Oh Scouty, get over your obsession with "Gloria TV". I had never heard of it until you started going on about it.Neither, I suspect, have 99.9% of my co-religionists.

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. (Matthew 23:24)

"You don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism." George said.

Pressed by the interviewer, George acknowledged that it was a strong analogy, but reiterated his sentiment.

“The rhetoric of the KKK and the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people -- Who is the enemy? The Catholic Church,” George said. [link]

For pointing out that strident homosexual anti-Catholicism is in danger of developing into the hate-speech associated with other hate groups,such as the KKK,Cardinal George has been subject to a barrage of demands that he apologize to homosexuals for his comments.

For some reason that’s difficult to fathom the media are attempting to elevate homosexuals into a group of people that are above criticism. Just as homosexuals should not be subject to hate and hate speech,neither should homosexuals be above criticism when they engage in incitement to hate against Catholics. [link]

Good thing that Cardinal George voiced his concern.

Has anyone ever seen what happens when the homosexuals (I will NOT call them 'gays') pass by St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC when they have their 'parade'? They yell out 'Shame! Shame!' in the direction of the cathedral. It's disgusting what they do during that parade, anyway....

His Eminence has every right to say what he did! And everyone knows that the KKK is no friend of Catholics-the militant homosexuals can be just like them. They hate the Church for its moral stance.

Unrepentant, militant homosexuals are just as dangerous to the moral fiber of a community as the KKK is.

What an excellent comparison! We should all continue to use the name. The hate is coming from them. If you don't do what they want, they put huge resources into eliminating you. The Catholic Church is their biggest obstacle.

The most dangerous people have become so by identifying themselves as victims. Victims believe in their righteousness and the evil of those that they identify as having oppressed them. All actions taken against the oppressor are seen as righteous in their eyes.

Marxists define themselves as proletariat victims of the the bourgoise. Nazis identify themselves as victims of Jews. Hutus identify themselves as victims of Tutsis. Political feminism define women as victims of men and male dominated patriarchy, and gay activists defines themselves as victims of oppressive Church teaching.

Not all victims as listed above aim to eliminate and kill you, but they all aim to eliminate any influence of the oppressing class, however it is defined. Violent response against the oppressor is not the only response on behalf of victims filled with self-righteous indignation, but the possibility is often there.

I don't know the situation in Chicago, but there is a good chance that the Cardinal does. Comparisons to the KKK, while probably not the most useful for the cardinal to use in retrospect, do get across the message that the self-rigtheousness of mobs of gay activists is a grave cause of concern for this cardinal and the Chicago Church.

Gay activists just don't have much love for Christianity. Their contempt for the Church is comparable to the contempt felt by KKK toward blacks. That is about as far as the comparison can be taken, I think.

What about stealing the souls of our children, a far worse crime? Homosexuals have forced a victim agenda in the civil rights legislation forcing people to do and speak things they do not believe is right or good or be persecuted by the government. Children are taught immoral beliefs in the public schools. Our very constitutional rights to freedom of religion and speech and pursuit of happiness have been denied. How soon until we are like Canada where a minister cannot quote the Bible without being charged with a hate crime?

(And perhaps you did not read the earlier posts about the homosexual desecration of a Catholic Church building. Or what the homosexual paraders do when they pass a Catholic Church. That is like cross burning. Since they're not Protestant like the old KKK were, who chose a Christian cross symbol, the new gay KKK uses sex objects, their chosen religion.)

(Although I am open to the conspiracy theory that the population control nuts are the ones pushing the homosexual agenda, and the homosexual activists are just useful idiots easily falling victim to the line that it's other people's lack of acceptance of them that makes them unhappy.)

How and why did this emasculation of the angelic realm come about? In short, it's owing to the massive feminisation of the Faith that has gone on now for decades - a deliberate overthrowing of the masculine for the ultimate sake of denying the truth of God. The Catholic Church, on a local level, down in the trenches, has been turned into a cult of femininity where nothing offensive can ever be said and anything truthful and difficult is labelled as offensive.

Angels are not female or male. They are definitely, however, masculine because God is masculine.

Image used in recent post on Divine Ripples blog

This blog is about things I know. As a former seminarian and religious, it deals about the Catholic faith, theology and life, the spirituality of saints specially St. John Bosco and exposes the falsehood and malice of Islam. As a former teacher, it addresses educational issues. As a family man, it discusses marital relations and parenting. As an MBA, it looks in the business landscape. As an IT professional, it uses technology as a platform for parables. As one from a family of lawyers, it dabbles into politics and the justice system. As one with military training (ROTC) and lineage (great grandfather, uncles, siblings), it looks passionately into the war against terrorism. [link]

No to Islam. Oppose the false and evil cult that preys on the defenseless. Burn their Satanic verses - the Quran. The only thing that we need to fear is fear itself.

Hitchens was the very image of those who inflict hell on themselves. He did so insistently, violently, ruthlessly. His every action made clear that this was not one at risk of, so to speak, slipping into hell by giving in to his temptations, by being weak and frail. No, this was one clearly headed for hell head on, and at vicious speed. I shiver at the thought of how many souls he has contributed – and will contribute after death – to send to hell.

The simple fact is, Hitchens’ death didn’t improve any treat of him in any way. Apart from being dry now almost two days, nothing has changed in his moral state. The contrary is the case: death crystallises one’s moral state, and makes it permanent. When the wicked die, they do not become less wicked. Not a bit. They might see the consequences of their wickedness, but they will not repent of it. Unless Hitchens repented – which is, let’s face it, highly improbable – he is the same little son of a bitch now as he ever was, without the vodka.

It is, therefore, extremely surprising that this wicked, evil man be “adopted” by curious “helpers”, thinking that his own personal qualities (he certainly had some, and no one is completely wicked. Hitler loved Blondie, his dog, and was an extremely nice host and conversationalist with those whom he liked) might have helped him in the end even if he did not want to help himself.

Come on, this is not Christianity anymore. This is soppy “candle in the wind” Elton John-ism, kindergarten fables, and acute self-delusion.

Still more surprising is what you read in some corners, that for reasons unknown to us – or, as Protestants love to do, citing some Bible verse out of context and out of Catholic truth; which you can always do; always, without exception - Jesus would save a man who wants to be lost, who absolutely insists in being lost, because being a ruthless blasphemous bastard be in some way better than being a frail, somewhat lukewarm Christian as, alas, the vast majority of Christians are. The idea here is that the vast majority of frail people are less worthy of salvation than an unspeakably blasphemous, wickedly fanatical man, because the wicked man was passionate in his wickedness and a lot of people seem to have found this, in some way, entertaining. I found it disgusting but hey, I’m not the “nice” type.

This mentality, this “he will be saved because Christ loves blasphemous bastards who don’t do anything to save their soul more than weak believers” is pretty much the negation of everything Christianity is and stands for.

On the contrary, Hitchens’ death shows us how Satan tries to snatch souls through him even after his death, letting simple or deluded people believe they can be as wicked as he was, not repent, and get away with it.

Beware.

The chances that Hitchens converted before the last breath are almost non-existent, not to say impossible. Still, the Lord our God will call to Him those who are truly His. From our point of view, Hitchens is most likely damned, but there's still a dim chance that the Lord intervened at the last moment. Let us pray for him. Personally, I believe that how you live is how you'll die.

May God have mercy on his pitiful soul.

The best we can ask for is that the Lord showed him His mercy at the Final Judgement and gave him 10,000 years in purgatory. Lucifer was so desperately waiting to welcome Hitchens, so I pray the Lord ruined Satan's day and sent Hitchens into a 10,000 year purification program........I will pray for him.

Because I am humanly certain he is damned and it seems perverse, to me at least, to specifically pray for a person like that.

The little anonymous people I have no way of assessing. I can just say my prayers and let God sort it out.

Praying for Hitchens, whom I would never have heard of if he wasn't some self-promoting God-hatting toff seems nutty to me.

The only reason I can imagine I might want to do it, is that I got a feeling of holiness (false piety) by praying for someone both famous and very likely damned.

Nobody is going to pray for the tramp who froze on the street corner tonight. Literally nobody. So he seems to me like a better bet.

For one thing if he makes it to heaven he will pray for me his only benefactor. Hitchens will have to divide his prayers between millions of you.

It is quite certain that Hitchens is damned, but not absolutely certain.

If you could place a bet on him being damned, I would.

I'm certain enough to take that at 10 to 1 on.

Christopher Hitchens dies at 62 after suffering cancer.
If you were St. Peter, where would you send him, and why?

Hell is eternal separation from God. It is perfectly rational for a loving God to allow one who has willingly separated himself from God in life to remain separated for eternity.

Why this concept offends those who claim not to believe in God baffles me.

If Christopher Hitchens wanted to be with God, then I believe he will be. If not, then not. It was Hitchens' call, and God's. Not anyone elses.

None of us knows. But it seems reasonable that one who spent his life trying to get as far away from God as he could would not be interested in having a "fabulous time in heaven". Why is that "evil", "nasty" or "disgraceful"?

Eternal Father, I humbly present to Thee the most holy body, blood, soul and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our LORD Jesus Christ, in union with all the Masses said throughout the world today, in union with the most HOLY FACE of Jesus,
in petition to Thee to have granted, before his death, the supernatural extraordinary graces necessary to bring Christopher Hitchens into the State of Grace before his soul left
his body and that he be in Thy presence now by Thy Great Mercy, dear LORD.
AMEN.

Eternal Father, I also offer the same Holy Offerings in petition to Thee for Thee
to restore the Faith in Thee and in Christ of ALL THOSE whose faith was harmed
or DESTROYED by Mr. Hitchens's sacrilegious writings and public statements during his life. In Jesus's Name, AMEN.

So many friends of mine have idolized this creepy little sot in his lifetime...along with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris. The names are like nails on a giant chalkboard in a giant lecture hall at a secular university that's been built for the express purpose of reverberating all sound--obnoxious or otherwise.

The world is better off without his shrill atheism and warmongering... but it's hard not to feel sorry for such a waste of human life. He was a very pitiful excuse for a man, but he was loved by someone and had at least one child. So, we should definitely keep them in our thoughts and prayers during this time.

The Holohoax and 9/11, the two subjects I love to see Bp. Williamson stir the pot with. I hope he keeps it up. Two plus two still equals four!

Nothing about these subjects being sacred. They are just hot buttons that get people thinking, precisely because they seem to be sacrosanct in the eyes of the controlling elites. Anyone who is critical of the "official" narrative is viciously attacked, that is a huge red flag for me. For many people, like Someone, it is an emotional issue that makes them piss their nickers. For me it just is what it is. Bp. Williamson tells it like it is, that makes many people very uncomfortable! If you have ever heard him preach, had a conversation with him or had him as a confessor, you would know that he is focused on seeking the truth, come what may.

I care (not deeply, but I think it matters) that the Pope and Bishop Fellay are so intent on not minimizing the Holocaust in a world that increasingly denies the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the central ontological truth of human existence. The Pope and Bishop Fellay, like all Christians, are called to spread the Good News of that Reality "to all nations."

Meanwhile, many of us who look at the Holocaust coldly and rationally see that the official account (whatever that it) is built on a tissue of half-truths, wartime propaganda and innuendo (about those evil Euro-Christian tribes!). In high school, I learned the Nazis killed four million people, mostly Jews, at Auschwitz alone. A plaque at Auschwitz commemorated the four million victims back then. In 1990, that plaque came down and was replaced with one commemorating the 1.5 million victims.

Same goes for the accounts of Jews turned into soap and lamp shades. Now the scholars at Yad Vashem itself concede those lurid tales were merely wartime propaganda. So if I had disputed the "official" tally of Auschwitz dead and the accounts of Jews turned into soap when I was in high school, would I have been deemed a "denier"? Would I have been less of a Catholic? If not, why is Bishop Williamson a denier and less of a Catholic today for claiming only 200,000 Jews died during World War II?

I'm not interested in debating the Holocaust numbers. That's a violation of forum rules anyway. I'm just saying Catholics should be free to debate any historical account--*except* those relating to the deposit of Faith. The truth matters. You're only hope of arriving at truth is through free and open debate. I don't see why the Holocaust should be off limits.

I've never even understood what the point about this holocaust stuff is. Ok so Bp. Williamson says 200 000 died. And then? What happens? Most debates are centered around issues because they are important in how we move forward. I can see this being relevant in 1945. Not now. What does anybody wnt from this? "Okay okay, only 200 000 died, we'll change our plaques, I am so glad we argued for so long over this." Innocent people still died and a lot of evil was done on both sides. That is the nature of war. Let's move on.

This is kind of the point I was trying to make before. It is irrelevant how many jews were killed. it does not hold any bearing on the salvation of my soul, and thus it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Faith.

As far as I'm concerned, I believe the pursuit of truth to be always important, be it divine truth or just secular truth. Lies hurt everyone.

Having said that, the whole point of this argument is that the "Holocaust" has been successfully used as a weapon to intimidate the Church for the past 50 years. Benedict XVI himself is the living embodiment of a humiliated Church knelt in fear of the Jews. After two thousand years, we finally have a pope that considers accepting the prevailing historical consensus on a matter concerning the Jewish people an actual prerequisite to belonging to the Church.

How far from the gospel have we come? It's a despicable spectacle indeed.

I agree that the truth of this matter, whatever it is, is insignificant w.r.t. our salvation. I don't agree, and think it's frankly absurd of you to claim, that it's insignificant in terms of real world application. Since Jews are in power these days, it would obviously be devestating to their prestige, legitimacy and general unquestionability - which are founded on the myth of their being history's greatest victims - if the general public found out that there was no Holocaust (i.e. no systematic genocide). Though it might not be sudden, like the popping of a balloon, it would be significant, perhaps like a slow but steady deflation. Myth (in the sense of 'metanarrative') is the primary motivator in politics.

As to whether it would affect evangelization to traditional Catholicism, that is impossible to say for certain, but I suspect that the deflation of Jewish power could hardly help but be beneficial here. Is it any of Bishop Williamson's concern? I don't see why it should be off limits to him. Not material for a sermon, but for reflections in an interview, sure. 

This holocaust Industry has brainwashed people to the point that many are accepting of the zionists theft of Palestine as if they really are the "Chosen People". And that is where Bishop Williamson has a right to speak about it as a Bishop of the Catholic Church. I mean some people, even some Catholics have been brainwashed to think the Jews are still the "Chosen People". Bishop Williamson didn't deny the Jewish holocaust, he questioned the numbers. What is wrong with that? In fact most of the sources that Bishop Williamson mentioned in that Swedish interview were Jewish sources. That's right, even some Jews themselves are questioning the "official" numbers of the Jewish holocaust.

To even mention this in the Vatican and Bishop Fellay's talks regarding the SSPX, that should be just about Catholic doctrine is just ridiculous. It shouldn't have anything to do with it. What kind of spell do the zionists hold over these Catholics?

So there was a joke told by Jews during WW2 that I read recently (in the context of an article about humor and the holocaust, how humor is used in tragedy in general, and so on).

I'm going to tell it here since I don't know where else I can use it!

An concentration camp guard is about to gun down a group of 12 inmates when he decided he'll spare one for his amusement. He tells them, "I have a glass eye. If one of you can tell me which one it is, I'll spare you."

Immediately an old Jewish inmate yells "the left!"

"Well, that's right," says the guard, "but how did you know?"

The inmate replied, "well, it looks so human!"

If traditional Catholicism is really about Holocaust denial than I am out.

See ya.....

Oh and I love the use of the Judaic commie verbage of "Holacaust-denial" as to frame the argument.

Classic Jewspeak.

Someone, you are the typical example of a gutless, balless modern day "catholic" coward, especially when it comes to your Talmudic masters.

I think it's high time you dipped into your bank account, went down to see your local rabbi and formerly converted to the local synagogue.

I'm sure your time can be much better spent as an open Talmudic Jew than a crypto "traditional" catholic bashing other trad caths and bishops on their own websites.

Of course I could be wrong and you could've been an ADL plant all along.

In that case, say hello to ol honest Abe for me.

Yes. Can't we all agree that taking sides in debates that are matters of sheer History neither prove nor disprove one's "Catholic-ness" and then discuss the topic of the thread itself? If one takes the negative view, one can take it as "the Vatican" is saying otherwise with regard to my first statement; the "give the benefit of the doubt" view could be that that sort of controversy is being deemed "off-topic" as to the SSPX talks in se, and imprudent to get into for obvious reasons.

At any rate, those who question the "orthodox Holocaust literature" need to use prudence and to check themselves for any real anti-Semitism; those who accept the standard view need to stop accusing people of "Holocaust denial" for having questions or for not accepting every jot and tittle of the textbook narratives. (really, what does "Holocaust denial" mean exactly? If one believes that 5,000,000 Jews died instead of 6 million, is that "denial"? What about 3 million? What about 1 million? Where's the line? I don't think anyone believes that Jews were not persecuted and killed in WWII... And why is this matter of History surrounded with so much vehemence on all sides when people can calmly talk about who wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, or who was on the right side in the War Between the States, etc.? It's a little surreal, if you ask me...)

The Holocaust was a great evil. Forget the gas chambers, we know of 1 million in mass graves who were gunned down. Women and children. In fact, it is theorized that the outcry from Catholic Bavaria when soldiers wrote home is what got the shootings shutdown, and led to the concentration camps.

But every filthy commie Jew that went after the Church got what was coming to them. Hopefully they repented before they died and embraced Christ.