Think back when you were at (high) school. Hormones were everywhere, girls blossomed like a rose garden in May, boys could only look at breasts' height. I can't imagine it was easy for everyone to – as they say – “hide” his sexual – as they say – “orientation”.
How many were the fags? How many were the dykes? I can answer for my environment: one and one, perhaps one and a half in the second case. Over several hundred of school and neighbourhood friends, acquaintances, and people known through other people.
The moral of the story? Sexual perversion is very rare. It is certainly very, very rare in the sane social environment I grew in (men were men; women were women; families had two parents of opposite sex; perverts were universally despised and met with unanimous disgust), which encouraged boys to be boys and girls to be girls; but it is also certainly rare in the more effeminate, dysfunctional context of modern Anglo-Saxon societies, where a male guide is often missing and women have too often never been told they are supposed to be sweet and feminine, which qualities actually attracts men.
The gay Mafia will, obviously, for you to believe otherwise. If sexual perversion is to be seen as normal, logic demands that it be seen as frequent. Hence, all those completely unreal figures you read around: two, three, four, even six percent!
Give me a break. Six percent means every class of thirty would have around two, two classes of twenty-five would be expected to have three. Really? Is this the reality you grew in? What was that, Sodom High?
No. This is all a huge fraud. Sexual perversion is very, very rare. If sexual perverts are so frequent, how is it that no one ever noticed these last many thousands of years? “Oh, but they were in the closet!” They will say. Poppycock again. You can't say being a fag or a dyke is what makes one person's real nature, but this nature can be hidden for a lifetime. It just doesn't make sense, unless we want to believe every closeted fag is born a wonderful actor. I couldn't fake being a woman for one second (I am sure even those who hate and despise me will have to admit that), so it's not clear to me how a massive, lifelong deception would have been possible in the same way.
No, the answer is very simple: the numbers of perverts is always very low, but it can be somewhat higher when Sodom is around one, just because there will be more people targeted for perversion, and more people without a clear role to follow. The poor boy who grew up in a single mother household might never know what it is to naturally learn to grow up and become a man, naturally following the example of the men in his environment. He will be a prime target for perverts. Whilst this does not make of him a pervert, it makes him more vulnerable if a bad tendency could develop in the meantime.
Still, we are talking very, very low numbers.
Have a walk in Central London on a typical Saturday afternoon. Count the people who are certainly perverts. Then add all the people who just look like they might be, and are more probably just metrosexual losers (you know the type: the faggoty trousers, the faggoty shirt, the general unmanly demeanour). Then compare all of them to all the perfectly normal, straight people you have crossed on the pavement that day. You will discover that even the number of clear + possible pervert is extremely slow in comparison to the general population, and I mean really low, clear-fraction-of-one-percent low. And I have included all the metrosexual losers, so please do not come to me with the “but you can't recognised them” argument.
No. Biased “statistics” clear do not match reality.
Reality speaks another language, and it tells you that perverts are very rare.
Now around 18 months in this incredibly challenging (nuEnglish for “rubbish”) pontificate, I am reflecting of what is the most representatively infamous, ignominious, shameless piece of populist nonsense that the Unholy Father, Bishop of Rome, has donated to the world in these 18 months of “uh?”, “ah?” and “no?”. What, in other words, is the piece of rubbish that most immediately explains everything that is wrong with this man? If you had to explain to someone what a clown this Pope is, and had only one example at your disposal
Upon reflection, and mentally reviewing what I remember of the long litany of heresies, blasphemies and simple everyday nonsense, I keep coming back to this pearl of stupidity:
If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?
This is stupid on so many levels, that almost every word is a blunder in itself. Even a retard would have to make a great effort to say something so effortlessly, authentically retarded in such a pity way.
The use of the word “gay” in this context is not only, well, gay*; but it clearly denotes a complicity with the sin of the sodomite, a downplaying of sins crying to heaven for vengeance, and the will to know-tow to popular feeling.
The “search for the Lord” is clearly a misleading statement, as “searching for the Lord” has never excused from mortal sin if the conditions for it are present. Luther probably searched for the Lord, at least when sober, at least when sober and not screwing a nun, at least every now and then when sober, and not screwing a nun; and probably even Mohammed searched for his own Allah when not screwing little girls.
The one with the “good will” is so blindingly retarded I should not waste time with it. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Che Guevara, Himmler, Goebbels, Obama, they all had at some point a good dose of “good will”, that in some of them must have been extreme.
The ways of hell, and all that. Simple common sense. Too much wisdom for The Super Duper Humble Pope.
Then, at the end, the master stroke. Francis is one of us; a bloke from the barrio; a common man of everyday feelings. Nothing special, really.
“Call me Jorge, dear. And yes, I will end up suppressing your Order. No appeal I am afraid. How do you say? You search for the Lord and have good will, too? Who gives a damn? You aren’t “gay”! Heck, you’re even Catholic!”
As Francis plays “man of the people”, he makes the job of the Pope redundant. The Pope is not a moral instance anymore, merely a good chap. He has made the Papacy totally irrelevant to you, which is why you should be so grateful to him. He will be ruthlessly exercising his prerogatives, of course; but only with good Catholics, those who – incidentally – really search the Lord. The world, however, has nothing to fear from him. It will be high-fiving all around.
This is the reason why I think that among the many valid contestants, “who am I to judge” takes the biscuit. Not the most blasphemous statement, or the most heretical; probably not even the most stupid; but in my eyes, the one that tells most of what kind of circus tool this man is. A man who spends his day belittling and undermining the Church he should protect, so that he may become more popular in the process.
If any of you has other suggestions he thinks more worth, he may want to drop a line.
No links, please. Short argument. No digressions.
*”gay” is allowed to decent men as mockery: “this is so gay”, “you are gayer than Elton John”, and the like.
In another show of how some Presbyterians are exactly the opposite of Christians, we are informed a “transgendered” freak show is going to preach in a big Presbyterian so-called Cathedral, in an event to which the omnipresent Fag Supremo, Mrs Robinson, is also going to take part.
The amount of sugary nonsense waffled about by the organisers of the event is stunning. Not only is Christianity never to be seen – reminder: every heathen can be good to plants and dog puppies; but this is not what Christianity is about -, but it is transformed into its contrary, or I am tempted to say “transgendered”, by a purely self-celebrating worship of one’s perverted self.
Interestingly enough, the perverts’ organisations involved in the event say this is nothing special, and was “long overdue”. Which makes sense: in the world of perverts, being a pervert or a pro-perverts does not make of one anything special at all. The perverts will only ask one why he has not perverted himself before…
I wonder what kind of people take part in such ceremonies from the pews. I would bet my pint these places attract those who have a desperate need to silence their own conscience, and think the best way to do it is to declare their conscience wrong, and themselves right, hoping their conscience will shut up at last. Sodomites, lesbians, adulterers, abortionists, sexual sinners of any kind must find some superficial comfort in an edifice looking like a real Cathedral, inside which sexual perversion is celebrated as, no less, God-given.
And in fact, these people do not confront Christianity frontally, like an atheist pervert would; they simply proceed to reinvent it, and inform us 2,000 years of Christian thinking was wrong. They, the perverts, are right.
The tranny wannabe priest is the best example of the transgendered wannabe Christianity these people are trying to promote. They want to make of Christ one like them, so that they may forget they are, in fact, his very enemies.
Truth does not change.
Now as then, there will be wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
We can, and actually should, pray for the poor bastards. But it is, I think, perfectly fine to also say, in the traditional way:
Flammis acribus addictis
Voca me cum benedictis
Read on Rorate about the latest antics of Cardinal Dolan (already mentioned on this blog). The key passage is this:
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York praised University of Missouri football star Michael Sam for coming out as gay, saying he would not judge the athlete for his sexual orientation. “Good for him,” Dolan said in an interview with NBC's “Meet the Press” airing Sunday.
“I would have no sense of judgment on him,” Dolan continued.
Note the following:
1. Dolan mentions, as Satan himself would do, the Bible. His Christianity is the hearsay version, “do not judge”. Dalai Lama style. Francis-cum-Nelson Mandela. Woodstock galore.
2. the Cardinal obviously quotes Francis. Michael Voris will criticise Dolan, but not Francis. Mysteries of TV production.
3. He (Dolan) puts on the same plane faithful spouses and clearly sodomite – at least implicitly – athletes. “Bravo”, he says to both.
You see? The ones follow the Bible by being chaste spouses, the others follows the Bible by inserting their accessory into the dirtiest hole (and probably, not the only hole) of another man (and probably, many men). Both of them – the chaste couple and the sodomites – are, says the Cardinal, deserving of praise.
No sense of judgment. Bravo.
Now: if the athlete had said “I am afflicted by a homosexual attraction, but I believe all that the Church believes and will therefore avoid the sin of sodomy and pray the Lord that he may give me the grace to overcome this affliction”, the Cardinal would still have been wrong, because homosexuality is a sexual perversion and something about which one does not go about giving scandal. Would the Cardinal say the following words about a person who had outed himself as a pedophile?
“God bless ya. I don't think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, 'Bravo.'”
But it is actually far worse than that. Dolan's satanical words are clearly an endorsement for the homosexual lifestyle, proclaimed and lived in scandal. This is a Prince of the Church. What times we live in.
It seems to me here that the Francis effect is making all his devastating effects heard. Cardinal Dolan would very probably never have dared to say anything similar to this, had Benedict been still in power. But now that a new wind is blowing, our over-nourished weathervane promptly changes direction, and plauds sexual perversion in the spirit – not the actual words; but the spirit, yes – of what Francis says.
And so the game goes on. Francis starts the mess and clearly indicates, without going all the way, where he wants to lead the Church. His colonels promptly take the hint, and deliver. Lio ensues.
In the nuChurch of Francis that oh so sharply condemns careerism, they are all aligning to follow the new party line, knowing the man will reward a certain type of prelate. They know the Peron in Rome will appoint others like him to bishops, archbishops and cardinals. Dolan obviously has one aim in mind: to be the new Humble One. I doubt he will encourage the practice of fasting, though.
When I think of the Vatican hierarchy of today, “Brothel without boobs” is what comes more frequently to my mind. No, it's not a strong image. I'd prefer the chances of salvation of any prostitute than those of Cardinals like this one.
“Are you drunk, sicko get the f*** out of my inbox it’s midnight. You expect me to show up there after you told me I could face discrimination from you flock of subhuman morons? F*** you. You’re lucky you haven’t been served with a human rights notice. F****** Nazi c*** s***** f*****. You know you gotta be pretty f***** naive to believe the filthy b******* you spread. Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. Your f***** family too.
Master of theology master of F****** b*******. Must be proud.
This is the content of an email sent from a trannie to a Catholic priest obvisouly trying to save the trannie’s soul. Father Z has the story.
Let us just say I couldn’t even fill all the asterisks, but then again I am not mother tongue. Must be American, though, because he spells “favour” without the “u”.
No, this is not a very gay person. None of them are. When one sinks in such a pit of perversion, one becomes like this chap* here.
Others have remarked about the naked hatred transpiring from this rather rainbow-colourful message. I will point out, instead, on the “human rights notice” the man is talking – or rather dreaming, for now – about.
Make no mistake, this is the world these perverted bastards want to create: a world in which every challenge to their own disgusting perversion puts one at risk of outright persecution. No, not absurd at all. They have managed to take the moral high ground, and spread the mascara all over it. Unless we wake up, before not too long it will be a “hate crime” to call a pervert a pervert.
This is what we deserve for fifty years of stupid, effeminate “sensitivity”, during which reality was considered by Christian themselves more and more “inappropriate”; until even the use of every word these dang cretins do not like is considered taboo by the very Christians who should consider such perversions a taboo in the first place.
Christianity is marching toward persecution not because of the tiny minority of perverts, but because of the vast majority of Christians who, in their desire to feel oh so good and sensitive, have allowed these freaking faggots, dykes, trannies and assorted minions of Satan to achieve the status of “premium victim”, when they are among the worst offenders not only in the eyes of God – which is the most important thing; if you believe in God, that is – but in that they would do all they can to impose the acceptance of their own perversions to everyone as something to celebrate, and would not hesitate one second in perverting your child, your daughter, your sister, or yourself if they only could.
These people should be buried under a tsunami of ridicule and mockery, instead of being encouraged with the stupid, effeminate, all-understanding sensitivity of our times. If this had been the case, we would now not be confronted with abominations of all sorts, and would not be now more and more threatened with the attack to our very Christian principles, as we are accused of being “homophobic” for being Christians.
Make no mistake: unless there is no reaction to this PC mania and niceness madness, the “human rights notice” for failing to please a disgusting pervert is coming! Stop being a sensitive sissy, and go back to be a robust Christian! We will not send these perverts back in their satanical underworld by being “sensitive”. On the contrary: our weakness will embolden them more and more, until we will be the ones who are called perverted!
We must not accept this. We must rebel to this verbal self-castration. We must call perverts faggots, dykes, trannies. When we say “gay”, it must always be as a mockery. We must show them how disgusting they are.
Mockery wins wars. Ridicule and shaming are most powerful weapons. Social stigma works. It works so well, in fact, that it is the pervert’s first enemy, an enemy they are obviously trying to outlaw. The social control afforded by apposite description of disgusting realities will better protect your loved ones from the snares of the devil, and might even be useful to reform the one or other of the pervs – those who aren’t reprobates, at least -. The accommodation and desire to appease everyone will lead to your children being exposed to tranny propaganda in their very elementary school, and woe to you if you say something against it. But again, if you are one of the sensitive flowers it’s not more than what you deserve.
Do not hide under the PC rubbish of the “god loves the sinner”. God loves souls as souls, not trannies as trannies. A pervert who dies unrepentant goes to hell, whilst repentant perverts are ashamed of their perversion and do not advocate “rights” of sort for it, or for them.
Political correctness is killing us. Has been for fifty years. Political correctness is wrong, stupid, and a danger to Christianity. The tranny who wrote the email above is your future, and the future of your children.
* born with a willie = chap. No matter how perverted. One’s sex is given by God, not the surgeon.
Oh, those poor, poor sodomites, don't you feeeel for them? They are so discriminated against, “judged” by an unjust society (I know: this is a judgment…) and driven to suicide by the “bullying” of those who call them… faggots! Which obviously is what they are, but it's so cruel, so cruuuel! To think that they are so good!
(Now please, as you say this, stop a moment and savour the feeling of smug superiority; the squatting on the moral high ground; the enjoyment of one's own advanced spiritual state. Then prepare to wake up to reality….).
Alas, it turns out the “good faggot” is, in the majority, rather an aspiring killing machine, and willingly so.
Who would, knowing that he has contracted a disease that could be deadly in others, expose them to this very dangerous disease only to increase his own sexual pleasures? Two faggots out of three, that's who.
Notice here that the percentage mentioned is not of those who abandon themselves to disgusting acts of sodomy, but of those who do not wear condoms as they do so. Full knowing they are HIV positive. Merely to increase their own perverted pleasure. Of course they are supposed not to commit acts of sodomy in the first place, but this is an act of sodomy (alas, not a criminal offence anymore almost everywhere) with the addiction of what must be, surely, a criminal offence in many Countries!
It boggles the mind. It squarely makes of fags the enemy number one of fags, their own willed target for potentially deadly infections. Gaystapo as it breathes and sodomises.
What people still seem not to understand (because they don't know jack of God, sin, or the devil) is how damaged the soul of an homosexual already is. Whilst not every homosexual acts with faggoty behaviour to satisfy his perversion, unless we understand the gravity of this truly satanical perversion we wil not be able to understand its consequences. Only people firmly in the hand of the devil can be so astonishingly, diabolically self-centred as to put not even their own pleasure, but merely its maximum enjoyment at a premium over other people's health and perhaps life.
I do not know whether Fags hate the humanity at large, but there can be no doubt only self-hate and hate of the other fag can drive people to such level of depraved cruelty. Only Satan's hand could deform a soul to such an extent of dehumanising use of other people's body.
The Nazi doctor who performed cruel experiments on his Jewish victims might, perhaps, have deluded himself he is advancing the progress of humanity. He also did not have any personal relationship with his victim. But the HIV-positive faggot consciously exposing others at the risk of infection perfectly well knows he is only advancing the cause of his maximum pleasure, and must have at least a fleeting personal relationship with the man (oh well…) whose life he is putting at risk for no other reason than the most perverted, most short-lived of advantages.
Scratch the Sodomite, and you will see the monster. It is in the logic of Satan's work, and it is a master accomplishment of the same Satan to have persuaded so many that with the act of sodomy the faggot, rather than Christ, is the lamb that was slain.
People have no idea of what sin is anymore. You tell them sin is what offends God – and therefore sodomy, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance, is one of the greatest offences imaginable – and they look at you incredulous, lost, or in utter mockery. They also have no idea of who Satan is, or what he can do to us. To them, everything is good until someone gets hurt. Unless it is a sphyncter, of course. Or an unborn baby.
God might not hate fags, though he most certainly hates their faggotry.
But boy, do they hate each other.
A few days after his return to Rome, Pope Francis was more clear. He had the secretariat of state informed that Monsignor Ricca “will remain in his position.”
And thus with him there will remain intact the glaring contradiction between the work of housecleaning and reorganization of the Roman curia that Pope Francis has repeatedly said he wants and the “prelate” of his appointment in whom he continues to place his trust, a perfect emblem precisely of those scandalous behaviors and of those “lobbies” of power which should be swept away.
One has to like Sandro Magister. In these times of shameless brown-nosing of everyone who is popular – Bishop of Rome absolutely not excluded – he is the only one among the worldwide respected and followed voices who says very clear that Bishop Francis keeps giving scandal and still doesn’t get it.
In a long article, Magister says very clearly that the King – or I should say, the Bishop – is naked. I find it particularly noteworthy that whilst the article mainly deals with the other scandalous appointment of the questionable woman from Calabria, Magister does not forget to keep his readers alert to the permanent scandal that is the support the Bishop of Rome continues to give to the, again, scandalous sodomite in the highest ranks, and an appointment of his very modest self.
Whilst Michael Voris avoids real criticism, Father Z looks for positive news with an ever more powerful magnifying glass and the varied progressive troop with a varnish of pretended conservatism swoon over how cool sacrilegious beach masses are, Magister points out with a rather stringent logic to two of the biggest problems of Francis: a) making wrong decisions and b) refusing to correct them when they explode like hand granates just very shortly after he has released them.
The hubris of this man is impressive, if not very humble. Once he has made a gigantic cock-up, he takes refuge in “not judging”, and certainly not acting. It should not be seen that the… bishop of Rome has made a rookie’s mistake; actually, already very many of them; and he Seventy-Seven.
Either Francis is so much in love with his public image that he thinks it worthwhile that the Church suffers every scandal for the sake of his own popularity; or he is so much the obedient puppet of the sodomite mafia that he does not dare to cross them; not even when the filth is there for everyone to see, and the stink goes up to heaven.
Kudos to Magister, then, for the very special act of courage of reminding his readers of how Ricca represents all that is wrong with this papacy; a papacy so wrong, that it doesn’t even want to be called with its own name.
If you had any doubt about the devastating effect of Bishop Francis' senseless self-promotion at the expense of sound Catholicism and elementary truths, this one is only one of the very many articles now on the net concerning the news.
Note the usual two issues: “Francis good, Benedict bad” and “it's a beginning, but by far not enough”. You can read these narratives everywhere.
Now, someone might say “the leftist press spins the Bishop”, but I must strongly disagree.
When Francis himself does not miss any occasion to point out how different he is from his predecessor, can we really blame the press for jumping on it? Francis' and Benedict's attitude towards not only homosexuals, but even sodomites are so distant the two seem to belong to different religions. It is just plain blind to make every possible and impossible effort to try to reconcile the two. The entire planet has picked up the difference, because the difference is there.
How can any sane person expect that a Pontiff waffles the usual “who am I to judge?” Mantra without the world press picking it up? And do you really think Bishop Francis is so thick he thinks he can throw such a bomb without the explosion being heard everywhere? Come on…
Francis knew the conflagration would be huge. This is exactly why he threw the bomb. Or can anyone seriously believe this man is now systematically “misunderstood” in a way which makes him very popular with the world, and lets him appear like the good man “trying to change the Church as much as he can”?
People who don't want to be misunderstood do not insist with “off-the-cuff” comments regularly causing a pandemonium. They express themselves in public with carefully worded statements, that do not leave any space for “misunderstandings”. But this is a revolutionary… Bishop of Rome. He is interested in spreading as much confusion as he can, whilst making himself popular in the process. He says that openly, by the way, and the famous reference to the “noise” is nothing else than a further confirmation of the climate of permanent revolution he wants to create at the grassroots: in the dioceses, in the religious orders, in the universities, in the seminaries, everywhere.
I just wonder: how can a man go on doing exactly the same for four and a half months, without people believing that he does it on purpose?
Does all this, then, achieve some results? Of course it does.
1. Francis is the mascot of the world.
2. The world appreciate Francis' effort, but is not satisfied. “Baby steps”, says the linked article. Tsk, tsk. Not good enough. Much more to do towards the “gays” (a term, tellingly, now used by Francis himself: first time for a Pope). Francis is good, but still not like the world; but everyone understands it's not really his fault, so he does just fine.
Maximum damage for the Church and maximum confusion for the faithful, but maximum personal advantage for the humble Bishop.
In the wake of a controversy between the blogging priest and the blogging queen (search, and you shall find) I would like to offer my two cents in matter of what I see as proper terminology, and proper behaviour for everyone.
I use the word homosexuality to describe the perverted attraction toward people of the same sex. Concerning this, then Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say:
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
There can be no mistake here: the churche hates homosexuality, because homosexuality is intrinsically evil. This not only corresponds to 2000 years of Christian teaching, but also to sanity and common sense. The one who is not disgusted at the thought of sodomy isn't better than the one who is not disgusted at the thought of incest, bestiality, or child rape. Still, the Church will tell you that the inclination of a person to incest (or homosexuality; or child rape) is in itself not a sin as long as no consent has been given to the thought. I never see this argument used to say that the Church “loves child rapists and hates child rape”. I wonder why?
Therefore, yours truly uses the following words to mean the following:
Homosexuality: that particular kind of sexual perversion consisting in sexual attraction for those of one's sex. Homosexuality is a perversion, and it is in the same ballpark as incest, & Co.
Homosexual: the person afflicted by this particular sexual perversion. This person might try to be a good a Catholic, and not consent to his perversion. In this case he might not sin, but he is still a pervert, and the fact that he fights the good fight may exclude the sin, but it will not negate the perversion.
Faggot (Fag, Sod, Sodomite, Queen): the man who commits the sin of the sodomites. Often, he is vocal about it, adding scandal to sin.
Homosexuality is a perversion. It is extremely bad, revolting, disgusting, an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The homosexual who does not consent to his homosexual attraction may not sin in the particular instance, but he is not less of a pervert than the paedophile who does not consent to his own kind of abomination. Whilst we try to be charitable to everyone, we can't make what is bent straight for the sake of niceness, and I personally wouldn't want either as neighbour (thank you very much; and you're welcome), particularly if I had children.
“Oh, but he is sooo chaste”
Bully for him. Wish him all the best. My next rosary is for him, that he may get rid of his perversion by God's grace. Sincerely.
But would you have a pedophile as neighbour because he says – or you think – that he is reforming himself? Thought not. If in doubt, ask your wife.
The faggot is, in all probability, Satan's fodder. He bears very clear signs of reprobation, and extremely strong ones if he also gives scandal. I can't imagine many of them repenting, and I can obviously not imagine a single one of them escaping hell who does not repent.
It is a great mystery to me how modern Western societies have de-coupled their judgment of the child rapist from the one of the sodomite, but the most probable reason is because they have forgotten what a sin is: the violation of God's law, rather than the act of ” harming” someone. Sheer stupidity might play a role, though.
The question remains how a homosexual is supposed to behave concerning his affliction. I get rather angry when I read of homosexual, and allegedly pious ones, insisting that they be allowed to “out” themselves.
Does society allow people to say “I am a Caholic and I would love to foxtrot my dog, or my mother, or the neighbour's little child?”. No, it doesn't. The one who has such perversion is required to pray very much and shut up more, lest he gives scandal.
In every demand that one's perversion be “acknowledged” lies the implicit demand that such perversion be accepted. There can never be anything like “Homos for Christ”, because the very shouting that one is a homo goes against the very idea of shouting that one is a Christian.
In fact, the very fact that one is a homo precludes him the Priesthood, and for extremely good reasons. Here it is recognised that a great flaw is present: a flaw that is there even in those instances in which no sin occurs. Said in a blunter way, it's never OK to be a “homosexual Christian”, because it's never OK to be a homosexual.
Therefore, the homo is required to think, speak, and behave straight, without any “born that way” bullcrap. There can be no excuses of “it would be as absurd for me to play straight as for you to play bent”. God does not make any man a homosexual, He makes every man man. Therefore, the homo who adopts a manly behaviour is still going with, not against, his nature, and is conseuenly rightly required to behave accordingly.
Any other behaviour is scandalous, implies the desire for acceptance of one's perversion, and unavoidably leads to the demand of its approval.
There. Now you even have Mundabor's code of conduct for Catholic homos.
What more can you want.
Enjoyable show of an atheist fag making the best publicity to Christianity and to heterosexuality.
“If you become a fag, you will be like him”, I picture passing-by mothers telling to their terrified sons.
Look at the coolness of the guy with the sign, how he makes the idiot (probably on drugs; perhaps he sold his shoes to buy them) get madder and madder.
Police managed to calm him down, though.
Alas, I hate to say this, but this is a suicide or a massacre waiting to happen.
He amuses the passers-by, though.
I hope Satan gives us more like him. The man is a walking testimonial for… us.
I have stumbled upon an interesting commentary on the Bible concerning the strange way some wannabe Christians – not believing what they say themselves, and not taken seriously by anyone else – want to interpret the destruction of Sodom as the punishment for – incredibile dictu – not being “hospitable”.
I invite you to click on the article and to absorb its content; it does not deal only with the obvious condemnation of Sodom made by Jesus, but also with other excuses taken by the perverts to attempt to re-invent Christianity.
I will limit myself to one or two additional considerations, worth perhaps a second or two of your time.
1) It cannot be that 2,000 years of Christianity have been completely and utterly wrong. The idea of starting to quibble about the meaning of words written thousands of years ago cannot conceal the fact that thousands of years ago everyone knew what they meant, and their meaning is exactly what has been transmitted. That nowadays fewer people are able to understand the meaning of old expressions does not mean that those expressions should now magically mean something else.
Say, the word “wicked” has always meant something like “evil”, but nowadays some (not very smart) people use it to say “cool”. It can be argued that as I write “wicked” is used to express both, but there can be no uncertainty concerning the fact that everyone knows what it means in the context, and there’s no way to misinterpret it when you hear or read the word. But now imagine a sodomite coming up in 2000 years’ time and reading XXI Century texts saying that sodomy is wicked. “Hey”, he would say, “wicked actually also meant cool, so here it means that sodomy is cool!”.
I know the argument is stupid, but so are they. They are, in fact, so stupid to think the contemporaries and the following generations didn’t know what the Bible says, but they do.
2) Everyone who is not entirely stupid understands that Jesus is making an extreme example, meaning that those who refuse to accept his teaching are going to be punished so severely, that not even (insert here the worst wickedness known to humanity) will be punished so harshly as them. This is the only logical way to read the episode, and in fact it is the only way the episode was read as long as people took Christianity seriously.
But now imagine that Jesus would have said that not even those who don’t say “good morning” are going to be punished as harshly as those who do not accept His teaching; or those who don’t mown the lawn; or those who aren’t hospitable. Where’s the logic in that? Obviously hospitality was important in biblical times, but this still does not come even near to a justification for the bizarre argument made. Apart from the fact that the Sodomites seem to have been very hospitable, in their own pervert way…
Seriously, some people seem to think with their genitals…
Enjoy the linked article and perhaps try to memorise, if you can, the main points. It might be useful with the next smartass acquaintance wanting to show off his “alternative” knowledge…
Faggoty fraternity sues other faggoty fraternity for trademark infringement and unlawful trade.
You couldn’t make this stuff up; still, it’s true.
It confirms the well-spread notion that when homos are not complaining about “homophobia” (also known as “Christian morality”) they are bitching against each other…
So Paris Hilton has “apologised to her gay friends and their families” for the oh so terrible things said in a taxi about homos being “disgusting” (certainly true, at least if referred to the open, effeminate ones) and probably infected with AIDS (a bit far-fetched, this one, but I got the gist).
It goes without saying that the truth could not remain “un-apologised” for long, but… how much is such an apology worth?
Who on earth can doubt that the woman (I do not call her “lady”, for obvious reasons) really told in the taxi – away from journalists and TVs – what she really thinks? Is there one single person – starting from the alleged “gay friends”, which I imagine not numerous anyway – who thinks the lady made her remarks for… no reason whatever?
What are now the repeated affirmations about how wonderful sodomites are worth? Does really anyone believe the PC theatre?
For once in her lifetime, Paris Hilton has made headlines for the right reasons. This being Paris Hilton, though, the apologies do not come as a surprise.
Apparently, the homos’ desire for a stage does not know any boundary, and they find in this allies in the usual suspects of the liberal culture ( probably with the one or other perversion under the table, too).
The whole thins is so stupid, that to my knowledge it doesn’t exist in Europe. As I see it, it achieves the following:
1) It brands the poor (and perverted) idiots for life. They basically take part in a public ceremony saying “yep, I’m a perv”. Poor sods (never was a term of endearment more appropriate) seem not to understand the tide is turning, and they’re going to be in trouble.
2) It puts not their academic achievement (if any) in the foreground, but their being perverts. It is as if there was a convention of pedophile doctors.With this mentality, I wouldn’t be surprised if, actually, it turned out there is one.
3) It clearly shows Jesuits are now largely a bunch of hell-bound perverts.
Kudos to the Cardinal Newman Society.
I sometimes have the impression that the taking of drugs in certain parts of the United States is not only largely tolerated, but compulsory.
As this video says, this “takes political correctness to new highs”. What has happened this time that is that a militant sodomite has been refused admittance in a Christian prayer group because, the group requiring the members to be Christians – with all that this entails, including the opinion about sodomy, bible studies, meetings – he is “discriminated” and therefore the group must change its rules or be shut down.
What is more shocking – and another important indication of the widespread abuse of illegal substances – is that the local Catholic prayer group adjusted its admission criteria to comply with the needs of the sodomites.
Then we complain that we have homosexual pedophile priests.
The university officials did not want to go in front of the cameras, but said that they were working with the religious group to “bring them into compliance with Vanderbilt’s non-discrimination policy”, and at this point the smell of marijuana is clearly perceptible from London, UK.
These liberals and perverts are worse than the Nazis.
I think the following song might give them some motive of reflection. Or not, as the case may be.
On the Vivificat blog, this beautiful blog post about “Why I oppose same sex marriage”.
It is so pithy, beautiful and charitable (charitable in the right way), that the best thing to do is to reproduce it in its entirety, including the emphases.
There you are:
Why am I strongly opposed to same-sex “marriage”?
Because it is an offense against the institution of marriage? Yes, but not really: that institution has already been demolished by our modern Godless society.
Because it will most likely wind up forcing me, as a citizen of this nation, to in some way participate? Yes, but not really: I am ready and willing to be persecuted for my beliefs.
Because this is a democracy and most Americans oppose same-sex “marriage”? Yes, but not really: I support many things that most Americans oppose and oppose many things that most Americans support.
Because it is a slippery slope that may lead to legalized polygamy, incest, etc.? Yes, but not really: that would be like opposing abortion because it could lead to condom use (Sodomy is the greater evil)
Because it will likely lead to more disease and economic devastation in our nation? Yes, but not really: those are fleabites compared to my real concerns
Rather, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I love homosexuals. Because I do not want to see just another enticement (which is what this would be: a legal endorsement of that behavior) for them to remain in that wayward lifestyle and for young people to join that lifestyle. It is a lifestyle that tears apart their souls, makes depression rampant, and motivates suicide to an astronomical degree. For the government to bless their unions with same-sex “marriage” is to say “Come and partake of this banquet, for there is nothing wrong with it. Come and appease your passions and give in to your temptations, we will bless your efforts. Come and reap the fruits of your actions, that you may spend eternity with us.” In other words, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because it turns the government into the very mouthpiece of Satan.
Is this “theocratic” of me? In violation of “separation of Church and state”? Label me as you will. My stance here is a stance of love, in obedience to the Almighty through His Church, and it will never change.
As for myself, I don’t give a hoot how many from the glitterati, the elites, Hollywood, government in all three branches give their secular blessing on this so-called same-sex “marriage”. Call me what you wish, I will never set this lie above the Truth.
Congratulations to Teofilo de Jesus and Dan O’Connor, the authors of this beautiful witness of Christian love.