Monday, 25 February 2013

Cardinal O'Brien's Resignation: What Should Faithful Catholics Make of this?

Cardinal O'Brien
I should start this post with a caveat:

I don't know whether the allegations against Cardinal O'Brien are true. He denies them. Three priests say they are true (and one ex-priest too).

I'm also typing this in a rush as it's Monday and I'm in work, so I apologise if I meander or the odd typing error creep in.

So what to make of all this?

I am convinced there is a war going on for the future direction of the Church. The resignation of the Pope, the jailing of his butler who was out to protect the Pope's life... and now the leading Catholic cleric in the UK is 'forced' to stand down just days before the conclave. This is not coincidence. There is some kind of hand behind this.

I hope the Cardinal clears his name. he has been a stout defender of Faith and morals, and we all know such people make big enemies - especially with the Freemason/(pro)homosexual lobby in the church: those who have truly covered up the terrible abuse by homosexuals who have infected the seminaries and the priesthood.

It seems ironic that the kind of Cardinals/Bishops who have protected homosexual priests and forced out those who have tried to speak out to protect the Church and protect the faithful are still in-situ; whilst the Cardinal who has spoken out and risked the hatred of the media and the enemies of the Church (and The Tablet, which falls in both camps) is now accused of the very heinous sin he has done so much to speak out against.

Time will tell... but the damage to the Church is already done and the media (which seeks to promote homosexuality and atheism at every turn) is having yet another field day.

No doubt the enemies (within and without the Church) of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body will be rubbing their hands with glee.

Thursday, 21 February 2013

Who is the ABORTION BOSS in the UK? A Concentration Camp Denier and Political Extremist!

BPAS Boss, Marxist and convicted criminal Ann Furedi
I would ask all Catholics and pro-lifers to buy the latest Private Eye magazine (just out). In its letters page there's a rebuttal of a previous letter by a Marxist who used to edit the REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY's magazine Living Marxism (later LM Magazine). The Marxist in question was not alone in editing the mag. There were two others, a married couple.

This mag (LM) was eventually shut down after denying the photographic evidence of skeletal figures and suffering in Yugoslav (Communist) concentration camps. They said the pics were doctored and one prisoner did not really exist. The ex-prisoner turned up at court, the Marxian triumvirate were found guilty and LM was no more.

Yes. Sad isn't it?

But why, aside from the fact that these Marxists lied and were found out for denying facts and whitewashing  death and misery (inc of Catholics) is this of interest to Catholics and pro-lifers?

Because one of the married couple, one of these "concentration camp deniers" exposed in open court, one of these mad Marxist Extremists out to disguise the terror of the gulags was none other than ANN FUREDI, the Chief Executive (that's BOSS to you and me) of BPAS - the British Pregnancy Advisory Service: the pro abortionists' apologists, the profiteers from misery and death, the media wafflers who excuse away the abortion death mills.

Perhaps lying about deaths in Marxist gulags was good practice for lying about deaths in abortion mills?

I wonder why it is a Communist like ANN FUREDI sees abortion - the murder of a baby - as an answer to poverty? Surely helping the poor and elevating their condition is preferable to killing their children? And when so many women are bullied into killing their babies, is this feminism? Remember too that most aborted children are baby girls. Feminism?

So please remember who is the leading advocate of abortion in the UK: a discredited Marxist extremist who denied the existence of Communist concentration camps, who was exposed as a liar in a UK court and whose LIVING MARXISM mag was shut down as a consequence.

Nice.

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Dare we Hope for an African Pope?

Cardinal Turkson - a "favourite"
If there's one thing I love, it's when liberals are forced into a dilemma. They want to go for the most outwardly "pc" option, but to do so would weaken them. It's akin to watching those head-exploding sections of the 70's horror film Scanners.

A classic example of this is the gossip now breaking out re. who the next Pope will be. Of course, media-heads with no knowledge or real interest in the Church are saying "wouldn't it be great to see an African or Latin American as Pope." I think they are sincere. They are just going with the flow, and in the shadow of the fanfares that greeted the presidency of Obama, they are excited at the prospect of a non-European/White Pope.

So am I! Many have said that if the next Pope is a Cardinal from outside Europe/North America then there is hope he will be more conservative/traditionalist than one from within those continents. The liberals suspect this too, and a few have made noises in that regard.

And this is their dilemma. The talking-heads have said how wonderful a non-White Pope would be. And now liberal Catholics are having to umm and err, and say why we need a European Pope. One on TV tried to say how an Italian was needed, the implication was that a non-Italian (Benedict XVI) was too 'hardline' on contraception, women priests, gays and abortion; so an Italian would keep the Church (in their terms) "moving forwards."

Watching the liberals try and explain to non-religious and semi-ignorant TV presenters why a "black Pope" would be such a bad thing without saying as much is quite simply hilarious.

So here's to the next Pope whoever he is. Perhaps an African or Latin American Pope would continue to fight against militant secularism and relativism. One thing's for sure, if the next Pope does 'fight the good fight' as we all hope and pray, the media bosses will give him as rough a time as they gave Pope Benedict, so he's going to need our prayers.

And if he's a liberal?... Well he'll need our prayers even more.

Sunday, 17 February 2013

Why are Liberals so Intolerant of Dissent?

You know when you hear a debate and you KNOW the person is either making it up or voicing some faux outrage?

This week on a Radio 2 phone in on the future if Catholicism there were a few voices if sanity - notably Ann Widdecombe MP and a geezer called Gareth from Wales. Then there were the 'others' who thought the church should be more "21st Century" or "move with the times" (that course of action having reaped such huge rewards for Anglicans!)

One lady even phoned it to bemoan the recent changes to the English language Mass ("with your spirit" and the Consecration changing back to "many" from the erroneous "all"). She claimed these changes were so arcane and infathomable that her visiting son "could not follow the Mass".

Either she made that up for comedic effect or her son couldn't follow it because he'd drifted away - maybe he'd gone "Tridentine?"

Does she really expect us to believe a few tweaks in the New Mass (OF) make it so revolutionary and different as to make it unfollowable? Moreover she thinks she has the right to more and more liberal reforms ad nauseum, but one slight step back and they want the Mass updated again.

It's always funny how liberals scream and screech when the Church tries to stop the rot, even in a small way, yet would readily embrace the bulldozers moving in to rip out all remaining high altars dictating Mass facing eastwards as opposed to facing the people.

Even though the Latin Mass (EF) had already been declared the Mass of all time by the Popes, how the liberals howled when Benefict XVI allowed what should have already been allowed - ready access to the Latin Mass.

Still as we've seen in recent weeks (gay "marriage") liberals like to screech and howl to try and shut down debate and silence anyone they disagree with. There's no one as intolerant as someone who says they speak for tolerance... Even in our own pews.

"Married" Homosexuals Die 20 Years Younger Than Married Couples

"Homosexual marriage" causes younger deaths than smoking
Yesterday by the Grace of God I picked up an old issue of Christian Order. Vol 48, #11 to be exact, from November 2007.

Given the uproar concerning the government having the sheer gall to redefine marriage so that it is no longer between one man and one woman, nor centred around procreation, this issue was most apt.


  • In this issue's editorial it details how homosexuals (male and female) who live in "gay-friendly" countries and who are in "civil partnerships" still die circa 20 years younger than married people. Given the strict rules against cigarette smoking, and that smokers die on average 7 years younger than others: should the government be banning or restricting homosexual behaviour as it does smoking, instead of promoting it?
  • Another fact among the many that sprang off the page was that the first homosexual couple to be allowed to foster children in Yorkshire (one of the first in England) went onto abuse children put into their care. They were "gay rights" activists.


Of course none of this will be reported in the media as it clamours for "gay marriage" which seems a dreadful disservice, not least to the pour souls with this 'disorder' and those put in their care.

Some articles from Christian Order are available online. If you Google for their page you may find this editorial. You will certainly find details of how to subscribe and support the mag which fights for Catholicism.

Saturday, 16 February 2013

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Was Pope Benedict Forced Out by Homosexual Lobby?

Forced out to protect the Church?
A friend close to the Vatican has told me that the Pope was forced out by a lobby of homosexuals and Freemasons.

The Pope has waged war against both for many years, and has been attacked by them primarily by using the paedophile scandal, which they concocted via the homosexual priests they placed in the priesthood.

A Polish priest, Fr Oko, exposed the roots of the scandal when he investigated the paedophile scandal, and he described a powerful "homosexual mafia": Pope Wages War Against Evil

When it was clear that "they" wished to kill the Pope, his butler exposed this because of his love of the Church and the Pope, and "they" were infuriated because it meant they could not now kill the Pope and blame the Chinese, or whoever - hence their blaming and jailing the Pope's butler for his leaks (I don't know if he made errors, or overstepped the mark, but a "friend of a friend" says he is a "good guy" - very traditional and loves the Church).

Now people in Rome are saying the Pope was forced to resign or this lobby threatened to tear the Catholic Church apart, just as they brought it to its knees via the paedophile scandal. Perhaps there was some other scandal they had a hand in. Certainly there has been talk of a scandal yet to come re. finances and similar (remember when the American authorities claimed the Vatican could be used by money launderers because it's security wasn't tough enough?).

Let us be clear. These people are infuriated by the Pope's teaching on homosexuality, they know that the world media will give the Pope a tough time over this. They are also infuriated by his defence of the Latin Mass, his attacks on moral relativism, his promotion of Communion on the tongue - in their eyes he is turning the clock of the church backwards, and undoing much of what they have cheered on since Vatican 2.

If the Pope has been forced to stand down, it is not because of a threat against his life. Like most popes, he would have been aware of such threats from the viciously anti-Catholic Freemasons over many decades (JP1, JP2...). It stands to reason that they will (like all gangsters do) have threatened the people around him, the people he loves: and that is us; the Church.

Should the Pope have fought on? Has he saved us from more scandals? Has the day of total war against the Church merely been postponed?

All we as Catholics can do is put our hope and trust in the hands of Our Lady. Perhaps as in the 16th Century, mankind has brought this upheaval and tearing of the Church on itself. Looking at the state of the modern world we can't think it otherwise, surely? What we now need are the saints to help the Church fight back - just as the Jesuits took the Faith back to Poland and Hungary, just as the saints rallied at Trent to codify the Tridentine Mass, that sacrificial Mass of such beauty that the Church declared it the Mass for all time.

If we place our trust in Our Lady, she will help the saints in the church today to win it back for Her and Her Son.



Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Glib Lies & Terror Tactics: It Must be the "Gay Marriage" Campaign

Big Business celebrates "gay marriage" in Vermont, USA.
There is something in the air. And it's not just the foul smell of David Cameron's messing about with marriage to try and 'do a Blair' (cement his place in history, blah blah).

It is the smell of repression, bullying and scare tactics.

Last night's Newsnight had all the balance of a Transvestite's new wardrobe party. The BBC has from time to time interviewed opponents of Cameron's unwanted, unneeded and mandate-less bill, but virtually everyone within the BBC has taken the stance of showing their colours in favour of the ultimate oxymoron.

The Twittersphere has been awash of course, with all manner of comedians and minor-celebs tweeting their extreme joy at "equality." This has left me wondering - are there no similar celeb-style people who are against "gay marriage?"

If we are to believe the stats and polls, roughly half of people are for it, half against (the number against rises significantly if they are told it gives homosexuals no new rights they don't already have). So where are the 50% of people opposed in the BBC? Amongst the comedians and celebs?

Either they are too afraid to speak out, for fear of losing their job/work, or the BBC (etc.) is truly unrepresentative of the people of these islands. Neither possibility is particularly welcoming.

We know the MPs do not represent the population. As often as they waffle on about "equality" still too many of them went to posh fee-paying schools, and so many of them are (ex) lawyers or went straight from university into politics; certainly far too many of them have no experience of struggling to pay for the basics or of manual labour. I am reminded of when GK Chesterton said that those in favour of population control never want to start with themselves. Similarly the public-schoolboys and well-off MPs try and tell us, with our two-up two-down houses, struggling to pay bills and run-of-the-mill jobs, about equality!

Today a number of people have said how Sarah Teather MP, the Lib Dem who is a Catholic and voted against the bill, has come under attack from the "tolerance" brigade who like to pour bile and hatred on anyone who proffers a different worldview to theirs. Their tolerance seems somewhat stunted and their talk of "love" somewhat empty as they come down on this MP like a ton of bricks.

Of course I was somewhat tempted by the arguments of the likes of David Cameron who says, quite simply, that if two people love each other and want to show a lifelong commitment to each other, who are we (if not "bigots!") to stand in their way? That was until I snapped out of my miasma and realised that by those empty and meaningless words, a mother and son, brother and sister, or similar could get married.

Let's not even go down the road of how "gays" cannot legally consummate a marriage, because marriage is of course based entirely on the willingness and openness to procreation. Those of us who know the story of Abraham know that the many liberals who whine about those who "cannot conceive" need a little more... erm... Faith. As for those who say they "do not want kids" - well we all know they can still conceive, and even those who say they would abort a child, there is still the chance of a changed mind, a softened heart and the love of a life given, kicking in.

Still, David Cameron knows best and now the minuscule number of Civil Partnerships will mean an even tinier number of "gay weddings" and all the nightmares resulting (the homosexual lifestyle being well known for its multiple "partners," violence, short-term relationships etc.) After all if mankind can make as much of a mess of marriage as it has, we daren't even imagine what horrors are in stall for the future with this monstrosity in the offing.

Perhaps open and honest blogs like this will be removed -- Facebook already took down a Spanish language Catholic page for "hatred," while extreme anti-Catholic, pornographic and/or homosexual pages remain safely in situ?

Perhaps Catholic bodies will find themselves in court, mirroring the way Catholic adoption agencies were already closed down (leaving more children in council run homes - those places so well known for creating dysfunctional teens)?

Perhaps Catholic teachers in state schools who refuse to teach that homosexuals can marry will face the sack? Perhaps Catholics who write in fora, on blogs, on Twitter or Facebook against "gay marriage" will face the sack or get that 5am knock at the door?

Certainly one friend of mine has already told me he dare not write anything against it for fear of work reprisal by bosses -- and he works for the Post Office!

And that brings us back to the silent comedians and celebs, who dare not speak their minds amidst a storm of celebratory messages from the empty vessels busy making the most noise. We are told we have freedom, democracy, etc... yet in a country where people are already fearful to speak out in defence of marriage: there is clearly something very, very wrong.

  • In 2004 the politicians pushing for Civil Partnership PROMISED there would be no push for "gay marriage." They lied.
  • In 2013 the politicians are promising churches wont be forced to carry out "gay marriages" and that teachers and others will not suffer for speaking their minds. They are lying again.

Homosexuality = anti-culture
The militant homosexual lobby (who do not even speak out for all homosexuals*) are already pushing for the age of consent to be lowered. The next stage in their campaign will work towards a quasi-acceptance of paedophilia. Peter Tatchell has already publicly written in defence of sex with 9-year-old children** And we Catholics should know better. The entryism of homosexuals into the seminaries (the pre-60s hidden trickle has become a post-Vatican 2 flood***) had a direct role in the explosion of child abuse that has dragged the Catholic Church through the mud: the Church a victim of the very forces that now screech at it for defending the family. It is ironic that the secularists who hold up the clerical abuse scandals as a means to bash all Catholics, will never say that the role of homosexuals was paramount in this dreadful episode. If the Church had kept its strict rules re. Seminarians and kept its internal policy the same as its public pronouncements then the scandals would never have happened.

If one thing is as sure as eggs is eggs it's that random and kooky CofE vicars and vicaresses will eventually start doing "gay marriages" (God is luv) and pressure will mount - and that's the danger of heresies: they lead to error and the next thing the dull, the ignorant and the just plain evil will say "the Jesus I know would have celebrated homosexuality" and then they'll point at the bizarre churchlets already carrying out these monstrous affronts to God, and the handful of CofE vicars (called Jeff n Tracey) who are doing rebellious "gay weddings" (and the CofE Bishops who will, by then, already be saying "maybe this isn't so bad...") and bingo: Guy n Wayne will be walking up the aisle at some Minster or other.

And it all began with some glib politician's lies, and the campaign of intimidation and fear by the uber-politically correct. I wonder if the war in heaven started in the same way...

St David - pray for us
St George - pray for us
St Andrew - pray for us
St Patrick - pray for us.
Our Lady, Help of Christians - pray for us.





*On yesterdays Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2, they invited on two elderly homosexuals to "celebrate" the changes in the law, from the days (pre-1967) when homosexuality was outlawed. When asked at the end of the interviews how they felt about this wonderful bill (Jeremy Vine could barely conceal his joy, seems a BBC rule!) one said he did not favour it and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The other said he saw no need for it and was perfectly content with a Civil Partnership. Ooops. The BBC slipped up, and Mr Vine quickly moved on...

**In a letter he had published in The Guardian in 1997.

***Christian Order magazine has documented this very well, including the role of Cardinals in shielding known homosexuals, and attacking/demoting any priest who dares to speak out.