The grave error of co-operating with homosexuality

In the last few months we have seen many headlines regarding measures proposed for controlling the spread of AIDS, which may well prove to be the most devastating epidemic to strike mankind this century. But unfortunately the emphasis all too often has been on an almost feverish campaign to promote ‘safe sex’ by means of prophylactics (condoms). Not only has there been insufficient publicity about the unreliability of this supposedly ‘safe’ method (which in fact will probably only tend to delay, rather than prevent, the contraction of AIDS amongst consistently active homosexuals), but we are losing sight of the grave moral issues at stake. The kind of ‘education’ most commonly advocated is likely to come across in practice as co-operation with a gravely sinful activity, or at least as condoning it. And that of course is precisely what the militant homosexual movement wants. We will be very naive if we fail to realize that this movement is attempting to gain the maximum mileage out of the AIDS crisis in an effort to bring about still greater social acceptance of the practice of sodomy.

As I reflect on the present situation, an interesting parallel springs to mind. When I went to teach in the Papua New Guinea highlands over twenty years ago with Australian Volunteers Abroad (our equivalent of the U.S. Peace Corps), a rare and dreaded disease called kuru was finally being eradicated. As far as I remember, no cure was ever found for kuru: it was 100% fatal, and as in the case of AIDS, its victims took a year or so to die. How then was it conquered? Well, scientists finally tracked down its cause: it came from a germ transmitted by cannibalism. This tribe in the Eastern Highlands had the custom of eating dead relatives’ flesh as a sign of spiritual union with them.

When this discovery was made, do you suppose that the Papua New Guinea public authorities and Churches embarked on a great drive to promote ‘safe cannibalism’? Were efforts redoubled and vast sums of money raised to come up with an anti-kuru serum which would allow the cannibals to enjoy their traditional life-style in safety? Were those who urged the eradication of cannibalism condemned on all sides as ‘fascists,’ enemies of religious liberty, bent on “imposing their moral code” on others? Were those dying in mission hospitals as a result of their cannibalistic meals treated as heroic martyrs, with parades and Masses celebrated to honour them?

No, there were no such antics in New Guinea. The obvious, sensible course was followed: government and missions combined to denounce cannibalism with renewed vigour as an immoral activity and a grave threat to public health. In short, it was branded as anti-social behaviour. Today cannibalism – and with it, kuru – have vanished from the Eastern Highlands because one single message, loud and clear, was given to those tribesmen: eating people is wrong – and deadly dangerous!

If today’s secularized societies were morally sane, instead of debilitated by the ceaseless propaganda of the immensely powerful and well-funded homosexual network, an equally loud and clear message would be coming through from all those responsible for educating the public on this matter: anal intercourse (whether with a man or a woman) is wrong and deadly dangerous! (This practice is responsible for over 90% of all AIDS cases).

Read more

Question about the Eucharist and Cannibalism?

Q: Question about the Eucharist?
If the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, isn’t that by definition cannibalism?

A: Eating the dead flesh of a fellow human being would be cannibalism.

Catholics sacramentally partake of the risen body and blood of Jesus Christ, who is alive and glorious … and who is also God.

BIG difference!