How San Francisco Archbishop-to-be Sal could make honest thugs of his fellow Catholic cultists

It's only fair to ask, if married people can't produce an offspring within a reasonable period, why should they be allowed to continue perpetrating this fraud?

by Ken

Friday night I made what I like to think was a startling suggestion in passing along news of the latest gift from the Vatican to its U.S. worshippers, the appointment of rising-star thug= Bishop Salvatore Cordileone to be the new archbishop of San Francisco, the immediate superior of the bishops of Oakland, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Stockton, Sacramento, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Reno and Salt Lake City.

Let's not kid ourselves about who their real boss is. As with the whole of the Catholic priesthood, it's the circle of mental defectives and moral deviants surrounding Pope Cardinal Ratguts. As Ratty nears the end of his reign of horror, he can look back with pride on the purge of the priesthood he carried out, first as the right-hand enforcer of his superthug predecessor, the sainted Pope John Paul II, and then as master in his own right. They made it a priority to rid their clergy of men who had it in their head that their calling had to do with helping people live better and more fulfilling lives -- the sort of thing that Jesus would have recognized as "Christian," which has become a hanging offense in the New Medieval Church.

But the proposition I advanced had to do with a mission the newly crowned Archbishop Sal could have, to lift the Church out of the muck of dishonesty it's in.

NO, I HAVEN'T GONE TOTALLY NUTS. I DON'T SEE THE
ARCHBISHOP SUDDENLY "DOING THE RIGHT THING"

I suggested that Bishop Sal's elevation, rather than being greeted as yet another blow for sociopathic authoritarianism by that master sociopath Pope Ratty,t could be viewed as an opportunity for the Church finally to throw off its deep encrustation of lies and admit a measure of truth to its program. How? Glad you asked. As I wrote:

By inaugurating a thoroughgoing purge of the rolls of Catholic marrieds along the lines set out in his declaration of marital principle above: voiding the marriages of all non-procreating Catholic couples and at the same time committing the Catholic political machine to automatic denial of the legal right to marriage, and of course to any and all legal benefits that marriage may confer, for all couples who violate their legal obligation to procreate.

As this would require a certain amount of redirection of official Catholic activity -- not a change in actual policy (it's merely a technical clarification, after all, to eliminate the glaring dishonesty of its present activity) but an unquestioned change in execution of that policy -- that I want to reserve a fuller discussion of it to tomorrow.

WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO BISHOP SAL'S WORDS

Our crucial text here was quoted in Chris Geidner's BuzzFeed report, "The New Archbishop Of San Francisco Gave 'Tremendous Help' To Prop 8 Supporters." As Chris wrote, in an interview with the Catholic News Agency earlier this month, Cordileone said there could only be "one definition of marriage."

The bishop explained that this issue is of crucial importance because “we cannot have two different definitions of marriage simultaneously in the country.”

“Only one definition of marriage can stand,” he said. “This is not expanding the right of marriage. It’s changing the definition, or taking away something is essential to marriage – that it’s the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of the binding of the two and the procreation and education of the next generation of offspring.”

Now prominent Catholics say stuff like this all the time. I think for once we need to pay close attention. What is this one-and-only definition of marriage?

"the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of the binding of the two and the procreation and education of the next generation of offspring"

This is so clear that we can only regret that the Church has been so namby-pamby about enforcing its only acceptable definition of marriage.

"The binding of the two" can only be a bit of description, not part of the definition, because after all any two people, irrespective of gender, could be "bound." So who are these two people who are to be bound? Two people who are responsible for "the procreation and education of the next generation of offspring." And even a moment's reflection will show that the crucial component here is procreation. After all, the responsibility for the education of the next generation of offspring could be undertaken by people of any gender. Anyone who believes that two men or two women can't do this just as effectively as a man and a woman is on the face of it a moron, and too stupid to be worth paying the tiniest speck of attention to, beyond trying to help the poor soul to a mental-health facility that might be able to provide compassionate help.

Of course that isn't the Church position, which is that two men or two women aren't competent to raise a child. And so for once I think it's time for the Church to stop lying or obfuscating: The crucial element is procreation. By simple reading of Bishop Sal's words, it's clear that procreation is the necessary element, and the absence of procreation is a dealbreaker for marriage.

IT'S TIME FOR THE CHURCH FATHERS TO COME
OUT OF THE CLOSET, AS IT WERE, AND ADMIT --

that they've been fudging, pulling their punches, on the subject of marriage. The reality is that for the True Medieval Church, any marriage that doesn't include procreation is in reality fraudulent. It's time for the fathers to come clean, and rid its marriage rolls of the perpetrators of those frauds.

As a practical consequence, it hardly need be said, since the Church never questions that it has authority over the legal as well as religious status of those of its worshippers who choose to take on the sacrament of marriage, it will naturally execute its responsibilities to correct the error with regard to the legal marital status of its new un-marrieds. And that means that authorities at the local, state, and federal levels will need to be informed clearly that so-and-so and such-and-such not only are no longer married but in fact never were.

The consequences could be severe. At least I hope they would be. Surely there should be all sorts of civil and possibly criminal infractions to be explored for the period that the persons in question were claiming -- erroneously, it now turns out -- to have been married. And I'm sure the Church fathers will pursue these matters as zealously as they have pursued the prevention of marriage for categories of people they chose to bar from it.

TRICKY QUESTION: HOW LONG A GRACE PERIOD
SHOULD THE PROVISIONALLY MARRIED BE ALLOWED?

You want to be fair. After all, it's not as if the human biological instrument functions with machinelike provision. My first thought was, perhaps, two years and, if you can't get the job done, yer out!!! I think perhaps two years offers a plausible compromise between making sure people are serious about marriage and allowing for life's vicissitudes and whatever.

Naturally it's possible to imagine a more severe position. Howie, for example, says his position would be nine months -- "and not a day more." And it's hard to argue that the Church has an obligation to be more lenient on this crucial issue of doctrine. After all, the current Vatican cabal has never been noted for being wishy-woshy in matters of doctrine.

The lucky thing is that the Church has the perfect arbiter, having the good fortune to have on its payroll an infallible pope! Which is just what you want in a situation like this. Otherwise there might be endless debates about this issue of the grace-period term. With an infallible pope, however, what he says goes! And if he gets it wrong, well, hey, he's not going to live that much longer. Maybe the next guy will be more correctly infallible. (This is why it's so important to choose a pope with care.)

BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO FOR WHATEVER
REASON, LIKE HEALTH OR AGE, CAN'T PROCREATE?

As Jesus used to say in such cases, "Tough noogies." This is marriage we're talking about, after all. There's no room for sloppy sentimentality.

AND WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T
WANT TO PROCREATE?

There are, by the way, Catholics who sincerely don't wish to procreate. I don't mean just people who want to control when and how often they procreate, who are already on shaky ground. No, not shaky, impossible -- after all, the official cult policy is that any interference with procreation except by the rhythm method is absolutely, no-exceptions forbidden. Use any other method of birth control and you're headed straight for Hell. What can one say, then, about people Cathollics who simply don't want to have children? It's the Church's problem, of course, so it's merely my sideline opinion that any self-respecting Catholic cultmaster would want to see such people hunted like vermin and at the very least excommunicated, possibly executed.

But one thing is unequivocally clear: Anyone who doesn't intend to procreate can't be allowed to marry, and any such marriages that have somehow slipped through the organization's quality controls have to be voided ASAP and exposed to all concerned, including the proper authorities as the deliberate fraud it was.

WE KNOW THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH FATHERS ALWAYS
MEANT -- NOW'S THEIR CHANCE TO BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT

It will be good for their souls, and for the souls of the suckers people whose lives are dictated by their crackpot whims. As for the possibility of overreach, while it's true that the Church has taken unto itself the right to rule on the qualifications for marriage of all citizens, not just Catholics, the reality is that the new Church position on the enforcement of marriage can only be applied to Catholics.

And those Catholics will know in their hearts who they're in bondage to.

#