Communicator (communicator) wrote,
Communicator
communicator

A Bishop writes

Lot of news lately about Pope Ratzinger rehabilitating Bishop Williamson, the holocaust denier. Last week I was going to link to a couple of Williamson's letters, on the subject of women, which are displayed on the web site of his ultra-conservative sect (the SSPX). This week I find they have been taken down from the site! It's funny isn't it? Why don't they have the courage of their convictions? If they think his views are correct, why be shy about promoting them?

Anyway, here is a google cache of one of those letters, about why girls should not receive education beyond a basic level:

That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls... If a girl devotes several years of her youth and much money of her parents to acquiring a university education, especially a decent one, how easily will she submit to her husband, especially if he has not had that education? And how may she not argue with him if he has had it? And if she has a "degree", how will she not think herself above the multiple humiliations of being "barefoot and pregnant"? And if she is a "graduate", how will she not hold-herself superior to being-a “vegetable at the-kitchen-sink"?


Good points sir!

Here are his thoughts on women wearing trousers (also a google cache of a removed web page)

For indeed women's trousers... tight or loose... are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God.

Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round, entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled.


Also here is his absolutely insane review of the Sound of Music

Can you imagine this Julie Andrews staying with the Captain if the romance went out of their marriage? Would she not divorce him and grab his children from him to be her toys? Such romance is not actually pornographic but it is virtually so, in other words all the elements of pornography are there, just waiting to break out. One remembers the media sensation when a few years later Julie Andrews appeared topless in another film. That was no sensation, just a natural development for one rolling canine female.


Is it me, or does he come across as a sex-maniac who has been driven more or less mad by his own obsessions with the female body?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 30 comments