Archbishop Paglia Fails To Amuse

Benedict XVI asleep

Time for some serious coffee…

This is one of those days in which every right-thinking Catholic is confronted with the sickness not only of the Western societies, but of the Church of Christ Herself. I wouldn’t call it a case of open heresy, seeing the oily and slimy way these post V II Church officials always have of expressing themselves, but rather another particularly tragic instance of how said Church officials bend themselves forward to try to appease the civil society out there, all the while trying not to appear as openly heretical.

The Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family has said the church is not against giving “unmarried couples” some form of protection. The first hypocrisy  is in the formulation “unmarried couples”, which may, or may not, include sodomites. You must know in many countries, like Italy, heterosexual cohabiting people have no right to any payment (for the children, for example), because such payments presuppose (and rightly so) a proper family rather than concubinage. Therefore, the discussion is always “mixed” as when people talk of “recognising” they mostly talk of co-habiting heterosexual couples.

The Archbishop now happily mixes the cards, by putting heterosexual couples and homosexual wannabe couples on the same plane when he says some forms of “cohabitation” (which ones, Archbishop? Professional sharers? People who have sex? People who practice sodomy? People who cohabit with their dog?) “do not constitute a family” and “their number is growing” (of course it is, Archbishop, if you keep being such a tool! You’ll soon have “cohabitations” with incest, or bestiality, or multiples wives if you and yours continue to sleep!).

Therefore, says our Archbishop, there should be measures to “make their lives easier”, which prompts three questions: why? Why? Why?

When has the Church been preoccupied that sodomites have it easier to live a sodomite lifestyle? When has the Church been worried that heterosexual couples living more uxorio may not feel gently invited to marry? Since when is the Church worried with making the life of sinners easier in their sin, rather than holier without them?

This is, again, a purest exercise in Vatican II cowardice and hypocrisy.

Then there is the other whining about countries where “homosexuality is illegal”. I do not know of many countries in which it is illegal to simply be a pervert, but I think the Cardinal, who should know these things, was talking of sodomy laws.

Sodomy laws are then, we are given to understand, very bad. Awful governments like those in the Papal States had such laws, and awful people like Padre Pio never asked for their abolition. It is sad to see great Saints and Popes of the past do not comply with the Archbishop’s rather strange moral standards, but being the times so astonishingly stupid I doubt many will notice.

Archbishop Paglia is one of those men who make more damage than an army of shrieking homosexualists, because with his cowardice and desire of appeasement he confuses sincere Catholics and makes a strong impression he doesn’t believe in the values he is allegedly defending.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that Sodomarriage is either an abomination, or it isn’t. If it is, no help whatsoever can be demanded so that these people can have an “easier life”  with these abominations. If it isn’t, then Christianity was wrong from the start, the Church has been conning us these to thousand years and Archbishop Paglia should start a new career as circus clown .

We live in times when even the corridors of the Vatican at full of people who spend their days wondering how they can sabotage Christian values but maintain an appearance of orthodoxy. They do it not only with he pet causes of the last decades (war, death penalty, the attitude towards social issues), but even pandering to the desire of he people in matter of sexual perversion.

This time the Archbishop was even asked a second time what he meant. Vatican II prelates are such nincompoops they make entire speeches and at the end they must be asked what they meant by it. The Holy Father merrily promotes them where they can do maximum damage, confuse the faithful, and make of themselves and the Church a laughing stock. 

May God have mercy of this bunch of appeasing amateurs.


Posted on February 6, 2013, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. Well said. I really don’t understand why a Cardinal cannot grasp it.

  2. catholicenglishman

    Mundabor, please don’t become to aggressive to the Holy Father, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has elected some good decent Bishops, such as His Grace Bishop Egan, and His Eminence Cardnial Burke who recently stressed excommunication( So this idea of ‘maximum damage’ cannot be true.

    God Bless.

    • Thansk Catholicenglishman,

      when I think I am becoming too aggressive to the Holy Father I will let you know… 😉

      Note, though, that by your meter everything short of the Pope embracing Satanism would not qualify as maximum damage..


  3. catholicenglishman

    Dear Mundabor,

    In order for there to be ‘maximum damage’, there must be the objective and intention of maximum damage with a measured result. Basically an assault on everything Orthodox with a record to show. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has certainly enforced Orthodoxy, and his many appointments have reflected this. His constant condemnations of secularist forces also have reflected this. He has brought the LCWR into question and has acted upon the dissidents and heretics in Ireland. He has also stressed that the N.O. to be celebrated as the Council intended (one would hope he would just celebreate the TLM instead and scrap the N.O.).There are a few negatives, namely His Grace Archbishop Paglia for what he has said.

    Again, one cannot see this ‘maximum damage’.

    God Bless.

    • Catholic englishman, I doubt if I’d write twenty post on this you’d change your mind.

      By all means, do not see the “maximum damage”.


  4. I read about the Archbishop’s inane statements on Sungesis’s blog. Protect queers my ass! No sane society has ever protected perverts! We need to be protected from them, this archbishop, and sadly, the pope who appointed him.

  5. Mundabor,
    according to Rorate Caeli, Monti now supports “civil unions”, a development certainly not unrelated to the Archbishop’s strange opinions. Just a few weeks ago we had a lengthy conversation about the Italian “Centrists” and their propensity to “evolve” on just this matter. You said they were mostly social conservatives and would never ever support the left and their initiatives to undermine marriage.

    Unless I’m utterly mistaken (which may well be, because my ability to read Italian is limited, although improving as I’m learning the language), Monti’s evolution has already begun and the election is not even over. Certainly, after the election, he will evolve a little bit further in order to win the left’s approval for his pro-Brussels radicalism in exchange for a radical social agenda – the left will probably need Monti in the Senate and will get him if they compromise on fiscal matters, which social democrats tend to do quite happily if they can impose their agenda on values issues.

    If we include in this considerations the obvious strengthening of Berlusconi and his allies being now just three to six points behind Bersani in the polls, with Monti’s coalition hopelessly trailing, maybe it is time for all conservatives to unite under one socially conservative banner in order to surpass the left and obtain a majority in the Camera, abandoning evolving centrists like Monti?

    I’d be very interested in your take on the political side of the current “Paglia controversy”, especially regarding the fact that Paglia himself is certainly acutely aware of the political situation in Italy.

%d bloggers like this: