called “gay relationships” he has among some of his “particular friends”; so much so, that he feels “challenged” by them. One reads such drivel and one is sure he truly forgot, or never knew, the basics.
If Welby were a Christian, he would know that right and wrong depend on God’s valuation of it. A sin is such because it offends God, and we know it offends God because He told us so. Things being as elementary as that, it stand to reason once Christians know a behaviour is gravely sinful they can never feel “challenged” by the outer appearance of this behaviour; because if they did so, it would be tantamount to “challenge” God’s wisdom.
If a person screws his dog, or his mother, or a child, the quality of the relationship with his dog, mother or child is simply irrelevant. An abomination is an abomination is an abomination, and how happy or loving the dog (or the mother, or the child) look is simply not part of the equation.
This elementary logic escapes Mr Welby, because the man has forgotten Christianity to become a devotee of the modern “religion of niceness”, prescribing that whenever there is what they call “love”, everything is fine. One fully understands why the man wants to meet Peter Tatchell, an avid supporter of “love” not only with other men, but with boys (though when the matter became uncomfortable he was conveniently ready to forget his past battles concerning the age of consent).
Welby is, in fact, far nearer to Tatchell than to every Christian: his concept of “quality” as a substitute for “Christianity” is perfectly aligned with Tatchell’s idea of sin, and diametrically opposed to the Christian one.
Make no mistake, in one generation (if their ecclesial community is still there) the then wannabe “Archbishop” will have no qualms in telling about the “quality” of the “relationship” some of his “particular friends” have with the above mentioned dog, mother or child, and will say he is “challenged” by that. By that time, of course, civil partnership between a man and his dog will be already reality, though the CoE will insist that those among their bishops in such a relationship promise to be “celibate”.
Mr Welby isn’t recognisable as a Christian anymore. He mentions his (so-called) church’s position on Sodomarriage as something whose reasons and roots he cannot even understand, as it conflicts with his own religion of “quality”.
Seriously, the time is approaching when the (only) Church will deny to the Anglicans the status of Christians, and ask that those Anglicans wishing to convert be baptised altogether. People like Welby have completely forgotten the God of the Christians, preferring to worship the goddess of “love” and the idol of “niceness” instead.
O what a harvest for Satan, but oh how stupid those who will fall for such a primitive trap.
If you had any doubt the Anglican Muppet Show would continue after the departure of the much-lamented (because extremely hilarious) Rowan Williams, you should now not have any doubt the new leader of the so-called C of E is now frantically driving the organisation to the wall with renewed enthusiasm.
The recent decision to allow openly homosexual wannabe priests to become wannabe bishops even if they live with their wannabe “partners” provided they (ahahahah!!!!!) promise to remain celibate is as credible as appointing Jimmy Savile head of the orphanage provided he promises not to abuse the children. Actually no, it’s even more stupid, because child abuse is a criminal offence and even Jimmy Savile would have to pay attention, whereas sodomy isn’t and therefore the wannabe bishop wouldn’t.
The new measure is, of course, the latest exercise in Anglican hypocrisy, this time on a scale embarrassing even for Anglicans.
Other provinces of the Anglican Communion do not seem to see it in the same way, though: Anglican wannabe bishops in Nigeria, Uganda and Kenia have stated in no uncertain term they’ll not tolerate this, and this move could “shatter” whatever “hopes for reconciliation” between the opposing camps there might have been. Strong tobacco, methinks.
I do not know what so-called Archbishop Welby (make no mistake, he is no more an Archbishop than the above mentioned Jimmy Savile) has in mind with this genial shoot in his foot. Perhaps he sees the riff within the Anglican communion as irrecoverable and the Christians destined to detach themselves from the Inclusives anyway at some point; perhaps he hopes this push forward will force the Christians to choose separation or abandonment of basic Christian principles and they will choose the latter after some symbolic sweetie is given to them to allow them to pretend they have saved face (they are Anglicans, remember…); perhaps he and his are just too stupid to look forward and see what they are doing.
Be it as it may, the process of decomposition of the so-called C of E continues unabated, and every steps getting them further from Christianity increases the danger of damnation for the souls of their already extremely disinterested members, for whom Christianity seems now definitely on the way to becoming a completely new home-made parody of the original, and proudly rooted on satanic perversion.
At this point I can seriously see the day they will appoint Satanists as bishops, provided they promise not to celebrate any black mass.
All this would be extremely serious, if I were able to take the Anglicans in any way seriously. As it stands, I cannot but look at them with the same amused condescendence with which you look at children playing office, or army; with the big difference that children who play office or army do not endanger their soul.
The so-called Church of England has released a first statement concerning the satanic attempt of the satanic British Government to elevate sodomy to the rank of one of the most sacred institutions known to mankind. Cranmer has the story.
I was already expecting a weak answer, but what came out of the nincompoops of the so-called Church of England is much worse than that: it’s an incoherent agglomeration of populist waffle, blasphemies (Anglicans do blasphemy a lot; they call it “being nice”, or “inclusiveness”) and outright sucking up to the Prime Minister.
I cannot imagine how the battle can be won if these are the main regiments at our disposal. Thankfully, there are other soldiers (c4m is far more explicit and Lord Carey is certainly no pussycat, at least as far as Anglicans go; then there are the Lords, and perhaps the ordinary Christians, if they are still there in sufficient numbers) and it would not be realistic to say that this battle is lost already, at least for now. But I can’t imagine how the official hierarchy of the so-called Church of England will be able to give any contribution that does not equates to bad comedy or active help for the enemy.
Let us analyse the work of this bunch of cretins.
It is important to be clear that insistence on the traditional understanding of marriage is not knee-jerk resistance to change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole. Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted. Because we believe that the inherited understanding of marriage contributes a vast amount to the common good, our defence of that understanding is motivated by a concern for the good of all in society.
Note here: neither God or His commandment are present. There is merely a vague idea that marriage “contributes to the common good”. Why this should be so, it isn’t said. The understanding of marriage is “inherited”, not God-given. This understanding is good because it “contributes to the common goood”, but it isn’t said what the foundations of this common good are supposed to be. It’s good because it’s good, supposedly, or it’s good because it’s inherited. No trace of Christian morality, though. “Some things seems, for some strange reason, to be good, dear PM; and then you see, they are inherited and we Brits love traditions; perhaps we might keep them that way?” This isn’t even an argument. This is waffling for the sake of it.
“The proposition that same-sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute.”
What?? Are these people supposed to be Christian at all? Well, actually not, as they have already refused to frame the issue within a Christian context. Here it goes on: a sodomite relationship can “embody crucial social virtues”. What does this mean? Does it mean that sodomites couples are good because they keep their gardens in order? Or because they say “good morning” to their neighbours? Or perhaps because they are good at small talk?
This phrase is straight out of Satan’s instructions manual, and already destroys everything this bunch of nincompoops might say afterwards. If “crucial virtues” can be “embodied” in civil partnerships, why should they not be embodied in marriage? “But this is not the way we inherited”, the idiots say. But you also did not inherit any idea that institutionalised sodomy might “embody crucial social virtues”, you morons…
The argument is a total non-starter. “We have completely changed our theology in what pertains to the very core of Christianity; – says the so-called Church of England – we have completely destroyed every concept of sexual morality, and we even support what Christians have always considered unspeakable abominations; but please do not change what we call marriage, because… it’s good in some strange way we can’t even explain”.
“To that extent, the Prime Minister’s claim that he supports same-sex marriage from conservative principles is readily understandable.”
This here is nothing less than sucking up to the Prime Minister. I would actually have a more fitting image using the word “job”, but I do have female readers…
You see here with what energy these nincompoops dig at their own tomb (politically, and spiritually). “There can be good things coming out of committed sodomites, and yes, prime minister, we even get how conservative it is what you are trying to do! But could we just avoid it, please?”
Once again, Christianity has been, up to now, completely absent. If sodomite couple can be something good, then God is obviously wrong. Clearly, God is supposed to be wrong and not conservative. Cameron is.
“However, the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.”
The immense stupidity of this phrase is mind-boggling. There is no reason whatever why the “underlying, objective distinctiveness of men and women” should be anything good, unless it be because it correspond to God’s order. If this is the case, every form of behaviour undermining this must be rejected (yes, you cretins: starting from homosexuality itself, and of course continuing with sodomy; much more concerning “civil partnerships”…). If this is not so, and civil partnership embody “conservative” values, then why should marriage not be changed in order to make it more “conservative”? Or are the muppets saying that for some strange reason their opinion on sodomy can be changed 180 degrees, but marriage can’t be made to serve “conservative principles”?
“To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged”.
Again, this idiotic statement does not consider Christianity at all; besides, it begs the question. Sexual differences are acknowledged because Christianity is, has always been and always will be intrinsically heterosexual. Christianity abhors same-sex attraction, which is why Christian societies are structured in a rigid heterosexual way. Christianity does so because this is God’s will, and God’s law. This being God’s law is the only thing which gives “essential complementarity” any value at all. If we keep God’s Law out of the equation, there’s no reason why a commune of six assorted faggots, lesbians and dogs should not adopt. And there is no reason whatever why this commune should not be called “marriage”, either.
“To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals.”
This obviously doesn’t mean anything, but I assume some of the ladies thought it sounds well. Still: yes, of course they are interchangeable. The so-called Church of England itself says so. They have already said that in a couple, you can interchange individuals and this can (let me check…) “embody crucial social virtues” and be “conservative”. They have already said so themselves! These people have the logic of a six-years-old…
“To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.”
Oh, the comedy of this! The same people who have just reneged on the most basic values of Christianity now say something should not be done because it would be… “divisive”. Seriously, how effeminate is that? Is, say, “harmony” their god? Are these people so stupid that they do not understand that if something is right, it is worth some conflict? I can’t believe anyone can write waffle like this and not wear stilettos…
“We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage.”
For Heaven’s sake: the very same people who have diluted the gravity of sodomy up to its total obliteration as sin should now object to a small adjustment to the meaning of marriage apt to make it “inclusive” of those people they themselves say are carriers of “crucial social virtues”? Why? Why? Why?
And why should the “legal definition” of anything be of any value? Can legal definitions not be changed? Where were the Anglicans when civil partnership attacked the very core not only of marriage, but of Christianity? They were waffling about the “crucial social virtues”, these damn heathens…
“Given the absence of any manifesto commitment for these proposals – and the absence of any commitment in the most recent Queen’s speech – there will need to be an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with these proposals and make them a legislative priority”.
Oh, how pathetic is this… they now go as low as everyday party politics, and try to argument from the fact that this monstrosity was not in the coalition’s manifesto or in the Queen’s speech. Seriously, what is this to do with religion at all? If it should be “conservative” that faggots can live together, why wait for the next election or the next Queen’s speech? What pathetic excuse of an argument is this?
“In our view the Government will require an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with on these proposals and to make them a legislative priority.”
Says… who exactly? Ever heard of democracy? The proposals will be brought in front of both chambers, and the elected representative will be called to say what they think. Again, a pathetic excuse to say “I don’t want this, but I really can’t say why”.
“We welcome the fact that in his statement the Prime Minister has signalled he is abandoning the Government’s earlier intention to distinguish between civil and religious marriage.”
This is – once again, with apologies to my female readers – another “job” like the one before. The PM wants to completely demolish every concept of marriage as a religious institution, and the idiots welcome this. What a sad bunch of eunuchs.
“We look forward to studying the Government’s detailed response to the consultation next week and to examining the safeguards it is proposing to give to Churches”.
This is, at the end, the capitulation. “Give us something we can understand as safeguard, dear PM, and we will swallow it whole”. That every “safeguards” will be worth nothing in the face of the obvious challenges that will be brought against them in court, the ladies seem not to know. They are just demurely asking the PM to build some safeguards in the legislative work, which he has already announced he would do. Therefore, at the end of this pathetic piece of prostitution the so-called Church of England is basically signalling they are in agreement with the general framework of the legislation, but please let them read the details so they can be sure they can say they have saved face.
This is a shameless piece of unspeakable cowardice and prostitution, beside being heathenish in its very core; this is so senseless, it can only come from an Anglican body. This is the point this nation has come to. They aren’t even Christians anymore.
Make no mistake, they will have a lot of time to reflect on the “crucial social virtues” embodied by civil partnerships.
When they are in hell.
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host –
by the Divine Power of God –
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Cameron has, in the end, decided to try to get sodomarriage approved, against obvious massive opposition within his own party but clearly counting on the votes from the heathens within the Tories and elsewhere. Excluding that Cameron may ever have moral motives, the background of this move is clearly to be seen in his necessity to give the LibDems something to chew after the humiliations they had to suffer on the Lords’ reform affair. I don’t think this is politically wise, but I do not know how bad the mood is within the coalition, and Cameron – who is a political prostitute with no second in the land – has evidently decided the advantages for the coalition will be greater than the obvious opposition he will face within his own party.
In what could be remembered as an astonishing sign of stupidity – or the knowledge the party and the Country are so rotten this can now be made without problems – Cameron has also decided to go the full monty and decide sodomarriage should be “allowed” in churches, if the relevant congregation wishes to do so.
Only a very stupid man – or an Anglican – could now fail to see where this leads: what is now “allowed” will, in just a few years, be claimed as a “human right”. Think of the Bad & Breakfasts, who were “allowed” (but obviously not obliged) to have sodomites under their roof, until the Gaystapo sued their “right” to do so.
This legislation – if it passes; more below – will pose huge problems and cause years of legal controversy as surely as the night follows the day. Teachers will at some point not be allowed to dissent from a clearly heathenish ideology, and the lame assurances of the Government they will be allowed to “dissent” will go the same way as the right of B&B owners to refuse to have sodomy under their roof. The Established Church will be the first to face the onslaught of the suddenly so pious satanic troops, and the Catholic Church will follow immediately afterwards (and who shall fight for us? Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols? Ha!).
Our best hope are, at this point, the Muslims; but in order for them to make a serious move it might be necessary for the perverts to sue them for compliance to the Gaystapo; which isn’t easy, as the Gaystapo is scared of them.
Cameron uses, this time, a different strategy. He doesn’t even try to force the party to obedience as he did with the Lords’ reform, getting pummelled as a result; he leaves them “free” instead, hoping to get the measure passed whilst avoiding the worst of the internal damage. This is the same Cameron who applauded the decision of the courts to force B&B owners to have sodomites under their roof, so you know exactly how much his promises of respecting the religious beliefs of Christians are worth.
In the next months and years we will know how much the rot has advanced in this country; a country once able to fight bravely against Hitler, but now either scared of the whining of perhaps 1% of the population, or too stupid to call a spade a spade and see the abyss of heathenism it is getting itself into. Make no mistake, open persecution is what will come after it; then Satan doesn’t stop his march just because “nice” people have decided civil partnerships are a good thing, and we shouldn’t be rude.
Will, though, this measure be passed? This is not sure at all, but if Cameron manages to ride Labour MPs the numbers aren’t encouraging. The main argument against such a proposal was for Cameron that the party might have taken his scalp directly if he had tried to impose this new madness on him; but he avoids this from the start, riding the heathens of the other parties instead. The mere fact he might survive this tells you all you need to know about the rot within the Tory party; they would get rid of him on the spot if he tried the same trick on, say, European matters but seem – for now – unwilling to do the same on sodomy. Congratulations.
As I write (and yes, I write because I can’t sleep…) I see only few positive elements for us, none of them safe:
a) The House of the Lords. The probability that this law be massacred in the House of Lords is not remote. This in itself would not stop the process, but would constitute a strong obstacle to the definitive approval of the measure. Seldom are the cases of legislation stopped by the House of Lords and pushed through nevertheless. A prolonged fight might also give Cameron a death of a thousand cuts, if the public opinion reacts.
b) Opposition within the other parties. This is not probable, but possible. Dissatisfaction among Labour voters is said to be palpable, but as socialists never where good Christians it is everyone’s guess how much weight this will carry (if you ask me: not much). If the Christians within labour manage to remember what Christianity is, the matter will become more and more embarrassing for their own party leaders. Milliband & Co. are largely goddamned atheists, but they are still politicians and will have their nose in the air to see where the wind blows.
c) Open Labour opposition. This was just seen with the Lords’ reform: Labour wanted a reform in principle, but they didn’t want to give Cameron a success he could not get with his own coalition and of which he would unavoidably have reaped the glory; therefore, they have decided not to like the details, and to shoot at the Government for all they’re worth. It worked a treat.
In this case, Milliband & Co. must seriously ask themselves whom they are working for: this measures will most surely be sold by Cameron & Clegg as a coalition success, and Labour runs the risk to look seriously stupid. Labour being far more disciplined than the Tories, if and when they decide to shoot at the measure Cameron can say goodbye to his piece of legislative crap, then without Labour votes he is dead in the water in the Commons, and easily steamrolled in the Lords.
d) The courts. make no mistake, this is going to keep the courts occupied for decades, in a long battle of attrition reminiscent of the right for conscientious objection in case of abortion (eventually won; not before many years, though, or without the sacrifice of many brave doctors and nurses ready to lose their jobs at the NHS and even emigrate). This law impinges on so many pieces of legislation – as in the end it is nothing less than the attempt to re-invent the Christian basis of society – that the legal controversies will be countless. Many so-called Church of England parishes will also sue, as will religious schools, hopefully with the best Catholic schools at the head. This is going to be good for lawyers, and will go on for a very long time.
Cameron has just showed how much he has in contempt both his own party and Christianity. He might get away with the first, he won’t get away with the second.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
One must really smile at the glorious incompetence of Britain’s chief muppet, the not-so-intrepid Rowan Williams. It is widely acknowledged that his decision to go (already) was inspired – possibly rather forced – by his tragic inability to have a clearly recognisable policy at least for thirteen minutes before breakfast. His weakness, indecisiveness and ability to write and talk so much without saying – let alone deciding – anything at all make of him a comic legend in his own times, and will be sung by generations of stand-up comedians’ lovers.
What will, then, such a tool be able to do, other than suggest to his successor how he should behave in the matter of bishopettes? It is as if Gordon Brown would offer his advice to his successor on how to be cool, popular and funny, or Obama would lecture his successor about how to reduce the deficit.
It’s just plain stupid, senseless, and unwittingly hilarious.
Also please note the arguments used: divisions here, conflict there; the uncertain outcomes, and the usual feminist talk (the “stained glass ceiling” is worth of Jay Leno on a bad day). That the matter be something to do with Truth does not seem to concern him.
Welcome to the world of Rowan Williams; the man without a policy, and the utter inability not to talk about one.
Once again, I suggest my Anglican readers to click here.
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.
The BBC has, as you would expect, a morning program. It should be one of those programs where two people (one man and one woman; pleasant but not too attractive; pleasantly communicative but not too invasive; you know the type) sit on a couch and inform us about a variety of things: the hose pipe ban, what’s happening on the M25, your five a day, and the like.
Not so in Beebistan, the planet where political correctness reigns unopposed, and liberal propaganda does not spare anyone, not even children. Saturday morning, the viewers were served a fat, uncommonly ugly woman dressed like a priest. I am sure she was in black because it helped to mask her more than generous proportions, but by the way she behaved she could have had a red nose and no one would have noticed anyway.
The woman was one of those middle-aged fuglies trying to look modern, and happy, and careless, and oh so in tune with the world. As always in these cases, she only managed to look pathetic. The argument about which she was “invited” (with no counterpart to represent the contrary opinion; hey, it’s a morning broadcast and not a political debate, right?) to talk was the (so-called) Church of England’s opposition to the (also so-called; what a world we must live in) “gay marriage”; an issue on which the said wannabe church seems to be willing to fight an unprecedented battle against our perverted Government, whilst archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols shouts his silence.
In a very debonair, “let’s have a chat” way, the two presenters introduced her to the matter (morning program, remember! Sodomy with your muesli!) , and the wannabe vicar of Dibley started to talk agitatedly about how much she doesn’t care if a man wants to marry a man and a woman a woman, and she would find it so nice to have it in church. Asked how she reconciles this with the position of her hierarchy, she said she didn’t really care, because the beauty of the c of E – and the reason why she had become a wannabe vicarette of Dibley – is that said “church” always allowed such a breadth of opinions…
Not one word was said of Christianity, of the commandments – I doubt she knows them – or of the fact we are talking very, very basic Christianity here. What was worse – and made the matter truly disgusting – was the fact the woman tried to appear so youthful and full of enthusiasm and “with it” all the time, moving her fat bottom on the couch as if she had been a teenager talking about her new favourite boy band. I truly had the impression she was either advertising herself to the male audience (good luck with that) or else trying to look stupid for no apparent reason.
I know the c of E is a pathetic outfit as it is, but I could not have imagined that their personnel can arrive to such a point of adolescential stupidity. As to the BBC, I notice once again there was no debate, and no contrary position. The BBC uses the morning program to pervert the youth, and wannabe religious people to undermine Christianity. I can only hope there will be consequences for the fat vicarette, but the c of E being what it is I rather doubt it. That there will be no consequences for the BBC, I do not doubt at all. The BBC has become an Indian Reserve for the worst type of liberal; people completely detached from the real world outside, but determined to remake it in their own image.
A pox on them all, one would be tempted to say. I think it’s sinful, though.
Better still: the end of the TV Licence regime.
In a moment of desperation, you may think only Catholic bishops may be so ill with political correctness as to suspend one of their own because he had the temerity of defending Christian values, as Cardinal Wuerl did with poor Father Guarnizo. Still, a moment of quiet reflection would then rapidly persuade you if the Only Church has such people, the church imitations scattered around will probably not be immune from them.
This is what has now happened with the organisation calling herself “Church of England”. The churchofenglanders apparently have “lay preachers”, and I assume these are people who talk at length to their faithful about Christianity, probably outside of a liturgical setting.
From what I understand, the status of lay preachers must be reviewed and confirmed every year; which makes sense, because if the lay preacher has left his wife to live more uxorio with the fruity coworker, or suddenly start to talk about the holiness of so-called civil partnerships, even the CoErs will probably decide to put an end to his preaching. Up to here, all should be rather logical.
Where things become somewhat surprising is where a chap who has been a lay-preacher for 50 years is suddenly suspended because he dared to defend marriage. The heretical, but rather well-written blog Cranmer informs us a lay preacher for 50 years was suspended just for that. This being the so-called church of England things were, of course, rather slimy, and more than a bit oily.
Let us see the concatenation of events: lay preacher suggests the faithful support the coalition for marriage; some other lay preachers disagree with him (Yes! Yes!! They disagree with him!.. I know!!) and then run to the prof to say how wicked he was. The prof (in this case calling himself archdeacon; but this is irrelevant, as they all have no valid orders anyway) then informs the poor chap he is suspended for two months; no wait, this is the so-called coE, and nothing is made openly and with clear words. The poor preacher is, then, told he is not to preach for two months, but he is not suspended; erm, well, not really, is he now? He just can’t preach, which is different… of course…. I mean…. right?
This “suspension that is a suspension” is ordered so that the controversy may abate, but the unChristian lay preachers are not suspended.
When above mentioned Cranmer (the blogger) points out to the fact, the matter enlarges itself. In the meantime, the poor lay preacher silenced for being Christian and defending marriage (which is the official position of the so-called c of E, so far as they can ever have a position) has recurred to the head master (in the c of E, they call themselves “bishops”; see above) and the headmaster has said the prof hasn’t really suspended the pupil, has he now…. and we only want to give everyone time to reflect… and we shouldn’t quarrel about such secondary things as Christian values… so divisive, you see…. and yes, he can’t speak, but really this is not due to him being a Christian, but is rather to do with…erm…aahh.. other issues….
Really, who does this head master think he is: Cardinal Wuerl?
One of the most common trait of every internet discussion – and of many discussion in the real world – is the unavoidable intervention of the compulsive do-gooder.
The compulsive do-gooder lives in a world made of platitudes and common places. He thrives so much in such an environment, that he googles around looking for controversial discussions on the Internet – this forum, or that blog – to intervene and dish his accustomed list of banalities.
For the do-gooder, war is always bad. He can’t countenance that some be rich, and many other poor (he is, well, certainly not rich himself; if he is, he feels guilty for that, but without becoming poor). He finds it extremely worthwhile to complain about “inequalities”, as if God had made a world dominated by equality, and men had decided to subvert God’s plan. That human beings have always possessed the most varied degrees of intelligence, wit, beauty, or physical strenght never occurred to him and hey presto, here’s the next platitude…..
Most of all, the compulsive do-gooder has no controversial opinions. He will tolerate everything and everyone, as long as he feels approved. He will throw “Jesus” in every discussion, and this will allow him to avoid taking a stance on whatever problem, or controversy, or perversion going against the thinking of the lazy, indifferent, fat mainstream. When the do-gooder is “against” something, it will be something that is, in principle, uncontroversial. He will be in favour of “peace”, “love”, “understanding”, “tolerance”, “prosperity for everyone” and “the environment”. In doing so, he will conveniently forget the very reasons why he should be in favour of all these beautiful things. He will be in favour of peace when confronted with Nazism, “love” when confronted with genocide, “understanding” when aeroplanes go against skyscrapers. He will want prosperity but will criticise the very Capitalist society that produces it in unprecedented measure. He will be in favour of the environment, but will never care for the danger that stupid environmentalism – and make no mistake, that’s what he will support – poses to the economy and, therefore, to peace, prosperity, and “understanding among the peoples”. If you disagree with him, he will consider you intolerant, for disagreeing with him.
The do-gooder lives in a parallel world. He fancies a planet where human beings behave exactly as they should – which invariably means : as he wants – instead of, well, like human beings. In his world no criminal, no dictator, no genocide is evil. No one is evil, though some are misunderstood. If we would just talk to them! Oh, how insensitive we all are!
When I was at school, and later too, the do-gooders invariably – which means, without exception – belonged to a particular group of people. Not very smart, very lazy, and not much esteemed. Mediocre in all they did, and dull in everything they said, they never received the consideration they clearly craved for and which their overflowing vanity demanded. Having nothing to impose them to other people’s attention, they needed to feed their vanity by imposing their own alleged moral superiority on them.
Their desperate need for vanity fodder created on the one hand an extreme egalitarianism born of their own mediocrity – if you are mediocre every talking of aspiration, striving, application, sacrifice will be marked as evil; therefore the do-gooder will be against grades in class, against better and worse and, very predictably, against richer and poorer – and on the other hand it produced an extremely strong need to take the moral high ground, to be considered better because they could not be considered smarter, and to condemn every form of competition because they couldn’t win it.
I saw these people at work, and was dumbfounded by the extreme stupidity of their behaviour and attitude. Being a somewhat outspoken guy, I never refrained from saying so and exposing them without any reserve in the public debates they so clearly desired and were the first to ask for – Italian schools were then, alas, the mecca of the stupid debates, with people barely able to grow a beard feeling so good whilst crucifying the entire Western Civilisation -. By doing so, I caused tsunamis of indignation and, invariably, savage accusations of insensitivity. But in my simple world, if you’re stupid you’re better off shutting up than trying to look intelligent, because it never works and you’re bound to find the one who’ll make you look the ass you are. Si tacuisses…. particularly then, when your stupidity goes against everything sacred, causes Communism to advance, and makes Holocausts possible.
The do-gooder is passive-aggressive, which works beautifully with most people, though sends them straight to the wall with those who can’t stand such a behaviour. He will start a discussion immediately aiming at the moral high ground, and at the first resistance will put his tent firmly there by claiming foul play, and emotional rape. How do you dare to expose his idiocy, he only wants a world where everyone lives in peaaace!
The do-gooder is a failure, perceived or – more often – real. He will either not have done anything sensible in his life beside stroking his vanity, or he will be frustrated because he doesn’t feel his achievements are valued enough by “society”. He might be a teacher whose brother-in-law- is a successful lawyer, or the ne’er-do-good daughter of a successful businessman, that is: people earning less than the former generation, or than their peer within the enlarged family. Nothing better to stimulate socialist thinking. Being very materialistic, the do-gooder will judge other people from the economic success they have, and will think everyone does the same; but being losers, they won’t have any. Ouch! Then, they will criticise the materialistic society, consumerism, and all those people who consider them good-for-nothing; exactly as they do, secretly, themselves.
It is, I think, a sad reality of our days that most champagne socialist are, in fact, unable to afford the champagne. They only like to mix with the few who can.
My impression is that an awful lot of do-gooders have become teachers, and very many have become social workers of some kind. Even more of them have become nothing at all, and now build tents in strange places, desperately trying to attract people’s attention on how oh so beautiful they are. Their motivation is the one that drives them in everything they do: to please their vanity, and to be considered an elite of fine thinkers rather than a motley crew of lazy asses.
Very few of them will choose the clerical profession. The one or other among them might become, say, a bishop of the Anglican so-called church, and one of them actually became the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some others may become Catholic Bishops, or Cardinals, and write about their strange theories of world government, and global monetary authority. These are among the very few that will be seen, from the world at large, as authoritative.
Still, make no mistake: they are waste of space, all of them.
To this Catholic, it is instructive to see how the Holy Spirit works. In the Only Church, the tempest of “modern” thinking violently shakes the barque for a while; but in one or two generations the crew reacts and starts with the work of leading the barque out of the dangerous waters. This, they do with the sure instinct of the Only Church; they do it because the Holy Ghost helps His own Church, not the imitations. All the others are on their own in the dangerous waters of human frailties and sinful desires.
And so it is that the so-called (Protestant) churches, not having the help of the Holy Ghost, get into the tempest and can’t see the way out anymore; they have no invisible help at the helm; they’ll be blinded by the terror of the ship soon sinking, and start doing all the wrong things; and sink, one day, all of them will.
Good riddance, say I; and not a day too soon.
You see the Anglicans, and the Episcopalians, and the Methodists, and the Quakers, and the mainstream Lutherans all with the same problem: a secularisation from the inside that is eating them out like a slow, malignant cancer. They forgot God (which their ancestors, wrong and blinded as they certainly were, still had firmly in mind) and dedicated their attention to men; that is, to this earth; that is, to social justice and supposed “rights”. The punishment came swiftly, but in their blindness they can’t even see that they are killing themselves, and insist on pushing the knife harder within themselves in the hope that this might be what leads to their healing.
You see this from the article, curiously redolent of Father Corapi’s press office’s “fan base”. They want to “go for growth”, talking of themselves as if they were selling diapers, or energy drinks; they talk of “recruitment” as if the problem were in people not knowing that they exist, and where to find them. They can’t understand that their decline has not happened notwithstanding their feminist and secular drive, but because of it. They don’t get that in becoming a mouthpiece for social instances, they have made themselves superfluous as a religious organisation. They are terrified of drowning as their ship is violently shaken, and they can see all too clearly that the skipper is perfectly incompetent, more terrified than they are, and has no idea which route to take.
Whenever I think that the Church in England has problems, I only need to look at the Anglicans and feel much better already. These are people able to reduce themselves to between 3% and 4% of weekly churchgoers and still unable to see what’s wrong with them. And so they continue to sail towards even more dangerous waters, thinking that in this way help will come from…. no one knows where. More modern, more “inclusive”, more “relevant” they want to be; more superfluous, more ridiculous, more ignored is what they become. Even their dying out barely makes headlines.
All points out to a continuation of this slow suicide, drifting further away from Christianity and sinking deeper into a social mentality now barely distinguishable from socialism; a very cheap “go for growth” strategy, and a rather stupid one. By introducing bishopesses and very soon, no doubt, unrepentant perverts in official position of leadership, they will further become the Disneyland of what they once were, a Las Vegas-style outfit meant to please everyone, and not needed by anyone; the tacky “made in china” imitation of the only Church, hoping to survive with a cheap theology to be flogged to those who aren’t interested in any theology. It won’t work, of course.
In the meantime, the Only Church smells the blood. The very visible decay of this now clearly ridiculous outfit opens the possibility of reaping, in only one or two generations, all that was lost almost five hundred years ago. If there’s one thing that the Ordinariates clearly show, is the Roman conviction that worldwide Anglicanism is on its last legs and it is now time to start reaping the fruits of its deadly disease. And in truth, worldwide Anglicanism now strongly resembles a small version of the Ottoman Empire, bearing the signs of its advanced state of decay for everyone to see.
Some Anglicans begin to see it, too. They’ve opened their eyes to the madness of trusting their soul to a ship shattered by the waves, with no guidance whatsoever and no security of purpose. They long for an unsinkable ship, one able to carry them safely to their destination. A ship not without problems for sure, with some awful seamen, disgraceful midshipmen and, alas, the one or other evil officer; but unsinkable nevertheless. In the coming decades, more and more of the Anglican crew are going to change ship, as the waves of feminism and “inclusiveness” shatter the vessel with all their violence whilst it heads towards self destruction.
Unless they experience a phase of true repentance and moral regeneration – nowhere to be seen up to now; the contrary is the case – the Anglicans are going to extinguish themselves whilst discussing the next wave of feminist and “inclusive” reform; which, if you ask me, is exactly the end that this heretical outfit has deserved from day one.
Born from the bastard child of a swine and his concubine, it will die as the bastard child of feminism and sexual perversion.
25 years later, “Yes, Prime Minister” continues to be one of the most profound pieces of TV comedy ever written. The great insights of the screenwriters is shown in the extremely elegant manner in which their simple truths are imparted, the clear message gently softened by that wonderful, wonderful British humour.
This time the always perceptive, suavely cynical Sir Humphrey Appleby introduces Jim Hacker, the Prime Minister, to the so-called Church of England.
It is sad to say that much of what he says applies to many of our bishops, too.