Cui Prodest? Beware Of Comments


One of the most stupid – or hypocritical – defences of the Unholy Father put forward from the complicit crowd of tambourine players is that both Jesus and Francis are criticised for spending time with sinners. The implication here is, clearly, that the critics of the Unholy Father are classical Pharisees.

Probably some of those who make such an argument are too slow to understand that in Jesus the company with sinners was one with the call to repentance. Jesus was solicitous about their salvation, he was certainly not “inclusive” of their sins. The contrast with Francis is striking: a man who is Pope and refuse to correct any sinner, but continuously rebukes those guilty of what to him must be one of the worst sins of all: Catholicism.

Some people, I was saying, are too slow to get these simple facts. But I bet Francis' humble black shoes that most of those who go around in fora and blog spreading this dung perfectly well know what it is.

The reason why they do it is, in my eyes, to be sought in the immortal question: cui prodest?

Who would undermine Church teaching among the people, if not those who have something to gain from it? Who, if not the adulterers, the fornicators, the perverts, and those who want to protect their agenda because of, say, family ties and a fully perverted sense of “love”?

I bet most people who read the too pious by half comments of such crowd do not question their Catholic credentials. An innocent Catholic will tend to believe that those who write on Catholic fora or blogs are themselves Catholics in good faith, and without any hidden agenda.

Big, big mistake.

My year-long experience on the comment box of homo smoke showed me many times that those people who commented in a way contrary to Catholic teaching had an hidden agenda and various “qualities” about which they told their readers absolutely nothing. Their hidden agenda was then subtly promoted under the cloak of piety that was supposed to be Catholic. Only repeated challenges from your truly let emerge the real picture, and the picture wasn't pretty: Anglicans, homosexual Anglicans, Atheists, homosexual Atheists, and adulterers. They ended up “outing” themselves (and not after insisted questioning; it must be very hard to deny for long what they think is “what they are”).

Therefore, the too pious by half commenter about, say, Francis going among sinners “like Jesus” can easily be an Anglican, an Atheist, an homosexual, or a divorced adulterer;,but he will not tell you so.

When someone starts by saying “I am a practicing Catholic, but…(follows attack to the Church, often very passive-aggressive)” you must immediately conclude that he is either lying to your face, or sitting in the pews to kill the time. When he writes words like “the gay people”, or “hate”, or “homophobia” you can be fairly certain he is either a fag herself, or a dyke himself, or a person with a heavy emotional investment in such perversion (say: because brother or son is such).

It is very easy to give oneself a varnish of “good heart” on the Internet. In fact, nothing more is necessary than some piece of passive-aggressive bollocks as the one mentioned at the beginning of this post. These people count on the natural innocence of pious Catholics, who will tend to take their comments at face value without questioning their motives.

We must train ourselves to pose ourselves the cui prodest? question everytime we read an “off” comment, because more likely than not, the comment has been written exactly with the intent of subtly deceiving the readers, under the cloak of piety.

Beware of comments on the Internet.




Posted on June 17, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. I have had the very same experiences on political blogs over the years. Those who are the most hate-mongering liberal bigots are almost always homosexuals.

    Since 2-3 years ago, a lot of them started claiming to be straight and married. Some naive person would be accepting their claims, but I would challenge that.

    Like so:
    me: you’re homosexual, not straight, right?
    them: no, I’m not gay
    me: yes, you are a homosexual pretending to be straight because you think it gives you greater credibility
    them: no, I’m straight and married
    me: why are you ashamed to admit what you are, since you say there’s nothing wrong with it?
    them: okay, you got me. want to have a threesome?

    (besides making lewd comments, some of them are beginning to make threats. Online threats are laughable, because they typically only come from weenies, homosexual or not.)

    one time, one said to me that he was not homosexual, then to someone sympathetic he said he was experimenting with “gender identity”

    or sometimes it goes like this:
    me: if you’re not homosexual yourself, then you have a son who is and you won’t admit that you raised him wrong so you want to convince the world that it is normal and good.
    them: no, I don’t have any homosexual children
    me: so you want people to believe that you spend hours every day defending homosexuals, just because it’s the thing to do?
    (usually parents won’t break down and admit anything, but they often stay silent after that last observation of mine)

    • That!
      I did exactly the same!
      The urge not to – as they perceive it – “deny themselves” puts them under a huge pressure. It is just a matter of time until they will not resist anymore.

      One can also use other avenues: “what do you think of sodomy?” , “Do you consider sodomy a natural behaviour?”, “would you encourage your son to explore “gender identity” ?” and the like.


  2. Are you following what is happening at fiscally solvent, TLM promoting, Holy Innocents parish in NYC?–per Dolan’s dictate, it may close and its congregation be told to merge with a homosexually oriented parish, St. Francis of Assisi. I know you don’t care for Voris, but God Bless him, he is exposing this scandal to millions. The holy, popular South African priest who implored parishioners to fight for Holy Innocents, and who worked as a UN overseer, was booted out by Dolan. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, M., Voris has a valuable contribution in the fight for souls. He espouses what is good in the Church. His silence about Francis is deafening, so to speak! C’mon, we all must be footsoldiers in sync.

    • I only read every now and then, but can’t write about everything. My impression is that Voris is barking at the wrong tree. Dolan acts in that way to get brownie points by the Pope and the other cardinals.
      Whilst obese, he is the smaller fish involved.

    • I have a one word reply to this scandal that is far to crude for here. (It begins with F) And I’m the resident Prot!

%d bloggers like this: