Kevin O’Brien’s St Austin Review post on the enormous influence ubiquitous pornography is having in eradicating any sensitivity to what sex is really for, and thus undermining opposition to homosexual “marriage”, is most insightful and important. Because of the internet, hard-core pornography is not merely readily available, but is almost unavoidable without particularly good internet filters. It subconsciously inculcates and cements in the mind – above all that of young males – the unquestioned assumption that anything that turns you on sexually is OK. The very idea that any variety of sexual act should be “privileged” by being regarded as alone proper has not only disappeared among a very large segment of the populace, but there is no brain-space left for it to re-lodge –all the space is occupied by porn images, jumbled together inextricably.

 

In the Australian state of Victoria, the secularist sex-cultists which are hugely “privileged” in the government schools, as in government schools everywhere else, have persuaded the politicians of all parties to rubber-stamp their latest variant on their intentionally filthy and filthifying, desensitising, psychologically abusive sex ed. curriculum. Now pornography studies are to be formally part of that already-pornographic curriculum, with students – always boys and girls compulsorily together – forced to watch on audio-visual media the full range ofpornographic sex acts and “discuss” how they feel about engaging in them.

 

Although the Catholic bishops of the State are all orthodox, one can be certain that they will continue to turn a blind eye to the situation. After all, unlike clerical paedophilia, it doesn’t cost them a cent! It would be a different story if every time any children in a government school were filthified, degraded and violated by stock-standard pornographic sex ed. the local Catholic bishop was fined, say, £5,000 if he did not protest. Then there would be massive episcopal and general Church outrage at the defilement, since something important would finally be at stake – money! (Perhaps, on the other hand, it would be better if the Victorian bishops said nothing, since an episcopal letter they put out a while ago on homosexual “marriage”, and which I have heard was authored by a particularly smarmy, effeminate, affected bishop whom I have met over the years, was so cringing, crawling, and ingratiating to the homosexual and secularist sex-cult activists that it was almost designed to be counter-productive – it was tantamount to a flag of unconditional surrender!)

 

It takes no Merlin-type occult second sight to infer that the Vatican bureaucracy is behind the near-total silence of almost all bishops everywhere, whether orthodox or not, on sexual and sex-related evil, including abortion, filthifying sex ed., and the ugly, thuggish, oxymoronic homosexual “marriage” racket. The imperative is obviously for the “teaching Church” to treat the Church’s teachings relevant to these evils as merely journal-entries in the Church’s moral behaviour ledgers, necessary for accounting purposes but of no relevance to the real world and not to be publicised, let alone promoted. This is the policy which was manifestly concocted on-high in consequence of the uproar, above all the uproar among the educated, prosperous Western middle-class within the Church, over that miraculous Encyclical, Humanae Vitae. Episcopacies everywhere were let know that it was now policy that the Church’s teachings on sexual morality be kept locked in the closet, like Freemasonic or Knights of Columbus/Knights of the Southern Cross regalia of old, so as not to provoke unpleasant disturbances inimical to a clerical bureaucratic cosy life.

 

I remember when I was young, probably early in my University years, being told a supposed joke which had oral sex as its punch-line. (A fellow had a red ring around the base of his penis, which turned out to be lipstick.) I’d heard my quota of sexual jokes which were at least amusing, but I simply couldn’t see that there was anything remotely funny in a joke which required one to imagine oral sex. It was no more conceivable to me that anyone could engage in such sex than it was that anyone could engage in coprophilia – sex acts with (literal) turds. Then came Linda Lovelace and “The Story of O”, and the ever-intensifying sanctification of contraception, and soon the once-inconceivable was being regarded as routine and unobjectionable. Is it any wonder that homosexuality has acquired cult status among the secularist power-cults and those in their thrall? After all, by the now-prevalent standards, homosexual sodomy is the purest form of sex, innately free from the main primitive side-effect of heterosexual sex, conception, and much less generative of that other annoying side-effect, unsought emotions inducing permanent, child-rearing-related bonding.