Evil: Is It Ever Moral To Be Neutral?

collarpriestAfter a consultation with our members, the results of which indicated clearly a wide range of views, the Association of Catholic Priests has decided not to adopt a position in favour or against the Marriage Equality referendum.

At the same time we appeal for a respectful and civilised debate in which the issues involved can be discussed in a calm and reasonable manner. Sexual orientation does not debar anyone from God’s love. If as priests we are speaking on this matter, we need to remember that the use of intemperate language can cause deep hurt among gay people and their families, as well as doing further damage to an already ailing church.

The ACP asserts the particular responsibility that devolves on priests to measure their words carefully, and not to direct their parishioners to vote Yes or No.

We look forward to a debate that will be characterized by freedom of speech and respectful listening so that the best result for the Irish people might be reached.   Source

Comment:

In the English-based Catholic Herald dated 27 March, Irish journalist, Mary Kenny, wrote: “I have a vote in this referendum, but I shall abstain. As I am not a formal resident of Ireland, I don’t think I should seek to influence the laws of Irish society. That doesn’t stop me from having an opinion, of course.”  Her opinion has obviously given rise to the headline There’s no such thing as ‘equal marriage’ [because] Ms Kenny argues, “all marriages are power struggles. ”   Eh? shamrock

Is it ever right to remain neutral, to abstain, in the fight against evil? Or have the goal-posts moved so far along the way now that civil partnerships/same-sex marriage (and other couplings outside of lifelong, traditional marriage) are no longer to be considered “evil”?  

Ireland goes to the polls to vote to overturn God’s moral law on 22 May.  Is it possible for any Catholic to remain neutral in the run up to this awful event, especially those charged with preaching the Catholic Faith and true morals?  And is it possible, in good conscience, for any Catholic to abstain from voting – no matter where he/she lives?  Comments invited…

Some time later…

The following video was brought to my attention – worth taking 3 minutes to view…

74 responses

  1. These priests should rename themselves “The Society of Pontius Pilate”. I image Mary Kenny could join their Third Order.

    No, it is not acceptable for Catholics to remain neutral. “He who is not for me is against me.”

    I also think it’s important for Catholics in this country not to forget to remind the SNP that we will not forgive them for forcing the formalisation of sodomy upon us. I have been approached twice in the last five days by Scottish Nazi Party activists, brandishing leaflets in my face. Both times I have told them that after Same Sex “Marriage” and the Named Person there’s no chance I would take their leaflet.

    • Petrus,

      I agree with you wholeheartedly.

      When I thought about the title of this thread I first thought “yes” it’s moral to remain neutral because who could vote in the General Election for any of the immoral parties, but then I thought well, the Election is not per se “evil” so it’s not wrong to abstain from voting by spoiling my paper because voting for any of the parties is saying the economy is more important than marriage and family life.

      The priests in that terrible association are without consciences, IMHO and Mary Kenny is such a confused person that I stopped reading her columns a long time ago. It’s hard to believe she won’t use her vote in the referendum because she doesn’t want to influence Irish society! She doesn’t seem to realise that she will definitely influence Irish society if her one missing vote lets the same-sex marriage lobbyists win the referendum.

      • You are right, Margaret Mary. However, i would argue that we are not remaining neutral but spoiling a ballot paper. We are making stand against immorality.

        • Petrus,

          I see that clearly now – wasn’t thinking when I wondered if spoiling ballot paper was being neutral. You are right and I’m very glad you clarified that for me. “Making a stand against immorality” is absolutely correct.

    • Petrus,

      “These priests should rename themselves “The Society of Pontius Pilate.”

      I LOVE it! So true!

    • Petrus,

      Arguably, it is a tad harsh to compare those ACP clerics with Pontius Pilate – I get the feeling that Pilate reluctantly washed his hands of Jesus’ plight – not this bunch.

      And watching the shenanigans over this forthcoming General Election, I have to say, again, that the usual suspects used as analogies, are not half as bad as these utterly dishonest politicians. I’d offer my favourite example so far, but don’t want to lead us off topic, but, believe me, anybody- especially any Catholic – who votes for ANYBODY in this election, needs help and a lot of it.

      • Editor

        And so say all of us! I think we should all speak out against these parties in whatever way we can.

    • Unfortunately the SNP are no worse that any if the other parties scrambling for our votes right now. The whole attack on my family is worldwide, and as such, goes way beyond Scotland and the SNP. None of the parties have clean hands.
      I see this whole question of gay marriage as merely the next stage in the overall attack on the family, with sexual morality being removed from its proper end. They might as well have gay marriage. Soon they’ll be the only people getting married! It’s more or less inevitable when you take the marital act away from the end for which it is intended and reduce it to the purely carnal.
      As the editor rightly says, the real problem here is the so called neutrality of the clergy. But it doesn’t even stop there, unfortunately. The priests in question are just taking their lead from higher up the tree. The hierarchy of the Church has been silent on the question of gay marriage, as country after country in the previous Christian world has legalised it, turning the natural law on its head. Arcanum and Casti Connubii were brought out in response to countries legalising divorce and contraception and even Humanae Vitae had some merits.
      But what do we get from Papa Bergoglio? Nothing but ambiguity so I can’t really blame the priests. But then, “who am I to judge?”

      • Alex F,

        The difference between the SNP and other parties is that they are winning the propaganda battle for Scots votes. Of course there is an evil attack on marriage world-wide but we don’t have votes in other parts of the world, just here. A vote for any of these evil parties is a sign that the voter thinks there are other things more important than God’s law. Income tax reductions, for example, or the promise of more jobs. All hollow promises anyway, but don’t fall into the trap of exonerating wee Nicola just because big Theresa May over the border is just as bad, if not worse. They’re a bad lot – all of them. Lies slip from their lips with the same ease that chocolate passes mine.

        Yes, Papa Bergoglio is a disgrace – utterly and shamefully. Or should that be “shamelessly” (both, probably!) But that’s not to excuse the clergy. Almost 500 of them stood up to Pope Francis in their Open Letter on marriage. That’s a start.

        • I also think the danger with the SNP is that they are now starting to give the impression that they represent “Scots”! They use the rhetoric “the Scottish people believe” and “the Scottish people do not want”. They don’t represent me!

          The problem with all kinds of Nationalism is that it is opportunistic. It will take on any ideology that will further its cause. Take a look at George Orwell ‘ s ” Animal Farm” – the first five pages is the SNP manifesto.

          Anyway, I think these priests are more akin to Judas than poor old Pontius!

          • Petrus,

            I agree that the Irish priests who want to be neutral are definitely Judases, It’s impossible to be neutral when evil is taking place. If anyone asked them if they would have been neutral about the Jewish holocaust, I bet they would look in horror and say of course not. It’s because they don’t think homosexual activity is sinful. That has to be the reason.

        • Did anyone see ‘Urbi et Orbi’ on Easter Sunday? I was astonished by the appearance and demeanour of the Pope on this most joyous day. Apart from the fact that he seems to have put on a great deal of weight, he had a face like thunder – something seemed to be weighing very heavily on him:- see for yourselves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmL3gL_ZVU from about 15:55 onwards. I see Antonio Socci picked up on the fact that there were far fewer in St Peter’s Square for the ‘Urbi et Orbi’ address than there were in 2010 for Pope Benedict http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/same-spot-same-weather-same-feast-day.html . Is the so-called ‘Francis effect’ waning?

          • something seemed to be weighing very heavily on him

            I suspect:

            (1) watching his plans for revolution the synod come under increased attack
            (2) lamenting the paltry crowds he gets, compared to the numbers Benedict drew

    • Petrus,

      How did the SNP activists react to your comments and refusal to take their leaflets?

      I’m asking because in my experience when you show these people that you don’t agree with them, they don’t want to discuss. They just want to move on to the next person. I’d be interested to know if they entered into any dialogue with you at all.

      • Fidelis

        The first one just stared at me, the second one said “No problem” and walked away.

        • That’s pretty much the same experience I’ve had when approached by political canvassers. They probably just dismissed you as some loony and decided not to waste their time on you. I have only ever had one experience with a candidate at a local election who did engage and we had an interesting discussion. She represented a party I had never voted for, but decided to give her my vote because even though I did not agree with her on everything, she did strike me as a good person, and I felt she did listen, which is rare in politicians these days!
          I am of the opinion that with none of the main parties representing a morality that would come even close to Christian moral beliefs, we have few options but to vote for the least bad party. I used to spoil my ballot and then went for a few years when I didn’t vote, but for the past few years I’ve voted for what I think is the best of a very bad lot. For this election, I’m 90% decided on how I’m going to vote, but as I always do, I’ll wait until I see the candidate list for my constituency when it’s released and then make the final decision. There may be an independent candidate who looks good, but otherwise I’ll just go with what I have already settled on.

          • Alex,

            Since all the parties support abortion, same-sex marriage and sex education even in primary schools, I wonder who you think is the least bad party? How can there be a “least bad” when they all believe in the above evil things?

            Also, I understood that the Church teaches (Pope John Paul II definitely said it) that we can never vote for any “system” which legalises the murder of the unborn child. That’s the whole of the UK.

            I’m going to have to spoil my paper, as I cannot see how any of these parties are less bad than the other.

            • I think it’s important to do a bit of research on the individual candidates for each election. Sometimes there are independent candidates who have a good stance on moral issues and sometimes there are smaller parties who try to represent Christian morality at least in some areas. I always wait until the constituency list is released and then do a background check, so to speak!
              I can definitely see what you are saying about abortion being a red line issue, and I can relate to that. The only problem is that in the UK, political parties don’t tend to take a definite stance on moral issues. The most common exception to that is gay marriage, where most parties do have a definite policy, but that comes about from a misunderstanding about human sexuality and severing the marital act from its natural ends, so it appeals to people’s natural sense of justice and gets compared, wrongly, to the way other minority groups have been discriminated against over the years. In most cases, moral issues are left to the conscience of the individual MP, so it’s important to know a bit about them.
              Unfortunately, I can’t say which party I think is the least bad! I have an opinion on that, but I wouldn’t like to say as it could be seen as endorsement, which it isn’t! I might vote for them, but not enthusiastically and I’m certainly not going to advertise,for them!😯

              • Alex F,

                I used to do that, vote for particular candidates, using the pro-life measure – however, I soon came to realise that we are not voting candidates into power, we are voting for a party. No candidate has the power to dictate policy or end bad policies. So, whether we want to admit it or not, we are voting for a party and they all support and (whether actively or by their complicit silence), promote evil.

                The truth is, Catholic consciences are now dumbed down, to say the least, and so they can look for the “least bad” or “lesser of two evils” at election times. I think my friends who tell me they go into the booth and scrawl “Christ is King” on their ballot paper are “thinking as God thinks” – which is what we should all be doing in the next few weeks. Watching these party leaders in debates and on news clips, their utter insincerity and dishonesty comes screaming across. How any Catholic can vote for any of these parties, really is a mystery to me, to beat any Mystery of Faith. They may fool some of the people some of the time, but they don’t fool me, at all.

                There will, remember, be Catholics in Ireland who will think it’s the “least bad” thing to do to vote for same-sex marriage to be permitted in their land. Skewed thinking, by any objective moral standard.

                • I can definitely see your point on the kingship of Christ being paramount. That is the prism through which we should view an election.
                  The way I see it is that as a Catholic I have a duty to participate in the civic life of the country, and suffrage is part of that. Democracy itself is not really a proper Catholic way to govern a country but it’s the one we are stuck with for now. That’s the only reason I vote at all, and that various popes have said we should.
                  Abortion is a red line issue because wilful murder is a very serious and damaging sin. But the waging of unjust wars is also murder so I take that into consideration along with the policy to renew weapons of mass destruction designed to murder millions of people in one shot and cannot be justified under the principles of just war. Along with sodomy, the other sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance are the oppression of the poor and depriving workers of their lawful salary. So I take all of these into consideration when casting my vote.
                  I’m old-fashioned, so I’m not going say how I intend to vote, because, as I wrote previously I don’t support any party enthusiastically, and I don’t want to enter a discussion whereby I would be expected to defend a particular party- the politicians can do their own dirty work. Additionally, I don’t want to influence anyone, but these are my thoughts on how I come to the decision on how I vote.

    • Margaret Mary,

      That article is really sad, as you say, to praise Ireland for becoming a world leader in approving evil sexual behaviour. There doesn’t seem to be much of a campaign against it, either. It’s really very sad indeed.

  2. No, I don’t believe it is ever right to remain neutral in the fight against evil. It is very sad that Ireland whose religious rekindled the Faith in the West, should be voting to overturn God’s law.

    The 22nd of May is the feast of St. Rita of Cascia, a saint for desperate causes (second to St. Jude!) so maybe prayers to her would help Ireland.

    • Jobstears,

      I didn’t know anything about St Rita – thank you for sharing that. I agree, we should pray to her as well as St Jude for Ireland on the 22nd. It is shocking to think that there will probably be priests voting for same-sex marriage. I can’t believe it.

      • Michaela,

        Here’s a quick summary of St. Rita’s life (1381-1457): St. Rita wanted to become a nun, but in obedience to her parents’ wishes, married the man picked for her. She dealt with her abusive husband with heroic patience, and due to her influence he converted before he was murdered. Then the saint had to deal with her sons who were bent on avenging their father (vendetta) -she prayed that God would take them before they lost their souls- and she was heard, they died well prepared to meet God! She joined the Augustinian nuns (after St. Augustine, I think, physically assisted her). Her prayers obtained remarkable cures, deliverance from possession, and other favors. Wishing to share in the pain of the the Crown of Thorns, she was privileged to be given a thorn wound in the forehead (it was very painful and emitted a foul odor, but she considered it a great grace). She died at the age of 76 and her body was perfectly incorrupt for centuries and at times gave off a sweet fragrance (I assume it was available for the veneration of the faithful). At her beatification, “the body of the saint raised itself up and opened its eyes”.

    • Jobstears,

      Hadn’t realised that St Rita is patron of desperate cases, or I’d have been praying to her for the past twenty years! Will put Ireland in her care now! Thanks for the tip.

      Michaela,

      It really is difficult to get used to the idea that Ireland is so far gone, but used to it we just gotta get…

  3. I may be a cockeyed optimist, but I still think we could get a pleasant surprise. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t think of a previous national referendum on this subject before. In England and Scotland it was put to members of parliament, most of whom wanted to be seen to be politically correct. Wouldn’t it be great if this turned out differently?

    • Pew Catholic,

      Love your optimism but don’t forget we are dealing with “principalities and powers” – liars, in other words. And the (admittedly very fallible) opinion polls suggest that the propaganda is winning… Take three minutes to watch this from over the rainbow, so to speak…

      • Editor,

        That’s a fantastic video – shows up the lies of the LGBT people pushing for “marriage”. The whole thing’s a joke.

      • That video should be spread well around. It is showing up the dishonesty of the YES camp. I was amazed at their brazenness in saying what they really think of marriage. They’re obviously out to destroy it.

    • Pew Catholic, “get a pleasant surprise………” not a chance! Even if the referendum was defeated this time around, the irish people would be asked again… and again… and again…. until we gave the “right” answer! Unfortunately, in the past number of years the Irish Government have a habit of running the same referendum again and again until they get the desired result. it started with the Treaty of Nice. The referendum on the treaty of Lisbon was also run twice; we said NO the first time, both times. we have had innumerable abortion referenda, always with more and more ambigious language (do you want some abortion or more abortion, type of thing) Democracy in Ireland is well and truly dead. We now live in a democratic dictatorship, where he who shouts the loudest gets heard. There will be a small group of Traditional Catholics who will be out on the streets educating people about what the church teaches on homosexual inclinations and why, but one of its directors has told us… realistically we do not expect to win this, but at least we will have done our duty in educating people as to why sodomy is condemned by the church…. Those were not his exact words, though. I am paraphrasing.

  4. I just wonder what “other couplings outside lifelong, traditional marriage” means, especially when they are considered “evil”.

    Wrong maybe, but evil isn’t a word that should be used so carelessly.

    • Frankier

      I don’t think it takes a lot to work that out. I would assume cohabiting couples are what is referred too.

      The theological meaning of evil is the absence of good. Anything contrary to Catholic teaching is evil.

      • Petrus,

        That’s correct – evil is the absence of the good; St Thomas Aquinas gave the example of a broken chair leg ! That’s evil because we expect a chair to stand up, with the necessary number of legs for stability. Similarly, any couple in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, is engaging in evil. That includes, as you rightly note, cohabiting couples; casual sexual relationships of all types are included – any sexual gratification outside of marriage is an evil according to St Thomas Aquinas.

        Because modern people have come to think of evil in terms only of murders, terrorism, that sort of thing, they’ve lost the Catholic insight that anything short of God’s design, especially anything contrary to it, must be classed as “evil”. Again, however, we must remember that we refer to behaviours, actions, not the person themselves, because we cannot read the soul. So the co-habiting couple is engaging in evil or (as we used to say in the bad old days) living in sin, but while we can say that because it is observable, we cannot say that the individuals themselves are “evil”. It’s amazing how many people cannot see the distinction – an important distinction.

        Of course, once taught the above, we can then explain to these couples that they are risking their salvation unless they repent and turn away from that sin. But that takes us down another road and I should be on the road to somewhere else right now ! More later !

        • Ed

          “It’s amazing how many people can’t see the distinction”. Hint taken, although many people must be quite thick.

      • Fine I know what evil means, I don’t need a lesson on it even if that lesson is from a living saint but when the word gets used in relation to the behaviour of good people whom you love very dearly it is not easy to take.

        The assumption seems to be, among certain people anyway, that everyone “living in sin” is evil, The ” theological meaning” is the furthest thing from their minds.

        What is it they say about people in glass houses.

  5. Frankier

    I know you aren’t saying that we shouldn’t condemn acts as evil because they are carried out by people we love, but aren’t you the one making assumptions of others’ thoughts and motives when you say the following:

    “The assumption seems to be, among certain people anyway, that everyone “living in sin” is evil, The ” theological meaning” is the furthest thing from their minds.”

    People in glass houses; quite.

    BTW, who is this living saint, and where can I meet him/her?

    • Therese,

      Thank you for that.

      I think it’s crystal clear what I said about evil and cohabitation. I made a point of NOT saying any individuals are evil. Here’s what I actually wrote:

      “…Again, however, we must remember that we refer to behaviours, actions, not the person themselves, because we cannot read the soul. So the co-habiting couple is engaging in evil or (as we used to say in the bad old days) living in sin, but while we can say that because it is observable, we cannot say that the individuals themselves are “evil”.”

      To the argument: “people I love are living in sin so don’t call it that” which is, effectively, what quite a few Catholics in my own circle say, loud and clear and often, I reply: Eh? We don’t take that view in the context of any other sin. However, as I’ve said many times, not least on this thread, in our permissive times, as long as the sin is sexual, it’s fine with most folks, so called Catholics included, and sometimes the most surprising Catholics, take this line. If the sinner is a friend or family member of theirs, suddenly the sin isn’t so serious, after all.

      Fact: I doubt very much if there are any families today where someone or other isn’t cohabiting or living a promiscuous life. My own family could win an award.

      Which doesn’t allow me to re-write God’s law, or be complicit in their sin by appearing to approve it. Those family members of mine who are living in sin – I repeat, living in sin – know exactly what I think about their situation. I get on very well with them all, as far as I know 😀 but I would be lying to them if I led them to believe that their behaviour is in any way acceptable. I mean, I have no choice but to “accept” it, and I can’t go about the place lecturing them. I don’t need to; they know what I think about all the thorny moral issues. I love them all, including their various “partners” – but I’m not going to get angry with Our Lord for calling their behaviour “sin” and “adultery”. Logically, then, I am not going to get annoyed at those followers of Christ who call it what it is – living in sin. That would make me a rather muddled and confused thinker, and they’d be even more mixed up!

      As for your concluding question – kidding, right? You don’t realise that there is a living saint in our midst? Gerrourahere, Therese!

  6. Those ACP priests don’t represent the majority of Irish priests. They’re a bunch of dissenters who want to start their own church up. They’ve no right to give the impression they speak for anyone but themselves.

    There is no priest in Ireland who should remain neutral in the debate about same-sex marriage. Not one. We need everyone voting against this evil (yes evil) legislation.

    Didn’t Dante say that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain silent when they should speak out?

    • I agree that no priest should remain neutral about same sex marriage. The only reason for it, is that there are priests in favour of it. I wish they would identify themselves as they are living double lives by keeping quiet.

    • Molly Malone, you are right about Dante. In his Inferno (third book of his trilogy) the errant popes and bishops are consigned, upside down, in pillars for all eternity!

      I wouldn’t like to be in the shoes of most of today’s bishops / cardinals / and especially our present pope!

  7. “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men…All the strength of satan’s reign is due to the easing-going weakness of Catholics.”- Pope Saint Pius X, Discourse at the Beatification of Saint Joan of Arc, December 13, 1908.

    “The issue is now quite clear: it is between light and darkness and everyone must choose his side.” – G K Chesterton, a few hours before he died.

    Not very long ago one would have been considered a lunatic to predict the legalisation of homosexual “marriage” (surely an unmatchable oxymoron). So what’s next? A man “marrying” his sister? Or his three sisters? Or his dog? From what I’ve read, the latter might appeal to more than a few in Germany. Along with abortion, euthanasia, divorce, and contraception what we are dealing with is the latest wave in the tsunami of depravity inundating the western world. Does all this not reflect Our Lady’s warning at Fatima?

    In Ireland, like everywhere else ravaged by novus ordoism, the salt has well and truly lost its savour. This story is just one more lamentable example of the repudiation of the Social Kingship of Christ and the undeniable withdrawal of graces in the conciliar wilderness. And we’re not just talking about lack of catechesis and faulty theology here. The gravity of sodomy, like killing unborn children, is a question of very basic natural law, knowable by any illiterate bushman who has never seen a missionary.

    I’ve said before that there is an unmistakable impression that in Ireland, as in other formerly Christian lands, the vast majority of people are like cows watching a train go by. Except that instead of grass, televised sport, sexual gratification, consumerism, cars and foreign holidays serve to satisfy.

    The effects of modernist mind rot, as well those of the devil, the flesh and the world are there for all to see. I think Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote something along the lines that when men separate themselves from God, their intellects become dulled. To take another farm yard comparison, the US Catholic writer Flannery O’Connor, who described herself as a “hillbilly Thomist”, and who died in 1964, once wrote that “the moral sense has been bred out of certain sections of the population, like the wings that have been bred off certain chickens to produce more white meat on them”. “Certain sections” is now virtually the entire western world.

    “When the foundations of religion are overthrown, the restraints of civil society are also necessarily shattered. Behold the sad spectacle of our time! Beholding the impending danger of the future! However it is no danger to the Church, for the divine promise leaves no room for doubt. Rather this revolution threatens the family and nations, especially those who stir up or indifferently tolerate this unhealthy atmosphere of irreligion.” – Pope Saint Pius X, Editae Saepe, 1910

  8. “Henceforth the enemy of the Church is no longer outside the Church; he is now within”. -Pope Saint Pius X, encyclical E supremi apostolatus, October 4, 1903

    Although some readers may get a sense of “déjà vu all over again”, since the scandalous ACP bring shame to the sacred priesthood in a time of total war being waged by the enemies of Christ, it might be no harm to repost some words that have appeared here before.

    The foundational objectives of the ACP certainly need to be seen to be believed. Nothing original, of course. In fact, it looks rather like the ring leaders went to Pascendi Dominici Gregis for their material and decided on a few of the Modernist errors condemned by Pope Saint Pius X.

    Rather than encourage your readers to boost visitor numbers at ACP’s website, it might be helpful to do a bit a comparing:

    Pascendi warns that Modernists “disdain all authority and brook no restraint: and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to love of truth that which in reality is the result of pride and obstinacy.” (# 3)
    The ACP invokes the “primacy of the individual conscience.”

    Pascendi warns of Modernist belief that “ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts” (# 38) and that the “ecclesiastical magisterium must be subordinate” to “individual consciences” (# 25).
    The ACP calls for “all believers to be treated as equal”, as well as for a “redesigning of Ministry in the Church” and a “restructuring of the governing system of the Church”.

    Pascendi warns that Modernists “lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change” (# 26) and for them “there is nothing immutable in the Church” (# 28).
    The ACP’s objectives include “a re-evaluation of Catholic sexual teaching.”

    Pascendi warns that Modernists “actually admit…that all religions are true” (# 14)
    The ACP claims that “full acceptance that the Spirit speaks through all people” is needed so that “the breadth of the Spirit will flow more freely.” I wonder what “Spirit” exactly that is.

    In 1894, in first pastoral letter to the clergy of Venice, Cardinal Sarto, the future Pope Pius X, gave a very clear demonstration of his care for souls when declaring that liberal Catholics are “wolves in sheep’s clothing; it is more important than anything else that their murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced.” Do those words not bear constant repetition today?

    I’ll leave everyone with the words of the sainted Pope. Yet one more example of that magnificent pastor’s prescient, prophetic, and ever relevant magisterium. They are taken from the first few paragraphs his short 1905 encyclical,Acerbo nimis. It was a bit of problem, in fact, trying to decide what not to quote from these paragraphs here.

    “It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. … We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there… Grace, the greatest of the helps for attaining eternal things, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments by which we obtain grace, are entirely unknown to them. .. And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”

    “. … We do maintain that the will cannot be upright nor the conduct good when the mind is shrouded in the darkness of crass ignorance. A man who walks with open eyes may, indeed, turn aside from the right path, but a blind man is in much more imminent danger of wandering away. Furthermore, there is always some hope for a reform of perverse conduct so long as the light of faith is not entirely extinguished; but if lack of faith is added to depraved morality because of ignorance, the evil hardly admits of remedy, and the road to ruin lies open.”

    “We must now consider upon whom rests the obligation to dissipate this most pernicious ignorance and to impart in its stead the knowledge that is wholly indispensable. There can be no doubt, Venerable Brethren, that this most important duty rests upon all who are pastors of souls. … the first duty of all those who are entrusted in any way with the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in the things of God.”

    Here’s the link to the encyclical:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_15041905_acerbo-nimis_en.html

    The bishops and priests of Ireland might care to have a read.

  9. The subject of this thread, highlighting the unswerving drive for normalization of homosexuality through the utter abomination of so called same sex “marriage”, shows just how far into the pit we have descended. A few short years ago, I doubt that more than a minuscule number of Europeans would have even considered the possibility. Now, in accordance with classic Alinskyite methods, anyone who refuses to join the parade to celebrate sexual perversion is to be labelled a backward, intolerant bigot, on a par with some knuckle dragging Klu Klux Klan supporter.

    “…Men have become possessed with so arrogant a sense of their own powers as already to consider themselves able to banish from social life the authority and empire of God. Led away by delusion, they make over to human nature the dominion of which they think God has been despoiled…These men aspire unjustly, and with their might strive, to gain control over public affairs and lay hands on the rudder of the State, in order that the legislation may the more easily be adapted to these principles, and the morals of the people influenced in accordance with them.”- Pope Leo XIII, Sapientia Christianae, 1890

    And what about the salvation of souls? When will Catholics stop talking about the Civilisation of Love versus the Culture of Death and call the struggle for what it is; the Kingdom of God versus the Kingdom of Satan? What was all that talk about “razing the bastions”?

    Apart from being State sanctioned celebration of perversion, it is surely beyond reasonable doubt that aberrosexual “marriage” is being promoted with the intention of completely undermining, and grotesquely distorting how Society views, the institute of marriage and the family, as well as being a very convenient (surely not accidental) means of instigating State persecution of those who adhere to basic Christian teaching. We have enough examples already.

    “With God and Jesus Christ excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall.” – Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas 1925

    This latest attack on marriage and Natural Law is just one more battle waged by the forces of organised naturalism against Social Kingship of Christ over the last two centuries. With that in mind, its’ worth calling to mind the warnings of Cardinal Pie, the nineteenth century Bishop of Poitiers, whose writings had a great influence on Pope Saint Pius X.

    Condemning the Masonic principle of separation of Church and State, by which society does not formally deny the existence of God, but rather rules itself as if God does not exist, the Cardinal states that “He [God] will reign; and if he does not reign by the benefits inseparable from his presence, he will reign by calamities inseparable from his absence.”

    The secularist minions of satan wish to consign to oblivion any notion of “the Christian State, of Christian Law, and of the Christian prince” and replace the Social Kingship of Christ with the tyranny of practical State atheism. Here, the “imaginary theocracy of the Church” is replaced with a “theocracy as absolute as it is illegitimate, the theocracy of Caesar, head and arbiter of religion, supreme oracle of doctrine and law.” In fact, this is a “renewed pagan theocracy,” soon to be carried out “in the reign of high-priest people and of the God-State” through socialism. The Cardinal claims that this “politics without God” has a name. In the Gospel it is called “the prince of this world” or “the power of the Beast,” but today it is called “the Revolution.”

    Is that not the very Revolution we are living through?

  10. Leo,

    I read through each of your latest posts above, last night, and they are spectacular. I’m amazed that I’m the first to comment. As ever, you put your thoughts succinctly with apposite quotes to support what you write. Treasures.

    It’s truly sad to see that Satan appears to be winning the hearts and minds – and of course souls – of the Irish faithful, or should that be “faithless”.

    And it’s no excuse, as I’ve heard people say in defence of the Irish decline – to blame the child abuse scandals. Horrendous as it is when priests commit such serious sins, they are not “the Church” and any Catholic with a reasonably solid grasp of the Faith should know that.

    There are NO excuses for the opinion poll findings of 70% of Catholics over there supporting the YES camp in the referendum – assuming the polls are accurate. And there are even LESS excuses for the bad bishops and apostate priests of the ACP (taking the quotes from their website which you repeat here, they are clearly apostates) refusing to make a full and unequivocal stand for the NO camp.

    Over to St Patrick, now! Times are desperate! The snakes are winning! Help!

    • Editor,

      You were the first to respond to Leo’s post mostly because you have the unfair advantage of a time difference! 😀 (I did say mostly 😉

      Leo,

      Thank you for the outstanding posts. For me, the comparisons you drew between the warnings of Pascendi and the ACP/modern mindset, were most helpful.

      Condemning the Masonic principle of separation of Church and State, by which society does not formally deny the existence of God, but rather rules itself as if God does not exist, the Cardinal states that “He [God] will reign; and if he does not reign by the benefits inseparable from his presence, he will reign by calamities inseparable from his absence.” How very true.

      Sometimes I think the mindset is prevalent even within the Church, we don’t deny the existence of God, but we act like we know the mind of God better than He does!

      • Jobstears,

        I didn’t think about the time difference. OK, no pay deducted from you this week! *

        As for the rest of your post – spot on, as ever.

        * PS you could end that time difference by coming over here, at least for our (if it comes off) expedition to the Archbishop of Dublin’s front gates! See my response to Spiritus below…

        • Editor,

          If I could, I would join you on the expedition to the Archbishop of Dublin’s front gates. As it is, I would have to rely on your finding a plane on your doorstep!

          It is truly unbelievable that a Catholic, let alone a Catholic priest, could even think of voting in favor of the perversion they are trying to pass off as marriage.

          Was it John Paul II who did not believe there were any souls in hell? Do these priests and bishops really believe, they will not be held answerable for defying God?

          I don’t remember the exact quote nor who said it but it goes like this: lust/desire indulged becomes habit, habit unchecked becomes a necessity. Is this what we are witnessing? Perversion seeking to define itself as necessity? I am no expert, but I can’t help thinking that downplaying the primary end of marriage (procreation and education of children) in favor of mutual support etc, has made it easier to redefine marriage to include any and all unions, no matter how disordered and unnatural.

          • Jobstears,

            ~”downplaying the primary end of marriage (procreation and education of children) in favor of mutual support etc, has made it easier to redefine marriage to include any and all unions, no matter how disordered and unnatural.”

            Agreed. It also makes the introduction of things such as IVF/assisted reproduction (animals “reproduce”, man “procreates”), contraception, sodomy, fornication and adultery less complicated. The inversion of the two ends of marriage following V2 paved the way for all the social change that has happened since.

  11. It is not just the hypocrisy of the gays it is the hypocrisy of those who just want to have a go at the Church. I live in Basingstoke. A few miles down the road there is Winchester University which has a Head of Sports called Professor Anderson. He last year went to Oxford and in a lecture on gays lifestyle boasted of his 1,300 sexual affairs before marriage. Yes he is a gay and he is married, intact the had two babies which were surrogated for him and his partner by a willing lady. He has settled down then, not a bit. He went on in his lecture to boast that he hopes to have another 1,000 affairs and he especially likes young men. It is all about gays experiencing a full life style. He was on the BBC with the poor little babies at one stage. Now had I said as a young man I am going to have a thousand affairs I am sure my children would have been removed by Social Services but no, they just are too afraid. Again if a straight teacher had expressed that he wanted affairs with young girls I am sure he would have been removed. But no, they are too scared. What a world when people are pretending they are so open minded when in fact they are too scared to speak the truth.

    • John,

      I don’t think it’s about being “scared” to speak out – the majority of people are now brainwashed and think there’s absolutely nothing anyone attached to the LGBT label can do that is remotely wrong. End of.

  12. Hereunder I have copied a post from the Thread on weak leadership of Irish bishops relevant to the current topic.

    The statement from the bishops is just another example of politically correct dont-offend-anyone morally neutral, etc statements coming from the Irish hierarchy for the past 30 years or so. One bishop I know attended a meeting organised to defend marriage (not “traditional marriage” as some of my catholic friends refer to the convenant between one man and one woman. This and only this is and will ever be MARRIAGE). One of his main concerns related to the fact that Catholic priests act as solemnizers at weddings on behalf of the state. Will these now be persecuted for insisting on one man and one woman only? He wondered if perhaps Irish clergy will be forced to refuse to solemnize marriage on behalf of the state. Personally I think that it would be a good idea, as then the state could not interfere in Catholic marriage (?) as they do now. I mean, not even a Catholic couple have the right to a life long marriage anymore, thanks to divorce being legitimised (and I mean legitimised. Many Catholics no longer have a problem with leaving a difficult marriage. No concept of “till death do us part” or self sacrifice there)
    I found the meeting itself rather politically correct and spineless. I mean why not just come out with the truth: Marriage is ordained by God for the procreation and education of children (or used to be before V2) It can only be between male and female as any alternative is naturally sterile. Sexual complementarity is rooted in nature.
    No mention in the bishops’ letter of “sins crying out to heaven for vengeance: the sin of Sodom” Even the demons will avert their eyes when faced with sodomy ( no one used that word anymore, either, do they??!)
    The only resistance to this will come from Traditional Catholics in Ireland, and most of these will be attending SSPX chapels, either regularly or occasionally. I know of one (at the moment) VERY small group who will be distributing literature in some of the main towns of Ireland.
    I am rambling on, I know, but I am just trying to put down thoughts as they come to me. Yes, I am afraid that the Catholics of Ireland have been and are being thrown to the wolves. Thanks to the weak or non-existent leadership of the Irish clergy we now have what amounts to abortion on demand in Ireland for the full duration of a pregnancy where a woman claims to be suicidal. Further thoughts/comments from other bloggers welcome!

    • Spiritus,

      I am just stunned at some of the stuff coming out of Ireland about this referendum, and the fact that, as you acknowledge, only a tiny minority of Catholics are fighting back.

      One of our Irish readers in the north sends me newspaper cuttings from time to time and a bundle arrived yesterday, mostly stuff I already knew, but one new item – a report about a priest who openly admits that he will vote “YES” – and that other priests will do as well: read about this muddle-headed priest here

      I presume by “other priests”, he means non-ACP clergy – we know that those nuts will vote YES to anything except the Apostles Creed.

      There was also a clip about the Archbishop of Dublin’s claim to have received obnoxious correspondence from the NO camp, which I simply do not believe. Am I accusing him of telling lies, against all the best legal advice? Yip. Without quotes of the “intemperate” etc language which he claims came in correspondence to him, I do not believe him. Not for a second. Liar? Yip.

      He’s a leader in bad manners himself anyway is dear old doc Martin; he doesn’t answer letters from anyone expressing concerns, as I know from my own personal experience and from the experience of clergy who have written to him as well.

      So, I’m wondering if there is any mileage in a group of us going over there to sunny Dublin and confronting him in person. That’s what I’m wondering. If there’d been a plane outside my door just now after reading those clips from our Irish reader (and then your post, Spiritus), I’d have jumped on it and headed for the Emerald Isle.

      It’s not long until 22nd May, so must check out flights and accommodation soon, although it’s perfectly possible to go over and return on the same day, which would suit me down to the ground, so to speak! Anyone who wants to join us, email asap – let’s remove the smile from the Irish eyes of the faithless Archbishop of Dublin.

      Or maybe not – what do you think, bloggers all?

      • Editor, you and your group would be most welcome to the Emerald Isle. I’m sure that there would be many Traditional Catholics who would be more than willing to host you! We could do with the moral support.

        • I doubt if it would make any difference, going to the gates of the Archbishop’s house. He’d probably call the police and everyone would be locked up for a few hours. I know the argument about making the effort and winning grace and so on, but I, for one, couldn’t afford to risk missing my flight home, and I don’t just mean risk losing the cost of my flight, other reasons as well, so I’ll have to bow out on this one.

        • Spiritus,

          Thank you for your kind words, but I must make it clear that, if, in fact, Plan A comes to fruition and a group of us descend on the Emerald Isle, we will either return the same day (preferred option for a number of reasons and it can be done – I had a visitor from Dublin recently who came early flight and returned home on a late evening flight) OR we will book into a guesthouse. That is a given. So, thank you very much for your thoughtful offer and typically Irish hospitality (racism, who cares!) but all as above is a given, with sincere prayers for the intention of proving Margaret Mary’s understandable concerns to be misplaced!

          More, in due course, on the possibility that the June newsletter will contain a report headed: “Catholic Truth Goes To Dublin” and NOT “Catholic Truth Goes To Jail”! 😀

  13. It is never moral to be neutral – Petrus was bang on, when he quoted Matthew 12:30. That is the bottom line.

    The trouble is that, for decades now, Catholics have been taught by their own Church that they must “live and let live” amongst all manner of UnGodly ways and opinions.

    In my experience that is how most people in the Conciliar Church understand Christianity – that its really only a personal “feel good” mechanism (I’m nice and I’m going to Heaven) that it is a framework for human society. They believe that to assert Our Lords teachings, or to condemn non-Christian values is “judgemental”. They believe the Church is just one voice among many, all of which have an equally valid say.

    In short, they believe rubbish.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      They are definitely talking rubbish, that’s for sure. I also agree about “judgmentalism” – a word that is now used only to attack Catholics defending dogma.

  14. With reference to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and the sin of sodomy, I think some of my post of March 23, 9.40pm on the “Irish Bishops embarassingly weak…” thread would be just as relevant here.

    It’s a bit of struggle to find words for this, but little over a year ago Archbishop Martin treated us to the rather unbelievable observation that the Church “has lost its sense of fun”. Hard to imagine those words coming from Saint Charles Borromeo.

    In view of the ruins and wasteland that surrounds him, would Archbishop Martin humbly admit to the urgent need to apologise for, and make amends for, the scandalous statement that he made in his address to the Catholic Primary Schools Management Association Conference in March 2012, when he appeared to consider the decline in Catholic influence over Irish society as something positive:

    “The change in Irish society and the change in the life of the Church in Ireland are linked together. There is a growing secularisation in Irish society. This is not entirely a bad thing, if we understand the complex phenomenon called secularisation correctly. Very few of us would wish to return completely to the type of society many of us grew up in, where the Church dominated so much of Irish culture, and where the bishops and the clergy dominated the Church. Irish society and the Church in Ireland have changed and it must be said that the change has in great part been good.”

    Consider the total rejection of the Social Kingship of Christ, mass apostasy, legalised butchery of unborn children up to birth, including in Catholic hospitals, contraception and divorce taken as “normal”, sacrificing of school children to the antichrist commissars of the education system, the complete undermining of the place of parents in rearing and instructing their children, the screeching celebration of sodomy, increasing propaganda for euthanasia, together with the craven Church capitulation in the face of those forces of organised naturalism who seek to expel the voice of Catholic truth from the public square and wage unrelenting war against Christ. With due respect, at this point in time, “good” is not the word I would use.

    One question: You are familiar, Your Grace, with the words of the English martyr bishop, Saint John Fisher?

    “The fort has been betrayed even by those who should have defended it.”

    • Leo,

      I had forgotten that the Archbishop of Dublin had made that statement about the decline of the Church being a “good” thing. He is really shocking.

      Your quote from St John Fisher is more than appropriate. How they can be so blind, these bishops, is beyond belief.

  15. No doubt, a lot of people are tempted to resignation on this issue, or are inclined to think the issue of same sex “marriage” is not a direct concern of theirs. Sure, everyone has plenty of every day cares and problems to worry about. And of course the thought police of political correctness are very vigilant in supervising the Liberal Group Think.

    Well, let’s remember that G.K. Chesterton once wrote that “Tolerance is the last virtue of a man without principle.”

    Certainly, any B and B or hotel owners, marriage counsellors, photographers, bakers, printers, or florists who hold to Divine Law, and are prepared to stand up for it, have every reason for grave concern. The evidence has long since been provided. But let no one be in any doubt that the battle being waged by the forces of organised naturalism against Christian Civilisation effects everyone whether they care to think about it or not.

    The short video that Editor has posted should be watched and passed on by everyone. Likewise, the following two articles will hopefully have some effect on the ignorant or apathetic. I have followed the links with some quotations from the articles, which hopefully will encourage people to read them.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-revolution-of-the-family-the-marxist-roots-of-homosexualism

    “If we read them closely, however, the activists themselves have begun to explain it in quite straightforward terms. For them, it has never been about ‘equal rights’ but about the re-writing of our entire social order. The ‘gay rights’ movement has always been, in Peter Tatchell’s own words, ‘revolutionary, not reformist.’

    “Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of ‘gender studies’ and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through ‘anti-discrimination’ and ‘equalities’ legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.
    “Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.”

    “Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that ‘reform,’ in other words ‘equality,’ is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, ‘cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.’”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/socialist-publication-we-can-change-the-world-through-abortion-and-gay-marr

    “Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto of their plan for the ‘abolition of the family,’ to ‘replace home education by social’ or public schools, and to replace monogamy with ‘an openly legalized community of women’ (sharing women in common).

    “Their modern adherents continue to advocate for their anti-family vision on an issue-by-issue basis.”

    “Last June, the Communist Party of Australia urged its members to ‘strike blows against’ Christianity by endorsing same-sex ‘marriage.’”

    After reading the above, it might a good idea to reflect on the words of Pope Saint Pius X:

    “We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker – the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the new City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants.” – Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, 1910.

  16. Evil: Is It Ever Moral To Be Neutral?

    After watching many fitba games in Scotland over the years, esp. Old Firm games, I can say with some certainty that the Referees always considered it immoral to be neutral. No guessing who got the raw deal.

    But on matters more pertinent: the connivance, the tacit consent of the Church to support Evil is deafeningly loud through their silence on issues that demand their condemnation, like abortion and homosexual marriage.

    The leadership of the Church stands guilty of appeasement. They are more concerned about rocking the boat and saving their crumbling little empires, than standing up for what is crystal clear morally.

  17. Leo, I have only today had the time to read your recent posts. They are magnifique! A few more like minded individuals over there in the Emerald Isle would make all the difference. Ireland’s fall into apostasy is truly frightening. In so short a time too although I imagine the foundations were lain many years ago.

  18. Crofter Lady

    Merci beaucoup.

    No one familiar with the daily news is likely to find issue with the statement that Ireland is, at the moment, an apostate moral sewer. It seems like murder, suicide and sex crimes are daily occurrences. The headlines in recent weeks led with reports of a murder trial featuring truly unimaginable depths of depravity.

    I can’t provide any empirical evidence, but wouldn’t be inclined to disagree with the remark that someone made to me a year ago, that such deaths had increased markedly in the wake of the recent legalisation of the killing of the unborn.

    The sad thing is that many of those Catholics who remain of good heart and will are provided with toxic spiritual novus ordoism. The vast majority of those who are willing to engage in any sort of Catholic Action appear to be devotees of the false apparition at “Megj” or some sort of “Pentecostal Catholicism”. The thirst for religious “entertainment” is surely a result of the destruction caused by the modernist war waged against the true Mass and the Faith of the Martyrs.

    Others, who are undoubtedly well meaning, take their instruction from EWTN, or even go to the trouble of taking courses at Maryvale. A conversion not long ago with someone in the latter category was truly depressing. Producing Vatican II ostriches and delusional deniers appears to be the objective of such courses, from what I gleaned.

    I missed the boat before Easter when I intended to reply to Olaf and Michaela on another thread. I was going to say that, all the above said, the memory of Saint Patrick should be enough to instil hope that Ireland will return to the Faith one day. The country accepted the gift of the Faith readily and willingly from the great saint. Within a few years all four corners of the land were evangelised, without any violent opposition. There was only one known case of martyrdom, when the Saint’s charioteer, on becoming aware of a murder attempt by a local chieftain, substituted himself for the assassins’ intended target.

    It also has to be said that Saint Patrick’s mission began in earnest when he on Holy Saturday, 432 AD, he lit the Paschal flame on the Hill of Slane in direct defiance of the local King who was celebrating some pagan festival that very day, and forbade the lighting of any other fires in advance of that which was to be lit on the nearby Hill of Tara. The saint made such an impression on the King that he granted him permission to teach the Faith wherever he wished. The lesson for the Irish bishops of today hardly needs to be spelt out.

    I don’t know what others think, but the above, together with and the intercession of the dead generations who held the faith through dungeon fire and sword, gives me reasons for hope. And course, above all, we have the never failing intercession of Our Lady of Knock to rely on, no matter how dark things get. In the days of hunted priests, the Mass of the Martyrs, and the Rosary were the great protection and strength of faithful Catholics. That will never, never change.

    On another positive note, as far as I’m aware, there is an openness to the true Mass amongst the few Irish seminarians today. This is certainly causing concern to the right people. If The Tablet can be believed,

    “Pope Francis’ courage is causing disquiet among those with ‘a very conformist and closed Catholicism’ the Archbishop of Dublin has warned.”

    http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1030/0/-conformist-younger-clergy-wary-of-francis-dublin-archbishop

  19. It is now virtually impossible to keep up to date with the tsunami of scandal within the Church, as well as the depravity under which Western civilisation is submerging.

    Readers might find the Angelqueen.org site as a useful, if not altogether cheery source of information. One subject that appears, at present, to come up as much as anything is that of the screeching Big Sodomy juggernaut. Check it out, and see.

    Here is an article from the excellent Christopher Ferrara that deserves a place on this thread.

    http://angelqueen.org/2015/04/09/vatican-remains-silent-as-homo-fascism-rises/

  20. I posted the following excellent article from the late Anthony Fraser on another thread recently, but really, it is too good not to repost on this thread.

    The link is courtesy of another robust defender of the Faith, The Eye-witness blog.

    http://theeye-witness.blogspot.ie/2014/02/anthony-fraser-on-britains-repressive.html

    There is plenty I could pick out for quoting, but hopefully the following will encourage people to devote a few very well spent minutes to reading this really excellent article.

    “The Henry the Eighths of this world and the LGBT lobby are not content to indulge in sinful behaviour. They want us to admit that it is not a sin: that their behaviour is natural. They don’t want anyone to disturb their improperly formed consciences even through silent dissent. They want to abuse our consciences. They want us to lie to satisfy their erroneous consciences. But as Solzhenitsyn warned us in From Under the Rubble(3): ‘ DO NOT LIE! DO NOT TAKE PART IN THE LIE! DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIE! … and then he explains ‘What does it mean, not to lie? It doesn’t mean going around preaching the truth at the top of your voice (perish the thought!). It doesn’t even mean muttering what you think in an undertone. It simply means: not saying what you don’t think, and that includes not whispering, not opening your mouth, not raising your hand, not casting your vote, not feigning a smile, not lending your presence, not standing up and not cheering.’ (4)

    As the above DOJ document indicates, ‘not saying what you don’t think’ is not an option: it is tantamount to silence – a silence which the high priests of secular humanism will not tolerate no less than would Stalin, Henry VIII, or Herodius.”

  21. Leo,

    The article from the Eye-witness blog is first class – I know you posted it before but it could be posted on every thread and then some, and it still would be as refreshing to read as at first sight. It’s absolutely crystal clear and should be given as wide an audience as possible. I must do a word count to see if it would be too much to publish in the newsletter. Truly terrific – thanks again for posting it here.

%d bloggers like this: