The spectacular fall of Bishop Conry is occasion to repeat what I have already stated in the past: when a bishop is of clearly liberal tendencies, he probably has a skeleton in his closet.
Orthodox priests do what they had decided to do when they decided to become priests. Their life and ideology is aligned with their hopes and aspirations. They know and always knew (everyone does and always did, even the liberals) what is required of them, and what Christianity teaches. They know and always knew that their job consists in the salvation of souls (I mean: in doing their best for it), not in their self-promotion.
When I read about a liberal priest or bishop, I never think he could be in good faith. You can’t go against 2,000 years of Christianity and be in good faith. When I read of people like that, I know that one of the two is at work.
1. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) such and such has lost the faith. He does not believe there is any God, any judgment, any hell or heaven. At that point, he tries to solve the horrible conflict inside his head (along the line of: “what on earth am I doing wearing this habit?”) by becoming a social worker spreading a secular wannabe gospel that is the perfect enemy of the real one. Not infrequently, these people will not even wear the habit, in an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance of being, in the eyes of the world, men of a God in whose existence they do not even believe. Enter Jesus the illegal immigrant, Jesus the unjust (because only merciful), Jesus the environmentalist, and all the other Jesuses they invent to look, and feel, good.
2. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) has a skeleton in the closet. He is homosexual, or pedophile; or he has a mistress. Or he drinks, or gambles, or whores around. Again, an internal conflict takes place. The need to be seen as good arises as the awareness of not being the priest he is supposed to be also grows. Slowly, the zeal for the priesthood (provided it was there in the first place) fades in the background, because every thought of zeal reminds him of his betrayal of his vows. At this point, some kind of substitute goodness will have to take the place of the goodness he knows he does not have. Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause). When Christ gets smaller and smaller in the background, earthly issues become bigger and bigger as necessary compensation.
Before you can say “mistress” (or “faggot”, or whatever it is), the fact that adulterers are not allowed to receive communion becomes a problem, and our man will be in the first line to try to solve it.
He will also find it convenient to be “alternative”. Bishop Conry’s photo in sweater shows us that very probably he went around in civilian clothes in his daily life; which, in turn, made him much less conspicuous, and therefore made it much easier for him to visit his mistress. Try to move around constantly dressed as a priest, and you’ll notice that… people notice you.
Conry is not the first, but only the last one a long series of progressive bishops found with… the reasons why they were so dismissive of orthodoxy.
Almost everyone needs to feel good, or at least in harmony with the system of values he has given to himself. When he betrays his vows or loses the faith (which is the same), the values must be readjusted, and a new equilibrium must be found. The stronger the failing, the stronger the push.
It does not work only for priests. Have you noticed how many people become apostles of this or that to compensate for the fact that they are whores, or faggots? Lady Gaga? Elton John? Leonard Bernstein? Madonna (the singer)? Have you ever known a blogger who defends dissenting ideas but has no personal reasons (himself, or among his relatives or friends) to do so? No. When they complain of “exclusion”, it always is “our” exclusion; or the exclusion of their son; or “some of my best friends are gay”.
Whenever you see a priest, or a bishop, or a journalist, or a simple blogger with strange ideas, look for the skeleton.
First, let me say it very straight: the departure of Bishop Conry is very good news. As long as I have followed the things of Catholic England (seven years at least), Bishop Conry has always been one of the worst enemies of sound Catholicism, and a promoter (at least by willful blindness; I’d rather say by willful malicious intent) of the destruction of sound liturgy, and sound Catholicism, in his diocese.
It is, therefore, not without a certain rise in my adrenaline level that I now read around comments of people who say things like “he was always so nice” or “he always celebrated a reverent Mass”. Heavens, there is no damn liberal these days that is not frightfully “nice”, and I begin to think the first good sign in a bishop is that he isn’t. It also does not help much to celebrate a reverent mass oneself, if one’s priests celebrate masses with launch of M&Ms among the pewsitters, and the like. As to the bishop being “the one who has given us back Friday abstinence”, I could make the pun that we have seen how much he believed in abstinence himself, but more to the point I would bet my pint if there was one diocese in the Land where Friday Abstinence was either ignored or considered a yoga practice, it was his. Anyone who does not consider Conry one of the many poisonous fruits of nuChurch has his Catholicism in need of urgent repair, period.
This link is just an example after three seconds of web search: a bishop dressed in sweater tells us to put up with noisy children at Mass, and feels so trendy he can’t believe how cool he is.
No reverence, no clerical habit, no sense of sacred; in short, no Catholicism. Is it such a big surprise that he was unable to take his Job seriously in other – admittedly, difficult – areas?
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. Bishop Conry is just the latest demonstration of this great truth. He trashed the Liturgy, and the Devil gave a good thrashing to him. We can hope he recovers. But more on this below.
As to the “we are all sinners” meme, I would also like to invite my readers to not allow this evident truism to blind them to the great scandal given by a bishop who is discovered – I know no one of my readers is so stupid to believe the man was not cornered; not even one – to have failed his vows in the most obvious of ways; not as a disgraceful but isolated slip, but actually as a way of life. I wonder how many seriously, devout priests who wanted to celebrate the TLM he has discouraged, threatened, or not allowed in his diocese? There is more to say on this, but it will be for another post.
I am now awaiting the details about this story; after which I will allow myself to pose questions like: who knew and did nothing? Who accompanied the rise of this priest knowing of the breasted skeleton in the closet? The question will be allowed, will it not? Or are we “not to judge”?
As last observation, please consider the press release of (still) Bishop Conry: it contains the phrase
As a result, however, I have decided to offer my resignation as bishop with immediate effect and will now take some time to consider my future.
Boy. I’d have expected he says “I am going to lock myself in a monastery for the next six months, hoping to remember why I became a Priest”.
Nope. The subtext of this seems clear to me. “Family” first, Christ and obligations of the habit nowhere!
Again, I wait to know more of this. Perhaps he has three children with the woman, and is afraid about their future. But boy, “I will now take some time to consider my future” does smell of reckless entitlement. “Sorry boys. Wasn’t to be. Weighing my options now. Peace and love. Kieran”.
There is also no word of repentance, no hint of the end of this relationship. There are “apologies”, which in England are more common than “good morning”, and do not even imply an admission of guilt. The narrative here is the usual Anglo-Saxon one: I apologise if you are upset and scandalised; but hey, I think I might scandalise you even more and throw away the habit altogether. At which point I will apologise again for the “shame I brought on the Church”; and do, again, what I damn well please.
I will, of course, pray for Bishop Conry. I will do so enthusiastically, because I am a Christian, and in his grand fall I see the danger and the littler falls of us; the little people who, say, never became priests because they took the vow of celibacy seriously; and are astonished at people who become priests or bishops with a mistress on the side, and then inform us they are “considering their future”.
Still: there can be no doubt that the announcement of his departure is really, really good news, because this is another damn liberal going away from where he does a lot of damage.
Of course, Francis could appoint someone even worse at his successor; but it would be his own fault and responsibility. For us, today is a new chance, and another bad bishop becoming a cautionary tale. Forcing a bit the situation (not the logic), when Stalin dies you are happy that the damn Commie bastard is gone, not afraid that someone even worse than him might come to power.
Pray for bishop Conry.
And for a better successor.
These qualities of Father Dickson impress me every time I read one of his posts:
1. His straightforward courage.
2. His clarity of thought.
3. The concise, forceful expressiveness of his writing.
Father Dickson has just given us another example of this. I quote from his last blog post. My emphases in red.
With so many bishops and priests currently watering down the Church’s teaching on these by favouring Communion for the Divorced and civilly ‘remarried’, as well by supporting homosexual civil ‘unions’ under the guise of protecting civil rights, the Synod is in great danger of denying the Gospel and Christ.
Though it is becoming increasingly difficult, I am always encouraging people to hope and trust that Francis will not allow the Synod to deviate from the established doctrine that marriage is a permanent union between one man and one woman, exclusive of all others, open to the procreation of life.
If the Synod recommends allowing Communion to the remarried Divorcee, cohabiting couples, and/or supports civil ‘unions’ for homosexuals even in order to protect their civil rights, then Pope Paul VI’s ‘smoke of Satan’ will have surely entered the Church, because the bottom line is this: if Francis and/or the Synod declare a change to Church teaching on marriage and sexuality they do not actually change the Faith, they actually abandon the faith.
It is useless to say the Pope is our Supreme Teacher and that we must give submission of will and intellect to his teaching, because that holds only when he holds himself bound by revelation and defined dogma, of which he is but the custodian, not the originator.
I cannot bring myself to believe that Francis will allow an attempt to change doctrine happen because it would take the arrogance of hell to proclaim that the faithful and the Popes have been wrong for over two millennia, and I am unwilling to ascribe such arrogance to any man.
Can we really ascribe it to Francis and our Bishops? And if not, can we ascribe to them simple stupidity, or a faithlessness that has seen them fall into relativism? I hope not.
If the Synod and Francis do attempt to impose a new teaching which contravenes defined teaching, we are at rights to decry that new teaching for as long as it takes to have it declared erroneous -and not only the right, but the duty.
If you click the link, you will notice that I have ended up quoting a large part of the blog post; and the part in red is also a lot. Which says something about the writing style of this man of God.
Make no mistake: he will be persecuted one day. Make no mistake: he knows it very well, but this does not stop him.
Thank God for Father Gary Dickson, and the tiny minority of priests with his love for the Catholic faith. Let us pray for them every day, and that their number be increased in these terrible times of ours.
In people like this brave priest I, a wretched sinner unworthy of the crumbs of the Lord’s feast, see all the beauty and glory of the true Church.
The Church that will never die. The Church that has already triumphed. The Church that does not flirt with the devil.
There is a place where Christians are addressed in the way you read below.
Physical violence not excluded. In one’s own home.
By Muslims, of course. Who else…
“Do you think I’m looking at you, you fucking ugly whore. Try to see what clothes you wear, bitch,”
“Well, you have a cross on — then you are also a Christian fucking whore. Do you know what we do to people like you? Do you know what we do to people like you? You get stoned,”
“My son is being called everything. I get called all sorts of things. Infidel. Filthy Christians. They tell me I ought to be stoned to death,”
“He called me a dirty Christian whore and an infidel. Then he pushed me into the apartment. He shook me and slapped my face.”
Fear for one’s own security, and moving out of the neighbourhood, follow.
Where will this be?
It’s modern Denmark.
From one of the latest ramblings of the humble Bishop of Rome:
This is the man who made of his entire pontificate a show of his own alleged goodness, mercy, and revolutionary intent. A peacock if even there was one.
This is the man who makes no mystery of wanting to remake the papacy in his own image. Albeit he is very right in this: that his extreme boastfulness brought him extremely far from the Truth.
Christians are called to “be authentic with the truth of reality and of the Gospel,”
… says the man who is the very embodiment of falsification of the Gospel, and perversion of the Truth.
Can you believe this guy? Who is this: Francis The Self-Effacing Pontiff?
“The vain say, ‘Hey, look, I’m giving this check for the church’s work,’ and they show off the check; then they scam the church from behind,” he said.
The vain says: “Look: I am hopping on the bus and use a Ford Focus”, and they show off the bus ticket and the car. They they scam the Church from behind.
& Co. & Co. & Co… Follow the link to read a new high in papal hypocrisy.
By the by, this is another prime example of Francis’ use of the homily generator.
What a clown.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
“Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the…
View original 283 more words
I am extremely thankful to the “Eponymous Flower” for their sterling work concerning what is happening in Paraguay.
There, you have a very conservative Bishop (uh? It reminds me of the FFI), who is therefore very successful (the analogy continues) and shames his peers by showing how it’s done (interesting!).
Someone accuses Bishop Livieres Plano of misconduct of various kind (where have I heard this?), and he is suddenly removed whilst savage rumours about his past and integrity emerge (Father Manelli anyone?).
The Vatican communiqué talks, ominously, of “unity of the Church”. At this point, yours truly has no doubts anymore.
The Bishop is, like Father Manelli and the FFI, a “threat to the unity of the Church” because he is an orthodox Catholic, shaming the clowns around him.
This cannot be tolerated. He must be removed, his work destroyed, his sheep reeducated to the NuChurch of Vatican II. He must be, if possible, personally destroyed. We have already seen this movie. This is a remake in great style.
Given the precedent of the FFI, I allow myself to consider, until evidence to the contrary emerges, the orthodox Catholic Bishop the good one, and The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) the villain. If anything, because I have the villain’s disgraceful acts in front of my eyes every day. In these cases, my suggestion to the “there are things we do not know” Apostles is the same as always:
But let us imagine that the Bishop Livieres Plano is truly bad. Let us imagine – just for the sake of reasoning, poor man… – that we are here in front of another Maciel.
Why, then, the appeal for to the “unity of the Church”, a clear indication that the Bishop was removed because he refused to dance the Tango of Vatican II together with all the other bishops?
Why would in this case Francis not appoint substitutes (the provisional one, and then the definitive one) who are every bit as conservative and orthodox as the disgraced man, in order to show that the problem lies merely in his personal conduct? The substitute is, from what we know, one in the mould of Archbishop Cupich. I foresee a brilliant career for him as long as Francis is Pope. Particularly if he is a pervert. But no, the kind of appointment clearly show the accusation of misconduct were, even if proven true, just a “happy” coincidence in the effort to remove sound Catholicism from the Church.
Then there is one last thought I would want to share with you.
Has anyone ever examined the long past of Francis as Bishop and Archbishop? What about a visitation, and thorough going through archives, press, testimonies, and street gossip? Are we sure no episodes of a questionable nature can be found? Is this not the man who was once found with marijuana in his luggage? (I wish I could find the link). How many priests has a bishop or archbishop? How easy is it to accuse him first, and disgrace them in the meantime? How would Francis like the Manelli treatment applied to him and his tenure in Argentina as rector of a seminary, bishop and Archbishop?
Do not be fooled. This is another instalment of the Stalinian purge Francis is executing. When Francis is done with this, the TLM and orthodoxy will get out of the window of the diocese as fast as practicable.
The man is an utter disgrace, a damn clerical Che, and a tool of Satan.
Let us pray the Lord every day that He may, in His mercy, free us from this horrible, if utterly deserved punishment.
This little service announcement is to remind you (or “inform you” for the “new entries”) of simple rules of this blog. Please note that this little effort is regularly above 100,000 pageviews a month, there are a lot of messages and, as natural, a lot of dangers; then there is the issue of time, too.
1. For the “smarties” among you: this is not a forum. You waste your time if you think you can bring your luv propaganda here. “Dialogue” with error doesn’t live here. I do not have a very democratic mind. I think tolerance of error is way overrated.
Waste as much time as you wish on my comment box, I will only need a fraction of a second to trash it. I am not angry if you don’t like my blog, but I don’t oblige you to read it, either, much less to comment on it. My combox is my living room. If I don’t like you, you won’t enter my living room.
2. I do not publish comments in languages I can’t understand, or links to blogs in lanaguages I can’t understand. Many of them are, I am sure, orthodox. But I don’t want to run the risk of helping the wrong crowd, and looking like an idiot in the process.
3. I try to check everything that gets published. Not in order to check that I approve of it, but in order to check that no overtly (that is: ideologically) wrong material enters my blog. Therefore, every comment with a link is, in fact, just as long as the linked material is. Therefore, if you publish a comment with a link do not be surprised if the comment does not get published. If you publish a comment with more than one link, be prepared for it. Private messages with interesting links are always welcome, though, and I will visit the links as time allows.
4. I have a very poor sense of humour (no, really). I take comments seriously (yes, really) as I think that the comments do as much as the posts in “forming” the mind of the reader, instructing him, strenghtening him for the battles ahead. If, therefore, a comment can be read, say, as pro or against Sedevacantism, it will be trashed. If it contains irony that can be read in two ways, it will be trashed. If I am in doubt whether it contains undue mockery (bear with me here: I am not a morther tongue), it will be trashed. As you can see from my blog, I am no friend of ambiguity.
5. Please stick to the point. I have no time, and no patience, for side tracking of the discussion. If I have written a blog post about, say, Richard Nixon and Pope Paul VI, comments about Richard Nixon and Vietnam will be trashed.
6. Please be concise. I have a life to live, a job to work on, a place to keep tidy (single male! Ha!), and a blog to write. I do not have time for long comments. I am writing this after midnight, and my shirt for tomorrow is not pressed yet. If you love long comments and think the world should read them, you should seriously think of starting your own blog, but I need ironing time… ;) .
7. It has happened in the past that occasional, and even one or two regular commenters on this blog have written offensive comments about my character on other blogs, then have continued to write comments here as if nothing had happened, praising me for this and that. Gladly, they were only a handful; but they were, and are, all banned.
Again, you don’t have to like me. But be enough of a man to be coherent and make your choices about whom you like and where you comment.
If I liked double tongues, I’d be a fan of Francis.
Thanks for your patience. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
The “soon, soon!” Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
This is the answer Francis allegedly gave to the request of the parents Manelli, with six among their children members of the order.
The request was:
“Holy Father, we have nine children, six of whom are consecrated among the Franciscans of the Immaculate. We beg you, take them out of the sepulchre.”
Now, what this means should not be difficult to understand: the persecution of the FFI will “soon, soon” come to an end.
Only, the Bishop of Rome is a Jesuits, and to Jesuits words mean what he want them to mean in the moment.
Therefore, it might well mean that the FFI are about to be – say – merged with old Sixty-Eighters of some other dying but still numerous order, or forced to adopt a lax rule, or forbidden from celebrating the Traditional…
View original 193 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I received this on my postbox from Pollyanna. I publish without comment.
As we all know, our Holy Father has been unjustly slandered in the matter of the FFI. It has now emerged that on 10 June there was a big meeting between Francis, the evil Father Volpi, and several dozen Friars. I would like here to defend our wonderful Holy Father from the unjust accusations that will be moved against him. My position is proved by the following points.
1. Pope Francis has received the Friars. How won-der-ful this is! He is full of caring solicitude for his sheep!
2. Father Volpi, the evil friar who keeps Francis in the dark about the persecution of the FFI, was also there. This I found a bit strange, but I think it was because our wonderful Holy Father is so nice to everyone!
3. It is reported that…
View original 667 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
From Call me Jorge, an interesting insight about what kind of utterly deluded, or more likely perverted tools nowadays go undisturbed under the name of Franciscans, whilst the perfectly orthodox Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate continue to suffer persecution and slander from the “who am I to judge”-Bishop of Rome.
The complicity of these people with sodomites does not stop at shutting up towards sexual perversion, or at playing it down with the usual “oh but we all all called to chastity anyway, so what’s new” rubbish.
No. The intrepid friars positively encourage sodomitical behaviour under the banner of the “gay Pope”: the infamous and never retracted “who am I to judge?”. They absolutely want the sodomites to know that they are on their side (or, in alternative, that they are like them). They put themselves at the end of the scandalous “parade” (during which they must…
View original 214 more words
The Extraordinary Synod is rapidly approaching, and there is now no day without an interview of some Bishop or Cardinal, taking the one or the other side.
In the middle of all this turmoil, one thing is clear: whether Francis will dare to break taboos or not, he is causing the breaking of taboos to be discussed; freely, openly, as a matter of course.
Already it is discussed whether the canonical process of annulment should be (official word) “streamlined”. Already, “streamlined” might mean that the bishop, or a structure set up by him, should decide about annulments in a “non-juridical” way. Already, some say that not even this is necessary, but a prayerful “sit in” with the priest should at least achieve what many concubines, in the end, want: village respectability.
The pattern is well-known and has been long experimented: some total revolutionary (Kasper) proposes the totally revolutionary solution of tolerating but not accepting communion for concubines and assorted adulterers, meaning: having the sacrilegious praxis become everyday fare. After this, a “moderate” (Scola) will come out, proposing among other things (Mundabor’s commentary: what a slimy b@st@rd!) a thinkable solution for annulments that is every bit as savagely diabolical, but has the merit of sounding more moderate; because you see, the idea is not to violate the rules; merely to make a mockery of them in the first place.
Suddenly, nothing is sacred anymore. The way how to slaughter a sacrament is a subject of discussion, debate, essays, interviews, books. Suddenly, Truth is perceived as fighting for its existence.
In the meantime, Francis enjoys the lío. Catholic against Catholic, Cardinal against Cardinal. The open confrontation is, certainly, obligatory for the right side; but still, the very fact that such a confrontation exists will confuse countless Catholics, and persuade countless non-Catholics that there is no point in converting. If even Cardinals quarrel with each other about the Truth, what is Truth? And is this most un-Christian of all Pilate-like slogans not, itself, ceaselessly promoted by TMAHICH, with his insisted criticism of “excessive doctrinal security”? Can a slogan ever be more meant to promote lió than this, apart from the “who am I to judge” nuclear device?
Is this enough lío for you?
Are you still trying to read Francis through, of all people, Benedict?
I bet it is enough for TMAHICH. He is, for all the world to see, the Pope who “breaks taboos” and “paves the way for a new era”. Not for him, very probably, to be the one who lets the bombs explode. He will, very probably, be happy with being the one who made the explosions thinkable in the first place, put the bombs in place, and armed them. He does not need to be the one who orders the explosions in order to be loved by countless infidels for the rest of his life. He will be on the safe side avoiding the biggest detonations. Nothing better than reaping the fruits of a revolution without the dangers of real armed combat. The perks, I suppose, of being a shameless and faithless Pope.
Reading Francis through… what?
Believe me, TMAHICH can be best read through Saul Alinsky, or Karl Marx, or Hans Küng, and I doubt he is one bit better than any of them.
He is sowing strife and controversies, breaking taboos, attacking sacraments, insulting the Blessed Virgin, disfiguring Christ, perverting the most basic rules of Christianity, without even the risk of a major revolt.
He will, I think, very publicly stop those who want to detonate the bombs. The excited Pollyannas will hail him as the saviour of Catholicism, whilst the mainstream idiots – bar very few, extreme idiots – will buy the “prudent moderniser Pope” without a second thought.
How do you like lío?
It is there now; dished in front of you every day; pickaxing at Catholicism every day God sends on this earth.
Please. Please. Please.
Free us from this scourge.
I generally devote to Father Nicholson the attention I dedicate to the blathering Dumbos: zero. I would love to continue with this, in my eyes, very sensible praxis; but Father Nicholson has left such a pool of stinking piss all over the floor, that the very pungent smell compels me to say a word or two about this disgraceful, intellectually challenged man, a disgrace for the habit he wears.
As many of you will know, Father Nicholson has not only compared the SSPX to satanists; he has maintained that the SSPX-promoted reparation mass for the black mass in Oklahoma is… worse than the black mass itself!
Stop here, and calm yourself. Do you generally get angry at the senseless blathering of a child? Thought not…
Let us first see where Father Dumdum is leading us here.
The Pontiff Emeritus has lifted the excommunication on people who are, in their acts, worse than Satanists; the Vatican has structures devoted to the dealing with people worse than Satanists; the Vatican has declared that these people, worse than Satanists, are in communion, though they embarrassingly (for them) tend to call this communion “imperfect”; a Cardinal has received people worse than Satanists only a few days ago, and released a very gentle communiqué about the matter.
I could go on, but you get the gist: Father Nicholson is just plain thick.
But let us now try to start a journey in the workings of this child's brain, and discover the reason for his extremely stupid affirmation, and childish pooping outside of the WC.
The man is, at his core, a Nazi. Better: he is a Nazi child. In his little mind, obedience to the Pope is all that matters, and there is nothing demanding from us a higher allegiance, on earth or in heaven. This is 100% Führerprinzip, and Father Nicholson has devoted to it all the scarce neurons at his command; with the smelling result I have just described.
These people may be stupid, but they are dangerous. Particularly so, when the clerical garb they wear induces other not-too-bright people to give credence to their absurd blathering. This is the most extreme form of clericalism you can find; a de facto deification of the Pope perfectly identical to the Nazi de facto deification of Adolf Hitler. This is purest heresy.
If I do not say an angel, but a Pope comes to him and tells him things in contrast with truth, not only Father Nicholson believes him like the dumdum he is; but he also accuses everyone who happens to side with 2000 years of Christianity of being… worse than Satanists!
Boy, this is one who has to be sent back I do not say in the seminary, but in the kindergarten.
Father Nicholson is the perfect Nazi. Hitler would be very proud of him.
Satan is, I am sure, rather pleased too.
Pray for Father Dumbo. He is in great need of it.