No Compromise!

St.-Thomas-Pray-for-UsSir Thomas More would not compromise on two tenets of the Catholic faith: the primacy of the papacy and the dignity of marriage. When imprisoned before his martyrdom, he would write and pray. The following are just a few quotes from his writings, particularly from a book called “A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation”.

“Now those without patience can have no reward for their pain, but when pain is patiently taken for God’s sake, and the sufferer’s will is conformed to God’s pleasure, God regards the sufferer in proportion to the pain. But never have I found any place in Scripture where Our Lord promised a wealthy person, even if that person did thank God for his gifts, any reward in heaven for having taken his ease and pleasure here. (“We do not go to heaven in featherbeds”)…in Scripture much commends tribulation as a more profitable circumstance than wealth and prosperity.

We shall consider tribulation a gracious gift from God, a gift that He specially gives His special friends…if God does not send it, people need to seek out and put upon themselves by penance, a thing that helps purge our past sins; a think that preserves us from sins that we would otherwise commit; a thing that causes us to attach less importance to the world; a thing that incites us to draw closer to God; a thing that greatly diminishes our pains in purgatory; a thing that greatly increases our final reward in Heaven…if we reflect on these things and remember them well, we shall not murmur or complain in a time of tribulation. Instead we shall first of all take our pain patiently and see it as something of worth. And then we shall realise that God has sent if for our own good and so be moved to thank God for it. As a consequence, our grace shall increase and God shall give us the comfort of realising that He is, in the midst of our trouble, always close.

I find, then, that one great part of the terror of the nights is the fault of faintheartedness: that fearful and feeble disposition, that is, which causes some people to be afraid where there is no need to be afraid. The fault of faintheartedness first causes people in tribulation to become impatient. The fault of faintheartedness, or a timed spirit, also often prevents people from doing many good things which, if they acquired a strong spirit by trusting in God’s help, they would be well able to do. The devil, however not only puts them in a state of cowardice but also makes them take it as humility to think themselves unfit for or incapable of many a good thing that God has given them the opportunity and has made them well suited to do. Such folks need to lift up their hearts and call upon God. All this fear comes by scheming of the devil.”

St. Thomas More, pray for us! Help us to never compromise on the Truths of the faith, no matter the cost.

[Compiled by the Franciscan Fathers of the Immaculate]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to No Compromise!

  1. Tom Fisher says:

    I think we can all agree that the late Christopher Hitchens made a good point about the Anglican church when he said well what do you expect from a church founded on the family values of Henry VIII?


  2. toadspittle says:

    … C.S. Lewis seemed happy enough with them.


  3. Tom Fisher says:

    True; and J.R.R. Tolkien was very unhappy with Lewis’s. Though I think Tolkien was perhaps unkind in his judgement of Lewis’ marriage.

    To be fair to Lewis; he quite openly regarded the Anglican Church as merely the local manifestation of Christianity, and the most natural community for him to join as a Christian. He was a Christian first, and an Anglican second.


  4. toadspittle says:

    “He was a Christian first, and an Anglican second.”

    Well he’d have to be – wouldn’t he – otherwise It’d be a bit like saying he was a left-winger first, and a footballer second, I suggest, Tom.


  5. Tom Fisher says:

    Not so Toad. I’m sure we’ve both met C of E types who regard church attendance as essential, belief in God as a superstition to be indulged, and Jesus as an embarrassing radical.


  6. toadspittle says:

    …Excellent point, Tom.


  7. ginnyfree says:

    Oh dear. I find myself watching the clock. It is just a few minutes after nine here in the East and probably in about an hour if they issue it today, we will be getting the news from the Supreme Court letting us know their decision regarding the legal redefinition of marriage in our country. I’ve been waiting for this for sometime and am nervous but not really afraid. What will happen for me as an individual? Not much cause simply put, not one will be asking me to stand as a witness before God in the Church to these abominations made legal. But if they start trying to force our Priests to do so and us to sit in the pews and watch, then there will be consequences for all of us who stand in solidarity with our Priests and our Church. I’m also wondering which parts of history will repeat themselves afterwards and how far those who have the means to persecute us as a result of this decision will go and how far our country’s legal systems will allow them. I find out soon enough. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  8. johnhenrycn says:

    Yuck, more like.


  9. johnhenrycn says:

    …but it figures that you get your news from the Grauniad.


  10. ginnyfree says:

    Pray for my. My country has suffered a severe blow today. There really isn’t anything to cheer over at all. It feels like a funeral around here. God bless and pray for me. Ginnyfree.


  11. toadspittle says:

    Pull yourself together, Ginny. It’s not going to matter a rat’s patootie in the long run.
    Gays will now “marry.” So what? Serves them right.

    …Doesn’t look much like a funeral in the pix on here.
    And what Isis did today is ultimately far more significant.


  12. toadspittle says:

    Certainly do JH – along with The Daily Telegraph, El Pais, El Mundo, Yahoo, and sundry websites, including Huffington and CP&S.


  13. ginnyfree says:

    Hmmmmmm…..”serves them right” Might Toad have visited the world of the married and found it wanting? Just curious. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  14. johnhenrycn says:

    This pic (from one of Toad’s ‘organs’) outside the U.S. Supreme Court today says it all:


  15. toadspittle says:

    Not at all, Ginny. Never wanted for anything, “marriagewise,” as you would say. I have successfully had four wonderful wives and loved them all. (Possibly the secret was that they are all women? Don’t know.) And I am on excellent terms with each one of them, to this day. This I think, largely because the first three are delighted not to be married to me any more, and the last one hasn’t made her mind up yet. But I am optimistic. (Naturally.)
    How? Why? Dunno. Just lucky, I guess. And I must admit, I’ve also had a few other long-term, relationships that have lasted longer than one or two of my marriages, and am still no good terms with the surviving ones, at least.
    How is this possible, in terms of years? Heaven knows. Except I am very old now. ….And with warm memories.
    God blessed, indeed. Toad.


  16. toadspittle says:

    Rambling old self-obsessed windbag, Toad.
    The obscene outpouring of autobiographical tripe above, has nothing on earth to do with abominable Gays persecuting our Ginny.
    But then, why would they bother? …She’s never done them any harm.
    They are her neighbours, and she loves them.
    And that will be taken into account, we can be sure.


  17. johnhenrycn says:

    oops (hi, Michael)… I should have posted that image on the “Is Hell Empty?” thread. But now that I’m here: it was less than 30 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Constitution did not confer “a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy”, that it was a “crime against nature” and “a crime not fit to be named…”
    …and here we are less than 30 years later and the very same court has now found a constitutional right, not only to engage in homosexual sodomy, but to confer upon it the dignity of marriage. The law is not merely an ass, Mr Bumble, it’s an insane one.


  18. toadspittle says:

    ….At least the adorable little devil spelled “fabulous” correctly.

    One of my “organs” eh? The Granuad is no more one of my organs than is, “The Daily Racing Form,” “Obese Bride,” “Tap Dancers’ Quarterly,” or “Machine Gun Collector.” I simply consult them for vital information.
    OK, JH -. What “organs” are yours? Apart from The New Testament, of course?


  19. toadspittle says:

    “…and “a crime not fit to be named…”
    The Hell with it – let’s name it Buggery, Or Sodomy. Or Cyril. Or Zigspon.
    Because if we don’t name it, nobody will know what to call it.
    …And then we’ll all be buggered, won’t we?


  20. Michael says:

    And what Isis did today is ultimately far more significant.

    I think you’re confusing ‘significant’ with ‘shocking’. What happened today in Tunisia (and France) was tragic, horrible, and very shocking indeed (although it must be said that these sort of attacks are becoming worryingly unsurprising entries in the yearly round of news stories); what happened in the US is much more significant, as it signals that the (still) most Christian country in the Western world has now put the final official nail in the coffin of its own values – principally the centrality of the family for the long-term health of national life. Countries and civilisations always experience attacks from without, but it is when they start to destroy themselves from within that the game is over.

    There is of course a majority of people in the West now who either don’t care one way or the other, or, more likely, see life so much in the short-term that, as long as they are fulfilling whatever desires they happen to have at this point in their life, see cultural changes like this as ‘no big thing’. But this doesn’t mean that such changes are not significant. One could compare the Western world now to a man sat in a house being fired at from the outside (the Islamists), but who, whilst distressed whenever he is fired upon, never does anything about it because there is a never-ending supply of delicacies for him to gorge himself upon him. Several of these delicacies have been laced with small doses of poison, designed to take effect over a long time, which occasionally he actually half-suspects; but the delicacies are so tasty that he continues to gorge himself on them anyway.


  21. Michael says:

    Oops indeed (I remain firmly and unrepentantly in the capitalised camp). But yes, it’s utterly bonkers, and shows how much we managed to have distanced ourselves from our own cultural roots in an incredibly short space of time. Remarkable really, that in the ‘information age’ we should be so lacking in appreciation of what we are about, why we have the values we do (or, increasingly, did), etc.

    P.S. My wordpress account has a rainbow banner across the top of it. Give me strength…


  22. johnhenrycn says:

    In reply to your query, T… to find out if China has invaded Japan during the night, I quickly scan Google News. For solid current events reportage and analysis, it’s The Economist (liberal newsmagazine, btw), but for very in-depth cultural, social and political criticism, New Criterion, City Journal and First Things. Online, I enjoy the Daily Telegraph, Speccie, New English Review,Salisbury Review and Standpoint. Never your Guardian, New York Times or Huffington Post. As for religion – too numerous to mention; although one of my favourites, in my proddy days, was the Nicotine Theological Journal, named after St Augustine’s younger brother if memory serves (joke), but sadly, now defunct.


  23. kathleen says:

    Ginny, I was thinking of you and all our American friends when I put up this post yesterday. In upholding the sanctity of marriage St. Thomas More preferred public disgrace, prison and a final horrible death, rather than give in and accept the whims of a lascivious king. Thomas More was a true man, a courageous hero, and now a saint forever in Heaven. Whereas the US judges, Sotomayor, Kennedy, et al. who voted in this abomination, well, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes on Judgment Day!!

    It was pretty well a foregone conclusion that the powerful perverts (a.k.a. ‘gay lobby’) who are running the show these days would get their way… but I know all genuine people of integrity were still hoping against hope that common sense and decency would win in the end. It was not to be, and as the title of this news bulletin from ‘Church Militant’ describes: this is “a day that will live in infamy”.

    What is happening to the West? Has everyone gone stark raving mad here? How can you “redefine marriage” to suit sodomites and mutual masturbators? This is gravely sinful and evil, and as Michael Matt from ‘The Remnant’ says, “God help us all as we prepare for persecution of all things Christian and the crucifixion of the Mystical Body of Christ in America.”


  24. toadspittle says:

    Michael’s magnificently-mixed metaphor – about a man eating cakes while Isis shoots at him – is gilding the pudding a bit, I suspect.
    Will “gay marriage” affect our own values? De-criminalising homosexuality in the UK did not instantly make everyone gay.
    It’s legal, yes, but not compulsory. So far. That’s when I’ll start making noises only bats can hear. It’s all a lesson in tolerance. Easy to tolerate things we agree with. I find tattoos more offensive than gay marriage. But what the heck.
    Nor do I think we should tolerate Isis killing people, despite what Christ said.


  25. Michael says:

    It’s legal, yes, but not compulsory. So far. That’s when I’ll start making noises only bats can hear.

    So we wait until we’ve actually crashed into the iceberg rather than try to avert our course when we have it in plain sight? By the time people are being forced to act against their consciences because of this decision (as they already have been in the UK, Canada and some US states), it will be too late. My point (via the mixed metaphor earlier) was that just thinking about the short term is not good enough. And its not ‘just a lesson in tolerance’ – the small but powerful lobby groups that have worked for this decision do not want people to simply accept or tolerate homosexual relationships; they want to force everybody to affirm them.


  26. toadspittle says:

    “…they want to force everybody to affirm them.”
    The small but powerful lobby can “want,” until the cows come home. I’ll affirm whatever I feel like. Nobody can force me, or you, to do so, Michael.
    This is getting out of proportion, I suspect.

    “So we wait until we’ve actually crashed into the iceberg rather than try to avert our course when we have it in plain sight?”
    Might well have asked the captain of the Titanic, that. But then the thing about an iceberg is that nearly all of it is not in “plain sight,” sadly unlike some gays, in that respect
    Sure, some gays go what I consider to be “too far.” Capering about, and frightening my dogs, and playing Judy Garland records too loudly, and so on.
    But then, people of every variety have that effect on one another. I felt Raymond cardinal Burke’s 30 foot scarlet satin train went “too far”. But I wouldn’t force him to go unfrock himself.
    Ray’s got just as much right to enjoy himself, in his own way, as anyone else.


  27. Tom Fisher says:

    He’s certainly fabulous


  28. toadspittle says:

    “What is happening to the West? Has everyone gone stark raving mad here?”
    Are they raining down bombs on us, like in 1940? Are the Nazis running Germany? Are the Fascists running Spain and Italy? Are the Soviets running Eastern Europe? (possibly) Circumstances have generally taken a decided turn for the better during my lifetime, in my opinion.
    Why should anyone assume being “stark raving mad” is a bad thing, anyway? Might actually help. Anyway: “Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would merely amount to another form of madness.”…Says Pascal. So, there’s one comfort.

    Best to try to see the funny side of all this gay stuff, rather than rocking back and forth moaning and keening, while chewing neurotically on a corner of a security blanket.
    …Best to try to see the funny side of everything, really.


  29. toadspittle says:

    …What does this picture tell us about The Role Of Women In The Church?
    That’s right!


  30. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad says: “Will “gay marriage” affect our own values? De-criminalising homosexuality in the UK did not instantly make everyone gay. It’s legal, yes, but not compulsory. So far. That’s when I’ll start making noises only bats can hear.”

    Speaking of blind dingbats who can’t see the writing on the wall, it is now compulsory for Ontario pre-teens in elementary school (not high school) to be taught that homosexuality is normal and that vaginal and anal intercourse are different but equal (morally speaking). These are policies written by our recently convicted (of child pornography) former Deputy Minister of Education, which are now being implemented by our radical lesbian premier, Kathleen Wynne.

    I don’t imagine the situation is much different in your backwater or anywhere else in western Europe. So, I’d say it’s about high time for you to practice that piercing falsetto of yours.


  31. johnhenrycn says:

    “Best to try to see the funny side of all this gay stuff…”

    I’m prepared to see the funny side and to laugh at them, but how long do you think it would be before I was made the subject of a disciplinary hearing by my professional oversight body if I ever did so publicly? Gay jokes are basically verboten, or haven’t you heard?


  32. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom Fisher, I question whether you understand why Burke is wearing the cappa magna. Here is JPII wearing the same garment:

    …and here is Benedict XVI wearing the triple tiara:

    A desire to look “fabulous” has absolutely nothing to do with it; a desire to affirm, respect and display (in proper circumstances) the glorious history of the Church does.

    Can I take it that, if you had your druthers, the pope should always wear sackcloth and that ERII should open Parliament in trainers and track pants?


  33. johnhenrycn says:

    Hilarious memories: when I was 12, my father, a GP, brought home some charts and explained to me how babies come to be. In that 15 minute (that’s it, all done!) session I learned all the correct anatomical words and couldn’t wait to impress my (male) friends at school the next day with my newly acquired knowledge. Trouble was, when they asked me if the man had to actually be inside the woman for her to become pregnant I snorted derisively: no while you’re asleep, the sperm leave your ____ and swim across the bed to her ____ which they then enter to fertilize the egg. Simples.


  34. toadspittle says:

    What! Is that not true? I’ve been asleep all that time for nothing?
    Fie! Too late!


  35. toadspittle says:

    The best jokes are usually in the worst taste, I find. (Except jokes about dogs, because dogs are so intrinsically dignified that no joke can possibly undignify them.) One of my best friends on newspapers was a Jew. He told me lots of Jewish jokes I could not, and would not, possibly repeat – not being Jewish, myself. And quite right, too. Life’s like that


  36. toadspittle says:

    An appropriately reverent old 12th Century hymn, in excruciating plainchant – regarding His Ex-Holiness’s’s triple-layer tile. (or titfer, if it may please you)


  37. toadspittle says:

    Got the pope’s hat all on back to front at 15.37. This should explain all. Well I’m a thick toad, aren’t I?


  38. GC says:

    JH, has that picture of the triple tiara been photoshopped?

    I think Paul VI was the last pope to be crowned and he later donated his three-tiered cone to the poor.*

    * I have also been pondering much how to have all the electronic keyboards, electric guitars, microphonery, woofers, amplifiers, digital projectors, LCDs etc. etc. from every Catholic church in the world donated to the poor. Should come to a very tidy sum indeed. (But shhhh, don’t tell the American and Australian lawyers about all that money. They’ll want it too.)


  39. toadspittle says:

    Attention! Belay that! Toad was right, despite everything! It appears the ex-pope’s triple-decker tile has been photoshopped! …Thought it couldn’t look that silly without some assistance from the rabble.
    However, the sooner this sort of revolting behaviour is declared a mortal sin, the better.
    What with this, and “gay marriage,” the entire world is going to the demnition bow-wows quicker than JH can say “Leonard Cohen.” .

    “..and that ERII should open Parliament in trainers and track pants?” …Well, we can dream, can’t we?


  40. johnhenrycn says:

    Generally speaking, I concur with your first sentence, but not your penultimate. I occasionally dabble in ethnic humour, depending on who’s listening. I take it you are the type of person who objects to the appropriation by caucasians of non-white cultural totems, such as Indian war bonnets in 4th of July parades, fiction written by whites in a ‘black’ voice, team names such as the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, etc.


  41. toadspittle says:

    “Tom Fisher, I question whether you understand why Burke is wearing the cappa magna.”
    ..perhaps because Ray would look even sillier standing there in just his Y-fronts?


  42. toadspittle says:

    If you choose to name a football team after a potato, that is your affair.

    “Go Toads!”


  43. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad, it was GC (not you or me) was first twigged that the triple tiara link was a photoshopped one, so quit pretending that you’re Sherlock Holmes. Still, my essential point in response to Tom Fisher remains a valid one. Our beloved Pope Emeritus was not averse to appearing in (non- photoshopped) vestments dating back to the Middle Ages:,%20Toad)%20was%20the%20first%20to%20twig%20the%20triple%20tiara%20link%20was%20a%20photoshopped%20one.%20Still,%20Pope%20Benedict%20XVI%20was%20not%20averse%20to


  44. johnhenrycn says:



  45. GC says:

    Quite so, JH, your point stands.

    Types like Toad and Fisher just love Cardinal Burke and the feeling of their own superiority that he gives them…


  46. toadspittle says:

    Silly, GC.
    I always feel extremely humble – with excellent reason. I live under a big flat stone for one thing – and, unlike humans – do not have an immortal soul. Nor am I made in the image of God, unless he resembles a toad, of course. (but who knows?)

    I expect Mr Fisher is humble, too. But he can speak for himself.


  47. GC says:

    John xxiii couldn’t be wrong:


  48. Michael says:

    The small but powerful lobby can “want,” until the cows come home. I’ll affirm whatever I feel like. Nobody can force me, or you, to do so, Michael

    Erm, they can, they have, and they will force people to affirm whatever they like. And this creates a horrible culture wherein self-censorship becomes normal, lest one utter something suggesting an allegiance to values on ‘the wrong side of history’ and litigation is brought against people making common-sense assertions about the nature of procreation, gender difference, natural family structures, etc. Also, as John Henry has pointed out, there is an increasing trend to force children to believe in the normalcy of aberrant sexual behaviour, and any opposition to this, no matter how reasonable or balanced in presentation, will be labelled ‘bigotry’ and, in some cases, subject to legal strictures of some kind. Not to mention the fact that passing homosexual ‘marriage’ into law is another significant undermining of the long-held understanding of family, and thus, in the long-term, corrosive of societal cohesion. Nevermind though, eh, we’re having such a good time now there’s no point worrying about it – pass the sherry, fiddle while Rome burns, and get those lifeboats back on board!


  49. johnhenrycn says:

    He’s Tom’s favourite pope I reckon, but Tom will be displeased that he looks so “fabulous” when a plain old plastic body bag would have sufficed.


  50. GC says:

    JH, did you know the story behind the camauro that day at the general audience just before Christmas? Pope Benedict had to hold it in the square in the cold, because of the numbers, instead of the audience hall. Doltish Toad.

    Actually, Benedict quite liked a sombrero. (Much too traddy too, I suppose)


  51. toadspittle says:

    “Erm, they can, they have, and they will force people to affirm whatever they like. “
    You, Michael? Whatever who likes, anyway?
    “The small but powerful lobby?”
    Force me? You? JH?
    …Over my dead body is how.
    The UK, USA, and Spain, at least, are still democracies. And if I don’t want tattoos, they will have to hold me down in order to write “kiss me quick” on my nether portions. I can’t speak for you.


  52. ginnyfree says:

    And blessed with how many little tadpoles, some of which I’m guessing are full grown toads as well by now, not that I’m being nosey or anything like that…………………


  53. ginnyfree says:

    Both Michael Matt at the Remnant and Mr. Voris at Church Militant are correct. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  54. ginnyfree says:

    You should read this: Dr. Peters is very good and 110% correct as well. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  55. johnhenrycn says:

    Michael says: “…they will force people to affirm whatever they like.”
    Toad replies: “Over my dead body”.
    Easy for you to say when you’re working life is basically over. Do you really need to be reminded of the numerous recent instances where business and professional people and voluntary organizations have been forced, on pain of financial penalties and/or professional censure/dismissal and/or mandatory injunctions, to accommodate and/or serve homosexuals despite their conscientious objections?


  56. ginnyfree says:

    When you’re done with that one, read this as well.
    God bless. Ginnyfree.


  57. ginnyfree says:

    Oh Tom! They are totally lovely!!! Thanks for the photo! God bless. Ginnyfree.


  58. ginnyfree says:

    How about this thought Toad: corrupted government nuclearly armed. Don’t think too long about it. Scary enough for you yet? God bless. Ginnyfree.


  59. toadspittle says:

    “How about this thought Toad: corrupted government nuclearly armed. “
    Grew up with two of them Ginny – The USA and Russia. Had to get used to it. Did so.


  60. ginnyfree says:

    Yeah, come to think of it Toad, so did I. I forgot. You’re right. Thanks, God bless. Ginnyfree.


  61. toadspittle says:

    How do we know that’s not Jimmy Durante?


  62. toadspittle says:

    Doltish Toad, indeed.


  63. toadspittle says:

    Yes, Disgraceful, JH.
    Ought not to be allowed.


  64. ginnyfree says:

    And for your further reading pleasure and so you know that free speech is now hate speech in Harrisburg, PA, I give you the twists of the Editorial Staff of the Patriot News:
    Yeah. I’m a hate criminal in his mind now. Thanks. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  65. GC says:

    JH, I suppose pakehas, like ozzies, prefer T-shirt, board shorts and rubber flip flops for all occasions.

    But Ugg boots in the cooler months.


  66. johnhenrycn says:

    Can I take it you’re being serious for once? Here’s what the prophetic Mr Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, one of the 4 SCOTUS wise men, said yesterday about same sex marriage:

    “Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.…”
    He was born on April Fool’s Day, but you’d never know it.


  67. toadspittle says:

    Quite right to laugh at that, Ginny. No point in doing anything else. They know not what they do.
    “Patriot News” forsooth. Scoundrels, I reckon.
    Don’t they know we Catholics love our neighbours as ourselves? – Well, don’t we?

    …We may hate the naughty things they get up to*…but that’s different.

    *Or what we like to amuse ourselves imagining what naughty things they get up to.


  68. ginnyfree says:

    Oh Toad, you’re such a little toadie. Ribbit. Ribbit.


  69. johnhenrycn says:

    Good (in a bad way) link, GF.


  70. johnhenrycn says:

    The White House aglow last night with Rainbow Pride:


  71. ginnyfree says:

    Nice. Somewhere over the rainbow, skies are skewed. There’s a land that I’ve heard where freedom begins anew…………….


  72. Tom Fisher says:

    I think the recent Popes have all dressed about right, so no sackcloth needed. I’m a republican, why would I want Liz Windsor to open Parliament?


  73. Tom Fisher says:

    They are totally lovely!!!

    I agree Ginny, you should get one!


  74. ginnyfree says:

    Pssstttttt Scat you wooosie cat. I’ll go get the dog! Go find a nice patch of catnip and put your paws up.


  75. toadspittle says:

    Very good, Ginny. When it comes to a considered and reasoned reply, there’s always “Ribbit.” Leaves Toad dumbfounded and speechless, every time.


  76. toadspittle says:

    Can’t run it often enough, can we? And our gay chums are very fond of it. (as is Toad.)


  77. toadspittle says:

    ….One for Ginnyfree and Toad (if he only had a brain!)


  78. Tom Fisher says:

    Goodness me. So many comments from GC and JH have mused on what I may think and why over the last day. All on the strength of my saying he certainly looks fabulous! Which he does. And why shouldn’t he? There’s nothing wrong with dressing grandly for grand occasions. It’s not like he dresses that way to walk to the shops.


  79. Tom Fisher says:


    That’s an incredible link that you’ve provided.

    These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such [critical?] letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court’s decision and its legal merits

    So this fellow thinks that once something is enshrined in law, it becomes unacceptable to criticize it? And at the end of his (non) retraction he says; for those of you who were offended by what was intended as a very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion, I apologize

    How can you foster civil discussion by trying to curtail criticism of the law of the land? In a free society criticizing the decisions of courts and politicians is practically a civic duty.

    That’s awful and he should be ashamed. Thanks for the link, would never have seen otherwise.


  80. Tom Fisher says:

    I don’t have a favourite Pope. Though I am fond of JXXIII for answering the journalist’s query how many people work in the Vatican with oh I suppose about ten percent. There are 5 books by BXVI that I think as a set make a perfect introduction to Catholicism. (You can’t get all 5 in a uniform edition, Ignatius Press should fix that). So he’s not quite my favourite Pope, but he’s the Pope I know best as author I guess. One of the Renaissance Popes* had a pet elephant, an endearing display of chutzpah if nothing else

    Maybe Alexander VI? Can’t be bothered checking


  81. Tom Fisher says:

    I suppose pakehas, like ozzies, prefer T-shirt, board shorts and rubber flip flops for all occasions. But Ugg boots in the cooler months.

    Well New Zealanders are a practical people. And none the worse for that.


  82. toadspittle says:

    Maybe it was a Borgia pope, Tom. A tense and difficult family, the Borgias.
    …Catholics, though.
    Their motto: “The family that slays together stays together.”

    (Max temp here, today, 93 f. In Sevilla, 108 f. …Off to Mass.)


  83. johnhenrycn says:

    “Goodness me”? Please don’t be coy, Tom.
    At 10:36, you didn’t say “he certainly looks fabulous!” In your follow-up to Toad’s idle, snide and irrelevant opinion that “Burke’s 30 foot scarlet satin train went too far” what you actually said was “he’s certainly fabulous”. The principal Oxford Concise meaning of ‘fabulous’ is incredible, exaggerated, absurd; and The Shorter OED adds unhistorical.The Online Etymological Dictionary mentions various other faintly negative connotations. In the context and in the way you used the word ‘fabulous’, it was reasonable for me and GC to see it as mockery of Burke’s sartorial taste. I suggest your above ^ clarification is disingenuous.


  84. Tom Fisher says:

    It was not a clarification JH, it was a way of saying “lighten up”. Cardinal Burke is a good man of course, and I am well aware of the history of the vestment. But a 7 metre cape should be able to raise a wry smile without everyone getting too serious. That’s all


  85. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom says: “It was not a clarification”.
    Your clarification wasn’t a clarification? Excuse me for thinking it was, but it’s not what you think you meant that prevails; it’s what your readers (with reasonable justification) think you meant. However, when all is said, I accept your clarifying clarification that you weren’t clarifying anything and that you were merely poking harmless fun at the great man who you and I hope will be our next pope, make no mistake, right?


  86. johnhenrycn says:

    Home from Mass,Toad? Did you ask Father for a blessing or for something to eat?


  87. johnhenrycn says:

    There is an OT Forum for this sort of thing.


  88. johnhenrycn says:

    Have you heard about the OT Forum?


  89. Tom Fisher says:

    I accept your clarifying clarification that you weren’t clarifying anything and that you were merely poking harmless fun at the great man who you and I hope will be our next pope, make no mistake, right?

    In all seriousness, do you think that his (potentially) being the second Pope in a row from the Americas might be a factor? Absurd though I’m sure we both agree that is.


  90. Tom Fisher says:

    I mean it might decrease his chances of election. Sorry it was badly phrased.


  91. Tom Fisher says:

    Sorry for any offence I caused. Ginny’s comment @ June 27, 2015 at 19:25 is much more significant, and deserves following up on. Me being rude about capes is irritating but not the end of the world


  92. ginnyfree says:

    The shame of it Tom Cat is that they call themselves The Patriot News for Pete’s sake! Hello? They need not only a copy of the Constitution to read but a dictionary as well. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  93. ginnyfree says:

    Toad is that you in a past life? I do mean the Scarecrow I should add. Ho hum. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  94. johnhenrycn says:

    But Burke, who traces his paternal ancestry to County Cork, would be the first Irish one.


  95. Tom Fisher says:

    Hadn’t thought of that. About time! I do think he’d make a fine Pope JH.


  96. ginnyfree says:

    Seems they spammed Dr. Peter’s as well.


  97. johnhenrycn says:

    About 100 comments so far. Is that a record? No, I see the Mantillas in Church is at 132.

    “1,802,849 hits since 4th July 2010”

    Yes, my dear Lords and Ladies of the Manor, your 5th birthday fast approaches. Will you be getting together to raise a glass of Bishop’s Ruin at your local (Knights of Columbus) in celebration? If the KC hall is already booked next Saturday, there’s still one for rent here 😉


  98. Tom Fisher says:

    Ginnyfree, I had the privilege of working in your fine country for a few years (many years ago). And I think the United Sates is the third best country on earth (I say that with affection). I have absolute faith that your tradition of free speech will win out in the end.


  99. ginnyfree says:

    Seems they spammed Dr. Peter’s as well. We’re not in Knasas anymore. Or the USA either. Where do you get all this stuff from Toad?


  100. ginnyfree says:

    What is an OT Forum?


  101. GC says:

    Not even close, JH. Remember this one? We thought it would never end but Raven was a champion.

    That’s 990.6 views a day, JH, over the 5 years on average if you “do the math”.


  102. Tom Fisher says:

    Ha! I remember that thread GC. Half way down I said “great comment GC”. And we had a moment of agreement. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  103. Tom Fisher says:

    They’ll do another five years, with God’s grace, and their own efforts. Us ‘commenters’ are just along for the ride I guess — but we value their efforts, and are very grateful. Well done CP&S


  104. toadspittle says:

    I used to be a loony journalist, Ginnyginfree.
    So it comes nacherally to me. Aa it does, I venture to you? (I may be wrong, of course).

    What a duet we could perform! I hope you are enjoying all this, Ginny.
    I, and the millions of gays in Kansas and elsewhere ( San Francisco!), are!

    Where are you, by the way? (Please let it be Kansas, God!) I’m in Moratinos.
    No, neither had I – until about 10 years ago.


  105. toadspittle says:

    Toad used to drink in a Soho (London) club where they habitually served a cocktail called, “Death Comes To The Archbishop.”


  106. Tom Fisher says:

    An OT forum is a bit like Nebraska, but slightly hillier.


  107. toadspittle says:

    That was before boring formality (plus a certain astringent asperity) set in – and our beloved brother Tom, morphed into “Mr. Fisher.”


  108. Tom Fisher says:

    Mr feels a bit too formal. And years of Uni for nufink. Prefer Tom, but I can’t choose.


  109. toadspittle says:

    Beautiful and Instructive Old Hymn, is it not? A lesson for us all.
    Every Traditional Mass should open with it.
    ….Translated into Latin, of course.


  110. Tom Fisher says:

    You just made my wife laugh with those lyrics. Stop flirting Toad, she’s taken


  111. toadspittle says:

    GC calls you “Mr. Fisher,” because she loves you, Tom.
    Why else?
    To upset you?
    …God forbid.

    What do you think, Ginny?
    ..ah, yes.

    “Home from Mass,Toad? Did you ask Father for a blessing or for something to eat?”
    Neither JH. Did buy him a gin and tonic, down at the bar, because he’s a guest in our house.


  112. Michael says:

    Dr Peter’s account has been affected as well, yes, as have all wordpress users I imagine (I posted a link to his comments on this yesterday on the USCCB statement thread). Unfortunately though, this is not spamming, but a coordinated effort on WordPress’ part to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision. A sign of the sort of thing that we can expect in the future no doubt…


  113. GC says:

    I get the feeling that the people in mission control for all this are aiming to make 26 June something similar to “Martin Luther King Day” but commemorating instead ersatz judicial oligarchy. See here. Hence all the ribbons and things and the redefintion of the word “rainbow”.

    Another thought, while I’m actually having them. It appears that Justices Kagan and Bader Ginsburg had already officiated at “gay wedding” ceremonies long before the recent appeal was heard in the Supreme Comedy House. In other words, they had presumably already made up their minds even before hearing arguments. If they had withdrawn from the bench, as they most probably should have, the decision would have been 4-3 in favour of natural marriage.


  114. Michael says:

    Yes, I fear you may be right. The White House being lit up with rainbow lighting, and Obama’s speech after the decision seems to point in the direction of this being passed off as part of America’s great commitment to liberty, etc, and I can definitely see it being given some sort of nationwide institutional affirmation. How long until the presidential elections again…? I’m worried what else might come to pass during Pres. Obama’s final term in office!

    Re the redefinition of rainbow, yes, this doesn’t get mentioned enough – there was a very careful choosing of symbolism (in the rainbow and the word ‘gay’) by homosexual activists, so that the public would see their movement as something happy and wholesome, and that those in opposition could effectively be labelled as killjoys (as well as being ‘on the wrong side of history’ of course). Good PR on their part, I must admit – it’s worked incredibly well – if you dare to suggest, in any way, that the homosexual lifestyle is anything but gloriously gleeful and 100% healthy, the old bigot card gets pulled out straight away!


  115. ginnyfree says:

    I followed it to the end and found gold! After one little song from Betty, Bob calls her a vitamin with legs! Good stuff. Thanks for sharing. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  116. ginnyfree says:

    Does this mean someone besides you lovely guys are reading what nonsense I write? Oh dear. Oh my! I didn’t know there was a crowd here. HUH???! The little thumby thing only says one or two thumbs sometimes as much as eight or so, so where’s the counter for how many views there are? God bless. Ginnyfree.
    P.S. Tom Cat, you still haven’t told me what a OT forum is.


  117. toadspittle says:

    Here’s some first -rate nonsense.
    Good for one of our cherished laughs, though.

    “1. In Exodus 21:10 it is clearly written of the husband: “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.” This is the same rule as the Qur’an in Islam, that another wife can only be taken if the two are treated equally.
    2. Let’s take Solomon, who maintained 300 concubines or sex slaves. 1 Kings 11:3: “He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” Led him astray! That’s all the Bible minded about this situation? Abducting 300 people and keeping them immured for sex? And the objection is only that they had a lot of diverse religions and interested Solomon in them? (By the way, this is proof that he wasn’t Jewish but just a legendary Canaanite polytheist).
    3. Not only does the Bible authorize slavery and human trafficking, but it urges slaves to “submit themselves” to their masters. It should be remembered that masters had sexual rights over their property assuming the slave-woman was not betrothed to another, and so this advice is intended for concubines as well as other slaves. And, the Bible even suggests that slaves quietly accept sadism and cruelty from their masters: 1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” So a nice gay marriage between two legal equals with no acts of cruelty would be much better than this biblical nightmare.
    4. Then there is Abraham, who made a sex slave of his wife’s slave, the Egyptian girl Hagar, and then abandoned her to cruel treatment.
    Genesis 16:1-6: “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.” “Your slave is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
    So let’s get this straight. Abraham isn’t said to have married Hagar. Apparently he and Sarah had separate property, because Hagar remains her slave. So he slept with someone else’s slave and got her pregnant. And then when that caused trouble between his wife and her slave, he washed his hands of his property-lover and let his wife mistreat her.”

    All gibberish, of course, we all happily agree. Otherwise…


  118. toadspittle says:

    “Does this mean someone besides you lovely guys are reading what nonsense I write?” Relax, Ginny. Almost certainly not.
    Anyway, just in case they are –

    (The O.T. (off topic) forum is where Toad and co are supposed to put old Bing Crosby film clips, off – coluer jokes and whatever. Anything that that doesn't deal with The Almighty.
    But, as this is the case, nobody bothers looking at it – and Toad, at least, has given up on it. …But he gave it the old college try.)


  119. ginnyfree says:

    Oh yeah, I think I put something over there too. Thanks for the reminder, I’m forgetting. Ooooops. So much for rule books in the blogosphere. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  120. ginnyfree says:

    Besides I like my Bing Crosby where I can reach him.


  121. Tom Fisher says:

    The OT forum is the “Off Topic forum”. There’s a link in the top-right of the banner.


  122. Tom Fisher says:

    It’s unclear what the point of the extract is? Christians read the Old Testament in the light of the New. We are unperturbed by its moral norms differing from our own.


  123. toadspittle says:

    “Christians read the Old Testament in the light of the New. “
    Sensible ones might, Tom.
    I agree that “moral norms” can differ, and are relative.


  124. Tom Fisher says:

    Relative to what?


  125. toadspittle says:

    Don’t get on Zen on me, Tom!


  126. toadspittle says:

    ….(Make that “all,” Zen.) D’oh.


  127. Tom Fisher says:

    You are rather fond of saying things like it’s all relative — partly, I’m sure, because you know that it will often provoke a rant about relativism and the decline of the west etc. But I’m not being “Zen” when I point out that it’s an incomplete thought!


  128. John A. Kehoe says:

    Extravagant dress hardly becomes a follower of Jesus Christ


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s