Daily Archives: April 9, 2013
The usual Rorate Caeli has the complete text of Leonardo Boff’s interview with Der Spiegel (a rabidly anti-Catholic German magazine known for having swallowed the legend of “Hitler’s diaries” whole).
First of all, let us consider Boff left the priesthood. He is even less qualified than the likes of Kueng (who nominally is still a priest) to talk about the new Papacy with any pretence of credibility. Still, it might be useful to examine how the mind of such apostates work.
1. To him, even Scherer is too much of a conservative. He might be satisfied with the revolutionary credentials of Lenin, but I doubt.
2. He thinks “the Pope can do anything”, showing an ignorance of Catholicism that you would be put to shame by a properly instructed boy of ten. This man was allowed to become priest and friar. It truly says it all.
3. Boff met Bergoglio once. He says they got along famously, but I have never read the same statement from the other party. He sounds like those people indulging in “name dropping” to make themselves important with the shallow and the simple. “yeah, I met Tom Cruise once. We are practically friends”.
4. Boff defends Pope Francis from accusations of having help the Argentinian generals, and mentions one of the alleged victims of the alleged “betrayal”. Not good for the “Spiegeltruppen”, for sure….
5. He also credits him with the intention of making three (or four) quarters of a Revolution, and I mean a theological one. He is in urgent need of a doctor, besides a confessor.
Note that the interviewer never challenges him with questions like “don’t you think the Pope is supposed to be Catholic” or “what do you think of the deposit of faith”; his questions are merely aimed at criticising Bergoglio more than Boff does, in order to let Boff appear, in some twisted ways, a moderate.
Der Spiegel is a publication for atheists who have sworn enmity to the Church. They and their readers are made for Leonardo Boff.
We are informed in a place like Connecticut it is possible for a couple of perverts to adopt nine children. Since when have fags been so motherly? Or are they perhaps chasing the transfer payment? What about having at home material to satisfy their pedophile perversion? Who on earth allowed them such adoptions? Are they straight? Are they pedophiles themselves? How were such decisions motivated?
It seems to me that here something utterly tragic is brewing. Let us think of the homosexual priests’ child abuse scandal. What has happened on that occasion? It happened that homosexuals were allowed to enter the Seminary and become priests in droves. Now, we must understand that there is a univocal (as opposed to biunivocal) correspondence here: whilst it cannot be said that the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles, it can comfortably be said that the vast majority of pedophiles are homosexual, as are of course the totality of ephebophiles. The statistical basis provided by Catholic priests involved in sexual scandals is in itself a crushing evidence of this, but if you have any doubt you only need to look at those behind the calls to remove the age of consent to have any possible doubt dispelled.
The same mistake – only with much worse consequences, as it puts the intended victim in a much more vulnerable position – is happening with the so-called “gay adoption”. In the Seventies and Eighties homosexuals were allowed to enter the seminary in droves, either because the deciders were homosexual themselves or because their homosexuality was seen as harmless and anyway irrelevant in their dealing with children. Only many years later the devastation appeared in all its tragic scale, as it took a decade or two to individuate a pattern of behaviour, particularly given both the obvious reluctance of priests to admit they are homosexual (which is supposed to cost them their job) and the disgraceful episodes of cover-up all too known to all of us.
Notice, then, how the pattern is repeating here. Homosexual or ideologically perverted officers allow perverted couples to have small children at their disposal in an environment that is the most favourable for them to act on their perversion; and whilst many of those perverts will not be paedophiles, the worst paedophiles among them will be motivated to seek adoption. You can imagine from this the scale of the problem that is being created; and this, completely irrespective of the other massive problem of the raising of a child in a sexually perverted environment.
Some might say that heterosexual couples may hide a pedophile too, but this does not address the issue. A family made by a man and a woman is the only possible family in a proper sense, and therefore the normality; disfunctions in the normal setting of things do not negate the appropriateness of normality as a working model. On the contrary, the experience among the huge statistical pool of Catholic priests shows us with blinding obviousness that homosexual perversion is a huge factor in the incidence of pedophilia.
The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from past experience and common sense is that the incidence of sexual abuse among children adopted by homosexuals will be a big multiple than among those adopted by heterosexuals. It also tells us that many years will pass before the incidence of such devastation – literally, the satanic work of pedophilia building upon the satanic work of homosexuality – becomes apparent, as both the cover-up of the statistical reality and the insisted denial that homosexuality be a factor in the episodes of pedophilia will slow down the discovery of the ugly truth by the population at large.
This is where we are now. Common sense and a huge statistical basis already tell us where things are headed; but the deluded and perverted – or outright minions of Satan favouring the adoption through pedophiles – will be allowed to accomplish their devilish work by an electorate drunk on “equality” and “sensitivity” to the point of senselessness.
We are in a bad way, and as Christianity slowly but surely fades away from the collective consciousness of once Christian countries our clergy is mainly focused on misinterpreted “social issues”; or content to feed the sheep with insipid waffle about going out of church with a smile on their faces and give witness of their “joy”.
But again, we got where we are largely because we have the clergy we have, and we got the clergy we have largely because we haven’t reacted strongly enough to them for now 50 years, and counting.
I stumbled upon just another of those deluded articles by deluded old clergymen living in the dream of Vatican II as the medicine for almost every ill, when they are literally dying of it.
In just few paragraph, this chaps manages to touch all the usual topics of the people of his ilk: he mentions the abuse scandal when he criticises the Church (tick), tells us of a need for “profound changes” (in his direction) shared by people who don’t go to Mass anyway (tick), sees in Vatican II not the cause of the problems, but the solution (tick).
Where the senselessness becomes comedy is, though, in the matter of liturgy, where he manages to say that even Pope John Paul II was “restrictive” in matter of liturgy.
JP II “restrictive”? Compared to what, Woodstock?
Unsurprisingly, our chap sees Benedict as utterly wrong in the matter, even going as far as to say that “returning to the pre-Vatican II liturgy is a fool’s errand”. He must be right of course, as the continued increase in Mass attendance and the sharp rise in vocations among his own – and liturgically savage – Order in the last fifty years shows.
Ah, his Order. What will such a chap be, you will ask?
A Jesuit, of course! What did you expect?
The Utterly Surprisingly Jesuit Reblog
This man – apparently rather well-known; my bad for ignoring his existence, I suppose – is so endowed with common sense and strict reasoning, that I couldn’t believe that he is a Jesuit. I can easily imagine that he will feel very much in the minority among his confreres. Be it as it may, Fr James V Schall has written such a good piece on redistributing wealth, that yours truly couldn’t resist the temptation to spread the sanity.
The arguments are not new, and in fact by reading classics of factual information and common sense like the excellent “The Sceptical Environmentalist” (written, mind you, by a leftist homosexual activist, not yours truly’s favourite kind) one would be perfectly informed about pretty much every one of them. What is notable here is that these arguments are expressed in such a beautiful, pithy way and that they come from, of all…
View original post 237 more words