Daily Archives: June 13, 2013

The Homo Mafia and the Pope

Will the cleaning begin?

Will the cleaning begin?


I thought I would integrate the series of blog posts about the now fateful “chat” of our so pleasantly chatty Pontiff with his reflections on the “homosexual mafia”.

Firstly, the words of the Pontiff as reported. We are in the meantime assured even if we are asked to pretend they were not said verbatim (try another one; as if any religious group would dare to report the Pope’s words clearly as quotations of his own words if they weren’t, and with not one word denied by Vatican officers), the content is the same. So here we are:

And, yes… it is difficult. In the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true… The “gay lobby” is mentioned, and it is true, it is there… We need to see what we can do…

I didn’t understand the surprise at this, because it’s really nothing new. Besides the wild speculations about the 300-page report given to Pope Benedict in December, and probably what mainly moved him to resign, there is a matter of simple common sense that can only escape those who are so blinded by political correctness they can’t recognise an army of fags when they have it before them.

Sodomy is one of the worst perversions imaginable. The idea that more and more prelates express themselves in a way that indirectly supports it or makes it socially acceptable can in some cases be explained with extreme prostitution to the popular opinion, but one does not need to be a genius to understand that many among them must be perverts themselves. Again, it is a matter of logic and common sense. Alas, common sense is not so common nowadays, and is being substituted for common stupidity, because it looks nice.

Cardinal Danneels speaks in an extremely thinly veiled way in favour of so-called same-sex unions. Should his life not be scrutinised carefully? Cardinal Schoenborn promotes faggotry among the laity: is the suspicion of homosexual tendency not perfectly justified? Archbishop Paglia suddenly forgets two thousand years of Christianity: really? Why on earth would all these people promote such a horrible abomination? Purely to be popular? Or are they trying to satisfy the demons that have possessed them all their lives, giving an acceptable face to homosexuality?

Seriously, where do you think  all these faggots are, “somewhere else”? Where is “somewhere else”? Could they operate only from the Vatican without support from powerful friends outside who pave their way to Rome? Could a powerful “gay lobby” within the Vatican work without the favour of bishops and Cardinals in- and outside? For how long are we going to kid ourselves?

 It is, therefore, not surprising at all that there is a grave problem, or that this Pope – one who clearly doesn’t have his tongue under strict control, or under any control – would admit the existence of the problem during his friendly “chat”.

What is surprising, is that instead of using words like “we will have to eradicate this problem fast”, or “we must absolutely act on this”, he says “we need to see what we can do”, as if … there were things a Pope cannot do to tackle the problem. This is surprising from a Pope for whom “to do things” seems to be the first priority, and who had just told to the present(and I quote)

“I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up…”

Obviously, these are just few words among leftists friends, so I have not made of this the object of any post until now, preferring to deal with the vastly more important matter of the Rosary, or the other interesting matter of the religious orders,  instead. But as I do not have a great confidence that this Pope can do much else than chatting, I cannot avoid being afraid people far smarter than him (no scarcity of that, I am absolutely sure) will soon persuade him what he can do is really not much, and there is not even any reason to create chaos and give ammunition to the enemies of the church: after all, Bishop X will retire in only 12 years,  Monsignor Y can be moved to the next door office for a while, and Cardinal Z should be invited to pray much…

We shall see how this pans out. I wonder whether the Pope has read the famous 300 page report in the first place, because he doesn’t give the impression of being the avid reader, or the man eager to tackle different issues, preferring the easy and popular activities instead. 

Of course the Homo mafia is powerful within the Church.

Just look at what our clergy say, and you’ll have no doubts.


Error Has No Rights



Extremely strange article from George Weigel, about which I think I should spend two words; not criticising its orthodoxy, as the people at Rorate brilliantly do, but its logic.

Weigel’s argument is that Cardinal Ottaviani’s conviction that “error has no right” is now being used against us by rabid secularists, maintaining that Christianity must be silenced because…. error has no rights. This would show that Ottaviani’s conviction was wrong.

Now, apart from the huge problem that the Cardinal’s opinion is what the Church has always believed, the argument just doesn’t work from a logical point of view.

The idea that Error has no rights is not proven wrong because others oppress Christians or the Church using the same argument, for the very reason that… they are wrong. Christians have always been persecuted, and will always be persecuted irrespective of whether they hold to Truth in matters of religious freedom, or cave in to the modern “inclusive” mentality. If anything, the last years have abundantly showed even caving in to “inclusiveness” does not spare from persecution.

The argument, tough, does not work in an even more elementary way. If we say that “it is right to put dangerous criminals in jail” this does not prevent others from unjustly putting us in jail because they deem us dangerous criminals; but this does not negate the validity of the principle in the least!

How, then, do we distinguish those who are right from those who are wrong? Simply by knowing what is right and what is wrong. The Church is right, the Heresies are wrong. Christianity is right, Atheism is wrong. God is right, those who oppose Him are wrong. How do I know that? Because the Church says so. And who is the Church to say so? She is the Bride of Christ.

It’s simple, really. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and what is important is on which side one is. To say Muslims should have the right to build mosques if we want to have the right to build churches neglects the fundamental difference between a church and a mosque, Truth and Error, true God and false god.

We must stop with this inclusive, egalitarian waffle and resolutely take the side of Christ. Be assured caving in to the fashion of the time is not only to betray God, but will not ensure a single additional church being built, as these times of church closures and coming persecution abundantly prove.



Horses, Friars, And The Pope

He is not concerned. Perhaps the Pope should.

One of the issues touched by the Holy Father during his disastrous meeting with CLAR was the one of the dying orders that cling to the vast possessions they have; a state of affairs the Pontiff doesn't like because he would rather use the assets for other purposes (presumably, giving the money away) whilst the interested parties reply the money is necessary to provide for them before the old nincompoops stretch – as the cynical Italian would say – their paws.

It stroke me as odd that the Pontiff didn't even mention with one word the lamentable state of these orders, or wondered how they could slowly commit suicide in such a stupid way, or admit the unprecedented crisis of religious life; he also did not waste one second to mention in passing the enormous damage created by the lack of religious personnel for the coming generations. His concern was, apparently, centred on the fact the old boys cling to vast real estate, which the Pontiff would rather see sold and, if the now fashionable rhetoric is to be followed, spread among the poor.

I am informed that horses are extremely centred in the present, which is why they can, say, be bought and sold many times in a way that would, say, break a dog's heart. The horse only thinks of today, they say. He is not in the least interested in the past, nor remotely concerned about the future.

The Holy Father's free-wheeling reflections concerning the money of the dying orders reminded me of the horse thinking, with the Pontiff faced with the utter ruin of a vast number of once great religious orders and the great damage for future generations, but concerned about the fact they don't want to give him the dough.

Alternatively, I can only imagine that his repeated “what do I know” and “perhaps” reflect his real thinking, and this Pope subscribes to the disquieting theory that the Holy Ghost doesn't need or want religious orders anymore, as in this oh so brilliant new age of ours, in which divorce, contraception, sexual perversion and defiance of Christian values are in a new Springtime, He will transfer the task to the oh so new man, and the contracepting, aborting, divorcing laity will take care of things. In this perspective, it makes perfect sense that the Holy Father say “what do I know” about the fact these orders are dying, but does know he would like their vast resources. Again, we would be here in front of a Jesuit rather unconcerned with the almost extinction of his and many other orders. Once again, note he says “they have no vocations” and sees in that a fact he can't really explain. That there are no vocations because the orders foxtrotted things up in the most egregious manner doesn't even enter his mind. Such is the mentality of a product of V II.

I Imagine this, because if this were not to be the case the Pontiff would most certainly focus on the restructuring of the orders according to pre-Vatican II rules, and encourage them to use their generally extensive resources to finance their growth; a growth which, if you believe God wants to have solid religious orders, you must believe will come once these orders are made solid again.

Nothing of this is to be seen in the Papal reflections. The traditional orders are all more or less dying, and his words suggest a sort of confrontation or at least opposition to his wishes that has gone on for some time, with the Vatican gently suggesting the orders divest part of their assets and the orders gently answering that they need them to fund their old age.

Probably horse mentality is, therefore, not really at play. Rather, a perfect easiness with the dying of religious orders. This is, of course, coupled with the near-perfect blindness of the V II man, either unable to see that the traditional orders are growing fast, or willing to consider their growth a residue of the past, as if those people still believed they live, erm, cough, in the Forties.

But hey, what does he know.

In the meantime, give him the money.



Browsing The Jesuits

The Dying Jesuit Reblog

Mundabor's Blog



Stimulated (or you might say: terrified) by the recent appointment of a Jesuit as, erm, bishop of Rome, I have decided to visit more in detail the site of one of their provinces. Not being very good at Spanish, I decided to focus on the site of the British Province.

The “who we are” site tells us there are 20,000 Jesuits around, but doesn’t tell us anything about their age. Strange, say I…

But then it gets scary: on the same page our heroes describe their mission as the promotion in society of “that justice of the Gospel which is the embodiment of God’s love and saving mercy’.” What? The “justice of the Gospel”? What is this, a new religion? It is as if Christianity were turned upside down, and would keep its eyes away from heaven to make of earthly justice the true centre of its concerns.

View original post 1,016 more words

%d bloggers like this: