The Uganda Martyrs Died Because They Refused to Engage in Sodomy with King Mwanga

lwonga

Ann Barnhardt contributes a timely and topical article as the Pope visits Africa.

Was this massacre also simply the result of a basic “lack of hospitality” to which modern day sodomites attribute the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Let’s see how the unholy “Spinmeisters” deal with this one.

Read more

Also condemned were Andrew Kagwa, a Kigowa chief, who had converted his wife and several others, and Matthias Murumba (or Kalemba) an assistant judge.

The chief counselor was so furious with Andrew that he proclaimed he wouldn’t eat until he knew Andrew was dead.

When the executioners hesitated Andrew egged them on by saying, “Don’t keep your counsellor hungry — kill me.” When the same counsellor described what he was going to do with Matthias, he added, “No doubt his god will rescue him.”

“Yes,” Matthias replied, “God will rescue me. But you will not see how he does it, because he will take my soul and leave you only my body.”

Matthias was cut up on the road and left to die — it took him at least three days.

Saint Charles Lwanga at Catholic.com

 

Advertisements

Fair warning: Society and the Church should prepare to be sodomized.

Setting the Table — A Guide to Queering Catholic Parishes

Given Schexnayder’s obvious long-standing commitment and loyalty to the Homosexual Collective, “an anti-culture” built on sexual deviancy, it is not surprising that Settling the Table turns out to be nothing more than a not-so-clever piece of “gay” agit-prop designed to promote organized perversion, beginning with homosexuality, in Catholic parishes in the U.S. and around the world.

This charge is easily documented by Schexnayder’s cover-to-cover use of the language of “gay-speak.”

In any battle, verbal strategy is as important as military strategy. The enemies of the Church know this, which is why the Homosexual Collective so desperately conspires to control the language and the meaning of words in any public discourse on homosexuality. People think in terms of words. So if the Collective controls the language, they can determine the thoughts people have on any given subject. A great deal of time and energy is spent by the Collective in the training of “gay” leaders like Schexnayder and in the indoctrination of its rank and file members. Schexnayder certainly does not disappoint.

For example, the gay-speak term “homophobic” or “homophobia” is used throughout the text. The creation of this word is closely linked to the Collective’s effort to pass itself off as a “sexually oppressed minority” in need of reclaiming its civil and religious “rights.” The author defines “homophobic” as “a fear of, aversion to, contempt for, or prejudice against homosexual persons, or individuals perceived to be homosexual.” [8] In one of the model “inclusive” parishes presented in Setting the Table, St. Margaret of Scotland Church in St. Louis, Missouri, the community is committed to include gay-speak” terms like ” ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ in discussions about justice and human rights.” [9]

Read more

St. Peter Damian’s views on the innate malice of the vice of sodomy


“Without fail it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul.

It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. … It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise. …This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church. …This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love.

It makes away with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence.

Shall I say more?”

Saint Peter Damian, O.S.B. (Petrus Damiani, also Pietro Damiani or Pier Damiani; c. 1007 – February 21/22, 1072) was a reforming monk in the circle of Pope Gregory VII and a cardinal. In 1823, he was declared a Doctor of the Church. Dante placed him in one of the highest circles of Paradiso as a great predecessor of Saint Francis of Assisi.

Read more

St. Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah:
A Moral Blueprint for Our Times

Submitted by Doria2

Homosexuals claim Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed due to … (gasp) bad hospitality!


To those who know better, it is uncanny the excuse that Sodom and Gomorrah was about “hospitality” has actually remained in the apologetic of the homosexual advocates for so long, being that it is one of the most ridiculous answers ever devised by intelligent men. I remember I first heard the “hospitality” excuse when I was in college in 1978. I took a minor in Psychology and in a class on Abnormal Psychology the professor, with tongue in cheek, stated that the more popular explanation psychologists were giving at that time concerning the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was that it had nothing to do with homosexuality; rather, it was about the sin of “inhospitality.” I remember distinctly, as soon as he uttered those words, the whole class went into hysterical laughter. And that, of course, is what we can do with “Reverend Cheri DiNovo’s” present advocacy of the “hospitality” argument.

Any biblical exegete worth his salt would tell DiNovo that in order for “hospitality” to be the central focus of the Genesis narrative, there would have to be some mention of “hospitality,” or some similar term, as that which was the object of God’s concern regarding the events occurring in Sodom and Gomorrah. As it stands, there is not one word about hospitality.

The only time hospitality is part of the narrative is when Abraham meets the three strangers who eventually condemn Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 18:1f). To show kindness, Abraham and Sarah provide nourishment for the three strangers.

Second, Genesis 18:16-33 provides us with the actual conversation between God and Abraham concerning the fate of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 20 states: “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” Thus, the Lord has ALREADY seen the sin of Sodom, and it is exceedingly perverse. Hence, this couldn’t be the sin of “inhospitality” because the event concerning Lot and the men pounding on his door seeking to consort with the angels has not yet occurred. That event won’t occur until the next chapter, Genesis 19. So “Reverend Cheri’s” argument is completely anachronistic, not to mention completely bogus.

Evidently, the Lord had been observing the sin of Sodom for quite some time, and it is the very reason he has come to Abraham. So perverse and so complete is the sin of Sodom (long before Lot’s door is accosted) that Abraham finds himself bargaining with God not to destroy the city if he can find 10 righteous people. Evidently, Abraham can’t find even 10 righteous people, and thus God plans on destroying the whole city.

Granted, Genesis 18 doesn’t tell us what the sin of Sodom is, but that information is supplied in Genesis 19:5 when the men at Lot’s door say: “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’” (NASB)

The clause “that we may have relations with them” is from the Hebrew word YADAH, which means “to know,” and is often used in idiomatic form to represent sexual relations (cf., Gn 4:25: “And Adam knew his wife and she bore a child”). We know that sexual relations is the meaning of YADAH in this context because it is used again in regard to sexual relations with Lot’s daughters, as Lot says in verse 8: “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations [YADAH] with man” (NASB).

It is obvious to any unbiased exegete that the context of the narrative demands that sexual relations is the focus of the passage.

How else do we know that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved illicit sexual relations? We know it from the many commentaries in Scripture on this very event. In fact, “Sodom” is used as a figure of sexual sin and is referred to as the place of divine judgment over two dozen times in Scripture (cf., Dt 29:23; 32:32; Is 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jr 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lm 4:6; Ez 16:46-56; Am 4:11; Zp 2:9; Mt 10:15; 11:23; Rm 9:29).

But more importantly, there are two explicit passages in the New Testament that tell us precisely that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual in nature. First there is 2 Peter 2:6-8:

“and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)”

The words “sensual conduct” are the Greek ASELGEIA ANASTROPHES. The first ASELGEIA, appears 9 times in the New Testament and is usually translated as “lasciviousness” (Mt 7:22; Rm 13:13; 2Co 12:21; Gl 5:19; Ep 4:19; 1Pt 4:3; 2Pt 2:18; Jd 4), which refers to one having lustful, lewd or wanton thoughts or behavior.

We also note here that the men of Sodom were tormenting Lot “day after day.” Hence, this is not merely a one-time occasion of force exerted at Lot’s door, but a continual display of lascivious behavior long before the angels ever arrived.

Then there is Jude 7:

“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

Here it is even more explicit as to the nature of the sin of Sodom. The clause indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh is from the Greek EKPORNUESASAI and APELTHOUSAI OPISO SARKOS HETERAS. The first is a combination of the Greek PORNEIA, which is derivation for our English word “pornography,” and the prefix “EK,” which means “out of.” The second phrase literally means “going after different flesh.” The operative word here is “different,” which is from the Greek HETERAS. In this context it refers to sexual relations that are “different” than normal sexual relations, i.e., homosexual relations.

Hence, DiNovo’s interpretation of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being accepted by reputable biblical exegetes.

There is one curious fact we also need to mention. The mere fact that DiNovo feels compelled to answer the Bible shows that she implicitly regards the Bible as a practical authority on the issue. If she didn’t esteem the Bible, then all she would need to do to answer the narrative is say: “The Bible is not an authority, and therefore we are not compelled to answer its assertions.” Instead, DiNovo implicitly subjects herself to the authority of Scripture, and thus, if she is wrong about her interpretation of Scripture (which we have clearly shown), then she will also suffer the condemnations Scripture specifies for those who practice or advocate homosexuality.

Read more from Robert Sungenis at Catholic Apologetics International

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

Old Time Religion: 4 sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance

From the Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649

CHAPTER  XX –  The sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance

Q. 925. HOW many such sins are there?
A. Four.

Q. 926. What is the first of them?
A. Wilful murder, which is a voluntary and unjust taking away another’s life.

Q. 927. How show you the depravity of this sin?
A. Out of Gen. iv. 10. Where it is said to Cain “What hast thou done? the voice of the blood of thy brother crieth to me from the earth: now, therefore shalt thou be cursed upon the earth.” And Matt. xxvi 52, “All that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.”

Q. 928. What is the second?
A. The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.

Q. 929. What is the scripture proof of this?
A. Out of Gen. xix. 13. where we read of the Sodomites, and their sin. “We will destroy this place because the cry of them hath increased before our Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them,” (and they were burnt with fire from heaven.)

Q. 930. What is the third?
A. Oppressing of the poor, which is a cruel, tyrannical, and unjust dealing with inferiors.

Q. 931. What other proof have you of that?
A. Out of Exod. xxii. 21. “Ye shall not hurt the widow and the fatherless: If you do hurt them, they will cry unto me, and I will hear them cry, and my fury shall take indignation, and I will strike thee with the sword.” And out of Isa. x. 1, 2. “Wo to them that make unjust laws, that they might oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people.”

Q. 932. What is the fourth?
A. To defraud working men of their wages, which is to lessen, or detain it from them.

Q. 933. What proof have you of it?
A. Out of Eccl. xxxiv. 37. “He that sheddeth blood and he that defraudeth the hired man, are brethren,” and out of James v. 4. “Behold the hire of the workmen that have reaped your fields, which is defrauded by you, crieth, and their cry hath entered into the ears of the Lord God of Sabbath.”

Read more