Pope allows same-sex blessings

 

Rome has Fallen

Woke Pope goes for Broke.

As this is our Christmas Post, I was hoping to write something on the media and Christianity at this festive time. The media has celebrated a Christian festival for at least over a month. It's been everywhere: on the TV, on the radio, in the shops, and in schools. Alright, but I hear you say this is mostly the secular side of Christmas; however, it is all underpinned by the birth of Jesus Christ, God-made-man, and people know it.

However, on the eighteenth of December, the Prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released the declaration Fiduca supplicans allowing the blessing of couples in an irregular situation and couples of the same sex. Although it purports not to change any doctrines, it actually does. Many clergy on the left, for example, Fr James Martin, say that, in effect, it is a game changer. For it explicitly allows the blessing, not of individuals but of couples, together, of the same sex, who are in a relationship! It comes with forty-odd pages of notes that state that these blessings are not marriages, liturgical, etc., etc., blah bla bla. The usual worm-tongue speck of this pope.

It appears that from the beginning of Pope Francis' Pontificate, he has been trying to change the church's teaching on all the major moral issues. Particularly on homosexuality, he seems obsessed with it. He has actually failed to do that through the various synods he has called; for example, on the family 2014, it failed to get approval on irregular families, so he turned to young people and had a synod on youth, again, was unable to get young Catholics to endorse homosexuality. The Synod on Synodality just passed, even failed to do it when it seemed loaded in that direction. It seems the Africans, Eastern Europeans, and Asians resisted the woke mob, led by the Cardinal Tobin and Cupich and the likes of Fr James Martin, the fanatical Gay everything priest. Fr. Martin was quick off the mark and has already committed to a same-sex blessing. So, having failed to get this through the Synod, Francis did it anyway. It's as if the Catholic Church is now run by a gangster junta in the Vatican led by a banana republic styled dictator!

Fr James Martin gives a blessing to a same-sex couple.

It is indeed a wicked act to drop this on the faithful the week before Christmas; I am seeing so much hurt and upset on faithful Catholic social media sites. The hurt being expressed by faithful Catholics is palpable, as is the gloating of the mainstream media, The BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian (although Fiduca supplicans does not go far enough for this hideous destroyers of civilization).

So the Vatican is changing church practice but claiming that they are not changing doctrine, which is hypocritical. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isaiah 5:20).

It is an arrogant act indeed to allow these blessings. This has not happened in the history of the Church; what makes Bergoglio think that he knows better than the saints, the teachings of the Church, Sacred Scripture, and Jesus Christ? At the very least, there is utter confusion, and who is the author of chaos, Satan!

Although this is sad new indeed to end the year, remember that God came into the world and became man to save humanity from sin. Therefore, being loyal to the historic teaching of the Church that stream back to Jesus and remaining in the Catholic Church no matter what will save us. So despite the bad news I wish you a merry Christmas and a Woke free New Year.

Prayer Crusader St Philomena

The Three Musketeers on the Index

 The Past Isn’t Even Past

A fond farewell to Catholic Truth and its Catholic Truth (Scotland) blog after twenty-four years fighting for the Faith; it will be sorely missed. “Ae farewell and then for ever.”

             The newsletter once published a letter in which I replied to a priest who had said he could never make any sense out of why The Three Musketeers had been on the Index of Prohibited Books.  We learn what we learn in the course of our formal education – and even that in itself is subject to the vagaries of an individual’s schooling – then we forget much of it if not quite all.  What might remain to us is a general impression that can serve as a broad foundation for our future prejudices; but in many cases we do not retain even that, and the entirety of our attitude to any particular subject will be formed on the basis of our cultural environment, which is to say our media environment.

             Having mentioned historical fiction we must give it some further consideration because it is necessarily the most vivid and engaging material that sticks in the memory and shapes our understanding of history, and that will very often be fiction whether written or broadcast.  Who controls the past controls the present: who controls the present controls the future because the past isn’t really even past as our interpretation of history underpins our social, political and cultural attitudes.  Indeed, much of our political development in the nineteenth century may be traced to the embrace by conservatives under the n--- D--- of the Catholic alternative to the Whig interpretation of history understood as a Tory version. We are who we are because we think we were who we think we were, and that includes being a ‘we’ in the first place as well as what ‘we’ might think of ‘them’ whoever ‘they’ might be.

             Returning to my example, The Three Musketeers is a work the contents of which are generally transmitted to British youth at an early age while the details of French history are not.  That transmission might possibly include reading the book itself, or extracts from it, in the mid-teens, but more often does not.  There are simplified texts and illustrated versions for the under-tens along with films and television series so children encounter it repeatedly.  Was that your experience? 

             The condemnation of the amatory fictions of the Alexandres Dumas, père et fils, along with the younger Dumas’ pamphlet advocating divorce, was not due to their ‘amatory’ nature – censorship on the basis of decency was a matter primarily for the secular authorities – but because such beguiling and exciting works draw readers into their creators’ mindset or general outlook.  That is more true of broadcast works than written material because they are usually imbibed in a more passive manner with less discernment on the part of the consumer.  Hence works proceeding from the dangerously flawed mentality of undesirable types like the Alexandres Dumas should be avoided as simple entertainments – and should be consumed only warily if at all. 

             The Dumas were Bonapartists, (the father even joined the self-proclaimed emperor’s meritocratic aristocracy) and their works were shot through with all the attitudes and opinions that that implies.  If you had the experience I described of an early introduction to The Three Musketeers, might I ask how much of it you believed, and how much of it sticks in the memory?  The book presents the court of Louis XIII as having been a thoroughly decadent nest of intrigue with a weak and ineffectual cuckold of a king, a flighty adulteress of a queen and a scheming villain of a minister; a regime, in short, ripe for revolutionary overthrow even then in the days of French glory.  Yet these were among the greatest figures in the history of France!  Of course, there is an implication that what had been true of one branch of the traditional monarchy was true also of that reigning at the time of publication in the 1840s.     

             As was normal under a Catholic polity, and had been the case with our own Lords Chancellor before Henry VIII’s time, the first minister of France (the keeper of the king’s conscience) was ordinarily a bishop made a cardinal as a mark of papal approval of the close connection between Church and State, and with it between secular and divine law, under such an arrangement.  To depict Cardinal Richelieu as a scheming villain amounted to an attack upon the clergy (backed up by the characterisation of various other clerical figures across the Dumas’ oeuvre) and not an argument but rather a certain measure of pressure in favour of disestablishment.

             The Dumas did not promote the excesses of the Revolution but its general objectives and its outcome as realised, in their opinion, under their supposedly imperial hero.  Similarly, in our own day, popular historical fictions such as Dame Hilary Mantel’s (adapted for stage and small screen) Wolf Hall Trilogy, tend not to endorse the contentious actions of their protagonists, but by their choice of heroes and villains, their characterisation of people real and fictitious, and their interpretation of events by which they impose an artificial narrative arc upon carefully selected facts they make clear where their creators’ sympathies lie and they insinuate all manner of ideas deep into the intellectual subconscious of the consumer.

             As we all know, the imposition of an ideologically contrived narrative is not restricted to material presented as fiction but transforms narrations of historical events, objective facts, into effective fictions.  While events as they occur certainly have a coherence in the light of divine providence, the coinage of eternity is not spent in a television studio packaging the past in neat and tidy parcels congratulating today on having evolved through history into a wonderfully enlightened present.  Written history may be flawed in many ways, but one definite advance in modern practice is that in print the inclusion of footnotes indicating sources, and giving at least some clue as to where facts and their interpretation can be distinguished, has become almost universal.

             It is quite clearly possible to create historical narratives, whether of fact or fiction, in which that which is believed to have occurred is presented in a manner compatible with Church teaching by rejecting the Pelagian myth of constant moral progress under the weight of human effort, or the alternative of natural evolutionary development in the direction of freedom from antiquated moral norms.  It is also possible to create narratives in which the ‘boo and hooray’ words and names accord with the perspectives of faithful Catholics in wherever the narrative is set.  The EWTN films we promote do exactly that.  What is not possible, however, is a narrative that is both narrative and a neutral presentation of life as it actually happened.  ‘The past is another country’ we do not have a visa to visit; historiography is not only possible but obligatory if we are to achieve an understanding of history that might allow us to build the future we want to see, but history itself is irrecoverably impossible to grasp.  The past remains ever with us in its moral, social and political effects precisely because we can only ever see it recreated one way or another, interpreted for us or against.

             Preciosa in conspectu Domini. Mors sanctorum ejus

            Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints

While the media decry the Ugandan legislation and demand retribution from the international community and individual western nations, I can see only the blessed fruit of the life and faithful witness in death of St. Charles Lwanga and his companions in martyrdom by which their country has been brought to this happy liberation from the horrors of their history.  

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

Saltburn film review

 

Saltburn

Brideshead Revisited on steroids

Note this is a spoiler review, but I wouldn't recommend anyone to see it anyway!

I went to see the film Saltburn more for research, as I'm writing a book about a Traditional Catholic at Oxford; I'm looking at pretty well everything related. I even recently bought second-hand a DVD of a film called The Riot Club, another poorly made sensationalist exploitative film about wealthy students. It is based on the real-life Bullingdon Club, where the men-only young toffs Club members smash up Oxford restaurants and then pay eminently for its renovation. You can't make this stuff up, but it's true..

                It is, of course, impossible to compare the two stories Saltburn and Brideshead. In contrast, Brideshead Revisited (the book) was about final redemption and finding God, but Saltburn is the complete opposite. It's an evil, nasty little film with no redeeming qualities about a manipulative bisexual poor Oxford student who wheedles his way into an already quite decadent wealthy nobility. He manages to get into the circle of friends of a rich student and is invited to the family's stately home 'Saltburn' we are then taken through scenes of drug abuse, extreme swearing (I've never heard the F-bomb used so much), the film is sexually charged throughout. It has a strange approach to this type of decadence, some quite original and disgusting; this is one for those who say women are worse than men in this regard; the writer and director is a woman, Emerald Fennell. This film is all about finding evil; even one of the leads, Felix Catton, dies at the centre of a maze beneath the statue of a horned god.

                The other leading man, Oliver Quick, is a manipulative bisexual and murders the entire family one by one and makes them look like accidents, getting left the stately home 'Saltburn.' I'm afraid I didn't stay until the end. The sight of this Oliver Quick, played by Barry Keoghan (shame on him), dancing through his now Stately Home rooms was more than I could stand, especially as his manhood was often on show and the actor seemed partially aroused. Disgusting, So I can't tell you what the actual ending was.

                This film was too eager to shock but was very predictable. It is a  film to avoid, and happily, there was only one other person in the cinema when I saw it!

Prayer Crusader St Philomena.

Marks and Spenser Christmas advert

 Marks and Spenser Christmas advert

Doing its best to provoke a boycott?

Have the ad agencies who work for the big retail corporations learnt nothing? With Bud Light using a Trans "woman" to advertise its beer and Target in the USA trying to saturate its stores with rainbow Alphabet People clothes, then having to contend with an almost apocalyptic loss of customers, we now have the big stores with huge budget Christmas advert mini films that appear to try and trash Christmas.

            Perhaps the worst of these is the Marks and Spenser Christmas ad for 2023; it has nothing to do with Christianity, nothing to do with the birth of Christ, all to do with trashing Christmas as a Christian religious feast and, what is more surprising, trashing secular Christmas as well. The 'inclusive, diverse' actors got the message across spectacularly that this is a horrible time of the year, and they are bored with it. They look like they hate it, throwing Christmas games away, setting gift tabs on fire, taking a Christmas toy, Father Christmas, and whacking it with a stick. We see women drinking and getting drunk while white heterosexual men are absent, as are children.

            However, Marks and Spenser did apologize, but not for what you think. Was it for making such a miserable advent? No. Was it for completely ignoring Christianity? No. Was it for violently attacking Christmas toys, showing unhappy women getting drunk? No. It was (and this is entirely ridiculous) for showing Christmas cracker hats in the fire just because they were red, green, and white in colour. The hats you see are the colour of the Palestinian flag, and some idiots thought that it was anti-Palestinian! The fact that the Italian and Mexican flags are also the same colours and they are also colours associated with Christmas was missed by these idiots. So Marks issued the most obsequious apology one could imagine and deleted the clip. The Waitrose Christmas ad is no better; no children, no Christianity, no old people, just a bunch of diverse fat morons stuffing themselves. Only Lidil dares show a happy white family (with children) enjoying a traditional Christmas. Well, I know where I will be shopping this Christmas, and it will not be at Marks and Spenser!

23rd Crusade of Prayer

 23rd Prayer Crusade

On the 20th anniversary of the formation of CUT

For the

Synod on Synodality

That they will affirm the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church, and not diminish or change them to suit the modern world as secular medial and enemies of the Church would wish.  

The daily prayer of a Prayer Crusader

O glorious St ...(insert your saint here)... pray for us

And for those in the public sphere
Especially those influenced by Satan's lies
May the Lord touch their hearts and bring them to repent.

And walk upon the path of truth and temperance.

O Subjects of the heavenly realm pray also for all led astray.

Pray especially that the Synod Fathers may affirm the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church

And pray for me, a sinner

Our Father

Hail Mary

Glory Be

St. Michael, the archangel, defend us in the day of battle, be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil,

May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host.

By the power of God

Thrust down to hell Satan and all wicked Spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us

Kermode and Mayo's rant - Sound of Freedom 'review'

 

Kermode and Mayo's rant 'review' of the

Sound of Freedom

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo are two ex-BBC film reviewers now on social media; they used to have a large following when on the BBC 5 Live film review slot on Friday afternoon, but now, after having left the BBC, they languish as one of the least popular of the 'known' YouTube movie reviewers. And you can see why they tend to be quite mean-spirited, especially when it comes to films that portray Christian and moral values - their Sound of Freedom review is a case in point. Below is my reaction to it.

Wow, a film review is somewhere in the middle of this 'rant'! This mini-review was done during the top ten films countdown for the week's box office. However, it's 99% rant and 1% review. Kermode's hatred for this film and Jim Caviezsel is palpable. He gets in a QAnon dig within the first 30 seconds, trying to discredit the film and Caviezsel immediately; however, Mr. Kermode, QAnon, and the right are not illegal, just as your brand of loony leftism isn't. When this film was made, QAnon did not even exist. It was acquired by Disney (another form of child abuse, according to many) when it bought Fox and then tried to bury it.

He also seems upset that the film has been endorsed 'by the likes of Donald Trump,' he rants and he raves on that it wouldn't have been successful 'if a bunch of nutball right-wingers hadn't come out and said that this is such an important film,' and rather than actually talk about the film Kermode blusters on:

 'Trump has spent a lot of his time dog whistling to the nut-ball right wing lunatic fringe who "believe" in inverted comers that he is involved in a fight against a cabal of Satanic Paedophiles ...' stutters as he has run out of rant words and says ... 'blaugh'...

Then, he mentions QAnon again. Kermonde then admits that the film has nothing to do with QAnon, but he keeps mentioning it and continues to do his best to discredit the film. Then again, he mentions Trump doing a screening and repeats himself, 'he's dog whistling to the QAnon lot.'

Kermode then again knocks the film without actually saying why, just a blatant assertion that the film is 'completely unremarkable and not very good exploitation thriller.' He says the only reason it's shown is that 'Trump did a screening, and when your leading man is Jim Cavisel ... Jim Cavisel played Jesus in the Passion of the Christ, it seems he's become convinced that he really is the Messiah.'

           Talk about hyperbole! Kermode is throwing everything at this film except the proverbial kitchen sink! Mayo then twerps in with 'he's an idiot' then after those words of wisdom from the every present but seldom heard sidekick. Kermode continues his tirade with another assertion: 'he's also a very bad actor.' Kermode's hatred of Cavisel is so unprofessional, so personal it would seem, that he has no qualms about calling him an idiot again and rants on to say 'when someone's personal behavior is so rampagingly  stupid!'... -  just because he addressed a so-called right-wing gathering who are concerned about child sex traffic (pity the left/liberals don't do more).

Perhaps the real reason the left/liberal legacy media are so appalled at the success of this film is because it's taking up media space with a Christian values narrative, intruding on their world, and they know it's actually exposing the corruption and abuse that is inherent in the mainstream media? God is actually mentioned as inspiring people in the film against child sex trafficking. Why are the left/liberal types in the mainstream media so scared of this film? Is it because their MSM world is implicated? I suggest that Kermode and Mayo calm down and go to the nearest cocktail bar and have a nice glass each of bitter and twisted,

BBC to Verify the news

 

BBC Verify

Can it be trusted?

 First of all, BBC Verify is supposed to be a group of 60 BBC journalists who form a highly specialised operation and have the investigative skill to verify if any piece of news, whether on social media or the mainstream media, is true. With clever manipulation of images and computer graphics and AI, any image can be manipulated to say what every image provider wants. People are constantly bombarded with news, and it's difficult to tell what is happening. The Ukraine-Russia war is a case in point. If you watch one set of You Tubers, Russia has lost all her tanks and then some, and if you watch another set, Ukraine hasn't any troops left. So, this could (in the right hands) be a good thing?

            The big problem is the mainstream media also seem to be guilty of loading the news to suit the liberal Western viewpoint. And as the BBC is part of the Main Stream Media, it is difficult to see them in a verifying role. The BBC has a set of secularist left/liberal values, and it has been evident in the past that they have loaded the news and current affairs programmes to suit this left/liberal viewpoint. Therefore, while it would be fantastic if there was an organisation to get to the bottom of the truth in an objective way, the BBC are not the organisation to do this. They often market themselves as honest and objective, but on many issues, they are not; re abortion, Alfabet people, feminism, national interests first, and anything Woke, they simply cannot be trusted.

Blasphemous Amazon

Tradition Family and Property are campaigning against Amazon's Blasphemy Page!

You might like to sign their petition.

Amazon Features 91 Blasphemous Products on “Blasphemy” Page

Amazon has become infamous for promoting products offensive to Jesus Christ and Catholics around the world.

But things have gotten worse. Now, Amazon has featured a “blasphemy” page on its website. This page makes no mention of Mohammed or Buddha. Instead, it exclusively attacks Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith.

Sign Now Against This Unthinkable Attack on Jesus Christ and His Church

This page is not accidental. On Amazon, the page’s title reads, “Blasphemy! The Best Religious Novelty Items.”

On her own blog, the page’s organizer Laura Sweet dubbed the collection “More Jesus Novelty Gifts Sure To Send Me To Hell.”

And this is not just a single blasphemy. On this single Amazon page, there are ninety-one highly irreverent products for sale.

NO to Blasphemy! Sign here and make a difference!

The products available on this page make me sick to my stomach.

Here are a few of them:

• “Inappropriate Coloring Books Sarcastic Jesus: Cuss Word Jesus Lets You Know What He Really Thinks,”
• Santa VS Jesus The Epic Party Adult Card Game,
• A “Teazus” Tea Infuser,
• “The Grilled Cheesus Sandwich Press,”
• “Nun Bowling,” where the user knocks over 10 small nun figurines for fun,
• and many, many more!

These are appalling!

Yes, I Will Sign Against These Horrendous Blasphemies!

As Christians, it is our duty to rise up and oppose these insults to all that is sacred!

Please, I urge you:

SIGN NOW Against This Outrageous Blasphemy!

Which is the Wokest Classical Music station?

 

Which is the Wokest Classical Music station?

Classic FM or BBC Radio Three

If there is one place in the media world where modern themes of the Alphabet people and the pro-abortionist would have the most negligible presence, it would be here among the great composers and religious music of the past millennium. Classical music is all I listen to on the radio these days. Even cricket is interrupted by anti-carbon protesters, so it's just BBC Radio Three or Classic FM these days.

 

However, I often turn off Classic FM more often than BBC Radio Three. This last time I turned off Classic FM was after the presenter announced a local Gay Pride event in the same vain as she would a village fair. In the last year, I also had to send an email of complaint that they were not balanced regarding reporting on abortion. They only had the pro-choice interviewee present to interview on a pro-life issue. Radio Three, on the other hand, do have the occasional woke play, but this one can always avoid. I also remember Classic FM having Peter Tatchell on air and given free rein to attack Pope Benedict when he came to England with no one to speak for the Church present. All so typical of the Main Stream Media, sometimes called the legacy media, but perhaps we thought we could expect better from stations that owe their existence to music that either came directly from the Church or was developed from it.

By Prayer Crusader, St Philomena

The Female Gaze

 

Understanding the Female Gaze

In Barbie and Jane Austin's Emma films.

What is the female gaze? Is it the same as the male gaze? There is a theory that the male gaze is a predatory one, that men are always on the lookout for conquest, therefore their enjoyment of seeing a female is one of how to triumph over her; and yet, men can often be just as romantic and self-sacrificing as women. Some would argue that this self-sacrificing is part of the male DNA, in that men, especially when they become fathers, need to protect the family unit. Therefore, the male gaze is ultimately one in which they are looking for someone to sacrifice for. The female gaze is slightly different: they are looking for a man who can take care of them and any children which they may have together. Now this may all seem stereotypical and out of date; however it has been proven that this is the basic way in which man/woman relationships have worked since the dawn of time.

Let us look at two recent films that some say challenge this. First, the 2020 film Emma. This is based on Jane Austin's book of the early nineteenth century, so surely this cannot be a Woke feminist film? Well no, of course not, but it does revel in the female gaze; the character Emma and the mainly female audience are given the male lead and rakish supporting male character as something to look at and think about. Then we have the new 2023 film Barbie. This, so many of the film reviewers have stated, is an outright piece of Woke feminist garbage. However, as the days go by and more reviewers come to the film and indeed to the reviewers, some are saying that the film is the opposite of Woke and feminist propaganda. The film starts with a take on the 2001 Space Odyssey film's beginning where the apes are infused with intelligence from a mysterious monolith then start to use bones as weapons and tools, thus beginning man's long progress to civilisation. The beginning of the Barbie movie references this and has a huge Barbie appear among young girls playing with baby dolls who then after touching the huge feminist Barbie start to bash their baby dolls in the same fashion as the apes with bones.

The film then goes to Barbie land where all the Barbies rule and the Kens (the male companion of Barbie) are down trodden. Barbie goes through an existential crisis and leaves Barbie land with Ken for the real world to find her girl owner who is very unhappy. In the real world the "Patriarchy" men rule she is treated in a sexist way. However, Ken likes the Patriarchy and brings it back to Barbie land where men then rule what has become Kendom. However, when Barbie returns she sets the men against each other and the Barbies rule again. Only for Barbie to return to the real world as she has discovered she has a vagina and visits a gynaecologist. Could this be a tell tale part whereby the feminist trope has been reversed and Barbies actually want to have babies after all?

Could Barbie actually be an anti-Woke anti-feminist film after all, and the female gaze was more evident in the 2020 Emma film?

By Prayer Crusader St Philomena

Barbenheimer

 

Barbie

A new Woke movie to push the message?

 

This is not a review as I've not seen the movie nor do I intend to. However, there are enough reviews and on line talk about the film to know what it's all about.

 

The film stars Margot Robbie as Barbie; in fact all the female characters are called Barbie, it even has a Trans Doctor who is also call Barbie. Ken the male lead is played by Ryan Gosling. The film or at least the first act is shot in a kind of day-glow colour that makes you feel sick, like you’ve eaten too many sweets. (I have seen the trailer and many clips from reviews).

There are a few recurring comments I am seeing so here is a summary.

 

·                     This is not a film to take children to even though it has a PG 13

·                     It is full of adult themed jokes.

·                     It pushes the Woke message very strongly.

·                     It is subversive in that it is jokey, colorful, fun (well sometimes) has song and dance routines, when it doesn't get ugly.

·                     It hates men especially white men.

 

What these film producers, writers and directors need to understand is that white men have a right to exist like everyone else, and they need to be treated fairly like everyone else. There are just too many avenues of Woke opening up and it’s getting past the point when we are just going to accept it all.

 

Summing up - A sickly surreal fantasy that hates the patriarchy and that is full of Woke themes. This is not a children's film, therefore protect your children from it.

 

Barbie is released at the same time as Openheimer; there is a strange meme going around please see the image used in this post. Interesting, what do you think?

 

Sound of Freedom movie

 Sound of Freedom

Why are Hollywood and the Main Stream Media so opposed to this film?

Sound of Freedom is a recently released anti-child-trafficking film directed and co-written by Alejandro Monteverde and stars Jim Caviezel as Tim Ballard. Ballard, who is a former government agent, embarks on a mission to stop sex-trafficking and rescue children from the cartels. The low budget movie has been a surprise success, even knocking the latest Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny off the top box office spot.

So why have Hollywood and the Main Stream Media (MSM) gone into melt down over this film? One would think that they would be applauding this as a bold movie sticking up on the side of innocent children, but no! The Guardian (that Woke leftie rag) called it a "QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America".  What are they talking about? The same horrid rag's Cuties review was largely supportive of that child exploitive film, so what does that tell us about the Main Stream Media and child sex-trafficking? So we ask you who are the people doing these reviews, what is their agenda? Why do they want this movie to fail so much and why are they so defensive?

Could it be that the film has a strong male lead who is fighting for justice against the cartels who are supplying children to the same woke media who are the recipients of the trafficked children? Hollywood does not want you to watch this movie; why? -  because some, perhaps many there are actually part of the child exploiting ring, they are the last link, the recipients. Their faithful MSM reviewers secretly know this and cover up for them. This is why devout Catholic, Jim Caviezel never gets the big film roles he deserves; Hollywood doesn't want good people.

Young British workers have been killed in the womb since 1968

 Anne Furedi

The squib below, which I do not claim as great poetry! was written recently after listening to Anne Furedi, probably the most notorious name in the British abortion industry, even though she is now retired, defend, promote and extol abortion as a great achievement of women’s autonomy, rights and career ambitions. No mention was made of the rights of the child or, indeed, of fathers. Particularly eye-widening were her admission that the unborn human has special status – but not special enough to save it from convenience killing and her claim that there should be no laws whatever governing abortion (late term abortions being relatively rare could be ignored). She is also on record as defending the killing of young girls in the womb in favour of young boys, if the mother so desires.

   It is the height of tragic irony that the public realm tends to be consumed these days with controversy about the mass immigration being promoted by the current government, indeed by all major political parties, as a solution for the growing shortage of working age people in the labour force. No mention is made that since abortion was legalized “for difficult cases” in 1968 ten million young British workers have been killed in the womb by the moral filth of abortion – thus resulting in the current labour shortages and the rapid ageing of the population.

   “And what goes round goes round”: courtesy of the egregious Matt Hancock, then Health Secretary, abortion during the Covid pandemic was returned to its “roots” when unsupervised home abortion by pills was made universally available – a move carefully orchestrated and acclaimed by the profit-making abortion providers. Inevitably the casualty list of women needing emergency treatment for incomplete or botched abortions has soared. Back street abortion is once more a reality.

   We have ended up in the “civilized” post-Christian position of doing all we can to keep the elderly alive (I write as a 73 year old) and all we can to kill as many young as possible. Is it a surprise that the judgement of God is upon our society?

 

BELATED LINES TO ANN FUREDI OCCASIONED BY HER RETIREMENT AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE BRITISH PREGNANCY ADVISORY SERVICE (BPAS)

 

(Note: Ann Furedi retired as BPAS Chief Executive in December 2020 and is now Vice-Chair of the Governing Body of MidKent College of Higher and Further Education).

 

Since 1968

When killing in the womb

Became a “freedom” thing,

10 million in spate

Young British folk and true

Have fallen to their fate:

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

In 2021

A quarter million plus

Of young in the womb’s spring

Were drugged or knifed to none;

The mothers, fraught, went home,

The slaughter slick and done:

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

A “libertarian,”

Gradgrind in her logic,

The right to keep or sling

One’s child, for her is clarion;

Thus, that boys might live

Girls must become carrion:

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

“The best job in the world”

She called her work at BPAS

Attracting the media’s bling –           

Their approval blatant, pearled,

For “record-breaking growth”

Was hers, a black flag unfurled:

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

Abortion policy,

She’s said, should be a blank,

A Wild West where money’s “ping”

Kills up to birth scot-free.

She’s helped at a late-term killing

Then slept all night like the sea:

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

Well, Britain’s millions short

We’re told of working folk,

But that’s abortion’s sting –

There’s pint where should be quart:

At MidKent now, Mère Ann

Tempts the young to abort:

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

And what goes round goes round:

Home aborts by pill –

What joy, the postman’s ring! –

Bring back to its old ground

Death with its cramps and blood –

Back street killing is crowned!

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

And so, the self-demise

Of the West’s Christian fact

To which so few now cling

Results in Ba’al’s flies

Crawling the newborns’ faces           

Exposed under pagan skies:

And that is why I sing

In praise of Ann Furedi.

 

by Prayer Crusader St Cecilia

 

Shame Month No 4

 'We're coming for your children'

With Shame month in full swing and many pundits wishing it could be extended to incorporate the whole summer it still surprises me how children are treated in all this. For no 'Gay Pride' march or event seems to be complete without children present to witness it all. It's all very blatant, naked men twerking in the direction of spectator families, men and women in various states of undress with outlandish clothes that accentuate the sexual aspects of their being. Sometime they even chant 'We're coming for your children.' Trying to persuade us that they simply want to own the phrase and they are just being ironic or something, therefore for us to suggest that they want your kids is yet another example of 'Straight' right wing hate speech. But actually they are telling the truth, hiding explicitly in full view! They DO want your children, they want them corrupted, transitioned and fully functional objects for their pleasure.

However, is there finally a fight back happening? - with news that Target (the giant American retail corporation) which has just lost about half its market value following boycott calls over its Alphabet People friendly kids clothing. Virtually all their stores were almost completely full of Rainbow themed "Pride" clothing, flags and objects. But the object that broke the family camel's back was the 'Tuck friendly' swim suit for boys. This suit looks like a girl’s full bathing costume in Rainbow colours that has a tuck area around the male genitals so that he looks like a girl. There followed an angry social media campaign calling for a boycott and for once it was successful, people did stop going to Target stores. Not that other stores don't sell this type of Alphabet People clothing; it's just that Target went too far.

Bud Light the American beer is another example of people finally having enough. After having hired the Trans 'woman' Dylan Mulvaney, to star in a video advert for the beer there was a massive backlash and the customers of the beer suddenly stopped buying it. This cost Bud Light $27 billion and now they are even trying to give their beer away, with rebates of $15 on each pack. Yet this is still not enough for the CEO to say he will never hire Mulvaney in an advertising campaign again; is he just too afraid of vicious Woke attacks? The pro-Gay/Trans lobby is just too powerful; they have academia and the media on their side. Therefore, they control both sides of the brain. None the less, as we have always said at CUT, the real Trans-phobic, Homophobic or whatever, are people that are too cowed, too brainwashed by the Rainbow Alphabet people to speak out and say the obvious: -  that homosexual acts are sinful and against natural law, and as for drugging and mutilating sexualised children in so called gender affirming ways ... this is plainly evil.

Incidentally Dylan Mulvaney is now identifying as a lesbian! And the Target designer is said to be a Satanist!

By Prayer Crusader St Philomena

Shame Month 3

 

A demonic perspective

 

In the last few years of her life, St. Catherine of Siena, who lived in fourteenth century Italy, carried on a long “Dialogue” with God, which she dictated to scribes and which has been preserved and can be read to this day in print and digitally.

In Chapter 14 of this Dialogue God makes clear to her something about the nature of demons. Demons are fallen angels, chief among them Lucifer, who rebelled against God and was thrown from Heaven in consequence (see Revelation Chapter 12). As such, they are and remain pure spirits without the bodily, material existence of human beings, animals, and all the world of ‘things’ in which we spend much of our lives.  This gives them (the demons) a perspective on certain ‘sins of the flesh’ which may be surprising.

Speaking of ‘that cursed unnatural sin’, God in St. Catherine’s Dialogue says:

But the stench displeases not only Me, as I have said, but the devils as well, those very devils these wretches have made their masters. It is not its sinfulness that displeases them, for they like nothing that is good. But because their nature was angelic, that nature still loathes the sight of that horrendous sin actually being committed. It is true that it was they who in the beginning shot the poisoned arrows of concupiscence, (sexual desire) but when it comes to the sinful act itself they run away.    

The ‘unnatural sin’ is not named, but it is further specified in the Dialogue that God told St. Catherine:

‘It is so hateful to Me that for this sin alone five cities were struck down by My divine

judgment.

1) Sodom

2) Gomorrah

3) Admah

4) Zeboiim

5) Zoar

For My divine justice could no longer tolerate it, so despicable to Me is this abominable sin. But the stench displeases not only Me, as I have said, but the devils as well, those very devils these wretches have made their masters. It is not its sinfulness that displeases them, for they like nothing that is good. But because their nature was angelic, that nature still loathes the sight of that horrendous sin actually being committed. It is true that it was they who in the beginning shot the poisoned arrows of concupiscence, (sexual desire) but when it comes to the sinful act itself they run away.

Thus, in St. Catherine’s view, the demons may be pleased that “Gay Pride Month” is being celebrated; but they will be turning their backs on the actual sins which it celebrates.

By Prayer Crusader, St Theresa of Avila