This man is truly a plague. An unspeakable disgrace. A heathen. An enemy of the Church.
Read from the “Telegraph” what he has now the gut to say, utterly unafraid of sanction from incompetent people in Rome.
The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, said he appreciates some same-sex couples want to be joined in wedlock
When ever have you heard, in the entire history of Catholicism, an Archbishop saying such things?
Asked what he would say to a gay Catholic couple who approached him for marriage within the Church, the Archbishop said: “I would want to say to them that I understand their desires, that I understand their experience of love is vitally important in their lives…”
experience of… WHAT??
Has the Archbishop ever heard of sodomy? Or does he pretend not to know what happens during the “experience of love”?
“I would want them to be respected, but I would want them to have a vision in themselves that what they are called to is not marriage but a very profound and lifelong friendship.”
Here, the usual weasel words. “Friendship”. Let’s pretend this friendship is not sexual. This is the usual Jesuitical Nichols for you. Let us encourage sodomy. Let us institutionalise it. Let us allow sodomites to have “rights” as sodomites. Just ignore the sodomy, would you?
With this logic, I can’t wait the day Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will praise the “experience of love” between a man and his seven years old lover, telling them he “wants them to be respected” and calling them to a “lifelong friendship”.
What society says, I believe, is the best circumstances for conceiving and bringing up children is the partnership between two natural parents.
God, give me strenght. This man goes on saying children can be brought up by sodomites – or lesbians – but this is not the best way. Ideally, we would have natural parents. But hey, Elton John and the other circus tool aren’t so bad, either.
The article goes on referring the delirious consideration of Nick Herbert, Home Office Minister. Things that would have been sufficient to consider whether a madhouse is not the right place for him, only two generations ago.
In this generation, madmen are in government. And in this generation, Archbishops reinforce the message that same-sex relationship are fine and must receive institutional protection with the lame excuse of wanting to protect marriage, in the very same breath as they undermine it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Make no mistake, Nichols is one of the devil.One who would have been considered evil even by anticlerical atheists in, say, the Italy of the Fifties, where even Communists had rather rigid – and correct – ideas about sexual morality.
Quo usque tandem? Alas, as the current Pontiff is occupied in saying to the SSPX they are not obedient enough, I doubt anything will happen during his pontificate.
Let us pray the next Pope will show more will to clean the Augean Stables of the E & W hierarchy, as wonderfully represented by Nichols.
And seriously: thank God for the Society of St. Pius X, helping us all to keep sanity well in mind as our shepherds want to lead us to ruin with them.
It is obviously very good that a heretical bishop (William Morris, of the Diocese of Toowoomba) is removed from office, albeit one can certainly lament the slowness of the process, with the chap given more than four years time to retract and not even managing to do it.
Still, the occasional punishment will remain ineffective, if the same standard (or preferably a harder one, without waiting another four years) is not used when other bishops do exactly the same as our Morris dancer.
Read here (linked to from the German site Summorum Pontificum, and kudos to wk1999 for pointing out to it) the interview of the German bishop Gebhard Fuerst, of Stuttgart and Rottenburg, given to a local newspaper, the Ludwigsburger Kreiszeitung. This is a good instruction in the workings of a heretical bishop.
Already the headline (“There will be no women priests for the time being”) tells you a lot about where the interview is headed. The interview proper starts on a very anti-Catholic note, claiming that no one wants to become a Catholic priest anymore, Catholics leave Church en masse, etc. Thus, the ground for the readership (probably Protestant oriented, as the region around Stuttgart is prevalently Proddie) is prepared. This is all bollocks of course, as vocations have been on the increase for many years now (though this will very probably not be the case where heretical geniuses like bishop Fuerst are allowed to damage the Only Church) and for “Austritt” they mean the refusal of more and more people to pay the “Kirchensteuer”; which, as the name says, is a tax that is nothing to do with Catholic baptism and also nothing to do with Catholic charity, but allows German priests to be very probably the best paid Catholic priests of the planet. I also think the phenomenon is much stronger among Protestants. But I digress.
What is relevant here is that Bishop Fuerst plays Vincent Nichols, in that as Nichols considers it thinkable to have homosexual marriages, this chap considers it thinkable to have Catholic priestesses. Firstly, he justifies the Church position from a purely sociological point, by mentioning the “understanding of reality of the first Christians”. This way, he has already attacked the Christian doctrine about male priesthood. Following, he proceeds to say that priestesses are “thinkable in advanced countries like the USA and Germany”. Note here that after he has posed male priesthood as a purely sociologically based position, he moves on to consider “advanced” to want to remove it.
His heretical engine now brutally revved, the bishop goes on to say that he has “understanding” that the women would feel “excluded”. He adds, though, that they should be good and put up with the abuse, in order not to compromise the “unity of the Catholics” (of which, we have already been informed, many live in backward countries and are, well, not as “advanced” as the German “Ueberkatholiken”, the product of the superior German Catholic breeding….). Still, he gives the thus “excluded” wymmyn some hope, in that he says that “he cannot totally exclude that one day there will be women priests”; but hey, this will not be in his lifetime…….
The only possible, partial, barely believable excuses for such serial heresy and open defiance of the teaching of the Church can lie in the following:
1) This newspaper is a “Kreiszeitung”, that is, a “district newspaper”. These are the local newspapers where young journalists pay their dues before trying to land a serious job by a regional or national newspapers. It might have happened that here not everything has gone the right way, particularly because:
2) the utterances of the bishop are all given in the third person, though with inverted commas; this cause further room for confusion and/or misrepresentation.
Still, when a bishop talks even with a 19-years-old boy (and it is questionable whether the interview with the bishop would be given to such an inexperienced boy) he should ask to receive the text before and check that nothing has gone wrong, even if it is only an interview for the district newspaper. He has either clearly failed to do so, or has done it and was pleased with the result. He must, therefore, be held responsible for what the newspaper reports until he issues a strong dementi.
I do not know what the history of this man is. Being a German bishop certainly doesn’t inspire confidence, and having been appointed eleven years ago adds to the problem.
I do have a suspicion, though, that he wasn’t born with a brilliant mind, much less a solid faith.
I read from Father Z’s blog that a priest in England would be planning a TLM with…….. female servers. Why am I thinking “spare ribs with ice cream on top”……..?
I can think only of the following:
1) Priest is not as intelligent as he should. It happens in the best dioceses.
2) Priest is one of those who always want to make everyone happy, and ends up angering everyone.
3) Priest has recognised that the advance of the Tridentine cannot be stopped, and wants to apply a sort of “Bugnini treatment” to it. If I can’t stop it, I’ll ruin it.
4) Priest doesn’t understand what a Tridentine Mass is: a traditional mass. It is like wanting to celebrate a traditional Requiem mass, and asking Eminem to compose the music.
5) Priest loves publicity. And praise from the wymyn.
6) Priest is Archbishop Vincent Nichols.
I am curious to see how said priest imagines the rest: How about communion standing and on the hand (and Cardinal Burke be damned)? Will there be a launch of M&M’s among the pews after communion? How about liturgical dancers after the introductory rites? Or letting the faithful sing “We Are The Champions” in answer to “Ite, Missa est”?
I really can’t think what moves people to this kind of rather childish, kitsch, counterproductive initiative. The Tridentine Mass is a Weltanschauung, not a matter of regulations. You can’t have Eminem setting it in music just because, say, no one has expressly forbidden it. You celebrate the Tridentine Mass because you honour tradition, not because you want to demolish it.
These events always remind me of those old people dressing ridiculously in order not to appear “outdated” by the young generations; as a result they look even older than they are, stupid to boot, and get no respect from anyone.
Methinks, exactly what is going to happen to the above mentioned priest.
Read on the once-conservative, now pinko-sexual and cameron-cutie “Daily Telegraph” this article from Christina Odone expressing her surprise at Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols not liking the concept of “big society” because, basically, it is not socialist enough.
Now Ms. Odone wouldn’t have hovered much around the “Telegraph” some twenty or thirty years ago – when the newspaper was seriously conservative, and seriously Tory – and the fact that she herself writes “I had never so much as flirted with the Tories until David Cameron came on the scene” tells you a lot about her (absence of) Conservative credentials.
Still, Ms. Odone understands the most important part of the matter, that is: that the “Big Society” concept is, in the way it is supposed to work, intrinsically Catholic. This is rather elementary, as the simple fact is that in Catholic thinking help to those in need must come from the mutual assistance of citizens moved by Christian charity, rather than from an administrative behemoth destroying charity and creating conflict and egoism.
The socialist state destroys charity because it doesn’t force them to voluntarily make an effort and give a part of their own to help those in need, but rather expropriates them of what is theirs. Similarly, the socialist state doesn’t instil in the needy the gratitude for the help charitably received by those better off,but rather encourages them to think of handouts in terms of their rights. This way, you have resentful rich and resentful poor, and the socialist state manages to keep the voters (the poor will always be more than the rich) always hungry after the next expropriation and thinking that they have the right to expect money not theirs to flow to them.
This is, as you have already understood, exactly the thinking of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols. His accusation of the “big society” lacking “teeth” basically means that he doesn’t like it, because this way the state will recede (a bit) from welfare expenditure and leave the citizen to organise themselves, activity which they will obviously do much more efficiently than the huge red tape machine craved by the Socialist state in order to promote entitlement thinking and provide employment opportunities for its minions.
That the charity of the citizen would provide for the (most immediate: no welfare thinking) necessities of the needy is something which doesn’t even cross ++Nichols’ mind. He is just too socialist for that. To him, “big society” makes sense if it provides even more welfare, but if it is used to utilise sensible citizen action in stead of senseless waste of resources and rampant entitlement thinking, he can’t approve of it anymore.
Archbishop Nichols is a socialist dressed as a socialist, talking as a socialist and giving interviews as a socialist. And this is just one of his many deficiencies.
I have written yesterday a blog post about Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that the Holy Father, by sending him to Westminster and by (for what we know) not considering his removal after the many disappointments he has given (homo masses continue undisturbed; clear support for homo partnerships; bullying of Cardinal Vaughan school are just three of the many), has acted and his still acting more like Pontius Pilate than like he should as the successor of Peter: putting the desire to avoid conflict and strife before the desire to do what he knows is right.
With the important difference that Pontius Pilate’s hand were bound by his superiors’ desire to avoid confrontation, whilst the Holy Father himself has no superior to whom he has to answer.
No earthly one, anyway.
My last post was in defence of Michael Voris complaining about those religious who seem to have forgotten (probably because they have) what Christianity is about.
If you want an excellent example of such behaviour, look no further than to the Numero Uno of English Catholicism, our well-known disgraziato Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.
Nichols is already notorious for the zeal with which he undermines Catholic doctrine and Catholic principles. His clear support for so-called same-sex couples speaks volumes about the heretic Pope Benedict has made the mistake of putting at the top of the English Hierarchy (and the even bigger mistake of not removing when it became clear that the man doesn’t care a straw for Catholic orthodoxy), and his continued refusal to put an end to the scandalous homo masses in Soho should leave even the most naive supporter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols in no doubt as to what side he has chosen. He has also managed to pick another scandalous battle in the Cardinal Vaughan School matter. In short, wherever he can undermine Catholic values, he relishes the job.
On another occasion (when our anti-hero decided to bash bankers; a very popular and risk-free activity at the moment and therefore an ideal occupation for this disgraziato) I have written about him as follows:
++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols lives in a world where abortion kills 200,000 a year and the womb has become the most dangerous place to be, easily eclipsing war zones. He has witnessed the disintegration of British society through the widespread recourse to divorce and easygoing, taxpayer-financed, future securing teenage pregnancy. He has seen the mockery of the family through the legalisation of so-called civil partnerships and has had the nerve to say that he was not against, and that the Church’s opinion on the matter is “nuanced”. He presides over a society where no Hollywood comedy thinks it can do without the obligatory faggot and the BBC even has the temerity to re-write the recent rendition of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead revisited” in very pink tones. He sees every day how every kind of monstrosity (from old couples, let alone old men, adopt children to the renting of uterus to the slow crumbling of opposition to euthanasia) gets a foot in the door of British society, and he complains about ……bankers!
This applies – verbatim if you exclude the miraculously let aside bankers – to the present situation; with the important exception that we are now in the middle of the Holy Week.
You would think that the UK Catholicism Supremo would profit of the Holy Week (when he is bound to have more media attention) to:
1) point out to the many ways in which our society behaves in an an-Catholic or at least un-Christian manner (say: abortion; divorce; sexual promiscuity; homosexuality) and
2) extol the virtues of the Catholic way as a sure remedy to those evils.
You would think that he would do it, if he cared for Catholic values. But the simple fact is that Archbishop Nichols doesn’t care a straw for Catholic values.
He really, really doesn’t. All he cares for, is to speak every now and then over economic social issues, which should be the preserve of politicians, whilst he is supposed to be, first and foremost, occupied with the cure of souls. If he believed in their existence, that is.
We are now well into the Holy Week, and our astonishing Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has been on record as follows:
1) On Sunday (Notabene: Palm Sunday!) on the Sunday Telegraph. He gets a big interview on a major newspaper on Palm Sunday and what does he talk about? Yep, that Cameron’s “Big Society” is not “social” enough for his liking.
2) On yesterday’s Evening Standard (not as prestigious as the “Telegraph”, for sure, but read nationwide) our chap is on record as intervening to ask a brewery not to change the name of a pub entitled to Cardinal Manning. And do you think that he did so defending Cardinal Manning’s lifelong battle for everything Catholic? Of course not! He does it because in this way Manning’s commitment to “social good” would be played down.
“Social good” is everything Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is interested in. It is the only issue he wants to go on record during the Holy week. This is a mickey mouse of an Archbishop, if there has ever been one.
I can’t wait to hear about our completely de-Christianised Archbishop talk about earth day on Good Friday, or on the immediately following weeks. But I’m sure he’ll put some social issues in the middle; just to be on the safe side, you know.
This man is a scandal through and through.
I am pretty sure that the readers of this blog like Cardinal Pell. It will therefore please them to know that our valiant soldier has taken Christ’s Sword in his hands and is, once again, vigorously whirling it around.
His very effective communication style is miles away from the mellifluous and innocuous tone of our Bishops here in Blighty. His sentences are rather short and rather clear. They are rather uncomfortable, too.
Apparently, in Australia the year 2011 will see parliamentary debates about two issues directly involving Catholic teaching: so-called homo “marriages” and euthanasia. As it happens so often, many local Catholic politicians are bravely deciding to shut up in the hope that no one notices that they’re supposed to be good Catholic when it’s uncomfortable, too.
Cardinal Pell has noticed.
Some snippets of a true Shepherd’s prose:
“If a person says, ‘Look, I’m not a Christian, I’ve a different set of perspectives,’ I disagree but I understand,”
If a person says to me, ‘Look, I’m nominally a Christian but it sits lightly with me,’ I understand that.”
“But it’s incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they’re as good a Catholic as the Pope, then regularly voting against the established Christian traditions.”
Cardinal Pell doesn’t make any discount to Catholic politicians trying to draw political capital from their religious affiliation and clearly tells them what this entails. He says that
“If you’re espousing something that’s not a Christian position, don’t claim Christian backing for that.”
He is totally unapologetic about his position, too. Try this (emphasis mine):
“I’m not telling people how to vote,” […] “I’m telling people how I think they should vote. I’m an Australian citizen and I have as much right to do that as any other citizen.”
“I’m telling people how I think they should vote”. When was this last heard in England or Wales? Alas, such clarity of Catholic message is unheard-of among those who have the task of proclaiming and defending it among us.
Do you want proof? Look no further than here.
I rest my case.
I stumbled upon another Rosary site. Well, not only a Rosary site, really. This is a kind of one-stop-shop for many of the needs of the modern Cyber-Catholic. Modestly, there is no emphasis about who are the authors of this site but by clicking around it would appear that it is the brainchild of an association called Auxilium Christianorum. Massive kudos to them.
The site is divided in sections.
There is a Rosary section which very focused on the actual way of praying the rosary. Half a dozen of different traditions and methods of Rosary praying are described in detail. The influence of Simon of Montfort is particularly evident. The entire Rosary section is entirely built upon the pre-Conciliar Rosary structure. The “luminous” mysteries are completely ignored and whilst not less than eleven Papal encyclicals are reported, JP II’s Rosarium Virginis Mariae is spectacularly absent. I begin to think that there may be a message behind that, but I’m not sure which 😉 .
Basically, the entire section is vastly Vatican II-free, and so much better for it. Still, who has written this is well endowed with common sense, and very modern in approach. The “helpful suggestions” include to pray simplified versions of the rosary if one hasn’t time or is too lazy for the full five decades with all the trimming; to not neglect, in case, also to pray the rosary whilst driving (very easy, this, and can be done vocally; in the end a lot of people talk by driving all the time); or, as regards the new-ish and not uncontroversial fashion of wearing a rosary, to not have a problem in wearing is, but by taking it out to use it, in a bold public display of Catholicism. Also please note that these people are traditionalists, but not sedevacantists. The beautiful audio version in Latin (one of the many versions of the Rosary of this excellent site) is recited by none other than… Pope John Paul II! Still no “luminous” mysteries, though…. .
A second section of the site is dedicated to the “Little Office of the Blessed Virgin”, a simplified version of the Divine Office for the use of the laity. This version seems to be further simplifies inasmuch as the first two hours (matins and lauds) are supposed to change daily, which here seems to have been substituted for a standard version. Still, the material is considerable, well presented and available in both English and Latin. This is an excellent resource for all those who want to try to see whether the little office is a devotion for them, and the latin text is a welcome addition.
The third section is very modestly (and inappropriately, I would add) called Catholic Calendar, but it is so much more than that. It is a complete Catholic Almanac with a wealth of resources: saint of the day, daily reading of the Mass; daily reading from the rule of St. Benedict; Martirology; daily reading from the Imitation of Christ; daily reading from the “secret of Mary” (link to full version available); a beautiful “saint picture of the day” with reflections (today, 1st November, it seems to be from Gustave Dore’s “Paradise” after Dante, it is very beautiful), and a lesson of the Catechism of.. Trent (today, All Saints, unavailable and with other reflections instead). This is a source of massive Catholic wisdom and prayer, changing every day and made conveniently available within the same site.
The following section is the “Total Consecration to Mary” after the fashion of Simon of Montfort. The devotion and procedure for the consecration are explained in detail.
The last section is, like a jewel on the crown, the most complete and best presented description of the Fatima apparitions (and more: see Immaculate Heart of Mary part) I have ever read. The material is vast, but still very easy to read. Like all the others, this section too is extremely orthodox and you won’t find any trace of modern imbecility a’ la Vincent Nichols here. Statements like “War, disease, and natural disasters are punishments for sin” are prominently and unapologetically displayed. This site deals with Truth, not with popularity.
Summa summarum, this site deserves to become one of your standard Catholic links from today. Everything here is accurate, from the theology to the attention to practical matters to the very accurate (and I would say: professional) layout and presentation. It is joy to use and explore.
I look forward to many happy (and some less happy, but prayerful) hours in the company of this beautiful site.
A prayer for those who have created such beauty is more than in order.
Interesting article of the Catholic Herald about the Pope’s message to Brasilian bishops, who are now visiting him for their ad limina.
The Pope’s message is very interesting for a number of reasons:
1) It comes in the immediate vigil of an important election day in Brasil. It doesn’t happen very often that a Pope has the not very diplomatic, but welcome courage to remind Catholics of their duties as voters just before an election. This will probably cause criticism by the anti-Catholic faction but hey, this can only be a good sign. By the way, next week is the US’s turn. I can easily imagine that the Holy Father was – as they say in Italy – “talking to the wife so that the mother-in-law may understand”.
2) Once again, the Pope profits to remind the Bishops and priests of their duties. In a world where all too often the clergy merely panders to the prejudices of the secular mob (see our ineffable Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, explaining that no, the Church in England doesn’t oppose so-called “civil partnerships”; may he repent before Satan takes him) it is good to see that the Pope continues to send a clear a message that not only they can, but they must fight the good fight. One merely notices that if the Holy Father were as clear-cut in his bishops’ appointments as he is in talking to them, we would be far more advanced on this worthy road.
3) The third message is very important, and must not be undervalued. Un-Christian values are a betrayal of democracy. When a democracy is used to de-christianise a Country, its scope has been perverted and its legitimacy starts to vanish.
Too often, democracy is considered an absolute value, a received truth, a golden calf. For a Christian, this must simply not be the case. Democracy is fine (is, actually, very fine as a political system and I do not know of any other which brings peace and prosperity in the same measure) when it is informed by Christian values and meant to respect and protect them. But for a Christian democracy is not the ultimate end, salvation is. Our civil and political institutions derive their values from the fact that they are not in contrast with the Christian message, or positively help to further it. This is – for a Christian – always the case irrespective of what his constitution says, as it is inconceivable that a Christian may put anything at all before his duties to God.
Democracies are there not only so that Christian countries may progress in peace and prosperity, but may do so in a Christian way. This has been so everywhere until the Sixties and all Western democracies used to be very much pervaded by Christian values in the way their societies were organised. When, though, a democracy starts to de-Christianise itself (eg embracing values typical of Nazism and Communism like abortion, or widely approved during Nazism like euthanasia), this democracy progressively loses its legitimacy before God and as such, in front of every Christian.
Democracies are not eternal, nor are they an absolute good. They can perish out of their people’s cowardice and indifference, or can deserve to be dissolved because they have turned against God. General Franco’s decision was not the delirious outburst of a Christian nutcase, but a lucid setting of the right priorities. What many lukewarm Christians do not understand (not because of rebellion to God, I think; rather because they don’t think this matter to its end) is that for a Christian every Nation is under God, whether it says so or not. There is no way one who calls himself a Christian can, once he reflects on this, reach any other conclusion.
Democracies are betraying their own scope and reason of existence. The separation of church and state is more and more interpreted as the elimination of the religious phenomenon from every aspect of public life and the creation of a society which is completely disconnected from Christian values. How absurd this is, how an utter perversion of what our ancestors would have thought the most elementary common sense, is showed by the fact that the first great nation who sanctioned the separation between church and state found it natural to write its allegiance to God even on its banknotes!
We are now rapidly reaching the point where Christian values can’t be even written in elementary school books, let alone banknotes. We are reaching the point where sacraments are seen as pure human conventions and agreements. We are reaching the point where even the sanctity of life is seen merely as a mean to an end and is seen as disposable whenever a society more or less democratically (through election or referendum or even judicial activism) decides that it is fitting so to do.
These behaviours hollow democracy from the inside; they eat it like a cancer; and like a cancer they will lead, unless stopped, to its own demise.
God is not fooled by secular slogans. The price for rebellion is corruption, the consequence of corruption is decline and the end result of decline is the death of political systems. It is the duty of every Christian to start thinking more like Thomas More and to say to himself: “my democracy’s good servant, but God’s first”.
You wouldn’t believe it, but every now and then some Catholic Bishop here and there actually starts doing his job.
This time it happened in San Antonio, where the interim head of the Archiocese, the auxiliary bishop Oscar Cantu’, decided that Homo Masses are not a sign of “chariteeee”, but Homo propaganda. One would have to say a word or two about the fact that the local faithful had protested against this abomination for fifteen years and the hierarchy had not reacted, but today I’ll limit myself to registering the fact that someone has finally done what is right.
As they say, better late than Nichols.
Let us read what Bishop Oscar Cantu’ has written about the matter:
“The Mass … continues to send conflicting messages about the Church’s official teaching concerning the proper celebration of the Eucharist and living an active homosexual lifestyle,”
This short but rather damning statement contains three important points: 1) there are “conflicting messages”, meaning: you avoid open heresy but in fact undermine Catholic teaching on the matter; 2) the celebration of the eucharist is not properly made, if it is made for a “special interest group”. Catholic means universal. You are Catholic, you go to Mass. You are a homosexual Catholic, you go to exactly the same Mass; 3) Homo Masses end up being propaganda for the acceptance of “an active homosexual lifestyle”. This point is so obvious than in order not to see it one must have the shameless, arrogant cheek of a Vincent Nichols.
In this particular case, the scandal was (if possible) even bigger because the Masses were “offered” for a so-called “gay advocacy group” called “Dignity”. This group openly advocates the acceptance of so-called homosexual lifestyle* and is therefore not in the least compatible with Catholic Teaching on the matter. Basically, homo activists openly in contrast with the Church have been allowed to confuse the faithful and give scandal for fifteen years, under the very nose of the Bishop and notwithstanding the repeated complaints of the clergy. The interim Bishop has now put an end to this after the old one – the allegedly very conservative Gomez, Opus Dei and now in Los Angeles – evidently never found the courage to grow a pair and tell things as they are.
Bishop Cantu’ is only 44 years old. He is “merely” the interim Head of the Archdiocese, with the new Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller taking over next month. It will be very interesting to see what Garcia-Siller does once installed, Cantu’s move certainly will not make it easy to come back to the old homo-friendly practices.
A very promising young shepherd, this Bishop Cantu’. Kudos to him and let us hope that this will become a fashion.
* That’s what they call it. For Heaven’s sake, would you call incest, bestiality, pedophilia a “lifestyle”? The world has become mad if we allow anyone to define themselves as they please and demand that we all call them as they wish.
“Perverts” is the word.
Why, oh why have we to cope with a joke called Vincent “Quisling” Nichols when the US have so many Bishops who could be sent here to relieve us of our misery?
You can read here what has happened in Minnesota, where Bishop Nienstedt has refused to give communion to a group of militant homos wanting not only to receive communion notwithstanding their open rebellion to the Church, but even do so wearing a visible sign of their revolt, rainbow buttons and sashes.
The decision of Bishop Nierstedt would be to commend unconditionally, and a rare good news worthy of being shouted out loud, if the fact had not been tainted by a grave episode of scandal after the mass, when a priest obviously squarely on the pro-Homo side has hastily celebrated a Mass for the homosexualists, during which they were allowed to (try to) receive communion by the same priest.
It is now the clear duty of Bishop Nienstedt to bring his disobedient priest rapidly and clearly into line, then isolated episodes of orthodoxy are – whilst always commendable in themselves – much diminished in their importance and in their teaching value if dissent is allowed to flourish among the very priests of an orthodox Bishop.
Just in case you had thought that I am the only one jumping from the chair when he reads what our disgraziato wants to smuggle as Catholicism, I refer here about the reaction caused by the same Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols on Mr. John Smeaton, the head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Mr. Smeaton has, as previously reported, his own blog, and an excellent one at that.
The ire of Mr. Smeaton was referred to an interview given by Vincent “Quisling” Nichols to the Daily Telegraph (the once conservative, now pinkish-PC daily newspaper) on the 11 September.
In this interview, Nichols is asked whether he thinks that the Church will ever “accept the reality of gay partnerships” (notice here: the “Telegraph” doesn’t write “homosexual”. “Gay” is the word of choice. As everything in the DT, it exudes political correctness. How very gay.) and he answers “I don’t know”. I admit to have read the article and to have given “Quisling” the benefit of the doubt; not being a mother tongue, I thought that this “I don’t know” could be meant in the same way as the “I’m not sure about that” used to express your clear disagreement; I have, therefore, not blogged on the matter.
Interestingly, though, Mr. Smeaton points out to another affirmation of the same man, interviewed by the BBC on the same matter and answering: “”I don’t know. Who knows what’s down the road?”
“Who knows what’s down the road?!” Well for one you are supposed to know what’s down the road, Mr. Nichols!!
I have already mentioned yesterday, but repetita iuvant, what Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is bound to know and to say about these perverted “unions”:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
I will also, like Smeaton, mention CCC 2357 here as I didn’t do it yesterday:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
I’ll avoid sending my adrenaline sky-high just writing what I think of this disgraziato. Read and reach your conclusions for yourself. Unbelievably, this is an archbishop of the Only Church. It’s like listening to a Nancy Pelosi with some brain; or to an Anglican with some fear of actually being disciplined.
John Smeaton’s conclusion is perfectly logic:
“..as a Catholic parent, I am in a position to say, and on behalf of Catholic parents I meet up and down the country, that Archbishop Nichols’s, my archbishop’s, comments are dangerous to the souls of my children”
He later quotes from Evangelium Vitae and points out that:
“it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection”.
Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is not interested in all this. He doesn’t give a penny for two thousand years of Christian teaching; he pretends not to know Vatican documents on the matter; he pretends (we have seen it yesterday) that Pope Benedict is even of his opinion; he even pretends to completely ignore what JP II’s Catechism very clearly says on the matter.
This man is just a disgrace for the Church and an enemy in our midst.
The address where to send your email of complaint is firstname.lastname@example.org
Please point out to this scandal. Let us help those of good will in the Vatican (I’m sure there is someone, and more than someone) to clean the Church from their enemies.
And so the Pope came, saw and conquered. People were moved, crowds were gathered, even journalists felt stupid (which happens to them much less often than it should) and for some days toned down the Anti-Catholic propaganda.
Still, those accustomed to observe the British Catholic clergy knew that this wind of orthodoxy would not last long, with the local bishops bending to said winds like a birch and coming back to normal as soon as the nuisance ceases.
This is exactly what has happened; but in this case, the desire of the British clergy to show that the Papal visit was just an unwanted nuisance was so strong that the Head Scoundrel, Archbishop Nichols, couldn’t wait more than one day to launch himself in an open attack to the Teaching of the Church. Make no mistake, the message here is emphatically clear: I am still in charge and now it is back to normal.
Nichols is among the interviewed of the usual BBC “let’s be inclusive” interview (he loves doing that); interviewed with him is the also usual token homo, in this case an Anglican professor.
As LifeSiteNews reports, Vincent Nichols denies that – to put it with LSN – “the Church is opposed to the homosexualist agenda”. Please read this again. 1) There are homosexualists (= homosexual activists) around. 2) The Church is opposed to them. 3) The homos complain about the fact. 4) Nichols denies the fact. He denies that the Church be opposed to their agenda.
At this point, Nichols embarks in a defence of what the Church in England has done for them. His words are:
“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”
If this is not enough to let your adrenaline level go through the roof, I don’t know what could. Let us see what this disgraziato is saying:
1) “in this country”.That is as to say: “we are different from the rest of the Church here. We are on your side”. He must know that in countries like Italy the Church has made such a strong opposition when civil partnership were proposed, that the proposal died before a vote. He must know that in countries like USA, Mexico and others the controversies rage and the local Church is invariably on the right side. But he doesn’t care. He clearly says on whose part he is. He speaks for his fellow bishops too. In this he is probably right.
2) “we were very nuanced”. This is oh so typical of people like Nichols, who must have lost his faith in his youth. No right and wrong anymore, just “nuances”. Far more convenient. Just compare with those idiots in Italy, Mexico, USA; primitive, uncharitable people unable to be “nuanced”.
3) “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships”. “Gay” is not a theological word. In Vatican documents you find “homosexual”, not “gay”. And he did not oppose them. Vincent Nichols pretends to be unaware that he can be accessory to another’s sin by silence, by consent, by defense of the ill done, by flattery. He pretends to have completely forgotten what then Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote in his letter to the bishops (that is: to him personally):
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.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
(Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons)
Vincent Nichols is expected to teach homosexual that homosexual activity is not in order. He is not supposed to pretend not to know that homosexual activity is what happens within a civil partnerships and that through it sodomy becomes legalised and made socially acceptable.
There is an hypocrisy here, a brazenness, an open revolt to the Church and to common sense, that is breathtaking and beyond contempt.
4) “What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage”. Please. Every idiot knows that two people of the same sex living together are not “married”, even the perverts pretending to be “married” know it. But this is not the point. The point is that you can’t be so hypocritical as to say that you can accept civil partnerships whilst pretending to still condemn sodomy!
I can picture Vincent Nichols in pastoral visit in Sodom literally saying to the locals “we are very nuanced in this city; we do not oppose your civil partnerships; we recognise that in Sodom there might be a case for those; what we persistently say to you is that these are not the same as marriage”.
To think that this is an archbishop. It beggars belief.
As an Archbishop, Mr Nichols should be aware of the existence of a document called “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” (link under “Church Teaching”). Notice: “unions”, not “marriages”. No nuances here. In this document we find written:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
Which part of “clear and emphatic opposition” is Mr. Nichols not able to understand? Which part of “duty” is not applicable to England and Wales? What is so difficult to grasp in the words “gravely unjust laws”?
It doesn’t end here I am afraid. This despicable man goes to the point of implying that homosexuality is not a big deal after all, and that …… Pope Benedict thinks the same! In Vincent Nichols’ word, if a Pope has been consistently preaching the same ( and the Church’s) message both as a cardinal (with letters he pretends not to have read) and as a Pope, but avoids dealing explicitly with the matter for four days, hey presto, he has changed his priorities!!
Nichols expresses himself with the following words:
“I think it’s very interesting, and I don’t think for one minute it’s accidental, that when the pope wanted to raise this question, [in his address at Westminster Hall] where are the moral standards on which we base our activity, he chose as his example the financial crisis. I think that’s very important and not to be overlooked.”
I must say I have never found a worse example of falseness and a clergyman more brazenly disrespectful of the Holy Father. This man openly provokes the Holy Father by openly saying that his own homo agenda is shared by the Holy Father himself.
I never thought I’d see the day where an Archbishop of Westminster has the temerity of openly make a mockery of a Papal visit one day after its end.
Vincent Nichols has already attracted serious criticism and John Smeaton has said that his words are “fatally undermining (as distinct from denying) the security and even the legitimacy of Catholic teaching on the nature of human sexuality”.
Nichols is an enemy of the Church who doesn’t dare to openly attack the Pope, but prefers to undermine Church teaching through allusive words, a show of independence from Rome (even recognised by his homosexual interlocutor, as you can read) and a “British way to Catholicism” which is, to say it plainly, heresy.
The address where to write your complaint is
You don’t need to write a speech. Make it simple. Just post the link to the interview, advise that he is giving scandal and ask them to act.
No insults, no ranting, just the facts. In case, please wait until you can write with the necessary composure. I know it can be difficult, but it is the only way to be taken seriously.
If anyone had ever been in doubt about the 1) incompetence and 2) lack of basic Christianity dominating the E&W Hierarchy, here is a further example.
You can read on St. Mary Magdalen Blog the latest piece of ridicule with which our bishops have covered themselves.
In order for non-Catholics to better “understand” what is going on at papal events, our geniuses have prepared a small, portable “translator” of commonly used words.
We are therefore informed that “Liturgy”, Celebration”, “Mass”, “Benediction” have as similar terms often used “Event, Show,Gig”.
I can vividly picture Archbishop Vincent Nichols asked to tell a non-Catholic what a Mass is and answering “it is something similar to an event, or a show, or gig“.
One understands why he still allows Homo Masses: Soho is part of Theatreland.
It goes on: “Blessed Sacrament”, “Holy Communion” have, as similar terms often used, “Bread, Wine”. This really makes one cringe. One wonders whether this is too stupid to be blasphemous or just plain blasphemous, but I doubt our heroes in Ecclestone Square will see any problem with that. It is just so inclusive, and hopefully the readers are not complete morons and can even understand what it is really meant.
If they do are complete morons, an email is provided.
It goes on, with “liturgist” as “performers, artists” and “sanctuary” as “stage”.
Someone is being really, really blasphemous or really, really stupid here. Or someone is being both, or most probably our Bishops and the people they employ just do not know anymore what a Mass is, what the Eucharist is, and so on.
No private company would ever be run in such a way. Not even British Leyland, or British Steel. This is beyond parody. I seriously needed some time to realise this was not a joke.
This shop is full of utterly incompetent people completely oblivious of what Catholicism is, and only bent on making themselves agreeable to society.
As the fish always stinks from the head down, the prince of the incompetent is Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who would be sacked this very day if he weren’t allowed to abuse the patience of people much better than him and get away with every kind of show (similar terms often used by him: Mass, Liturgy).
Quo usque tandem……..
I was sitting in front of the TV, looking at images of the Papal Visit. It was a dream so there were a lot of things that are not entirely rational, you understand.
The first thing I remember are the cars lined up at the airport waiting for the guests. A long line of midnight blue Mercedes S-Class and Jaguar XJs, with some Lancia Thesis in the back (I always liked that car, you know. These things always play a role in a dream). “Carabinieri” everywhere, in their usual perfectly elegant black suits with red stripes. Near them, the MET policemen with their yellow thingies and triple bulletproof jackets look like apprentice clowns. All cars have Vatican diplomatic flags and make a rather impressive show of power. Not “spit us in the face and we’ll be telegenic”-power, but rather “we can make the PM unemployed”-power. David Cameron looks slightly green.
It being a dream, at the center of the long line there is a wonderful Mercedes 600, also midnight blue. “Beautiful, that they have decided to use it again”, I think. The BBC commenter is saying that that is the car of the Pope, but the curtains don’t allow to look in. “Very good again”, I think in my dream, “this means that the years of the Pope trying to be a pop star are gone”. No “ice cream van-looking” Popemobiles in sight, with the Holy Father in it treated as if he was an exotic animal just come in from far away and you almost wait for people throwing peanuts at him. I breathe the air of dignity, of importance, of authority the long line of cars clearly conveys. The message is unmistakable. The Pope is not visible, but in everyone’s mind. Exactly his being not visible is what puts him so clearly on the stage.
And in fact, I seem to hear that even in the voice of the BBC commenter (it was a dream, so I knew that he was sipping from a finely etched champagne flute; but again this fact was totally natural to me, as if I wasn’t expecting anything different); there is in him a sense of awe, of occasion. His subdued, almost hushed voice is a clear sign that the long line of cars, the strange but awfully prestigious oldtimer in the middle, the obvious show of power, all demand respect in no uncertain terms. Much as he would have wanted to he can’t avoid feeling, well, rather insignificant. Being a journalist, he hates that.
He has prepared a long list of “reflections” about paedophile priests, wymyn “dissent”, priest celibacy, london buses and the like. They all sounded very intelligent and oh so progressive in a champagne-sipping way when he was rehearsing them, careful to get the right amount of patronising smugness in his tone. Now he realises that they would just feel stupid. Stupid like a petty quarrel put in front of the Mistery, or like a spoiled aggressive child trying to kick a splendid oak. The shamelessness of the display is in such contrast with the modern fake modesty he is accustomed to (PMs in jeans, or jackets without tie; fake informality; “I am just one of you”-atmosphere) that he is ten meters in offside before he even realises it. He knows that all this is wanted and he knows what everyone is thinking: this is not a PM playing “one of the people”. This is a glimpse of the splendour of Christ.
“Cunning bastards”, he thinks whilst sipping; still, he feels the awe and is fascinated by how it works even on him, against his will.
The helicopters continue to film the line of cars. The motorbikes are on both sides, huge crowds greet the Pontiff as the cars drive solemnly by; some close-up pictures show young women in girlish excitement, old ladies in tears , fathers holding up their children to allow them to see (it was a dream, so no health & safety madness here). They are driving along Constitution Hill now and making it all blue, and already the cars enter Buckingham Palace. Prince Charles is standing in the forecourt, in a traditional Arab dress, ready to welcome the Pope in his role as “defender of the faiths”. But look! The cars don’t stop for him and disappear directly – and with the magic of dreams – within the Palace itself. “They have probably not recognised him” says the commenter, astonished. He has been joined by another one. Being this a dream, the new commenter is Alan Hansen. As always, I can’t understand a word of what he says.
“Up to now” – says the BBC champagne-sipping but RP-speaking chap – “no one has seen the Holy Father, ahem, Pope Benedict” and bites his lip. He shouldn’t allow the pump to influence him, but he just can’t help it. “These people truly know what they’re doing”, he thinks. He knows this is the thought in everyone’s mind. “Bastards”, he thinks once again. But he knows he can’t help admiring their chutzpah. “I preferred JP II’s times”, he goes on reflecting. “Very telegenic, great audiences, no one cared a dime for what he said but everyone wanted to see him trembling. I would tell the audience why the Church is all wrong and explain how they can improve; all in a gentle, understanding tone not without symphaty for the less fortunate who believe in God. How I felt terribly superior! It doesn’t work anymore. Ah! Those were the days!”
It being a dream, I am now inside the Palace. The Queen is waiting for the Pope. She sits on a very strange throne made entirely of living Corgis, strangely sitting over each other and combined as to form a throne where she can comfortably sit. The Corgis all smile like the Cheshire Cat, but I know that the Queen doesn’t have any Cheshire Cat so they must all be Welsh Corgis. Suddenly, the Queen showing great energy jumps from her Corgi-throne (loud, but dignified yelping) and kneels at the feet of the Holy Father amidst the hushed expressions of dismay of the diplomatic personnel, saying in an extremely posh voice: “Holy Father, we want to convert to Catholicism. Please free us from this disgraceful sect of atheist madmen”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is present, and feigns indifference. Strangely, he is Vincent Nichols. He wears a rainbow chasuble with a huge “peace” sign at the front. Nichols says to the Pope that the Queen’s opinion does not reflect his own; he informs the Queen that she is a Catholic already, only not Roman, because her accent would clearly betray her as British. “We all speak the same language of God, Peace and Love” – says he stressing the words and counting them with his fingers, as to indicate the Most Holy Trinity – “only in slightly different tongues, Majesty“. He then proceeds to invite both to the homo mass he organises every week in Soho. “Very inclusive”, says he, “and great fun! You should see their “Little Britain” parody during the liturgical dance, Mr. Ratzinger!”.
The Holy Father looks like he would have a good use for a Beretta 92FS (it is a dream, remember!) and it is clear that he has made a mental note. He doesn’t say anything.
And then we are outside again. It is a magnificent Cathedral and I recognise it, it is Canterbury Cathedral. It being a dream, I remember that last year it has been bought back from the Anglicans at a firesale price because the Anglicans need to pay the lawyer’s bill. I smile at the fact that I still haven’t grown used to the fact. But I remember very well that many E & W bishops were strongly opposed, thinking that the purchase offended the Anglican community and was nothing to do with “ecumenism”. They wanted to make of it a Muslim Cultural Centre instead.
I am in the Cathedral now, but again the cameras stay out. Out is also a huge crowd, spreading beyond the little town, vehicular traffic blocked since dawn. Alan Hansen is near me and is now commenting live for the radio but as always with him I can’t understand a word. I don’t care because I am in anyway. The Pope has not been seen by the crowds yet. There is a total refusal to make of him a “popular icon”. But the crowd understands that this is because he is so much more.
I am waiting for the Mass to begin now. Everyone is there. The Queen is there, the Corgis are also there but now they are intricately put together to form a furry pew. Cameron is darkish green in the face, Clegg is yellow. Brown is brown (yes, that brown) and must always be stopped because he continues to say “bigoted woman!” and “it must have been Sue!”. Blair is at the entrance, distributing books no one accepts. He gets an egg in his face instead. Lord Mandelson is near him, wearing a tutu and also trying to give away books with his photo. People look at him in a strange way. No one says a word. Evidently, they are all still afraid of him. And evidently, they are all English.
Vin Nichols has a portable Hindu altar and is planning to worship in front of it, but he is Anglican so my dream doesn’t particularly care for him. All twelve Milliband brothers are present as they are all candidates for the top job over at the party. Unfortunately, their mother has told them she’d vote for the Pope instead, so they are all rather downbeat.
The Pope is at the centre of the attention. Old, but not frail. Gentle, but nobody’s doormat. Subdued in tones, but I hear Cameron thinking (it is a dream, remember) “this is one I don’t want to have against me” and “I must ditch the homos; there’s no choice I am afraid; who cares for the bloody frockers anyway”.
The Holy Father delivers the sharpest, most threatening homily Cameron has ever heard; he informs the PM of the historical existence of Jesus; speaks about abortion, divorce, euthanasia, tolerance for sexual perversions, a country going to the dogs (the corgis all nod here, in a very dignified way). He also touches the issue of the eternal fire and everyone knows he sees Cameron’s soul on the line; but he makes clear that there is still hope. Cameron’s green becomes slightly lighter and he thinks that the worst might be over.
But then the Holy Father starts talking about bees and flowers and everyone understands: he is instructing Cameron on marriage; with goodness and patience, as you would do with a child.
All eyes are on Cameron. He is decidedly pea green now and his roundish face looks a bit like a watermelon. He feels like a Pakistani cricket player caught in the “News of the World”. Brown still looks like his party, with or without the twelve Millibands.
Change of scene again. The Mass has ended. The helicopter shows to the TV audiences the huge masses outside. I know it because it’s a dream. Cameron’s skin is now clearly of a very dark British Racing Green and he is visibly shaken. He trips on Nichols kneeling in front of his Hindu altar and utterly ruins his garland. Nichols is angry. “You bloody queen”, he murmurs to Cameron’s ear, but Mandelson is just there and clearly hears every word. Mandelson makes a mental note. Nichols shivers. Embarrassment all around. Nichols has a brilliant idea and invites him to his homo mass too. “They’ll love your tutu”, says he one instant before realising that this can be construed as a joke rather than honest brown-nosing. Mandelson makes another mental note. Terrified, Nichols turns to the other side where prince Charles sits now clothed in a Tibetan monk outfit (purest silk, you understand) whilst eating delicious orange biscuits “from the farm”, as he puts it. The Holy Father’s convoy is now past them. The Pope sits on a sedia gestatoria, a wonderful Tiara over his head. He goes out in the full light, still on the sedia gestatoria. The immense crowd sees him on the megascreens and goes “ooohhhh” and “aaahhhh”. All cameras are on him. The crowd has stopped rumouring. There is an unreal silence now. The Pope scans them with his kind, but intelligent smile. “Vell, vell, vell”, I hear him think (yes, I do; and yes, in English!), “Ve hef shoved ze Perfidious Albion zet Tsekularism is not ze vay”.
In the silence, a man runs to the Pope. He bows in front of the sedia. A hushed murmur spreads itself among the huge crowd, then becomes a roar of surprise. They have recognised him. Thin, bold, scared, frail, but now hoping. He is Christopher Hitchens. He asks for forgiveness, live on TV, in front of a worldwide audience. “I believe in God, the Father Almighty!”, he says very loud and in tears; then he starts to sob uncontrollably. It tears your heart out. Hansen says something but I don’t understand him. And now the Pope makes one calm, solemn gesture and the sedia is lowered down. The silence is unbearable. He goes near Hitchens, invites him to stand up and looks deep in his eyes. Very deep. The camera nearby takes an extremely close shot of both men’s expression; one is inquisitive, attentive, loving but not to be fooled with; the other is just scared, broken, but you can clearly see that for the first time in his life he dares to ask for hope.
The camera comes still closer, it is perhaps ten seconds but it looks like an eternity. Finally, the Pontiff makes a gesture. It is a blessing. Hitchens cries, the BBC commenters cry, everyone cries, Hansen cries and that even I can understand.
It is a triumph. Everyone kneels down and starts to pray. Rosaries pop out from a thousand pockets, only Nichols continues to stubbornly pray in front of the portable hindu altar and pretends he hasn’t seen anything, his loud OOOOOMMMMMM of defiance lost in the general outroar. The Pope is now led to the Mercedes 600 as the screams become deafening. The long line of cars starts again. The media have instantly spread the news of the conversion everywhere. The crowds on the roadside kneel and pray at the passage of the cars. The helicopters film everything. Seen from above, it is like a hugely long, interminable Ola. I see it from one of the megascreen outside, in the clamour of one thousand Hail Marys.
When everyone has gone away, the cameras take a short shot of one man, alone, sitting there in disbelief. He is Peter Tatchell. No one has noticed his presence.
Then I wake up. I try to fall asleep again and to continue the dream, as I remember I did sometimes as a child. But it is no use. Reality catches up with me with all its harshness.
Vincent Nichols is the Archbishop of Westminster.
Some of you might remember a Michael Voris video posted some weeks ago about two bishops rebuking one of their own priests, one for being a heretic and the other for being a … Catholic.
The same has happened now in England, where none less than the Homo Mass Supremo, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, has distanced himself from declarations made from Mr. Edmund Adamus, one of his own aides.
Let us see the content of Mr. Adamus’ declarations:
1) “Gay rights” and the commercialisation of sex have turned Britain into a “selfish, hedonistic wasteland” and “the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death”
Fair enough, says I. As far as the hedonism is concerned, this is actually the same stuff people like Nichols go around saying all the time, though they’d never dare to say it in a way that offends perverts. What is different here is that whilst Archbishop Nichols and his ilk always formulate their criticisms in a way that makes clear that they do not want to pick a fight with anyone and are perfectly happy with not being heard, Adamus actually cares for Catholic values and for human life and therefore expresses himself with great charity. It is not surprising that this charity be not liked by Nichols. Archbishop Nichols does niceness a lot, but charity is not one of his strenghts.
2) There is an “aggressive anti-Catholic bias towards the church and the pontiff”
In general, this is as clear as the sun and everyone with a bit of understanding can easily realise that the English Bishops not only don’t do anything to counter the bias, but are rather happy to leave the Pontiff alone when the rabid feminists and homo groups at the BBC and elsewhere fire from all cannons. It is rather fair to say that large sectors of the Catholic hierarchy look with pleasure at criticisms to the Pope, seen as an ally of the traditionalists/conservatives.
As to the matter itself, I’d say the bias in the country is primarily anti-Christian rather than specifically anti-Catholic. The attacks against the Catholic Church are particularly virulent because the Catholic Church still has a much better grip on his faithful than the Anglicans & Co. and because the forces of secularism clearly recognise in Her the biggest enemy. Therefore whatever anti-Catholicism there is, is in my eyes rather a reflection of Catholics being Christians than – as in the past – of their being Catholic. The Anglicans themselves are able to largely escape criticism because they largely shun Christian values.
3) He urges Catholics to “exhibit counter-cultural signals against the selfish, hedonistic wasteland”
Please help me because I am lost here. To spread such a message should be the job of the bishops from the Angelus in the morning to the Compline in the evening and in every moment in between. This is the reason Mr. Nichols’ exalted (and, let us not forget, rather privileged) job exists in the first place. This is what the English clergy should be shouting from the pulpits Sunday in and Sunday out. Unless I am missing something and the Church’s task is not to upset the world. Or where does the Archbishop thinks abortions, broken families and neglected children come from?
Still, we are informed from a spokesman of the Archbishop that Adamus’ comments “do not reflect his opinion”. From a sponsor of homo masses, one is not surprised at all.
If we want to fight against the culture of death and of sexual perversion, a good start would be to have bishops who are truly Catholic and truly charitable instead of being cowardly “diplomatic” and relentlessly “nice” as the present Archbishop of Westminster.