The Bishops of England ans Wales have assured the MPs who have voted for the glorification of sexual abomination that they do not have to fear they will be denied communion. Bishop Egan is therefore (predictably) isolated in his position, and I do hope he does not cave in to his reprobate colleagues.
No embarrassment at the next cocktail, then.
Boy, these people stink of hell from Whitehall. After acquiescing to the politicians during the debate, they are now finishing the job (another word comes to mind) by helping the politicians to let the scandal die out. hey, it has happened. Yes, we can be privately opposed. In charity. Paying attention we are not “homophobic”. Being very “inclusive”. Just do not make any noise whilst doing so, thank you…
What a shame.
Enjoy the new Church of Francis.
Full of fluff, and Catholicism-free.
We are informed that more than 15,000 aborted and miscarried babies have been burned to produce energy .
The “Daily Homograph” very delicately also reports they were burned alongside other rubbish, thus making involuntarily clear what they think of the corpse of an aborted or miscarried baby.
The blood-chilling details are in the “Homograph” article, so if you want to have your stomach upset and your last meal isn’t recent you can read the rest there.
I merely notice that this is the country which, in a great leap “forward” toward Sodom, has just approved so-called homosexual “marriages”, less than a decade after approving homosexual “civil partnerships”.
How people does not see the link it’s beyond me. The contempt for God’s commandments must perforce translate in the pursue of every selfish interests at all costs; this will unavoidably lead both to the celebration of perversion and to the elimination of unwanted human beings. They are the two faces of the same coin, and a pretend sensitivity about the corpse of the baby one has just killed is not going to wash.
In fact, perhaps the most disgusting part of the story is the hypocrisy of those now saying burning dead children for heat is “unacceptable”. It is acceptable to kill an innocent unborn child, but it is not acceptable to dispose of the remains in a way that hurts the “sensitivity” of the public; sensitivity which , at least here in the UK, isn’t hurt by the killing of unborn babies at all.
I remember the opening show of the Olympic games, with that semi-communist exaltation of the NHS, apparently such a great conquest of humanity.
“Yes, ma’am, we have cremated the rests of your, erm, ah, well, I mean the “foetal remains”; can’t you feel the pleasant warmth around you?”
Rorate has these beautiful quotes from Pope Benedict. I have kept the emphases in their entirety.
Please note Pope Benedict made all these comments far before the astonishing regress in Western civilisation achieved since March 2013 in several countries.
Pope Benedict wasn’t a lion, but at least he had the lucidity to understand he had to speak, and the intellectual depth to speak in an effective way.
The contrast is, as they say in Italy, impietoso; that is: merciless.
None of us, in fact, belongs exclusively to himself or herself: one and all are therefore called to take on in their inmost depths their own public responsibility.
Marriage as an institution is thus not an undue interference of society or of authority. The external imposition of form on the most private reality of life is instead an intrinsic requirement of the covenant of conjugal love and of the depths of the human person.
Today, the various forms of the erosion of marriage, such as free unions and “trial marriage”, and even pseudo-marriages between people of the same sex, are instead an expression of anarchic freedom that are wrongly made to pass as true human liberation. This pseudo-freedom is based on a trivialization of the body, which inevitably entails the trivialization of the person. Its premise is that the human being can do to himself or herself whatever he or she likes: thus, the body becomes a secondary thing that can be manipulated, from the human point of view, and used as one likes. Licentiousness, which passes for the discovery of the body and its value, is actually a dualism that makes the body despicable, placing it, so to speak, outside the person’s authentic being and dignity.
Address at the Diocesan Convention in Rome at the Lateran Basilica
June 6, 2005
When new forms of legislation are created which relativize marriage, the renouncement of the definitive bond obtains, as it were, also a juridical seal.In this case, deciding for those who are already finding it far from easy becomes even more difficult. Then there is in addition, for the other type of couple, the relativization of the difference between the sexes.
The union of a man and a woman is being put on a par with the pairing of two people of the same sex, and tacitly confirms those fallacious theories that remove from the human person all the importance of masculinity and femininity, as though it were a question of the purely biological factor.
Such theories hold that man – that is, his intellect and his desire – would decide autonomously what he is or what he is not. In this, corporeity is scorned, with the consequence that the human being, in seeking to be emancipated from his body – from the “biological sphere” – ends by destroying himself.
If we tell ourselves that the Church ought not to interfere in such matters, we cannot but answer: are we not concerned with the human being? Do not believers, by virtue of the great culture of their faith, have the right to make a pronouncement on all this? Is it not their – our – duty to raise our voices to defend the human being, that creature who, precisely in the inseparable unity of body and spirit, is the image of God?
Christmas Address to the Roman Curia
December 22, 2006
[Human] love is the privileged path that God chose to reveal himself to man and in this love he calls human beings to communion in the Trinitarian life.
This approach enables us also to overcome a private conception of love that is so widespread today. Authentic love is transformed into a light that guides the whole of life towards its fullness, generating a society in which human beings can live. The communion of life and love which is marriage thus emerges as an authentic good for society.
Today, the need to avoid confusing marriage with other types of unions based on weak love is especially urgent. It is only the rock of total, irrevocable love between a man and a woman that can serve as the foundation on which to build a society that will become a home for all mankind.
Address to Members of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute
May 11, 2006
…there are mounting threats to the natural composition of the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, and attempts to relativize it by giving it the same status as other radically different forms of union. All this offends and helps to destabilize the family by concealing its specific nature and its unique social role.
Address to the Diplomatic Corps
January 8, 2007
…no law made by man can override the norm written by the Creator without society becoming dramatically wounded in what constitutes its basic foundation. To forget this would mean to weaken the family, penalizing the children and rendering the future of society precarious.
Address to Participants of Congress on Natural Moral Law
February 12, 2007
Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature. There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29).
[Reposted; original post: 2008]
From the favourite outlet of liberal cretins, and those who would love to become it:
This week we saw reports about Pope Francis cryptically acknowledging the existence of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, about which he supposedly believes something has to be done. But if I were on a crusade against gay marriage, like Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (both devout Catholics), I don’t think I’d be very happy with this pope so far. In fact, I’d say he stinks.
[several Countries introduced measure to favour perversion] And Pope Francis had nothing publicly to say about any of it. Zero. Zilch. Nada. He was busy washing the feet of the poor and tweeting about how selflessness is a virtue. Go figure.
Back when Spain passed marriage equality in 2005, Pope Benedict whirled himself into a frenzy, railing against it regularly. He told Catholic officials there that any support of the law would cost them their jobs and told secular public servants who are Catholic to flout the law and refuse to marry gays. He traveled to Spain and railed some more, oblivious to protests of his trip. From then on, he regularly attacked gay marriage, even calling it a “threat to the future of humanity.”
Read the rest here.
Even the leftist retards at the HuffPo have started to notice that Pope Francis is doing perfectly nothing against the legalisation of perversion, and the perversion of marriage, whilst the entire planet is swept by a wave of sodomitical madness.
The words “go figure” about a Pope waffling around whilst Christianity burns are extremely fitting, and well describe what this Pontificate has given us in these three months. What the author of the article hasn’t said is that this Pope has scandalised and offended orthodox Catholics like, very probably, no Pope before him, at least in the first three months of his Pontificate.
But hey, he smiles a lot. Must be a good Pope, then.
Mala tempora currunt.
The French have staged another oceanic march against the abomination of so-called homosexual marriage. A march on that scale after the approval of the law is a clear indication that there are an awful lot of people who think it's time for the tough to get going. Monsieur (or I should say: Madame) Hollande is not in a good spot anyway, and he certainly doesn't need this. He might, in fact – unless the devil calls him to his HQ before the time – live to regret (and unless he repents, die to regret) what he has done.
What does the French example tell us? That whenever the perverts and their friends manage to have some legislative measure passed, we must not accept this as “a sign of the times” and resign to the new status quo, but rather start – everyone in our own little ways, and hopefully with the help of more organised structures in time – the fight against abomination now.
Abortion was taken away from the public spot for decades and considered, more or less, a given at least in vast parts of Europe, but the situation has now changed so much that even Pope Francis dares to speak against it. In the matter of Sodomarriage we must not wait for the next 40 years before reacting, but we must start reacting now. How probable success in our lifetime is, is utterly irrelevant, the all-decisive fact being that in this fight we are on Christ's side.
Which, incidentally, is also the winning one.
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
This is Matthew 11:23-24. The issue here is the lack of faith of Capernaum. Its inhabitants have stubbornly refused to recognise Christ notwithstanding the mighty works He accomplished by them. Therefore, their blasphemy will be met with the harshest punishment known to men, as their defiance of God’s Truth surpasses the harshest abominations known to men.
With the crescendo typical of the colourful Eastern societies, Jesus reinforces the concept so that no one (with a brain) has any doubt: Chorazin and Bethsaida have already been compared to Tyre and Sidon, but the worst of them all, the inhabitants of Capernaum, must be compared to the worst perverts of them all: the Sodomites.
Even a moron would easily understand that Sodom is used by our Lord as the epitome of everything that is perverted, despicable and in enmity of God. It cannot be said in a clearer and more brutal manner than this.
It truly cannot.
Still, people clearly not reaching the IQ of a moron, or firmly in the hand of Satan like Stephen Colbert (a true pity, this, because the man can be really funny) apparently insist in telling us that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality for gay marriage”.
Well no, He did. He did it in the strongest possible terms. He did it, in fact, in terms so strong that no sane person with a shred of conscience could ever deny it with a straight face.
Apparently, even the simplest facts of the Gospel do not count anymore when speaking of Jesus. This happens because the Gospel isn’t read anymore, Catholics are not properly instructed, and Jesus is known by most only by hearsay or by what satanic BBC journalists tell them about Him.
These cretins and evil people are everywhere. They go around spreading the most unbelievable legends; legend than can only be believed because the sheep are left in the most unbelievable ignorance.
In the meantime, the US bishops think everyone must be free to move and establish himself illegally wherever he pleases, and Pope Francis has warned us about the dangers of gossiping.
This is one of those days in which every right-thinking Catholic is confronted with the sickness not only of the Western societies, but of the Church of Christ Herself. I wouldn’t call it a case of open heresy, seeing the oily and slimy way these post V II Church officials always have of expressing themselves, but rather another particularly tragic instance of how said Church officials bend themselves forward to try to appease the civil society out there, all the while trying not to appear as openly heretical.
The Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family has said the church is not against giving “unmarried couples” some form of protection. The first hypocrisy is in the formulation “unmarried couples”, which may, or may not, include sodomites. You must know in many countries, like Italy, heterosexual cohabiting people have no right to any payment (for the children, for example), because such payments presuppose (and rightly so) a proper family rather than concubinage. Therefore, the discussion is always “mixed” as when people talk of “recognising” they mostly talk of co-habiting heterosexual couples.
The Archbishop now happily mixes the cards, by putting heterosexual couples and homosexual wannabe couples on the same plane when he says some forms of “cohabitation” (which ones, Archbishop? Professional sharers? People who have sex? People who practice sodomy? People who cohabit with their dog?) “do not constitute a family” and “their number is growing” (of course it is, Archbishop, if you keep being such a tool! You’ll soon have “cohabitations” with incest, or bestiality, or multiples wives if you and yours continue to sleep!).
Therefore, says our Archbishop, there should be measures to “make their lives easier”, which prompts three questions: why? Why? Why?
When has the Church been preoccupied that sodomites have it easier to live a sodomite lifestyle? When has the Church been worried that heterosexual couples living more uxorio may not feel gently invited to marry? Since when is the Church worried with making the life of sinners easier in their sin, rather than holier without them?
This is, again, a purest exercise in Vatican II cowardice and hypocrisy.
Then there is the other whining about countries where “homosexuality is illegal”. I do not know of many countries in which it is illegal to simply be a pervert, but I think the Cardinal, who should know these things, was talking of sodomy laws.
Sodomy laws are then, we are given to understand, very bad. Awful governments like those in the Papal States had such laws, and awful people like Padre Pio never asked for their abolition. It is sad to see great Saints and Popes of the past do not comply with the Archbishop’s rather strange moral standards, but being the times so astonishingly stupid I doubt many will notice.
Archbishop Paglia is one of those men who make more damage than an army of shrieking homosexualists, because with his cowardice and desire of appeasement he confuses sincere Catholics and makes a strong impression he doesn’t believe in the values he is allegedly defending.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that Sodomarriage is either an abomination, or it isn’t. If it is, no help whatsoever can be demanded so that these people can have an “easier life” with these abominations. If it isn’t, then Christianity was wrong from the start, the Church has been conning us these to thousand years and Archbishop Paglia should start a new career as circus clown .
We live in times when even the corridors of the Vatican at full of people who spend their days wondering how they can sabotage Christian values but maintain an appearance of orthodoxy. They do it not only with he pet causes of the last decades (war, death penalty, the attitude towards social issues), but even pandering to the desire of he people in matter of sexual perversion.
This time the Archbishop was even asked a second time what he meant. Vatican II prelates are such nincompoops they make entire speeches and at the end they must be asked what they meant by it. The Holy Father merrily promotes them where they can do maximum damage, confuse the faithful, and make of themselves and the Church a laughing stock.
May God have mercy of this bunch of appeasing amateurs.
You might not know it as a reader, but if you run a blog you can see who links to your blog post: when some visitor of the other blog clicks the link, you get to see from which site your blog post has been clicked. It was in this way that I discovered some excellent sites, and some very stupid ones.
Yesterday I discovered a site of the second kind. I have written a blog post about Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre, pointing out that both resisted to the pressure of their time and held fast to Truth because it is the Truth coming from God, immutable and not depending from the “ecumenical” and “inclusive” pressure of the moment. I am not a mother tongue, but I am absolutely sure the dimmest intelligence must have understood, by reading the blog post, that Athanasius’ and Archbishop Lefebvre’ s disobedience was due to the necessity to be loyal to a higher obedience than the one to the Pope – that is, the one to God – and that the Truth of God can be found most clearly and unquestionably in those teaching that have, being the Truth, never changed (organically develop they can, of course; but changing, they can never do).
Well, exactly this point seems to have been willingly ignored by that poor troubled soul who linked my blog post to his perverted blog explaining that as Athanasius was once seen as heretic and then found to be right, then the homosexualists pretending to be in harmony with Christianity will one day be seen as orthodox too. The only point of my blog post (the existence of an immutable, divinely given Truth unchanged by ages and to be protected even against Catholic authority if needs be) has been not only ignored, but turned into its exact contrary, in a tragic parody of the point I have made.
This is, I reflected, typical of homosexualism: a perverted thinking leads to the self-delusional turning upside down of the most elementary truths, and to a blatant disregard for the most elementary logic. You read blog posts like the one that contained the link to my own one and you understand Satan has these people so firmly in his power, that they would use everything and turn it into its exact opposite just to satisfy their obsession.
This is, of course, not the first time I am confronted with people unable to reason; discussion boards all over the planet are full of them. Still, that even confronted with yours truly’s rather refreshingly blunt writing style they would pretend to understand the exact contrary o what I have written is profoundly disquieting.
Souls are at stake, and Satan is making a big harvest.
May those poor (=stupid), confused souls manage to repent and get to terms with Christianity before they die.
Interesting blog post from His Hermeneuticalness about the way UK Muslims are living the proposed changed in legislation concerning same-sex marriage.
You can read the details in the article, but what I would like to do is to add, as always, some spice of my own as follows:
1. The UK Muslim community has been strangely silent up to now. It is difficult to say what is happening, but I suspect some of them wish for the Christian West to slide down the already very slippery slope of corruption and degradation, and others (particularly local community leaders) do not want to embarrass the Labour party – who are now officially on the fence after the uproar, but clearly favour the measure – who is often their political referent. If the religious communities start to wake up, though, this might get very interesting, then….
2. … whilst Catholics can be shot at without any trouble by anyone who wants to feel “progressive”, in the UK Muslims are more protected than the Panda; therefore, if they start to seriously complain about their religious freedom you won’t see many champagne socialists crying foul, bigot, and so on.
If you think their voice has no weight, think again. In 2006, an utterly idiotic legislation proposed by the Labour Government foresaw the banning of every book containing “homophobic” remarks and other “discriminatory” content. The Labour people then in power were obviously stupid, but when it was pointed out to them that not only the Bible, but the Koran would have been then officially banned, they listened and the initiative was heavily modified and, in fact, watered down to the point of harmlessness. I seriously doubt the Christians would have been enough to avoid the adoption of the measure, and am persuaded that it was Labour’s fear to touch the Muslim electorate to make them think thrice. The same happened with the several attempt to change name to Christmas, initiatives which generally fail when the Muslim community says they actually like Christmas and do not care for “Winter Lights”, or the like…
There is a problem, though….
3. … and it is that in my experience, Muslims in the London area are often rather secularised themselves, and whilst a tiny minority has a fundamentalist outlook the vast majority – at least among the sufficiently educated ones – seems not to care much. What I think happens is that the fundamentalist types reject the West together with Christianity, and the Westernised types (more or less) reject religion as they embrace the West. This isn’t good on an occasion like this, because it will limit the ability of the religious communities to make their voice heard.
Still, I hope the Muslims will start making some noise soon, then this would be one of the very few occasions multiculturalism really has some use.
Again, I do not have any hope whatsoever for next week’s vote, but the vote will, if the opponents are smart, only the start of the serious confrontation.
The machine took a very long time in moving, probably because of the little enthusiasm of most UK bishops (led by Archbishop Nichols, a man who favours and openly defends so-called “civil partnerships” and who has not been defrocked for reasons unknown to me; you might ask the Vatican…) for something as unpleasant and uncomfortable like Christianity. Still, there is some movement now, and the ferment is palpable.
Next week should be seen as the beginning of the war, not the decisive battle. There’s still much to be done, and the vote in the Lord’s may well go the way of the Lord’s reform.
Be not discouraged. Call or write to your MP and let him feel your anger. Let him feel it rather than writing the usual polite disagreement. If he dares to vote with Satan, he has lost you forever. Not if the other candidate is Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot will you ever vote for him again. You’ll say this to all your relatives, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and association members. You will never forget.
Let him know. Be assured you are not the one. Let him think if he has a brain, and be scared if he – as it more probable – hasn’t.
Nota bene: this blog post was written before, but scheduled to be published after the preceding one. The blog post before this has the latest info.
We knew that “Chameleon” Cameron had failed to carry the party with himself on this disgusting issue, but what has happened today is only one step short from the ousting of the Prime Minister.
Only days before the vote, the situation is as follows:
1. 180 Tory MP seem ready to vote against their own PM. Six whips are among them, and four members of the Cabinet.
It is astonishing to me how a party can be so blind they are unable to understand that the moment to sack the PM is now, not after the certain defeat in 2015. Cameron has proved he doesn’t care not only for Christianity, but for his own party base. This is something you invariably get to pay at the ballot.
2. The call for postponement of the vote “after 2015” (which means, sine die) made today from more than 20 former and present constituency chairmen is a serious, serious signal. In this country, constituency chairmen are influential people, but at the same time they always have the temperature about what is happening among party members. When they say that “resignations from the party are beginning to multiply” (and this is, mind, before the vote…) this is something that even an heathenish cretin must begin to take seriously.
3. The last, public slap from the PM is in the way the chairmen describe the entire procedure: no adequate consultation, and a legislative measure pushed through in a way they define “extremely distasteful”. Make no mistake, the party base is enraged, and there’s no way the PM can silence or ignore this anymore.
Pathetic Mr Hague (a man whose positions have “evolved” over the matter; I won’t write the adjective for such behaviour) today tries to defend the indefensible by saying if they do not vote now, the party will have to deal with the issue at the next election. As if the last chances of winning the next election wouldn’t depend on exactly this matter…
Hague and Cameron have the unspeakable arrogance of believing the party is now making some rumours to appease the old ladies, but once the vote has passed the matter will be soon forgotten, and the country will happily march to vote an idiot without faith, without principles, without ideas, without any trace of Conservatism and with a face astonishingly similar to a pair of buttocks (which fits, by the way) back to Number Ten.
Fools, both of them.
What is becoming increasingly clear, is that this issue is going to play a crucial role in the years to come, unless a couple of millions of over-sixty decide to leave this vale of tears all at the same time. The matter will also remain in the public attention, because the long parliamentary procedure and the increasingly more realistic prospects of foundering in the Upper House will make of this – bar collective insanity among conservative.. Conservatives – a very heated battle.
I have written only some days ago what I think are the real motives of the Prime Minister. It would appear more and more members of the party (and of core voters) seem to disagree the PM’s urges should come before basic Christianity.
It is still astonishing to me how they do not make two and two and get rid of the man altogether. They are very possibly doomed already without this disgusting abetting of abominations. If they go on with it, they are really done for.
Archbishop Mueller really can’t stay away from journalists. Not only does he like them, but they like him. They sense the man is always good for something politically incorrect, or controversial, or simply short-tempered. He always delivers, and they know it.
This time, Archbishop Mueller has given an interview to the German so-called prestigious German weekly Die Zeit, reported in English by Vatican Insider. As Vatican Insider is part of La Stampa, a highly professional Italian daily newspaper, I will not check that the English rendition faithfully corresponds to the main points of the German text.
Yours truly, who likes Yogurt inordinately (though he prefers Weihenstephan to Mueller) would like here to make some comments himself. The points of the interview I’d like to say two words about are the following ones:
1. Systematic media attacks on the Catholic church.
The Archbishop doesn;t mince words (he never does, anyway) and compares the anti-Catholic atmosphere created in many Western countries to anti-Jewish pogroms. Now this is Germany, and in germany when you compare yourself to the persecution of the Jews it means you are really angry and people have to pay attention to what you say, because of the all-present Vergangenheit, the past. This Vergangenheit is a bit of a joker you can employ on pretty much everything: illiberal laws, the persecution of Kreuz.Net, and the creeping Nazi attitude of German homosexualists and their friends.
The Cardinal points it out in general, but does not say what in wrong in particular. In a country whose biggest Catholic site has been more or less forced to silence by the Nazi attitude of politicians, media and homosexualists, this is not good enough. Alas, it seems the Archbishop wants to play victim without mentioning the bigger victims, because he happens not to like them.
2. No to so-called same-sex unions.
Same yogurt here. Read to the translation of the Archbishop’s words:
“It is impossible for the Catholic Church to accept a relationship between people of the same sex, as such relations cannot in any way be considered equivalent to marriage,”
Notice he doesn’t say such “relationships” are evil, perverted, satanic. He says they are (and I quote) “not equivalent”. This is exactly like saying that the Church does not accept pears being called apples, because pears aren’t apples. Then Church officials complain they are attacked. But it is so surprising they are attacked as backwards and bigots, if they even renounce to say why they are so opposed to perversion? If I were to tell you all day that you simply should not eat pears, would that be enough?
I also notice the Church in Germany has kept, in practice, shtum when the German Government legislated against marriage with the civil partnerships, and that the Archbishop himself never openly attacks those colleagues of him, like the infamous Cardinal Woelki, who express themselves in favour of such abominations. One gets the impression Mueller is rather willing to bully the SSPX, but not so aggressive when his own colleagues and countrymen are involved; and that in this he fully reflects the attitude of the German clergy.
3. Priest celibacy.
For what it’s worth, I give full notes to the Archbishop here. He points out not only to the role of the priest and why celibacy is important, but also makes a very counter-cultural statement, that sexual activity (outside of marriage) is not a natural necessity. Bravo.
4. Criticism of the “dialogue” between lay people and priests in Germany
This is one of those things people who live outside of German can not even easily grasp. Germany is a country where the laity think they must “dialogue” with the clergy about issues like (you got it) so-called priestesses, and the clergy think they must engage in the “dialogue” with the laity and discuss those issues again and again. Come on, this is not even Catholicism anymore.
The Archbishop points out to this, and adds he thinks this must stop. Again, kudos to him.
5. (Umpteenth) Warning to the SSPX
This is another (predictable) serving of yogurt turned sour. It truly seems the Archbishop can’t open his mouth without expressing his anger at the SSPX, an anger which has personal besides Church-political reasons. It also seems to contradict what the Archbishop had said previously, then if memory serves (and it serves) it was Archbishop Mueller himself who declared the talks failed and the door closed, whilst Archbishop Di Noia insists in saying the door is still open (if you drink the poison of V II, that is). Now Mueller takes Di Noia’s position, “we are still waiting for your answer”, but his attitude is diametrically opposite to Di Noia’s one.
I frankly this the Archbishop needs a reality checks if he thinks this kind of message will have any effect whatsoever on the SSPX. More probably, he knows it won’t, but he says it anyway. It might have been wiser to say that there is a man specifically appointed to the task (Archbishop Di Noia) and he would therefore prefer not to touch on the subject. This would have been, methinks, the more diplomatic and intelligent answer, and the Archbishop would have looked much better without giving away an inch. But again, he is short-tempered.
Far too weak a reaction if you ask me, but at least they are moving. If you click on the their website, you find the matter dominates the homepage.
Ways to contact your MP included.
Below is the official briefing, unfortunately available only as .pdf and I hope the link works.
What is happening now shoul dhave strated months ago, as soon as cameron announced his evil plans.
What should be happening now is Cameron & Co. being scared witless after months of barrage from the pulpits, the radios, the newspapers.
Call Cameron a minion of Satan every Sunday, and even the BBC will notice.
Still it’s not too late.
Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis,
satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
divina virtute in infernum detrude.
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 power of God,
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
I have already reported the rumour that Samantha Cameron would be the driving force towards the “inclusiveness” drive of the disgrace we have to tolerate as Prime Minister. There are several cues to this, not least the multiple faux pas of the same PM in matters of political correctness (the joke about the “one legged Icelandic lesbian” was memorable, though the man predictably apologised profusely afterwards) and the well-known fact he comes from a different environment.
This is a man who was known, before the “inclusiveness drive”, as a rather non-inclusive person, a member of an, erm, exclusive St. James’ Gentlemen’s club that still today does not allow membership to women, until all this became embarrassing for a PM in pectore. So, the man who lived rather well for a couple of decades with club members who think women should not be allowed to set foot in their club should suddenly not be able to tolerate that homosexuals be…. excluded from marriage? Really? Really?
Cherchez la femme, says yours truly….
We have now further rumours this would be the case, with further rather embarrassing revelations about the daughter of a Baronet, “consultant” for some firm and living in a world full of fags, seems very bent to.
Now, the impression can’t be avoided here that this entire mess is caused by the fact that a stupid man has married the wrong wife and, put in front of the choice between no sex for a long time and going to hell, clearly prefers the second option. The Germans have a word for this; which, whilst not very fine, is very apt: Schwanzgetrieben, or cock-driven. Alas, this is the destiny of many men who end up the puppets of their spouses because they have, simply, been driven by their own lust to marry a woman who will lead them through their own willie like a beef is driven through a ring on his nose. This is their private tragedy and we can only pity the poor idiots for the price of their folly. But when the cock-driven nincompoop happen to be Prime Minister, it is the country which must be pitied; though the country itself is, like the man, responsible for its own tragedy.
Faber Quisque Fortunae Suae, people used to say who did not contemplate sodomarriage and built a huge empire whilst putting sodomites to death. The sodomites aren’t put to death anymore, but the saying remains just as valid.
Considering the price to be paid for it, at least one would hope for the PM the sex is good.
Considering the woman, I doubt.
“they claim the equality of different points of view until they get control of power, and then enforce their view on everyone else, all the while continuing to claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.”
These are words of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone on occasion of his recent stay in London, and they photograph rather well the historic phase we are living. The Archbishop’s words are brilliant, and I do not think they need any comment from me.
What I allow myself to add is a couple of ancillary considerations, which I think connect well with the beautiful words above.
1. What the archbishop describes is made possible by the degeneration of most modern education systems in the West, whose only aim seems to be to create an army of nincompoops barely able to write, utterly unable to think, and extremely worried about looking good with their peers. This is particularly evident in England, the only country I know whose natives can say with a smile “I can’t spell” without realising they can’t write. In this country, there are people unable to even get the most elementary things right, like the difference between “its” and “it’s” or “theirs” and “there’s”. Many of them have an academic title of sort. They can’t write, but they can vote, and many of them in fact do; which is why the thinking lamented by the Archbishop translates into legislation.
2. Dim people have always existed, and have been allowed to vote for a long time; but in past times the prevailing Christian mentality avoided the worst, and generally prevented shameless politicians from using them to sabotage Christianity. You can put it in this way, that in our once Christian countries even the slowest benefited from a robust dose of truth and simple common sense, given to them for free and courtesy of their social and religious environment. The collapse of Christian instruction in the last generation or two has created an army of very ignorant people, the more easily manipulated because they are not even aware of being ignorant, or even illiterate. This is the favourite pasture of the modern homosexual lobby, whose aim is to lure the idiots with emotional appeals of zero logical content but great emotional impact (“I just want to be happy! Oh why, why you do not want me to be happy?”). The result is, once again, the drive to the dictatorship of idiocy we are now observing.
It is my personal opinion that all modern Western democracies have contracted a cancer; a disease which might or might not be incurable, but is certainly malignant. Democracy without Christian values becomes the dictatorship of the stupid, and I can’t imagine how this will not lead to a lot of blood being shed at some point. It is also not clear to me why political systems used to promote evil should not be punished by Our Lord, and I would think it rather more probable that the punishment will be as vast as the support for, or indifference to, the evils and perversions allowed or celebrated by most Western democracies.
Western democracies have been digging their own grave for a while, though the astonishing technological superiority and the collapse of Communism have masked the phenomenon for a while. They have now entered a phase of accelerated decay, of whom openly homosexual US Marines are perhaps the most striking example (last time I looked, even the Italian army didn’t want fags. Go figure).
We are digging our own grave, both spiritually and politically. We don’t even have the guts to say “faggot”, but we want to upheld Christian values.All in a very nice way, of course, whilst the Gestapo plans to silence every teacher and parent, and to pervert the very children.
I sometimes wonder how thick people can be.
As the BBC has not prominently reported, a mass manifestation took place in Paris yesterday, with an estimated participation of 800,000 according to the organisers, and even the Police figuring around 400,000 attended.
These numbers are very important, because in this case no mass party or trade union was there to organise and provide money and logistics. There can, in fact, be no doubt the initiative was a great success, and I hope a lengthy battle will now take place over the latest pet cause of idiots and leftists after the sudden death of the global warming hysteria.
Predictably, the angle chosen by the aiders and abettors of child abuse at the BBC is to report that apparently France had, before yesterday, a slight majority in favour of making sodomy a perfectly accepted pastime, like fishing. I do not remember the BBC ever choosing this angle when either perverts or other pressure groups they support are themselves in the minority; but it must be my fault, no doubt.
Also please notice if such a mass gathering had taken place some, say, ten years ago with the exact opposite aim, you can bet your hat the BBC would not have allowed any child, dog or cat to remain uninformed, whilst the profile chosen on this occasion is very low to say the least. To the BBC, elementary defence of Christian values and popular support for basic sexual decency must be treated like Jimmy Savile’s decade long activities within the walls of the BBC: the people just do not have to be informed.
The reality on the ground, though, is that the common people (I mean by that people other than conservative Catholic churchgoers) are beginning to wake up: yesterday’s march in Paris united people as different as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics and Atheists, all with the common conviction that this madness must stop and we must go back to thinking with our brains rather than with the sphincter of a bunch of unspeakably disgusting people firmly in the clutches of Satan.
What happened yesterday in Paris is encouraging, because it shows mobilisation can be realised outside of the predictable conservative Catholic milieu, and be extended to people perhaps not religious but sane enough to wonder what kind of world they will leave to their children and grandchildren.
Kudos to our cheese-loving neighbours, then, and let us hope their effort will not remain unnoticed in the United Kingdom.
In a rather unprecedented show of defiance of modern secular values, 1,000 Catholic clergymen have signed a letter to our honorary “gay” PM, asking him to put an end to the craze of so-called same sex marriage. The letter was strategically published on the “Telegraph” on Saturday and will, no doubt, cause more than some uneasiness among the elected prostitutes currently leading the country towards total transformation into a huge modern Sodom only waiting for the Exterminating Angel to be ordered to get on with his work (more selectively than the last time , I hope).
The event is, as far as I know, unprecedented at least for England, and puts “call me a whore” Cameron on collision course with an awful lot of Catholics; then if things have a logic and common sense still counts for something this is not going to stop at the letter writing stage.
The elements that emerge are, as I see them , the following:
1) The English Catholic clergy pays now, with steep interest, the price of their cowardice in the past. The “civil partnership” madness is less than ten years old, and geniuses like today’s Archbishop of Westminster were full of appreciative, oily, slimy, subservient “nuances” about it, uncaring even for the salvation of their own soul provided they can go on with their lives undisturbed. Make no mistake, many of the priests and bishops react now because, hard headed as they are, they have realised their lives are not going to go on undisturbed for very long if the Gaystapo isn’t stopped. The erosion of Christianity in this country is going one day to impact their daily lives and this, they cannot allow.
2) Some very harsh passages in the letter (the reference to Henry VIII, and the total discounting of the ridiculous legal protections allegedly awarded by people who think you don’t even have the right to refuse sodomitical couples a room in your Bed and Breakfast, and think a Christian has no right to wear a cross at work) show that, for once, the English clergy has been perceptive: the Gaystapo can’t be appeased, and every concession one makes to them will lead to the request for further concessions, until a priest has the choice between celebrating mock marriages in a Catholic Church or go to jail; and at that point it would clearly have to be jail, then not even Paul VI would cave in on this.
3) Still, it is revealing the initiative appears not to have started by the Bishops, but to be the initiative of priests who understand if they leave things to their shepherds they’ll all be devoured by the sodomitical wolf; as these things always take a dynamic of their own, said shepherd were not (or will not be) able to ignore the pressure and have decided (or will decide) to jump in.
So this is where we are now: a reaction from the bottom that, whilst still weak in itself, promises to become far more interesting in the future, as the ball is now rolling (no thanks to you, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols) and it appears difficult to think further pressure will not be applied. The announced approaching of 65 MPs in marginal constituencies is a thinly veiled anticipation of things to come and a clear warning there will be blood on the carpet, and this battle will cost politicians’ careers.
I have already said several times that with the usual exceptions, an English MP is a be-suited (or tailleured) prostitute. They have no fear of the Lord, no thought about their death and judgment, and mostly no religious convictions they could write on a napkin. The de-ideologised state of the country and the horrible first-past-the-post system favour a mentality of utterly shameless flip-flopping, with the MP as the servant of whatever wishes of his constituents, which in practice means the slave of tiny but organised pressure groups, like the fags. Still, what really terrifies them is getting in the sight of some pressure group that is massive and well-organised.
As stated, most of them are already scared stiff by a bunch of queens, and will do whatever the latter say as long as they think the mass of the indifferent sheep will go along and be content with some well-sounding waffle about “commitment”, “happiness” and the like. Until another group wakes up, that is, and scares the Cameron out of them.
Unfortunately, we are here far away from the determination that would be required. If we had real shepherds instead of timid sheep, an all-out fall-out would take place, and the entire Westminster world would soon understand Cameron, Miller, Johnson and a couple of other bonzes have become political toxic waste promising to destroy the career of whoever dares to even hint he might support them. “Look”, must be the message, “we are going to go against them until they are destroyed and made an example for the others, and who cares if it takes 3,000 years and a civil war. Therefore, choose your side carefully”. This is, in the practice if not in the words, the style of the Italian clergy. If they let you fall once, there will be no return in their graces: they will do whatever they can (which may be more or less, but more than you want) to make scorched earth around you, and boy they do have time!
Even Mussolini knew it, but you may want to ask Berlusconi for security.
You think the Church in England can’t make scorched earth around Cameron and his pervs? Think again. A small group of perverts has managed to almost outlaw every criticism to their so-called lifestyle. Just imagine what the weekly attacks to Cameron, Miller, Johnson & Co from a group representing millions of voters (plus the Anglicans, Atheists, agnostics, Jews and, importantly, Muslims who have the pockets full of this) would do to them.
Ah, if we had brave leaders instead of the likes of Nichols, how much could still be achieved! As it stands, his priests are forced to literally force Nichols’ hand, but he will only do as little as is absolutely necessary, and his shameless, satanic “nuanced” support for civil partnerships will haunt him every step of the way and deprive him of all credibility. It’s like having Neville Chamberlain (or, well, Vidkun Quisling) leading the charge against Hitler.
Let us pray and hope for the best anyway. The pressure is mounting, the House of Lords might stop the law, the litigation would be on an unprecedented scale, the general mess promises to be on an epochal scale and more and more MPs might soon start to think about their future and have second thoughts.
This isn’t over yet, by far.
You would have thought the French are, when collectively considered, a bunch of adultery-practicing, Saddam-supporting, camembert- loving, socialist-voting football bad losers (cough… 2006 World Championship…) with totally unrealistic manias of grandeur and deserving to be (how was that? Oh yes) ” punished”. You could think that, and many among my countrymen would agree with you…
But you see, it turns out the Frenchies are not all bad. For example, the at least 70,000 who took to the streets to protest against the moral indecency and logical impossibility of so-called “gay marriage” only in Paris (there were more than 20,000 in Lyon, and another almost 10,000 in Marseille; the latter traditionally rather red) actually showed there is hope even for the French.
Particularly if you consider (as you should) that this kind of manifestation is in its infancy in Europe, and it will take some time before the population at large overcomes the diffuse sentiment that to protest against perversion “looks bad” and makes one appear “backward”. In time, I can imagine this kind of initiative to take some momentum, particularly if the Church shows one or three teeth, which here or there might almost be the case.
Also noticeable is the fact that the religion with soon the biggest number of weekly practicing faithful in France (I am talking of the Muslims, of course; say merci beaucoup to Vatican II and the wonderful “renewal” a bunch of cretins brought us, and continue to ignore the immense devastation it brought…) are also on the same barricade as the Christians. This might well prove extremely embarrassing for the gauche, particularly considering many of them certainly do not vote, ahem, for the Front National.
It is my conviction that the average French politician isn’t less of a, erm, salope (Gosh, it sounds so elegant in French…) than the average English one. If I am right, then, they will soon discover the threat posed to their career by the combined forces of left and wing voters, and will start to look for ways to backpedal on the issue without losing too much face. Cue the “man-made global warming” hysteria, which has seen so many brave defenders of the planet suddenly denying they were interesting in more than next weekend’s weather forecast…
When the bubble explodes, it can go rather fast; not as fast as environ-mentalism for sure, but the dynamics can be changed in a matter of a few years, and the theatre of operation switched to the offensive. Look at the battle against abortion in the US and Europe, and compare with ten years ago…
This, if the French bishops and priests pull together as a team, of course, instead of taking example from their football team during the last World Championship…
Bonne chance, anyway…
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 is fairly easy and -unless one is a pathologic 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 danger for the peaceful life of its author.
But what happens when a bishop discovers that one pf 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 at Mass his bishop’s letter concerning so- called “gay marriages” (which aren’t “gay”, let alone “marriages”), and immediately afterwards vocally oppose the very Christian message he had just read.
Now, this is where the men are separated from the boys: if Bishop Lori tolerates such a scandal is his own diocese without severely punishing – best of all, defrocking – Fr Lawrence, the pro-homo priest, he will show he is just another boy unable to let the facta follow the verba .
It cannot be, it seriously cannot be that a bishop allows one of his own homo-priests to make a mockery of Catholicism without consequences. Who does Fr Lawrence think he is, a Presbyterian?
And as we are by the matter, is this Fr Lawrence straight in the first place? Does he have a mistress by any chance? You know, when priests become so “alternative” it is often because they have some strange personal reason of their own…
Man or boy? The next weeks will tell what kind of prelate Bishop Lori is. Certainly, not only his own personal reputation, but the prestige and public perception of the priesthood will be damaged if such things are allowed to happen without exemplary consequences.
Marriage supporters in Maryland have announced they have gathered more than double the signatures required to place a new law legalising and institutionalising sodomy and same-sex perversion before the people.
The vote will apparently take place in… November, together with the Presidential election.
Maryland has almost 6 million inhabitants, and 30% of them are black. It won’t be an easy time for many of them, as a Presidential campaign increasingly focused on social/religious issues puts them more and more violently in front of the clear heathenism of their candidate.
Of course, it is not that Obama’s “coming out” will immediately alienate him “the Black vote”; but it will certainly make it more difficult for his traditional supporters to follow him. If even one in thirty abandons him it will be a big blow; if it is one in ten or twelve he will probably not survive it. By choosing – or possibly: after being forced by Biden’s stupidity – to alienate the moderate electorate, Obama is staking everything on a massive mobilisation of the minorities (particularly blacks) and angry fringes (sodomites, lesbians, child rapists, dog rapists, coprophagists, and their friends and supporters).
It seems very difficult to me that the strategy may work, and I struggle to think of a democratic President who fled to the left and was greeted there by enthusiastic multitudes securing reelection.I notice, on the other hand, that this brand of hard liberalism never secured Ted Kennedy a nomination, and when McGovern and Mondale were chosen to represent “change” they were more or less mercilessly filleted by Nixon and the Gipper respectively. Life at the left border of the political spectrum seems to be short and ending in painful death, at least if you want to become or remain President.
Of course, Obama will not lose in Maryland, as even Kerry was able to easily win the State in 2004 and Obama himself won in a landslide in 2008. But he is making it more and more difficult for him to win the race, and considering 10 of 16 key battleground states have passed amendments to protect marriage I think Barack Hussein is making his job as difficult as possible. I can’t imagine this to be the result of a cold calculation, rather of a necessity created by the insistent flirting with extreme positions, coupled with the immense stupidity of the VP.
President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family. However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better. Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage. I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons.
David Cameron is a little harlot of politics, the slut of every movement he thinks can help him to get or stay in power and the prostitute of every political or pressure group he thinks is in his way of reaching his aim. Like the real slut, Cameron has a calling for sluttishness: his is not the behaviour of the politician who, obtorto collo, accepts some of the sad realities of democracy, but the enthusiastic adherence to a lifestyle for which prostitution is the only way, and the satisfaction of his perceived paying client the most natural behaviour on Earth.
One thing Cameron loves to do, is to please sodomites. Whilst not being – for all we know; and it wouldn’t be the first time we end up knowing we knew it wrong – a sodomite himself, in his relentless pursuit of political prostitution he seems to think the so-called “gays” are a wealthy, well-paying client of his. In Camerons’ world, there is no downside in lending his political backside to those who, well …. He will get the enthusiastic support – or so he thinks – of a group perceived as “influential”, without causing the ires of Christians. He thinks he will only need to mention the usual mantras of XXI century’s Britain (“tolerance”, and the like) to keep the ones well under control whilst he makes himself beautiful with the others.
It might – just might – appear this game is slowly going to an end. Cameron has already expressed himself in favour of the recognition of sodo-“marriages” (I do not mean “civil partnerships” here, which in my book is pretty much every bit as bad; I mean the full monty) delighting, as always, in being more “progressive” than Labour. He thought – as he is certainly well justified in thinking – the sums would add up and he would easily brand as intolerant neo-fascists everyone who dared to go against his “new Tory”, lavender mantra.
It might – just might – not be so easy.
First of all – and this must be said for our friends overseas, who might be justified for not closely following the events in what used to be a proud Empire, and now has his soldiers taken prisoners in Iran – Cameron’s position has been rather wobbly for a while. Whilst there is no open revolt – yet – it is clear the man grates more than some within his own party and is very probably more popular among his girlfriend’s acquaintances than among his own Members of Parliament. The unprecedented humiliation received just a few months ago in Brusseler matters – another topic where he thought he could silence the opposition with some barking and some trite slogans – ended very badly for him and showed the desire to get rid of him is much bigger than he himself expected. He survived the shock, but he survived in the same way the Chinese Empire survived the British (and French) march on Peking: badly, and with his reputation irretrievably damaged.
How damaged, the next months will show. Cameron, who had started his last trollop-crusade on the recognition of so-called gay marriages, now finds himself if not positively attacked, certainly opposed by several sides: the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (apparently, one who still cares a bit for Christian values; in striking contrast to Rowan Williams) has chosen open confrontation; among the MPs dissatisfaction is wells-spread; and even the Catholic Church now begins – as Vincent “Quisling” Nichols really cannot shut up anymore – to utter some timid meowing.
Cameron gave an interview to some sodomite magazine a couple of days ago, where he showed all the extent of his incompetence and confusion (I might write about it, but take it from me: a harlot who didn’t make her homework before meeting her client) but where he basically had to admit he might have to leave his MPs free to vote according to conscience about this. In plain English, this means he fears he can’t force them to follow the line, as he knows a second loss of face would possibly cost him the job.
What might be happening in the next months is that the country finally awakens and decides Toryism (and Christianity) can not possibly have anything to do with Cameron: whilst the so-called Church of England has pushed herself into quasi-irrelevance, she can still damage the conservative credentials of our little trollop, and if you add powerful sponsors and the revolt of rural England (which might well be in the card, though I wouldn’t bet my pint yet) things seem to look very bleak for him.
Prostitute that he is, Cameron will try to do what he always does: please everyone and look for the way of least resistance. But this is exactly his weakness: the man is not made for resistance, but wired for prostitution. He has no values, only clients. He will do whatever keeps him in power and if in order to do so he has to suck up to Neo-nazis, he’ll do so without blinking.
The petition in defence of traditional marriage, which started just days ago and already got more than 50,000 signatures could be a serious problem for Cameron, and his backers seem to be more organised and with bigger coffers than he bargained for. They don’t seem to be sufficiently focused yet, but if you can judge the day from the morning the potential is there, and the day a couple of powerful sponsors decide they want Cameron’s scalp and are ready to pay for it the game might become interesting indeed.
Cameron saw a bigger challenge to his un-Conservative ideology take shape in October and November. He reacted with a “triple whip”, the severest form of enforcement of party discipline known to the British parliamentary system, and in doing so he made for himself several dozen sworn enemies at no cost, and got a “bitch-slapping” of proportions never seen before. I wonder what he learned.
David Cameron is nothing more than a little filthy prostitute terrified of discovering his clients have deserted him. Let this become big enough, and don’t bet your pint he’ll try his luck again.
A rather long shot, I know, but stranger things happen at sea…
The debate over same-sex “marriage” should never be seen in isolation. In the same way that the right to visit a loved one in the hospital was not the ultimate goal, marriage is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to eradicate from public life any hint or suggestion of the idea that homosexual relationships are not in every way equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
The rest of this brilliant blog post is here.
The Sodonazis are after you.
It appears more and more evident that among the black population in the United States the support for sodo-“marriage” is rather in the minority, even in places like California where you would expect people to be, in a way, more liberal or at least more prone to listen to the Democratic party.
The last piece of information comes from this poll conducted in Maryland, which among other things (look at the Obama approval rate numbers if you want to have a laugh) states that opposition to re-defining
logic marriage is 59% among the black population, a massive 10% more than the average.
I know, I know, statistics….
Still, from what one reads around even from this side of the Pond, it seems to me that the black support for traditional marriage is a fact.
This means that all those homos and their liberal friends playing the hate and human rights card have, how should I put it, a slight problem…
I had to make an effort to adjust to the accent of this chap. But boy, he has the right attitude! (The other two chaps are rather impressive, too…).
Over the entire West, we should wake up to the absurdity of allowing such abominations to be even considered.
We did so, because we accepted to call things the way perverts call them, instead of the way they are.
No, homosexuals are not “gay”, they are perverts. No, it is not a marriage, it is a parody of a marriage good at most for a third-rate movie. No, perversion is not a human right. No, we shouldn’t take such proposals more seriously than we take – for now – proposals to marry cats and dogs with humans.
Time to wake up, and have a good laugh.
We are not yet at the “marriage” with animals, but this novel concept that marriage (and actually: everything) is simply not what it is, but how one decides to define it is already bearing its first poisoned fruits.
As you can read here, a strange collection of people claiming to be a sort of, oh well, “extended family” (and in fact, “Mormon traditionalists” as it would appear) has now challenged the Utah bigamy law.
The author of the blog post, Tom Crowe, says it right:
…. if Adam and Steve can get married, then there is no logical argument against Adam and Eve, Betty, Patty, Jane, and Suzy. Or Adam and Steve and Betty and Jane and Bill and Patty and Jim and Suzy and Leo.
Or, I venture to add, between all the above mentioned and Fido; or between (among?) all the abovementioned where Steve and Betty (or Patty, or Jane, or Suzy; or all of them) are relatives; like siblings, say, or daughters of the same father.
Tom Crowe also notes that:
the legal argument is the same: my relationships are my business and there is no reason why my relationships as I deem them appropriate should not be recognized by the state as “marriages” with all rights and benefits accruing thereto
and in fact, I am at a loss to understand how those unspeakable people (like our streetworker, Mark Grisanti) who dare to be in favour of “not discriminating” against sodomites will justify in front of their electors their refusal (if any) to allow all other sort of abominations. Hey, are you not “discriminating” against them, then?
An evil genie has been let out of the bottle. The fight to get it back again starts now.
Extremely interesting blog post from the “American Papist”, Thomas Peters. In his blog post, Peters point out to a clearly visible, but often not sufficiently considered reality: that the overwhelmingly liberal mass media greatly increase the feeling of inevitability of homo marriage by stubbornly ignoring their many defeats, and giving enormous space and “historic significance” to their very rare victories.
Stop for a moment and reflect what the liberal media (that is: the vast majority of the mass tv channels in the US and Europe, and the majority of mass newspapers) would have said if in the US there had been thirty popular consultation about the so-called homo marriages and the perverts had won all of them. And now please think that the reality is that they have lost them, all of them. It’s 31-0 for Christian values, and counting!
If this kind of results had been achieved by the other side, the call for the end of the debate would be deafening, and every opposer treated as an undemocratic nazi.
Or let us examine the legislative part of the battle, the arena where the homos try to transform their clear minority in the country in a majority by attracting representatives of the people ready to please them in exchange for favours. Well it turns out that this year they have already lost in Maryland and Rhode Island, and only won in New York; it’ 2-1 on the legislative front then, but there are at least other six states – let us count them: Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Pennsylvania preparing themselves to reinforce marriage as the only…. marriage, or to reverse past decisions favourable to the homos.
Not persuaded yet? Look at a liberal state like California, where the homos have lost several times through either popular vote or law initiatives, and are now trying to overturn the people’s decision through an homosexual judge living together with his lover (or mistress, I suppose; or both; no idea what disgusting “arrangements” these people make).
Or perhaps you think that wherever homosexual so-called “marriage” legislation is passed, the situation is irreversible? Think again! Iowa and New Hampshire are two points in case, California is another example of sort (with the victorious Proposition 8 being the people’s answer to pink judicial activism). Wherever you look, people don’t sit and say “oh well, it had to happen I suppose”, but they react.
This, mind, even before the massive Catholic machine has been mobilised. If the US bishops started to say it as it is in a way that can’t be ignored, things would change in a matter not of decades, but probably of years, and the great risk for puppets a’ la Andrew Cuomo to be wiped out would soon let them decide that it is better for them to shut up like as many children when the headmaster enters the classroom.
Thankfully, in the United States more and more people are starting to understand what your humble correspondent has been saying from pre-blog times: homosexuality is the front line of the Christian war. Re-establish a Christian attitude to this, and abortion and euthanasia will be won on the momentum created by this recovery of Christian values.
Sad as it is to say so, too many people are still numbed to the atrocity of abortion, as – as they say in Italy – “the laws of one generation are the morality of the following one”. Not so for homo “marriages”. This is a battle that every Christian can fully grasp now and the re-discovery of his Christian values in one matter will unavoidably lead to a more mature reflection on all others.
Therefore, be in good spirit and wait for 2012, when pro homo representative and senators will hopefully get a pounding (these things can be pretty brutal, look here and tell me if you’d want to be in one of the pictures) and the people will wake up to the reality that they have the right to demand a Christian country and a legislation fruit of the will of the people rather than of judicial activism, or corridor politics. When the pendulum starts to clearly swing back in the US, it will only be a question of time before the same happens in Europe. At least in Southern Europe, where the ability of the Church leaders to mobilise the masses and shape future generations would still be very high, if they did as much as to wake up.
The Christian Post has an interesting article about the 5th Circuit of the Court of Appeal (evidently rather different from the notorious 9th circuit), who has negated to a homosexual “couple” (quotation marks, because there’s nothing like that) the right to divorce because… Texas does not recognise any “marriage” (see above) allegedly contracted between them.
The ruling is interesting because whilst the two oh so “gay” people maintained that they only wanted to put an end to a “marriage” contracted in Massachusetts only four years ago; but if the 5th circuit had allowed them to “divorce” this would have been tantamount to a recognition of the legal validity of their marriage, which Texas doesn’t. One can therefore imagine that some sly tricks might have been at play here.
The ruling points out to the other interesting fact that the marriage recognised as a fundamental right is…. the marriage, that is: the union between a man and a woman (for the more visual among you, see photo above).
“Unions” with people of the same-sex (and we may add: with cats, dogs, sheep, own close relatives, and with one’s favourite car) are not fundamental rights because they are “not deeply rooted in this country’s history and tradition”. Basically is nothing to do with Christianity , nothing to do with sound thinking and a lot to do with sexual perversion.
Kudos to the judge of the 5th Court, Kerry P. Fitzgerald, who decided on this case. It is beautiful to see that sanity is, in some place, still well present in the American judiciary.