Showing posts with label homosexuals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuals. Show all posts
Friday, May 11, 2012
I like the cut of this bloggers jib
Or, should that be jibe. I chanced across this blog quite by chance and found that the copy contained in the profile statement was rather good.
Of course, it's in Spanish but you can easily get the gist of most of the words; I especially like "antisodomitas" - I shall use that from now on, it is a much more honest way of stating: "I don't like the act and sin of homosexuality".
This is the profile copy....
 |
| From the current post on the Crux et Gladius blog |
This is the profile copy....
"católico romano tradicional,eucarístico, mariano,carlista,tomista y agustiniano,pro-vida,antimarxista, antisodomitas,antimason, antiaborto sin compromisos de ningún tipo a excepción de los sacramentales".
I think that says it all!
And this is the blog......... Crux et Gladius
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Thanks for the letter Tesco
Just received a response in reply to my complaint about Tesco sponsoring the London March of Homosexuals in 2012.
It is, more or less, precisely the same letter as received by GM which I published recently. It tells me just how wonderful, kind and charitable the Tesco Group is and how 'delighted' they are to be able to shove £30000 towards World Pride 2012.
They state that they are an 'inclusive' organisation (yuck) and they claim to have given £64 million last year to charity.....hmmm...like to see a breakdown of that figure.
Anyway, I just thought you might like some help in making up your mind as to what you might be inclined to do about the good Joe 'n' Daisy's Tesco Group.
Here are my suggestions.............
That logo says it all...or you might like..............
It is, more or less, precisely the same letter as received by GM which I published recently. It tells me just how wonderful, kind and charitable the Tesco Group is and how 'delighted' they are to be able to shove £30000 towards World Pride 2012.
They state that they are an 'inclusive' organisation (yuck) and they claim to have given £64 million last year to charity.....hmmm...like to see a breakdown of that figure.
Anyway, I just thought you might like some help in making up your mind as to what you might be inclined to do about the good Joe 'n' Daisy's Tesco Group.
Here are my suggestions.............
That logo says it all...or you might like..............
Or, even........................
AND A CUNNING PLAN..................
If you feel moved to write to Tescos why not ask them to sponsor SPUC in 2012? After all, they are an inclusive company..........are they not?
AND A CUNNING PLAN..................
If you feel moved to write to Tescos why not ask them to sponsor SPUC in 2012? After all, they are an inclusive company..........are they not?
Saturday, October 22, 2011
I have a confession to make: it is about homosexuality
After much agonising of my conscience, I have decided to "out" myself.
I know that I am laying myself open to attack from the prejudiced, and I expect a sackful of hate-mail tomorrow morning.
But I can keep my secret no longer, and it is this: I disapprove of homosexuality; I find public displays of sexual desire between members of the same sex distasteful; I think that even long term and faithful relationships between homosexuals can never be more than a parody of heterosexual marriage; oh, and the very thought of buggery disgusts me.
I have other prejudices, too, which I may as well get off my chest while I am in this confessional mood. I believe that there is a number of character weaknesses to which male homosexuals are particularly (but by no means exclusively) prone - cattiness, selfishness, promiscuity and cowardice among them....
....What prompted me to "out" myself in this way was Wednesday's leader in the 'Sun', commenting on Peter Mandelson's refusal to react to the assertion made on 'Newsnight' by Matthew Parris, a newspaper columnist and former Tory MP: "I think Mandelson is certainly gay."
"The fact is: Mandelson is gay," the paper said. "He also has a brilliant mind. He is also a talented politician. And it is also true that times have changed. The British people will not turn on Mandelson because he is gay. And they will sympathise with him for the way in which he was 'exposed'. We say to Mandelson: tell the truth. You will win respect for your honesty."
The 'Sun' was right about one thing. Times have certainly changed when the editor of what was once the country's greatest bastion of political incorrectness is prepared to say that an admission of homosexuality should not count against a politician. But I wonder if the paper is right to imply that the majority of the British people have undergone the same conversion. I suspect not - and I hope not, which is why I venture today into the politically incorrect breach.
If my suspicion is right, the great majority of us still believe, in our heart of hearts, that there is something nasty and wrong about homosexual intercourse. What has changed is that it is no longer considered respectable to say so publicly.
Whereas half a century ago it was a jolly brave thing to invite scorn by admitting to a weakness for the love that dared not speak its name, today all the opprobrium is directed against those of us who disapprove of the love that shrieks its name from California to Clapham Common.
Our condition has even been given a fancy-sounding name, "homophobia", as if we are suffering from an irrational disorder. If I thought that this was indeed the case, I would keep very quiet about my affliction. But it is because I believe that homophobia is right, and nothing to be ashamed of, that I feel I should say so.
Let me say at once that I am not suggesting that homosexuals should be victimised. I would not wish any man to lose his job simply because he finds other men sexually attractive. Nor do I think that anybody should be rude to homosexuals, let alone harm them physically. What I do think is that the proper attitude to adopt towards homosexuals is one of tolerant disapproval, because homosexuality is an unsatisfactory and often squalid and unhappy way of life, and nobody should be encouraged to take it up.
Perhaps some will think it is too late now to try to soften the remarks that I made at the beginning of this column, which many will have found offensive. But I would like to record with perfect truth (although how people will mock the familiar 'apologia' of the bigot) that Some of My Best Friends Are Homosexuals. I realise that some excellent qualities are particularly to be found in homosexuals - wit springs to mind - and of course many of the worlds's greatest artists have been homosexual.
I know, too, that many homosexuals have fought valiantly for their country and that many bore calumny and violence with astonishing bravery at a time when they had to expect it. They are not all catty cowards, by any means.
Above all, I would like to say that if any of my four sons turns out to be homosexual, I will not love him the less for it.
What appals me, though, is the way in which militant homosexuals seem to be engaged in a massive recruitment drive, with the Gay Pride marches and those flesh-creeping advertisements for Gay Exchange and other similar chat-lines, shown night after night on the television.
I do not mind a bit what homosexuals get up to in private (although I do not like the idea of it). But it is when they go public that my stomach turns. The homosexual lobby seems to have moved on from its campaign to redress civil wrongs to proclaiming that it is positively a good thing to be gay. Well, it isn't. In far too many cases, homosexuality is a squalid and - since the advent of Aids - a downright dangerous way of life. The less that society disapproves of it, the more likely are the young to get into it while they are going through what may be only a phase.
All I ask is that these people shut up about it, and stop pretending that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as the love between a man and a woman. I applaud Mr Mandelson's refusal to "come out". I hope that other homosexuals follow his example and stay firmly in the closet, where they can do none but themselves any harm.
Huff! You say and maybe much more but.....these are not my words...they are an extract of an article written by journalist Tom Utley, and published in The Daily Telegraph some 13 or so years ago.
However, I do like the sentiment he expresses; it sums up much of what I believe about homosexuality and those who follow that path.
I do not think that it is "homophobic" to criticise homosexuals, I even do not think it is "homophobic" to say that one dislikes them, as a generalisation.
One may dislike a person but still hold a Christian love for them.
It would be "homophobic" to find it impossible to remain in the same railway carriage as one or to run screaming from the room when a homosexual enters.
Tom Utley now writes regularly for The Daily Mail. He is a father of four boys and a Catholic.
I hope he will forgive me for airing this article from the 1990s.
I know that I am laying myself open to attack from the prejudiced, and I expect a sackful of hate-mail tomorrow morning.
But I can keep my secret no longer, and it is this: I disapprove of homosexuality; I find public displays of sexual desire between members of the same sex distasteful; I think that even long term and faithful relationships between homosexuals can never be more than a parody of heterosexual marriage; oh, and the very thought of buggery disgusts me.
I have other prejudices, too, which I may as well get off my chest while I am in this confessional mood. I believe that there is a number of character weaknesses to which male homosexuals are particularly (but by no means exclusively) prone - cattiness, selfishness, promiscuity and cowardice among them....
....What prompted me to "out" myself in this way was Wednesday's leader in the 'Sun', commenting on Peter Mandelson's refusal to react to the assertion made on 'Newsnight' by Matthew Parris, a newspaper columnist and former Tory MP: "I think Mandelson is certainly gay."
"The fact is: Mandelson is gay," the paper said. "He also has a brilliant mind. He is also a talented politician. And it is also true that times have changed. The British people will not turn on Mandelson because he is gay. And they will sympathise with him for the way in which he was 'exposed'. We say to Mandelson: tell the truth. You will win respect for your honesty."
The 'Sun' was right about one thing. Times have certainly changed when the editor of what was once the country's greatest bastion of political incorrectness is prepared to say that an admission of homosexuality should not count against a politician. But I wonder if the paper is right to imply that the majority of the British people have undergone the same conversion. I suspect not - and I hope not, which is why I venture today into the politically incorrect breach.
If my suspicion is right, the great majority of us still believe, in our heart of hearts, that there is something nasty and wrong about homosexual intercourse. What has changed is that it is no longer considered respectable to say so publicly.
Whereas half a century ago it was a jolly brave thing to invite scorn by admitting to a weakness for the love that dared not speak its name, today all the opprobrium is directed against those of us who disapprove of the love that shrieks its name from California to Clapham Common.
Our condition has even been given a fancy-sounding name, "homophobia", as if we are suffering from an irrational disorder. If I thought that this was indeed the case, I would keep very quiet about my affliction. But it is because I believe that homophobia is right, and nothing to be ashamed of, that I feel I should say so.
Let me say at once that I am not suggesting that homosexuals should be victimised. I would not wish any man to lose his job simply because he finds other men sexually attractive. Nor do I think that anybody should be rude to homosexuals, let alone harm them physically. What I do think is that the proper attitude to adopt towards homosexuals is one of tolerant disapproval, because homosexuality is an unsatisfactory and often squalid and unhappy way of life, and nobody should be encouraged to take it up.
Perhaps some will think it is too late now to try to soften the remarks that I made at the beginning of this column, which many will have found offensive. But I would like to record with perfect truth (although how people will mock the familiar 'apologia' of the bigot) that Some of My Best Friends Are Homosexuals. I realise that some excellent qualities are particularly to be found in homosexuals - wit springs to mind - and of course many of the worlds's greatest artists have been homosexual.
I know, too, that many homosexuals have fought valiantly for their country and that many bore calumny and violence with astonishing bravery at a time when they had to expect it. They are not all catty cowards, by any means.
Above all, I would like to say that if any of my four sons turns out to be homosexual, I will not love him the less for it.
What appals me, though, is the way in which militant homosexuals seem to be engaged in a massive recruitment drive, with the Gay Pride marches and those flesh-creeping advertisements for Gay Exchange and other similar chat-lines, shown night after night on the television.
I do not mind a bit what homosexuals get up to in private (although I do not like the idea of it). But it is when they go public that my stomach turns. The homosexual lobby seems to have moved on from its campaign to redress civil wrongs to proclaiming that it is positively a good thing to be gay. Well, it isn't. In far too many cases, homosexuality is a squalid and - since the advent of Aids - a downright dangerous way of life. The less that society disapproves of it, the more likely are the young to get into it while they are going through what may be only a phase.
All I ask is that these people shut up about it, and stop pretending that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as the love between a man and a woman. I applaud Mr Mandelson's refusal to "come out". I hope that other homosexuals follow his example and stay firmly in the closet, where they can do none but themselves any harm.
Huff! You say and maybe much more but.....these are not my words...they are an extract of an article written by journalist Tom Utley, and published in The Daily Telegraph some 13 or so years ago.
However, I do like the sentiment he expresses; it sums up much of what I believe about homosexuality and those who follow that path.
I do not think that it is "homophobic" to criticise homosexuals, I even do not think it is "homophobic" to say that one dislikes them, as a generalisation.
One may dislike a person but still hold a Christian love for them.
It would be "homophobic" to find it impossible to remain in the same railway carriage as one or to run screaming from the room when a homosexual enters.
Tom Utley now writes regularly for The Daily Mail. He is a father of four boys and a Catholic.
I hope he will forgive me for airing this article from the 1990s.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Why are our seminaries also Woolly Mammoths?
Yes, frozen in time, lost in the mists of 50 years or so of history, the Catholic Seminaries are something of a shambles.
Please do not get me wrong. We have a small but growing population of good seminarians who have a taste for something more than guitars and tambourines on a Sunday; who want to do more than be jolly nice social workers and some who even wish to fulfil their vocation by merging into diocesan life and organising their parish.
But...do they want to save souls? That is what a priest is meant to do. Save the sinners, bring back the lapsed, counsel the Godly ones, rebuke the twittish ones but, in all things work towards the salvation of his flock.
What do they need in order to be good shepherds? Well, they need an orthodox outlook to begin with and they need to have some backbone and integrity. And it would help them in their role immensely if they were finally able to celebrate both forms of Mass.
Why? Well, Father Christopher Smith on Chant Cafe has a very good post on the matter so please take a look; I do not think even the pinkest of limp wristed Catholics could find too much to object to there.
 |
| Does this ring any err....bells? If so, you're out! |
Sadly, we are led to believe that many young men who apply to their bishop as candidates for the priesthood are sunk before they begin if the review panel or Studies Director gets a sniff of anything like incense about their person.
If I was 20 years of age and believed that I had a vocation I would have no truck with what is generally on offer. Can you imagine being a closet traditionalist in the midst of a bunch of liberals, many of whom being, allegedly, homosexual in orientation?
I would hie me to the nearest FSSP or ICKSP PDQ!
That is, perhaps a message that those in charge of the seminaries might like to ponder upon. If they continue in their 1960s style of religious education they are going to drive more and more potential priests into the arms of the traditional seminaries.
What Father Smith concluded in his post was that there should be room for both forms of the Mass to be part of the everyday liturgy. That I believe is right (even though wild elephants could not drag me to an OF Mass as it is normally celebrated). But by dismissing those orthodox men the modern seminaries are closing the freezer door on themselves and electing to remain Woolly Mammoths.
Roll on climate change!
Thursday, August 4, 2011
...."the British Governement hereby requires you to report for active service in a war zone as from....."
If a letter commanding you to report for active service landed in your postbox how would you react? I suspect that, not many of us would run around punching the air and giving high fives to all and sundry.
I guess we would sit down and have a strong cup of tea drink before breaking the news to one's wife or husband.
War. Away from home for months, maybe years. Facing untold hardships and, every day, staring death in the face....gulp! Have another strong drink.
But could we or would we turn down the Government's request to become part of the military? Most Catholics hold hard to the belief that the legitimate protection of innocent lives is a matter that must be accepted even if it entails the killing of one's fellow man. "Thou shalt not kill" works both ways; wrong to wantonly murder and wrong to allow wanton murder to take place, even if it does mean taking lives in the process.
Conscientious objectors (COs) traditionally but not exclusively, come from the ranks of Quakers and homosexuals (and sometimes people of a faith that is subject to utter persecution such as the Jews in the last war).
This is a most selfish stance to take. It allows your neighbour to offer the ultimate sacrifice while you stay at home tucked up in a warm bed.
Belloc had a good way of encapsulating the CO position when he wrote:
"Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight,
but Roaring Bill, who killed him,
thought it right"
For those whose beliefs just will not permit them to take up arms there is always the Ambulance or Medical Corps or any one of several dozen non combatant roles. Many medals for gallantry have been won by homosexuals and others in these positions. But I have no time for the full on COs who refuse to play even a passive role.
Today I speculate on how many men and women, upon being sent conscription papers, would play the CO card. I suspect that the numbers electing for a year or two in jail rather than a year or two facing enemy fire, would be a great deal higher than at times of previous call-ups.
We do suffer from a malaise of moral decay that will, in the event of war, produce an abundance of those who will not fight and claim that their conscience prevents them from doing so.
It would be interesting to do a research survey to try to discover just how many of those serving Queen and country also believe in God. I suspect that the majority do. I also believe that the majority of those wishing to shirk their duty are non believers. I cannot prove those points, just a personal belief.
I hope that the time never comes when the point is capable of being proved.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
You have ten seconds to choose between Heaven and Hell!
The clock is ticking and you HAVE to make a choice.....the right choice gets you to Heaven, the wrong one sends you to the other place.
Here are your options......get it right and you are made for (eternal life).......
Option 1.
Do you agree that Westminster Diocese was wrong to ban a Catholic lay organisation (Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice) from holding a guest speaker event on Westminster Diocesan premises?
Option 2.
Do you agree that Westminster Diocese was wrong to allow an organisation for homosexuals (Quest) to hold a meeting on Westminster Diocesan premises?
Which option will you say "yes" to............................
I think I know.........see you all in Heaven!
H/T to Counter Cultural Father The Sensible Bond and to Catholic and Loving it
Saturday, April 16, 2011
KISSING IN PUBLIC - AN OFFENCE?
It had to happen, a Soho Pub Landlord looks likely to be at the receiving end of a great deal of unwelcome attention from the homosexual lobby because he removed two men from his pub. Their offence? Well, they were kissing passionately in the bar.
Because I am of a rather cynical nature I believe that this affair has all the hallmarks of a set-up job following on from the Christian Bed and Breakfast couple who were taken to court for refusing rooms to homosexuals. I am quite certain that this case will end up in court. The reaction of London's 'gay' community is to threaten to invade the pub and stage a massive "kiss in" and this appears to have the approval of Conservative MP Alan Duncan who claims that it is an appropriate way of expressing disapproval.
Now I do not wish to turn this post into a outraged of Tunbridge Wells type rant but I am in full agreement with the landlord. As far as I am aware, a Publican has the authority to remove whomsoever he chooses from his premises (within the framework of the law) as, essentially, the pub is also his own home and he has a right to approve, or not, of what goes on there.
Let's face it, Soho is full of homosexual pubs where, I guess, consenting males could kiss to their heart's delight; personally, I go to a pub for a pint and a bit of rustic conversation but, hey, it takes all kinds.
The issue is, were they in breach of any law? Of course not. But then how does one guard against this type of behaviour?
Naturist beaches are places to avoid especially if you have young children with you but kissing may apparently take place anytime, anywhere.
I have a feeling that this is another 'pushing out the boundaries' exercise and, before long we will not be able to enter a pub without tripping over men kissing men - yuck!
The answer may lie in the hands of those drinkers who enjoy their ale or
G & Ts in a normal atmosphere, is it possible that they might respond in an appropriate fashion when homosexual or heterosexual kissing takes place in the Dog and Duck?
I know they would in my local!
 |
| Photo: BBC The offending (and offensive) couple |
Now I do not wish to turn this post into a outraged of Tunbridge Wells type rant but I am in full agreement with the landlord. As far as I am aware, a Publican has the authority to remove whomsoever he chooses from his premises (within the framework of the law) as, essentially, the pub is also his own home and he has a right to approve, or not, of what goes on there.
Let's face it, Soho is full of homosexual pubs where, I guess, consenting males could kiss to their heart's delight; personally, I go to a pub for a pint and a bit of rustic conversation but, hey, it takes all kinds.
The issue is, were they in breach of any law? Of course not. But then how does one guard against this type of behaviour?
Naturist beaches are places to avoid especially if you have young children with you but kissing may apparently take place anytime, anywhere.
I have a feeling that this is another 'pushing out the boundaries' exercise and, before long we will not be able to enter a pub without tripping over men kissing men - yuck!
The answer may lie in the hands of those drinkers who enjoy their ale or
G & Ts in a normal atmosphere, is it possible that they might respond in an appropriate fashion when homosexual or heterosexual kissing takes place in the Dog and Duck?
I know they would in my local!
Monday, February 14, 2011
Will they sentence our priests to prison?
There was a very sound priest active in the 80s whose name now escapes me (but I have his article from Catholic Order packed up somewhere) who stated that he firmly believed that we would see Catholic martyrs within the next 25-30 years. He meant, of course, in Europe and possibly, the USA rather than the world at large where killings of Christians has accelerated to over 270 each day during the last decade (see
Joyful Papist).
Can we really expect, now that the 30 years is up, to see Catholic martyrs in the prison system in Britain once more? Of course, without the death penalty we cannot have martyrs as such but the process of martyrdom does include imprisonment; many of the English and Welsh Martyrs succumbed in jail rather than on the scaffold.
And, anyway, I believe you could have a "dry" martyrdom, being pilloried in the media, jailed, reviled and despised - all of those are key ingredients to suffering for the faith.
Could it happen tomorrow? Well, if the Coalition Government has its way, it will soon be legitimate for homosexuals to have Civil Partnership ceremonies conducted in church.
Not too much of a problem for the Protestant faiths or for Quakers who readily accepted "gay love"(for want of a better phrase) some time ago
Just two weeks ago, a Christian couple who run a Bed and Breakfast establishment were found guilty under the law of refusing accommodation to a pair of homosexuals.
Next week, it could be Fr X who, in the wake of denying a church "wedding"to a gay couple, finds himself up on a charge.
Here's the report from Sunday's Telegraph:-
Joyful Papist).
Can we really expect, now that the 30 years is up, to see Catholic martyrs in the prison system in Britain once more? Of course, without the death penalty we cannot have martyrs as such but the process of martyrdom does include imprisonment; many of the English and Welsh Martyrs succumbed in jail rather than on the scaffold.
And, anyway, I believe you could have a "dry" martyrdom, being pilloried in the media, jailed, reviled and despised - all of those are key ingredients to suffering for the faith.
Could it happen tomorrow? Well, if the Coalition Government has its way, it will soon be legitimate for homosexuals to have Civil Partnership ceremonies conducted in church.
Not too much of a problem for the Protestant faiths or for Quakers who readily accepted "gay love"(for want of a better phrase) some time ago
Just two weeks ago, a Christian couple who run a Bed and Breakfast establishment were found guilty under the law of refusing accommodation to a pair of homosexuals.
Next week, it could be Fr X who, in the wake of denying a church "wedding"to a gay couple, finds himself up on a charge.
 |
| "JUST SAY: "I DON'T" |
The Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, is expected to announce that churches, synagogues and other religious settings will be able to host civil partnership ceremonies for the first time.
As The Daily Telegraph reported in December, the Coalition is also considering extending homosexual rights to allow full “marriage” for same-sex couples.
Currently, the term “marriage” applies only to the union of a man and a woman.
Liberal Jewish groups, Quakers and other Christian organisations have been pressing the Coalition to introduce the civil partnership reforms, and gay rights campaigners welcomed the latest news.
The Church of England, however, has voiced its opposition. Senior Anglican officials have said the Church is unlikely to host civil partnerships, which would include religious readings and hymns under the plan.
Peter Tatchell, voice of homosexual OUTRAGE stated: "It's long overdue".
Well, we can expect no less from this quarter, (other than some test cases); will the Government press on with their plans?...looks likely...what was it David Cameron said when he bade farewell to the Holy Father in September? words to the effect that: "We shall protect the family unit in this country." I am disappointed in him but then, Labour is probably going to be even more extreme on this issue.
Who among our priests will step up to the mark? I know the blogging clerics will not shrink from the decision when the time comes. Pray hard for all of our priests!
Peter Tatchell, voice of homosexual OUTRAGE stated: "It's long overdue".
Well, we can expect no less from this quarter, (other than some test cases); will the Government press on with their plans?...looks likely...what was it David Cameron said when he bade farewell to the Holy Father in September? words to the effect that: "We shall protect the family unit in this country." I am disappointed in him but then, Labour is probably going to be even more extreme on this issue.
Who among our priests will step up to the mark? I know the blogging clerics will not shrink from the decision when the time comes. Pray hard for all of our priests!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)