And so it came to pass that so-called same sex marriage was pushed very hard in a certain State of the US. This State is very solidly in the hands of the Democrats, and might have been considered a reasonably safe bet. This State is also the adoptive one of the current President, who has been lovingly nurtured and protected by the local – very corrupted, as even we in Europe know – political and party machine in order to become the poster boy of a brave new world without God or shame, and recently the first honorary “Gay President” in the Land.
This new satanic measure had already made it through the Senate, which – on St Valentine's day, no less – approved the measure amidst the excited screeches of the local perverts. One would have been justified in thinking the measure would have good cards in the lower chamber.
Alas for the perverts, it wasn't to be, at least for now. The measure failed – please read this twice – to even gather enough support for a vote to be called in the first place. This, notwithstanding the intervention of the above-mentioned Gay President, who travelled to Illinois to say please, please go to hell with me.
Now let us reflect on this: the intervention of the Gay President was not even enough to allow for a vote, let alone a victory. Decidedly, Presidents are not what they used to be.
Between the lines, you get even more interesting information: when many Democrat legislators ask for more time to talk to their constituents, it means they are terrified of voting in favour of the measure and be massacred as a result; this, notwithstanding the party pressure, which must have been absolutely massive if even the President intervened. It must also be noted the black religious community has erected a solid wall against the measure, and good luck to the “Black President” on that. Thirdly, the measure had been already amended with the usual fake “protections” only extended to explicitly religious institutions, but this was evidently not nearly enough to avoid its demise.
It is very sad to see the once so celebrated heathen messiah having so little influence on his own people, in his own home turf. Sad for Democrats, I mean. We obviously do not know how this will go on, and one can be sure the minions of Satan will continue their effort against basic decency and Christian morality; but one cannot avoid noticing that, whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, the opposition to heathenism is getting more determined and organised as religious communities continue their work on the ground and oppose the stupid “human rights” mantra of the perverts.
Perversion has no rights. Those who want to see perversion as the founding principle of their community only need to be a little patient, and they will find their wish fulfilled beyond their expectation.
From the very long – and very fitting – letter #80 of Bishop Fellay to Friends and Benefactors: (emphases mine)
We beg Heaven and the authorities of the Church, in particular the new Supreme Pontiff, Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, not to allow souls to perish because they no longer learn sound doctrine, the revealed deposit of the faith, without which no one can be saved, no one can please God.
What good is it to devote oneself to serving people if one hides from them what is essential, the purpose and the meaning of their life, and the seriousness of sin that turns them away from it? Works of charity done for the poor, the needy, the infirm, and the sick have always been a true concern for the Church, and we must not excuse ourselves from it, but if it becomes merely man-centered philanthropy, then the Church is no longer carrying out her mission, she is no longer leading souls to God, which can really be done only by supernatural means: faith, hope, charity and grace. And therefore by denouncing anything that is opposed to them: errors against faith and morality. Because if people sin, for want of that denunciation, they are damned for eternity. The Church’s reason for being is to save them and to help them avoid the misfortune of their eternal perdition.
“Mundabor”, the teacher would have said at school, “what does the author want to say”?
I am not at school anymore, but I think I know what I would answer: the author wants to say that there has been enough talk of simplicity, black shoes, iron crosses, and Argentinian newsagents, whilst the real issues continue to be happily ignored.
One month on, the silence of the new Pope concerning the new, exploding phenomenon of pro-homosexual legislation is deafening; but Heavens, we know everything about how he doesn’t like Papal Apartments, red shoes, mozzettas, or Roman cobblers.
The SSPX has certainly been prudent for a while, waiting to see how they can picture this Pontiff before speaking publicly.
Their decision to move to an open appeal clearly means they consider his silence as scandalous. Please read Bishop Fellay’s words again. They are clear enough.
Pope Francis has not justified the worst fears (up to now, at least), and has moved rather well on a couple of occasions (the LCWR comes to mind; actually nothing else of consequence comes to mind… one good homily here, one good idea there, things like that); but he has also lived dramatic weeks for world Christianity whilst doing basically nothing, or whilst letting us know how sensitive he is to his newsagent down in Buenos Aires.
God knows how much the French Catholics would have appreciated strong words of the Pontiff concerning the abomination of sodomy; it would have given – and would still give – the movement great strenght for the years of fight in front of them.
Instead, we haven’t heard one word. Not one.
I am sick and tired already to try to see Francis through Benedict. I see that Benedict was indecisive enough, and Francis can talk rather refreshingly if he wants, but he avoids to do it when it means grating the masses whose approval he is so sedulously seeking. Whilst the French members of parliament send the country’s soul to hell, he entertains us with the evil of gossiping.
Mozzetta or no Mozzetta, this is not good enough; this is no longer carrying on the Church’s mission, and allowing souls to perish.
It is a paradox that we had a Pope who saw the necessity of war but didn’t have the nerve to lead us into it; and we now have a Pope who probably has the strenght of character to lead us into any war he chooses, but seems not to think the unprecedented disintegration of the Christian fabric of the West is worth a war in the first place.
But hey, we know all about his cobbler.
The poison pill reports in the usual whining way an Argentinian priest suspended in 2010 for his support for so-called “gay marriage” has now been defrocked.
Makes sense, as if one supports so-called gay marriages one can’t call himself a Christian, let alone a Catholic priest.
I hope the chap is thrown on the road without a penny to live on (McDonald’s is hiring: a very honest job), but frankly I doubt it. He will, very probably, continue to scrounge at the expense of the Faithful of the Church whose enemy he is.
The apostate complains saying “thirty years of service to God’s people mean nothing”. One has the impression the years of service to God’s people have been rather zero.
Please reflect it isn’t really thinkable this man would have been defrocked if he had repented. Three years is a long time. This must be a very obdurate one. At this point, one must wonder about his own so-called “orientation”, too.
The Church must get rid of these people.
The lady above (starting from 2:00) has the right attitude…
Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit has stated something which I find utterly obvious but that in these troubles is worth shouting from the rooftops: of course a person who says himself a Catholic and goes to Mass but support sexual perversion commits a sacrilege if he attempts to receive communion.
You either side with the Sodomites, or with the exterminating angel. You can’t side with both.
Predictably, a rather well-known idiot of the Diocese, the former auxiliary bishop Gumbleton, being openly heretical, has begged to publicly disagree.
Gumbleton is a troubling – and troubled – personality in more than one ways. A rabid pacifist (pacifism is also not Catholic), the man has in the past been a querulous advocate of “gay rights” even within the Church, and thinks “conscience” is the new religion. He might not be homosexual, but he certainly doesn’t do anything to dispel the impression.
Bishop Emeritus Gumbleton now makes a rather pathetic attempt to move us to tears with the following words:
“Husband, wife, raised seven children, Catholics all their lives, they’re in their eighties now, and the mother says to me, you know I can’t go to communion anymore,” […] “They’re hurt and she’s crying because we can’t go communion and that means so much to them.”
She is crying, isn’t she? Ah well then…
Seriously, the old woman has all reasons to cry: the tragedy of a son very probably bent for damnation is the first very valid reason, and her not only helping him to go there and actively putting her soul in grave danger is another extremely fitting one.
Does this bother the old woman? Of course not! She cries because she can’t receive communion!
Bishop Gumbleton could have said to her that she were a decent Catholic she could help both her husband and her son by praying that they may learn to accept Catholic truth and live it in their life. Instead, he (the retired bishop) chooses to be accessory to the sin of both.
Interestingly, the simple fact that the old woman is allowed to validly receive communion if she only confesses and accepts Catholic teaching does not seem to be part of the equation, either for the woman or the bishop. Disobedience is a given, its consequences hurt them oh so much. Strange, nicht wahr?
Thankfully, Gumbleton isn’t representative of a US bishop; not even one of the wrong kind.
My former post about Gumbleton (linked above) ended with the following lines:
Bishop Gumbleton should be either laicized or ordered to lock himself in a monastery for the rest of his days to clear his head and to expiate his sins. He needs our prayer but he needs to be severely and publicly punished, too. The times in which Bishops could confuse the minds of the simpler Catholics with their heresies and remain unpunished should now slowly but surely come to an end.
A Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is surely in order here.
His latest utterances show nothing has changed in him, and therefore also in the validity of the suggestion.
There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And being a whining old woman – or a stupid old bishop – isn’t going to help much.
It appears increasingly more probable the tenancy agreement of David “call me gay” Cameron for the upper floor of 10 Downing Street might be the object of a notice of eviction before long.
Whilst we were all focusing on the upcoming Conclave, the discontent within what once had some reason to call itself “Conservative Party” kept growing, as the humiliating defeat in Eastleigh was clear evidence the PM has no clothes, but a pink tutu at the most…
In the last days, more devastating news have reached our rainbow heroes at and around Number 10. An internal poll indicates 7% of the party basis (no, it's not a typo) believes the Chameleon will survive the 2015 General Elections. Now, I do understand these polls must be taken with a pinch of salt, but 7% reminds one of the film “The Downfall”…
Predictably, knives are now being sharpened like it's nobody's business…
Yesterday (Sunday) there was a speech of Theresa May which, whilst still paying lip service to Cameron, was a clear programmatic platform to present a possible alternative leadership.
Today another Tory heavyweight, Liam Fox, heavily criticises Osborne and Cameron “posh Labour” economic policy, calling for real reductions in taxing and spending rather than the actual policy largely made of posturing and brutal cost reductions…. all scheduled for after the 2015 elections.
Then there is the former grandee Michael Portillo, going on record with the encouraging statement it's improbable the Party will kick Cameron out before the election, rather after the defeat in 2015….
Then there is the ascent of the UKIP; who, whilst very imperfect – they also pander to the LGBT crowd like a bunch of old trollops outside the saloon – are simply depriving the Tories of the last dreams of re-election; so much so, that the diaspora of conservative votes has now roused the appetite of the Lib-Dems in marginal yellow-against-blue constituencies.
Add to all this the death in the womb of the proposed changes in the constituency boundaries – already a heavy blow for the Chameleon – and you will understand how truly, truly desperate the situation is.
Behind all this, explicitly mentioned by many and implicitly meant by all, is Cameron's unconscionable policy on sexual perversion, in the meantime so universally refused from the party (behind a thin facade) and the voters (much more openly) as to let one believe Cameron wants to put the party on a train to Switzerland, to put everyone (himself included) in a “Dignitas” clinic. I am not sorry to say the probability only he and a couple of his will be put on the train is far higher.
What other bad news can there be for the Prime Minister? Hhmmm, let us see… what about the UKIP making clear that Cameron's head on a tray is the precondition for every talk of an alliance in 2015? Or perhaps the insisted rumours of a motion of non confidence might be of interested for the PM?
I might be wrong, but I have the strong impression Cameron's PC, pink, rainbow, all things to all people, “gay marriage is conservative” boat is sinking fast, and no one will be willing to save the captain.
Cameron has defied the very soul of the party – and of that part of he Country where its real power base lies – to play the enlightened socialite, or more probably to get some sex from his left-leaning, champagne-progressivist wife. It serves him right.
The price of a virtuous wife is far above rubies, says more or less the Bible; but the Camerons don't read the bible, so they were informed too late. What the bible does not say, is that a Prime Minister willing to prostitute himself, his party and Christian values to be in the grace of his wife marches towards political ruin in this life, and he'll in the next.
I received this question, an ideal starting starting point, from the always very perceptive Catocon:
where do Monti and this centrist coalition stand on the *really* important issues, that is, abortion, homosexual “marriage”, secularism etc…? My impression has been that he is what Europeans call a liberal, that is an economically moderate technocratic statist too timid to confront social issues but (if necessary) always a willing slave of the spirit of modernity. But my knowledge of Italian politics is certainly lacking, so maybe Italian “centrists” are different.
How certain are we that those centrists will not start to “evolve” as it is called in Obama’s language, as “centrists” all over the West inevitably tend to do when the pressure from the media and the established cultural revolution starts to mount?
As I understand the Italian electoral system, the strongest party/coalition is guaranteed a majority of at least 54% in one chamber of parliament and also, on a regional basis, in the Senate, right? Any split between non-leftist coalitions would be utterly disastrous in that case as leftists could win a majority of seats even if they lost the election in terms of the popular vote because of the split in the non-leftist vote between “centrists” and “rightists”. To support any kind of centrist coalition just to avoid endorsing someone like Berlusconi would be utterly irresponsible in this case.
Does not the Church hierarchy, by throwing her weight behind the center coalition, effectively help secure a parliamentary majority for the socialists and communists on the left even if the center does turn out to be relatively solid on the issues that matter most to the Catholic?
In order to give a better idea of how I see things, I will divide the answer in several sections: how the system works, what the Vatican is trying to do and why, and whether we can trust the Catholic parties.
Keep in mind the situation is at the moment extremely fluid and fascinating, with a very mobile electorate. Also keep in mind hardcore Catholics are, for now, slowly dying.
At the Camera there is the majority premium Catocon describes: the strongest coalition gets 340 seats out of 615. It doesn’t matter if the strongest coalition only has, say, 20% of the votes. The coalition with the relative majority gets 340 members, period.
At the Senate there are 20 regions, and 17 of them get a (regional) majority premium. The biggest ones (like Lombardia, Lazio, Campania, Sicilia) are seen as crucial. Again, the premium here is regional, so there are several decks of cards to be distributed.
At the moment the field is divided in four major major camps, again with the situation extremely fluid and changing almost daily.
1. Left wing coalition.
They are the almost sure winner of the majority in the Camera. They will probably ally with the sodocommunists, though they don’t really like them. If the centre is strong (which it might well become) they will lose some parts on their right wing side (this is already happening), which makes the alliance with the sodocommunists the more important to them. The main component of this coalition supports Monti’s agenda, though the extreme left wing of the sodocommunists don’t. This might be a split in the making, with the two allying for the vote and to bag the majority premium, but splitting afterwards as the sodocommies do not support Monti’s austerity program. Together with the sodomites, this grouping is (for now) comfortably in the 30%-35% range. But they have a difficult job as this is the only coalition with divided loyalties concerning Monti and o one can say how many moderate elements will prefer the centre instead now that they have become a very credible alternative.
2. Right wing coalition
This is what is left of the old Berlusconi coalition who won big in 2008, after losing several pieces down the road. The Lega Nord appears not to want an agreement if Berlusconi wants to run as PM, but they would support the alliance is Berlusconi renounces to Prime Ministerial ambitions.
Neither Berlusconi nor the Lega support Monti. This attracts to them a lot of protest votes, but makes them invotabili for that part of the country committed to stop Italy from becoming the next Greece. They have a component of very tough Catholics, but their Catholic credentials aren’t considered the best as Berlusconi would only follow Catholic interests as long as they serve him and would throw his weight on the other side whenever necessary.
This coalition appeared dead in the water only two weeks ago. Berlusconi’s offensive is now causing them to strongly recover. Last time I looked they were given at 20%, trend ascending, even without the Lega. If you ask me, they are going to fish protest votes from Grillo’s voters (see below) like there’s no tomorrow.
Berlusconi has now also announced a strongly Catholic program, in preparation as I write. His aim is to make the Vatican lose credibility and rally around him the Catholic voices. Brilliant strategy as always (this man is around one thousand times smarter than the foreign press depicts him), but Berlusconi still has a credibility problem, and no Vatican endorsement.
3. Centre coalition.
This is the fiscally and (in large part) socially conservative coalition created to support Monti’s program. A strong Catholic party (UDC) is the backbone of the coalition, which is integrated by non-Catholic components. The loss of the UDC is what causes the second biggest headache for Berlusconi, the Lega being the first. This coalition gained the open support of the Vatican and is, literally, defying gravity, at 23% yesterday.
They are, as a coalition, purely focused on Monti’s program. But the UDC as a party is the safest bet for Catholics in Italy. The Vatican endorsement will take care that the coalition becomes more and more dominated by the Catholic element, but do not expect them to campaign as a coalition with Catholic values: they are there to support Monti’s economic program and they want their votes, whether Catholic or not. Still, Italians are sophisticated voters and many of the supporters of this coalition will be seen (or officially vote in the Camera; in the Senate there will be a unity list for complex reasons of minimum votes necessary) as staunch Catholics.
4. Grillo (Five Stars)
Grillo is a successful comedian with the hobby of politics; he has been creating a vast consensus around him, based on the usual refusal of professional politics and desire to reinvent the wheel such protest movements always have. He is an enemy of Monti and of everything that is unpopular and difficult to bring to the masses; as always, his message appeals to the dissatisfied, the disaffected, the undecided, the irresponsible and the plain stupid. They used to be very strong months ago, when Berlusconi’s party officially (if begrudgingly) supported Monti, and they were even given as the biggest single party (not coalition) out there. If you ask me, they will have a tough time now that the populist position is covered by the Right Wing coalition. They could end up massacred, or else the second or third biggest coalition. At the moment, no one knows.
Cardinal Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops’ conference, threw Berlusconi out of the window in 2011 and never fished him in again. I have already written on this blog I do not know how wise this was, but their reasoning is that it is for the right-wing coalition to get rid of Berlusconi, rather than for the Vatican to have to support Berlusconi no matter what. In fact, in Italy you are traditionally expected to listen to the Vatican rather than expect them to listen to you, as they are (for now) powerful enough to demand it. Again, Ruini swallowed Berlusconi’s toad for many years, but Bagnasco (a rather tough guy particularly compared to Ruini) has decided that enough is enough and there will be no turning back.
How powerful the Vatican (still) is can be seen in the “centre” coalition now given (last time I looked, that is: yesterday) at an astonishing 23%. Mind, these votes aren’t transferable 1 to 1 to a centre-right coalition, as a good part of the country will never vote Berlusconi anyway. By refusing to support Monti’s course, Berlusconi has chosen the populist and protest vote, but he will emphatically not get the moderate conservative vote; certainly not now that the Vatican says to vote centre, but it is clear many of them would have never voted for Berlusconi anyway.
I think Bagnasco & Co. consider the winning of the majority premium from the left side inevitable, as does the entire country. By supporting Berlusconi (largely seen as the losing camp, and irremediably opposed to the left) there is a concrete risk of leaving the left with two majorities, and a sodomarriage of sort would follow (probably) rather fast after that.
On the other hand, by trying to “defy gravity” and put all their weight behind a strong centrist coalition, the Vatican aims at warping the leftist bid for double majority, as the centre coalition amputates them on their right wing side. If they manage to thwart a left-wing majority in the Senate, which is the real name of the game, they are very probably safe against any sodomite legislation without having to marry Berlusconi’s populism, opportunism and corruption. The rallying cry of the Curia should help the centre reach critical mass instead of being massacred in the middle of the opposing left and right wing blocks. I call this “defying gravity” because what is happening now is unprecedented in the history of the new electoral system, which is designed to divide the country around two big blocks of centre-left and centre-right. Small parties have always survived (or not) as independent, but never was a big “third” coalition seen to have any chance.
The centre and the right are now fighting for the soul of the (moderate) country: they will not work together because the right is now a kind of populist “protest party” whose Weltanschauung is at odds with the fiscally responsible centre. Still, whilst you can’t unite their votes to make a government, you can unite them to avoid sodomite legislation. It everything goes according to plan, this will be an insurmountable barrier at least in the Senate.
As to the Catholic parties, be not afraid: they are very different from the CDU, or from the CSU come to that. The UDC voters have been in these twenty years such a steady element that it is utterly irrelevant whether their leaders would want to sell themselves: they won’t, because they know it would very probably be their death. As I see it, no “evolving” is to be feared from that side, rather the contrary… What Germans (and Brits of Americans) needs to understand here is that a core of hardline Catholics (perhaps 10-14% of the voters, now divided between right and centre, formerly between centre-left and centre-right) are real Catholics who have up to now always successfully gone on the barricades when necessary. They are square in the middle and they are still seen as the key to power, which is why the moderate leftists don’t want to anger them and Berlusconi wants their votes so badly.
I will, unless something huge happens, vote for the UDC myself. Not so much because Bagnasco says so, but because I think that in Italy you will not find another party you can thrust so much to defend Catholic values, and which such a good chance of your vote truly being put to work against the Left. I might be wrong of course, but as far as the Catholic vote is concerned I wasn’t these last twenty years. Italy is a country where people were ready to even vote for Berlusconi merely because he defended Catholic values (they actually voted Catholics components and candidates within his coalitions) and I can’t imagine any other European country ready to swallow so much for the cause.
As I see it (and the Vatican seems to agree with me.. ;) ) the centre coalition is the wedge pushed in the middle of an otherwise probably unavoidable double majority for the left-wing. They have pooped in the leftist party, and if everything goes according to plan they will be the elephant in the room without which no majority – much less sodomite legislation – is possible.
Once again – and to conclude – the votes of the populist right wing and of the Monti coalition can’t be added, as the fiscal differences can’t be bridged. It will have to be the one or the other.
The Vatican has chosen the “other”. I think it’s the wiser bet.
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.
I have read the “corrections” concerning the matter of the stupidly named boy “Lennon” and his even more stupid Facebook post and frankly find the attitude shown, of all people, by Catholics rather disturbing.
Firstly, it is good that a boy be denied Confirmation because in blatant conflict with Catholic values. It would be tragic if this were not the case. As a consequence, the subsequent news that the problems were antecedent to the posting do not change an iota in the fundamental matter.
Secondly, to accuse the liberal press of being slandering when stating the boy with the stupid name was excluded from confirmation because of the Facebook post is to imply that such a post would in itself not be a sufficient ground for refusal. Of course it is! If that isn’t, I truly do not know what is!
What transpires here is that the stupidly named boy had already given cause for concern, and the priest had – as he should – discussed the matter with his parents. But even so, it is clear that the Facebook post was a smoking gun that would have made the matter extremely thorny, and a valid confirmation under the circumstances impossible anyway. It was, therefore, for the boy a clear case of going before being kicked out, and I wonder that not many noticed this.
Please, please let us not start to relativise the importance of the sacraments ourselves: if the priest had denied the (stupidly named) boy confirmation purely and exclusively on the ground of the Facebook post, he would have done the only right thing anyway.
Let us call a spade a spade here, and a Sacrament a Sacrament. Quibbling about who walk away when does not help.
Several contributions have been written in the last days about the boy who was denied confirmation because in favour of so-called “gay marriage”.
What I would like to point out is, though, something different, which perhaps hasn’t been mentioned by other commenters and bloggers.
1) the Christian (sic) name of the young man is, apparently, “Lennon”. What kind of Christian name is “Lennon”? This points out to a malpractice that has started to explode some decades ago (cela va sans dire, after Vatican II) and whose consequences the clergy have refused to see: if one gives his child a heathen name, heathenism can’t be far away. Where I hail from (Italy) when I was a child there wasn’t anyone, not one, who didn’t have the name of a saint, and our Jewish classmate also had a Biblical name. The idea of calling one’s son or daughter “Moon”, “Led Zeppelin”, “Katana” or things like that would have been inconceivable, much more so in the case of the name of an openly atheist, drugs-taking, feminism-abetting, deluded cretin as in this case. When priests have allowed children to be baptised with stupid names as a matter of course without any resistance, they have paved the way for the situation we are living today. A priest would be expected to at least question the Christian spirit of parents who want to christen their son “Testarossa”, “Touring Superleggera” or whatever other madness goes through their mind, even when they are not – as in this case – explicitly atheistic in their meaning. A Christian name is supposed to be…. Christian.
2) I commend the priest for his decision, but according to how long the boy had been under instruction one wonders how things could have gone so utterly wrong as to let the boy think he can be in favour of sodomarriage and ask to be confirmed. Whilst I wasn’t there, it is not improbable – and irrespective of this cases it is certainly what happens in many other cases – that the priest either left the instruction to people not much better in their Catholicism than (uummphh…) “Lennon”, or did so in such a hushed, softly softly, weak way that the poor boy just did not get that one can’t be a Catholic and a supporter of sodomarriage at the same time. Which is a simple message, and should not be difficult to convey.
3) I have read around that the parents have told themselves “surprised” (or such like expression) at the priest’s decision. More of the same. Beside the fact that I am not surprised that people calling their son “Lennon” should tell themselves “surprised”, once again one wonders what has gone wrong. The parents should have been, methinks, ashamed for their son’s antic and should have apologised for it; alternatively, they should have said that whilst they respect their son’s decision and blabla, it is clear to them confirmation is out of the question under the circumstances. I have read nothing of the sort, but wait for developments. Obviously, questions can be asked as to the Christian instruction the boy has received; but come on, he was called “Lennon”…
In the simple world of Mundabor, people either are Christian with an acceptable degree of seriousness (which I seriously doubt in people calling their son “Lennon” in the first place) or they call themselves heathen and have the gut to accept the consequences; also because the consequences are going to come to them whether they public accept them or not.
As was, very probably, the fate of the original “Lennon”.
In the simple world in which I live, a person is only worthy of respect if he can walk the walk besides talking the talk.
Talking in abstract is fairly easy if you are a tepid shepherd, and unless one is a pathological eunuch – like too many English bishops – the one or other word will certainly find its way to the press – or to the pulpit – without causing too many controversies.
But what happens when a bishop discovers that one of his own priests openly and publicly sabotages the Christian message he wants to send to his sheep? Will this bishop be brave enough to walk the walk, after he was able to talk the talk? In Baltimore, a priest had the insolence to read in public the bishop’s letter concerning so-called “gay marriages” (who aren’t “gay”, and aren’t marriages), and then vocally oppose the very Christian message he had just read.
Now, this is where men are separated from the boys: if Bishop Lori tolerates such a scandal is his own diocese without severely punishing – best of all, defrocking – the pro-homo priest, he will show he is just another boy able to talk the talk but unable to walk the walk. It cannot be, it seriously cannot be that a bishop allows one of his own pro-homo-priests to make a mockery of Catholicism without consequences. It undermines the credibility of the Church and of the priesthood, and destroys that of the Bishop.
Man or boy? The next weeks will tell.
Imagine one day your Government, following the “call” of the times, would decide that sexual intercourse with animals does not constitute a criminal offence. It is still horrible of course, but it has now been decided that prosecution (with the added expenses) is now not the way anymore.
In just a few years, behaviour once considered criminally perverted would be considered merely disgusting; after a while, purely very strange. Disquieting people would emerge from anonymity, beginning to give themselves as zoophiles names like “smart” or “spiffy”. Soon, they would begin to consider themselves a ” minority”, and the carriers of a “culture”, and this culture would be, of course, “discriminated against” by the “hypocritical” followers of “bourgeois morality”.
Give them just a few years more (the time to infiltrate Hollywood, and be considered “normal” by a generation of people who cannot even remember zoophilia was once a criminal offence) and Bob’s your uncle: they will be accepted. This point – when people start to say “some of my best friends are spiffies” without being ashamed; nay, feeling modern and alternative and “with it” – is the turning of the tide. After a while, calls for “civil partnerships” will be heard, and when one already has a neighbour living with an extremely nice female of German Shepherd it might not sound so absurd at all because the abomination was there, to be seen every day and shamelessly practised under the sun already; after a while, the calls for “marriage” will follow, and those who refuse to congratulate Bella (the German shepherd) and Adam (the English accountant) for their beautiful relationship will be called, by the then deputy Prime Minister, “bigots”, whilst the Prime Minister of the day will call their “commitment” something “conservative” and give his blessing. In the end, they say, Bella and Adam are “happy”, and how can anyone be so cruel as to be against, oh, oh, “happiness”?
What is this all to do with the so-called “gay marriage”, you will ask?
The debate about the so-called “gay marriage” (which isn’t gay; much less marriage) is not the product of some strange combination of planets; it is the unavoidable consequence of the abolition of sodomy laws. How was it not to be expected that the toleration of perversion would not, in time, lead to calls for its normalisation? One can’t be half against abominations. Either one refuses them altogether as taboos, or one will be forced to “include” what he is afraid to condemn.
Our forefathers, much smarter than we are and with no false gods of tolerance at all costs, knew this. We know this ourselves when some types of sexual perversions (paedophilia, say) are concerned. But again, after only one and a half generation without sodomy laws many people would struggle to even link the two and put them in the same ballpark, which countless generations before us did without any problem. This happens because, as I have often repeated, the laws of one generations are the morality of the following one. Those legislators who decriminalised sodomy in the Sixties certainly did not favour the so-called “gay marriage”, but clearly did not think this through. We now pay the consequences of their folly, and it might be a long time before sanity (and with it sodomy laws) returns.
We live in such senselessly stupid times that we have lost sight for elementary truths just because they impact some neighbour or colleague or “friend”. God is not part of the picture anymore, and no average “British Neighbour” wonders anymore whether he must really tolerate scandalous perversion out of his own front door. This happens, because he has not been taught to call a spade a spade; and whilst he feels all the disgust he has no heart to say what he thinks, lest he should appear a Neanderthaler in the eyes of his neighbours; many of whom, no doubt, think exactly as he does.
This cycle of cowardice – which generates more homo screaming; which generates more cowardice – has to stop. It has to stop if we want to go back to basic Christianity and elementary decency, instead of allowing Satan to manipulate us everywhere whilst we say to our friends how modern and tolerant we are.
So-called “gay” (I’d love to see the suicide statistics of such “gay” people) “marriage” is not fought against saying that civil partnership is enough of a civil right, because this invites the problem rather than avoiding it. If perversion is right, why should only half perversion be accepted? Isn’t the very institution of “civil partnership” the statement that sexual perversion is absolutely normal? If it’s normal, what’s the fuss?
So-called “gay marriage” is fought against by calling s spade a spade, and a pervert a pervert, not by giving perverts almost full recognition and then telling them they are ok, but really, they should not ask to be treated as such.
Bring back the sodomy laws.
Those who thought Cameron a clever boy must be changing their mind very rapidly, as our man insists (for now) in not wanting to ditch the perverted idea of “gay marriage” in the face of a growing opposition within the party.
We have seen the same attitude with the Lords’ reform, and on that occasion our man ended up with a historic humiliation, to which he was forced to avoid a defeat which would have put his permanence as Prime Minister very clearly into question.
Of course, Cameron has his motives. Firstly, he has this stupid idea that he can attract Labour voters without losing his own supporters; a very imprudent reasoning even before the UKIP, and absolute madness now. Secondly, he has this other idea that values don’t count, votes do. Therefore, he goes where he thinks the votes are, and who cares whether the sane part of England is up in arms: as long as he thinks there is something to be gained, he will keep the course. Thirdly – and interestingly – he might be influenced – as conservative journalists started to theorise some days ago; perhaps trying to rationalise what must be sheer stubborn and political stupidity,but more probably hitting the bull’s eye – by the circle of liberal friends around his rather too liberal wife. A PM is a man too, and besides having his own domestic peace to maintain – Cameron is certainly no Duce at home; more likely a Neville Chamberlain – one has to think that whilst the man might not give a damn about what a dozen million of country Tories think, he might well be afraid of losing face in front of two or three dozen of family acquaintances; with the added spice of sexual perverts no doubt well represented among them, as is de rigueur nowadays.
Well, it is becoming increasingly more evident the liberal wife is a luxury Cameron will find more and more politically expensive. The support around him is eroding visibly; he has lost long ago the aura of the knight in shining armour running to the rescue of Toryism, and those who don’t despise him certainly do not fear him at all (see Brussels, and Lords).
Now Cameron may console himself thinking – like the other populist trollop, Boris Johnson, who is at least popular – that his message works rather well among the populace of the conurbations. What he conveniently forgets is that there are a lot of seat that have nothing to do with conurbations, many of them are in Tory hands, he has lost a number of them in 2010 and runs the risk of losing many more in 2015, as the UKIP slowly but surely emerges as the real Conservative party also for first-past-the-post elections.
It appears now up to thirty seats are officially in danger, and even our Chameleon must understand even half of that number would mean sudden death for a man who has been unable to win outright against Gordon Brown (who was the equivalent of Joe Biden without the smiles and an embarrassment for his own close relatives, and the family cat) and who must, absolutely must deliver an outright majority come 2015 if he is ever to see Number 10 from the inside again.
Cameron does not get (not because he be so stupid; because he does not want to accept this simple truth) that he does not get much support from the perverts (who will vote Labour, or if they drink wine LibDem, anyway) but loses massively among the socially conservative who keep him in power. It’s a situation with no upside outside his (wife’s) circle of acquaintances, and as the elections approach we will see him increasingly criticised by the same pervert activists whom he claims to support. What a joke, and what a vote loser.
A more intelligent man (one like Kohl, say; at least before he lost the coordinates during his last mandate) would now graciously steer the ship in the direction the party wants, without ever letting it appear as a concession or a defeat; actually, a man like the Kohl of the first three mandates would have rather avoided finding himself in Cameron’s situation in the first place. Kohl knew how to be arrogant, but his arrogance did not come to the point of letting him believe he can have his way just for the asking. He also had very sensitive antennae for the needs of his party boys on the ground, whilst Cameron prefers the support of his wannabe intellectual circle of friends and assorted sodomites.
Cameron does neither the first (quietly get out of the choppy waters) nor the second (avoid being there in the first place) and he still insists in his and Clegg’s pet project (Clegg had a lot of pet projects; but they have been dying like flies…). Cameron is, in fact, so much in love with his idea of the glib “pragmatic” politician who installs himself in the centre and reigns happily ever after that he does not see that his subjects are growing restive, and the dagger might not be far away.
Let us pray the dagger comes before 2015 and, when it comes, goes straight through his heart.
After that, I don’t mind how glib he looks at his evenings with his (or more probably, his wife’s) “gay friends”.
He has deserved them, and they him.
Courtesy of the “Coalition for Marriage”, the full video of Ann Widdecombe’s speech at the “fringe conference” of the Conservative Party.
I will not waste your time pointing out to this or that beautiful phrase, because there are too many of them. This is one quarter of an hour which will really put you in front of the absurdity of the political correct nightmare the stupidity of a minority and the cowardly acquiescence of the majority has plunged the country into.
Widdecombe is witty but sensible, and poses a number of very intelligent questions. Her attack on Cameron is frontal and very effective, and the long applause from an extremely well frequented “fringe” event should make Cameron shudder and think.
Her portrayal of the many ways in which Britain is transforming itself in a totalitarian faggot state is extremely well put, and should make everyone who still does not blog anonymously seriously think of how long he will be allowed to have one without endangering work and freedom.
Cameron is a cancer, and I am being nice. He must be taken down, and with him this entire perversion mania. They must be ridiculed and forgotten like the madness of “man-made global warming”, a national craze in 2006-2008, and now you would have trouble in finding people admitting they believed it.
I think we are slowing getting there in this case too, but it will be a much longer and harder battle.
For now, thank God for the Widdecombes of the world, in a country where the Archbishop of Westminster limits himself to almost inaudible ex officio meowing, and the duty of leading the charge has fallen on the shoulder of the brave Lord Carey, who in the end is a pensioner whilst those in active duty sleep or look the other side.