Saturday, March 04, 2023

Principles Of Exclusion - Why Religion Needs Logic

Our bishop here in San Diego, Cardinal McElroy, recently penned a piece for the progressive, Jesuit, but I repeat myself, magazine, America. Here's a relevant excerpt.

Many of these challenges arise from the reality that a church that is calling all women and men to find a home in the Catholic community contains structures and cultures of exclusion that alienate all too many from the church or make their journey in the Catholic faith tremendously burdensome...

These exclusions (of people who defy God's plan for human sexuality) touch upon important teachings of the church about the Christian moral life, the commitments of marriage and the meaning of sexuality for the disciple.

His piece is all about practicing "radical inclusion," but he never discusses what might be a cause for exclusion. Dig this embedded TikTok video from a Muslimah in England.

Is Jeffrey Marsh, an LGBT groomer and pervert, someone you would exclude? If not, why not? He is clearly a threat to families in the Church. If you don't exclude them, you're bringing the fox into the henhouse, an act that informs the hens that they are somewhere near the bottom of the pecking order.

Ahem.

If you do exclude him, what is the basis for your exclusion? The Bible is filled with objective, exclusionary principles, even the New Testament parts. On what basis do you override or supplant them with your own judgments? When you do that, you're taking God's role for your own. Are we supposed to worship you now? That's both apostasy and heresy.

Apostasy: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious belief.

Heresy: belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.

The question is whether or not anyone should be excluded and on what basis. When they go down the road of "radical inclusion," progressive Catholics have two options, neither of them good.

  1. No one is excluded. Parents are on their own when it comes to protecting their children.
  2. Arbitrary, personal rules are applied for exclusion, superseding the Deposit of the Faith.

Incidentally, #1 is what progressives are practicing right now in the inner cities. Here's a bit from a post I wrote about the Jacob Blake affair and resulting racial justice spasm.

Here's the full story on Jacob Blake's pre-shooting romp in Kenosha. I'm not excerpting it here because it's filthy. Suffice it to say, Jacob criminally trespassed in his ex-girlfriend's house, sexually assaulted her and tried to steal her car. She called 911 and set the final act of that tragedy in motion. Note that said girlfriend also claimed that Jacob had beat her in the past, hence his record of domestic violence...

Once BLM succeeds and the cops have left the hood, either by quitting or being defunded, what happens to black women? This girl called 911 because she needed protection. When 911 won't respond because the cops will be ambushed, she'll have no defense at all. She won't be alone. No woman in the hood will have protection, save for whatever they can get from their boyfriends, assuming the boyfriends aren't abusing them as well, as Jacob did and statistics show.

The progressive Catholics are making us play the role of Jacob Blake's girlfriend as they "include" every pervert and groomer in the land.

I'm not Jacob Blake's girlfriend. The power dynamics between the Church and me are not the same at all. If they come over to my house and try to beat and sexually abuse me, they'll wish they'd stayed at home. Once I get finished dealing with the issue, I will never associate with them again. I'll find another faith and they can go cuddle with their new lovers without me. I suspect a lot of Catholics will do the same.

The Church can't survive if the orthodox believers leave. From my reading, they don't have much else. If they're relying on nothing but the progressives, they're suicidally delusional.

Bonus Content from the C of E

No comments: