There has been growing concern over the intense loneliness suffered by necrophiliacs, who feel they are not part of any family or community.
Take “Hayden”, who, Vice informs us, is a male who “will never forget the moment when he first realized he was a necrophile.”
This wasn’t anything like that feeling you get when pull over in an emergency and discover the roadside toilet is only a pit forgotten by the state maintenance men a decade ago. (Avoid exit 187 on I-75 south of Toledo.)
No, this was seriously more serious feeling. Hayden came across the corpse of a girl at a funeral home—and the lust hit him like a coffin lid.
“I remember the way the light glinted off her face and made her look like she was asleep, but her eyes were so wide and so dead,” he continued. “I thought I could drown in them. I wanted to brush my hand through her hair and curl my fingers around hers and just let my skin linger and mold to hers so I could feel her forever. It felt like it was over too soon.”
Vice went on to raise awareness (but not the dead) by telling us “necrophilia is more common than we are comfortable acknowledging. After all, sex and death have always been connected, even in language”, and reminding us of a bit of French (not ooh la la).
Turns out there are official categories of necrophiliacs, ranging from Class I, role players, to Class IX, “homicidal necrophiles…who are so desperate to have sex with a body that they will kill the living to achieve this.” Didn’t Netflix have a special on this?
We next, thanks to Vice, meet Carla Valentine, who is a mortuary technician. Her goal is “making necrophilia accessible”. She is “looking at it objectively and encouraging others to do the same.” She said:
People are relatively less shocked by cases of torture and murder involving live humans than they are by the idea that someone may be attracted to or have some sort of sensual or intimate encounter with the dead. Chat about a violent murder at the dinner table and people join the conversation; mention necrophilia and the whole table goes silent.
I can verify this. I once in high school tried singing Dr Hook’s Freakin’ at the Freakers Ball, which mentions our subject, at the dinner table, and the Monsignor gave me the coldest of looks.
Though the article doesn’t say so, poor Hayden has likely been barred from the cemetery, and has been reduced to satisfying “his necrophilic urges” by “writing poetry”.
Speaking of poetry, most weep when they hear the country lyric “your cold, cold heart”—but not Hayden.
Anyway, all of these people are children of God. They all have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or, worse, be made miserable because of their lusts.
These people, who live on the existential peripheries, wounded and on the margins, love, and want to share that love. Who are we to deny love? Love is love. Currently, necrophiliacs cannot marry, not anywhere, which is deadly discrimination. Can we not understand their pain? And their ever-present need for disinfectant?
Well, maybe marriage is too much. Most people aren’t ready to accept necrophilia and the necrophiliac community and their curious proclivities. We need to slow things down a bit and prepare the way. We start with Pride, of course. How difficult is it to repurpose a hearse as a parade float? We just repaint the AIDS ones.
We then need an interim solution until the majority get over their prejudices. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.
After all, we let people of the same sex who enjoy sodomizing each other to not only marry in many places, but also to join civil unions. There is nothing special about sodomy. It’s just one of many ways people explore their sexuality. Indeed, civil unions are an option for anybody in the LGBT community.
If we can give civil unions to all these people, we can give them to any self-labeling sexual-practice community, including necrophiliacs.
This granting of legal status will not, as is shriekingly clear, lead to a greater acceptance and practice of non-procreative sexual practices. You bigot.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here
Rorate Caeli had Bergolio pegged the day he was elected
As to why God would chose a man like Bergoglio to be Pope us Catholics can cite Saint Vincent of Lerins (Commonitory) who teaches that God permits prelates to advance novelties as the way He tests us to see if we love Him.
Catholics prove they love God by holding to Tradition and refusing to accept novelties.
BREAKING: Pope Francis endorses same-sex civil unions for the first time as pope while being interviewed for the feature-length documentary “Francesco.” “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said.
This is brilliant satire. At least for the next couple years, when it transitions effortlessly to reality.
According to Anonymous, you’ve got a year:
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 9:20:00 PM GMT
We should trust and pray that the Holy Office of Pope will sanctify Cardinal Bergoglio. If there is anything we can look forward to is that, at 76, Pope Francis I is old. Looking at things in more global terms, that means that he will either die or resign in eight years or so, kind of like Benedict.
Hint: LBGT don’t want “civil union”, LBGT want “MAWWIAGE”
Guess pope Francis didn’t learn from the boy scout’s example…
Could a real Pope endorse necrophilia?
I remember something about time for truth to get its pants on. Luckily, apparently Bergoglio didn’t say what the (US) “Catholic News Agency” (yes, that’s their title, but one must use the term loosely) said he said:
“If you watch the original interview in Spanish (my mother tongue) you will see that he used the words “Leyes de convivencia civil” which in no means is linked to “union civil”. What Pope Francis talked about were “coexistence laws” to protect people with same sex attraction among other civilians in coexistence in society.”
So CNA did one of their notorious little ‘oopsies’. (Yes, Virginia, CNA has not been your friend for a long, long time).
So: for once, Francis did not actually say what we thought he said, but CNA allowed this story to get 6 times around the world before anybody in the English speaking world noticed. I wonder how that happened?
Seconding JohnK’s comment. I’m no fan of Pope Francis, but with more information available this looks like deliberate distortion on the part of the press rather than yet another of his dangerously ambiguous statements.
Tempest in a teapot? Like I said above, this is about “civil unions”? How controversial …
Even if Francis did not explicitly say WHO would be covered by civil unions, he’s still talking “civil unions”. Government Unions … G-marriage
Your linked article has related posts at the bottom which discuss Mafiosa styled Bishops in the US ordering hits on whistle blowing priests? CNA is not your friend?
CNA did provide a follow up “explainer”
Again, why I am no longer a (Roman) Catholic
Exhibit number 48457457894 or so demonstrating why Bergoglio is in fact an heretical anti-Pope who must be deposed, his every act anathematized, and his very name subject to damnatio memoriae.
His usual apologists (not just among liberal “Catholics” but also conservatives/orthodox Catholics like Vermeule, Sohrab Ahmari, Rafael de Arizaga, etc.) have devoted numerous twitter feeds already to explaining why he was supposedly taken out of context, the interview (which was actually from early 2019) manipulated with clever editing, etc. That may be, but the proof will be in whether the Pope and Vatican issue a clear denunciation of misleading reports (like the British paper whose headline twists it to claim “Pope Blesses Same Sex Marriage”) or to strong re-iteration of traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage and the status of homosexual acts. But we know they won’t. This kind of two-face obfuscation – Jesuitical, if you will – is how Bergoglio has always operated (saying outrageous things – such as in his repeated interviews with a famous Italian atheist Marxist reporter – then pretending they were “taken out of context” or just “off-the-cuff” or “pastoral” remarks and no “change of doctrine” was meant, but then doing nothing to truly clarify or denounce the supposedly incorrect spin given to his allegedly “out of context” or “off the cuff” statements, or to reiterate in strong terms actual traditional Catholic doctrine).
Ever since I first saw him on the balcony of St. Peter’s in 2013, knowing little about him before, I sensed his affable facade was just that, a facade, and that deep down he was devious, shifty character who boded ill for the Church. The damage he’s done is already significant, and in the long run he may go down in history as a more disastrous Pope than John XXIII or Paul VI.
All I can say is we’re entering the world of sex-bots just in time to put these issues
back on the back burner where they belong. Just think of it any sexual deviance
will now be fulfilled absent any legal stricture until some nut-job comes along
insisting on robot rights. From nubile females and virile males of all descriptions
races, sizes, hair color, blemishes, to meet all hetro and homo sexual expectations to
child robots of all descriptions for the pederasts, pedophiles, and perverts. Vocalizations
of sweet murmurings to blood curdling shrieks, and of course low tech temperature controls
for the necrophiliac inclination. If you want to marry one want to murder one all is permitted.
Zooaphilia fulfillment centers will spring up like mushrooms with every variety of cats, dogs,
gerbils, ducks, chickens, and those ever popular duct-tape wrapped hamsters you’ve been
It’s not really all that slippery….this downward slope that leads only to perdition. And the sliding is kinda fun, once you get the hang of it. And I mean, isn’t all this just a matter of ‘lived truths’ anyway? And maybe relative damnation?
After all, what really is the difference between sterile homosexual acts which end only with species suicide and heterosexual acts which create new life? Isn’t all that just kind of morally relative, I mean if you squint a little bit and ignore the perversion? Isn’t it possible to equivocate and shuffle our way to full approval and endorsement? And didn’t the Beatles tell us, “Love is all there is; love is all there is…the Pope loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah!”
Do we really need to sing “Kumbaya” and make some more s’mores?
Satanic Inversion is the sacrament of Liberal Society.
I was pro gay marriage until someone highlighted the slippery slope, that is sure to follow. If your standard for marriage is ‘adults in love’ then is incest marriage cool? 1st cousin marriage cool? etc etc
Marriage is Lindy. It is merely a vehicle for continuation of culture/genes via making sure both parties go through a serious ritual with thousands of years of tradition backing it. That sense of occasion is meant to impart the seriousness of the rite/sacrament.
Its only natural, if the deceased has expressed prior consent, for necrophiliacs to be allowed to marry/bone the corpse they love. Peace X
Why the Priesthood Will Continue
To Become a “Gay” Profession
Published in February 2006 – New Oxford Review
We’ve been waiting nine long years for this document on homosexuals in the seminary. It has a long-winded title: “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” (hereafter “Concerning”).
The document was obviously written by a committee – or many committees – and it intended to satisfy as many people as possible. But we are not satisfied, not in the least.
Bear in mind that this document is about “discipline” (or shall we say ill-discipline).
The most egregious sentence is that those “who practice homosexuality” (italics added) are “profoundly respected.” So we should have profound respect for those who commit homosexual acts, which are mortal sins. By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers, and child molesters.
The modern Church seeks to curry favor with its ancient and permanent enemy, the world.
This disgustingly egregious “discipline” by Ratzinger is a prime example of why it is stupid to try and succor sodomites
The majority of the perverts will still hate The Church
A lose-lose liberalism is the praxis of the modern papacy and they refuse to learn any lessons at all
Thanks to Matt, who cunningly crafted a truly Swiftian story that made the critical point that we cannot — we must not — disdain or obviate the link between sex and procreation. There is no end to the hell we let in, if we weaken that; I think Matt proved that about as well as it can be proved.
As Matt also implied, the trouble these days with all possible Modest Proposals is that somebody, somewhere, already thinks there’s nothing wrong with them, let alone thinks they’re outrageous, and wants everybody to get on board, for “justice.”
The point of my original post was, who is following the money? CNA is funded — and established — by the US bishops, as are a lot of other things — just including those organizations and ’causes’ we know about.
I daresay not a single CNA employee will even be reprimanded for this, let alone be fired. CNA has for decades committed egregious errors, not only of commission, but also of omission: in years past, entire papal messages were simply never deemed worthy of ‘coverage’ by CNA, the official news organization of the United States episcopal conference.
Nobody is ‘in charge’ of this stuff — or rather, a committee is. All we know is that for some reason, US bishops are not exactly handing out holy cards; and that’s just the stuff we know about. Are there US episcopal links — I mean, funding links, we already know about political support — to BLM, to Antifa? Wouldn’t put it past them.
As we have heard directly from Archbishop Vigano, there is so much American episcopal money sloshing around that some (many?) US bishops routinely ‘gift’ tens of thousands of US dollars to newly-installed US bishops — or, in Vigano’s case, to a newly-install nuncio (who was utterly confused, and simply gave it all to charity).
It’s not just the Vatican finances that need investigating.
I should say: it’s not just the Vatican finances that need investigating — and will never be investigated.
Malleus Maleficarum was the real ‘Satanic Inversion’ with 20 to 30 million corpses
in it’s wake replacing old school crucifixion in service to church and state.
Where the hell are you getting 20 to 30 million executions from? If I take the hardly Christian-friendly wikipedia estimate for total deaths in Witch Trials, that gets us 50,000, over the course of 4 centuries. Even if we use their estimate for “lost records” it only gets to 100,000. And of course a large proportion of those were carried out in protestant districts which would have nothing to do with the Malleus Maleficarum.
So even 1 million would be laughably inaccurate. But 20 to 30 million? What the hell are you on?
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
From the social order
8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.
From the legal order
9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Now, as has been common since the late 1940s and early 1950s Doctrine absent Discipline has been tried and failed miserably.
Excommunicate these bastids. NOW
John B(): You have been taken by aliens?????
Jay Smith: We’re closer than you think.
Fredo: Viagra did not save the rhinos and tigers. Old habits are hard to change. Robots are not going to be the end-all for sexual deviancy, just like Viagra meant nothing to people who grind tigers for aphrodisiacs.
BDavi52: “Do we really need to sing “Kumbaya” and make some more s’mores?” No where near me if you want to live.
There was not slippery slope. When the one man/one woman requirement was removed, IT WAS A CLIFF.
The author’s necrophobia is a grave offense. I’m dead serious. And his writing is stiff and lifeless. This post should be nixed, erased, and liquidated, so that readers are not mortified.
I think ten to twenty million is an entirely reasonable estimate when one
considers the Malleus Maleficarum was the 14th century intellectual equivalent of
Karl Marx’s Das Kapital. Did Karl Marx kill 300 million people…no but his ideas did. Just
as the intellectual framework of the witch’s hammer both directly and indirectly killed
millions of people. Now we can quibble over the numbers all day but the fact of the matter
is pretty much every European war has been fought in the name of one religion or another,
and the intellectual manure of the Malleus Maleficarum contributed in large measure
in shaping that homicidal framework. It was so good the protestants eventually adopted it,
it was after all the closest thing to science they had at the time.
The St. Bartholomew Massacre is the Malleus Maleficarum set in motion, an expression
of the venality and hate that formed the core of that evil treatise. A core that reaches beyond
the records of actual executions hoarded up in some Vatican catacomb to be trotted out and
assure the world it wasn’t so bad as you’ve imagined. It beggars belief, to think of all those
‘devil worshiping’ savages that were either saved for indoctrination or made to perish on the
sword. If seminal ideas can kill this one surely did if anything that’s a conservative estimate.
It is the same universal process of demonization to destroy the other with false attributes at
play today in the left and right paradigm. The left will use the hammer if they get their hands
Wasn’t it Karl Marx who was so taken with the system of Catholic monastery
land hoardings while formulating his treatise of the commune…small world eh…
Amateur Brain Surgeon:
One person observed it takes merely 3 generations(each generation being roughly 30 years) after such measures(sex beyond marriage between a man and a woman) are enacted for society to fall into decay and ruin.
It makes a lot of sense. A nuclear family is the best chance at nurturing a person to turn out to be well behaved and controlled, who in turn contributes to society.
Overly sexualized world means we give into every desires and whim and ultimately lose discipline and self control which is required in the real world. Thus, when it happens everything breaks down.
Oh, so you’re an unhinged conspiracy nut. Gotcha.
The St. Bartholomew Massacre is the Malleus Maleficarum set in motion
MMM, swallowed that protestant polemical chestnut whole…
ABS believes this book “A History of The Protestant Reformation” by William Cobbett (protestant) is available to read for free online.
Begin on page 239 and you might learn a thing or two for as it now stands you are a galactic distance from the truth.
“I think ten to twenty million is an entirely reasonable estimate when one considers the Malleus Maleficarum was the 14th century intellectual equivalent of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital…”
Malleus Maleficarum was first published in 1486 – late 15th C., not 14th. It’s influence has always been grossly exaggerated, especially by 20th and 21st C. feminists (Lars von Trier’s film “The Antichrist” involves a feminist scholar who becomes mentally unhinged studying Malleus Maleficarcum – though she only tips over into true insanity after the accidental death of her young son), but it was most influential at the height of the anti-witchcraft craze of the 16th and 17th centuries, which was largely a Protestant thing (there is a reason “The Crucible” is set in New England and not New Orleans).
The number 20 million is absurd, just as Protestants throw out similarly absurd numbers related to the Spanish Inquisition (which most also don’t actually understand, either in terms of purpose or from a procedural point of view – all part of the Black Legend developed to justify Protestantism in the early 16th Century).
You’re right Dennis it was the 15th century…my bad. I’m not sure you can really quantify
what the impact of a belief in demons and witches might be at the level of civilizations. The
Malleus Maleficarum formalized a set of beliefs that had been around since Sumer 3900BC that
already had left millions pinned to roadside cross’s lining thoroughfares. It was a formalization,
an especially illustrative example of human depravity that had already existed for millennia.
As such you could argue it’s impact was nothing new to the human condition but yet another
illustration of man’s depravity in the pursuit of power. It was entirely political a formalization
of a terror that was exercised with a good deal of relish and spectral. Indeed public torture and
executions filled the gap left by the Roman circus for many centuries. When you Catholics
gaze up at your crucifix’s you should see not only Christ there but all of humanity the base
of the pyramid ground into submission. The handmaidens of state power have always been
and will continue to be some chicken bone witch doctor or other. Just look at Francis he’s
clambering up onto the global warming hobby horse and says the world is ending.
“…had left millions pinned to roadside cross’s lining thoroughfares…”
So now you’ve gone from alleged number of victims of modern anti-witchcraft crazes inspired by a particular book to ancient Sumer and the entire history of crucifixions? OK. Even then, I can find no evidence to corroborate this claim of “millions” of crucifixions over the history of the practice, never mind 10-20 million. The most recorded and alleged to have taken place at one time was 6000 executed after the Spartacus revolt who lined the Appian Way. Hardly “millions lining thoroughfares”. To reach even 1 million would take the equivalent of 166 Spartacus reprisals. I think we’d have heard about such numbers in the history books (and most of those ever crucified were for political/criminal charges, not anything to do with belief in demons and witches, which you seem to think is behind all evil in history).
Wow. I’ve never seen a Pope who was so regularly misquoted and mischaracterized like Francis. Then again, we also haven’t seen a correction or retraction of his latest questionable comments either, so…
Scroll down to
MASSACRE OF SAINT BARTHOLOMEW.
TAIL-PIECE TO IT.
A MAN’S HAND CUT OFF FOR THWARTING BESS IN HER LOVE-SICK FIT. HER FAVOURITES AND MINISTERS.
HISTORY AND MURDER OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTLAND.
Kensington, August 31st, 1825.
289. THOUGH the massacre of St. BARTHOLOMEW took place in France, yet, it has formed so fertile a source of calumny against the religion of our fathers; it has served as a pretence with Protestant historians to justify, or palliate, so many atrocities on the part of their divers sects; and the Queen of England and her Ministers had so great a hand in first producing it, and then in punishing Catholics under pretence of avenging it, ….
Pope Leo IX in his letter to Saint Peter Damien (Book of Gomorrah) taught this:
For he who does not attack vice, but deals lightly with it (sodomy), is rightly judged to be guilty of his death, along with the one who dies in sin
Yea it’s all good Dennis nothing to see here Wiki will clean it all up for you…
Yes, Wiki is always the most reliable source for info related to the Church and Christians in general.
Looks interesting ABS it’s great that some of these more obscure manuscripts are available
on line. Gives you a completely different sense of the times. Internet Archive is another good
You see, millions crucified, Briggs, and it’s all your fault. You and your necrodiacrodematalicious whatever.
The power hungry bastards are testing us with articles like these.
“Hmm, how far up the scale of ridiculousness will people take this time?”, they ponder.