The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Can a Pope Change Moral Truth?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

That joking retort we heard as children, “Is the pope Catholic?” is starting to look like a serious question.

Asked five years ago about a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, Pope Francis responded, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?”

As judgment was thought to be part of the papal job description, traditional Catholics were startled at what the new pope had volunteered.

Now the Holy Father has apparently fleshed out what he meant.

According to a childhood victim of a pedophile priest in Chile, Juan Carlos Cruz, a homosexual to whom the pope apologized, Francis said: “God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care. The pope does love you like this. You have to be happy with who you are.”

The Vatican has not denied what Cruz relates.

What makes this remarkable is that the catechism of the Catholic Church, based on the Old and New Testament and tradition, has always taught that homosexuality is a moral disorder, a proclivity toward sexual relations that are unnatural and immoral.

The idea that God is responsible for homosexual orientations, that the pope and the Catholic Church are fine with men being attracted to one another, and that those so oriented should be happy with it, appears, on its face, to be heresy.

It implies that what Catholics regarded for centuries as moral truth was wrong, or that moral truth has evolved and must be made to conform to modernity. This is moral relativism: Truth changes with the times.

And if what Cruz reports is accurate, the pope’s position is close to Hillary Clinton’s.

In 2016, at a New York fundraiser, Clinton recited her infamous litany of sins common to the “basket of deplorables” backing Donald Trump.

Said Hillary, they are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”

A phobia is “an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.” Clinton was thus saying that those who have an aversion to homosexuality are morally or mentally sick.

Yet, up until December 1973, homosexuality itself was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association.

The new morality we hear from the pope and Hillary reflects a historic change in the moral thinking of the West. For the belief that homosexuality is normal and natural, and not only acceptable but even praiseworthy, has carried the day.

Legislatures and courts have written this “truth” into law. It has been discovered by the Supreme Court to be lurking in that Constitution whose authors regarded and treated homosexuality as a grave crime.

And, yet, from this historic change, questions naturally arise:

On the issue of homosexuality, have we ascended to a higher moral plateau? Or has America jettisoned the truths we believed and replaced them with the tenets of an ideology that may be politically and culturally ascendant but is rooted in nothing but baseless assertions and lies?

Consider the views of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, lately removed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as to what is behind the drive to have “homophobia” regarded as a mental disorder.

“Homophobia (is) an invention and an instrument of the totalitarian dominance over the thoughts of others. The homo-movement is lacking scientific arguments, which is why it created an ideology which wants to dominate by creating its own reality.”


In short, cultural Marxists and their progressive allies have taken an ideological assertion — homosexuality is normal, natural and moral — without any historical, biological or scientific basis, and asserted it as truth, established it as law, and demanded that we accept and act upon this truth, or face the wrath of the regime.

Said Muller: “It is the Marxist pattern according to which reality does not create thinking, but thinking creates its own reality. He who does not accept this created reality is to be considered as being sick.

“It is as if one could influence an illness with the help of the police or with the help of courts. In the Soviet Union, Christians were put into psychiatric clinics. These are the methods of totalitarian regimes, of National Socialism and of Communism.”

As Russell Kirk wrote, ideology is political religion. And the dogmas of the political religion by which we are increasingly ruled have displaced the teachings of Christianity and tradition.

Since the Stonewall Riot of 1969, homosexual relationships have gone from being seen as indecent and immoral, to being tolerated, to being accepted, to being on the same plane as traditional marriage, to being a constitutional right.

And if you do not accept the new morality, you are a deplorable bigot. And if you act on your disbelief in the equality of homosexuality, you will be ostracized and punished.

The truths being jettisoned built the greatest civilization known to man. Will the invented truths of our new egalitarianism survive the arrival of the new barbarians? It’s not looking all that good right now.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018

Hide 165 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[679] • Disclaimer says:

    Look, just asserting that homosexuality is immoral, without providing supporting reasoning and evidence, is not very convincing. (The fact that people have previously considered homosexuality immoral is not an argument either, though it is a potentially convincing way to frame an argument.) You need to make an argument, as Andrew Joyce did at, with actual empirical evidence for why homosexuality is bad, in terms of sexually transmitted diseases, pederasty, the importance of the nuclear family, or whatever your hobby-horse might be, in order to convince people.

    Otherwise, it just sounds like you’re saying “it’s immoral to prefer Pepsi to Coca-Cola”, which most young people do not find persuasive.

    • Replies: @nickels
    , @jim jones
  2. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:

    I had a chance to vote for or against same sex “marriage” and voted against simply on two grounds
    1. It was legally unnecessary so…
    2. It just being a matter of (other) people’s feelings there would be more people with traditonal views of marriage as a sacrament upset than disappointed gays… To which I might have added that the former would be the ones bringing up our future citizens. Nonetheless….

    Isn’t it a sign of the Catholic Church’s pathetic irrelevance that, increasingly over the last 50 years it has been confined to fighting a losing battle on trivial sex related matters? (OK denying some women abortions isn’t trivial and nor is denying Africans condoms but you see my point about the Church’s shrunken realm).

    I blame God. Why didn’t he make himself clear about abortion and homosexuality by giving up a bit of the space preserved for recording Moses’s and Joshua’s lessons for Pol Pot and Hitler? Actually it is the irrational belief in a deity that cares what we do or how we fare – and that we should obey – that is bizarrely stupid at base. And Pat Buchanan uses his brain to defend that nonsense.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  3. Catechism accepts gays. Catechism denounces discrimination against gays.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    The Pope—who has openly “accepted” gays and denounces “discrimination” against gays—is still Catholic.

    Pat, you might want to read over that catechism again. And don’t just cherry-pick the good parts. The Catholic Church never has been the moral force for good that you imagined it was. Now it’s just more obvious.

  4. Great article but ‘the greatest civilization known to man’ is a cultural bridge too far. Fernand Braudel suggests imagining “the impact on European civilization of a series of Imperial dynasties maintaining the self-same style and significance from Caesar Augustus until the First World War. Now imagine such a civilization existing on the other side of the planet unaware of Greek philosophy, the alphabet, Roman governance, Christianity, feudalism, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment or democracy, but with its own, unique cultural and institutional correlates that exceeded all of them in intellectual subtlety and material success”.

    That would be China.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  5. Now the Altar Boy’s starting to sweat,
    Clutching tightly his rosary wet.
    Keep your mind on your beads
    As the Lawgiver bleeds:
    Your idol’s not toppled – not yet.

  6. KenH says:

    Said Hillary, they are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”

    And Hildabeast and the flock she was preaching to are Anglophobic, misandric, and xenophilic since it harms the historic white majority. Yet their bigotry is righteous and divine.

    Obama said flyover whites “cling to their guns and religion”, a sentiment undoubtedly shared by Madam loser, so they and the left are Christianophobic. Not only do Muslims cling to their guns and religion more than Christians but also cling to their trucks, IED’s and knives.

  7. m___ says:

    Candidates for a moral relativity contest: democracy, financial capitalism, theoretical economics, creationism, nation states, the concept of a reserve currency, a long list of cranky verbalisms, should all be open for revision from their layered meaning in a conceptual realm, knotted together, serving as real.

    Ignoring a large part of the physical context of the planet, predictions of future outcomes, all suffer the joke of myopy, voluntary confusion, omission. As compared to present knowledge, the concepts with which to construct arguments lag behind.

    A good thing probably allowing to junk, Pope and President alike would be too much to ask for.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  8. “Is he Catholic?”, we joked ’bout the Pope.
    But this new guy, it’s “Is he on dope!?.
    ‘Tween inviting the schlomos,
    and a penchant for homos,
    we’re gonna need soap-on-a-rope.

    It’s ON! Me, not Mr. Tilley, the one they call Desanex, and the “Limerick King”. Bring it!

  9. 76239 says:

    The Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years. It will survive this pope.

    Go pound sand anti catholics!

  10. @Godfree Roberts

    Dude, I know about China. You are the guy that thinks Chairman Mao was the cat’s Meow, so I’ll take my one-paragraph history lesson from someone other than an avowed Commie, than you very much.

    A civilization that has stayed unified and of the same people for 5 millenium is something to behold, no doubt. However, if in 5,000 years, China did not improve itself to the level America did in 3 centuries, that’s nothing to be proud of. That the original Americans indeed built the greatest civilization ever known to man by the 1950’s out of the 100’s of millions of acres of dense woods and windswept prairie that existed in 1650 beats all hell out of anyone, especially including China.

    The Chinese written language is just flat-out a stupid way to read and write, as I’ve said before with no offense intended.

    And just WTF is an “institutional correlate”?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  11. @76239

    Anti-“Pope” Francis ≠ anti-Catholic, it’s more like anti-Commie.

    I am sort of ambivalent, as I’m not Catholic, but I’d say

    Anti-“Pope” Francis = pro-Catholic. You may be right the Catholic Church will survive.

    … probably the only changes will be that it’ll be run by Imans and Mullahs instead of Bishops and Cardinals …they may take the crosses off the church roofs .. oh, and re-name the organization … maybe behead a few of the parishioners that were old-school hold-outs … just a simple re-org and housekeeping chores, but …

    … yeah, it’ll survive.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  12. @m___

    I tried google-translate and babblefish, Mr. M__. I’m gettin’ nuthing.

    You’re coming in weak and unreadable.

    • Replies: @m___
  13. CBH says:

    The worst of it is this man’s homosexuality in all likelihood was caused by the molesting priest, and yet the Pope ignores this etiology and puts the causation on God!

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  14. m___ says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    We’ll try harder next time around. A-n-d have a serious talk with the goooogle customer desk. Thanks for your kindness in pointing to the bug.

  15. Truth with a capital T, by definition does not change. Perhaps the catechism of the Catholic Church is imperfect. Alternatively, perhaps the Pope is not Catholic.

    I have to wonder. Is the Pope saying God makes gay people? Or is he saying God makes people gay?

    I am not Catholic. So its none of my business. But I would like to hear the Pope expand upon the remarks attributed to him.

    • Replies: @Anon
  16. @Echoes of History

    Wow! Somebody who has actually read the Catechism. Thanks Echoes.

  17. nickels says:

    I suggest you start with the reality of the plumbing.
    It only gets worse from there, but that is enough.

  18. For what it’s worth a wildly disproportionate share of Catholic priests, cardinals, etc. have been/are homosexual- Anywhere from 15% all the way to over half, and keep in mind maybe 3-5% of males are gay. ( So if you’ll pardon the pun here, but the Pope’s just sort of preaching to the choir on this one. Any insider without their head firmly in the sand knows it’s a bit of an open secret that like Broadway much of the Catholic hierarchry is shall we say, “light in their loafers.” As a non-Catholic it’s far be it from me to tell them how to run things, but they would seem at least a little less hypocrital on homosexuality if the RC church allowed hetero-married men to become priests and the end result would be a rate of gayness more reflective of the general population. (if there’s a link between priestly celibacy and homosexuality as I believe there is)

    In fact New York’s Cardinal Spellman (dubbed by some as “America’s pope”) was a “very active” homosexual according to multiple reliable sources( He died right on the cusp (1967) of the religious, social and politcal liberalizations that were occuring in the wake of Vatican II and had been very much a staunch defender of old-school pre-Vatican Catholism (supporing the Latin mass, very anti-Communist) that peo like Buchanan seem to adore. So even if you go back to the “old days” of pre-Vatican II Cathlicism I guarantee that you’d find quite a bit of homosexuality (both of the active and celibate varieties) lurking not-so-far beneath the supposedly upright, squeeky clean surface of the Catholic church.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Anon
    , @RadicalCenter
  19. You do realize that acknowledging a statistical anomaly and speculation is not the same thing as accepting it as morally acceptable.

    The catechism says no such thing.

    And while the church has made errors, it certainly has been a moral force for good. In fact, what see happening as the church is engaged in some self doubt is that morality is losing its force.

  20. @Echoes of History

    Sigh . . .

    it does not allow for same sex relational behavior. In other words, if I decide to become a priest ny relational desires must be withheld from expression in service to christ. In the same way, someone whose desires are disordered, toward a member of the same sex cannot indulge said desires.

    Acceptance does not equate to condoning said expression. This passion you have for reconstruction context incorrectly is interesting.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  21. TheJester says:

    I’ve heard over the years that the problem with homosexuality in the Catholic Church started with the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. It was like the Catholic Church had been taken over by religious “hippies” … everything was up for grabs, including altar boys it seems.

    Young men who previously would not have been considered viable candidates for the priesthood were admitted by the thousands. Some seminaries became dens of iniquity, especially those associated with the Jesuits … or so I’ve been told. Indeed, I’ve read comments by seminarians who left that they were shocked to learn that their seminaries had a “gay culture” and that the common wisdom among the gay seminarians was “no harm … no wrong”; that is, men can’t get pregnant, so what’s the issue?

    I grew up in the Catholic Church. I spent two years in a Catholic orphanage run by nuns and two years at a boarding school run by Benedictine priests and brothers. I was a permanent fixture as an altar boy in numerous parishes in between. I never once saw an instance or a suggested instance of homosexual abuse … and I was vulnerable and available. A few of the priests I ran into eventually had issues with their commitment to a lifetime of chastity. They left the priesthood to marry. However, never a suggestion of homosexuality.

    That is clearly not the case since the 1960s. So, blame it on Vatican II and the Jesuits. What was the College of Cardinals doing electing the Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope … who turned into the Barack Obama of the Catholic Church? In their history, Jesuits have often as a community found themselves balancing on the threshold of heresy. Pope Francis finally took them over the edge.

    Prediction: There will be a schism in the Catholic Church … just as there have been schisms in the Anglican and Lutheran Churches over the issue of gays, abortion, euthanasia, etc., as the New Age Catholics duke it out with conservatives not willing to give into the political correctness and moral relativism of the age.

    The key issue is whether Pope Francis is a Catholic. I do not sense that he is. He is a classical moral and theological relativist who will give ground to individual self-indulgence and the sacralization of individual choice … the Golden Calves of our age … until, some 500 years later, the descendants of Sultan Mehmed II, with Pope Francis’ help, may finally realize their dream of turning the Vatican into a mosque.

    The guy has got to go!

  22. anon[364] • Disclaimer says:

    Ancient Romans thought that Christianity is immoral unnatural abomination and treated it accordingly. Were they right? What exactly is natural about turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, giving all you have to the poor?

  23. @Anon

    Why didn’t he make himself clear about abortion and homosexuality

  24. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:

    Yeah, G-d couldn’t even be bothered to fix a few little copying errors or provide the word to literate Sanskrit and Chinese speakers….

    Anyway, stop reading that stuff or you’ll go blind.

  25. schrub says:

    Pope Francis isn’t a Catholic. He is a Peronist, a very different thing.

    He was and is a devoted follower of this particularly secular and demagogic political /social philosophy which has s wreaked virtually non stop political and financial havoc on the previously prosperous country of Argentina for about seventy years now.

    What were his fellow cardinals thinking when they voted to make him pope. Were they simply ignorant about his political background?

    Or was his appointment simply a form of affirmative action (i.e. “geographical diversity”)?

  26. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Lucas McCrudy

    if there’s a link between priestly celibacy and homosexuality as I believe there is

    The Anglican Church doesn’t have priestly celibacy and they’re just as riddled with homos as the Catholic Church. So priestly celibacy is not the problem.

    The problem is weakness. The Catholics, the Anglicans and most mainstream Protestants abandoned any genuine belief in religion a century ago. They replaced it with a cult of niceness and hugs. Not surprisingly it wasn’t long before heterosexual men started to leave in droves. Heterosexual men require a bit more from a religion than warm fuzzy feelings.

    Why did the Churches embrace niceness? Perhaps they felt that they’d lost the battle against science and that religion was no longer something to be taken seriously. Or perhaps they hoped to compete with the socialists, promising the same heaven on earth.

    • Replies: @Mishra
    , @Anon
  27. dfordoom says: • Website

    A few of the priests I ran into eventually had issues with their commitment to a lifetime of chastity. They left the priesthood to marry. However, never a suggestion of homosexuality.

    That is clearly not the case since the 1960s.

    It’s worth keeping in mind that a very large proportion, possibly a majority, of the accusations of sexual abuse levelled at priests are false and inspired by malice or by hope of monetary gain. Or the accusations are made by mentally ill people who are being exploited by the rabidly anti-Catholic media.

    Over the past half century there has been a savage and concerted campaign to destroy the Catholic Church, a campaign waged by the media, academics, Hollywood, feminists and globalists.

    The trouble is that most conservatives are so stupid and so cucked that they believe all these accusations. And many Catholics are so stupid and so cucked that they believe these accusations.

  28. Mishra says:

    Ancient Romans thought that Christianity is immoral unnatural abomination and treated it accordingly. Were they right? What exactly is natural about turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, giving all you have to the poor?

    Two points: One, as much as I admire the tenets of Christianity, it does seem to make your country ripe for the pickings when Old Testament types assume positions of power and Two, the Romans changed their minds about Christianity, and even I don’t think Old Testament types shoulder the blame for what happened thereafter.

  29. Mishra says:

    The Anglican Church doesn’t have priestly celibacy and they’re just as riddled with homos as the Catholic Church. So priestly celibacy is not the problem.

    Do we know this to be a fact? I was seldom hit on by Anglican clergy when I was a young man, but Catholic priests were (and are) a menace always and everywhere. I learned to stay well clear of Catholic churches. Too much hassle.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  30. @Achmed E. Newman

    That “5000 years” needs a bit of explaining even if plenty of Chinese parrot it. My understanding is that it wasn’t until the recovery under the Han from the megalomaniac disasters of the First Emperor and his son (when it should be recalled, at the end of the 3rd century BC, there was a book and script destruction worthy of Hitler) that the Chinese began to develop a civilisation which during the European Dark Ages surpassed that of the heirs of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia and Greece. Godfree Roberts might like to tell us for how many centuries Chinese civilisation was No.1. Would 450 AD to 1450 be about right if one doesn’t pay too much attention to the Mongols?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  31. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:

    I think you misrepresent the connection he was making between clerical celibacy and homosexuality. It is surely pretty obvious that a celibate male clergy offers, like the Arts, attractive havens for homosexuals. And, given the number of Anglican clergy who marry and the absence of early seclusion in all male seminaries, it is really unlikely that the proportion of gay Anglican clergy is as high as the Catholic.

  32. @EliteCommInc.

    Acceptance does not equate to condoning? You’re lying; they’re synonymous terms.



    And nothing was taken out of context; I quoted the whole passage of the Catechism. You’re again lying to me.

    But worse, you’re lying to yourself. Christians have to lie to themselves as a defense mechanism against acknowledging the degeneracy found within the Catholic church, which is founded on the degeneracy found within in the Jew Testament, e.g., St. Paul was a peter-puffer, acting as a filthy mohel on a sexually mature young traveling companion, according to Acts 16:3.

    P.S. Ever wonder why priests attend a semen-ary?

  33. @anon

    It’s true that Romans thought that Christianity is immoral unnatural abomination and treated it accordingly, and the reasons why degenerate Christianity was persecuted are documented in this book:

    Sex Rites, the Origins of Christianity: The Ritual Use of Sex, Drugs, and Human Sacrifice

  34. First, the understanding among believers is very simple. Accepting the person with all of their faults without condoning the same. That can be very very tough. I won’t attempt to paint any rosy images of how that occurs. A husband accepting his wife despite an affair — granted that’s very tough.

    A brother accepting his sibling in spite of having murdered someone —

    A woman accepting a man that has violated her —

    But accepting another does not require condoning the behavior, l’est all of us would have experienced being tossed from our parents home.

    Anyone who’s had a friend at one time or another experienced being wronged — but the friendship remained.

    Second, the fact that you cited the Catechism does not mean you comprehend it’s meaning and application. In that I stand where I came in, you are long on interpretation, but woefully inaccurate in the same.

    In short, no clergy can engage in intimate relations — regardless of whom they choose to be attracted to. That is standard for all ordained clergy and nuns. And as such their unique personal issues regarding intimate desires all reside in the same place – and therefore they are to embrace one another in the same calling to bring christ to a fallen world.

    There’s no lying involved here.

    Acts 16:3 — context

    The reason for the circumcision is purely political so as to avoid another intense debate, and reduce the tension by raking away suspicions — it was not required, for faith, nor was it in any manner relational intimacy issue. All I can say is timothy is a better man than I. Because I would told Paul to take a hike. However, Timothy chose to tag along with Paul and Silas, despite the price. There is no evidence that they ever had anything other than a platonic relationship in delivering messages from the Apostles among the churches.

    Again I encourage you to take these issues up with Hod and have it out with him.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  35. @dfordoom

    In taking all of the accusations false or not against the the clergy, it less than 3% and I think I am being generous.

    I think you are accurate that there has been a concerted effort to diminish or destroy the influence of the Catholic faith —

  36. @Echoes of History

    “Again I encourage you to take these issues up with God and have it out with him.”

    Semantic gymnastics with context won’t get you out of your dilemma. I took some time to examine the meanings of the terms in context, including the latin — and I would encourage you to more prudent with the word usage. Yu are plowing through nuance as though it does not exist.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  37. God loves me, but I doubt he loves my horrible temper. I wouldn’t get a pass on slugging people who annoy me, and my friend who loves designer brands wouldn’t get a pass on stealing from high-end stores or letting her family bear the brunt of credit-card debt. Why is Lust entitled to a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, when Anger or Avarice are not? Don’t all Mortal Sins originate in Pride–the idea that the rules are for other people?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  38. @CBH

    You noticed that too.

    • Replies: @CBH
  39. @76239

    Napoleon threatened a Cardinal with destruction of the Church. The Cardinal replied, “If in 1,800 years our own priests have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you’ll be able to do it?”

  40. @EliteCommInc.

    Semantic gymnastics with context won’t get you out of your dilemma.

    Oh, the irony.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  41. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lucas McCrudy

    15-50%?!? Across time and all over the world, I guess. Sheer prejudice. The “data” you cited is anti-church propaganda. Who actually did the polling? Who would answer the question? In which country? The US is not the same as Argentina or Syria.

    A Catholic priest should be celibate, whatever his sexual inclinations. In a culture where homosexuality is regarded as aberrant, priestly celibacy could be fairly regarded by a “homosexual” as a way to transcend his tendencies. But that was never the point of becoming a priest. Priesthood is a vocation, a calling to act in persona Christi, to teach the truths of the faith and allow a sacramental life. To reflect in this life the human Face of God. It is a life of temperance and sacrifice and joy. It takes quite a man to live it, and I have had the honor to know several.

    That there are “homosexual” –actual men who define themselves by their sexual conduct– in the Church is an unfortunate fact, due to deliberate infiltration and moving the seminaries to questionable urban settings. The US has had a particular problem, perhaps there is a link between being American and being gay, as I suspect.

    From Wiki’s biased write up of the John Jay report, which includes abuse reports from 1950-2002, both with young women and young men, more reasonable numbers emerge:
    “The report determined that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to identify 6,700 unique accusations against 4,392 clergy over that period in the USA, which is about 4% of all 109,694 ordained clergy i.e. priests or deacons or members of religious orders, active in the USA during the time covered by the study.[2] Roughly 4% of them were accused. However, of these 4392 accused, only 252 (5.7% of those accused or less than 0.1% of total clergy) were convicted. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[3]

  42. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:

    You will not hear him expand. Vague public comments are his way of acting. I couldn’t imagine anything more effective. The Catechism is quite clear on homosexuality, a sin.

    Buchanan is hoping for a Muller papacy. May God grant him his wish.

    The Catholic Church has been a force for good during 2000 years. Only through its correct understanding of man’s nature and purpose can a better, fairer society be built. Compare and contrast Christendom, the still partly beautiful ‘West’, to any other civilization.

  43. @Echoes of History

    Context matters, The frame into which words are encompassed matters.

    You note a term and apply a meaning because in your view, it’s in a lexicon. But clearly, the possible meanings only have relevance to material if they in context the align with the possible meanings in the same.

    For example, a reference in made to Paul, Silas and Timothy doing on a mission trip together. You contend that there is some intimate sexual dynamic occurring — but nothing in the text suggests anything the sort, even when examining the previous and post commentary. You decide that the reference to “circumcision” is confirmation when clearly, its socio-political and not in any manner related to intimate relations.

    That’s why I included the cited source which provided several meanings of the term in context, in sentences form for each potential meaning — context.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  44. @Wizard of Oz

    Even if it were just these 1000 years, not 5000 per your comment that I have no argument with, the Chinese still did much less over those 1000 than Americans did in 300.

    Also, yes, the Chinese had civil wars that killed more men than Americans that were killed in a all US wars combined that most of us have never even heard of!

    Godfree has absolutely NO idea about history. He thinks China became modernized solely through their own efforts, and has no knowledge of America apparently before 2005 or so.

  45. @EliteCommInc.

    I suspect a lot of people wanted to tell Paul to take a hike, beginning with Ananias who baptized him and continuing with all the Apostles who had accompanied Jesus throughout his earthly career. Notice Claudius Lysias couldn’t wait to dump him on Governor Felix.

    Thus does God find uses even for pompous prats.

  46. @Rosamond Vincy

    My comment is in reference to Paul’s press for Timothy to get a circumcision. If he had asked me that question or said in order to go — you must get circumcised — yikes and yikes —

    “Uhhh no thanks Paul, maybe the next trip or I will catch up with Barnabas. Jews or no jews, I can barely handle stubbing my toe — circumcision is out.”

    I agree with your view on animosity against Paul — spot on.

  47. CBH says:
    @Rosamond Vincy

    Yes, actually annoyed that more people haven’t. Thanks for being different.

  48. @Anon

    I have that number at about 3% of the clergy for the entire clergy , but 4% in the US, is something I wouldn’t dispute, though it’s generous in my view. Then when including all clergy priests bishops, cardinals, nuns against the active Catholic membership those numbers fall even further.

    The concluding stat is on the money. The process by which the reporters in Boston arrived at their massive scandal was careless and very sloppy research based on a lot of assumption and the mere accusation as proof.

  49. @Lucas McCrudy

    Right on. One of the reasons we left the Catholic Church.

    Beyond merely allowing normal married men with a wife and children to become priests, they should express a strong preference for such men as priests, maybe even require it.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  50. @EliteCommInc.

    Context does indeed matter.

    They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. -The Catechism [source: The Vatican]

    Do you accept gays with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, or not? Do you avoid every sign of unjust discrimination against gays, or not?

    A simple yes or no will suffice for clarity.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Anon
  51. @TheJester

    Wholeheartedly agreed.

    But I’d guess that the whole sick crew of archbishops, bishops, and cardinals need to be thrown out en masse, not just the pope. Don’t trust them again and disqualify them from ever serving in any position in the church.

    And start rooting out the sodomite culture in the seminaries. Such people need compassion and counseling, not influence over the flock and prestige as clergy in the eyes of our children.

    Moreover, by the time that open schism in the RC Church happens, many of us cradle Catholics will no longer be there. My father left the RCC in his late years before he died, and my mother has left it too. My wife and I left just recently, and recent pronouncements and advocacy by Jorge Bergoglio shows that we were right in our decision.

    Among many other things, I’m talking about Jorge and the NCCB et al. doing everything they possibly can to get people into my country legally and illegally, get them signed up for benefits at our expense, and help them do it all without ever learning much of our language — then deride and lecture those of us who don’t think Christianity or decency requires us to give up the land, liberty, safety, culture, resources, and opportunities of our children for people who are indifferent-to-hostile and often not so industrious or appreciative. (Yes, in California non-citizens can get nearly a full range of taxpayer-funded benefits and subsidies.)

    We were tired of seeing the tents in the church parking lot urging illegal aliens to avoid deportation, urging foreigners to rally to preserve chain migration (“family reunification”), apply for asylum, and urging anyone regardless of citizenship to apply for food stamps, apply for Head Start, etc.

    Now we have a pastor with a wife and children who can relate to us, who can give credible advice from his own experience as well as the Bible and other writings, and who actually loves America and Americans. Someone whom we can respect and interact with normally.

    We were tired of the ill-mannered, dysfunctional local RC priests. One priest in LA from Ireland who is constantly hectoring us on the unique evils of America, the wonders of the European system and even to the point of communism. But at least he was rude and couldn’t have a civil conversation with parishioners.

    Another priest in LA whose parish we attended twice and then gave up on because he literally couldn’t be bothered to respond to friendly conversation after Mass, when he had no pressing business to attend to and was just standing around with no big crowd.

    Another priest, in Colorado, who was sarcastic and quick to anger (yet slow to return phone calls or emails when we were preparing for our marriage). Over 400 pounds and generally a nasty, arrogant bastard.

    The deacon, from the same parish in Colorado, who was unmarried in his 50s, sterotypically homosexual in his mannerisms, and made vicious snarky comments about people who didn’t support Obama (e.g., “The President WILL be re-elected, if THEY don’t shoot him first”).

    To Hell with Jorge Bergoglio and the whole lot. Disproportionately faggots, wise asses who can’t compete in the real economy or have what it takes to raise a family, bitter cloistered freaks who resent normal men and women and often dislike much of traditional Western civilization.

    But hey, at least they still lie and cover up child molestation and push for the Islamization and Africanization of Europe. Let’s just keep waiting and they’ll reform any century now.

    • Replies: @TheJester
  52. @anon

    Of course letting enemies harm us or our families, friends, or countrymen is morally perverse and wrong. Literally suicidal, depending on who those enemies are and what their own philosophy is.

    Christians and good Christian-sympathizing people never have followed “turn the other cheek” en masse for a prolonged period, and thank God most of us never will. We wouldn’t be here today.

    We just had a sermon about that very passage, and the pastor went into some impressive contortions trying to qualify and/or explain away the seemingly absurd and suicidal injunction. Of all the beautiful and often practical rules and guidance in the Bible, that one makes no more sense than when Jesus uttered it.

    “Turn the other cheek” can work only within a society where we know that the other person (the one doing the offending or harm) will never do something terrible to us like murder, rape, torture, assault, subjugation, merely much lesser slights and harms.

    I admire Jesus enormously for his willingness to endure agony and death to make his point to the world and not submit to evil, corrupt, oppressive authority. But the rest of us should never willingly die without a fight. And no book that calls for us to do so should be heeded on that score, no matter how much it makes sense on other vital issues in life.

  53. anonymous[263] • Disclaimer says:

    moral… truth…

    There is nothing “moral” about the actions of the collective western Christians, and their bastard cousins, the Jews. Whatever they have achieved, and the inevitable evil they have become is a result of satanic levels of greed and psychopathy, under the facade of “superior” culture. Western Christian\Jew “mischief” is unrelenting. You degenerates simply never tire. 😀

    The word “truth” used in the context of Christianity is also ludicrous. It is a faith built purely on hearsay and copious quantities of deceit. Every attempt at tweaking your pagan faith, such as what the pope-guy is attempting here, is clear evidence of what I mean.

    built the greatest civilization known to man.

    LOL! *spit*

    So, you degenerates have accomplished a “few” things, again, as a result of satanic levels of greed and psychopathy… but, on the other hand, there is nothing “great” about a civilisation of pagan polytheist human worshipping spiritual losers, whose claim to glory on God’s earth would have come and gone in a blink in cosmic time… with the remaining period of that time spent in ignominy and hellish torment.

    Only the spiritual braindead exult in such fleeting “glory.”

  54. @dfordoom

    Even if many of the allegations are false and made for financial gain, many of them are not false.

    It’s naïve and foolish to automatically believe all the allegations, or to reflexively disbelieve all of them in light of the evidence.

    The top of the church is manifestly evil. Stop supporting them. There are so many good-hearted, sensible people in the pews of the RC churches — and some among the clergy, too, one of whom is a friend of ours — so there is a solid basis for a new church to rise from its ashes. But the first step is to stop being a schmuck and placing your trust in a group of perverts, liars, and misfits like the catholic hierarchy and modern priesthood.

    (Wouldn’t be wise to trust many other religious bodies and leaders, either, but you weren’t defending those crooks, just your own denomination’s numerous traitors and sodomites.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  55. @Mishra

    Interesting. It sounds like both an Anglican clergyman and a Catholic priest or deacon hit on you when you were a young man? If so, terrible.

  56. @Anon

    And we know of many complaints that were covered up and led to no investigation by the church or law enforcement, for decades. But yes, let’s trust the church’s figures.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Anon
  57. @Rosamond Vincy

    Pompous Prat is a cleverly cutsie term that tries to obfuscate immoral behavior, of which Paul displayed plenty, including peterpuffing. And lying.

    “For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?” – St. Paul, Romans 3:7

    Does your Jewish deity find uses even for damned liars? It would appear so, since Paul’s Jewish deity is purported to have blessed the deceit of Jacob the Deceiver.

    Lying. Out in the open. And supposedly blessed with glory. It’s no wonder theologians are finally coming to this conclusion:

    “There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good.” -Dr. Bart Ehrman, author of Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  58. @Anon

    I said 15-50% of priests are likely gay, NOT that 15-50% have been accused of sex abuse of minors. I included the Wikipedia address for an article which links to others sources for the 15-50% figure.

    You devoted your entire 2nd paragraph to the sex abuse scandal which I didn’t even mention in my original post- I fully realize that the % of priests accused of sexual abuse of minors is extremely small- but then again, my posting wasn’t even about that- it was about the fact that a disproportionate % of RC priests, relative to the general male population, are simply gay in their orientation-

    Since you seem like a devout RC, I’m sure you’ve heard of EWTN network- my mother and I used to get a kick out of watching some of the priests on their doing their shtick because they were as she put it- queerer than a $3 bill- father Shaughnessy and this other one who used to blather on about St. Terese of Liseux were so gay only a deluded religious fanatic living in total la-la land would be so deluded as not to sense it/

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @nickels
  59. @Echoes of History

    I am going to reject any attempt to wrestle with false dichotomies.

    I have been friends with and taught those engaged in this behavior. I have supped, laughed and commiserated with them as well. What I cannot do and will not do is condone or support such behavior.

    I have to reject said behavior as out of line with Christ and can in no manner claim it is embraced by him.

  60. @Lucas McCrudy

    So in the end,

    you don’t know what the methodology was and you have no idea how those numbers for the number of supposed same sex practitioners were arrive at.

    But and you have the ability to soothsay who is a said practitioner by watching catholics on EWTN.

    • Replies: @Anon
  61. @Echoes of History

    That verse is followed by this one:

    8 And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.

    Obviously, he is bringing up the counterargument only to refute it.

    Paul is against circumcision of most pagan converts, along with rejecting dietary laws for them. He even balks at banning strangled meats and other pagan customs, which other Apostles thought sufficient. The circumcision of Timothy was to help his credibility with a Jewish audience, since they knew he had a Jewish mother but pagan father. Titus was pagan on both sides, so Paul argued against circumcising him. The issue was what would make listeners most receptive to the Gospel.

    Paul doesn’t come across as terribly likable, and I find the thinking in his correspondence hard to follow, compared to, say, James’s or Peter’s, but I think that is God’s point. Peter denied, Thomas doubted, all of them except John bailed when they were needed after spending most of His earthly ministry squabbling over precedence. You might suppose God didn’t pick His followers very carefully, but I think He picked them very carefully indeed. No one can say he’s too much of a loser to follow Christ.

  62. nickels says:
    @Lucas McCrudy

    I said 15-50% of priests are likely gay

    In reality, statements of this nature are nonsensical, which is, in fact, the point if the article.
    There is no such thing as ‘being gay’-there is only the act of sodomy. Perhaps the habitual state of being a sodomite could be called ‘being gay’, but never some proclivity for this type of sin. As long as a priest resists the temptations of evil, and does not become a sodomite, he is not ‘gay’.

  63. @RadicalCenter

    It has occurred. But those numbers are very low. It has been quite the hat trick for people to use what is a issue of privacy protecting all involved, especially the accuser into accusations of cover-up.

    All faiths linked to scripture wrestle with the admonition of addressing issues among themselves as opposed to the practice of lawyers as encouraged in scripture.

    But that is hardly the same as covering up the matter.

  64. anonymous[359] • Disclaimer says:

    Who will support the married priests and their offspring?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  65. anonymous[359] • Disclaimer says:

    Pat Buchanan was lucky to have been born an intelligent man of the West. He is well-educated, well-traveled, has known many famous and infamous people in his life. Yet, for all this, as he approaches his 80th birthday, with this article he once again reveals himself for the cowardly, gullible, evil cuck he is. His scribblings are wish-washy blatherings. One would think that someone like Buchanan could see that this will be the new policy of the Roman Catholic Church. He cannot deal with the fact that the RCC has been taken over by homosexual priests. This doesn’t mean the end of Christianity, just the end of the RCC. When Buchanan gave his infamous speech at the 1992 GOP convention, did he follow it up with any concrete action over the years? No. He started his Reform Party to run for the 1992 presidency, but chose a black woman as his vice-presidential running mate. Unbelievable. He has an idea about IQ and its relation to race, but if it conflicts with his religious beliefs, he will avoid dealing with these facts. As he draws nearer to his end, he will go along with whatever the RCC does. He wants those Last Rites no matter what. He should not bother wondering about what the RCC will do. He ran away from dealing with the truth many years ago.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  66. On this issue of this behavior, the word that settles it is based on Christ and then the apostles. The pope comes in a distant third . Whenever the pope or anyone else decides to contradict Christ and the apostles, I will have to disagree.

    How nice, intelligent, good nature or powerful the person matters not, if they engage in this kind of behavior , it is out of line with Christ.

    If they attempt to claim christ condones it — they are completely and totally engaged in heresy, based on what we know of scripture.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  67. @nickels

    If the word “gay” is used synonymously with “homosexual” and we are referring to a person’s orientation and not necessarily their sexual activity (if there is any) then I think we can fairly say they’re “gay.” I’m not sure what you mean by “proclivity” but the Catholic church believes that some peo are in fact innately “gay” “homosexual” -whatever- but it’s only “sin” if they engage in activity.


    adjective: homosexual
    (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
    involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex.
    “homosexual desire”
    noun: homosexual; plural noun: homosexuals
    a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex

    • Replies: @nickels
  68. dfordoom says: • Website

    Wouldn’t be wise to trust many other religious bodies and leaders, either, but you weren’t defending those crooks, just your own denomination’s numerous traitors and sodomites.

    I’m not a Catholic. I’m not even a Christian.

    I was merely pointing out that there were very powerful forces that have been actively trying to destroy the Catholic Church, and that when it’s obvious that there is a concerted propaganda campaign being waged it’s reasonably to assume that most of the accusations being used to support that propaganda are bogus. If the media lies to us about everything else why wouldn’t they lie to us about the Catholic Church?

    As for defending sodomites, I think that any religion that hopes to survive should purge itself of such degenerates. And I don’t buy into the whole “they deserve compassion and understanding” crap either. They have actively chosen evil and deserve no sympathy. Apart from feminists they are the greatest and most deadly danger that our society faces.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  69. dfordoom says: • Website

    There is no such thing as ‘being gay’-there is only the act of sodomy. Perhaps the habitual state of being a sodomite could be called ‘being gay’, but never some proclivity for this type of sin. As long as a priest resists the temptations of evil, and does not become a sodomite, he is not ‘gay’.

    Mostly I agree with that. It’s a sin and it’s disgusting and unnatural and unhealthy but you don’t have to give in to the temptation, just as you don’t have to give in to the temptation to indulge in other vicious self-destructive behaviours.

    The problem is that so many Christians think the best way to deal with the problem is by showing compassion and understanding. In fact the best way to deal with this problem is to be absolutely uncompromising. You don’t stop people from robbing banks by offering them compassion and understanding, you stop them robbing banks by letting them know that if they do rob banks they will suffer severe punishment.

    Much of the evil in our world comes from an excess of compassion and understanding.

  70. @EliteCommInc.

    You disagree with the Catechism.

    “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” -The Catechism

    Real Christians accept gays with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

    You refuse to accept gays with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

    You’re a fake Christian.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  71. nickels says:
    @Lucas McCrudy

    Well, I guess, as long as you agree that such an orientation is a result of a disordered and sinful state (sins of the mind are still sins) we have some common ground.
    But using such language as homosexual or gay to describe this state is a sign of capitulation in the culture war, in my opinion. As Christians we should never capitulate to a secular dictionary to define away perversion..
    It is merely a state of sin.

  72. nickels says:

    Good comment, I agree.
    Words matter, and our enemy using defintions to defeat us.

    Thinking about it further, even the mental desire for same sex is a sin if the mind engages it. In the eastern church this would be a state of spiritual warfare to be resisted by the Jesus prayer and other methods. Many fathers have steps to combat such attacks from demonic forces, as this surely is.

  73. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:

    What other reliable figures are there? Who made a reliable study of number of homosexual priests? Active or celibate?

    You had a bad experience with Catholic priests, and one can only wish you well.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  74. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:

    Agree. Sheer prejudice.

  75. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @Echoes of History

    Please, how silly can you get? The complete relevant paragraphs, numbered:

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, wh2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  76. @Anon

    That you and i agree is a scary thought.


  77. @Echoes of History

    I think my response was more than adequate to describe my view. Further and this is a nother point not related directly to your press.

    There are an array of believers on the planet. They are not all Catholic — Catholicism alone does not set the state on what is christian, especially if the pope is asking christians catholic or not that chist condones this form of expression.

    He is the top pastor, so to speak of the catholic congregation, not all christians.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  78. @dfordoom

    Compassion and understanding can never be in excess and one can be so without compromising.

  79. @Anon

    No matter how many paragraphs you quote to obscure the fact that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, it still remains that they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. For the Catechism tells me so.

    Fake Christians like you accept neither the Catechism nor homosexuals. Why keep pretending you’re a Christian? You’re not, and it’s plain to see.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  80. @EliteCommInc.

    The Vicar of Christ is faithfully following the Catechism’s teaching that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

    Furthermore, Jesus did not say upon this rock I will build my churches. You purport that Jesus established sundry flavors of churches to suit various religion consumer desires. Such a heretical view demonstrates just how fake of a fake Christian you are.

    P.S. Would it bother you to capitalize Christian, instead of being disrespectful to Christ’s name by using a lower case c? Your disdain is a tell-tale sign of being an atheist, who holdfast to the tradition that the first letter is always lower case.

  81. My goodness, but the storm-tossed waves of virtue are crashing on the shores of with a sound like thunder.

    That’s 82 posts preceding that look to me like yet another segment of good argument for agnosticism. Especially the appeals to catechism and academic zeal over “Christian sex-rites”.

    Well, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. As you were, clubbies, as you were.

  82. @nickels


    Just like I’m not a murderer unless I actually try to off someone. I might think about it, and it might be a (lesser) sin to nurture thoughts of vengeance, but I’m not a murderer as long as I don’t act on those thoughts.

  83. David says:

    Agreed. Rosie and Rosamond are civilizing influences around here.

  84. @Echoes of History

    There is but one faith. But that faith has many appendages. And those appendages have one mission, but they may accomplish said mission by various means.

    Flavors is not a term I have used n or would it work for my point of view.

    I won’t defend the veracity of my faith. I have more than my share of thorns. What christ said was

    that upon this “foundation” sometimes referred to as boulder, slab or the base of a mountain, I will build my church, that foundation, that boulder, that mountain base is Peter’s confession,

    “You are the christ the son of the living god and upon this rock, I will build my church” That is what christ was referring when he indicated.

    The term he used in reference to Peter was rock is often understood as stone or pebble.

    And having been raised catholic and deeply appreciative of those years, and what I learned and the value of my faith is deeply enriched by them. Understanding those series of scripture had a profound impact on my life. But not one apostle suggests, hints, or notes that Peter is the cornerstone of the church or its foundation — not even Peter.

  85. @Echoes of History

    If you can find a single scripture in which Christ condones this behavior I would be interested in reading it. If you could find a single scripture in which any apostle supports this behavior I would be interested in reading it.

    On this question the apostles are of one mind, it is unacceptable.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  86. Ghost says:
    @Echoes of History

    All churches are man-made (meaning thought up and built and attended and interpreted by humans). Humans are fallible.

    1. (of persons) liable to err, especially in being deceived or mistaken.
    liable to be erroneous or false; not accurate: fallible information.

    G-d is a mystery; humans do not know nor understand what is intended.
    Churches are man-made in order for humans to control other humans.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  87. Anonymous[365] • Disclaimer says:

    Morality is not absolute. It is relative. Always has been.

    Morality is generally based on the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Homosexuality is something that occurs between two consenting adults – so there is no harm done to others. Therefore no reason for it to be immoral.

    From a Biblical sense: the NT preachings of Jesus to “love your neighbor” supercede any OT prohibitions.

  88. @Anon

    I keep forgetting that there is more than one anon —


  89. @EliteCommInc.

    Do you imagine yourself clever? If you were familiar with Catholicism, you’d know that Christ never addressed homosexuality, neither condoning nor condemning it.

    Why Jesus Doesn’t Need to Speak About Homosexuality

    But the Catechism does address homosexuality, stating in clear terms that “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Which the Pope did, and which you will never do, because you’re a fake Christian who accepts neither the Catechism nor homosexuals as the Catechism teaches.

    In short, you’re a heretic, choosing a belief outside of the Catechism that directly defies the Catechism.

    • EliteCommInc: “it is unacceptable.”

    • Catechism: “they must be accepted.”

    And do you imagine that the Pope, who accepts gays, isn’t the apostle’s successor? Thus we see another facet of the Catechism that you heretically deny.

    “…the successor of St. Peter…”
    -The Catechism

    EliteComm, EliteComm, why do you not accept them? It is hard for you to kick against the Catechism and the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter the Apostle.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  90. paullll says:

    MOre to the point, why are Christians so obsessed with sex?

  91. jim jones says:

    Animals form pair bonds for reasons of biology, humans are animals.

  92. @Echoes of History

    No christ is not recorded to have addressed this matter directly, but it’s clear that he does not make exception from the it’s abomination — and further as indicated in previously noted submissions: scripture as delineated by the apostles who organized the churches and counseled/instructed and upon which catholicism is also derived repeatedly rejected the practice as being not from god and wrong.

    Including the apostle Peter.

    I have known the catholic faith and practice to abandon this understanding in any way until this pope. One must not engage in it as with any number of prohibited behaviors and intents.

    Whenever, anyone deviates from scripture, I will not follow… regardless of rank, status or position in anything. If the pope is pressing that this practice be acceptable — I will have to defer to scripture which contradicts the notion.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  93. anarchyst says:

    As much as homosexuals vehemently deny it, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably linked. Almost all homosexuals have had their first homosexual “experience” introduced to them by an ADULT homosexual as pre-teen males. This, in itself constitutes homosexual pedophilia, which is criminal behavior in itself and is a way to destroy a pre-teen child for life.
    The so-called Roman Catholic priest “child abuse scandal” was actually homosexual pedophilia in action. Of course the “mainstream media” could not afford to offend the “homosexual community” by calling what it really was–thereby, the “play on words”, calling it “child sex abuse” rather than homosexual pedophilia–the true definition of their sordid behavior.
    I must play “devil’s advocate” when it comes to the Catholic church homosexual pedophilic priest “problem”…The Catholic church was “caught between a rock and a hard place” and had every right to be concerned about how many false claims would be made by those parishioners who belonged to the parish at the same time as this behavior was going on. Follow the money… Of course, there is (and was) absolutely NO EXCUSE for this homosexual pedophilic behavior…
    Sad to say, the homosexuals are at it again, encouraging the “psychiatric community” to change the definition of pedophilia from a psychiatric “disorder” to a mere “lifestyle”, not unlike what was done for homosexuality. Sick, huh??

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @dfordoom
  94. @Anonymous

    Because we are discussing the nature of intimate relations and how they are ordered…to wit christ responds,

    KJ21 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

    ASV For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

    AMP For I assure you and most solemnly say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke [of the pen] will pass from the Law until all things [which it foreshadows] are accomplished.

    Everything in the NT rejects this practice and does so without equivocation.

  95. @Anonymous

    That morality is generally based on the reciprocal altruism (Golden Rule) is true, but reciprocal altruism is why you flush your daily feces down the toilet, and don’t squat in your back yard, because you don’t want to spread fecal-borne disease to your neighbors. While unsanitary defecation is not direct harm or violence against a neighbor, it does indirectly and can significantly impact their lives. You live in sanitary conditions, because you want to live in a sanitary neighborhood.

    The same with homosexual behavior.

    Regarding consent, homosexuals are infamous for molesting children.

    In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation.

    Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons.
    Arch Sex Behav. 2001 Oct;30(5):535-41.

    If you really want to argue reciprocal altruism and consent, you’ll argue against a society allowing homosexuality.

  96. @paullll

    Because those who most identify as Christian enjoy more sex than degenerate progressives.

    Why Conservatives Have Better Sex Lives Than Liberals

    You spend more time contemplating activities that you’re good at and can do.

  97. nickels says:

    Because it has the absolute power to destroy both humans and humanity, when abused.

  98. Joe862 says:

    This pope seems to me like God giving catholics yet another clue that the catholic church isn’t what he had in mind. It’s an organization that is obviously about power first. It’s Christianity repurposed to serve the roman empire. I figure it’s sort of a farming technique. If you can get a population to buy Catholicism they’re docile and stupid enough to farm, like sheep. It’s a step above complete barbarism but down from anything else.

  99. nickels says:

    You are completely missing the entire game by falling back on meaningless platitudes.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  100. Art says:

    For the belief that homosexuality is normal and natural, and not only acceptable but even praiseworthy, has carried the day.

    We are not intellectual beings alone. We are still biological beings. Society intellectually declaring something, does not make it functional.

    Homosexuality is natural – but it is not ideal. Mothers recognize it at an early age when their sons are naturally effeminate. The base problem is that gay people cannot reproduce. Life is built around the ideal of reproduction. The ideal behind sexual differences is reproduction. Homosexuality goes counter to the natural goal.

    The ideal human arrangement is a man and a woman producing a family. All that is human cannot reside in one human being. The emotional attributes need to prosper are divided between men and women. The aggressive emotions need to fend off the universe and the love need to maintain a family cannot reside in the same person. These different emotions are biological innate. A family is the prime example of the notion “that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

    Two men or two women cannot reach the “whole” that a man and a woman together can achieve. Two men cannot achieve the balanced union that a man and a woman can achieve. Society declaring that they are the same – just does not make it true.

    Society must continue to support and hold up the ideal of the natural biological “whole.”

    With that said, there is no reason to do willful harm to any volitional “adult only” sexual identity group. (The current thoughts on childhood sexual identity are crazy and destructive.)

    Think Peace — Art

  101. @nickels

    One of Jones’s most informative interviews. The explanation of Foucoult’s role in pushing the homosexual agenda in place of workers’ rights was appreciated.

    Jones has discussed the role of Benedictines in “teaching Germans the value of work” and did so again in this interview. However, his comparison to Italians, who do not have the same work ethic, poses a problem: especially after a quick overview of the E A Ross item that was featured in the Unz Book archive . I tend to agree that Italians have a far different perspective on work.

    Jones attributes the German work ethic to Benedict and points to the presence of many Benedictine monasteries along the Rhine (he does not mention that Hitler attended a Benedictine high school).

    But Benedict was Roman. The first Benedictine monasteries were in Italy. Monte Cassino was in Italy — before the British ‘accidentally’ bombed it to dust.

    So why didn’t Benedictine magic exert the same influence on Italians as on Germans?

    Machiavelli traveled in German lands on embassies for the Medici; he visited and admired German towns that were centered on monasteries and emulated their orderliness. It’s reasonable to assume Machiavelli’s thinking and writing was in some small way influenced by those models.

    I’d sure like to engage w/ Michael Jones and try to suss out what was different about Benedictine :: Germany vs Benedictine :: Italy.

    • Replies: @nickels
  102. TheJester says:

    I left the Catholic Church in 1968 when I married my wife in the Luthern Church. Her family were heartfelt Lutherans and it was important to her family and her community to be married in their church. I asked the local Catholic priest for a co-ceremony … part Luthern and part Catholic so that both could perform their ceremonials. The local priest thought I was out of my mind.

    We eventually settled in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. Very traditional, very conservative, very biblical. I describe it as the Catholic Church without the Pope. Their services even include the same vestments as the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is a mute point since virtually all of their ministers are married with children. Indeed, it is the traditional expectation that the minister, his wife, and children are the ideal “Holy Family”. Lost of pressure on all of them, is it not?

    Years later (1988), we were members of a Missouri Synod church where the pastor happened to send his children to the local Catholic schools (you have to have lived in Southern California at the time to understand why). Not surprisingly, his sons and daughters married Catholics. The co-ceremonies were beautiful.

    Faced with Pope Francis, the idea of a biblical-based Catholic Church without the Pope is a very appealing and reassuring prospect.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  103. @Art

    I am not sure stating the obvious again makes a difference to those attempting to advance this position further than it is.

    No one and I mean no one thus far has advocated doing anything harmful to said practitioners. Of course discrimination in the secular environment should be off the table and by that I mean as to the constitution as broken as some think it is.

    The over arching argument by members of this community and their advocates is that the mere societal distinctions as indicated by marriage laws is harmful. They contend that any disagreement about the status of the practice other than acceptable is harmful and thereby unconstitutional –and that harm can be indicated as emotional harm. That even one’s faith and practice constitutes a violation. even to this article supposed believers have contended that this behavior is condoned — they can’t find any relevant scripture to support it — but they contend it. The pope’s press for compassion is beginning to sound a lot like condoning behavior the apostles — said no to engaging in.

    In their advocacy that relies on the very scripture the catholic faith was founded on must be reinterpreted — not by scripture, buy by the emotional hurt and the psychiatric analysis by advocates. When you say the whole as in acknowledging complete objective biological constraints — you push for an archaic and discredited belief. It has not been discredited but in their mind the reality is not the biology –it’s the inner self of psycho-emotional sense that rules.

    But the catholic church I know is not ruled by psychology, intellectual musings or mere emotions, but by the holy spirit and by scripture. So if the pope actually wants to press for this behavior as something godly, he will have to reach back to the founding documents and make the case – until then he nor commentators here have a leg (verse) to stand on.

    Note: No one has advocated discriminating against anyone who is wrestling the practice. They are struggling to overcome it or manage so as to be in line with faith and practice.

    • Replies: @Art
  104. @anonymous

    Who supports married pastors and rabbis and their offspring?

    The congregation endeavors to grow enough, and be generous enough, to pay him enough for him to support his family comfortably, novel concept.

    Our pastor has a wife and several children and owns a house in Southern California. How DO they do it 😉

  105. @dfordoom

    Ah, interesting. I stand corrected as to your religious affiliation.

    You’re right that there’s a concerted effort to bring down the RC Church, by some unsavory characters. But it also actually is a perverted and deeply corrupt, homosexualized, and white-hating institution.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  106. @Anon

    Not A bad experience, but numerous bad experiences in many States over the course of decades.

    And not just me, but generations and branches of my family, and some of my friends.

    As for proof of the sexual perversion infiltrating “The Church”, take it from those who lived in the seminaries and have written and spoken out about the pink mafia in “The Church.”

  107. @Art

    Note 2: For people of faith there are clear moral codes. And as this discussion has pressed, some commentators have indicated, that if in fact, there is no moral or scriptural basis by which to reject such behavior, — if in fact scripture loses its force— then you must seek to challenge every corner of truth as relative — and no said the obvious but I did —

    one cannot stop the arguments made by NAMBLA and the organization of the same associated with women (if there is one — I assume so).

    All of which explains why the attacks against the catholic faith as the most recognizable organization adhering to Christ’s word at least in its core system. Next will be the Orthodox Churches Greeks, the mainstream churches have already split on this question. I attended colleges of faith and these institutions that turn out thousands of citizens into our society as influences are under pressure to adopt a more societal – worldy view.

    If male female biological truth is faltering in society all the more for people of faith to reinforce spiritual truth on the same question. I am not sure any of this should be shocking or discomfiting —

    if you can claim a human being (at conception) in the womb is really just skin tissue to murder it for the liberal mind there’s no point stopping at murder.

    If murdering children in the womb is moral then certainly

    NAMBLA makes it case.

    Yikes and yikes. No moral truth — what nonsense.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  108. @Echoes of History

    “The Catechism tells me so” is not an argument. Why is the Catechism just or not just, wise or not wise, practical or not practical, in this case?

    Mayeb I misunderstood your point. You seem to imply that people who don’t follow the RC Church’s catechism are not real Christians. That would mean that all Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and perhaps Ukrainian/Greek Orthodox Catholics, are not real Christians?

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  109. Art says:

    The pope’s press for compassion is beginning to sound a lot like condoning behavior the apostles — said no to engaging in.

    Payback is a bitch. Gays have been abused big time. Churches have condemned homosexual activity that comes nature to some men. Stressing and promoting the idealness of heterosexual activity is good and rational – condemning homosexual activity is a different story. That is how violent things happen. Time for the religious community to eat some crow.

    My point is a psychological one. Having the same biological emotional makeup – two men cannot form a whole human. Sadly, they cannot experience the love and togetherness in the same way a man and a woman can. Their union is lacking the complete sum of human emotions.

    Many people correctly feel that not all homosexual activity is based on pure genetics. Many young boys and men are unfairly and naively corralled into gay activity. Once started – it is hard to reverse. I believe that many gays, given different circumstances, could be heterosexual, enjoying a full emotional life.

    Think Peace — Art

  110. @EliteCommInc.

    If the pope is pressing that this practice be acceptable, then he is faithful to the teachings of the Catechism which says homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

    Claiming that the Catechism is in conflict with Scripture is heretical Bible-thumping Protestantism, and your stated position is defined as Sola Scriptura. Catholics don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.

    A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

    Your admitted Sola Scriptura belief is yet another reason why you’re a fake Catholic.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  111. @TheJester

    Thank you for sharing your story, and God bless you and your wife in your “new” denomination.

    You were a Christian trying to ascertain the truth and live according to God’s will when you were a catholic, and that is what you are now as a Lutheran as well.

  112. dfordoom says: • Website

    Sad to say, the homosexuals are at it again, encouraging the “psychiatric community” to change the definition of pedophilia from a psychiatric “disorder” to a mere “lifestyle”, not unlike what was done for homosexuality. Sick, huh??

    That’s what happens when you treat homosexuals with compassion and understanding. That’s what acceptance and tolerance inevitably lead to. They just keep doubling down on the degeneracy and the evil.

  113. @EliteCommInc.

    Male female biological truth is exactly what the Jew Testament is against. Paul discouraged marriage and told people to stay virgin because of a fantasy belief in a magical savior who was coming back very soon. Paul was more conciliatory to biological reality, but not Jesus. The Jesus character was a much worse anti-family degenerate. Both of these Jewish clowns placed a fantasy afterlife in much higher regard than the “worldy” concept of male female biological truth.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    , @Corvinus
  114. @Echoes of History

    EofH: Are you starting your new religion based on the Nordic tales? You have a lot of criticism for Christianity, yet you offer no alternatives or ideas here. Are you working on a theology, philosophy, a set of commandments? Are you setting up requirements for a priesthood? Do you have any followers in your personal life?

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  115. dfordoom says: • Website

    You’re right that there’s a concerted effort to bring down the RC Church, by some unsavory characters. But it also actually is a perverted and deeply corrupt, homosexualized, and white-hating institution.

    Up until the 1940s I think the Catholic Church was mostly a force for good. But the Church came under concerted attack from without and within – it was the victim of a savage propaganda war and at the same time it was infiltrated by homosexuals, feminists and other liberal scum.

    In fact in the Anglo-Saxon world the propaganda war against the Catholic Church has been going on for centuries. Anti-Catholicism has always been a major strand in British popular culture. But there was a change around the late 50s. The attacks were no longer coming merely from bigoted Protestants but from militant atheism and the feminist/homosexual crowd as well.

    The Catholic Church was the most formidable obstacle in the path of the globalists. It was the only institution with real power that offered an alternative to the materialistic ideologies of global socialism and global capitalism. The globalists recognised that in the long term the Protestants were irrelevant. From the globalist point of view the RC Church had to be destroyed.

    Unfortunately the globalists were successful. They did destroy the Church, and the homosexualised feminised remnants of the Church are not going to be of much use to us.

  116. nickels says:

    I think it was Pat’s book where I read about Hitler irritating all the Italians on his visit to Mussolini because he kept going on about how the Mediterranean peoples were inferior due to their mixing of African blood.

  117. @Echoes of History

    I am going to avoid the issue of reading scripture for what it says.

    But if you can find a single apostle that corroborates that Peter and Peter alone is the head pastor — you are welcome to share it.

    1. You are taking liberties with both my comments and the catechisms.

    2. Scripture as the foundation for both catholocism and the catechisms.

    3. My comments concerning the the scriptures in question have nothing t0 do with personal interpretation – it’s derived from the original languages — something I learned as a catholic. You repeatedly demonstrate a lack of comprehension about scripture and it role.

    4. The depth of what you understand about catholicism is demonstrated by your own
    understanding of the catechisms — which has been explained to you twice by two different people.

    5. It’s pretty simple, if Peter says that such behavior in unacceptable — then I side with Peter and Peter says that is the case.

    What the catechisms say is the person should accepted and treated with respect, the behavior is out of sync with christ. The same christ that founded the church and the same one you claim is the first og the church as established in the of most catholics as Peter. You gave a very peculiar understanding about christ is and given your supposed reliance on Peter — it makes absolutely no sense — because, peter, this pope and every catholic clergy I have known points to a singular press — belief in christ.

    Now clearly you have been playing a facetious game all this time because no catholic denigrates christ who is ultimately the head of the church.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  118. @RadicalCenter

    The Church is One.

    Outside the Church there is no salvation.

    The Catechism clarifies that it is the “Catholic Church” which is “necessary” for salvation.

    Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

    -The Catechism

    Paul did not write that “Now ye are the Siamese Twins of Christ,” or the “Siamese Triplets of Christ” to be inclusive of latecomer Protesters, or the “Squealing Litter of Piglets of Christ” to cover all the denominations Protesting the Protesters.

    Stick with the original recipe, or it’s no soup for you.

  119. @EliteCommInc.

    EliteComm: “What the catechisms say is the person should accepted.”

    Finally! That is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. It’s nice of you to grudgingly admit.

    Furthermore, the Catechism doesn’t say “grudgingly accepted,” but rather “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

    You cannot admit what the Catechism states without a fussilade of curated excuses why you refuse to actually accept such persons or what the Catechism says.

    Clearly you have been playing a facetious game all this time because no Catholic excuses the Catechism which ultimately stems from Christ, Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.

    You have no intent to accept gays “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” because you’re a fake Catholic.

  120. @attilathehen

    Am I starting a new religion based on the Nordic tales? No, but I, like you, still speak Woden’s name every Woden’s Day, and Thor’s name every Thor’s Day.

    You have a lot of criticism for Nordic named days of the week, yet you offer no alternatives or ideas here. Are you setting up different names for the days of the week? Do you have any followers in your personal life who use, for instance, French Revolutionary Calendar names instead of Woden’s name, mon camarade?

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  121. anarchyst says:

    The “beginning of the end” of traditional Catholicism was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants who were involved in the “modernization” of the Catholic Church.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) do do their “dirty work” for them…
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its “universality”. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new “Modern Mass” and the New Church, in general…It took a brave Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to “push back” against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an “actor”, diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church “dogma” or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations–nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize pre-Vatican II principles.

  122. We have not been saying the same thing and only a child would conclude that we have. Make no mistake — we are not on the same side on this issue not even close.

    Your comments about Christ are bizarre. Your comments about christ, christianity and the church are contradictory and you don’t ot at least have not demonstrated an ounce of contextual knowledge of either scripture the apostles, christ or even the catechisms you so often refer to which are based on scripture.

    I gave you an out because you were hopelessly trapped in your own rhetorical nonsense.

    No in christ can claim that this behavior is acceptable — no one. Scripture makes that clear. Even your own references make that clear. If anyone came into the church proclaiming that christ condoned this behavior they would have to be rejected from the church.

    Which is where your press falls apart by using the term condone out of context an d making the references to christ that you have — tour entire position collapses. I am cautious about matters of faith on personal issues of people’s beliefs. And usually even on doctrine. But with you it’s entirely clear — by the comments you have made — that simply need more counsel, study and a lot of personal and quiet time with the father. As for me — since it’s abundantly clear you can’y distinguish sola scriptura from language translation (which are not at all the same by definition) – let’s say, you don’y have a clue about what I practice and belong what is on the page — no idea what I believe.

    You are of that breed that takes a term or a references and your off to the races running a race you design — intended not for learning or even debate — but because your intention is to malign, characterize and name call. And the worse your position the more you seek escape by personal.

    As for my response to those in engaged in this behavior — I would put my comments to the test before anyone of any faith and stand by them. A demonstration of just how dense you lack of comprehension – no one pretending to be catholic would make the comments I have. Something has been uncovered here — but I don’t think you are aware of what.

    At any rate, you are encouraged to take up these with christ — he’s far better at dealing gymnastics disguised as knowledge. Don’t excuse politeness for agreement.

    To be clear — it is not acceptable to condone this behavior and or claim that christ does and scripture from end to end condemns it.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  123. @anarchyst

    Apologists often use the the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend fallacy and posit the notion that because the Jews hated Jesus and had him killed, that Jesus is to be revered. Are we also to also think Leon Trotsky was great because the other Communists hated him and had him killed?

    Europeans must realize that the European man Pilate is the most admirable character in the whole Jew Testament, as Nietzche noted.

    Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a solitary figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously—that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less—what did it matter?

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    If you do not appreciate Jewish hatred of Europeans, then it’s ridiculous to worship an anti-European Jew (Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25) in a “Jews first” (Romans 1:16) cult.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anarchyst
  124. @anarchyst

    I think you would do well, to take a look catholic church history celibacy is almost entirely about being fully committed to christ. And it is derived from the apostle paul’s, encouragement — as a personal press.

    There is always some nonsense about celibacy — always.

    It’s a life style. It’s not a moment to moment event — it is not on again off again living. For single people it is a must. For priests entering the priesthood, while not required by christ, it is for now required by the catholic faith and not because the church wants to protect its real estate.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anonymous
  125. anarchyst says:

    Looking back through history, it is only the Roman rite that enforces celibacy on priests. While celibacy is an honorable lifestyle, I think that the Roman Catholic Church would do well to at least look at modifying its position.
    Episcopal priests who convert to Catholicism and join the Roman Catholic priesthood are permitted to bring their families with them, why not Catholic priests?
    Roman Catholic priests were married until the middle ages, when Church property was willed to descendants of priests and bishops, the Church losing control over its property. It was a purely financial decision at first, and then was later interpreted to be “just because” it was surmised that Jesus Christ was celibate (we don’t know that, for sure…Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene might have been a “item”…). Even the apostles were married and had families, so the presupposition that celibacy was instituted as an example, is just dead wrong.

  126. anarchyst says:
    @Echoes of History

    Jesus was an Essene, NOT a Pharisee. This is a major reason why he was hated by “the jewish powers that be”. The Essene sect espoused many Christian-like principles, and was merely tolerated by the jewish “movers and shakers” of the day.

  127. anarchyst says:
    @Echoes of History

    The jews used Pontius Pilate to do their “dirty work” the same way the zionsit israeli jews use the United States of America today. Yes, the USA is israel’s b!tch.
    No difference but the century.
    Pontius Pilate had every reason to fear jewish riots, which were relatively common at the time. He KNEW that he was condemning an innocent man, and symbolically washed his hands of the whole affair.

  128. anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:

    “And in another sense it would be unjust to make religion as such or even the Church responsible for the failings of individuals.
    Compare the greatness of the visible organization before our eyes with the average fallibility of man in general, and you will have to admit that in it the relation of good and evil is better than anywhere else.

    To be sure, even among the priests themselves there are those to whom their holy office is only a means of satisfying their political ambition, yes, who in political struggle forget, in a fashion which is often more than deplorable that they are supposed to be the guardians of a higher truth and not the representatives of lies and slander-but for one such unworthy priest there are a thousand and more honorable ones, shepherds most loyally devoted to their mission, who, in our present false and decadent period, stand out of the general morass like little islands.

    No more than I condemn, or would be justified in condemning, the Church as such when a
    degenerate individual in a cassock obscenely transgresses against morality”

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  129. @anarchyst

    There was a time whenh i wrestled with this issue. Because even scripture has a passage in one of the letters of the apostles that warned of some who forbade marriage on becoming a christian. when compared to the catholic demand, I thought that sounds like the practiced warned of in scripture.

    Until I considered, that catholic church has so many ways to serve in which being married is no obstacle that service in this manner does meet what paul encouraged not as command but as personal preference — that ultimately it is a choice. Because of that I replaced and accepted that there are men who make that choice. And I have no doubt that many find it no more trouble than a pin prick iof that because they are so gifted from little or no desire for intimate relations with women. And others who are prepared and do make that sacrifice for the service of the faith.

    I don’t object to your position — but since the matter of a choice and there are other ways to serve — I wrestle less with the priestly celibacy and that applies to sacrifice made by nuns as well.

  130. I have a tougher time with the church or any church doing anything that might in the slightest suggest that advocates for open marriages, same sex relations, accepting relational behavior out of wedlock or any number of assaults on moral traditional standards be the least bit encouraged —

    This pope is sending very mixed messages which are having profound impact on it’s ability to influence moral standing in general. Given the ambiguities in our society of the noted issues, I am hard pressed to led support to anything in any church that further erodes any churches ability to stand against the mob of moral change, blame and outrage.

    Whenever I consider making a move back to my roots, this pope says something troubling about some foundational marker of faith. I am troubled that their is open rebellion concerning same sex relational behavior — the so called “pink mafia” in open rebellion against what christ and the apostles said could not be practiced — are not an example of “wheat and tares” harvesting. They are openly advocating that which cannot be condoned or accepted. That this pope and no pope hasn’t removed them is troubling.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  131. @anonymous

    I think most christians are careful to condemn anyone. Based on christ’s comments there is only one “unforgivable” disposition and that is blaspheming the “holy spirit”.

    But I cannot willingly promote, indulge in behaviors forbidden – are contrary to the fruit of the spirit and not be expected to be handed my hat. That hat handing is not a condemnation, but a reproof, in hopes of restoring one who so engages.

    Personal reference: I am admittedly a bitter person. Bitterness is an attitude or disposition of “forgiveness”. I am in violation of the the very foundation of why christ died — forgiveness. There is no church anywhere on this planet that could abide my coming to their fellowship and saying ‘bitterness is ok”. I would get the boot and rightfully so. Because bitterness – “unforgiveness” -is the faith. In fact christ says, “How can your heavenly father forgive if you don’t forgive.”
    I am running risk of my completely isolated. If christ comes today — I would be lost. I must shun my bitterness, it is not a matter of choice.

    If christ says no, I am not empowered to say yes. in this manner no one who advances this behavior as godly can be expected to find a space in any congregation among catholics and in most other faiths.

    I hope my position is keeping with the comments shared by the pope. his desire to be compassionate is absolutely spot on — but that is something different than telling someone their fruit is fit to be eaten by all — it cannot be — no condemnation required.

    My bitterness is dire state – it is blaspheming the “the holy spirit”.

  132. sszorin says:

    “Can a Pope Change Moral Truth?” – It is simple – he can not.

  133. Art says:

    Personal reference: I am admittedly a bitter person. Bitterness is an attitude or disposition of “forgiveness”. I am in violation of the the very foundation of why christ died — forgiveness.

    I am sure you know – but forgiving is most beneficial to the sinned – not the sinner.

    By forgiving, the sinned is freed to get on with his life. Being forever bitter is debilitating.

    Jesus said, “forgive them father for they know not what they do.”

    Most people who commit grievous crimes are products of previous wrongs – following in the footsteps of the past.

    I will hold a good thought for you.


  134. anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry that the difficulty of forgiving is causing you anxiety.

    After 3/4 of a lifetime making Catholic doctrine and theology the guiding narratives of my life, and being unhappy while functioning poorly, I turned my back on the whole shebang. Music, art including textile and landscape art, literature are now the sources of spiritual insight, correction and refreshment. Our society has moved beyond the Yellow Pages, and imo the sooner ‘Christians’ move beyond their slavish worship of bible-based or “revealed” religion as the sine qua non, the better off we’ll all be.

    I hope to find the time & energy to study that amazing period when Vergil’s Aeneid and Cicero’s writings informed the minds of Western culture: the era pre-dated Jesus, intersected with Mithraism, the beliefs of the Parthians who were heirs to Persia ergo to Zoroaster. Those writings and traditions had far more depth, breadth and tenure among the European people than we, today, have been encouraged to understand; we seem to believe the world went from Greeks to Jews to Romans to Constantine to Luther to King James to Scofield to Hagee and Francis. There are huge blocks of profound spiritual wisdom — and also folk lore — that dominated the minds and souls of many people. “Jake” has a point when he writes about how Puritans/WASPs were ‘Judaized.” It’s distorted the history of half-a-millenia.

    btw — I neglected to provide the source for the passage quoted @133 above. It’s from Mein Kampf.

  135. @anarchyst

    ” the Church losing control over its property. It was a purely financial decision at first, and then was later interpreted to be “just because” it was surmised that Jesus Christ was celibate (we don’t know that, for sure…Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene might have been a “item”…).”

    If by “item” you mean in a intimate physical relationship — outside of marriage — then no. We do know that Jesus was in fact celibate. And had to because he was not married. Anything else outside of marriage would have made nothing less than a “good teacher” if that. There is no evidence anywhere that supports an intimate physical dynamic between mary magdelene and Christ. It is generally understood that mary magdelene was a business women who supported the ministry and while close to christ — nothing and i mean nothing even hints that he and mary so engaged.

    No christian in modern day, that I know of points to celibacy instituted by christ as a requirement for ministry. It is expected if one is single. But celibacy as an example for those who are unmarried absolutely and categorically the case. The single most most consistent metaphor in all of scripture for a relationship with god is marriage. The bride and bridegroom ‘s desire for one another against the backdrop of purity, remaining undefiled. That metaphor which Catholics above all other faiths has made the church a premium on the issue purity. And while they have enacted some draconian tactics in my view — stumbled along the way — the press for purity of mind, body and spirit is or was unrelenting until the 1990’s.

    That is what makes them a prime target among liberals. They were the first to stand against abortion. Their press against divorce for nearly any reason was a cadillac for maintaining the sanctity of marriage. Their work among children unmatched by any organization in the US or most likely anywhere. And it is has been those foundations that break always carried with them. The 1960’s with the advent of academia, especially the fields of psychiatry and social critique gradually ebbed away at all of those foundations — we are in the wake of a major shift in social morality as direct result of the erosion of catholic influence that began in the main stream churches. Fortunately as ever the saving grace – christ at the center has served as safety nets as a myriad of small or lesser churches have picked up the slack.

    The overblown crisis of child abuse was grist for the mill of anyone who had any complaints about catholicism, but more importantly — beefs with christ and biblical foundations of faith. As is the case for liberals and any number of cheap opportunists, if they can beat the argument — make the argument personal attack the character, even if that requires making things up, distorting truth. I got my wake up call in 2003.

    Now I know these people are capable and will do anything to win — and women have no or veracity than men —

    Hence the subtle suggestion that maybe christ and mary had a thing. Like the pharisees of old the machinations to justify same sex relational behavior, infidelity, relations without marriage, immigration, wars, all manner of peculiar notions.

    There’s a reason why christ repeatedly noted that his walk and to follow him was a narrow door. Vatican II did not in any manner change the nature of faith as outlined in scripture. But telling believers they can engage in behaviors condemned and its ok — is something entirely different. Last year when this president who has my support where possible told a group of believers they didn’t have to pray for their enemies — wrong – we are expected to do so.


    oooh brother how I blather on —

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  136. anarchyst says:

    You are correct. The Catholic Church has been weakened, both by the homosexual pedophilia priest scandal and the pope’s proclamation that engaging in homosexuality is ok. I still maintain that Vatican II did poison the Catholic Church.
    Let’s look at the Catholic solution for divorce. The modern-day Catholic Church has an “out” for those who wish to divorce their spouses. Since divorce is out of the question, annulment is the “solution”. An annulment makes the declaration that a “marriage” never existed due to emotional immaturity, or other valid reasons. However, the annulment process has been perverted as well, those who are able to make large “donations” to the church can seek annulments on “spousal immaturity”, or for other specious reasons, and are quite often successful.–even for marriages that have lasted decades.
    Praying for the fallen is always a good idea.

  137. “However, the annulment process has been perverted as well, those who are able to make large “donations” to the church can seek annulments on “spousal immaturity”, or for other specious reasons, and are quite often successful.”

    Indulgences . . .

    It is my sincere hope that the leadership can pull things together for a stronger practice. And here’s hoping that the membership considers carefully and stands fast with christ and scripture.

    I am afraid my prayer these days isn’t quite as generous as it once was. Ultimate we stand before christ alone.

    appreciated the exchange

  138. @EliteCommInc.

    The Catechism still reads:

    “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” – The Catechism

    Which the Pope has affirmed.

    So simple.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  139. @anonymous

    How did the Greeks and Romans managed to build vast civilizations hundreds of years before the influence of the “Jews First” (Romans 1:16) cult?

    How did the Northern European peoples manage to survive without a Magic Jew demanding they hate their own blood and soil (Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:27-30), before the Northern Crusades forced the anti-family Rabbi’s teachings upon them just a few hundred years ago?

    Because no European man requires a Jew—not to “save” him, not to instruct him, not to critique him.

    It looks like you’ve managed to find some answers to such questions, and made the right choice. I’ve made much the same journey as you, and wouldn’t be caught dead in a church, especially after learning that Christianity originated as a sacred pederasty cult, 2000 years of priests abusing altar boys is no coincidence, and the Pope is just re-affirming the pederastic origins of Christianity still preserved in the Catechism.

    This perverted Pope is the most Catholic yet.

  140. And the dogmas of the political religion by which we are increasingly ruled have displaced the teachings of Christianity and tradition.

    That’s the summation of the world we live in now.

    It is the manifestation of Antichrist.

    Antichrist is the ape of God, and because Antichrist cannot actually be omniscient and omnipresent like God, he apes such by attempting to control all peoples, all actions and even all thoughts (as if!) through political- i.e. worldly- means.

    Only the True Catholic Faith and its True Religion, the one given to the Apostles by Our Lord Himself and passed down through the ages, will prevail against Antichrist.

    All the politick-ing, maneuvering, argumentation, blustering, blubbering, bitching, blogging, internet warrior nonsense, etc. comes to nothing without Christ. No-thing. Nada.

    And if one is not with Christ and His Kingdom, you are with Antichrist and the kingdom of this world, and the latter will eventually devour you.

    Adveniat Regnuum Tuum, Christus Rex.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  141. @EliteCommInc.

    I think most christians are careful to condemn anyone.

    Anyone who calls himself “Christian” and has a habit of condemning people on a regular basis isn’t acting very Christian at all. Why? Not because it’s “not nice”, but because he’s assuming a knowledge and authority which is not privy to him.

    No one has the ability to condemn anyone in finality because we cannot ever know with 100% certainty another’s interior disposition. Only God knows that, and He will judge each one of us on that basis primarily.

    However, we here can and ought to judge manifest words and actions. In fact, we have a moral obligation to. That does NOT, however, entail running around ad hoc telling others that they are sinning. Sure, sometimes it’s necessary to tell someone an action or word is sinful, but other times it’s counterproductive and against caritas and at worst it can be hypocrisy. It all depends on the person and the circumstance, and there must always be caritas. Without caritas, there is nothing…just as St. Paul said.

    In any case, for every word of admonition and correction, we ought to say 100 words of prayer. That my personal rule of thumb.

  142. @Echoes of History

    You still on about nonsense. If agreeing with Peter on this behavior as unacceptable puts me at odds with the pope, the president, the supreme court and a zillion others — so be it.

    Your failure is contextual comprehension. My dear mum loved me, at least i assume so. She was a die hard , die harder catholic. If I had ever brought a man to have relations with — she would have given me the boot — and rightly so.

    I have no doubt that those engaged in this behavior—- are slobbering all over themselves about the pope’s ambiguity and seeking to get every mile or twenty they can further erode christian influence on society, so they can be off doing whatever their desires say is right and good for them. Hollywood and sports are already off to zoon land.

    But as for me, As i have previously stated by example: I may work, eat, joke, laugh, and converse with such people (to a point) but I will not be accepting their behavior as normal attending their weddings, advocating that anyone be forced to serve or attend them.

    And I will never support this lifestyle as something of god, anymore than I would relations out of wedlock.

    If that makes me a nobody — then so be it.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  143. @anonymous

    I am not the least sorry as I think you suggest it. My disposition is one of choice. The wrong choice and I have to own it.

    And while, the people of faith are imperfect, I have no intention of turning my back on christians, unless they decide to turn their backs on christ. For me to so would be doubling down on the blasphemy bitterness already is –I am not that far gone.

    Whatever else falters — christ does not.

    While christians are to be an example of christ in the world, individual mistakes, sins, are not that of the faith —

    they those of people and they cannot be excuse to deny christ.

  144. On a personal note:

    it is not uncommon for people like me to be viewed with something to hide — as in maybe we are in the closet given the certitude with which we hold views on the subject, and celibacy.

    I am attracted to women – exclusively. I have never had a anything with a male. I am celibate because I am single, not because i can’t find someone yo have relations with.

  145. @EliteCommInc.

    I concur with your personal opinion—and my Nordic ancestors’ opinion—regarding gays; I like neither them nor their behavior. We Europeans were throwing fags into bogs long before the Jews First (Romans 1:16) cult invaded, and never needed a Magic Jew to tell us about morality.

    Jenny Jochens, in her research mentions, ‘Norse who attempted to avoid marriage because of their sexuality were penalized in law’. The Roman historian Tacitus had described punishment in his De Origine et situ Germanorum when he mentioned cowards and homosexuals being drowned in bogs.

    They’d have thrown the effeminate coward Hvítakristr (Lily-livered Christ)—and His Holiness Francis—in the bog too.

    The term for “White Christ” or Hvítakristr came into currency among the heathen Icelanders at the time when pagan and Christian religions were in conflict…To call a man hvítr was to say that he was cowardly, effeminate…A related phrase was to say, “your liver is white” meaning again, a coward… which is almost identical to modern English usage, “lily-livered” with the same meaning.

    Why did the Vikings call Jesus the White [Lily-Livered] Christ?

    You can always expect better moral behavior from those living out on the backwoods heath (heathens) and redneck farmers (pagans) than city-slickin’ Christians awed by Jewish tales of flamboyant pearly gates and gold streets.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  146. @NobisQuoquePeccatoribus

    By “His” Kingdom, do you refer to a degenerate Jewish Rabbi whose disciples purported to be the King of Israel?

    Why does any White man have to be loyal to a middle-eastern Rabbi in a faraway foreign land?

    How do you deal with these dual loyalties between your homeland and Israel, when even the Jew Testament states that dual loyalties are difficult if not impossible?

    Why cannot we consider our own homelands to be the Holy Land?

    Why can’t we consider our own race of people as Chosen by our own Gott/God/Gad/Gotin/Wotan/Woden/Odin?

    Why do you feel you can’t accomplish anything without a Jew telling you what to do?

    Does “Christianity and tradition” include ancient pederastic art of older, bearded Rabbi, with a younger, beardless John the Beloved in his bosom that is no different than ancient pederastic art of older, bearded Zeus with a younger, beardless Ganymede in his bosom?

    Sola Lingua Bona Est Lingua Mortua.

  147. @Echoes of History

    Tovarisch, I did not criticize the Nordic names for our days. The French Revolutionary Calendar did not work. The week consists of 7 days, not 10 days. The FRC contradicts nature and the Old Testament. I responded to you in a comment for the Ramzpaul video about the 1956 Hungarian uprising. I will recap this comment here. I stated that I do not have a problem with pre-Christian paganism because it is a precursor of Christ’s coming. I stated that 4 men created the West: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Christ. Christ was a historical person. If you do not accept him as God, that doesn’t change the fact that He lived. These 4 men laid down the foundations and moral standards which developed Western civilization. My favorite saint is St. Mary Magdalene. Her pagan archetype is Venus/Aphrodite. The Middle Eastern/European pagan gods must be studied. This does not conflict with Christianity.

    I stated that we need a church for the West. Universal brotherhood and universal church need to be discarded. The Roman Catholic Church has collapsed. Black/Asian priests-popes are not acceptable. The pope has given support for gay marriage within the RCC. His recent comment about God making gays will lead to more RCC churches blessing same-sex unions. When confronted by the cucks, Frannie will just say that it is up to local churches to deal with these issues.
    He dealt with communion for the illicitly remarried and Protestants in this fashion. He will never issue absolute statements about morality anymore. He will only issue papal encyclicals about economics and the weather.

    What will be interesting is that in Frannie making the statements about gays being made by God, this brings up the problem of who/what is God’s image? If God created gays, he also created low IQ blacks/Asians. Homos/blacks/Asians are poor reflections of God’s image. We know blacks/Asians had nothing to do with the West and cannot continue or contribute anything to the West, so they need to be segregated. We know that Christianity does not help blacks/Asians. I have given the example of RCC Haitians (avg. IQ 67); RCC El Salvadorans (avg. IQ 80) and Utah Mormons (avg. IQ 106). The RCC teaches that the communion wafer provides graces to help people become more moral. Mormons do not have communion. Haiti and El Salvador are high-crime, squalid nations. Utah Mormons are very successful and law-abiding.

    I provided solutions which combine the richness of everything which created Europe. You do nothing but whine and criticize Christianity.

  148. If the Jesus character was truly a historical person, then which Gospel do you imagine is correct, Luke or Matthew, about the timing of the magical birth?

    They cannot both be correct.

    It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts….

    The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011)
    Richard Carrier

    Solve that.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  149. @Echoes of History

    Here is a secular article:

    As I stated before, your problem is not with Jews or universalism. You have some bizarre hatred for Jesus. Maybe you want to be a god? You never will. You are a typical cuck.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  150. @attilathehen

    A secular article by a “Reader in New Testament Studies” is sort of like a masculine article by a “Scholar of Women’s Studies.” And it did nothing to address my specific question about resolving the contradictory history of Jesus’ alleged magical birth. Rather difficult to answer, isn’t it?

    Cuck? You have some bizarre hatred for Joseph and his Jewish cuckspawn.

    “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant.” Matthew 1:18

    P.S. What do you think of beta boys who white-knight for Mary getting pregnant by a man other than her fiancé?

  151. @Echoes of History

    I was not going to respond to this — But I do think you are taking your own references out of their intended context.


    there’s a lot of interesting perspectives, the answer lady has. However, there are two obvious references she ignores.

    1. The Vikings were marauders. Some of their contacts with christians were among christian monks in monasteries — not the most tip of the spear secularists when it cane to warfare. The sacking of these monasteries and early catholic controlled or priest laden villages — was easy pickens. The tend toward such christian practices of avoiding warfare was strange to viking sense of warfare to manliness — that the jump to cowardice or being womanlike — was easy. Seeing as woman were rarely understood as combatants.

    You have a hard time with context — she notes that the reference came to be pejorative — as to insult — at she is wise enough not say that it was based on experiences of said believers behaving in said manner.

    There is no evidence that Christ was effeminate or ever engaged in such behavior.

    2. Given the history of men of faith from romans to this day eventually defeated the vikings on both a physical and spiritual level as the vikings themselves were either routed or beaten into submission by christ who moderated their marauding into a civilize practice of faith and law/social order.

    Given the multiple wars of conquest led by christians right or wrong, the spread of said civilization by breeding with women —

    and the end result of today —

    it’s a safe bet that christ nor his followers were heavy practitioners of same sex behavior.

    Context matters —
    I cannot condone this behavior, but i won’t be supporting throwing people who do into bogs, cauldrons, pits, or any manner violating the law, unless it conflicts with christ . . . such as any mandate to attend weddings, or any celebration of the behavior.

    I encourage you to spend some time having these issues out by speaking directly to God

  152. correction: it’s a safe bet that christ nor his followers were not practitioners nor promoters of same sex behavior.

    As for the Vikings and manliness —

    The christians defeated them in every way.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  153. @Echoes of History

    By “His” Kingdom, do you refer to a degenerate Jewish Rabbi whose disciples purported to be the King of Israel?

    No. I refer to the Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Second Person of the ONE WHO IS.

    He proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God.

    This kingdom is within one and not of this world.

    That is what he told the political ruler of the region of the earth in which He lived shortly before he was condemned to die.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  154. Wade says:

    I came across this interview and found it very interesting. I wish you would listen to this and report back whether you think that this holds any water. It is regarding the intrigues of Father Malachi Martin as a mole for world zionism during Vatican II. Pretty interesting stuff although I don’t know how much of it is true:

  155. Corvinus says:
    @Echoes of History

    “Paul discouraged marriage…”

    Offer the proper context here. He discouraged marriage for single men ONLY IF they would love God more than their wife. Marry the church OR marry a woman and procreate.

  156. @EliteCommInc.

    Deprecating Whites and gloating over the defeat of Whites by the Jew worshipers? Thanks for clarifying your true loyalty.

    Correction: There is no evidence that the Rabbi you worship was effeminate that you won’t desperately dismiss, e.g.:

    (1) Jesus banned normal male-female relations in his perverted paradise, in favor of angelic androgyny. (Matt. 22:30)

    (2) Jesus considered normal male-female marriage and the ensuing normal activities of productive activity like planting a garden and building a house for your family to be worthy of drowning and/or roasting. (Luke 17:26-29)

    (3) Jesus taught to hate not only life itself (John 12.25) but every single member of your family, including hating your parents. (Luke 14.26, Matthew 19:27-30)

    (4) Jesus discouraged normal heterosexual marriage to the point his disciples concluded “it is better not to marry.” (Matthew 19:10)

    (5) When a woman cheated on her man, beta-boy whiteknighing Jesus blamed the men who would discipline such behavior and gave the cheater a free pass. (John 8:4-11)

    (6) When he did bring top shelf alcohol to a wedding reception, he had to be a damn show-off and bring attention to himself instead of celebrating the new couple. (John 2:1-11)

    (7) Jesus’ male “Bride of Christ” converts were encouraged to transition to a less manly physique by means of self-castration. (Matthew 19.11-12)

    (8) And if a male still was too straight, he was to gouge out his own eyes. (Mark 9.47)

    (9) Jesus carried on with his Beloved in public like a pederastic San Francisco flamer. (John 13:23-25) Google images of “Jesus+John+Beloved” and “Zeus+Ganymede” if you dare.

    (10) Jesus fulminated against breeders.
    • Matthew 24:19 “Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!”
    • Mark 13:17 “Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!”
    • Luke 21:23 “Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!”
    • Luke 23:29 “Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!”

    Not to mention insane episodes of cursing trees. If you consider Jesus a historical character, maybe you should stop ignoring what you consider the history of Jesus, from those who knew him best, his family:

    Mark 3:20-21 “Jesus went back home and a large crowd was gathering. When his family heard what he was up to, they hoped to take custody of Jesus because they thought he was insane.”

    P.S. The word “context” isn’t a magic term like “tada!” that you wave over things you don’t like to make them disappear. It has actually meaning that you should take time to discover.

  157. @NobisQuoquePeccatoribus

    You continue to pretend that Jesus wasn’t a Rabbi or a Jew, which are specific terms used to describe him in the Jew Testament. I can understand your denial; I too would be embarrassed to admit I worshiped a brown skinned, kinky-haired Rabbi, and attempt to cover that up with prodigious use of Latin and terms concocted by theologians that conform better to the false image of a blue-eyed White Anglo, like Iudaeum Hyacintho Luscus Rex!

    “Not of this world,” the one we can sense? There’s a word for that: non-sense.

    Nonsense is exactly what Paul admitted to teaching in 1 Co. 1:18-26 “For the message about the cross is nonsense…the nonsense of our preaching…not many of you were wise by human standards…not many were noble…”

    You believe nonsense that attracts the unwise and ignoble. Rather foolish, is it not?

  158. @Echoes of History

    The vikings were defeated by other whites most by that time fully adopting a christian faith —

    The vikings not only were defeated in battle but they adopted christianity as the primary faith and practice.

    Because I am familiar with your tend to construe everything that christ says as some kind anti[family, anti-normal male relational dynamic, I feel quite safe in saying your entire advocacy is relying a deeply false understanding of terms, for example, to be ” beloved” has nothing to do with romantic love, unless such is indicated — wait for it —

    in context. In the context above is intended to reference one’s close friend(s) among any number of friends.

    I think your observation about my attention to context is vitally important, especially given that so many people, and I have never seen context abused/dismissed as I have in the last four or five years.

    I encourage you to choose a different bible, there are many. There are even bibles that have the NT without chapter and verse settings as if reading the letters and books as written. Bibles that use contemporary translations. Numerous bibles to help with linguistic differences, language translations, cross references to avoid or minimize, just the kind of surface and misreadings you are engaged in constantly.

    Your series of scripture references is not about being against marriage or family. They are nor prescriptions — they are descriptions of how horrifying end times will be and those with family will experience that period even more painfully.

    You further mangle all the references to chastity and fidelity by indicating that christ is discouraging male female relations when in fact, he is recognizing the intense expectation of both purity before marriage and both purity and fidelity between married people.

    His family was concerned that Jesus was pressing matters that caused issues for himself and they were concerned about his safety. That you have correct. That his messages were so unique and contrary in form, and context that they challenged the religious leadership’s veracity — but what becomes clear even to Jesus brother James later is that

    christ knew exactly what he was doing and why. His plan would and still does appear insane to nonbelievers. In fact, christ and the apostles made it quite clear that those who followed him would be seen as fools, and accused of a good many things — even unto their own deaths.

    Here’s just one insane notion:

    You have heard it said, “Hate your enemies. but I tell you you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

    In the eyes of this world, such talk is insane —

    As insane as celibacy
    As insane as “If a man takes your cloak, give him your other as well.”
    As insane: marriage fidelity
    As insane as be so sturdy against error, that remove whatever causes you to stumble
    As insane as: be as shrewd as snakes yet innocent as doves
    As insane as: relational intimacy between men is rejected by christ
    As insane as: planning to steal is the same as stealing, if if one does do the act
    As insane as: My peace I give you you, but I give not as the world gives
    As insane as: Think not that I come bring peace, for to follow me, a man will be against brother, a father against son . . .

    As insane as no greater gift than a man has than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

    Context — would that i could be as insane as christ.

  159. One of the salient realities about contemporary society in the US and elsewhere I suspect is the frailty and gradual collapsing analysis that whiteness is the source of all things good and bright. It’s painful to watch the it fall and more so to see the energy poured on maintaining its existence.

    Neither christ nor the apostles – nor god himself gives a lick about skin color – that whites have made it so is a global tragedy.

  160. @Echoes of History

    given your tend to misconstrue context —-

    i just want to make it clear that my example concerning my mother and myself bringing home man was fictional and not in any way related to my own desire and or practice — in reality.

    It was just a fictional example

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS