JeanP

[From "'Gay' Supporter of Bishop Richard Williamson Writes In"]

[THIS MAN POSTED A COMMENT ON OUR ARTICLE, Does God Create Homosexuals? BELOW IS OUR RESPONSE]

@Joseph Isaiah

You are lying, that is not and never has been the teaching of Mother Church. I remember being different from other boys as far back as age 3…
I am a Catholic and I accept whole and undefiled the doctrines of the Church. I identify with the Resistance of Bishop Williamson. So you cannot claim I am a Modernist, I am simply saying you are not accepting the true Catholic teaching on same sex attraction. It is not because of my sins, but original sin and our fallen nature and race that I have the attractions I have. I remember as a child, saying so many times to God, that He needed to fix my broken sexuality, because I couldn’t. No matter how much fasting, how many Rosaries, how many Confessions and Communions, no matter how much penance, nothing changed. I always was attracted to girls as well, but I always liked other boys as well. Christ gave this to me as a cross to take up daily.
The Holy Catholic Church was founded by Christ not as a prison of persecution, but a hospital for the broken men and women. Christ is our loving God and Saviour because we are not perfect, yet He loves us beyond the comprehension of man. It may condemn an action or heresy, but will never turn someone away who seeks Christ. His religion is the largest worldwide source of relief for the poor, the hungry, the sick, and repentant. It opens up the doors of unending compassion, for sinners of all kind, for single mothers, widows, orphans, married and divorced. For gay, for straight and for bi for the lonely and for sinners of all kind; her mission is the same. It is that of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, Eternal King of the Ages, as she is His Mystical Bride made up of the Mystical Body. Her mission is to save souls. The Church teaches that although it is not of the Natural order that one is homosexual it is not a sin in itself, for one cannot sin if he has not done anything wrong. We are called to a life of celibacy and to be holy, just as all Christians are called to be holy. That is okay, because in reality what people long for is not sex, but love – to love and to be loved, it whatever form. Sexual love is just one form of love, but agape, love love on God can give is so much greater.
I don’t want to sound as if I’m not making Holy Mother Church’s teachings clear that sexual actions outside of a true marriage between man and woman are sinful, but rather I am also professing that with the Holy Church has always believed. That all people are children of the living God and He loves us all for whoever He made us to be. And that we all will be happiest and holiest when serving Him in the lifestyle He has by Divine Wisdom called us to. Because the Church is not for the Saint but the sinner. Those that are gay, are no different that those who are straight, we are all called to chastity and sexual purity. We all must unite ourselves the Christ and His cross, like Mary, Our Lady of Sorrows. St. Paul said in Scripture, I hath been crucified with Christ: now I liveth not, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loveth me, and gave Himself for me.” He is doing what all are called to do by Our Blessed Divine Lord, “Then Jesus saith unto his disciples: If any man wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”

MHFM: Joseph, your letter is a prime example of why you remain afflicted with a perverted same-sex ‘attraction’. You are lying to yourself and rejecting the truth. Our position is very clear: same-sex attraction is not natural. It is the result of sin and a rejection of God, as Romans 1 teaches (see below). You make reference to some alleged ‘Catholic teaching’ which you believe contradicts our position. You believe this ‘teaching’ declares that there is nothing perverted about men being attracted to men, and women being attracted to women, but you cite nothing of course. That’s because no such teaching exists.

You also state: “I identify with the Resistance of Bishop Williamson. So you cannot claim I am a Modernist…” This is an example of how you are quite deceived. Identifying with the false resistance of Bishop Richard Williamson doesn’t prove you are not a modernist. On the contrary, it actually proves that your positions are heretical and schismatic, and that you are following a modernist. Richard Williamson is a modernist, a heretic, and a schismatic. He is not a true Catholic. You really need to watch this video: The Truth About The SSPX, The SSPX-MC, And Similar Groups (video). It proves that the ‘Resistance’ you are embracing is not Catholic.

You should also see this file on him: [B]Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a schismatic and a wolf in sheep’s clothing[/B].

Among other things, Richard Williamson holds that one may attend the invalid, non-Catholic New Mass. He declared that the notorious idolater and apostate Antipope John Paul II was a “good man”. He declared that the notorious apostate Benedict XVI is “in good faith”. He denies the dogma Outside the Church There Is No Salvation, as all priests ordained by the SSPX do. He, in fact, holds that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved without the Catholic faith, contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence. He therefore does not profess the Catholic Church’s teaching on salvation. In addition to being heretical, his positions are TOTALLY SCHISMATIC and involve a rejection of papal infallibility. He does not have the true faith. His positions are a rejection of Catholic truth about the Papacy. The ‘Resistance’ is false and schismatic.

[...]

Even though you don’t say it explicitly, you imply that you were ‘gay’ from your earliest years, even from the age of three. We doubt you have such memories from that age. Homosexuals deceive themselves and frequently lie. But even if one were, for the sake of argument, to accept your claim to have been a conscious homosexual from the age of three, we would respond thus: if you claim to have been conscious of such things from the age of three, that suggests that you reached the age of reason at the age of three. Well, as soon as one arrives at the age of reason, he can reject the truth. He can resist or reject God and sin mortally. Deliverance to unnatural attractions can be the result of such a rejection of God, even from an early age. Some people are just not of the truth. Some people just refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28), and they make that decision early on. St. Thomas explains that as soon as a person reaches the age of reason, he can direct himself to the proper end or he can refuse to do so. If he chooses to do the latter, he sins mortally. Since you claim to have possessed such an understanding of yourself and your activity from the age of three, then you could have refused to have God in your knowledge and rejected the proper end at that age. That could be why you have same-sex ‘attraction’, and had it from a very early age. But it’s more likely that you rejected God and the truth a number of years later than you describe, and that resulted in your perverted inclinations.

[...]

You were given over to homosexuality as a result of your resistance to the truth. You can be delivered from it when you actually become a real Catholic. Our material covers the true positions, and it explains how to become a true Catholic. But don’t expect to be delivered from your perverted inclinations while you are following a schismatic false resistance that denies papal infallibility, among other things. You will only be delivered if and when you embrace the true faith and get into the state of grace.

[From "If Vitamin N was a thing they'd be fine"]

Why is it that niggers are so much more likely to die of the Wuhan Flu?†

Left-wing media asks "could it be racism"? Of course. No, not of course that's the reason but of course they asked. They have a little cottage industry entirely devoted to asking that question constantly whether it makes sense to or not. Zoe Carpenter at The Nation writes "What We Know About the Covid-19 Race Gap" with the hilariously ironic sub-title "The CDC is finally releasing more data that show just how unequal the toll of the pandemic is. But we can’t stop there". One of the things we don't know about the "race gap" is whether or not it's even unequal. To know that, you have to surmise that the death toll is related to the medical care and not the virus itself. Zoe/Zoë Carpenter doesn't have a clue about that: she pretends to but she's lying.

Covid-19 is retracing patterns of disease and death long documented by public health experts, who have found that black Americans are more likely than whites to suffer from a variety of illnesses and chronic conditions—such as diabetes and hypertension, common comorbidities in Covid-19 hospitalizations—and to die prematurely. While some treat these disparities as a mystery (“Why is it that the African American community is so much, you know, numerous times more [likely to die] than everybody else?… It doesn’t make sense,” President Trump said recently), there’s a robust body of research indicating that systemic racism and its related stress exact a physical toll that compounds over a lifetime.

Robust body of evidence, eh? The dumb little witch can't even point to a robust body of evidence that "systemic racism" even exists outside the fervent delusions of biased social scientists, let alone that it has some sort of physical aspect.

† Maybe that sentence already answers itself: the Red Chinese manufactured the virus and they don't like niggers, a problem which has flared up in Wuhan before...

If you think The Nation and their ilk are ridiculous on this topic consider that MedPage Today went one further:

Comorbidities like hypertension and diabetes, which are tied to COVID-19 complications, disproportionately affect the black community. But the alarming rates at which COVID-19 is killing black Americans extends beyond these comorbidities and can be attributed to decades of spatial segregation, inequitable access to testing and treatment, and withholding racial/ethnicity data from reports on virus outcomes.
"There is nothing different biologically about race. It is the conditions of our lives," said Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, PhD, former president of the American Public Health Association. "We have to acknowledge that now and always."
Predominantly black U.S. counties are experiencing a three-fold higher infection rate and a six-fold higher death rate than predominantly white counties.
Many of these communities are located in poor areas with high housing density, limited access to education, and high unemployment rates. Low socioeconomic status is independently a risk factor for poorer health outcomes and is forcing some individuals residing in these communities out of their homes and into the workforce.

"There is nothing different biological about race". That's literally what a medical doctor wrote. Does Jones think that white doctors are just randomly painting nigger babies black so they match the parents (who were previously painted by a white doctor a generation earlier)? No biological differences whatsoever eh? Is that why Summer Olympic land-based events look like a President Monkey family reunion while aquatic events look like a Bernie Sanders volunteer bank? A massive selection effect not motivated at all by different biological factors? It's even more circumspect when you compare the previous paragraph acknowledging that COVID comorbidities are more common among American blacks than American whites. It's said (though not backed up by any data or indeed the quoted ravings of any so-called experts) that comorbidities (or maybe just these two?) have already been factored in. [is it fair to ask if the same people acknowledge it makes sense to factor in likelihood of committing a crime when looking at incarceration rates? -ed]. All comorbidities? How can that be when, as we noted when The Nation was making stuff up for their article, we don't yet have a full understanding of all the comorbidities. Maybe there will be an obvious genetic flag or six when 23andMe finishes stealing your most personal of personal information, maybe it'll take more time than that. Maybe we'll only be able to answer this question in 2025. It might turn out that particular diets (*cough* *cough*friedchicken*cough* *cough*) exasperate the disease, or some environmental factors that aren't yet well understood. It might be that the supposed link between "low socioeconomic status"‡ and Coronavirus is weak and inverse and only because other factors swamp it that we were lead down the wrong track.

‡ Speaking of low socioeconomic status, do you want to know what likely will not make American negroes less poor? Refusing to go to work when other (white) people do and gain more income and experience and gratitude of their bosses. CBC won't tell you that...

One little tidbit that's worth noting is there seems to be a link between Vitamin D and the Wuhan Flu. While it may be simply correlation without causality (author Divya Ramaswamy seems to have simply assumed so without the literature motivating it), there's a "there" there. In other words either because of Vitamin D levels or for the same reasons as Vitamin D levels, there's an impact on your ability to survive the Wuhan Flu. Separate research is also looking into (in general, not for Vitamin D) a link between suspectibility to the virus and the likelihood of transmission: to wit, if you're more likely to die from it you're more likely to get and/or give it. This means that the death rate and the incidence rate aren't as linearly independent as you might expect. So what does this mean to niggers? Well it means that the "Vitamin D paradox" might not be a paradox, and that the claim that doctors are "overdiagnosing" Vitamin D deficiency in negroes may in fact be false, and they actually [B]do[/B] have lower levels. It might not align with their bone density (like the swimming joke I made earlier) but still exist, and show itself in the increased likelihood of getting and/or dying from COVID-19.

Seeing as how the only "discrimination" they find for niggers and Vitamin D is a claim that white doctors are "exaggerating" their low levels, maybe idiots from The Nation can shut up trying to blame the Wuhan Flu's tear through black communities as "racism".

Strangely enough, the link between Vitamin D and sodomy is much less documented...