Mr. Mullen and the secular sense of humour

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24458834-5001028,00.html

I was pleased to see London Anglican clergymen Mr. Peter Mullen in a little article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, though not in the most favourable of circumstances. It is reported that he made a light-hearted comment at a blog, saying that

“Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH”

But in a reminder of what a sour bunch the secularists (or in this case, the Anglican crypto-secularists) can be, his ecclesial circumscription said that it found the comment

"highly offensive" and [the comment] did not reflect its views.

It is well-known that the Sodomites’ League cannot stand it being pointed out to them that sodomy is one of the most damaging practices in which one could ever consent to engage, even from a purely medical perspective. Mr. Muehlenberg wrote a perceptive piece some time ago in which he reported on the shift in public discourse on homosexuality from a focus on homosexual behaviour to a focus on homosexual identity/culture/life-style. This shift serves to distract us from the fact that the so-called ‘gay culture’ is founded on one of the most unhealthy activities around. Yet even the publicly-funded, untaxed GAYCON knows how damaging sodomy can be; presumably that is why they find it necessary to provide young homosexual men with “a workshop on sex and sexual techniques” (rather than, say, recommended that the same confused young men undergo counseling first). It is for the deleterious effects on health of sodomy, if for no other reason, that sodomy should be outlawed. And the Sodomites’ League could hardly complain of ‘discrimination’, since it would be imposed regardless of whether sodomite or catamite were homosexual or heterosexual.

I had a recent experience of the selective secular sense of humour at MgS’s blog. She reported on Ms Margaret Atwood writing that Canada was basically sliding towards dictatorship, based on Canadian Prime Minister Mr. Stephen Harper’s treatment of the arts community. I joked that

Wow, so Mr. Harper has despatched squads of goons to shut down all dissenting artists?

Oh, wait, he's just cut funding to overseas-based artists. False alarm.

But MgS responded with icy fury:

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about here.

It’s one thing to get a joke but not find it funny, but quite another not even to get the joke at all. Yet this same woman had spoken on another occasion of Baptism in the most light-hearted terms. Isn’t it interesting how secularists like MgS will freely belittle the Christian Sacraments, the very channels of Grace, but if one tries so much as to view their own pre-occupations in a humourous light their jocularity vanishes altogether? This is all the more lame since Ms Atwood and Mr. Harper differ not in kind, but only in degree—they both stand for basically the same political system, so why let oneself become so worked up about it?

But back to Mr. Mullen. He had an excellent article, carried in AD2000 some time ago, in which he lamented the decay of the Anglicans from a “once refined and educated, lovely and lovable national institution” to a body marked by “a mania for self-destruction”. One might hope that this latest episode will be the final nail in the coffin for his allegiance to the Anglican heresy and schism. Let him abjure his heresy, let him cast off the yoke of his anti-Christic ‘Supreme Governor’, let him abandon the notion that the British Parliament may add or subtract articles of faith, let him sever his connections with those who, with official approval, deny the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. In a word, let him come home to Rome.

Reginaldvs Cantvar