Continuing our short comment over the satanic abomination published by the Vatican yesterday, we find the argument of sexual perversion introduced.
This is, make no mistake, the clear indication that the Homomafia is now running the show at the Vatican, helped by the man who, whether a homosexual himself or not, decided they were not a problem because they don’t go around with the “Vatican Gay Lobby ID card”. Today, for a change, I will abandon the “what they really said” method.
If you ever wondered why Francis buried in the sand the famous 300 page report, you can cease wondering now.
So, there it goes:
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The smell of brimstone is strong in this one.
I have never heard of “homo detector” devices being put at the entrance of churches, and when it “beeps” people being chased away by ushers crying: “Go away!” “No homosexuals in our church!”
The Church has never forbidden the approach to the altar to pedophiles, homosexuals, murderers, incestuous people, and people screwing animals.
What the Church has always said, is that these are abominations. Therefore, on the one hand no pervert is allowed to act on his perversion, and on the other hand no pervert is allowed to give scandal by advertising it.
Which introduces the problem of “welcoming”. The soul is welcome to contrition and repentance. The homo is not welcome as homo. He is not welcome if, in any way whatsoever, he wants to have his perversion accepted, “valued”, “evaluated”, “appraised” or “appreciated” in any way whatsoever; because this would be welcoming scandal, not souls, and leading souls to hell, not heaven.
The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge.
Homosexuality isn’t a “question”. It’s a sexual perversion. It leads people to hell. Its obvious (not “natural”; actually, unnatural) byproduct, sodomy, cries to heaven for vengeance. It’s in the same ballpark as screwing one’s dog, or one’s father, or one’s little nephew. That’s it. Live with it.
Still, our little Satan’s whores now dare to tell us that such perversion should move us to “elaborate a realistic path of affective growth”. This means, for all but the stupid, that the pervs are encouraged in their “feelings” for each other. The “integration of the sexual dimension” is, and cannot be read in any other way, an acceptance of sodomy, perhaps waiting that two sodomites who are told how much sodomy accompanies them in their “affective growth” then suddenly cease to commit sodomy because… because… no one knows why. The end is another bomb, as the “educative challenge” seem to be addressed not to the homos, but to the Catholic people, who must be “educated” to the “welcoming” of sodomites in their midst.
The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
The little bastards get very sneaky here: as they repeat, with a very low voice, that the sacrament of marriage and two sodomites or lesbians living together in sin aren’t quite the same thing, they effectively put homosexual “couples” almost on the same sexual footing as the sacrament of matrimony. The defence of the doctrine is here reduced to saying that Holy matrimony is still on a better footing than two sodomites living together! O you Angels in heaven, do you hear them??
The gravity of this is immense.
But fear not: there will be Pollyannas around so happy to write that the little whores have “upheld Catholic doctrine”.
Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
More whoring. Open sodomitical scandal is nothing more than a “problem”. Does it lead to damnation? Well, looky here: some faggots make a living out of other faggots! Isn’t this a beautiful “sacrifice” from, say, the old man who pays for the young pervert? I am so moved I want to cry. Do you have a handkerchief?
About the children, we are told that even their adoption from fags and lesbians is now a-ok! Lord, protect us and the little ones from these devils!
I say it once again: there is nowhere to hide. No level of imbecility can justify anyone in pretending that
1. this is not atrociously satanic, and
2. this is not orchestrated by TMAHICH
TMAHICH is the man who put the liberal whores in the team in charge of writing this abomination. TMAHICH is the man who wanted both this Synod and the way it is going. TMAHICH is the man attacking Catholicism at every step, in every way he can.
In a way, and shocking as it is to say this, the situation is not entirely bad. I mean, it is obviously atrocious, but the upside of it is that the mask has fallen. Those who accept to pretend that the mask is still there have abundantly deserved to be punished for their folly, because they obviously value their quiet life and the desire to avoid uncomfortable questions infinitely more than Christ.
Francis here, Christ there. Francis is comfortable and easy, Christ is uncomfortable and difficult.
Pick your side, and pay the price.
As the disgraceful Synod begins, an army of perverts is converging on Rome like it’s June 1944.
I wonder how many among even the most hardened, professional Pollyannas will still pretend to believe perverts must be accepted as perverts within the Church; as if their proclaimed perversion did not, in actual fact, translate not only in perverted activity, but in the perversion of the Church.
Whilst the urban legends of homosexual saints are clearly tosh, it is certainly possible that a person afflicted by this horrible perversion reacts to it in the right way and decides that his homosexuality must be not embraced or whitewashed, but on the contrary fought against and lived for what it is: a horrible perversion that must be fought against until death. The various groups like Courage, and the counsellors now under increasing persecution in the United States, do just that: they help people on the wrong (per) direction (versio) to find the right one.
Yours truly does not throw his arrows against the homosexual – or the pedophile, the incestuous, the one affected by bestiality – who recognises his problem, sees it for what it is, and acts accordingly out of fear of the Lord and love for His Church. The attentive reader will immediately notice that I never call such people “faggots”. In this, yours truly thinks he is fully in line with the thinking of the Church not only after, but also before V II, in which is the only guarantee of orthodoxy. Homosexuality is a huge problem. The serene acknowledgment of it, and the awareness of the absolute necessity to put an end to homosexual behaviour, is already a great step. May those so honest get rid of their affliction in this life, and be richly rewarded in the next.
But I draw a line in the sand whenever I hear hypocritical, subversive talk of “acceptance” and “inclusiveness” of homosexuality.
Did the Church every “accept” pedophilia? Did she ever “include” incest? Of course, of course she calls the pedophiles and the incestuous to repentance! But never would she, lest she betrays her role, consider such horrible perversions as acceptable in themselves!
The Church loves the person because he is an immortal soul. She does not love the person as sinner, much less accepts or includes his perversion. This must be repeated again and again, because it appears thickness is rather well spread among Catholic – or pretended such – keyboards.
Another basic concept most “everyday Catholics” do not get – which is utterly disquieting – is the obvious distinction between sins that go with nature, and sins that go against it. It must truly be a perverted generation the one that does not get basic principles not only of common sense, but of the god-given order of the world.
The affirmation that, say, “the church calls homosexuals to chastity, but then she does the same with heterosexual people too” is, at its root, profoundly subversive. It sends the message that the one or the other sexuality are the same in the eyes of the Lord, and therefore the same rules are applied. It also sends the message that homosexual attraction is in itself fine – a misconception held by many a perverted mind nowadays – and the problem only begins when penises start floating around looking for the wrongest possible places.
This is not only bollocks, but perverted bollocks, and I defy any of these “understanding” Catholics to tell me they would know, on being informed that their son is attracted to boys, think it just fine, provided no sodomy occurs. Whereas the same father would proudly acknowledge his son’s attraction to girls and, in fact, think it just fine, because that’s exactly how it is. In this latter case, the attraction is fine even if fornication occurs, because in this latter case what is wrong is the fornication, not the attraction. The attraction for the opposite sex is from God, from the same one is from the Devil.
All this is lost nowadays. The desire to please perverts is such, that their very perversion is swept under the carpet, and downplayed in every possible and impossible way.
This is indecent, and outright disgusting. It reminds me of the Eighties, when the liberal press insisted in telling us how “natural” sexuality in children is; no doubt, because there were a lot of pedophile journalists then, exactly as there are a lot of homosexual journalists now.
Now, an army of faggots and dyke converge on Rome like it’s June 1944; they do so because they smell the blood, and they know that I do not say hostility, but not even laughter and ridicule will submerge them.
This is a clear sign of how deep we have sunk into the moral abyss: that perverts have become an accepted part of our everyday life, people whose “feelings” should not be “hurt”.
“Sodom light”, I call this.
In fact, not even so very light.
How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
The organisers of St. Patrick’s Day parade, who had up to now refused to allow the participation of perverts qua perverts, have now decided that not even saints can be spared from the association with perverts.
You would think that the local Cardinal would spit flames from his mouth like it’s Smaug Day, wouldn’t you?
Well, not if the Cardinal is Dolan, of course.
Mr “No sense of judgment” would never forgive himself if he allowed this beautiful stage to go to waste. Imagine: the TV stations, the radios, and all the secular press noticing how much the Cardinal follows the “Spirit of Francis”.
This is the one with no “sense of judgment” at people outing their perversion and demanding approval for it. The one licking the plates of Muslims and telling them they are obviously saved because they like their children. The one puttign his fat belly before absolutely everythign under the sun, starting with his God and his Church.
What an obese Jezebel.
I hope – nay: I am certain – that all decent Catholic will stay away from this shame.
Let the fat prostitute spend the day in the middle of perverts. A fitting anticipation of his destiny after death, unless he repents.
Sanity is slowly beginning – I am the eternal optimist, I know – to go back in the consciousness of the mainstream, as more and more people realise the oppression of the Gaystapo methods.
This article here makes a very simple point:
Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others. Isn’t that obvious?”
The man is, of course, perfectly right.
The simple fact is that at some point perverts will lose their “protected status” as a sort of Indian Reserve in the US legal system, and the silent majority will discover that they have, obviously, perverted the very concepts of freedom, equality, or decency. Slowly, normality will start to creep in. We have seen this phases of hysteria followed by (relative) sanity in many issues: from nuclear plant to global warming and from rayon clothes to quartz watches; even abortion is now under strong attack.
Nothing is irreversible. Nothing stupid, anyways.
I hope this faggot-mania will be next. It will take some time, very probably decades, as the debate sets in and new generations grow up for which the faggot isn’t “oppressed” in any meaningful sense of the term, and is rather the oppressor of anyone who does not want to be I do not say in agreement, but an accomplice in his perversion. But I think it will happen one day. Communism seems triumphant in 1979, and was already dying in the most painful, inglorious way only one decade later. Two years later, it was slain even in Russia. When the pendulum starts to swing back, it can go fairly (as world changes go) fast.
It will take time. Let us salute every little step.
Victory is ours anyway.
This undoubtedly makes for some reading.
What a difference with “who am I to judge?”-Francis or “we are more nuanced”-Nichols.
In Australia, a feminist (male) judge has just let the world know one day the world (and today, himself) may not have any problem with incest.
I quote from the article:
A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural” but is now widely accepted.
Well, how can you say little perv is wrong?
Homosexuality was regarded (by Christian societies, I add myself) as criminal and unnatural, but it is now widely accepted. When oen forgets Christianity and the only thing that count is self-satisfaction, why would two consenting adults not be allowed to screw the brains out of each other amidst the “celebration” of the wider society? Is anyone being hurt? Are not the two consenting? and most of all: who are we to judge?
The little perv goes on making a Nazi remark, and a feminist one.
The feminist one is the following:
“If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”
There is only one thing more pathetic than a man posing as the defender of “women’s right”: a homosexual man posing as the defender of “women’s rights”. I smell faggotry here, but again it’s just me.
The Nazi remark is reported as follows:
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
“Look”, he says, “what are all these antiquated notions? To contracept and abort is perfectly legal, and not “judged” by us enlightened women and women of the XXI century; let the sibling do what they please, and if a byproduct should occur you just get rid of it. Simples”.
You know what? Pervert chappie is right. In a world where abortion is on demand, extremely cheap or completely free, with no questions asked and no stigma of sort attached, there is, if we follow the logic, no reason to think otherwise.
It’s all included in the logic of the acceptance of sodomy: if the logic of accepting what is made among consenting adult is fine, why should the same logic not be applied to siblings, or – and I insist on this issues, because it is perfectly true – dogs, sheep, or mules?
Pervert chappy is totally rotten.
But I must say, he has explained in a very clear way how rotten post-Christian societies are.
The news some days ago had the story of the married history teacher who “seduced” a boy of thirteen. “disgusting” was a recurring adjective. I had no intention of reading the details, but I am inclined to believe the boy was grown to rather a man, as to my knowledge ephebophilia is rather the preserve of homosexuals than of married female history teachers.
Be it as it may, one wonders how a Country that finds this behaviour disgusting largely tolerates, or even “celebrates”, sodomy.
One of this weekends, an open air festival will take place in London, dedicated to the open celebration of sexual perversion. I have not heard any meow from Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols yet, or from his colleague in Southwark who might also be responsible, or from any other prelate who should also feel responsible. If any meowing took place, it was made in such a way that it was not heard where it's uncomfortable.
And so we go on, with heathen immorality being pushed down the throat of the stupid masses, whilst our bishops and cardinals talk of social issues, or of the “joy of being a Christian”, and the Pope gives the example by being the most cowardly, and the most subversive accomplice of perversion of them all.
One can't escape the impression after Francis, “Quisling” Nichols, & Co. all die they will have more company with sodomites than they bargained for. But wait! Francis said I shouldn't say this! It's so “judgmental!.
So let me repeat it:
One can't escape the impression after Francis, “Quisling” Nichols & Co. all die they will have more company with sodomites than they bargained for.
Amnesty International is begging for money on British public transport, informing us that “a teenager faces a death sentence for being gay”.
The ad continues: “will you send a text?”
Oh, Aaahh, uhhh, who would not send a text in solidarity to the poor teenager?
In littler fonts, we are then informed that in ten countries, people can be put to death for “loving someone of the same sex”.
Oh well, it's not about “being gay”, then. It's about Sodomy! A criminal offence in all civilised Christian countries, when they still were both!
Now, we can disagree about whether the death penalty might not be a tad too harsh. I personally think it is far too harsh; but by all means, feel free to disagree. It's a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, anyway.
The point is, though, another one: being homosexual does not force anyone to commit acts of sodomy, exactly as being a pedophile does not force anyone to rape children.
All this is, though, conveniently forgotten by our atheist, Morality-free friends. They suggest, instead, that you text a certain number, after which Amnesty will have another plug possibility everytime they think, or suspect, that someone, somewhere, may, or might, be at risk of being executed for “being gay”. I'd love to have the statistics about real executions, by the way.
Hardly a genocide, I am sure.
If you know any Christian friend or relative of yours who is inclined to give money to these people, you may want to educate them to Faggotry International's agenda: the shameless promotion of heathenism and sexual perversion as a way to get to your wallet.
No, it's not for “being gay”. It's for being a sodomite. A very free choice, that requires overcoming a very strong and very natural sense of disgust, and which is very painful anyway.
I won't send my text. My phone will stay faggotry-free. Fag chappy will have to keep his perversion under control.
I had missed this, but it was posted yesterday by two readers on my comment box.
Let us stay calm (if we can; I have been trying since yesterday) and let us see what is happening here.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) gives to the Pope a set of wooden chalice and paten. The use of wooden chalice and paten in the Mass is explicitly forbidden. It is, it can be safely said, a clear sign that the Mass in question may well be invalid, and that the celebrant does not believe in the Transubstantiation. In this case, the wooden chalice and paten are an obvious sign of defiance of Church teaching, as everything the faggot priest (real, or honorary) says and stands for.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) also give Francis a copy of his most recent book. There can be no doubt whatever the book is scandalous in its every part, and promotes sodomy exactly as his author does. Sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift, too.
Not happy with thus giving an obvious, public endorsement of sodomy, Francis concelebrates Mass with the faggot priest (real, or honorary). This, he does with the man who is about to give him a wooden chalice and paten.
My adrenaline has been on alarm levels since yesterday, so I will avoid to expand much on this. I have already cancelled several lines of this post. And I don’t think any of them was untrue in any way.
The facts are in front of you. There is nowhere to hide. This is so openly the work of the Devil that I am embarrassed for your mother if you are so thick that you don’t get it.
One would hope that all those who had refused to see anything bad in this disgraceful man appointing his sodomite buddy to head of the Vatican Bank (where he still sits) would open their big blue eyes and start looking at reality as it is: a Pope who is an accomplice of, and encourages sodomy for the sake of his own approval. But they very probably won’t, because if they had had some sense they would have understood then, rather than needing this open, shocking, shameless endorsement of sodomy now.
This Pope, who thinks angels inferior to men, truly causes them to cry to heaven for vengeance. His approval of sodomy is so explicit that it cannot be made more clear. I ask you what is a Pope to do to let even the last idiot understand that he – if he is not homosexual himself – is most certainly an accomplice of sodomites. I can’t imagine any endorsement more open than this one, short of “mercifully” appearing in some “gay porn” movie.
Which, let me state this very clearly, I do not consider beyond him, at all.
Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. A sin. That cries. To heaven. For vengeance.
If Francis had some sense in that stupid, or evil, head of his, he would avoid even thinking of giving such scandal. He would know that his being such an overt accomplice of the sin of the sodomites would attract on him the most terrible punishment, perhaps only short of those reserved to sodomites themselves (and perhaps not, because he is the Pope). If he had, he would. But he hasn’t, so he doesn’t.
I think the reality is a very sobering one: this man does not believe in God. He is, consequently, not afraid of punishment. He berates angels, because he considers them fantasy creations. He does not believe in Transubstantiation, and therefore accepts a wooden chalice and paten as a gift without wincing; actually, with his acceptance he encourages further liturgical abuses, and sends a very open signal of his lack of belief in Transubstantiation.
He is not afraid of any punishment, whether earthly of heavenly. He believes in only one thing: Jorge Bergoglio. The promotion of this agenda, of the “Humble Pope” brand is, to him, the only thing that counts, and to which everything else – from the Transubstantiation to the Blessed Virgin, from Our Lord to the most elementary teachings – must give way.
All this is then conveniently masked as “mercy”, thus clearly indicating God is, with his approval of Christianity of the past 2000 years, unmerciful.
What a disgrace of a Pope.
The bride of Christ is being raped every day, by the same man who should protect Her. The perverts of all sorts and their friends applaud, and rejoice. The tepid masses do not understand, but prefer to look the other way. The professional idiots say if the Pope rapes the Church, then it means for some reason it is right that the Church be raped. There must be things we do not know, you know… Christianity has always been so inscrutable, after all…
I know that the angels in heaven look at all this. I call on them to cry to heaven for God’s righteous vengeance on this man, relentlessly working against God in the most evident, most shameless way, and only bent on the edification of his own cult.
This is a papacy fit for the perverts, the atheists, the satanists, the heathen, and the stupid.
They are all having a party, whilst Francis rapes the Church every day.
Wurst in German means “sausage” and it is certainly not a coincidence that the drag queen who just won the Eurovision contest chose it as part of his, ahem, nom de saucisson.
Mister Sausage has, then, won. Carried, no doubt, but a mixture of the traditional attraction of the working class for freaks, and the newly discovered feeling that it be in some way cool to support a trannie, or whatever the faggot in question is.
What emerges is a world rapidly marching towards de-Christianisation: a traditionally Catholic Country like Austria picking a drag queen for a vocal competition, and the rest of Western Europe abandoning itself to the now usual orgy of cheap, voyeuristic goodism.
Why such stupidity? Because official stupidity has become so mainstream that it is endorsed not only by stupid politicians, but our very own, very stupid (or worse) Pope.
Make no mistake: this freak show winning a song contest is another poisoned fruit of the “who am I to judge”-mentality officially endorsed by the Destroyer. It is the result of the fact that every any sense of moral decency has been been thrown away, from the very Pope, in the name of an extremely selfish, heathenish, stupid desire to feel “good”, “inclusive”, and “accepting”, again, from the Pope down.
I can almost hear the Destroyer say that if this sausage chap “seeks God”, or “follows his conscience”, or whatever stupid nonsense comes to his mind, then who is he, or anyone else, to judge?
Now: freak shows have always been loved by the uneducated masses; but there was in these peasants and factory workers of old no approval of the obscene obesity of the cannon woman; they looked at her in the same way as they looked at the bearded woman: with the childish fascination for the absurd and the grotesque that is one of the marks of the childish mind. I am sure this is at play here, as we have seen for many years now TV shows taking the place of the circus, and bringing the freak shows in childish peoples' homes. But I think something else is also at play here: an almost voluptuous forgetting or throwing away of Christian morality, in favour of the man-made religion of niceness now rapidly conquering the West, and helped every step of the way, maliciously or not, from a Pope to whom being part of such a culture is infinitely more important than defending Catholicism.
Whenever such stupid things happen, we must soberly realise that with his stupidity, his populism, his addiction to popularity and mass approval, the BoR is the main engine of such events, it being obvious that nothing can push heathenism forward like unofficial, but still very clear Papal endorsement for heathenish thinking.
Pope Francis is very stupid, or very evil. He could, actually, even manage to be both at the same time, as intelligence is not a requirement for evil thinking. And he is a Jesuit, which in the last decades has been a byword for both.
Please, Lord, free us from this man or let him come to sense, and give us afterwards a Pope who believes in the God of the Christians instead of a freak amateur Che Guevara, a supporter of heresy and sexual perversion, a man with no respect for Our Lord, for the Blessed Virgin, or for the Sacraments; and a friend of everyone but sound Catholics.
This is the statement of Bishop Jugis on “Charlottegate”.
That such an exercise in lameness and cowardice could be saluted with satisfaction in some quarters is a clear sign of how little we expect from our bishops, to the point that everytime they do not “pull a Francis” we see this as good news.
The bishop’s statement is below. My comments in red.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
The past few weeks have been very difficult for Charlotte Catholic High School. We have all experienced a great deal of pain. During this difficult time I want to express my support and encouragement for all the parents, students, staff and faculty at the high school. We must move forward toward healing with charity, the hallmark of our Christian life.
There we are again. Some people have “experienced a great deal of pain”. No wait, we all have. What sissies we all are. We are such sissies that we now need the “support and encouragement” of the bishop for everyone. Are the janitorial employees “staff”? If not, should they feel excluded? Aren’t they “experiencing a great deal of pain”, too?
Different viewpoints regarding Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation to students on March 21, 2014, have been discussed in a variety of venues.
At the parent meeting on April 2, 2014, many expressed concern about the lack of advanced communication with parents regarding the subject matter of the assembly. Apologies were made at the meeting for that lack of advanced communication.
I’ll take it “advanced” means here “previous”. You see, the problem is that nowadays you can’t teach Catholicism without giving fair warning. “Achtung! Catholic morality will be touched upon”! Apologies were made for not telling in advance Sister would talk sound Catholicism. This is less than lame. This is positively gay (in the non-sexual meaning of the term: “stupid, lame, weak”. Isn’t it wonderful how the the vox populi reacts to PC impositions…)
The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention at the parent meeting. All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all.
Church teaching is not contested. It is just not talked about. So much so, that when this happens without “advanced communication”, a mess ensues. Clearly, the Bishop sees the problem in this “advanced communication” not having been given.
During this difficult time I support the continued work of Fr. Matthew Kauth, the chaplain; Mrs. Angela Montague and Mr. Steve Carpenter, the assistant principals; and Mr. Randy Belk, the dean of students; and all they are doing for our Charlotte Catholic High School students. All of us are indebted to them.
More “difficult time” stuff. Everyone and his cat is hurt. How sad. But the bishop supports everyone. These are the people who run a school in which Catholicism gives scandal. How nice of the bishop to support them. Keep up the bad work, folks.
I am shocked to hear the disturbing reports of a lack of charity and respect at the parents’ meeting, and outside the meeting in conversations and in social media. There simply is no room in the Catholic Church for such displays of uncharitableness and disrespect. If we have failed in this regard let us make amends to God and neighbor. Even when we disagree, that disagreement should be expressed respectfully in love.
The words “shut up, bitch!” should not have been uttered. Shockingly uncharitable. I think we should agree with the Bishop. In future, please say: “with all due respect: shut up, bitch!”.
We ask the Lord Jesus Christ for His mercy and His healing as we approach the celebrations of Palm Sunday, Holy Week and Easter Sunday of the Lord’s Resurrection. Please be assured of our continued dedication to the mission to teach and live the truth of the Catholic faith at our Charlotte Catholic High School.
We bla bla, bla bla; bla. bla, & bla.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis
Bishop of Charlotte
A word that I read around more and more often is “healing”.
If I understand correctly, by that is meant that someone was said that “hurt” someone else, and this someone will now need some – or a lot of – time to allow the great wound caused by someone he doesn't know, and wasn't talking to him, has caused him.
Say someone is inverted – or divorced and remarried – and fully ok with it, but still pretending he is a Catholic. He listens to a conference or speech or whatever, where the Catholic speaker says that unrepentant sodomites go to hell, the sin of sodomy cries to Heaven for vengeance, and a couple of other things I knew as a child, before even making my first Communion.
Our “man” is then entirely incensed. As he was told facts of Catholic doctrine that apply to him, he is hurt; as a consequence, he has the right to be offended, and the world must now show solidarity and support to him, and help him in his healing process.
This happens nowadays, at least in some societies, not only in extreme cases – one understands a real trauma would require a real healing, because a real wound has occurred -, but everytime everyone hasn't liked something that can be referred to him. Then, the entire community feels bound to perform the exercise described above and finds it not only normal, but necessary.
If anyone within this very community – say, the local church – where, then, to point out that facts are facts and Truth is Truth, and those who are hurt by facts and can't hear the Truth should take a hard look at themselves rather than whining like wet pussicats would be immediately accused of being even more insensitive, even more hurtful, and causing the need of an even longer “healing”.
One truly wonders what has become not only of humanity, but of manhood.
I get promised hell with beautiful regularity on this blog, for no other reason than the author of the promise not liking some sound piece of Truth. Do you think I even consider being “hurt”, and write blog posts vilifying the commenter who “hurt” me so bad, and looking for “healing”? “Help me, dear blog readers! I am sooo hurt! Unless you show me full support, I will stop blogging, because I am soooo hurt!”
I push a button, the crap is flushed out, and that's that.
I wonder what has happened to a country where even boys and men – those who should be ready to die to defend their Fatherland and loved ones – can't even cope with abstract criticism without throwing a tantrum; and where women abandoning themselves to excesses of bitchiness are constantly encouraged to bitch even more by those – to wit: the men – to whom God has given the task to keep their bitchiness in check.
Nothing of this is to be seen anymore. It's a huge “hurting” and “suffering” and right to “healing”. Personal happiness is the new god. If anyone should cause Christ to disturb it, he should be vilified as the masses of sensitive heart bleeders run to the rescue of the wet pussicats, and feel such good people that Christ should learn from them.
What has happened in Charlotte is not only the result of a minority of bitching people; it is, tragically, the result of a diffused mentality that encourages and rewards bitching instead of taking a sound approach and react with chosen words chiselled by the wisdom of past centuries; like “take a hike”, “who cares” and the immortal, extremely pithy “shut up, bitch”.
Alas, we live in politically correct times.
The bitches run the show.
It's the others who shut up.
The Bishop of Rome, Francis, gives an interview to one of the biggest daily newspapers in Italy, the Corriere della Sera.
If one wants to give interviews, there’s no doubt one has plenty of occasions for being a Pope and say a thing or two during it. If one wants to be a good Pope, he will easily find words that capture the attention of the public, enrage feminists and perverts, and show urbi et orbi that the Pope is, actually, Catholic.
My suggestion? Something like “the gender ideology is demonic”. Then the journalist asks again, and he covers him in brimstone. How about that?
Still, this here being the Bishop of Rome the issue is accurately avoided. At the same time, there is an utterly Jesuitical opening to (heterosexual) people living in public scandal, because Francis is so concerned about their pensions and other “rights” (which they don’t have; nor should they). Follow the link above to have the details.
But again, it would not be Francis if he would only say the lefty and PC things. The impression I got in this fateful year is that in private, or in a small setting, Francis would say or imply everything that his interlocutor wants to hear, provided it does not reach a vast public. In the living room, he will be just as conservative as you like it. Quite the Jesuit, you see.
I remember, for example, the encouragement in private to French MPs to defend marriage after he had shut up about it in public; the messages that the truth must said whole and the principles are not negotiable, a statement of astonishing hypocrisy if seen in the light of the following “who am I to judge” year; and other one or two little opening to conservative minded Catholics that you will be able to find on my blog if you search hard enough.
The last example is from kath.net, where a priest reports that Francis told him the gender ideology is demonic.
These being words said in a private setting to a priest, these will only be read by those who are really inside – or interested in – the things of the Church. The great public will never know it.
So: when he is talking with a priest in private he is on fire, well knowing his interlocutor will like it very much. But when there is an interview with the Corriere in the programme, not a word.
I wonder why?
Someone should remind Francis of his own words:
“There has been, throughout history of the people, this temptation: to chop a piece off the Faith”, the temptation to be a bit “like everyone else does”, the temptation “not to be so very rigid”. “But when we start to cut down the Faith, to negotiate Faith, a little like selling it to the highest bidder”, he stressed, “we take the path of apostasy, of disloyalty to the Lord.”