Saturday, September 22, 2018

Contra James Martin and Some of His Opponents

Fr." Martin proves Francis and the Vatican II Sect endorse homosexuality and "transgenderism" | 17.IX.2018

It so happens, homosexual orientation need not absolutely have fruits in the mortal sin of sodomy.

Look at Josh Weed. His temptations against chasty are, as far as he has told, male. His sexual acts are making babies with his wife (to desire whom is obviously not against chastity and not a temptation).

Or at the wife of Roy Campbell. She had an affair with Vita Sackville West - was punished and forgiven.

Some people both at left and right of this debate are promoting the lie that people with this problem cannot make a normal Christian marriage.

A left handed man can learn to be ambidextrous and to use the right hand for tasks where it is required - like using certain machinery not produced for left handed men traditionally.

I also do not think one is born homosexual ever. Except perhaps extreme situations during pregnancy.

One is born with a certain level of manliness if man or womanliness if woman, and a certain level of traits of opposite sex (in so far as we are talking aptitude for acquiring cultural traits which are not per se inborn). Some machist cultures encourage only very manly men to feel and be considered as heterosexual.

I think the Stuart family has a trait of feminine side in men. In James III of Scotland, it was a heterosexual man with an artistic bent. In James VI / I and Charles I, it was bisexuality (more predominant in the father who knelt before the sacrament while absolutely NOT believing transsubstantation, thereby making his Anglicanism genuinely "wafer worshipping" - and so God punished him). In Francis II of Bavaria, one wonders if it has taken a turn to full homosexuality. He is on good terms with a male doctor and unmarried.

I think the four men were born with same traits, genetically, but it took different turns for moral reasons both of culture and of God punishing one of them.

3:44 "the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives" obviously SHOULD not be accepted.

It is one heresy of "Paul VI." You will agree he was an antipope.

Pius V, a holy man, a canonised saint, and a real pope, said that some "GB" men must be celibate all their lives, since having vowed eternal celibacy, but need to be removed from the social context that vow originally opened on.

He never said that a homosexual layman may not attempt what Josh Weed succeeded.

Saying they need lifelong celibacy is as erroneous as saying they need "gay marriage".

And a fortiori this applies to people who are just rumoured to be LGBT without admitting so themselves, since the "diagnosis" could be as superstitious as reading their horoscope and concluding they are homosexual.

4:30 I would definitely consider barring a person from - real - marriage bc he is or is by others considered as homosexual as comparable to racialism.

This is obviously no warrant for the non-marriage called "gay marriage".

It is as prohibited for heterosexuals as for homosexuals.

Suppose in a dystopic future someone could save his mother from torture by entering a "gay marriage".

Is this just forbidden to homosexuals? No, it is equally forbidden to heterosexuals.

Both in the real right to real marriage (unless already married to someone else or bound by vows to lifelong celibacy) and in the real ban on gay marriage, homosexual and heterosexual orientations make no difference. They make a personal difference to how easy it is to live up to a thing, but not a juridic or canonic difference as to rights.

7:07 Vivat Kim Davies, obviously!

8:20 sth - encouraging even civil gay marriages is obviously making a sect whore of some kind, and if sufficiently big, Babylonic.

So is, as obviously, discouraging men from settling the issue by real marriage.

When "Paul VI" claimed "homosexuals are called to chastity" (understood : perfect chastity, celibacy) he insulted both free will (by which a homosexual can choose heterosexual behaviour) and celibacy (which is 60 to 100-fold fruit and hardly at the fingertips of the least chaste).

Forbidding a gay man to marry a woman or a lesbian woman to marry a man, because one feels they are predestined to not do what is right if marrying is an ultra-Calvinist heresy (since Calvin probably had been branded for sodomy in his youth, before he actually married later on), it is a doctrine of demons, and as such obviously foretold by St Paul to St Timothy.

Other doctrine of demons connected to marriage, pretending teens are too immature to marry and should therefore legally be forbidden to do so, even if otherwise there should be any opportunity.

No comments: