Iced Cakes and Cacothanasia
If you’ve been watching the news today, you’ll know that the brave Protestant couple in Belfast who defied the bullying sodomite lobby have lost their appeal and are now likely to be subjected to further persecution. I haven’t quoted Fr Hunwicke for some time, but his comments on this grotesque business are, once again, spot on. I don’t imagine they will shame our Most Reverend Fathers in God into speaking out in solidarity, but I suppose the attempt is worth while:
News has come through that the Ulster Appeal Court has published its judgment on the case of the Protestant Bakery fined for refusing to ice homosexualist propaganda onto a cake. The conviction stands. So does this mean that the homosexualists will be able to queue up outside the bakery daily to make the same requests until the fines and damages bankrupt the business? The ‘Gay Marriage’ which the cake was intended to demand is in fact not legal in Northern Ireland; so will followers of other non-legal causes such as paederasts or murderers be able to employ the same logic and order cakes with the message ‘Free Inter-generation Love’ or ‘Cacothanasia Now’, and profitably take their cases through the courts?
Incidentally, has the Catholic hierarchy been speaking in sympathy for these Protestants who, at personal risk, espouse the teaching of the Church on some sexual matters? Is it not part of the Church’s ecumenical policy, since Vatican II, to affirm with joy those ‘elements of the Church’ which may be found among Separated Brethren?
At the same time, we have another trendy policy: the suppression of the convictions of subjects of the Crown who were convicted of homosexual acts back in the days when such acts were illegal. I rather wonder how far back these historical amnesties will go. Will they merely encompass those still alive? I could see a certain human kindliness in that. OK. But if the game goes back to embrace the now dead (as it did in the case of the pardon granted to Alan Turing), the additional question, surely, arises of How Far Back Do We Go? What logic could there be in having any particular cut-off point anywhere? Similar questions arise with regard to the granting of Free Pardons to those shot for cowardice during the First War.
And what about the women burned as witches? The Protestants burned under Henry VIII and his off-spring and the Catholics HDQed under Bloody Bess? Titus Oates’ victims? Those executed after the ’45? Casement and Lord Haw Haw?
But, of course, under our Constitution, Parliament can do anything. What a lot of problems this can solve. Changing the Past is a prime example of what the ancients called an adunaton, an impossible thing. If all the adunata are now potentially dunata, why stop at any fashionable or convenient fantasy? Why only reconstruct the Past by decree? Why this prejudice against also reconstructing by administrative fiat the Present and the Future? Why doesn’t Parliament just enact that Global Warming has never happened and is not happening? Instead of erecting expensive flood defences, why don’t we just have an Order in Council enacting that the Somerset Levels will not be flooded? We could all live happily for ever after, in Fairyland, especially the people of Somerset, who would be comforted by the sure and certain reassurance that the water swirling round their necks could not possibly be a flood.
Winston in 1984 spent his entire working life rewriting the past. I wonder if Orwell ever suspected how soon his sick prophecy would be made into a gruesome reality.
I don’t for one moment think there is any real desire for ‘justice’ involved in daft attempts to rewrite the past.
It is simply a matter of the homosexualist ideologues making clear ‘We are the Masters now, and we want to watch you bastards squirm’. In the idiolect of the Zeitgeist, this is called ‘Diversity’.
What a very unpleasant spectacle it all is.
In case your Greek is a little rusty, cacothanasia is bad death—the opposite of euthanasia. HDQ is Hanging, Drawing and Quartering. Alan Turing was a computer genius whose work contributed greatly to the Allied victory in the battle of the Atlantic. He was convicted of gross indecency with another man.
Coincidentally, I see the militant sodomites are now actually beginning to admit that a large percentage of Nazi thugs preferred their vice versa. One of them (a militant sodomite, not a Nazi) has written an interesting article about this in the Huffington Post. I’ll tell you about that in my next post.
Of course, under the Constitution of the Republic, despite the reference in the prologue to the Holy and Undivided Trinity, it is now quite OK for a man to “marry” another man. Or for a woman to “ marry” another woman, although quite what Lesbians do I don’t know. I suppose I could find out on Google, but I don’t think I really want to.