Sodomism In Goa: A Debate

© Lucio João Mascarenhas. 20th January 2003. Discussions on the Goa-Goans List.

References: Goan Sodomism 1 | Catholicism vs. Evil | Goan Sodomism 2 | Goan Sodomism 3 | Goan Sodomism 4 | Catholicism vs. Evil 2
Dear Friends, - Let me begin by apologizing for the offense that my post caused - and I am acutely aware that my post would be offensive to many people.

I am under the higher obligation to witness to the truth, and by the lesser obligation not to offend, without good reason. Now, it is true, that my style does offend, when that is not necessary, and when the same message can be conveyed in an inoffensive manner, and therefore, I apologize for the same.

That is, I apologize for my offensive style of presenting the truth, not for the truth itself.

Furthermore, I am acutely conscious that one should not (at least in my opinion) mix discussions on politics, religion and social matters in the same list, for which reason I again apologize. However, it sometimes becomes necessary to break this rule...

Again, however, I would welcome an effort to setup a separate forum for discussion on such matters. I could not setup one myself because I would then be obliged to moderate it according to my principles, which would be awkward to some...

However, to come to the issue at hand, I have written further texts in response to the posts # 9748, 9755, 9756 & 9759.

That response can be found at
Ben Antao wrote in #9755: I will not give legitimacy to your views by any further response.

I am entirely unaware of having asked to be given 'legitimacy' to my views. I understand that my reply would have hurt and offended you, and I apologize for the same, in so far as the offensiveness was not necessary in order to convey the message. However, the attempted condescenscion is entirely uncalled for, and in vain.

Ben Antao wrote in #9748: 1. The Catholic church is a living organism, made up of believers who try to live in the present and not in the PAST. The past is gone and those who seek to live their lives according to the past are bound to be disillusioned. So it is with very many Catholics today.

It is a gross distortion of facts to pretend that we are stuck up in the past. It is an easy excuse: by this detraction people such as you attempt to dismiss the voices of your consciences and to dismiss also those whose choice for the truth and fidelity disturbs you.

2. To say that the Catholic church has been 'Protestantized' by Vatican II (1961-65) is to reject the principle that the Church is a living organism, constantly renewing itself from generation to generation. It is not a fossil of accumulated, outworn teachings. Today when one professes the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed at Mass, one also professes one's belief in the succession of St. Peter and the Popes.

None of us who have remained Catholic have ever denied that the Church is a living organism, one that grows. Legitimate change comes from intrinsic development. What is excluded is extrinsic accretions - such as Modernism and Pentecostalism. It can never be justified on the grounds of 'change' or 'growth' that what was previously believed is now overthrown, and the contrary is now the truth... This is not growth, this is not from God, but this is the vomit of the ages, the vomit of Satan and all his fallen angels.

We, Catholics very much believe in the succession of the Popes. However, we do not make an article of faith into a blind superstition.

3. I have written about the three Popes mentioned in the paragraph under discussion and seen two of them (Pope Paul VI in Bombay in 1964) and Pope John Paul II in Toronto in 1984 and 2002. It's one of the dogmas that the teaching authority of the Church is invested in the Pope through the college of bishops.

None of us who have remained Catholic have ever denied that the 'teaching authority of the Church is invested in the Pope.' We deny that it is exercised 'through the college of bishops' for such is an error that contradicts the last Ecumenical Council of the Chuch, the Vatican of 1869-70: Pastor AEternas.

4. A Catholic today simply cannot say that he rejects the teaching authority of the present Pope and still claim that he is a professed Catholic. By rejecting Vatican II one cannot remain a practising Catholic today.

Cannot? We have Pope Alexander VII condemning the proposition: "Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him . . ." (Denzinger 1105.) How does that go with your above assertion?

Further, I ask you, Are you attempting to state that a pope cannot ever fall from the faith, and thus cease to be pope, or denying that a public and manifest heretic cannot ever become Pope?

We have provided, time and again, conclusive, compelling and incontrovertible evidence that Roncalli, Montini, Luciani & Wojtyla, as also 'Vatican II', taught heresy publicly, and that these persons had been public and manifest heretics prior to their purported elections, and that therefore, according to the laws of the Church, they never did become popes.

5. The Church is not perfect. There are many human issues - married clergy, female ordination, acceptance of single gender marriages, etc--that need to be addressed and will be addressed by the Church when the time is ripe. The timing will depend upon God's will as manifested in the teaching authority of the Pope.

The Church, as the Bride of Christ, was perfect, immaculate and indefectible as a whole, yesterday, today and will be so tommorrow, until the return of our Lord. Individuals and parts can err and even defect, but never the whole.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you can assure yourself, that come what may, we will never have women ordained priests, nor homosexual marriages. What your sect legislates has no meaning to us.

As for married priests, it was permitted yesterday, is permitted today and will most probably continue to be permitted tommorrow.

6. The Catholic Church is a compassionate, caring, forgiving, reconciling and healing organism; it is not simply a collection of rituals. The fundamental teaching is predicated upon this spiritual idea: To love God is to love your neighbor as yourself. Just reflect on this and you'd see that it's all encompassing, all inclusive, including those who are not of the Catholic persuasion or no faith, including those who reject the present and cover themselves with a security blanket of the past.

I say Amen! to that. However, it does not justify a sect that pretends to be Christian and goes fornicating.

Do you object to the word 'fornicating'? Does not God use that word again and again for the same type of activity as being done today by the sect lead by Karol Wojtyla, by Karol Wojtyla himself, at 'Vatican II', at Assissi, at Kyoto, etc., etc.?

Let us be definitive. God, throughout the Bible, tells us that He is a jealous, passionate God. He does not accept and tolerate anyone, but especially us, adulterating our obligations to Him by worshipping any other 'god'. Infact, He specifically denies that they are divine, and tells us that the worship offered them goes to and is joined to the acts of the demons.

Throughout the ages, right from the very beginning, men have raised themselves new and perverse gods, according to their own fallibilities, and with their own immoralities, and have sought to pervert the faithful and if they refused, to compel them, often at the pain of torture and murder. Huge is the crowd of saints that have attained to heaven because they preferred to be slain than to offer up sacrifices to or to partake from such sacrifices to the false gods.

This has been so from long before the coming of our Lord, to even after, down to our ages.

Look around you and see, how many of the Catholic temples are built in commemoration of one such martyr or the other.

And then, tell me how do you justify the hypocrisy of those who have abandoned the Catholic Faith but have held on to these buildings which they profane and desecrate by the worship of these false gods which they blasphemously join to the liturgies purportedly offered to the true God?

Pray, tell me, what do you make of the Bible? And what do you make of the warnings against the following of the pagan deities of the people about Israel - Baal, Moloch, Dagun, Kaiwan, etc., etc.?

If it is unacceptable to worship these, why is it acceptable to worship Ram, Krishna, Ganpati or Sai Baba? If it is acceptable to worship these latter, why is it unacceptable to worship Baal, Moloch, Dagun, Kaiwan, etc.?

What do you make of the first commandment?

I would sincerely request you, and all others like you, that you give up the offensive pretence of being Christian and Catholic and make your way to the nearest center of the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, the RSS, the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, or to the Nilaya Hermitage, etc., etc., and have your 'Gharvapasi' and 'Shuddikaran' done, post haste.
Message 9756
From: Jose Colaco

"Prakash John Mascarenhas" wrote:

[St. Peter said, 'There is no other name given under the heavens by which men can be saved except that of Christ Jesus.' This defines the Catholic Church.]


Can you please direct me to WHERE it is recorded that St. Peter said those words? also....who recorded them & when... et al.

References contemporary to the times of St. Peter, would be enough.

Knowing HOW words change when One quotes what another quotes what another is reported to have quoted, I prefer to source reference that quote of yours.

Santosh Helekar has asked you a few questions. I too would like to know your answers to those questions.

So now, let me sit quietly and listen.

No... not doubting Tomasino, not one bit.

only... jc
Dear Dotore-bab, - I find your letter extra-ordinary - for one who purports to be a Christian...

It is so extraordinarily and wearingly stupid that I will not trouble myself with answering it.

Do not trouble your soul that you may come across as a doubting Thomas. You come across like another Julian the Apostate.

My advice: Why trouble yourself with pretending to be Christian? It will be easier reverting to your ancestral paganism. And you will do both yourself and us Catholics a great favour by doing so.

Believe it!

Prakash Joao Maskaren
Message 9759
From: Santosh Helekar wrote:

It is now clear that the views that Prakash has presented in this forum are rather unconventional but paradoxically very orthodox. I (and I am sure many people) have no problem with anybody holding and propagating any sort of views, as long as they are not detrimental to society. So the only reason I have questioned Prakash's views is that I find many of them not very helpful in promoting the interests of the modern society. These interests are individual freedom and responsibility, tolerance for diverse lifestyles and viewpoints that do not in themselves pose a threat to society, and a rational scientific world-view.

I believe the following two viewpoints in particular, if adopted by everybody or even by every practicing Catholic, would pose a grave danger to modern society.

1. "It is better, far much the better, that, to save some, indeed, very many souls, the Noahides, Sodomites, Eclectists and the like should be exterminated. The world will be better, cleaner, healthier without them."

2. "If man has not been created by God but has evolved, then there is no such thing as morality. Morality, if Evolution is true, is a mere stupid, foolish, vain superstition."
Dear Santosh, - After reading the last post, an exercise in 'Christian' pharisaicalism, yours is comparatively refreshing.

It is not strange that a pagan, agnostic or atheist (whichever you may be) is able to recognize that my views "are rather unconventional but paradoxically very orthodox" where those who pretend to be Christian, the while coursing in wantonness, refuse to acknowledge. That is the history of the Church.

First of all, let me state that it is the teaching of the Church that a Christian must necessarily love all men without distinction of creed, race, etc. This is a fundamental and indispensable doctrine - in fact, the second of the two great commandments.

However, at the same time, a Christian is strictly obligated to refuse to countenance and accept as legitimate any erroneous belief, by whomsoever it is held.

That is, we are to make a distinction between the holder of error and his error itself.

We are strictly enjoined to hate all error and sin - even our own, for they separate us from God, for whom we are created, and without whom we cannot ever find happiness and rest.

To answer your queries: Christianity enjoins strictly individual responsibility and responsible freedom, not unrestricted, wanton freedom. Christianity also enjoins 'tolerance for diverse lifestyles and viewpoints that do not in themselves pose a threat to society, and a rational scientific world-view,' stricly forbidding the toleration of all immoralities, superstitions and foolish fables and mythologies - such as Darwinian (or whatever) Evolution.

As for my two assertions that you have cited, I stand by them. They are fully orthodox and Christian.

Yours sincerely,

Prakash Joao Maskaren — pro Dei et Patria


Even if an angel from God, or a pope or an Ecumenical Council should preach unto me a different, altered Gospel, I shall not accept it.

I repeat, Even if an angel from God, or a pope or an Ecumenical Council should preach unto me a different, altered Gospel, I shall not accept it.

I repeat, Even if an angel from God, or a pope or an Ecumenical Council should preach unto me a different, altered Gospel, I shall not accept it.

And to all those who purvey and vend such new, perveted gospels, I say, Anathema! Anathema! Anathema! So help me God!

Prakash Joao Maskaren — pro Dei et Patria
© Lucio João Mascarenhas. 20th January 2003.
Hosted by