lurking 10: the satanic agenda of the UN
The folks at Catholic Truth have been discussing the following:
The UN seems to be more interested in savaging Catholic doctrine than concerned about the genuine welfare of children. That’s what I think – what do you think?
Here’s a selection of some of the responses received from faithful followers.
- The UN should also know that 90% of abusive Priests were homosexuals, or am I wrong here??
- I hardly think that allowing a male child to be adopted by homosexual pop stars and their partners is safe for any young person. It’s a bit like giving an alcoholic a lifetimes supply of free whisky although on a worse scale.
- Apart from homosexuals, most people on a private level don’t really support gay adoption. They just say they do so they’re not accused of homophobia. Most people see gay adoption for what it is… a sick joke.
- The UN committee showed it’s anti-Catholic bias, ignoring the facts that show the Vatican doing all it can to deal with abusers within the Church. The UN is an evil institution and it’s just a huge pity that the Church has given it any credibility in the past. I hope that stops now.
- Archbishop Tomasi’s response is hardly forceful: in fact, I would characterize it as tepid, or even completely spineless, though typical of a modernist Church sunk neck-deep in the quicksand of geopolitics and political correctness. Here is what heshould have said, IMHO: “The so-called ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’ is nothing more than a Freemasonic/Communist ruse, under the evil aegis of the United Nations, to destroy the family from one of several angles: by destroying parental authority through the establishment of false ‘rights.’ The Catholic Church rejects this and any and all attempts to make her bow to the satanic agenda of family destruction, and will continue to nurture the family as the cornerstone of civilization and of the domestic church.”
- I pray for those leaders who courageously stand up to the bullying of the UN and its demonic minions. The Holy See and local dioceses need to publicize the measures already in place to protect children from abuse while simultaneously calling out the merchants of death at the UN for what they are. Oh for a Catholic voice which doesn’t give a toss about popularity but speaks the truth no matter whom it offends!
Oh for a Catholic voice which doesn’t give a toss about popularity but speaks the truth no matter whom it offends!
Ramen! Even when it is offensive to the Catholic Church. I’m not even sure what the rest of that nonsense is. Ninety percent of abusive Priests are homosexuals? Where do they get that stat? Why do these people equate homosexuality to pedophilia?
The Catholic Church seems to be more interested in preserving Catholic Church doctrine and image than concerned about the genuine welfare of children. How do they think it makes a child abuse victim feel when their abuse is swept under the rug and treated as though it were nothing?
LikeLike
If the church equates abusers with homosexuality they can demonize them and not feel guilty. See, it’s not the church’s fault if they are abominations in the eyes of their god. Abominations do horrible things, not Catholics. Clearly these abusers were homosexuals, it’s the only way the church can step away from claiming them as good catholic leaders.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why anyone would to feel guilty for demonizing child abusers of any stripe. Wouldn’t that be an abomination all on it’s own? One could just as easily say child abusers are abominations. Abominations do horrible things, not Catholics. Clearly these were child abusers and not good catholic leaders.
If the Catholic Church really thought they were abominations and not good Catholic leaders they would expel them and turn them in to the police instead of just moving them to another parish and covering up for them.
LikeLike
Well, I’m sure there’s a good evidence base for prayer to cure for the abused and the abusers, rather than getting in any meddling civil authorities. If it wasn’t for them pesky gays*, the Catholic church would be fine upstanding institution.
(*’gays’ not used to mean gay people, but anyone who has committed a crime)
LikeLike
Yes, because child abusers are clearly the only problem the Catholic Church has. :/sarcasm
So you think they use gays as a pejorative term like “commies”?
LikeLike
The gays are the commies! And the child abusers, obviously. The trick is to identify where Satan is infiltrating the world.
LikeLike
It’s all through the gays, of course!
LikeLike
This century, yes. It was the commies last century, the blacks the one before that, and the witches the one before that. (Not the most historically accurate representation, I know)
LikeLike
You left out the women..the women have had us screwed over since the beginning. 😉
LikeLike
Dammit! How could I have forgotten about that! I’ve just this very minute been berating the misogynistic pile of nonsense, and yet I left them of the list.
LikeLike
It is nice to see them saying that the Vatican is doing all it can to root out the paedophiles. They have not liked the Vatican much since Francis took over.
LikeLike
Oh my, you are really working to squeeze out a positive spin on this, aren’t you? However, you’ll notice that one of their holy leaders is called ‘spineless’, so they still consider themselves well above the hierarchy they believe the god God put in place to run religious affairs on this planet.
LikeLike
“Apart from homosexuals, most people on a private level don’t really support gay adoption. They just say they do so they’re not accused of homophobia. Most people see gay adoption for what it is… a sick joke.”
-Good to see this poster has the pulse of everyone.
“The so-called ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’ is nothing more than a Freemasonic/Communist ruse, under the evil aegis of the United Nations, to destroy the family from one of several angles: by destroying parental authority through the establishment of false ‘rights.’ The Catholic Church rejects this and any and all attempts to make her bow to the satanic agenda of family destruction, and will continue to nurture the family as the cornerstone of civilization and of the domestic church.”
-My, my… I think we have a new contender for the Greatest Speech Ever. (Sorry, but i have to post it as I can never get enough of this.)
LikeLike
Th rcc is nothing but the ghost of the demised roman empire sitting on its grave (Th. Hobbes).
LikeLike
What was that video? I thought Charlie Chaplin was only in silent films and he didn’t look like how I remember him … or am I now confusing him with Robert Downey Jr. Anyway, yes, let’s fight for vaguely expressed freedom! Happiness sounds like much more fun.
LikeLike
Damn, I suffer the same Chaplin-Downey Jr. problem too!!! Let’s admit it, he did do a rather good job at it.
Yes, that is indeed Charles. Have you never seen this speech before?
LikeLike
I haven’t. I take it it’s terribly well known and I’d have to be living in a bubble to have missed it? We’re culturally deprived up here!
LikeLike
Yup, pretty much, hence the unofficial, easily-missed title: The Greatest Speech EVER 😉 Movie was The Great Dictator, which was a 1940 slap in the face to Hitler (and Franco/Mussolini). So, culture hasn’t yet reached you up there yet? Didn’t a small sample pack arrive in readiness for your vote on going it alone in the bad bad world?
LikeLike
It’s probably another age thing actually. I’m sure Ark’s seen it. 🙂
LikeLike
1940? He could have been the set’s Tea Lady
LikeLike
Well, I neither like the rcc and the un.
LikeLike
The UN does need to grow a pair, i agree
LikeLike
Why don’t you like the UN?
LikeLike
I like what it stands for, not what it accomplishes. It’s toothless. I think they should have a standing army of 30,000 ready to deploy anywhere in the world inside 72hrs. They land, move into whatever problem is afoot, and if they meet resistance (and perhaps are slaughtered) then the world powers can mobilise. That is to say, they’re very well equipped, and if they’re on your territory you know you’ve done bad, and the consequences for engaging them are terrible. Problem solving.
LikeLike
You take it lightly that 30,000 troops could be slaughtered. I think decisions about military intervention are as difficult as they should be.
LikeLike
Let me elaborate. If a fighting force is 30,000 then the actual number of fighting men/women is about 5,000; the rest are the support. Slaughtered was the wrong word; resisted is better.
Just a means of halting something like Rwanda, or even the latest clusterfuck in South Sudan before it gets entirely out of control.
I agree it’s the hardest decision, but practically speaking, that’s human reality… for now, at least. This UN force, though, wouldn’t be an occupation force, nor would it be capable of taking a country, rather plant itself right in the middle of the hotspot and (through the application of force) tell everyone to stand down: a mechanism to stop violence.
LikeLike
I still think my original plan of dropping millions of ipads with free wi-fi in hot spots would be more effective, and ultimately more cost-effective. The combination of information and entertainment (okay, probably more the entertainment) would have a real calming effect. The logistics of warfare or even peace-keeping are far too complex and vary horrendously from situation to situation, depending on the underlying political situation, the lay of the land and anger of the people involved.
LikeLike
It is indeed the better idea… and its already being done, with sweet results. I saw this a few years ago and was mightily impressed.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
LikeLike
Nice.
LikeLike
For several reasons. For instance, the fact that the five permanent members of the security council have veto power, and abuses to prevent meaningful action. Russia/China blocks any resolution regarding Syria, the US blocks any resolution regarding Israel/Palestine. And so there are numerous more reasons.
LikeLike
It’s designed to promote international co-operation, not force every country in the world to do what ‘we’ think is right. Perhaps expectations of what can be achieved in a co-operative model are too high.
I find a sentence disliking both the Catholic Church and the UN in the same breath to be misleading in terms of what each institution is attempting to achieve, and the obstacles they face.
LikeLike
For international cooperation we do not need the UN, if nations want to cooperate they can and will do so. Rogue nations will ignore organizations as the UN when they see fit.
The purpose of the security council is to prevent war and to solve international conflicts. But this has utterly failed, since the great powers will pursue their own interests when it comes to voting in security council.
It’s important to note that as an non-interventionist I don’t want to “force” countries what we think is right. However if you create an institution such as the security council, it’s quite ironic that because of its (flawed) design it actually becomes a tool in great power politics.
Of course, I know that the un and the rcc are two totally different institutions with different aims. But that does not change the fact that I do not like either of them.
LikeLike
Once again your lurking has revealed the filth human ignorance causes. I do not know wether if the statistic about abusive priests being mostly homosexuals is true or not ( I bet it is not), but if one considers how homosexuality is treated in Catholic culture, it is no wonder, that a male homosexual ends up a priest. Deliberate repression of sexuality as in selibacy may indeed launch a mental episode of child molestation. Especially when combined whith authority and trust the social role of a priest gives a person. And if a person is allready a predatory child abuser, would not the role of the priest and unwarranted trust the robes yeild be a perfect method to satisfy ones sick desires? Especially when it is obvious, that the “abominations” have been hidden in order to protect the public image of the organization and the very same obviously unwarranted trust in the robes and the equally unwarranted trust in the supernatural powers and authority behind them.
The situation we are in now proves, that the Catholic church is more interrested in public image than the wellbeing of the children. And as we say in Finland when the shite is in the pants it is too late to hold it… The Catholic church could do a lot to repair the damage, but at this stage it is only to be seen as just a nother attempt to repair the public image, no matter what they do. But such is the power of faith, that when it is about the personal salvage of the individual, that individual who has faith, is all too often ready to abandon all human decency in order to hold on to the faith. Because ones own arse is the closest one to the individual at least if the individual has allready been forgiven all his/her “sins” and is just holding on to the ticket for the express elevator to the joy in heavens.
It is interresting thought, that “most people” support a humane viewpoint only because they are affraid of ridicule and dissent for expressing their true hate, bigotry and ignorance. But I suppose fear of public opinion is a real factor, if one has such despicable opinions. I suppose ridicule and fear of being exposed as a homophobic serves us all then in making the society more open. But then if that is how people react, how is one ever to know what “most people” really think? This reveals the true ignorance of the person making the claim.
Did I get this right? Childrens rights not to be abused or beaten are against the Catholic church? I would really like the church officials to come out whith this opinion. It would be a true test to the strength of the faith of anyone who is not a total psychopat. Of course kids need dicipline, but using violence in bringing up the kids just reveals that the parent was not mature enough to be a parent. Which is of course a greater possibility when one’s religion bans contraception.
The UN is far from perfect, but it has managed to stop us from plunging into a nother world wide war so far. I have several friends and former colleagues who have served in UN operations around the globe to at least put a standstill in open hostilities and in bringing civillians much needed help in the middle of chaotic situations of warfare and internal strife.
The Catholic church is the biggest single religious enterpize in the world. It has more wealth than the UN, but the UN is the parliamentary system between almost all the nations on our planet. In these things size does matter. Josif Stalin: “The pope? How many divisions does he command?” For such an organization as the UN to have been arisen the empires of the day had to be brought in by giving them extra decision making power. It is high time to question that, but the only means through which the power these empires weild can be harnessed for anything good is through the UN.
The main enterprize of the UN is to research and collect data around the world and from as many reliable sources as possible. Data is the enemy of faith. Faith in any issue is rendered needless if verifiable information about that is achieved. Also, based on actual info, better judgement of any situation is made possible, and collective human morals is possibly achieved. As situational ethics of many cases involving UN resolutions prove. That collective attempt is far more better way of reaching lasting ethical and moral solutions, than trying to interprete the arbitrary divine commandments of any particular cultural heritage, or scripture because to all humans their own cultural heritage seems the most natural, but only through a consensus can we get to the best possible outcome in reality.
Sorry about the rant… Again.
LikeLike
Don’t worry Raut, I love your rants. I’m glad someone has something positive to say about the UN as well. I’m loving your Finnish sayings today.
The people quoted in the post are quite a unique and messed up bunch. They’re one of those groups who believe the Catholic Church is the only church, but also that the current hierarchy in the Catholic Church is doing it all wrong. Heretics who believe everyone else is a heretic. The beautiful history of Christianity in a nutshell.
LikeLike