EU requested to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of “intolerance”

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), comprising former heads of state and government leaders, has requested that the EU establishes national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of “intolerance”. The ECTR called its proposal the ‘Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance’.

European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.” The group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.” Through “a reversal of the burden of proof,” the proposal “encourages frivolous litigation” and will lead to “institutionalized public control” of private opinion and thought. Sophia Kuby, spokesman for European Dignity Watch said:

“Faith-based groups and schools, adherents of a particular religion or even just parents who want to teach their children certain moral values would all be put under general suspicion of being intolerant.” “Even worse,” she said, this language “could lead to the possibility that charges are brought on unclear or even without legal grounds.” She said it would “be a significant step backward,” and “would certainly be a dark day for European democracy.”

The surveillance proposals include the following chilling statements:

  • There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant especially as far as freedom of expression is concerned.
  • “Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups” it adds, “are entitled to a special protection” in addition to the normal legal protections afforded by the state. This “special protection…may imply a preferential treatment” for those identified as “vulnerable”.
  • “It is important to stress that tolerance must be practised not only by Governmental bodies but equally by individuals, including members of one group vis-à-vis another.” It adds that the “guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (Government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person).

    It is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practised either in vertical or in horizontal relationships.”

Protect the Pope comment: This sinister proposal to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of “intolerance” has to be considered a serious threat to our freedom of religion and freedom of expression because it comes from former heads of state and government leaders and not some fringe extremist group of gay and secular lobbyists. If these proposals become law in the European Union then Catholics who uphold the teachings of the Church about the family and sexuality would be unjustly branded as ‘intolerant’ and subject to surveillance and punitive action by the state. Protect the Pope looks forward to reading the Conference of European Bishops response to this unprecedented threat to the Faith in Europe.

84 comments to EU requested to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of “intolerance”

  • I hope you do not mind I put this on my blog, as I am in Malta and having trouble with both the Net and links…thanks

  • John Dare

    Two points:

    1. The reverse buren of proof already exists, for example for wildlife offences.
    2. could citizens suspected of “intolerance”include such beauties as the EDL?

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick ,
    This is so piquant it is in one way laughable.

    One presumes that the worthy burghers of the EU superstate will order some EUROPOL paramilitary units to courageously investigate and raid Catechism classes but give Madrassas a miss.

    This will be the final Armageddon….when the Enlightenment, brown underpant wearers in Brussels attempt to persecute their own Christian heritage.

  • Paul Commins

    Who monitors the EU for intolerance.

  • jaykay

    Hmmm… first time I’d ever heard of this outfit, to be quite honest. After a quick Google and consultation of that ever-reliable source Wikipedia I found that they have prepared proposals for legislation, the “Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance”. Yeah, o.k., it’s what bodies like this do to justify their (questionable) existence, since they’re basically blathering-shops for the Great and Good, but the following gives some pointers, as if any were needed, to their mindset:

    “The future of the EU is very much interconnected to migration. We cannot support an ageing demography without migration. Tolerance would help us in coping with inevitable migration, which is the future of a multi-cultural EU.” (this from ex-Pres. Kwasniewski of Poland).

    Mind-boggling, isn’t it? The absolute failure to recognise that the reason for the “aging demography” is their own lethal intolerance towards the pre-born over generations now. The pathetic and blinkered hope that inward-bound migrants, given where most of them come from, are going to embrace their definition of “tolerance” so as to help them to prop-up their bankrupt welfarist model of society and preserve their selfish, immoral lifestyle is so risible as to invite despair. Honestly, what parallel universe have they been inhabiting for the last two decades?

    Still, they’re dangerous.

  • Michael Petek

    Let me plead guilty to intolerance.

    My position is that it ought to be a punishable offence for a person to dissent from any truth of reason which the Church has affirmed by way of a definitive judgement.

    Ex-President Kwasniewski is, of course, a Commie and ought to be punished for that reason alone.

    • Same old, same old

      Punished in what way?

      And can we have a list of “any truth or reason” that you allude to?

      • Michael Petek

        It would have to be a punishment that fits the crime, usually a fine or imprisonment, or a lesser penalty.

        Since Communism and Nazism are ideologies committed to religious and racial genocide respectively, and to crimes against humanity, the severest penalties should apply to anyone who propagates them for political implementation. For reasons I have stated elsewhere on this blog, genocide is by divine law a capital offence where the victim group is either the Jews or the Christians.

        A truth of reason means any truth of the Catholic religion which is within reach of human reason and is not a matter of divine revelation only. So, you could be punished if you affirmed in public a right or liberty to obtain an abortion, or if you denied that homosexual acts are gravely evil, or if you professed that there’s nothing amiss about contraception.

        But you couldn’t be punished if you denied the jurisdiction of the Pope over all Christians, or the divinity of Christ, or that the Eucharist is His true Body and Blood.

        Sensible policies for a happier Britain!

  • Lynda

    All Catholics and people of goodwill should be intolerant of evil, including bureaucratic weapons of tyranny and persecution, of which this is yet another. Archbishop Fulton Sheen has a great programme about true tolerance, and how it’s been abused for nefarious ends by states etc. As he states, tolerance applies only to persons, never principles.

    • John Dare

      Depends on the principle Lynda; what happens if you’re a principled fascist or [as Michael put it] Commie?

      • Michael Petek

        Well, there you are! We are entering a period of history in which tolerance will no longer be a viable mode of social coexistence.

        As in the 16th century, the issue in play is not whether we should have religious liberty for all, but which religion is true and therefore has the right to persecute dissidents.

        Given that it is, up front, right and just to persecute, fine and imprison atheists, homosexualists and secularists for their lying opinions, how do you best protect the religious liberty of persons who have conscientious objections to entering or remaining in the Catholic Church?

        • John Dare

          Michael, how do we protect the liberty of members of EDL? or Blackshirts (for Rif), because, as has been said on here, there is a line. Germany went to Hitler partially because a line wasn’t drawn.

          • Michael Petek

            EDL are a political street protest movement. There is no evidence that they are a totalitarian conspiracy, though some of its members might fall into that category.

          • Damask Rose

            It’s far more complicated than that.

          • Rifleman819

            For John Dare ,

            Your name is going on the list , along with Pte Pike…..

            We know you live in Walmington-on-Sea.

          • John Dare

            I agree the conspiricy thing Michael, I doubt they know what that means. But they are a bunch of dangerous, racist, violent nutters. They do this in the name of their ‘principles’.

        • Same old, same old

          “Given that it is, up front, right and just to persecute, fine and imprison atheists, homosexualists and secularists”

          Have I read that correctly?

          • Michael Petek

            Yes, you have.

            The Western world’s experiment with freedom of opinion and moral pluralism must be judged to have been a failure.

            We have to put our cards on the table and tell our persecutors where we stand. We mean to resist them, and we mean to win. And when we’re done, they won’t exist.

          • Rifleman819

            Same old,

          • Same old, same old

            Is there absolutely nobody else who has read that comment who isn’t thoroughly alarmed and disgusted by it? Nobody?

            Coupled with his earlier comments that anyone who fails to espouse Catholic beliefs should be punished by law or that mass killing of anyone other than Jews or Christians is not genocide.


            PS Sorry, Rif. Mr Petek himself says that I have read it correctly, you say I haven’t. On this one occasion I’d rather believe him.

          • John Dare

            You likely have SO, Michael has a bit of a history of ‘interesting’ comments. To many Clint Eastwood fims are bad for you. :lol:

          • Michael Petek

            Same Old, would you please stop distorting my postings. You said:

            “Coupled with his earlier comments that: (1) anyone who fails to espouse Catholic beliefs should be punished by law; or that (2)mass killing of anyone other than Jews or Christians is not genocide.”

            Let me take the second point first. International law has a perfectly satisfactory definition of genocide, and it is the same crime whether the victim group is a national, racial, ethnic or religious group of any description.

            Justice requires that the crime of genocide be severely punished in all cases. Divine law prescribes the death penalty for the crime when the victim group is the Jews and the Christians.

            God Himself manifested this precedent in sending His Mother to Fatima and in arranging for the Jews to return to the Land of Israel and establish their political sovereignty there. This precedent is for judicial use only. It guarantees that the execution of the men responsible for the genocide of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis was legally correct.

            Having been publicly manifested by the Divine Judge Himself, the precedent can be cited and may be followed by the civil authorities. It is for Christians to articulate God’s laws and judgements and for the civil authorities to apply them. But if the civil authorities are unpersuaded, then they are unpersuaded.

            Now for the first point. My concern is to advocate the silencing of those who publicly dissent from truths which reason can grasp without recourse to divine revelation and which the Catholic Church has confirmed as true by a definitive judgement. The reason is that dissent from truths of that description is presumed to be unconscionable in all cases, though dissent from truths which are above reason but revealed by God is not.

            That would put Richard Dawkins in jail for a start, and also Ann Furedi of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. The sex educators who corrupt children with advice on contraception and abortion would also be in for a rotten life.

            Remember where I started from. The age of toleration is over. It has been terminated by the secular humanists themselves. Let them now reap the whirlwind.

          • Libby Stockton

            “It is for Christians to articulate God’s laws and judgements and for the civil authorities to apply them.”

            No it isn’t. What a monstrous view of the judicial system you have.

      • Wake up England

        yet another inane and unintelligent comment from John Dare.

        John Dare is a self-confessed troll on this blog.

        He also supports abortion in Catholic Hospitals.

        He advocates artificial Birth Control.

        John Dare is no friend of Almighty God’s Catholic Church.

        He is a voice of great evil and is best ignored.

      • Lynda

        I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time. A principle is either true and valid or false and invalid. If the former it ought to be respected, lauded, if the latter, it ought to be despised and rejected. On the other hand, a person who promotes false principles, may, in certain circumstances, be tolerated for a greater good. Please don’t pretend you don’t understand this.

  • BJC

    I think ACTA and the Tablet should be monitored. They show a marked intolerance to Catholics who disagree with them over women priests, and their constant whining amounts to harassment. Fr. Tony Flannery’s another one should go on the list. He’s intolerant over everything from the priesthood to the origins of the Church. Come on ECTR do your job.

  • Lynda

    Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

    What is tolerance?  Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment.  But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this:  Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth.  Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.  Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error. 

    America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad-mindedness.  Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us.  Our Blessed Lord Himself asked that we “love those who calumniate us, for they are always persons,” but He never told us to love the calumny. 

    In keeping with the Spirit of Christ, the Church encourages prayers for all those who are outside the pale of the Church and asks that the greatest charity be shown towards them.  Charity, then, must be shown to persons and particularly those outside the fold, who by charity must be led back, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd.  Shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of “Wisdom” and be called an“Intolerant” God?

    The Church is identified with Christ in both time and principle; She began thinking on His first principles and the harder She thought, the more dogmas She developed.  She never forgot those dogmas; She remembered them and Her memory is Tradition.  The dogmas of the Church are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is “religious experience” fit only for burning.  The Church has been and will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, and untruth affect not personal matters on which She may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding.  The truth is divine; the heretic is human.  Due reparation made, the Church will admit the heretic back into the treasury of Her souls, but never the heresy into the treasure of Her Wisdom. Right is right even if nobody is right; and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. 

    The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon.  Both of them claimed a child.  The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth—it cannot be divided without ruin.  The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise.  She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad-mindedness. (A Plea for Intolerance).

    • John Dare

      Morning Lynda. I don’t know of the archbishop, and having read his interpretation of the two women story, I’m amazed that he ever got to the top. No suggestion that the story could refer to a mothers love, just a Daily Mail version to suit ‘the church is right’. Wow.

      • Wake up England

        Today’s offering from our self-confessed resident troll John Dare:

        Dismissing The Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen whose cause for canonisation is well underway. “I am amazed he ever got to the top”.

        Over the last couple of weeks, John Dare has also unashamedly supported the provision of abortions in Catholic hospitals; and also voiced his support of artificial birth control.

        I fail to see John Dare’s contributions here are in any way constructive, well-intentioned, well-informed or conducive to the protection of the Catholic Faith in particular or Christianity in general.


      What is tolerance?

      That’s a lesson our lords and masters here below ought to learn. They conflate “tolerance” and “approval”, demanding not that we tolerate evil, but that we approve it.

      Probably, we should pray for them more.

  • Rifleman819

    Same Old,
    I have a nightmare that we have been collectively abducted by EUROPOL and forcibly redacted to Zimbabwe……….and there we are…..I am offered my freedom by Robert Gabriel if I reveal who on PtP who has been writing scurrilous comments on the Great Leader.
    One sweep on the flywhisk and we are both dead……he thinks it is either you or someone called John Dare.

    What an ethical dilemma………..

    But I digress………..all the great revolutions in history start off with vaguely noble aspirations but degenerate into murder and tyranny pretty quickly.Look at France…guillotine LXVI …and you end up with Robespierre…..behead C1 and you get Cromwell.
    It is a fascinating process to watch the intolerance of liberals.
    And scary.

  • John Dare

    I don’t think the gents who organised the English civil war were liberals?

  • Rifleman819

    John , 2 correctives-sounds like a laxative…..Cromwell , unlike C1, was a very, very efficient tyrant.

    Initially the New Model Army elected its own officers etc etc…a sort of Protestant Athenian democracy which the Puritan gentry tolerated whilst the rank and file did the fighting-fighting over….the nobs got scared……the Army stated agitating for democracy (the Levellers)-Cromwell, like the property -owning squire he really was ….had 3 of them shot in Burford Churchyard on 17th May 1649.

    2 more Levellers were shot on Gloucester Green, Oxford…just in case the other Army rebels did not get the message.
    Liberals …very comparative term.

  • Rifleman 819

    Same old , Richard Toplcliffe, Henry V111, …one could go on.

    Sadly …you’ve been at the substances again -

    Pol Pot 1925-1998-Buddist but Catholic School

    Lev Bronstein 1879-1940-Jewish, though non practising

    Josef Stalin 1878-1953 Georgian Orthodoox

    Mao Zedong 1893-1978 Buddist, rejected for atheism early on.

    Yes…. numerous Popes would be Catholic educated, wouldn’t they?

  • Wake up England

    You’ve both forgotten Adolf!

  • Same old, same old

    Monsters all.

    But the name you first brought up was Cromwell. He did his butchery full in the ‘knowledge’ that he was doing it in the service of a Christian God. Much like many people on this website seem to want – except with a marginally different label attached.

    • Lynda

      Totally disingenuous and baseless remark.

    • Wake up England

      Same Old:

      It always amazes me that people can hover around this blog and seemingly not understand that Catholic Church or her claims.

      The Protestant faith (and it’s thousands of off-shoots) is not authentic Christianity as set up by God (presumably you know we think Jesus is God).

      God founded his church and it continues; it is vastly, incomparably and manifestly different from the Protestant distortion of Christianity.

      Oliver Cromwell was a real monster and one only has to see what wickedness he demonstrated in Ireland to appreciate this.

      Any right-thinking Catholic has a firm duty to fight against any distortions of the faith Almighty God personally founded.

      You see we emphatically DO NOT believe all religions are equal; it’s exactly what we do not believe.

      Oliver Cromwell was not serving God’s Holy religion. He was serving a wicked distortion of it.

  • Rifleman 819

    Same old,

    Oh-you mean you’ve turned relativist now-atheist butchers are …at last …bracketed with Christian ones.We are making progress.

    Dearest Noll was an Independent in religion-hated Bishops ….and Presbyterians almost as much..yet ironically he used Anglican laws against Catholics!

    From first to last the most loyal element to Charles Stuart in the Civil Wars were his Catholic Englishmen.

    • Same old, same old

      To a point, Lord Copper.

      The difference in general (although it’s not a Golden Rule) is that many of the Catholic tyrants were actually carrying out mass murder in the name of God. Cromwell was doing it in the name of a Christian God – despite the logic mangling coming from WUE.

      The shocking atrocities being carried out today against Christians are almost without exception at the hands of people certain in their own minds that they are doing the right thing by their own God. It is very rare that a tyrant carries out genocide against religious groups “in the name of no God” as you so delicately put it. It is even rare that they do it without the backing of of of the major religious groups.

      • Wake up England

        Same Old Nonsense:

        What a lot of ridiculous twaddle you gush forth.

        It’s not only Catholic teaching which is beyond your pretensions; it’s simple and recent history too.

        If you want to support your own ideology by invented – and false – reason, then I’m afraid you’ve chosen the wrong forum on PtP.

        Try supporting your contentions with facts, not fiction.

        Although you’re brighter and more intellectually agile than John Dare, I think you must fit into the Troll category. Or do you see yourself as being more clever than that?

  • Rifleman819

    Same Old,
    I must buy the cooking sherry you consume …’cos it mightily affects the brain.

    “it is very rare that a tyrant carries out genocide against religious groups “in the name of no God”"

    This must come as news to the families of the 85,000 Orthodox priests shot by Stalin in 1937 alone. During the slightly , slightly anti-religious purges in the Soviet Union between 1927-1940…the number of Orthodox churches fell from 29,584 to under 500.

  • Rifleman819

    Yes I had forgotten those who died for the Faith in Mexico.
    Known unto God.

    • Same old, same old

      I said ‘rare’ not ‘impossible’. And before you rant on at me, just because it is rare does not detract one iota from the enormity of the crime itself. Stalin’s slaughter of those priests and those by Mexican communists are just as bad as those in the past that have been butchered by agents of the church.

  • Rifleman819

    Same old ,
    Changing your tune a bit -not quite as confident in our rants as before.

    You are slipping ……any more and we’ll be having a R G Mugabe argument again.

    You must do your research thoroughly ,you know or they will rip you to shreds here.
    Next time tip in with something carefully investigated…it would be amusing this time to try and take not me -how about Wake up?
    Wake up is sharp.

    Are you up for it? I am pretty sure Wake up would be……….

  • Same old, same old

    I don’t think I’m changing my tune at all. I’m opposed to genocidal maniacs whatever their motivation. It’s does seems worth a comment that there’s a huge correlation both now and throughout history of those who carry it out in the name of God, in the name of Christianity and in the name of Catholicism.

    Several years ago I heard an exposition of this in which various organisations had studied the major hostilities and flash points that were then happening around the globe. They had counted 53 of them – of which only one was not based on religion to a significant extent.

    I’ll pass on the debate with Wake Up. Life is far too short. You say he’s sharp. He’s about as sharp as a button mushroom. He is also gratuitously abusive. And he has some utterly offensive opinions. Other than that ……..

  • Rifleman819

    Same Old ,
    Don’t confuse blanket historical sweep with fact.Look at the greatest tyrannies in human history and you will find that atheism is by far the most culpable.
    So you decline Wake Up then ….fair enough.
    I draw no inference on that one way or another.

    • Wake up England


      Anyone who might be interested in what I believe about anything serious can read the Catechism.

      My Opinions on all important issues are those of the Catholic Church. If Same Old finds them “Offensive” that is because he is at variance with the Catholic Church – and therefore with Almighty God.

      Of course I don’t live-up to my ideals, which is why – by the Grace of God – I go to Confession regularly.

      If Same Old finds basic Catholicism threatening, then I can’t say I’m all that much surprised.

      • Same old, same old

        Therein lies the whole problem. Basically it is impossible to disagree with anything you say on matters of import because that would be to disagree with the Church which in turn would mean disagreeing with God.

        I’m sure there is a psychological name for that condition.

        • Wake up England

          That’s right Same Old.

          You’re getting the hang of it at last.

          I uphold the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The condition is called Catholicism. Millions of people world-wide share my belief. They’ve done so for 2,013 years.

          After I’m dead, people on Earth will continue to believe what I believe.

          Your beliefs, however, are of your own confecting. They are unique and believed by you. They shift; they change; and when you die they will die with you.

          You really should join us you know.

  • Same old, same old

    That’s not really the nub of the problem though, is it?

    You say that you uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. I rather suspect that isn’t always true. You also say that millions of people share your belief. I further suspect that isn’t true either. One things for sure, if the first statement is true then the second isn’t, and vice versa.

    Let’s take your recent statement that Hitler’s suicide was a worse sin than the Holocaust he fostered. That’s not part of Catholic teaching. I can’t find anywhere that says it is and I can’t find any Catholic that is prepared to support you on it. Of those I’ve asked the politest comment I’ve heard on your view is ‘mistaken’ and the others range from ‘deranged’ to ‘heretical’ – you decide which of those is worse.

    Your only defence of this is not to say that is is the teaching of the Catholic Church therefore you believe it but in essence that because you believe it then it is the opinion of the church, without any evidence to back it up. Before you provide any let me just say that if it truly is the view of the church then it is utterly repellent and unjustified.

    Your views on many subjects – especially on social matters – are absolutely not supported by the majority of Catholics. There is a current thread on this very site about the majority of Catholics not supporting the ‘right’ of B&B owners to refuse to accommodate gay couples. I would bet that you’d go a lot further than that and maybe even make homosexual acts illegal. How many of that minority of Catholics that support your view on B&Bs would follow down that path.

    The poll that those figures came from also examined the opinions of Catholics on several other issues such as divorce, contraception and abortion. On only one of these did the majority support your own views – so please don’t preach to me about people continuing to believe what you believe, whatever that is.

  • Wake up England

    Same old contradiction:

    Wrong on all counts as usual. Another hysterical load of furious twaddle bursts forth which is predictable and inaccurate.

    regarding my upholding of the Catholic Church: You have no basis whatsoever to “Suspect that isn’t true”. It’s a childish remark which smacks of petulance.

    My beliefs on all serious matters are those of the Church as contained in the Catechism. It’s called the Catholic Faith.

    The fact that a majority of people may (or may not) agree with a moral issue does not change the truth. Catholic Dogma and doctrine are not decided on majority vote; therefore your silly comments suggesting popular opinion should dictate Church teaching is secularist nonsense.

    The debate over Hitler has been much debated and you’re really clutching at straws to bring it up again; however, for the benefit of anyone bothering to read this, I made the point that Hitler’s suicide was his worst sin. Of course Hitler’s heinous crimes were appalling and indefensible (which is why Great Britain’s involvement was just). Nevertheless, suicide is in itself a grave sin too BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THE POSSIBILITY OF REPENTANCE.

    Therefore to commit Hitler’s dreadful crimes AND THEN wilfully and deliberately die in those sins is the worst sin of all. This view is not in any way “original” to me. It was the core of a sermon preached at Westminster Cathedral by Cardinal Heenan. If you find that “utterly repellent and unjustified” then tough.

    What the “Majority” of Catholics think about abortion, divorce and contraception does not form doctrine. It’s what Almighty God thinks that matters; and He speaks through his Church.

    As I have often mentioned I am myself a homosexual man and I am extremely content as such. My views about gay men in bed and breakfast establishments is pure speculation on your part. “I bet you’d go a lot further etc” is all utter babbling nonsense from you.

    Lastly, and most importantly, MILLIONS of people uphold the beliefs of the Catholic Faith in its entirety as manifest in the Catechism. So your yelps to the contrary are quite unfounded.

    Your cross anti-Catholic bigoted views will die with you, Same Old. The views of Jesus Christ’s Church will shine forever. I believe without doubting everything the Church teaches.

    Your beliefs are a mish-mash of random ideas which appeal to you with no authority apart from your own vanity. Which is why YOU are discussing MY beliefs here, not the other way around.

  • Same old, same old

    Aha (the distant sound of goalposts being moved – and back again).

    Your statement that millions of people uphold the beliefs of the Catholic faith in its entirety as manifest in the catechism ignores the fundamental fact that billions don’t, and probably even the fact that millions of Catholics don’t – maybe even the majority.

    Of course, this will bring forward the claim from you that they are not real Catholics then. All that does is demonstrate that you don’t represent millions at all be an increasingly small number of diehards and medievalists.

    Although I’d like to insist that the one thing that you don’t agree with the Church on is an occasion on which they are right and you are fundamentally and morally wrong. If the only evidence that you have for your obscene views on Hitler’s suicide are an undocumented speech your heard by Cardinal Heenan (who died in 1975) then you can’t really blame anyone for thinking that maybe it isn’t part of Church teaching at all but of your own invention. If there was nothing to support your thesis either before or after and that it can’t be verified by anyone then my guess is that it’s not true. It may even be heresy.

    • Wake up England

      Same Old Mistakes:

      Of course millions and billions of people don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic faith as presented in the Catechism. So what?

      My point is (and you don’t like it) is that millions DO so believe.

      Of course there are Catholics who are Catholic in name only. So what?

      My point is there are millions who accept the faith unconditionally (even if, like most of us, we find some parts difficult to accept).

      If you lack the basic understanding to accept the sin of despair and suicide as being the worst sin then that is another of your tragedies. I’d much rather believe Cardinal Heenan than you. And by the way, so what if he died in 1975? What bearing has that on anything? Your repeated insistence on reverting to the Hitler/suicide debate proves you have nothing much new to say.

      If you REALLY can be bothered (which probably you won’t, because you’ll get the answer you don’t want)then put the Hitler debate to an (orthodox) Catholic priest; one of the Oratorians for example. Or one of the staff at Maryvale; or the pp at St James’s Spanish Place You’re articulate and intelligent enough (presumably) to pose the question in a disinterested way via email. Perhaps you would post the reply here?

      Of course, in reality, you can see the point I have made and you can hardly fail to comprehend the logic behind it; but it suits you to repeat and repeat the Hitler question because it is emotive and gets a good reflex reaction (when posed out of context)from anyone not au fait with catholic doctrine and dogma. It’s a cheap ploy; it would probably work in the tabloid newspapers (and most certainly in the Tablet) – but this forum is rather better informed.

      Suicide, you see, is just as bad as murder, but with the added sin of deliberately refusing the chance of repentance. This is a simple idea and it is purely the “Hitler” shock buzz which makes you cynically affect such a knicker twisting tizzy of anti-Catholic mock shock.

      You’re not stupid; but you’re by no means as clever as you think you are.

      You never mention God and you never say anything remotely positive about Him or His Holy Church, Same Old; which leads me to think you’re a troll here.

  • Same old, same old

    You can get millions of people to believe in virtually anything. Homeopathy; spiritualism; the Illuminati; horoscopes. So what?

    I notice that you turn my st statement of fact that most Catholics don’t agree with you into “there are Catholics who are Catholic in name only”. And we’re quickly back into the same territory – anyone who disagrees with you is not a Catholic (but is a troll).

    I agree with you that citing Hitler as an example in any debate can be simplistic but my point in using his actions is that I honestly don’t think that your views reflect those of the church – and therefore by your own definition would be you in the category of being Catholic in name only.

    I have asked several Catholics what they think of your position and if you think I was shocked by what you said you really should have seen their reactions. If you want to do your own research rather than getting me to do it for you then please go ahead and then share the results. If you’re emailing anyone at Maryvale then maybe you could also ask them what they are doing to rectify the appalling OFSTED report they received on all counts.

    I referred to Cardinal Heenan dying 40 years ago not because that invalidates anything he said but because it means you haven’t come up with anything to support your case either before or since a single undocumented speech that you just happened to hear at least 40 years ago,

  • Wake up England

    Same old:

    Whether million of people believe in “other” things is absolutely irrelevant to YOUR original claim above: that I am ignoring the fact that millions of people don’t believe in the Catholic Faith as taught by the Church and summarised in the Catechism.

    Your point here seems to twist, change and squirm like a venomous snake on heat. My point, however, remains unaltered and true: viz millions of people believe in the Catholic Faith as summarised in the Catechism. It’s so obviously true, why bother to argue? Equally true is the fact that millions do not. I fail to understand the point you were trying to make when you initiated this daft discussion. Looks like Smokescreen Waffle Technique which is one of your stocks in trade.

    Plenty of Catholics don’t agree with me. It doesn’t make them not Catholic; or Catholic in name only. For you to say so is bonkers. If a Catholic doesn’t believe in, say, the Immaculate Conception or the doctrine of the Real Presence, it doesn’t make her “not a Catholic”. You frankly lack a great deal of BASIC knowledge of the Catholic Faith; and given your propensity for the escharotic criticism you proclaim against of it it so often, I find this ignorance risible.

    Not everyone here who disagrees with me is a Troll; again this is yet another demonstration of your clumsy and dreary, provocative, style which might have a place in a sixth-form debate but is rather a jejune tactic for a serious forum such as this.

    I happen to think YOU are a troll, but that is different.

    To call me a Catholic in “name only” is presumably designed to be insulting; however, as a life-long homosexual I am quite used to jibes. I’ve developed a skin quite thick enough to withstand your silly opinions. Your Cathlophobic rot so often seen on this blog is actually quite amusing: the secularist latter day answer to the SPCK, “Bigots are us” so to speak. You’re a bit of a joke altogether actually; not quite in the John Dare category, but not too far off. Sinking credibility too.

    What your friends think about the Hitler question is a sideshow. Popular opinion does not dictate Catholic belief. It never has and it never will. The Catholic Faith comes to us from Almighty God via the Apostles. Not the opinion of your friends.

    I haven’t the slightest intention of emailing a reputable source about this subject as I know that what I say is true. YOU on the other hand have no intention of doing so because you fear you’ll be proved wrong. Which indeed you would be. So if the Hitler business worries you so much, find out for yourself.

    I have no idea about the OFSTED “appalling” report on Maryvale. It is a centre of excellent and sound Catholic teaching I believe which upholds God’s teachings. The fact that you choose to vilify it is not a surprise. People like you dislike traditional Catholicism, and you most certainly don’t want it being taught. Well tough luck because Maryvale is very busy I’m pleased to see. You should take a course there; it would give your argumentative Trolling skills a much-needed polish if you knew more about the subjects you enjoy condemning.

    Sadly, there isn’t an institution which teaches what you believe because it’s made up of a hotch-potch of your own whacky unattractive ideas (which will die with you unremembered and uncelebrated). Your home-spun quasi-philosophy of life is of not much interest to anyone at all apart from you. Mine, on the other hand, is studied, debated, written about, exalted, persecuted, filmed and taken seriously the world over. You really should join us you know.

    As for Cardinal Heenan dying 40 years ago, the point you attempt to make highlights the already obvious fact that you haven’t much idea of how the Catholic Church works.

    Try saying a prayer to saint Paul, you might become less of a Saul and more of a Paul yourself.

    Love WUE

  • Same old, same old

    I would have thought it was up to you to find evidence that anyone supports your bizarre claims about Catholic teachings. I have asked people I know that are devout and committed Catholics – not mere ‘friends’ as you claim – and have found not one person that agrees with you.

    The “Catholic in name only” jibe was originally made by yourself, not me. You used it seemingly to describe people in the church who didn’t agree with you. In other words, the majority.

  • Wake up England

    Same Old:

    “Mere” friends? That little slip tells us a great deal about you.

    I have made my position on the suicide question clear (whether Hitler’s suicide or anyone else’s) and I see no merit in further repetition.

    Your last paragraph is childishly disingenuous, as much of your furious anti-Catholic bigoted gushing.

    You are a troll of this blog, and your contributions are usually specious and sensationalist. Worse still, you will not debate one subject with integrity – instead you prefer the Red Herring technique of conducting an argument; but the least palatable facet of your ear-piercing and shrilling intolerance of the Catholic Faith is your total lack of ability to admit when you’re wrong.

    I hold you in the highest disdain. No-one admires a bad loser.

  • Same old, same old

    My last paragraph was purely factual. If not then please tell me in what way I have it wrong.

    The term ‘mere’ friends was meant to explain that I didn’t just choose people I knew at random but specifically spoke to people I know who are devout Catholics. None of them agreed with you – either personally or in thinking that your views are in line with Church teachings.

    I suggest that you are the troll in this dialogue. You deliberately put forward crazed and deluded positions in the name of the Church but actually in a clear attempt to discredit it.

    • Wake up England

      Same old Nonsense:

      Wrong all round, as usual:

      Some people are Catholic in name only; others are schismatics; sone are heretics; some apostates. For one who claims the right to hold forth so vibrantly on the Catholic Faith, you know surprisingly little about it.

      Your supposed “Straw Poll” results are without any credibility whatsoever.

      I spend quite a bit of time defending Almighty God (who you never mention) and His Church; objectively I think calling me a troll of this blog is ridiculous.

      You, on the other hand, spend a good deal of time attempting to discredit articles here. You are always a naysayer. You employ both spite and distortion in an attempt to be trenchant in your anti-Catholic and anti-God outbursts. Therefore, I am quite within the bounds of objective reason in considering you a troll here; it’s plain for all to see.

      “By their fruits shall you know them” Your fruits are unfailingly anti-Catholic. Thank god your own brand of pernicious bigotry is ignored by most; and it will die with you. The Catholic Faith which you appear to hate so much will continue forever: you were beaten before you ever began. I suppose that’s why you’re so cross-sounding.

  • Yo

    Nothing wrong with gay people, transgenders etc. All creations of God remember. Because a man made institution prescribes some rules with a pope as a his head…you blindly do things. Once again the proof that the relationship with God is individual and that no other human being can determine this relationship. The Catholic church is overrated.

  • ‘The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,’ was produced by The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation. This is a non-governmental organisation that has nothing to do with the European Union and doesn’t have any power to draft or introduce EU law.

    The document was simply presented to the Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee. However, this matter is not being discussed or considered by the European Parliament.

    My blog about Europe:

  • Uurs

    Hasn’t the Holy Scripture warned us about that, that this would happen?

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>