transgenderism

Unholy cow! The persecution of sanity continues - Sunday 19th-Saturday 25th of November

Just when one thought that the brazen public apostasy in the Novus Ordo cannot get any clearer one gets surprised. This time it is an 'art' exhibition in Belgium which feature sa 'crucified' cow sitting atop 5,000 litres of milk. It was, allegedly, supposed to highlight the wastefulness of consumerism, in its own morbid way, of course, it did.

This is not one of those things which are one by some obscure apostate priest in a far-off parish. No, this particular blasphemous act had the express permission of the bishop in question. He even defended it on the grounds that the shock value might bring back people into what are otherwise empty churches.

The good news about this is that the display took place in a church which appears deserted - i.e., not an active church in which we have Mass. The bad news is that the Church is unused the rest of the time, of course. It's no wonder why because with a bishop like that, one cannot help but wonder what other kind of madness takes place in the many unholy parish churches of Belgium.

"Double excommunication": A new term for this week. It turns out that Fr. Allesandro Maria Minutella in Italy has been threatened with a double excommunication for speaking out against Amoris Laetitia - presumably in tones which were too direct for his bishop's liking. He received a 9-month gag order - with which he complied - but upon return resumed his criticism of Amoris Laetitia. 

The particular terms of his excommunication ( which I suppose has now been promulgated) I did not quite understand, but it was 2 execommunications all the same, both - it would seem - intended to persecute sanity and truth.

Given the madness at Svenska Kyrkan - the Swedish Lutheran church - it is difficult to know what is a fake news story and a real one. They seem to have been victims of a misinformation campaign in which it was alleged that there had been a proposal to get rid of masculine pronouns in reference to God. This story made the rounds internationally.

I have little doubt that somebody had indeed proposed that but nonetheless the falsity of the news story was that they would stop doing it. The  story as it was put out was denied, and with fair grounds.

The truth though, it turns out is not much farther from the false story. What they will start doing is allow an option to refer to The Holy Spirit in the feminine form, something which they say is generally allowed in spirit - where one can say "anda" or "ande" for spirit. So one will be able to say "Den heliga andan" instead of "Den Helige Anden". This should cause much outrage as well. The Holy Spirit is masculine, and it matters not whether one can use the feminine form for spirit in Swedish when Christ clearly refered to the Holy Spirit in the Masculine form. It is extremely disingenous of them to pretend that this is not a stark deviation from the Christian faith. What was clearly understood to be masculine may now be understood as feminine, by those not in the know - the vast majority, that is.

There is little doubt that as the Swedish language is debased by gender mainstreaming there will one day come a serious proposal to allow non-masculine pronouns for God, and at the rate of madness with which Svenska Kyrkan conducts itself, there is little doubt that this proposal accepted if not outright mandated. A tranny god is what they want to make themselves, instead of the true God. It is blasphemy, at the very least.

Over at Novus Motus Liturgicus, the eminent Dr. Peter Kwasniewski compares the collects of the Novus Ordo Missae with those of the authentic Roman Rite and finds the Novus Ordo gravely wanting. The theological differences are so great as to almost prove the charge that the Novus Ordo is a new religion altogether.

Bergoglian scandals at the Vatican continue, this time with a representative of the world's largest for-profit child-killing company invited to speak at another of Bergoglio's environmental/population control conferences.

Then we have William Kilpatrick wondering why it is that the Church's hierarchy is so friendly with Islam and glosses over the vast differences with regards to the dignity of man, and morality. His point is well-taken, but he is too tinged with a neo-con ideology in order to be taken as a fully-reliable analyst on this. A mark of neo-cons is that they speak of Iran all the time,  and so he does, so I assume that he is one of them.

Whilst I agree with him that NOChurch's stance on Islam is bizarre to say the least, the point he misses is that NOChurch is indifferent to all religions, not just Islam. Furthermore, NOChurch seems to have no stake in reviving what was once Christendom, and one might argue it seems to have a stake in destroying Christendom so as to create something anew.

Since Kilpatrick is a neo-Catholic and not a traditionalist, he seems oblivious to these aspects of the Novus Ordo, and that's why in the end his goal seems to be more to stop Islam (not a bad goal in and of itself) as opposed to reviving Christendom, or at the very least, Christianity.

This week's Bergoglio-victim-of-the-week is without a doubt  Fr. Allesandro Maria Minutella of double excommunication infamy.

 

A poster-boy for the culture of death - Sunday 23rd to Saturday 29th of July

There is really only one place to start in a review of this week, and that is with the most tragic death - in the true meaning of the word tragic - of Charlie Gard. This is one of the saddest and certainly most frightening stories that I have come to know in all of Western history.

If my understanding of the facts is correct, this is what happened:

  • An unwed couple gives birth to a boy with a rare genetic defect, untreatable to date.
  • The doctors decide that the boy's disease is so serious that he will not survive and they want to turn off the life support.
  • The parents then say that he should be able to die at home, in the loving embrace of a loving home instead of a sterile hospital.
  • The hospital refuses to discharge him insisting that he must die there.
  • The parents file a suit to bring him home.
  • The hospital challenges this.
  • In the meantime, this case has brought enough international attention to it that a doctor working in the U.S. proposes to have him flown there for further treatment, insisting that there is a slight chance that he could lead a relatively normal life if the treatment works.
  • The hospital still refuses to dismiss him. The courts still agree.
  • The parents have in the meantime managed to raise the money required to take him to the U.S., almost $2 million at the time of the boy's death.
  • The high court rules that the hospital can keep him.
  • The parents keep fighting.
  • The parents appeal to the EU.
  • The European Court refuses to hear the case.
  • Trump and Bergoglio get involved, with the former saying he is willing to fly the child to the U.S. for help and the latter that he is willing to have him flown to Rome.
  • The court case drags on.
  • The parents give up, having had the U.S. doctor fly in to the U.K. to physically examine the boy and with the doctor concluding that too much time has passed without treatment for there to be any hope. Had the treatment come earlier his chances might have been good.
  • The parents still want to take him to die.
  • The hospital refuses to do that and finally...
  • Little Charlie Gard dies in a sterile and cold hospital, surrounded by his parents.

I'll have to admit that I didn't really follow this story from the start, so some of the details and timeline might be a bit off, but I think I have captured the gist of it.

My readers can rest assured that I shall not insult their intelligence by even entertaining the idea that the state of the U.K. could at any time in these proceedings have been interested in the well-being of Charlie Gard. So we must look at why the state fought so hard to make sure that little Charlie Gard died in a hospital and was prevented from leaving the country to seek treatment elsewhere.

Beneath all the headlines, the principles that the U.K., and EU were fighting for are not that difficult to piece out. They are that the government:

  • Has an absolute right to decide who gets to live or die, depending on what they deem to be a worthy life.
  • Has supreme rights which trump parental rights - primarily the parents' rights to decide what is best for the child. This is in spite of the fact that nobody in the governent will mourn for the child, hold a wake for him, or even attend their funeral - that is, assuming they are generous enough to release the body from the hospital for burial.
  • Decides when you die.
  • Decides where  you die.

I'll simply point out that the reason for keeping him a prisoner instead of releasing him abroad for treatment was because the hospital decided that his life, even if the treatment had worked, would not have been worth living. In other words, if the government determines that your quality of life is low enough, it can keep you locked up in a hospital, preventing  you from seeking treatment from a doctor of your choice anywhere else, and depriving you of any life support.

How is this any different than the most despotic and evil regimes frequently brought up in these conversations? Is it not always the case that the principal at stake for these regimes, and what made their evil snowball, was the very idea that the government assumed the power to decide which lives were worthy of not killing and which ones could be disposed of?

If this doesn't sum up the culture of death, it's hard to think what does. The most startling thing is that the very premise that the government decides what is a life worth living based on its subjective quality measure was not even challenged, as far as I could tell. It has become so ingrained in us that the governnment has absolute power of all within its borders that nobody even notices when a fundamental right is at stake.

I mean, it's so obvious that the government was morally wrong that even Bergoglio intervened on the side of Charlie Gard! In other words, he must have seen it as a very safe space for grandstanding, this being the man who tells us not to obsess with the killing of the unborn, after all.

This is what 3 generations of legal killing of the unborn has led to. We have a society in which children can be killed in plain sight with nobody batting an eyelid. Yes, I know he died naturally, but in preventing him from seeking medical aid which could have saved his life, the government in effect murdered him.

The only other issue of any note is Donald Trump re-introducing the ban on transexuals in the military. What is common sense in every non-Western countries, and what would have been common sense in any country bar none just...

Pages

Subscribe to transgenderism