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.”
If you have followed the recent events in Uganda, you will have noticed a strong contrast between the useless waffle of much of the West and the robust Christianity in Africa.
Here in the satiated – actually, obese – West, “who am I to judge?” is the order of the day, and the entire Church apparatus bends over backward to be as much aligned to secular values as they can get away with. As the Bishop of Rome is the one who can get away with pretty much everything, it is no surprise he is very much at the head of the movement.
Meanwhile, in regions of more recent Christianisation – like Sub-Saharan Africa, where Christianisation has been largely absent, albeit with some notable exceptions – Christianity is taken far more seriously, and the local prelates fulfill their role of shepherd in a way most Western ones would never think of, or dream about. This is why the Ugandan clergy – can you believe it – supports the Ugandan law against sodomy and homosexual propaganda.
Mind, though, that they do not shout “God hates fags”. God hates faggotry, and He hates the fact that one person is a fag. But he certainly loves him as an immortal soul. Still, the love for the person does not mean the condoning of the abomination; something African clergy would not do more than they would child abuse, or incest. Note that, in doing this, they are not only very sound, but also very charitable.
All this escapes our very corrupt – from the Bishop of Rome down – hierarchy, most of whose adherents would very probably describe sodomy laws and the punishment of homosexual propaganda as “homophobic”; either because they are blissfully unaware this is what Christian countries – being Christian – have always done, or because they find it more convenient to ignore the facts than to confront the world.
This creates, on reading of the news coming from Uganda, the clear impression that the Church is split in two: an ailing body, sullied with all the filth of the world in the Western world broadly intended – that is: including Central and South America – and a far younger, healthier, clearly pugnacious one in parts of Asia and vast parts of Africa, where “who am I to judge?” is rightly ignored in favour of the sensible, Christian, and charitable “why should I be an accomplice?”.
And in fact, when the Ugandan bishops approve the law – whose explicit aim is to avoid the corrupting influence of the satanic Western mentality – they are not only stating their refusal of the Western secular society; they are, and emphatically so, also rejecting the bogus Christianity preached everywhere from Western Catholic prelates and priests, from the Pope down, who would obliterate the Christian message and substitute it for a vague, fluffy, effeminate emotionalism in which only God's mercy has remained.
Being Christian, they are not worried in the least of being called “homophobic”. In fact, the very use of the word “homophobia” is a very worrying sign the person who uses it might have strayed already so far from Catholicism and Christianity at large, that his ability to promote sound Catholicism is now severely impaired.
Let us take an example from the brave Ugandan government, and the sound Ugandan Catholic clergy.
We do not need measures against “homophobia”.
We need to bring back Sodomy laws.
The Proto-commie Daily Mirror reproaches the so-called church of England for “snubbing” the perverted abominations about to be introduced by the reprobate Government and Parliament of once Christian England.
I do not think they should be worried – ok, they aren't; they just want to feel good with themselves -; it is only a matter of time, and probably a short one at that, before the so-called church of England follows the world in this as in everything else. Heck, the article even says they allow so-called “civil partnerships” of their perverted clergy, if the “partners” promise to be “celibate”. What caricature of Christianity, and what unspeakable hypocrisy.
No, they certainly shouldn't be worried. The church of Fagland will accompany them all the way. They will merely do it remaining a couple of step back all the time.
It must be rather funny, these days, for the army of people with a very thin varnish of Catholicism – you know the type: the “I am a baptised Catholic, but my theology is so evidently superior” types – who have thought, as many of them must have thought, that it’s so simple really: you stop obsessing with the remnants of an ancient past and embrace modernity , and peace will be declared between the world and the Church. I am rather sure many of these people, tambourine priests among them, were wondering why it had not happened before, and we had to wait the year 2013 for a Pope who just “gets the people” and is “in tune” with the world.
Whilst I never underestimate human blindness or plain stupidity, I dare to hope in the months and years to come some people will open their eyes and recognise a simple truth of life: the Church and the world cannot be more reconciled than the devil and the holy water; not now, not ever.
The recent lecturing of the Vatican – which is, in fact, a lecturing of the Church and Her Truths – from the side of the United Demons is the clearest signal to day of this, again, inescapable fact of life. Appeasement has never worked, does not work, and will never work, because the Church Herself exists because of the fundamentally irreconcilable ways of the Church and of the World.
If the Church could make peace with the world, the Church would simply have no reason to exist, and an impressive demonstration of this is that when vast parts of the earthly Church try to at least get to a truce, or a ceasefire, with the world, the Church herself is gravely wounded and reduced to factual irrelevance in vast territories in the short time of one or two generations; with only the promise of Indefectibility saving her from the self-destruction to which this stupid attitude would otherwise condemn her in another two or three generations at most.
And so there we are: the church – I mean, the people who represent Her as an institution – tries to accommodate the world’s demands; but the world is insatiable, and will never stop posing new demands after the old ones have been appeased.
You “don’t judge” sodomites, and the world will demand that you recognise their inherent goodness; you “don’t obsess” about abortion, and the world will demand that you support it; you want to be “in tune” with the world, and the world will ask you to practice what you preach.
No black shoes, simple cars and other more or less subversive shows of “humbleness” will ever change anything on this, because in this matters the conflicts deals with the very essentials.
If Francis thought his lack of teeth – or worse – in matter of sexual perversion and abortion will persuade the world to leave him alone, now he will be forced to learn his lesson and understand that, much as the world may flatter him, it will require his tribute from him anyway; a tribute so high, in fact, that not even Francis will ever be able to pay it; this, even assuming he would want to, which I sincerely hope is not the case.
If, on the other hand, Francis has no illusion on the inevitability of conflicts, and merely hopes to increase his own popularity in the world as the man who “does what he can, though he can’t do more” (a strategy clearly followed by the German and Austrian clergy with their rebellious sheep), then his chances are vastly better, but I still think at some point the world will get tired with one sitting on the fence, and be him the Pope.
The Church is at war with the world. She must be, because this is why She exists. No Pope will ever be able to get rid of this war as easily as he can get rid of the Mozzetta. Therefore, the only way is the Christian way: to fight against the world frontally and without any desire for truce.
Our side will win in the end. Actually, it has won already. So go on and fight the good fight, good and less good men at the Vatican, instead of trying to appease an enemy that will never be satisfied.
I remember very well my sadness at the rapid disappearance – and most people said: inevitable extinction – of the traditional mechanical wristwatch in favour of the new quartz one. It seemed to me an entire world was dying, and an entire planet was embracing a soulless technology and killing the beauty, the magic and, yes, the poetry of craftsmanship. Small firms – then – like Blancpain and Chronoswiss decided this was too stupid, and the surrender to the power of quartz by no means unavoidable. They started producing watches for people who love beauty, and do not live by the second. This was the turning of the tide. A few years later, the mechanical wristwatch was already established as the timepiece at the wrist of the discerning – if, back then, pretty solvent – man of taste. Today, mass production of perfectly affordable, excellent mechanical wristwatches is all but back, and back with a vengeance in terms of general quality and value for money.
Then there was the matter with Communism. Once progressing all over Africa, rolling over vast part of Asia, heavily influencing South America and even infecting many countries in Western Europe, its advancement seemed unstoppable. In those years, the US administration spoke of “containment” of Communism, as if a tsunami was obviously coming their way and the only thing they could do was to avoid being flattened by the impact. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher changed all this. In my eyes, Reagan’s election was the turning of the tide. Ten years later, Communism was all but bankrupt.
Then there was the “global warming” craze, by 2006 the pet ideal of the stupid and by 2008 clearly advanced to State Religion in countries like the UK. A few people kept swimming against this immense tide, unafraid. I mention here the Cato Institute with its brilliant work, and most of all an homosexual, Proto-communist, far leftist environmentalist with the rare courage to recognise he had been completely wrong all the time: Bjorn Lomborg, the author of “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg was persecuted for years, as the Climate Mafia tried to deprive him of income and dignity. He was, last time I look, vindicated, and the new religion was – thanks also to new taxes, heavily challenging the masses who are only in favour of “good causes” when they do not have to pay for it – dead and buried by 2011. This time, the turning of the tide was, even, exceptionally fast.
Another tide is now turning: abortion. One must be blind not to see that what seemed only twenty years ago an unchangeable “new reality” all over the West, but particularly in Western Europe, is now crumbling under the pressure of a new generation of people not ready to accept murder as a way to solve a problem, and not willing to swallow the tales of the self-serving murderesses. This was a slow turning, and it will unfold very slowly in the other direction; but it’s undeniably there. What changed matters here is more difficult to point out. The army of aging women haunted by abortions committed decades before certainly played a significant role; the demographic also helped; the beautiful work of John Paul II was without doubt another big factor. This was a very slow turning, but I don’t think any Cuomo or Obama will be able to do anything against it.
And then there is another tide, that has not turned yet: Sodomy. As perverts and their helpers advance in the Western countries and try to have perversions recognised as human right, a strong opposition develops. Russia, under Putin’s guide, exposes the West’s godless stupidity with admirable energy, and may it long last. Many African countries refuse the drink the homosexual Kool-aid. Resistance develops in countries like France. I am under no illusion that the turning of the tide will come soon here. Rather, years of bitter fight await us. I am also afraid it will get worse before it gets better, as I see Italy unable to resist to the new wave of sugary goodism, and rapidly advancing towards legal protection of sodomy under the benevolent look of the “who am I to judge” Pope. It will get worse before it gets better, but when it gets better it will be because of those who have not shut up when it was very bad; and if we were to shut up now, who knows when it will become better.IN the matter of sodomy, I think the wake-up call will come when the children “adopted” by them will turn up to be victim of sexual abuses in percentages unknown among heteros. Unless, of course, by that time things will be bad enough that no one will be able to see the problem in the first place. hey, if forty years ago anyone had told me one day sodomy would be celebrated, I’d had laughed out loud, too.
Still, let us not lose courage, and let us stay in good spirits.
The same as for the watches, communism, global warming and abortion, one day this tide will turn, too.
It was observed that at the demonstration in Rome in defence of both the only marriage and the freedom of expression – the Italian parliament is currently debating a law concerning, oh what a great surprise, “homophobia” – there was only one Cardinal present, Burke. How many Bishops and Archbishops, then? Zero, apparently.
In a city that generally does lack red hats, one wonders what might have prevented other prelates from participating.
My hypotheses are the following:
1. The Great-Aunt had to be brought to the hospital.
2. The cat was gravely depressed and in dire need of company.
3. He did not know.
4. He knew, but thought it was the following day.
5. He knew, but it was on a Saturday, so the Sabbath had to be observed.
6. He was in the bathroom.
7. He was not in the very central Piazza Santi Apostoli, but in the “periphery”, as the Bishop of Rome said he should.
8. He was out trying to urgently find “Eau de Sheep No. 5″, following the Pontiff's recommendation.
9. He doesn't like the cold.
10. He was afraid of pickpockets.
As always, those baddies at Rorate are very eager to spin this according to their own anti-everything agenda.
They have no concern for cats, you see. Or Grand-Aunts.
I wonder when the Pollyannas will start to realise that the enthusiasm of libtards and assorted perverts for Francis does not come from them misunderstanding him, but from them understanding him all too well.
The last piece of evidence is here, with the crowd of perverts “honouring” Francis because he “changes the perception” of perverts abandoning themselves to abominable practices.
How can you deny they are right, and the Pollyannas are wrong? Francis downplays both homosexuality as a perversion and sodomy as a sin crying to heaven for vengeance, in front of a global audience, and obviously being very pleased with the result.
Let us not be blind and let us see reality as it is.
Whether out of sheer stupidity, or appalling ignorance and arrogance, or outright evil intention, this man has been working for the enemies of Christ since March 13.
From their friends you'll recognise them.
Beware of the wolf in black shoes.
Particularly in the United States, the cry of the pro-life and other Catholic militants who feel abandoned by Francis is rising high.
They rightly observe that when Francis says they are “obsessed” with issues like sodomy and abortion he is basically devaluing their battle, and rather making of them an example of a behaviour not to be followed: an “inflexible”, “ideological” attitude that leaves “mercy” aside to privilege “legalism”.
This is all very true, of course. By subtly – or less subtly – sabotaging their work, Francis is saying that it is good to be “pro-life” only as long as this remains at the level of a pious wish, of the “I know what the Church says in the matter, so we don't need to talk about it” kind. When, though, the teaching translates into real action – and, forcibly, in controversial action – then the boundaries of “mercy” have been transgressed, and the realm of Pelagianism has begun.
Still, when all is said and done the Truth remains exactly the same Truth, and the fight remains exactly the same fight. One can be abandoned by the Pope, but one can never be abandoned by Truth.
Fights are fought for the Truth, not for the Pope. The Pope is supposed to fight the same fight, but there is no guarantee that he will do it properly, or that he will do it at all. The only way is to do what we ought, come what may, and to let the Pope be a bad Pope if this is his wish. The day will come when both – the pro-life activist and the professional saboteur – will get their reward.
For the same reason, I was never worried in the least about the effect that the antics of the Bishop of Rome will have on my blogging activity. We write our blogs because the Clergy don't do their job; that there should be a Pope even much, much worse than the already bad average seen after V II is, if not entirely par for the course, certainly within the cards now that a mad generation of blind, stupid, heretical, deluded clergy gone out of the seminaries in the Sixties and Seventies reach positions of great power and influence, up to the very top of the tree.
Let us do our job of little but determined Catholic fighters, like as many stubborn hobbits who love to eat and be merry, but can put a rather determined fight if they have to (ahh, Tolkien. So good, and so Catholic…). If Francis wants to sabotage our work – which he does – let us redouble our effort. We don't need to have the Pope on our side. We fight at the side of two thousand years of God-given Catholic tradition, not of fifty years of popes more or less drunk on modernism, up to the one who is completely plastered.
V II hasn't produced anything good anyway; merely degrees of bad. When we realise this, we will be able to fight our little fights – within the family, with friends and acquaintances, with colleagues – without looking left or right. Yes, we will probably die without seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But we might be rewarded, in time, with an infinitely better one.
Ah, the brave new world of liberal thinking: completely God-free, and with as much Satan as you can eat.
Read here about a new “sexual orientation”: the “minor-attracted”.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
If sodomy is only a matter of orientation, one does not see why this “orientation” should be condemned when it is directed towards children, dogs, or one's own relatives. Either a society decides that certain grave sins are forbidden for the simple reason that they go against natural law and God's precepts, or hell is the limit.
Yet, some people – many people, in fact – are now so ignorant and stupid that they espouse the mantra of “if there is no violence, people should be free to do what they want”.
Say hello to a world where homosexuals – and some heterosexual, presumably – have sex with their own adopted children, obviously within the framework of “love” the liberal society knows so well. As for the case of euthanasia, and so slimy itself, the work of “persuasion” of these monsters will at some point make abomination seem normal, and there will be no lack of subtle and less subtle ways to pervert little innocents. One can hope the phenomenon will – horrible as it is – be at least limited to the sons of the liberals themselves, but I fear much for the orphans. And then of course the perverts will try to pervert your children already at school. Isn't this exactly what they are trying to do with sodomy already?
This stupid society does not understand that one cannot be satanic by half. If one is ok with sodomy, it will only be a matter of time until he – or his children, or grandchildren at the latest – are fine with every other sort of abomination under the sun. Then the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children, as it is supposed to be.
Naturally, give it a couple of decades and every expression of opinion against such abominations will be accused of being intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, & Co. “Phaedophobe!”, will the same people yell at you who now call you “homophobe”, among the applause of liberal journalists and self-appointed “intellectuals”.
As we have just seen, it works.
The liberal society has clearly no problems with the use of light drugs, or with sodomy, but when a bishop contracts Hepatitis A he makes headlines worldwide because he might, or so they say, have infected hundreds through the chalice.
Notice the double standard: when sodomites die of AIDS no one is guilt, and we must spend huge amounts of money in medical research for something that, to a vast extent, will only be useful to perverts, instead of having a saner approach and direct a great part of the funds towards, say, cancer research; but when a bishop accidentally and without any malice exposes others to infection the undertones abound.
Do the authorities in North Dakota feel the need to warn the populace of the dangers of having sex with sexual perverts? Surely, even in North Dakota the latter problem must be far more concrete than the theoretical, admittedly “low risk” of infection for the parishioner of five churches?
I know, I know. You can say the authorities in North Dakota are making their job etc, but I do not think I am the only one who smells a rat here. Perceptions shape reality, and I cannot imagine this case was such that it required – as opposed to: made it look advisable – this kind of intervention.
Again, it's a funny world. Obsession for health questions – possibly red-tape induced, as in “let us justify our jobs by sending health warnings around” – on the one side, extreme political correctness on the other.
If the health authorities of any place in the West really had health as their priority, they would invest time and money in a relentless work of sensibilisation concerning the health risks of a sodomitical “lifestyle”.
But no, they must let the world know a bishop might have infected hundreds.
Yes. It’s as bad as this.