The Evil Clown has now promoted the notorious Tymothy Radcliffe to Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
It seems justice and peace are always the first preoccupation of perverts. Methinks, they need to feel “good” because they know very well how rotten they are.
This is a Papal appointment. It comes from the man himself. Radcliffe is too well-known, and far too outspoken in favour of sodomy, for anyone entertaining the silly idea that Francis might appoint him to such a position without fully knowing that in so doing he will promote the agenda of the sodomites.
It angers one enough that Francis should be so openly, how should I put it, gay. What angers one even more are those Catholics who keep writing nonsense like “I want to think he was not informed”. I do not doubt the very same people, on knowing Francis has been surprised in the midst of a sodomitical act, would comment “I want to think he did not know that was a man's backside”.
Open your big, blue eyes and realise that Francis is the enemy of Christ, the enemy of the Church, and your own personal enemy. He hates the Church and all it represents. He will wreak as much havoc as he can without risking being kicked out, or having his pontificate sink in a sea of accusations of heresy.
He hates us. He hates all of us. He hates all that we are.
He is on the side of the sodomites, the communists, the environ-mentalists. If you are an enemy of the West, Francis is your friend. If you hate Christian morality, Francis will do whatever he can to help you. It can be that Francis is not homosexual – something I personally find more and more difficult to believe -, but if this is the case, it goes to simply prove the point that he supports sodomites exactly because the Church condemns it.
Acts speak. Appointments count. It is utterly senseless to think these appointments have no meaning and no relevance. Even if Radcliffe were never to act once in his new position, not even ever to utter another word in public, his appointment to the Pontifical Council would still validate his perverted opinions – and, I bet my pint, mind and life – and further sabotage Catholicism.
Please do not say with this appointment Francis “confuses the Catholics”. He is not confusing in the least. He is very, very clear! Francis is at war with the Church, and his campaign will only stop where he fears destruction for himself or for his pontificate.
It pains me to say so, but at this point I think he got his calculations pretty right. Those who still did not get it after more than two years will probably – short of extreme acts like the proclamation of a false dogma, or the like – never get it. Francis will, therefore, continue to sabotage Catholicism through appointments, off-the-cuff speeches and any other way reasonably at his disposal, knowing that provided he avoids the very worst there will never be shortage of nincompoops ready to swallow all the excrements he dishes to them, and say they want to believe the Holy Father thinks it's chocolate.
They can eat Francis' excrements all they want. They will, one day, have to explain why they did so, and why they swallowed all of it so eagerly with nothing more than the most polite reservations.
We must call a spade a spade.
And I tell you: Francis is on the side of the Sodomites, and He wants to pervert your mind just as he has perverted his own.
I stumbled upon a rather good article about the obscene celebration of sexual perversion to which St. Patrick's Day Parade has been, well, perverted by, oh well, perverts and those who are accomplices in their sin crying to heaven for vengeance.
However, it seems to me that in this way no battle will be ever won. The way I see it, this article and the many contributions like this have one serious shortcoming, that should be addressed.
You will notice that the “P” word is never spoken. Sexual perversion is a serious matter, which, by its own very nature, cannot be reduced to simple “immorality” as the one caused by the weakness of human nature. I wonder how many would write that child abuse is immoral and, well, premarital sex is also immoral. Some sins cry to heaven for vengeance, and some not. Some sins go with our nature, some sins go against it. We must make this distinction, or we will give the impression that sexual perversion is just on the same level as common human weakness, or that all grave sins are much of a muchness. They aren't. Hell isn't a common room, either.
Words convey messages. If the message is to be strong, the words used to convey it must be strong, too. I do not expect a priest to write “faggot” in his article, but if words like “gay” and “LGBT” are used in in implicit acceptance that they are the proper way to describe perverted people, then I do not see how we can persuade anyone that is not already persuaded.
The garden variety homo (or dyke, trannie, and all the circus tools of the sort; perverts all of them) never hesitates in employing a very emotionally charged, inflammatory language against you; and if you answer to his accusations of “homophobia” without telling him that he is just a pervert who would, in better times, have gone to jail for his perverted scandal*, then we are going to go absolutely nowhere; because we will be perceived, and rightly so, as people afraid of their own argument, and therefore unable to oppose more than a meowing to the roaring of Satan's lions.
They insult us. We answer by adopting their own language, and being oh so attentive not to hurt their feelings. No battle was ever won sounding the trumpet of the enemy.
The “P” word must come back in the debate about… perversion. There is no other way of tackling the issue than by saying loud and clear what the issue is. Similarly, the word “gay” and expressions like “LGBT” must be refused legitimacy and be used only in an ironic or mocking way (yes, mocking; mockery wins wars), never calling perverts the way the want to be called, but always calling them what they are.
Refuse to do so, out of a misguided sense of “charity” or politeness, and it will not be long until the very use of the word “pervert” will make you persecuted. A persecution which you will have called on yourself out of your own desire to be polite with people with no desire at all to be polite to you.
The Italian says: “chi agnello si fa, il lupo se lo mangia”, or “he who makes himself a lamb, the wolf eats him”.
Perverts are wolves. Be a lamb with them, and you will be eaten.
*In some European Countries the homosexual scandal, not sodomy in itself, was a criminal offence.
Sickening and sad, but also interesting story on LifeSiteNews about a mother whose husband – and biological father of their two children – not only discovers his own perversion and throws himself in a world of militant faggotry, but also manages – no doubt, through extremely perverted judges – to obtain the custody of the children; children who must henceforward endure life in the presence of an über faggoty father and his own, also militant, “lover”, and in the midst of a “community” that could inspire a film comedy in very, very bad taste.
This immense tragedy also has a message for the big public, particularly the liberal one: watch out, mothers!
In the new brave world of “faggots’ rights”, a woman could have her children taken away by her husband, because the husband belongs to the new Most Favourite Minority, the one of the sexual perverts.
I cannot avoid thinking that there is some horribly poetic justice in a “liberal” mother who, after saying for years how much she supports what she calls “gay rights”, loses her own children exactly on the altar of this particular, and oh so enlightened new religion.
Serves you right, Ma’am. And you will you take part in the next “gay parade”? What? Please, ma’am: language!
But the issue concerns, in fact, every mother, not only the liberal ones, as the risk of losing one’s children to faggotry is clearly not limited to the effeminate liberal environment; though it stands to reason that the liberal metrosexual with limp wrist and shrill voice is far more likely to develop an utter perversion than the robustly masculine type you tend to find in a traditionally minded environment where men are expected to be men, and women women.
It truly is almost funny – no; it is clearly an unmitigated tragedy; but with a funny angle nevertheless – to see how liberal thinking eats not only its own children, but their own mothers, too.
Christianity is sanity. Once the traditional valued championed by Christianity are seen as merely an “option”, the result will be a societal demolition the first liberal generation could not even imagine. A demolition caused by the simple fact that once Christian values are abandoned, sanity goes with them; a fact that the proponent of such an abandonment will, at some point, get to experience on their very skin.
Christianity is sanity. Liberal thinking is utter madness.
Mothers, think of your children, and start making the right choices before you prepare for them a world you would not have thought in your most horrible nightmares.
Can you imagine the first community of Pilgrims celebrating the harvest feast together with “couples” of sexual perverts? No? Ever wondered why?
It was, if you ask me, because in the mind of a Christian it seems the utter absurdity to thank God for an abundant harvest as one offends Him by openly giving scandal, or being accomplices to this scandal.
God gives graces of all sorts to men, and then expects them to conform to His laws. Whilst we are all sinners, it is certainly absurd to act in a way that says “Thank you, Lord, for this abundant harvest that will assure our survival in these new territories. Thanks! Have a slap in the face!”
If a Christian does not see Thanksgiving as a profoundly Christian moment, and an eminent Christian festivity, then he can celebrate the Day of Mother Earth, The Week of Auntie Rain, as well.
It's a Christian festivity. Don't allow the atheists and the secular people to say it's not so. For a Christian, it must be so.
Which leads us to the topic touched at the beginning: Faggotry must stay out. This is do always, of course; but particularly so on a day in which, of all things, God's bountiful generosity is gratefully remembered.
I am sure none of you, faithful readers, would dream (or have a nightmare) of inviting the faggot friend of the faggot relative for Thanksgiving. This is not charity. This is complicity In the iniquity.
Similarly, I invite all of you who have been invited to such a place to reflect where their allegiance really lies. I know, there are wheels within wheels, and many could say “but in my case it's different”. Perhaps auntie is 109 years old and has so insisted that you accept the invitation. Perhaps wifey has told you her sister might commit suicide if she sees herself “rejected”. Perhaps the “boyfriend” is dying of AIDS and could, oh, uh, no? Be “converted” at seeing the “warm embrace” of the family…
Many of these scenarios are thinkable. No one works.
Auntie will be helped to die in clear danger of damnation. Sister must stop manipulating people, and take responsibility for her (gravely wrong) actions. “Boyfriend” is helped by making very clear to him that he is bound for hell. You get my drift.
I invite each one of you who, perhaps out of a very misplaced sense of charity, should have accepted such an invitation to say “no”, in the way you consider more appropriate. Have a headache if you really have to, but I invite you to be a real witness of charity by saying why you do not participate. And let the wife or husband go alone, if he or she so wishes. And let there be discusdions, if discusdions have to be had.
But you, dear reader, you will not be another brick in the normalisation of sexual perversion.
Not a long time ago, fathers smashed their daughters on the street, doomed to utter poverty and very possibly prostitution, for much less than open, shameless lesbian scandal. They would chase away and disinherit their first born for something as atrocious as proclaimed, openly celebrated sodomy.
You may say they were too harsh, and I – a man of my time after all – agree with you. But you can't deny that It was a Christian world, that would have never thought it fitting to put one's emotions simply before one's duty to uphold Christian thinking. A Christian father of the Victorian era would take his salvation, and the one of his beloved ones, very seriously instead of wallowing in effeminate sentimentalism.
It is astonishing that our times should be so unChristian, and so effeminate, that even refusing an invitation to an open faggot – and declining to accept such an invitation – should be seen as too much, too harsh, or in any way “uncharitable”.
Glimpses of sanity in the Archdioceses of Detroit, and at the same time a sign that a Pope can’t change the way the Church thinks overnight.
One of the many faggots (real, or honorary) within the Church, wolves in wolves’ clothes, has an “advocacy” group called “New Ways” which, under pretence of “supporting” perverts, actually encourages them in their perversion. I did not like the tone of the article one bit, therefore no link.
ArchbishopVigneron reacted with a sort of: “new ways? No way!”, and prohibited the faggots (real, or honorary) from meeting in one of his parishes.
The dialectic is interesting: the leader of “New Ways” says there should be “outreach” to “gay Catholics”, as Francis says. The Archbishop doesn’t care a straw, whatever Francis may say.
Ironically, “New Ways” wanted to give its support to a local group, apparently called “Fortunate Families”. Whilst I am not interested in gathering more information about this kind of people, it seems rather clear to me these people consider themselves “fortunate” in having a fag or dyke among them. What was always considered a shame for the entire family involved – besides being a tragedy for the soul – is now something, apparently, celebrated.
Boy, they should move along and enter the Presbyterian so-called “church” down the road.
What do we take home from this? That Francis’ evil propaganda will be exploited by all those who want to poison the church with Satan’s ways, but it will not be easy, because there are an awful lot of bishops around, and an awful lot of them will keep being Catholic (in the very imperfect, compromise-prone, weak V II-catholic way; but still, Catholic) whatever Pope Pothead says.
On the usual wrong site, there was the usual pathetic attempt to explain why it is good that Elton Fag is so appreciative of the Unholy Father.
The thinking seems to be that when there is trust this is the first step on a path that might lead one to the Church. Not one word of this makes any sense.
Elton John has shown a massive support for Francis as opposed to the Church. He supports him not because he says what the Church says, but because he doesn’t. He pits Francis against the Church, and chooses the former.
If Elton John had said something along the lines of “Francis is leading me to reexamine my convictions in light of the teaching of the Church” we could see that Francis is, perhaps, slowly working. If Elton John had at least said “I still struggle to cope with Her teaching, but Pope Francis is leading me to examine the Church with a new appreciation of her sincere role for the salvation of souls” we could say that at least trust is advancing. But the man’s approbation extends solely to Francis, not to the Church.
This is an unrepentant sodomite living in sin with his faggot concubine, and even “adopting” poor unfortunate creatures! There is no word of repudiation of his ideology! How does this show “trust” in the Church?
Francis is working. No doubt about that. He is working at keeping people out of the Church, or in opposition to Her. If you are looking for excuses to reject the Church’s teaching, Francis clearly is the man for you. A man openly saying, himself, that he is not interested in converting anyone. Heresy and rebellion, dished right from the top. Elton Fag sees it, and pushes Francis as much as he can. What he wants, is that you convert to the Church of Francis, the arch-enemy of Catholicism…
This is not trust in Catholicism. This is warfare against it. Warfare helped by the fifth column inside the Church: Francis and his heretic fellows.
And so Tim Cook shouted to the world that he is homosexual – and, I think, a Sodomite, though I do not want to read the details -. He even says, apparently, that his perversion is a “gift from god”, and I am very curious to know what god would that be.
I cannot understand the surprise, or the headlines. That Cook cooks with (cough…) faggots was already well known, and it was already on his Wikipedia entry for all those who have eyes to see. The Christianophobic stance of Apple has been mentioned on this blog many times already, and has been causing scandal among Christians, and particularly Catholics, for years. So Tim Cook is a faggot. Tell me something I don't know.
This strange re-outing might, though, backfire. The “gayphone” (or the “IFag”) might soon become a popular joke. It is dangerous to put faggotry at the very centre of one's shop window. For every liberal client you gain you might lose three clients who think.
Still, dear iPhone customers, now you can enjoy your possibly new-acquired knowledge, basking in the knowledge of all possible uses one like Tim Cook might have for his oh so sleek Iphone.
You may want, in fact, to switch your allegiance to Android. No saints, they, but with a much more open platform that will allow you to have Catholic content on your smartphone (like, say, an entire 1962 Catholic Missal) without it being censored by a Christianophobic company led by a pervert.
This Apple is poisoned. I suggest you stay away from it.
Elton John, the pathetic freak show, has just stated that Francis is “his hero”; seasoning his stupid utterances with the usual bollocks about his own perverted concept of “love”. It is clear here that the pathetic freak show is referring to Francis' failed attempt to pervert Catholicism toward sexual perversion.
This will make headlines worldwide.
I wonder how many Pollyannas will start to open their big blue eyes after this. A man who is everything the Church considers scandalous and abominable praises a Pope for trying to bring the Church on his side. If this does not open Pollyanna's big eyes, what ever will?
Open your big blue eyes, Pollyanna. This is a papacy fit for atheists and perverts. By continuing in your increasingly more stubborn blindness, you are endangering your soul.
Continuing our short comment over the satanic abomination published by the Vatican yesterday, we find the argument of sexual perversion introduced.
This is, make no mistake, the clear indication that the Homomafia is now running the show at the Vatican, helped by the man who, whether a homosexual himself or not, decided they were not a problem because they don’t go around with the “Vatican Gay Lobby ID card”. Today, for a change, I will abandon the “what they really said” method.
If you ever wondered why Francis buried in the sand the famous 300 page report, you can cease wondering now.
So, there it goes:
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The smell of brimstone is strong in this one.
I have never heard of “homo detector” devices being put at the entrance of churches, and when it “beeps” people being chased away by ushers crying: “Go away!” “No homosexuals in our church!”
The Church has never forbidden the approach to the altar to pedophiles, homosexuals, murderers, incestuous people, and people screwing animals.
What the Church has always said, is that these are abominations. Therefore, on the one hand no pervert is allowed to act on his perversion, and on the other hand no pervert is allowed to give scandal by advertising it.
Which introduces the problem of “welcoming”. The soul is welcome to contrition and repentance. The homo is not welcome as homo. He is not welcome if, in any way whatsoever, he wants to have his perversion accepted, “valued”, “evaluated”, “appraised” or “appreciated” in any way whatsoever; because this would be welcoming scandal, not souls, and leading souls to hell, not heaven.
The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge.
Homosexuality isn’t a “question”. It’s a sexual perversion. It leads people to hell. Its obvious (not “natural”; actually, unnatural) byproduct, sodomy, cries to heaven for vengeance. It’s in the same ballpark as screwing one’s dog, or one’s father, or one’s little nephew. That’s it. Live with it.
Still, our little Satan’s whores now dare to tell us that such perversion should move us to “elaborate a realistic path of affective growth”. This means, for all but the stupid, that the pervs are encouraged in their “feelings” for each other. The “integration of the sexual dimension” is, and cannot be read in any other way, an acceptance of sodomy, perhaps waiting that two sodomites who are told how much sodomy accompanies them in their “affective growth” then suddenly cease to commit sodomy because… because… no one knows why. The end is another bomb, as the “educative challenge” seem to be addressed not to the homos, but to the Catholic people, who must be “educated” to the “welcoming” of sodomites in their midst.
The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
The little bastards get very sneaky here: as they repeat, with a very low voice, that the sacrament of marriage and two sodomites or lesbians living together in sin aren’t quite the same thing, they effectively put homosexual “couples” almost on the same sexual footing as the sacrament of matrimony. The defence of the doctrine is here reduced to saying that Holy matrimony is still on a better footing than two sodomites living together! O you Angels in heaven, do you hear them??
The gravity of this is immense.
But fear not: there will be Pollyannas around so happy to write that the little whores have “upheld Catholic doctrine”.
Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
More whoring. Open sodomitical scandal is nothing more than a “problem”. Does it lead to damnation? Well, looky here: some faggots make a living out of other faggots! Isn’t this a beautiful “sacrifice” from, say, the old man who pays for the young pervert? I am so moved I want to cry. Do you have a handkerchief?
About the children, we are told that even their adoption from fags and lesbians is now a-ok! Lord, protect us and the little ones from these devils!
I say it once again: there is nowhere to hide. No level of imbecility can justify anyone in pretending that
1. this is not atrociously satanic, and
2. this is not orchestrated by TMAHICH
TMAHICH is the man who put the liberal whores in the team in charge of writing this abomination. TMAHICH is the man who wanted both this Synod and the way it is going. TMAHICH is the man attacking Catholicism at every step, in every way he can.
In a way, and shocking as it is to say this, the situation is not entirely bad. I mean, it is obviously atrocious, but the upside of it is that the mask has fallen. Those who accept to pretend that the mask is still there have abundantly deserved to be punished for their folly, because they obviously value their quiet life and the desire to avoid uncomfortable questions infinitely more than Christ.
Francis here, Christ there. Francis is comfortable and easy, Christ is uncomfortable and difficult.
Pick your side, and pay the price.
As the disgraceful Synod begins, an army of perverts is converging on Rome like it’s June 1944.
I wonder how many among even the most hardened, professional Pollyannas will still pretend to believe perverts must be accepted as perverts within the Church; as if their proclaimed perversion did not, in actual fact, translate not only in perverted activity, but in the perversion of the Church.
Whilst the urban legends of homosexual saints are clearly tosh, it is certainly possible that a person afflicted by this horrible perversion reacts to it in the right way and decides that his homosexuality must be not embraced or whitewashed, but on the contrary fought against and lived for what it is: a horrible perversion that must be fought against until death. The various groups like Courage, and the counsellors now under increasing persecution in the United States, do just that: they help people on the wrong (per) direction (versio) to find the right one.
Yours truly does not throw his arrows against the homosexual – or the pedophile, the incestuous, the one affected by bestiality – who recognises his problem, sees it for what it is, and acts accordingly out of fear of the Lord and love for His Church. The attentive reader will immediately notice that I never call such people “faggots”. In this, yours truly thinks he is fully in line with the thinking of the Church not only after, but also before V II, in which is the only guarantee of orthodoxy. Homosexuality is a huge problem. The serene acknowledgment of it, and the awareness of the absolute necessity to put an end to homosexual behaviour, is already a great step. May those so honest get rid of their affliction in this life, and be richly rewarded in the next.
But I draw a line in the sand whenever I hear hypocritical, subversive talk of “acceptance” and “inclusiveness” of homosexuality.
Did the Church every “accept” pedophilia? Did she ever “include” incest? Of course, of course she calls the pedophiles and the incestuous to repentance! But never would she, lest she betrays her role, consider such horrible perversions as acceptable in themselves!
The Church loves the person because he is an immortal soul. She does not love the person as sinner, much less accepts or includes his perversion. This must be repeated again and again, because it appears thickness is rather well spread among Catholic – or pretended such – keyboards.
Another basic concept most “everyday Catholics” do not get – which is utterly disquieting – is the obvious distinction between sins that go with nature, and sins that go against it. It must truly be a perverted generation the one that does not get basic principles not only of common sense, but of the god-given order of the world.
The affirmation that, say, “the church calls homosexuals to chastity, but then she does the same with heterosexual people too” is, at its root, profoundly subversive. It sends the message that the one or the other sexuality are the same in the eyes of the Lord, and therefore the same rules are applied. It also sends the message that homosexual attraction is in itself fine – a misconception held by many a perverted mind nowadays – and the problem only begins when penises start floating around looking for the wrongest possible places.
This is not only bollocks, but perverted bollocks, and I defy any of these “understanding” Catholics to tell me they would know, on being informed that their son is attracted to boys, think it just fine, provided no sodomy occurs. Whereas the same father would proudly acknowledge his son’s attraction to girls and, in fact, think it just fine, because that’s exactly how it is. In this latter case, the attraction is fine even if fornication occurs, because in this latter case what is wrong is the fornication, not the attraction. The attraction for the opposite sex is from God, from the same one is from the Devil.
All this is lost nowadays. The desire to please perverts is such, that their very perversion is swept under the carpet, and downplayed in every possible and impossible way.
This is indecent, and outright disgusting. It reminds me of the Eighties, when the liberal press insisted in telling us how “natural” sexuality in children is; no doubt, because there were a lot of pedophile journalists then, exactly as there are a lot of homosexual journalists now.
Now, an army of faggots and dyke converge on Rome like it’s June 1944; they do so because they smell the blood, and they know that I do not say hostility, but not even laughter and ridicule will submerge them.
This is a clear sign of how deep we have sunk into the moral abyss: that perverts have become an accepted part of our everyday life, people whose “feelings” should not be “hurt”.
“Sodom light”, I call this.
In fact, not even so very light.
How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
The organisers of St. Patrick’s Day parade, who had up to now refused to allow the participation of perverts qua perverts, have now decided that not even saints can be spared from the association with perverts.
You would think that the local Cardinal would spit flames from his mouth like it’s Smaug Day, wouldn’t you?
Well, not if the Cardinal is Dolan, of course.
Mr “No sense of judgment” would never forgive himself if he allowed this beautiful stage to go to waste. Imagine: the TV stations, the radios, and all the secular press noticing how much the Cardinal follows the “Spirit of Francis”.
This is the one with no “sense of judgment” at people outing their perversion and demanding approval for it. The one licking the plates of Muslims and telling them they are obviously saved because they like their children. The one puttign his fat belly before absolutely everythign under the sun, starting with his God and his Church.
What an obese Jezebel.
I hope – nay: I am certain – that all decent Catholic will stay away from this shame.
Let the fat prostitute spend the day in the middle of perverts. A fitting anticipation of his destiny after death, unless he repents.
Sanity is slowly beginning – I am the eternal optimist, I know – to go back in the consciousness of the mainstream, as more and more people realise the oppression of the Gaystapo methods.
This article here makes a very simple point:
Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others. Isn’t that obvious?”
The man is, of course, perfectly right.
The simple fact is that at some point perverts will lose their “protected status” as a sort of Indian Reserve in the US legal system, and the silent majority will discover that they have, obviously, perverted the very concepts of freedom, equality, or decency. Slowly, normality will start to creep in. We have seen this phases of hysteria followed by (relative) sanity in many issues: from nuclear plant to global warming and from rayon clothes to quartz watches; even abortion is now under strong attack.
Nothing is irreversible. Nothing stupid, anyways.
I hope this faggot-mania will be next. It will take some time, very probably decades, as the debate sets in and new generations grow up for which the faggot isn’t “oppressed” in any meaningful sense of the term, and is rather the oppressor of anyone who does not want to be I do not say in agreement, but an accomplice in his perversion. But I think it will happen one day. Communism seems triumphant in 1979, and was already dying in the most painful, inglorious way only one decade later. Two years later, it was slain even in Russia. When the pendulum starts to swing back, it can go fairly (as world changes go) fast.
It will take time. Let us salute every little step.
Victory is ours anyway.
This undoubtedly makes for some reading.
What a difference with “who am I to judge?”-Francis or “we are more nuanced”-Nichols.