Mexican Bishop Declares Christianity “Sick”

The Bishop's new messiah...

The Bishop’s new messiah…




Mexican Raul vera is a perfect example of the rubbish bishops Latin America continues to produce. At times I think populism is mixed in the tap water over there, because they all seem to find it so natural.

This walking disgrace is, then, on record with saying:

The people who say homosexuals are sick are sick themselves.

It beggars belief that these people can abuse of their habit undisturbed to propagate open enmity with 2000 years of Christianity.

Homosexuality is a perversion; which is, whilst obviously a sickness in a wide sense of the word, much worse than a sickness as it is traditionally intended. Cancer, or flu, happen to you. Homosexuality doesn’t. A sexual perversion can only develop if the person who first begin to experience a wrong kind of attraction (a perversion; something that goes in the wrong (per)  way, direction, turning to (versio) ) accepts and indulges in his wrong and perverted thinking; until in time this thinking takes root, and the person ends up, in a satanic twisting of his own very nature, to consider his own perversion part of what he is. It’s not. It’s the result of his having turned himself in the wrong direction.

This is no rocket science. It’s Christianity 1-0-1.

But Christianity 1-0-1 escapes the enlightened wisdom of your average XXI century Central American bishop. Your average XXI Century South American bishop is either homosexual himself – and therefore very interested in not having to see himself as “sick” – or has lost his faith a long time ago, substituting it for a desperate quest for approval and popularity.

When people lose faith in God, they make of Man their god. Social justice, fight against oppression, all kind of socialist rubbish become the new priority.It also makes one rather popular, which doesn’t hurt.

How could it be otherwise? No Bishop who has lost his faith can say it out loud, because he would lose his job. Ditto, obviously, if he were to out himself as a sick pervert. Therefore, the way is to follow the new path of self-satisfaction and self-aggrandisement as long as one lives, ditching that inconvenient truth called Christianity for a fluffy, emotional, and very bent new ideology in which the pervert becomes the victim, and the Christian the oppressor.

As always – and in another trait very typical of these men – note how in such a rubbish bishop the condoning of homosexual behaviour goes hand in hand with an extreme “social” agenda. This chap pays the lip service of saying he is not a socialist (which, incidentally, would probably cost him his job, too), but then proceeds to think and speak exactly like one. So even  if he has not read Marx himself, the excrements Marx has propagated are his own all right. Easy words like “share equally in the bounty of the land” are a full espousal of socialist thinking, because human nature is such that the bounty of the land will never be shared “equally”; and in fact, as truly as men are – pace all PC thinking – not made equal, but with huge differences in intelligence, attitude, entrepreneurial spirit, ability to risk, and the thousand and one motivating and incidental factors which make, in the end, life, the same huge inequality will appear in all juman matters. Wrapping socialist thinking in fluffy slogans doesn’t make one less socialist, it only makes of him a slimier one.  

This all-encompassing religion of man is seen, lastly, in the typical obsession of the socialist of seeing everything in terms of social justice. Abortion must be linked to the miners’ issue, because abortion is only good as an issue if it furthers the socialist agenda.

Also note: this is another nincompoop who, like Francis, deeply dislikes Christians. Think of these words: “Abortion, just like same-sex marriage, has served us [as] subterfuge to tell ourselves that we in the Church have our morals”, and tell me whether any pervert atheist would not enjoy saying the same, and wholeheartedly agreeing with Bishop Cretin. Unsurprisingly, chappy even goes on saying he is against the legalisation of prostitution *because of the exploitation of women*, and you clearly sense the sin of fornication in itself is not a problem to him at all, the “oppression” and “exploitation” is. Pure secular thinking.

This man has lost the faith. Having lost the faith, he can’t see anything in Christian terms. As a result, he speaks like a Chavez, with a varnish of fake piety that is, in the end, satanic complicity with sin.

May God lead this man to repent, and to obtain forgiveness for the betrayal of the most elementary Christianity. 

I do not bet my pint.

My pint is, in this as in many other cases, that after death this chappy here will go to take company to the sodomites whose cause he has so shamelessly espoused.


Posted on July 19, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Homosexuality activity isn’t only a perversion because it is against God’s laid down law. Even an atheist can recognize it to be “sick”, perverse because it twists sexual behavior into a form that makes it impossible to procreate.

    Even perverse and self centered contraceptive involved heterosexual sexual relations maintains the possibility; nay, probability that procreation will ensue. It may be morally/ethically wrong (heII… it IS wrong) but it isn’t a perversion of normal relations. Homosexuality IS just plain wrong regardless of one’s beliefs and leads invariably to sickness and disease (not just AIDS). It isn’t the homosexuality, it is the homosexual acts.

    It is sickening that a so-called bishop can make such a statement. Isn’t that just sort of self-excommunicating?

    • That is perfectly true, but i as a Christian see, naturally, the world true a Christian lense.
      You are perfectly right, though, that sodomy goes against natural law and therefore goes against the grain of every sane human; unless, that is, he has perverted himself tosuch a point that he does not see faggotry as a problem anymore.

  2. victura1007 .

    All this is setting my Catholic alarm off. Like a plane that gets to close to the ground, “pull, up, pull, up.” Everything since March 13th. Something is profoundly awry at this point. Man is the king of the universe and the only bad people are believing Catholics apparently.

  3. Because sodomy is a perverted act it harms the human body, as well as the spirit. In charity, the Mexican bishop should be more strongly against it–for both reasons. Both the US Centers for Disease Control and Department of Justice have released statistics showing that sexually active homosexuals (or sodomites, to use our term) are the main cause of the spread of certain sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, homosexuals’ relationships were marked by violence greater than that experienced by heterosexuals.
    Given such facts, it is sick even on a human level to advocate for the spread of homosexuality. The Mexican bishop should be removed–he sees the situation as the reverse of the reality.

    • The mexican bishop should, I suspect, never have become a priest in the first place.

      As to sodomy, how can people be surprised about violence within homosexual “couples” when they, erm, customarily rape each other?


    • That is so true, Mundabor, but the general public and the media ignore the fact that aggression and violence are inherent in homosexual sex.

  4. Bishop Vera, a partisan of liberation theology, was brought to the capital of our neighboring state of Coahuila, had among his priests one who used to wear a chasuble to mass on which an image of Superman but no cross was stamped. This priest used to say that he did not care a bit whether there is or is no God.
    It would not surprise me if Francis named Vera cardinal to ensure his progressivist doctrine is furthered

  5. If any man does not feel revulsion at even the merest thought of what homos do with each other, that that man is probably at least part homo himself.

    The liberal lie is that it is just a preference, as if choosing between Coke and Pepsi. The lie would be exposed if only the likes of those like Obama, much more so Dolan, were to be asked outright: “if it’s just a preference, have you ever dabbled in it (in thought or in deed), just as a Pepsi drinker might try a Coke to see what it is like?”

%d bloggers like this: