Blog Archives

Justin Welby, The Funny Guy

Justin Welby, the Funny Guy, in costume.

Justin Welby, the man masquerading as the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, has given another example of his and his Mickey Mouse church's diabolical disorientation.

Welby is at the head of a motley group of heretics with such huge differences among them that they are not anymore recognisable as members of the same sect, whilst many of them are certainly not even recognisable as Christians.

The way Welby reacts to the situation could never be by defending Christian values, of course; it is doubtful whether he believes in God, and if he does this deity can only be a homemade concoction of half-backed common places. What he does instead is, in pure Anglican style, trying to make everyone happy.

If you follow the link (warning: the rag has often indecent images or content in its side links) you will immediately see what I am talking about.

Some of his people are afraid of apostasy, but some others don't want to become “irrelevant”. The coE must embark on a journey that tries to have Christianity on board, but who knows where the journey will end (hell, methinks). Some will do the one thing, some the opposite; we must accept it, because doing as one pleases is our religion, says Welby in so many words.

He also says things so outlandish you wonder about his drinking habits. Those who defend Christian values on so-called same-sex marriage – sodomy seems not to be a problem for this man; homosexuality is probably a gift from God – might be called “racist”, but he does not spend one single word against the accusation. On the contrary, the man lets it transpire that this is cause to serious concern for him. Is God racist? Hhhmmm, interesting question… we must answer it whilst remaining “relevant”, of course, then it should never be said that to us Christ comes first. Particularly if we are called “racist” a consequence.

Christ or relevance? In this question lies all the – let me say it again: diabolical – confusion of the so-called church of England; once at least a Christian outfit, if an heretical one, and now just a bunch of ridiculous clowns – many of them homosexual, or even sodomites – in drags.

Mundabor

 

Archbishop Nichols’ Views On Homos Endanger Childrens’ Souls, Says SPUC’s Head

Don't bother trying to spot the Catholic.

Just in case you had thought that I am the only one jumping from the chair when he reads what our disgraziato wants to smuggle as Catholicism, I refer here about the reaction caused by the same Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols on Mr. John Smeaton, the head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Mr. Smeaton has, as previously reported, his own blog, and an excellent one at that.

The ire of Mr. Smeaton was referred to an interview given by Vincent “Quisling” Nichols to the Daily Telegraph (the once conservative, now pinkish-PC daily newspaper) on the 11 September.

In this interview, Nichols is asked whether he thinks that the Church will ever “accept the reality of gay partnerships” (notice here: the “Telegraph” doesn’t write “homosexual”. “Gay” is the word of choice. As everything in the DT, it exudes political correctness. How very gay.) and he answers “I don’t know”. I admit to have read the article and to have given “Quisling” the benefit of the doubt; not being a mother tongue, I thought that this “I don’t know” could be meant in the same way as the “I’m not sure about that” used to express your clear disagreement; I have, therefore, not blogged on the matter.

Interestingly, though, Mr. Smeaton points out to another affirmation of the same man, interviewed by the BBC on the same matter and answering: “”I don’t know. Who knows what’s down the road?”

“Who knows what’s down the road?!” Well for one you are supposed to know what’s down the road, Mr. Nichols!!

I have already mentioned yesterday, but repetita iuvant, what Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is bound to know and to say about these perverted “unions”:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

I will also, like Smeaton, mention CCC 2357 here as I didn’t do it yesterday:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I’ll avoid sending my adrenaline sky-high just writing what I think of this disgraziato. Read and reach your conclusions for yourself. Unbelievably, this is an archbishop of the Only Church. It’s like listening to a Nancy Pelosi with some brain; or to an Anglican with some fear of actually being disciplined.

John Smeaton’s conclusion is perfectly logic:

“..as a Catholic parent, I am in a position to say, and on behalf of Catholic parents I meet up and down the country, that Archbishop Nichols’s, my archbishop’s, comments are dangerous to the souls of my children”

He later quotes from Evangelium Vitae and points out that:

“it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection”.

Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is not interested in all this. He doesn’t give a penny for two thousand years of Christian teaching; he pretends not to know Vatican documents on the matter; he pretends (we have seen it yesterday) that Pope Benedict is even of his opinion; he even pretends to completely ignore what JP II’s Catechism very clearly says on the matter.

This man is just a disgrace for the Church and an enemy in our midst.

The address where to send your email of complaint is clero@cclergy.va

Please point out to this scandal. Let us help those of good will in the Vatican (I’m sure there is someone, and more than someone) to clean the Church from their enemies.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: