Hilary White

Catholic Church and Castro in cahoots to ‘eradicate’ homosexuals? MSNBC pundit’s incoherent rant

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

ROME, January 3, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Readers may be surprised to hear that Jesus Christ was the first socialist; every word of every article in the Vatican newspaper is “virtually dictated” personally by Pope Benedict; every country in Europe – indeed in the whole world – is socialist; the Catholic Church “thrives” under socialist regimes; and Fidel Castro’s mass murdering regime is on a moral par with the Catholic Church because they both allegedly want to “eradicate” homosexuals.

All of these assertions have come from the mouth of MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who recorded a strange and confused 3.5 minute tirade  against Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas address, in which the pope warned that abortion and the advance of the homosexualist political and social agenda is a threat to the stability of human societies.

O’Donnell included several astonishing whoppers, including the assertion that a vow of celibacy automatically renders those who make it “tragically ignorant about marriage.” This despite the indisputable fact that the Pope, as well as nearly all clergy, are themselves the product of marriage, are surrounded like everyone else by married people and minister to married people, in addition to presumably being in possession of the normal human rational capacity that would allow them understand common cultural concepts.

Mr. O’Donnell appears not to have noticed that the Catholic Church, whose clergy have been celibate for centuries, has been administering the sacrament of marriage, counselling married people and generally been intimately involved in the institution of marriage since the founding of Christian civilization.

Another jaw-dropper was the astonishing news that Jesus Christ “was the original socialist” because he fed the poor and admonished the moneychangers in the Temple. Because apparently in Mr. O’Donnell’s odd universe, no one other than socialists have ever done any of these things.

Demonstrating his deep penetration of Vatican affairs, O’Donnell goes on to say that “everything in the Vatican newspaper [L’Osservatore Romano] is virtually dictated by the pope”. To which assertion many long-time Catholic observers of the Vatican scene will doubtless respond – after they pick themselves up off the floor – “Oh, would that it were so!”

But it is when O’Donnell equates the Catholic Church’s teaching on the meaning of human sexuality with the mass murders undertaken by Fidel Castro’s regime after his takeover of Cuba, that the Wonderland Whirl really begins. So dizzyingly bizarre are the comparisons and insinuations that it becomes difficult to sort out just what point Mr. O’Donnell is trying to make. 

“The most hard-core socialist practitioner of all time was also viciously anti-gay,” says O’Donnell. Castro, “who started life as a Roman Catholic,” rounded up homosexuals “and sent them to re-education camps.”

“In Fidel Castro’s socialist utopia, gay sex was a criminal act,” O’Donnell continues. “Castro believed he could actually rid his country of all homosexuality, and he did everything in his power to achieve that.” Therefore, O’Donnell said, socialism “has not been a special friend to gay people”.

At the same time, O’Donnell claims, the Catholic Church “has thrived in socialist countries around the world,” although it “this week seems to want to pretend it is suddenly threatened by socialism”. These socialist countries, he says, include Italy. “Yes, Italy is a socialist country, as is every country in Europe, as is every country in the world, to varying degrees,” he adds.

He declined, however, to mention the countless thousands of Catholic inmates who perished in the Gulag system, prisons and torture chambers of the countries of the Soviet Union. He seems also never to have heard of any of the writings of any of the popes, largely before the 1960s, warning the world of the threat of socialistic Communism.

Untangled, O’Donnell’s message seems to be that the Catholic Church is socialist, because it follows Jesus Christ, the “first socialist,” and it is therefore exactly like Castro in its desire to persecute, torture and murder homosexuals – presumably with the approval of its socialist Founder.

Fortunately, Pope Benedict, who has been known to read a book or two now and then, was rather more coherent in his message for Christmas. However little Mr. O’Donnell may be aware of it, there is very little dispute in academia or among the more serious-minded public commentators that the “gender theory” driving the far-left, homosexualist political agenda is an offshoot of radical academic feminism, that is itself the child of Marxist theory. So much can be discovered by simply Googling the search terms “Engels, monogamous, family.”

It is hardly credible to dispute the connection of the “LGBTQ” agenda with the left, particularly in Europe where it forms a cornerstone of all the socialist, leftist and green parties’ platforms. Benedict is among the many who have personally experienced the effects of socialistic theories put into practice in various totalitarian regimes in recent European history, and is well placed to issue warnings against its re-growth under new names.

In the Christmas address that Mr. O’Donnell was at such pains to ridicule, Benedict warned that the attack on the family “goes much deeper” than was previously believed. It is a product, the pope said, ultimately of a foundational error about what it means to be human. It is a refusal to accept the very notion that there is such a thing as human nature, connected to their “bodily identity,” which we all share.

“While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question,” Pope Benedict said. Gender theory’s adherents, and the many more people they have seduced, “deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves”.

In the gender ideology, “sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.”

The theory denies the immutable, dual nature of humanity, that “being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature.” But, “this duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about,” Pope Benedict said.

“If there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation,” he said.

“The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be.”

L’Osservatore Romano followed up the pope’s address with the observation that the new theory of a mutable, essentially self-determined human nature, is part and parcel of the socialist attempt to entirely re-write the nature of human beings and human societies. Lucetta Scaraffia, an eminent Italian historian who has also presumably read a few books, wrote that gender theory and its political causes are in fact the ultimate expression of Marx and Engels’ initial call for the abolition of the two-parent, biologically-based family.

She warned that the societies will “pay a high price” for the attempt to found a society on these premises, “as has already happened in the past when we have tried to achieve a complete economic and social equality.”

Pope Benedict warned, perhaps most ominously of all, that the final results of the implementation of this theory is the total objectification of human beings, particularly children. “From being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.”

Just $5 for PRO-LIFE?

If each person who read this donated just $5, LifeSite would surpass our critical fall campaign goal. Please, donate today!


Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Sandra Cano, ‘Mary Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton, RIP

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image

Sandra Cano, the woman whose divorce custody case morphed into a Supreme Court decision extending the “constitutional right” to an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnacy, has passed away of natural causes.

Cano was “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, the other case settled by the High Court on January 22, 1973. In 1970, at 22, Cano saw an attorney to divorce her husband – who had a troubled legal history – and regain custody of her children. The Georgia resident was nine weeks pregnant with her fourth child at the time.

Cano said once the attorney from Legal Aid, Margie Pitts Hames, deceptively twisted her desire to stay with her children into a legal crusade that has resulted in 56 million children being aborted.

“I was a trusting person and did not read the papers put in front of me by my lawyer,” Cano said in a sworn affidavit in 2003. “I did not even suspect that the papers related to abortion until one afternoon when my mother and my lawyer told me that my suitcase was packed to go to a hospital, and that they had scheduled an abortion for the next day.”

Cano was so disgusted by the prospect that she fled the state.

Yet the legal case went on, winding up before the Supreme Court the same day as Roe v. Wade. The same 7-2 majority agreed to Roe, which struck down state regulations on abortions before viability, and Doe, which allowed abortions until the moment of birth on the grounds of maternal “health” – a definition so broad that any abortion could be justified.

All the justices except Byron White and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age” are all “factors [that] may relate to [maternal] health.”

“I was nothing but a symbol in Doe v. Bolton with my experience and circumstances discounted and misrepresented,” Cano said in 2003.

Two years later, she told a Senate subcommittee, “Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion... I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind.”

On the 30th anniversary of the case, she asked the Supreme Court justices to revisit the ruling that bears her pseudonym, but they denied her request. “I felt responsible for the experiences to which the mothers and babies were being subjected. In a way, I felt that I was involved in the abortions – that I was somehow responsible for the lives of the children and the horrible experiences of their mothers,” she explained.

By that time, both Cano and Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, opposed abortion and implored the Supreme Court to overturn the rulings made in their names. Both also said their pro-abortion attorneys had misrepresented or lied about their circumstances to make abortion-on-demand more sympathetic.

"I pledge that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America,” Cano said in 1997.

Priests for Life announced last week that Cano was in a hospital in the Atlanta area, in critical condition with throat cancer, blood sepsis, and congestive heart failure.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“My heart is broken that Sandra will never witness an end to abortion,” Janet Morana said. “She never wanted to have an abortion. She never had an abortion, and she certainly never wanted to be a part of the Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, that opened the gates for legal abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason.”

“Sandra’s work to overturn that devastating decision that was based on lies will not end with her death,” Fr. Frank Pavone said. “When life ultimately triumphs over death, Sandra will share in that victory.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

First we killed our unborn children. Now we’re killing our own parents.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

In a culture that elevates transient pleasure as a “value,” while reducing “value” itself to a subjective and utilitarian status, I suppose it should not be surprising that the worth of human beings is now constantly in question.

We once lived in a culture that drafted laws to protect “dependents”: the very young, the very old, and the disabled. This was done in recognition of the fact that a human being’s increased vulnerability correspondingly heightens our moral responsibility to that human being.

Now, however, the exit strategists of the Sexual Revolution are burning the candle at both ends - abortion for children in the womb, euthanasia and “assisted suicide” for the old. Both children and elderly parents, you see, can be costly and time-consuming.

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

I noted some time ago that the concept of “dying with dignity” is rapidly becoming “killing with impunity,” as our culture finds all sorts of excuses to assist “inconvenient” people in leaving Planet Earth.

There is a similarity to abortion, here, too—our technologically advanced culture is no longer looking for compassionate and ethical solutions to the complex, tragic, and often heartbreaking circumstances. Instead, we offer the solution that Darkness always has: Death. Disability, dependence, difficult life circumstances: a suction aspirator, a lethal injection, a bloody set of forceps. And the “problem,” as it were, is solved.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

There is something chilling about the intimacy of these killings. As Gregg Cunningham noted, “Ours is the first generation that, having demanded the right to kill its children through elective abortion, is now demanding the right to kill its parents through doctor-assisted suicide.” The closest of human relationships are rupturing under the sheer weight of the selfishness and narcissism of the Me Generation.

The great poet Dylan Thomas is famous for urging his dying father to fight on, to keep breathing, to live longer:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Such sentiment is not present among the advocates of euthanasia. In fact, the tagline “dying with dignity” is starting to very much sound like, “Now don’t make a fuss, off with you now.” Consider this story in The Daily Mail from a few days ago:

An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.

'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, take care of our father or our mother.'

I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realization that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realizing that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her: that their relationship really does have a price.

This is why some scenes in the HBO euthanasia documentary How To Die In Oregon are so chilling. In one scene, an elderly father explains to the interviewer why he has procured death drugs that he plans to take in case of severe health problems. “I don’t want to be a burden,” he explains while his adult daughter nods approvingly, “It’s the decent thing to do. For once in my life I’ll do something decent.”

No argument from the daughter.

If we decide in North America to embrace euthanasia and “assisted suicide,” we will not be able to unring this bell. Just as with abortion and other manifestations of the Culture of Death, the Sexual Revolutionaries work hard to use heart-rending and emotional outlier examples to drive us to, once again, legislate from the exception.

But for once, we have to start asking ourselves if we really want to further enable our medical community to kill rather than heal. We have to ask ourselves if the easy option of dispatching “burdensome” people will not impact our incentive to advance in palliative care. And we have to stop simply asking how someone in severe pain might respond to such a legal “service,” and start asking how greedy children watching “their” inheritance going towards taking proper care of their parents.

And to the pro-life movement, those fighting to hold back the forces of the Culture of Death—the words of Dylan Thomas have a message for us, too.

Do not go gentle into that good night…
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Advertisement
Featured Image
Luka Magnotta http://luka-magnotta.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

Gay porn star admits dismembering ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

Montreal gay porn actor Luka Magnotta admits killing and dismembering his ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film, but pled not guilty on Monday to all five charges filed against him.

Magnotta shocked the world in June 2012 by allegedly killing and cannibalizing a 33-year-old university student from China, Jun Lin, then posting a video of his actions and the results online. He later hid some of the dismembered parts in the garbage, but also mailed parcels containing body parts to political offices in Ottawa and schools in Vancouver.

He was charged with first-degree murder, committing an indignity to a body, publishing obscene material, mailing obscene and indecent material, and criminally harassing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other MPs.

Magnotta's lawyer Luc Leclair is basing the not guilty plea on the defendant having a history of mental illness, thus making him not criminally responsible.

Crown prosecutor Louis Bouthillier said he intends to prove that Magnotta planned the alleged murder well before it was committed.

"He admits the acts or the conducts underlying the crime for which he is charged. Your task will be to determine whether he committed the five offences with the required state of mind for each offence," Quebec Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer instructed the jury, according to media reports.

However, some authorities have pointed out that Magnotta’s behavior follows a newly discernible trend of an out-of-control sexual deviancy fueled by violent pornography.

Click "like" if you  say NO to porn!

Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on pornography and sexuality, told LifeSiteNews in 2012 she believes Magnotta’s behavior “reflects years of brain imprinting by pornography.”

“His homosexual cannibalism links sex arousal with shame, hate and sadism,” said Reisman. Although cannibalism is not as common as simple rape, she added, “serial rape, murder, torture of adults and even of children is an inevitable result of our ‘new brains,’ increasingly rewired by our out-of-control sexually exploitive and sadistic mass media and the Internet.”

In their 2010 book “Online Killers,” criminology researchers Christopher Berry-Dee and Steven Morris said research has shown “there are an estimated 10,000 cannibal websites, with millions ... who sit for hours and hours in front of their computer screens, fantasizing about eating someone.” 

This underworld came to light in a shocking case in Germany in 2003, when Armin Meiwes was tried for killing his homosexual lover Bernd Jürgen Brandes, a voluntary fetish victim whom Meiwes picked up through an Internet forum ad seeking “a well-built 18- to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.”

After the warrant was issued for his arrest, Magnotta was the target of an international manhunt for several days until he was arrested in Berlin, where police say he was found looking at online pornography alongside news articles about himself at an Internet café.

The trial is expected to continue to mid-November, with several dozen witnesses being called to testify before the jury of six men and eight women.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook