You would have thought the BBC is really the worst, but this is not always – if often – the case.
The Second Channel of the Italian State Television, RAI2, has broadcasted an infamous, blasphemous, dirty, perverted “comic” piece, in which Jesus is offended to the point of making him appear the lover of St. Peter, with a clear allusion to Sodomarriage.
The Italian prosecutors have been informed.
If the legal system has not changed since my time, an investigation will now have to take place.
RAI has refused to apologise or retract.
A petition is now ongoing.
I attach the link in Italian.
Click on “Firma” (“sign”) and follow the link. “Cognome” is “family name”.
You can sign from anywhere in the world.
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.
We slowly see a reaction from the Church hierarchy to the rising cry toward the institutionalisation of sodomy or other same-sex sexual perversions. In the USA, the bishops have eventually decided to show some teeth, and in France they are even going to reintroduce a prayer which, whilst very politically correct in the tones, is still unmistakably clear in its content.
Nothing against Catholic bishops remembering what their job is, of course, but I continue to think that the excessive weakness shown in the past decades will continue to hamper the action of the Church, unless it is put in the dustbin once and for all.
For example, you see everywhere these appeals in defence of “traditional marriage”, as if the unions of perverts were, in some strange way, good, but the “traditional marriage” simply better and as such worthy of protection. The fact is, it is extremely difficult to persuade the public that the traditional marriage is good, without saying why the “modern” marriage is wrong. The simple reality is that sodomy is an abomination in the eyes f the Lord. It is a perversion. Truly truly bad. So bad that it used to be a taboo, like incest or zoophilia, until very recent times, and what goes for sodomy must be pretty much extended to other arts of sexual perversion, like being a lesbian.
Alas, the Church hierarchy (with very few exceptions, like this one) does not speak the clear language that, alone, would allow to make the matter well understood. They either shut up or express themselves in vaguely appreciative tones when there are calls for “civil partnerships”, or the like (our Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is a specialist in this art of satanic perversion of Truth under the pretence of defending Catholicism), and are then in great difficulty when they must explain to non-Catholics why one should be “nice” about civil partnership and not nice anymore when the word “marriage” is pronounced.
What should be told, is that Truth is indivisible: either sodomy is a perversion, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there is no problem different from those posed by, say, fornication. If it is, then it is the sacred duty of the Church hierarchy to thunder against it without waiting for marriage to be attacked.
Is this happening? I doubt. Will the French Bishop start hammering in the ears of their faithful that sodomy is a perversion and those who practice sodomy are perverts bent (pun not intended) for hell? Don’t bet your pint. We will, instead, hear more or less flowery words about how nice it is to have a family with mom and dad, which is a model which has worked rather well and therefore shouldn’t be changed. A bit like the Volkswagen Golf, you see. How many will they persuade?
This battle will only begin to be won when the clergy begins to fight it in the proper way, rather than trying not to offend anyone.
As you will read a bit everywhere, Scotland’s elected representatives have decided not to honour those whom they represent and to proceed to not only legalise, but institutionalise sodomy within a few years. They’ll have plenty of time in hell to repent, unless they do it before – many of them will not even dream of doing it, I am afraid – but today I would like to compare the situation in Scotland and England.
In England, the so-called CoE (or better said, the smarter part of it) has mounted such a quarrel, that it would have been very difficult for the coalition government to pull it through, merely to give Cameron’s civil partner a scalp to show to his party girls as a proof of competence and/or achievement. The Catholic opposition, whilst reduced to the usual hypocritical meowing from official side (++ Vincent Nichols, a notorious heathen, would be “nuanced” about zoophilia if he had to), seems to have worked well on the ground, in the schools and in the churches. Add to this that middle-class Britain, whilst largely de-Christianised, has not (yet) perverted itself to the point wrongly presumed by the Chameleon and you have the ingredients of the rather inglorious defeat suffered – for everyone who has eyes to see – on this occasion. A fourth element is, perhaps, that Englishmen are historically rather sensitive to MPs trying to take important decisions behind their back, and the Brussels matter shows how raw the nerves are in this respect.
Should Labour get back in power in 2015, things wouldn’t become much easier for the organised faggotry either. The Conservatives would, very probably, immediately get rid of the Chameleon and go back to solid Conservatism, which means every attempt to introduce sodo-marriage would give them a field day, and with Catholics and CoE on their side, plus the many Labour MPs who have reason to fear for their seats if they do the wrong thing. It wouldn’t be easy at all, not even with a Labour majority.
Not so, I believe, in Scotland.
The Catholic church is very probably by far not as influential as in England; the Protestants are on their way to perfect irrelevance; Labour voters and people culturally belonging to Labour are far more numerous than in England, and I have not yet noted any angry reaction to the proposal to radically change the Christian face of the country without even asking the electorate. As everywhere else, the cowardly absence of a furious fight on so-called “civil unions” now makes it difficult to organise an angry protest against sodo-marriage.
Witness, in ten years, the same battle – with probably the same outcome – when the faggots will insist on marrying in church, at least in those churches who belong to an established “church”. Clegg and Cameron already begin to make noises in this direction, and they are – we think – heterosexual.
Some bishop in Scotland should wake up and realise unless fire, brimstone and excommunications comes back massively in the political debate, they will be in the position of doing pretty much nothing. It is necessary now that open war is waged against perversion, abandoning the effeminate protestations destined – and meant – to remain without consequence.
Don’t hold your breath, though.
So, piece by piece, Western democracies lose every legitimacy to be the ruling political system; then a system betraying the laws of God and openly working against them has no moral right to exist, and when it unavoidably weakens and degenerates into a spineless sum total of single egotisms and single perversions the next Cromwell or Franco or Mussolini (or Lenin or Stalin) appearing on the scene will take it down.
Democracies seldom die because an even stronger opponent appears on the scene. They die because they have been slowly dying for years, and have lost the will to live. Then you have Spain with the communist threat and Franco’s reaction, Italy with the biennio rosso and the Fascist rise as a result, and Germany with the utter absence of spine of the Weimar Republic.
Scotland just made another step in that direction. England, thank God, seems to be a bit more resilient.
Something is happening in this once proud country. If not an awakening – we are far away from that – a refusal to become completely asleep to Christianity, and reason.
The Coalition For Marriage is now happily sailing toward half a million signatures. For an initiative never mentioned on the BBC or Classic FM (5 million listeners a day, the latter; and a news desk drowning in socialist champagne) and supported mainly by internet tam-tam and mailing lists, there’s enough to deprive a giant like Margaret Thatcher of sleep, let alone a pigmy like Cameron.
Cameron’s problem is that part of his party insists in not wanting to become Liberal-Democrat and seems, rather, intentioned to remain Conservative. This is a big problem for him, because if they wake up to the fact they are Conservatives, they’ll realise he isn’t.
On the matter of so-called “gay-marriage” (by which an allegedly Conservative government started to sound proposal not even about the if, but about the how of the measure; if they’re Conservatives, I must be Muslim) things seem not to go very well for our dear Chameleon.
It would appear Tory MPs are terrified, and are imploring – or rather, demanding – that Cameron allows the thing to die quietly, with the least possible loss of face.
This is a typical English way: in theory I want to do something, in practice I let it be. This way, I try to smuggle myself as the right guy for both camps. Alas, I doubt it will work for Cameron, because he is now damaged goods among his own MPs, who slowly start to realise prostitution doesn’t let you stay in power for long, and it’s bad for your soul.
The “warnings that a Tory rebellion in the Commons would eclipse last year’s EU referendum revolt, when 81 Conservatives defied the Prime Minister” is perfectly credible, as whoever follows British politics knows Cameron went out of the confrontation as damaged goods, with his reputation as leader shattered and now firmly in the viewfinder of the (really) conservative wing of the party.
MPs have been so stunned by the scale of the protests that a secret group has been set up by Tory MPs at Westminster to force Mr Cameron to back down. Many of the MPs admit that the ‘avalanche’ of letters from the Tory grass-roots was forcing them to change their views.
This is embarrassing but, I think, credible. Tory MP have been stunned at knowing there are still Christians around, and at the discovery they are still enough to make them unemployed. Some of them, not having morals of their own, have decided to embrace the morals of their constituents, as their jobs depend on them. Therefore, they have told Cameron he should stop being silly, and pretend to believe in God once in a while.
A Tory MP put it this way:
‘It is clear from both my postbag and the Coalition for Marriage petition… that a significant body of opinion in our city and up and down our country share my views.’
It is almost Christmas, and yours truly has decided to write a short post about the way Christianity has traditionally dealt – in charity – with the issue of same-sex attractions.
We all know that, whilst the Church has always condemned the actual act of sodomy – we say this in a very low voice of course, as we understand the Holy Ghost is sending different signals now, as he has been doing these last 60 years – Christianity has always been very understanding of the actual luuv experienced – no doubt, because of the influence of the Holy Ghost – by many saintly couples with same-sex attraction.You know by now that an enormous number of saints was homosexual (Saint Elton The Adopter, and Saint Stephen Fry come to mind) as was an inordinate number of bishops, cardinals, Popes, Roman Emperors, and Jedi like, say, Lucia Skywalker and Yodaola The Minute Lesbian.
Already in Roman times, same-sex ceremonies were celebrated everywhere. It is recorded what one of the first bishop, Vincentius, had to say on the matter:
“We do not oppose same-sex partnership. We recognise in Roman Law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that this are not the same as marriage”.
This is the reason, dear reader, why for two thousand years the Church has known two parallel institutions:marriage (destined for those of opposite sex, and having as their aim procreation) and civil partnership (destined for those with same-sex attractions, but living together in an oh so edifying chaste life; actually an example for us all, wretched sinners…..).
As you can see from the writings of this early Veterinary of the Church, same-sex couples were basically everywhere, and their oh so chaste life celebrate by other Christians as a true example of Christian virtue.
This is why we read in Romans the following words:
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
But those who, being filled with deceit, malignity and malice, did not have sexual intercourse, received in themselves the recompense which is due to their virtue, and stability was given to their relationship*.
As Vincentius already explained to us – and as it has been constant teaching of the Church these two thousand years – the Church’s censure does not refer to same-sex attractions, but merely to the sodomite act. The sodomite act is – at risk of being uncharitable; which we are not; or course we aren’t; perish the thought – not the best choice; suboptimal at worst; somewhat short of the ideal; and who are we to judge, anyway…
At the same time, said Vincentius, same-sex fellowships are different. For those, he said,
“we are very nuanced”. “Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation within the Roman Empire use a civil fellowship to bring stability to a relationship”.
This is, my dear readers, why same-sex civil partnership have become such an indissoluble component of Christian civilisation, without which the Christian West would have been unthinkable. This is why, from time immemorial, the Church has celebrated chaste homosexual partnerships and honoured them in poetry, music, painting, and the like. Think of Raphael’s “Marriage of the Eunuchs”, or Masaccio’s “Peter Tatchell and his child-bridegroom”. This is also why your grandmother, who was justly terrified at the idea of global warming, did not object to her neighbours living in an homosexual – chaste, of course – relationship in the least, and participated to “orgoglio allegro” (which then spread to the Anglo-Saxon world, and became known as “gay pride”) together with all her female and gay friends; all of them celebrating tolerance, inclusiveness, and being oh so nice with each other. That was, you see, a Christian world. So nice!
It is really, really unfortunate that after two thousand years of celebrating diversity, of authentic Christian tradition of homosexual partnership, these miserable Birkenstock-wearer and assorted Sixty-Eighters should try to re-invent Christianity and tell us same-sex attraction is….. a perversion!
I blame Vatican II!
Just stop and think……
how charitable we all were!
* this is an ancient text, in the past believed an interpolation but now proved authentic after it was found in Vincentius’ own Bible text.