Monthly Archives: September 2014
There is a Sixties’ pop song in Italy, “Non e’ Francesca”, which every Italian knows and could sing. Including, probably, newborn babies, already dead people, and people with advanced Alzheimer’s Disease. The song is cruelly beautiful and its enduring popularity, now arrived at the fourth generation, is utterly deserved.
“You are mistaken”, says the singing voice (the late, but not forgotten, Lucio Battisti), “she whom you have seen is not Francesca”; and he does not want to believe that the wife he believes so true is, in fact, undoubtedly betraying him.
Why do I tell you this? Because I love my country, and the best of even its pop culture, and the wonderful sense of humanity we carry with us, shortcomings and all; and Lucio Battisti, and this particular song, is as much a part of Italy as the Colosseum, or the balcony of Palazzo Venezia.
But there is also another reason: this very song is the obvious “insider joke” (for Italians) of Antonio Socci’s book, of imminent publication, and pre-selling already very well on Amazon: “Non e’ Francesco”. His own newspaper has very recently made the surprise announcement.
In it, Socci apparently states that you are mistaken: he whom you think the Pope is not Francesco, but Benedetto.
I have already written about the Rapunzel-like fantasies of the proponents of such outlandish theories, and I will not repeat them here.
I only ask this: when Pope Benedict dies who is, pray, supposed to be the Pope? Francis is no Pope – they say – and his election invalid. If Francis should die or resign, the election of his successor would also be invalid, because effected through a number of Cardinals appointed by a non-Pope. Nor could any other rule, bar the Second Coming, offer an unquestioned, valid way of election, as every alternative method would cause division and controversy on an absolutely atrocious scale. Mind, here, that for Socci five votes instead of four in the same day suffice to invalid an election (how he can be sure of the five is another matter), so it follows that every other rule would be a far bigger deviation, and totally arbitrary, and I can’t see how a validly elected Pope can come out of it.
So: is not the consequence of Socci’s thinking a Sedevacantism in instalments? How would the proposer of the theory recover from it?
And as we are there: are we really sure the number of votes in past conclaves was always the prescribed one? Not one more, not one less? What is, therefore, if a Pope was elected in such a procedurally vitiated way? Shall he be a valid Pope merely because there was no Emeritus around? What about his own appointments? Was the successor validly elected? How so, particularly in case of a long pontificate of the “Francesco” of the day?
And let us think further: Francis dies or resigns. What then? Is Benedict Pope? How so? Will he say “I have caved in to blackmail, therefore I should be reinstated”? Seriously? Shall he be re-elected? By whom? By Cardinals appointed by non-Pope Francis?
Or, Francis dies, and Benedict says “stop dreaming, Jungs!” (He has, by the way, he has! Socci was listening to Battisti, so he missed that…). What then, skipper? Unless the Cardinals elect Benedict again and he says “I accept, but I was always Pope anyway” and proceeds to appoint as Cardinals the new ones (or deprive them of their red hat) I can’t see how this will work.
Socci has, no doubt, an answer to all this. We will have to wait for the book. I merely doubt it will be a credible one. But we shall see.
Up to then, and if you ask me, and remaining by the song pun, Socci should listen to the song again and again and repeat to himself its first three words: “ti stai sbagliando”.
You are mistaken.
Every now and then, the economic press tries to impress us with some “visionary” entrepreneur who had – or is having, or might have – some brilliant idea with vast consequences for us all.
I would, therefore, like to speak to you about a true Visionary; one of those men who changed the West, and brought it to successes not hoped for just a few years before.
It takes the mind of a visionary to see the spread abuse and criminal behaviour engendered by a clearly degenerated view of chivalry, and conceive the plan to use at least part of this vast potential for violence outside of Europe, where they would do good not only to Christianity, but to themselves.
It take courage to not only dream of, but profoundly believe in an operation whose costs and logistical difficulties made of it the biggest enterprise in many Centuries. It takes a great mind to understand that such an operation is not only feasible, but feasible in a comparatively very short amount of time. It takes, too, a skilled diplomatician, and a man of great personal prestige, to create a vast, multinational “coalition of the willing” and launch them to an enterprise that appeared no more than a beautiful dream only twenty years before. It takes a very smart mind to decipher the signs of the times and decide that yes, with God’s help the West has now become the better soldier, and the richer one. And it takes, of course, a man of great faith, because only who is aflame with Christ can transmit his fire into the heart of rich and poor, across many nations.
Pope Blessed Urban II did all this, and more than this. He changed the West for good, and gave the Christian West not only a stunning success for Christ, but one that changed the self-perception of the West forever: a self-assured continent able to bring war to the land of his arch-enemy and obtain sweeping, breathtaking success.
Of all the Crusades, the First was the best, the most successful, the most gloriously, stunningly, unbelievably beautiful (not counting, of course, Peter The Hermit and his bunch of violent bastards; who are rightly considered a separate campaign by serious historians). It was not only the triumph of a Christian army. It was the triumph of a daring, shamelessly self-confident, unashamedly Christian idea. It was an entire Continent that, after centuries of humiliation, rose to its feet, and found itself towering against the enemies of Christ: a scourge to infidels, not only defeated by humiliated in just a few years, in a world in which even international meetings had to planned one year or so in advance just to sort the distances, the security, the logistics, and the funding.
What a wonderful Pope, and what a great man Urban II was. Not for him the “who am I to judge”. Not for him the sissified waffle of “dialogue” and “understanding”. Not for him the rhetoric of peace at all cost, of peace before Christ, of peace for the sake of looking good.
No. Urban took Christianity under his wing, rallied it in a way never seen before, and set it toward an objective whose importance and meaning is difficult, today, for some even to imagine, but that was the Holy Grail of Christian thinking in those blessedly Chridtian times: to be able, again, to travel to Jerusalem, and to be in physical contact with the places that changed the world forever.
Urban achieved all this, and he actually achieved far more than this. The impression he made on the collective imaginary of the West is perfectly evident in the way the very word, “Crusade”, still polarises the minds and catches the imagination, more than 900 years after those events.
Do not bother me with whining complaints about massacres, and hate, and mistakes made. Every war has its share of them, at least every war not fought by armies of Angels. I choose, like every sound thinking man, to look at the whole picture, and not throw away – to stay nearer to our days – the war effort that rid us of Hitler because of Dresden, or Montecassino.
If you want a real visionary, one of those men who truly changed the West, look at this tenacious, faithful, really visionary man.
The always excellent Gloria.TV has another clue (if the embedding does not work, click the link) as to the astonishing events in Paraguay. A bishop accused another bishop of being homosexual.
Look: when there is such a scandal as a homosexual bishop I would not condone, but expect other bishops to condemn loudly the filth within the Church.
Not in the age of mercy, of course. in the age of mercy, a priest has to smell of filth. It makes him nearer to his (filthiest) sheep.
This one of the homosexual bishop can certainly have been used as an excuse. The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) will make a scandalous faggot to the head of his papal household, but he will never tolerate an orthodox, Catholic bishop to criticise another homo.
This man is, very probably, beyond repair. We can only hope God rids us of him soon.
Bishop Livieres Plano is a Catholic bishop.
Several articles have appeared in the last days about the persecution of Bishop Livieres.
The Bishop has,thankfully, reacted. His website has published a rebuttal of the accusation in various languages, so complete and extensive it is not suited for a blog post.
Bishop Livieres has also made very clear the accusations moved against him are purely ideological. And it is difficult not to agree with him, considering that it is now clear that no personal misconduct is involved. Methinks, after the experiences with Father Manelli some of Francis' executioners has thought better to choose a different path this time. The problem with that is that the character assassination becomes far more difficult.
What is, then, Bishop Livieres accused of?
He is accused of being Catholic.
In Francis' Stalinian world, if you uphold Catholic values you are a threat to the unity of circus Bergoglio. If your seminary has more Seminarians than the rest of Paraguay together, you are clearly sowing discord. If your very behaviour and success shows that your colleagues are a bunch of incompetent morons without faith or dignity you are certainly showing you can't get along with them.
Bishop Livieres does not fit within the nuChurch of Mercy. He is Catholic, which is an accusation that it not easy to move to Francis.
Bishop Livieres, an Argentinian like TMAHICH, will therefore have to leave the head of his diocese. He reminds me strongly of Athanasius, in the same way as Francis would let Liberius look like an amateur in comparison to him.
Angelqueen has a petition in favour of the good Bishop: web search them “vote to support the good bishop Livieres” and you will find.
The petition will not save his post, of course. But it will do something for the salvation of those who subscribe.
As to Francis, the Bishop said it very well: he will have to answer to heaven for his decision.
I am pretty sure TMAHICH thinks he will never have to answer to anyone.
But he will. Oh, but he will.
Thousands of brave Chinese are, as I write this, standing up against the Chinese Communist Party rule in China; a rule which, if edulcorated over there compared to the praxis of the mainland, is still too much of an oppression, and so bad that very many put their future, perhaps their lives, at risk to change the way things work.
I see them as the media outlets let the images of their courage go around the world.
And I wonder how many Cardinals are having the courage to take a stance that would require a small part of that nerve; a courage which would not put them at loss of losing life or limb, or liberty; though the loss of power and privileges would be very probable, at least for the time being.
We can make some parallels between the two situations, because every sound Cardinal must, if he looks at the man in the mirror, know that Francis is doing more damage to the Church that any Communist dictatorship ever could. It is a foolish idea to eradicate Catholicism through political oppression. It is far more damaging – though in the end equally foolish – to try to let Her wither from the inside.
I hope many sound Cardinals will look at the images in the next days, and draw the same parallels.
A rather stupid, but very cunning, Che Guevara is running the Church.
It's time for the Cardinals to stage their own Hong Kong reaction.
Bishop Conry has given an interview to a semi-porn rag for gossiping housewives called “Daily Mail”. Visit the site at your peril.
The interview allows us to give a long, hard look at your typical “spirit of V II” priest.
Caution: strong smell of brimstone.
First, the photo; reproduced above, and obviously published with his and his mistress consent, or acceptance: a priest and his mistress walk about. He is in plain clothes, though he is obviously still a priest; she wears a cross and what the wife of an Anglican bishop would consider a not entirely appropriate skirt; but hey, this is one who sleeps with bishops, so appropriateness isn’t really a concern.
They are, apparently, carrying groceries. You couldn’t make this up.
Then, the text (I do not have the stomach to watch at the video):
“It has been difficult keeping the secret,’ he told the Mail. ‘In some respects I feel very calm. It is liberating. It is a relief. I have been very careful not to make sexual morality a priority [in his sermons]. I don’t think it got in the way of my job, I don’t think people would say I have been a bad bishop. But I can’t defend myself. I did wrong. Full stop.’ ”
“Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause).”
From the Blog The Divine Life, an interesting post about that tragic word, “late-term abortion”.
Besides being very instructive about the scale of ruthlessness the “liberated” Western society has brought on us, it makes clear the intrinsic hypocrisy of the entire so-called “pro-choice” edifice.
An abortion is either a murder, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, there should be no reason whatsoever why those who don’t consider abortion killing shouldn’t practice it any time before birth or – come to that and with the same thinking – actually during birth too. If it is, then it shouldn’t be practiced and it should be banned altogether, period.
This idea that an abortion would be morally acceptable for, say, 20 weeks but would then become morally questionable starting from day X is a logical and ethical absurdity. Also hypocritical is the behaviour of those institutions which practice abortions only in certain…
View original post 123 more words
Vintage Mundabor Reblog
Absolutely beautiful contribution from Tim Drake for the National Catholic Register.
The points of interest and comparisons are too many to mention here. The sources are numerous, authoritative and – most importantly – intelligent. The parallel between the priesthood and the army is not only very reasonable, but it is beautiful in its own right.
Mr. Drake is very alarmed for the future of the US Army. He rightly points out to the fact that whilst the Church is indefectible, the US Army isn’t. He is spot on.
In my eyes, a very notable point is that the astonishing technological superiority of the West and the absence of wars from our own soil for such a long time have created such a complacency that the army has become just another field for liberal and pervert propaganda instead of being seen as an instrument meant to guarantee one’s own (and…
View original post 218 more words
The spectacular fall of Bishop Conry is occasion to repeat what I have already stated in the past: when a bishop is of clearly liberal tendencies, he probably has a skeleton in his closet.
Orthodox priests do what they had decided to do when they decided to become priests. Their life and ideology is aligned with their hopes and aspirations. They know and always knew (everyone does and always did, even the liberals) what is required of them, and what Christianity teaches. They know and always knew that their job consists in the salvation of souls (I mean: in doing their best for it), not in their self-promotion.
When I read about a liberal priest or bishop, I never think he could be in good faith. You can’t go against 2,000 years of Christianity and be in good faith. When I read of people like that, I know that one of the two is at work.
1. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) such and such has lost the faith. He does not believe there is any God, any judgment, any hell or heaven. At that point, he tries to solve the horrible conflict inside his head (along the line of: “what on earth am I doing wearing this habit?”) by becoming a social worker spreading a secular wannabe gospel that is the perfect enemy of the real one. Not infrequently, these people will not even wear the habit, in an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance of being, in the eyes of the world, men of a God in whose existence they do not even believe. Enter Jesus the illegal immigrant, Jesus the unjust (because only merciful), Jesus the environmentalist, and all the other Jesuses they invent to look, and feel, good.
2. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) has a skeleton in the closet. He is homosexual, or pedophile; or he has a mistress. Or he drinks, or gambles, or whores around. Again, an internal conflict takes place. The need to be seen as good arises as the awareness of not being the priest he is supposed to be also grows. Slowly, the zeal for the priesthood (provided it was there in the first place) fades in the background, because every thought of zeal reminds him of his betrayal of his vows. At this point, some kind of substitute goodness will have to take the place of the goodness he knows he does not have. Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause). When Christ gets smaller and smaller in the background, earthly issues become bigger and bigger as necessary compensation.
Before you can say “mistress” (or “faggot”, or whatever it is), the fact that adulterers are not allowed to receive communion becomes a problem, and our man will be in the first line to try to solve it.
He will also find it convenient to be “alternative”. Bishop Conry’s photo in sweater shows us that very probably he went around in civilian clothes in his daily life; which, in turn, made him much less conspicuous, and therefore made it much easier for him to visit his mistress. Try to move around constantly dressed as a priest, and you’ll notice that… people notice you.
Conry is not the first, but only the last one a long series of progressive bishops found with… the reasons why they were so dismissive of orthodoxy.
Almost everyone needs to feel good, or at least in harmony with the system of values he has given to himself. When he betrays his vows or loses the faith (which is the same), the values must be readjusted, and a new equilibrium must be found. The stronger the failing, the stronger the push.
It does not work only for priests. Have you noticed how many people become apostles of this or that to compensate for the fact that they are whores, or faggots? Lady Gaga? Elton John? Leonard Bernstein? Madonna (the singer)? Have you ever known a blogger who defends dissenting ideas but has no personal reasons (himself, or among his relatives or friends) to do so? No. When they complain of “exclusion”, it always is “our” exclusion; or the exclusion of their son; or “some of my best friends are gay”.
Whenever you see a priest, or a bishop, or a journalist, or a simple blogger with strange ideas, look for the skeleton.
First, let me say it very straight: the departure of Bishop Conry is very good news. As long as I have followed the things of Catholic England (seven years at least), Bishop Conry has always been one of the worst enemies of sound Catholicism, and a promoter (at least by willful blindness; I’d rather say by willful malicious intent) of the destruction of sound liturgy, and sound Catholicism, in his diocese.
It is, therefore, not without a certain rise in my adrenaline level that I now read around comments of people who say things like “he was always so nice” or “he always celebrated a reverent Mass”. Heavens, there is no damn liberal these days that is not frightfully “nice”, and I begin to think the first good sign in a bishop is that he isn’t. It also does not help much to celebrate a reverent mass oneself, if one’s priests celebrate masses with launch of M&Ms among the pewsitters, and the like. As to the bishop being “the one who has given us back Friday abstinence”, I could make the pun that we have seen how much he believed in abstinence himself, but more to the point I would bet my pint if there was one diocese in the Land where Friday Abstinence was either ignored or considered a yoga practice, it was his. Anyone who does not consider Conry one of the many poisonous fruits of nuChurch has his Catholicism in need of urgent repair, period.
This link is just an example after three seconds of web search: a bishop dressed in sweater tells us to put up with noisy children at Mass, and feels so trendy he can’t believe how cool he is.
No reverence, no clerical habit, no sense of sacred; in short, no Catholicism. Is it such a big surprise that he was unable to take his Job seriously in other – admittedly, difficult – areas?
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. Bishop Conry is just the latest demonstration of this great truth. He trashed the Liturgy, and the Devil gave a good thrashing to him. We can hope he recovers. But more on this below.
As to the “we are all sinners” meme, I would also like to invite my readers to not allow this evident truism to blind them to the great scandal given by a bishop who is discovered – I know no one of my readers is so stupid to believe the man was not cornered; not even one – to have failed his vows in the most obvious of ways; not as a disgraceful but isolated slip, but actually as a way of life. I wonder how many seriously, devout priests who wanted to celebrate the TLM he has discouraged, threatened, or not allowed in his diocese? There is more to say on this, but it will be for another post.
I am now awaiting the details about this story; after which I will allow myself to pose questions like: who knew and did nothing? Who accompanied the rise of this priest knowing of the breasted skeleton in the closet? The question will be allowed, will it not? Or are we “not to judge”?
As last observation, please consider the press release of (still) Bishop Conry: it contains the phrase
As a result, however, I have decided to offer my resignation as bishop with immediate effect and will now take some time to consider my future.
Boy. I’d have expected he says “I am going to lock myself in a monastery for the next six months, hoping to remember why I became a Priest”.
Nope. The subtext of this seems clear to me. “Family” first, Christ and obligations of the habit nowhere!
Again, I wait to know more of this. Perhaps he has three children with the woman, and is afraid about their future. But boy, “I will now take some time to consider my future” does smell of reckless entitlement. “Sorry boys. Wasn’t to be. Weighing my options now. Peace and love. Kieran”.
There is also no word of repentance, no hint of the end of this relationship. There are “apologies”, which in England are more common than “good morning”, and do not even imply an admission of guilt. The narrative here is the usual Anglo-Saxon one: I apologise if you are upset and scandalised; but hey, I think I might scandalise you even more and throw away the habit altogether. At which point I will apologise again for the “shame I brought on the Church”; and do, again, what I damn well please.
I will, of course, pray for Bishop Conry. I will do so enthusiastically, because I am a Christian, and in his grand fall I see the danger and the littler falls of us; the little people who, say, never became priests because they took the vow of celibacy seriously; and are astonished at people who become priests or bishops with a mistress on the side, and then inform us they are “considering their future”.
Still: there can be no doubt that the announcement of his departure is really, really good news, because this is another damn liberal going away from where he does a lot of damage.
Of course, Francis could appoint someone even worse at his successor; but it would be his own fault and responsibility. For us, today is a new chance, and another bad bishop becoming a cautionary tale. Forcing a bit the situation (not the logic), when Stalin dies you are happy that the damn Commie bastard is gone, not afraid that someone even worse than him might come to power.
Pray for bishop Conry.
And for a better successor.
These qualities of Father Dickson impress me every time I read one of his posts:
1. His straightforward courage.
2. His clarity of thought.
3. The concise, forceful expressiveness of his writing.
Father Dickson has just given us another example of this. I quote from his last blog post. My emphases in red.
With so many bishops and priests currently watering down the Church’s teaching on these by favouring Communion for the Divorced and civilly ‘remarried’, as well by supporting homosexual civil ‘unions’ under the guise of protecting civil rights, the Synod is in great danger of denying the Gospel and Christ.
Though it is becoming increasingly difficult, I am always encouraging people to hope and trust that Francis will not allow the Synod to deviate from the established doctrine that marriage is a permanent union between one man and one woman, exclusive of all others, open to the procreation of life.
If the Synod recommends allowing Communion to the remarried Divorcee, cohabiting couples, and/or supports civil ‘unions’ for homosexuals even in order to protect their civil rights, then Pope Paul VI’s ‘smoke of Satan’ will have surely entered the Church, because the bottom line is this: if Francis and/or the Synod declare a change to Church teaching on marriage and sexuality they do not actually change the Faith, they actually abandon the faith.
It is useless to say the Pope is our Supreme Teacher and that we must give submission of will and intellect to his teaching, because that holds only when he holds himself bound by revelation and defined dogma, of which he is but the custodian, not the originator.
I cannot bring myself to believe that Francis will allow an attempt to change doctrine happen because it would take the arrogance of hell to proclaim that the faithful and the Popes have been wrong for over two millennia, and I am unwilling to ascribe such arrogance to any man.
Can we really ascribe it to Francis and our Bishops? And if not, can we ascribe to them simple stupidity, or a faithlessness that has seen them fall into relativism? I hope not.
If the Synod and Francis do attempt to impose a new teaching which contravenes defined teaching, we are at rights to decry that new teaching for as long as it takes to have it declared erroneous -and not only the right, but the duty.
If you click the link, you will notice that I have ended up quoting a large part of the blog post; and the part in red is also a lot. Which says something about the writing style of this man of God.
Make no mistake: he will be persecuted one day. Make no mistake: he knows it very well, but this does not stop him.
Thank God for Father Gary Dickson, and the tiny minority of priests with his love for the Catholic faith. Let us pray for them every day, and that their number be increased in these terrible times of ours.
In people like this brave priest I, a wretched sinner unworthy of the crumbs of the Lord’s feast, see all the beauty and glory of the true Church.
The Church that will never die. The Church that has already triumphed. The Church that does not flirt with the devil.
There is a place where Christians are addressed in the way you read below.
Physical violence not excluded. In one’s own home.
By Muslims, of course. Who else…
“Do you think I’m looking at you, you fucking ugly whore. Try to see what clothes you wear, bitch,”
“Well, you have a cross on — then you are also a Christian fucking whore. Do you know what we do to people like you? Do you know what we do to people like you? You get stoned,”
“My son is being called everything. I get called all sorts of things. Infidel. Filthy Christians. They tell me I ought to be stoned to death,”
“He called me a dirty Christian whore and an infidel. Then he pushed me into the apartment. He shook me and slapped my face.”
Fear for one’s own security, and moving out of the neighbourhood, follow.
Where will this be?
It’s modern Denmark.
From one of the latest ramblings of the humble Bishop of Rome:
This is the man who made of his entire pontificate a show of his own alleged goodness, mercy, and revolutionary intent. A peacock if even there was one.
This is the man who makes no mystery of wanting to remake the papacy in his own image. Albeit he is very right in this: that his extreme boastfulness brought him extremely far from the Truth.
Christians are called to “be authentic with the truth of reality and of the Gospel,”
… says the man who is the very embodiment of falsification of the Gospel, and perversion of the Truth.
Can you believe this guy? Who is this: Francis The Self-Effacing Pontiff?
“The vain say, ‘Hey, look, I’m giving this check for the church’s work,’ and they show off the check; then they scam the church from behind,” he said.
The vain says: “Look: I am hopping on the bus and use a Ford Focus”, and they show off the bus ticket and the car. They they scam the Church from behind.
& Co. & Co. & Co… Follow the link to read a new high in papal hypocrisy.
By the by, this is another prime example of Francis’ use of the homily generator.
What a clown.
“Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the…
View original post 283 more words
I am extremely thankful to the “Eponymous Flower” for their sterling work concerning what is happening in Paraguay.
There, you have a very conservative Bishop (uh? It reminds me of the FFI), who is therefore very successful (the analogy continues) and shames his peers by showing how it’s done (interesting!).
Someone accuses Bishop Livieres Plano of misconduct of various kind (where have I heard this?), and he is suddenly removed whilst savage rumours about his past and integrity emerge (Father Manelli anyone?).
The Vatican communiqué talks, ominously, of “unity of the Church”. At this point, yours truly has no doubts anymore.
The Bishop is, like Father Manelli and the FFI, a “threat to the unity of the Church” because he is an orthodox Catholic, shaming the clowns around him.
This cannot be tolerated. He must be removed, his work destroyed, his sheep reeducated to the NuChurch of Vatican II. He must be, if possible, personally destroyed. We have already seen this movie. This is a remake in great style.
Given the precedent of the FFI, I allow myself to consider, until evidence to the contrary emerges, the orthodox Catholic Bishop the good one, and The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) the villain. If anything, because I have the villain’s disgraceful acts in front of my eyes every day. In these cases, my suggestion to the “there are things we do not know” Apostles is the same as always:
But let us imagine that the Bishop Livieres Plano is truly bad. Let us imagine – just for the sake of reasoning, poor man… – that we are here in front of another Maciel.
Why, then, the appeal for to the “unity of the Church”, a clear indication that the Bishop was removed because he refused to dance the Tango of Vatican II together with all the other bishops?
Why would in this case Francis not appoint substitutes (the provisional one, and then the definitive one) who are every bit as conservative and orthodox as the disgraced man, in order to show that the problem lies merely in his personal conduct? The substitute is, from what we know, one in the mould of Archbishop Cupich. I foresee a brilliant career for him as long as Francis is Pope. Particularly if he is a pervert. But no, the kind of appointment clearly show the accusation of misconduct were, even if proven true, just a “happy” coincidence in the effort to remove sound Catholicism from the Church.
Then there is one last thought I would want to share with you.
Has anyone ever examined the long past of Francis as Bishop and Archbishop? What about a visitation, and thorough going through archives, press, testimonies, and street gossip? Are we sure no episodes of a questionable nature can be found? Is this not the man who was once found with marijuana in his luggage? (I wish I could find the link). How many priests has a bishop or archbishop? How easy is it to accuse him first, and disgrace them in the meantime? How would Francis like the Manelli treatment applied to him and his tenure in Argentina as rector of a seminary, bishop and Archbishop?
Do not be fooled. This is another instalment of the Stalinian purge Francis is executing. When Francis is done with this, the TLM and orthodoxy will get out of the window of the diocese as fast as practicable.
The man is an utter disgrace, a damn clerical Che, and a tool of Satan.
Let us pray the Lord every day that He may, in His mercy, free us from this horrible, if utterly deserved punishment.
This little service announcement is to remind you (or “inform you” for the “new entries”) of simple rules of this blog. Please note that this little effort is regularly above 100,000 pageviews a month, there are a lot of messages and, as natural, a lot of dangers; then there is the issue of time, too.
1. For the “smarties” among you: this is not a forum. You waste your time if you think you can bring your luv propaganda here. “Dialogue” with error doesn’t live here. I do not have a very democratic mind. I think tolerance of error is way overrated.
Waste as much time as you wish on my comment box, I will only need a fraction of a second to trash it. I am not angry if you don’t like my blog, but I don’t oblige you to read it, either, much less to comment on it. My combox is my living room. If I don’t like you, you won’t enter my living room.
2. I do not publish comments in languages I can’t understand, or links to blogs in lanaguages I can’t understand. Many of them are, I am sure, orthodox. But I don’t want to run the risk of helping the wrong crowd, and looking like an idiot in the process.
3. I try to check everything that gets published. Not in order to check that I approve of it, but in order to check that no overtly (that is: ideologically) wrong material enters my blog. Therefore, every comment with a link is, in fact, just as long as the linked material is. Therefore, if you publish a comment with a link do not be surprised if the comment does not get published. If you publish a comment with more than one link, be prepared for it. Private messages with interesting links are always welcome, though, and I will visit the links as time allows.
4. I have a very poor sense of humour (no, really). I take comments seriously (yes, really) as I think that the comments do as much as the posts in “forming” the mind of the reader, instructing him, strenghtening him for the battles ahead. If, therefore, a comment can be read, say, as pro or against Sedevacantism, it will be trashed. If it contains irony that can be read in two ways, it will be trashed. If I am in doubt whether it contains undue mockery (bear with me here: I am not a morther tongue), it will be trashed. As you can see from my blog, I am no friend of ambiguity.
5. Please stick to the point. I have no time, and no patience, for side tracking of the discussion. If I have written a blog post about, say, Richard Nixon and Pope Paul VI, comments about Richard Nixon and Vietnam will be trashed.
6. Please be concise. I have a life to live, a job to work on, a place to keep tidy (single male! Ha!), and a blog to write. I do not have time for long comments. I am writing this after midnight, and my shirt for tomorrow is not pressed yet. If you love long comments and think the world should read them, you should seriously think of starting your own blog, but I need ironing time… 😉 .
7. It has happened in the past that occasional, and even one or two regular commenters on this blog have written offensive comments about my character on other blogs, then have continued to write comments here as if nothing had happened, praising me for this and that. Gladly, they were only a handful; but they were, and are, all banned.
Again, you don’t have to like me. But be enough of a man to be coherent and make your choices about whom you like and where you comment.
If I liked double tongues, I’d be a fan of Francis.
Thanks for your patience. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
The “soon, soon!” Reblog
This is the answer Francis allegedly gave to the request of the parents Manelli, with six among their children members of the order.
The request was:
“Holy Father, we have nine children, six of whom are consecrated among the Franciscans of the Immaculate. We beg you, take them out of the sepulchre.”
Now, what this means should not be difficult to understand: the persecution of the FFI will “soon, soon” come to an end.
Only, the Bishop of Rome is a Jesuits, and to Jesuits words mean what he want them to mean in the moment.
Therefore, it might well mean that the FFI are about to be – say – merged with old Sixty-Eighters of some other dying but still numerous order, or forced to adopt a lax rule, or forbidden from celebrating the Traditional…
View original post 193 more words
I received this on my postbox from Pollyanna. I publish without comment.
As we all know, our Holy Father has been unjustly slandered in the matter of the FFI. It has now emerged that on 10 June there was a big meeting between Francis, the evil Father Volpi, and several dozen Friars. I would like here to defend our wonderful Holy Father from the unjust accusations that will be moved against him. My position is proved by the following points.
1. Pope Francis has received the Friars. How won-der-ful this is! He is full of caring solicitude for his sheep!
2. Father Volpi, the evil friar who keeps Francis in the dark about the persecution of the FFI, was also there. This I found a bit strange, but I think it was because our wonderful Holy Father is so nice to everyone!
3. It is reported that…
View original post 667 more words
From Call me Jorge, an interesting insight about what kind of utterly deluded, or more likely perverted tools nowadays go undisturbed under the name of Franciscans, whilst the perfectly orthodox Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate continue to suffer persecution and slander from the “who am I to judge”-Bishop of Rome.
The complicity of these people with sodomites does not stop at shutting up towards sexual perversion, or at playing it down with the usual “oh but we all all called to chastity anyway, so what’s new” rubbish.
No. The intrepid friars positively encourage sodomitical behaviour under the banner of the “gay Pope”: the infamous and never retracted “who am I to judge?”. They absolutely want the sodomites to know that they are on their side (or, in alternative, that they are like them). They put themselves at the end of the scandalous “parade” (during which they must…
View original post 214 more words
The Extraordinary Synod is rapidly approaching, and there is now no day without an interview of some Bishop or Cardinal, taking the one or the other side.
In the middle of all this turmoil, one thing is clear: whether Francis will dare to break taboos or not, he is causing the breaking of taboos to be discussed; freely, openly, as a matter of course.
Already it is discussed whether the canonical process of annulment should be (official word) “streamlined”. Already, “streamlined” might mean that the bishop, or a structure set up by him, should decide about annulments in a “non-juridical” way. Already, some say that not even this is necessary, but a prayerful “sit in” with the priest should at least achieve what many concubines, in the end, want: village respectability.
The pattern is well-known and has been long experimented: some total revolutionary (Kasper) proposes the totally revolutionary solution of tolerating but not accepting communion for concubines and assorted adulterers, meaning: having the sacrilegious praxis become everyday fare. After this, a “moderate” (Scola) will come out, proposing among other things (Mundabor’s commentary: what a slimy b@st@rd!) a thinkable solution for annulments that is every bit as savagely diabolical, but has the merit of sounding more moderate; because you see, the idea is not to violate the rules; merely to make a mockery of them in the first place.
Suddenly, nothing is sacred anymore. The way how to slaughter a sacrament is a subject of discussion, debate, essays, interviews, books. Suddenly, Truth is perceived as fighting for its existence.
In the meantime, Francis enjoys the lío. Catholic against Catholic, Cardinal against Cardinal. The open confrontation is, certainly, obligatory for the right side; but still, the very fact that such a confrontation exists will confuse countless Catholics, and persuade countless non-Catholics that there is no point in converting. If even Cardinals quarrel with each other about the Truth, what is Truth? And is this most un-Christian of all Pilate-like slogans not, itself, ceaselessly promoted by TMAHICH, with his insisted criticism of “excessive doctrinal security”? Can a slogan ever be more meant to promote lió than this, apart from the “who am I to judge” nuclear device?
Is this enough lío for you?
Are you still trying to read Francis through, of all people, Benedict?
I bet it is enough for TMAHICH. He is, for all the world to see, the Pope who “breaks taboos” and “paves the way for a new era”. Not for him, very probably, to be the one who lets the bombs explode. He will, very probably, be happy with being the one who made the explosions thinkable in the first place, put the bombs in place, and armed them. He does not need to be the one who orders the explosions in order to be loved by countless infidels for the rest of his life. He will be on the safe side avoiding the biggest detonations. Nothing better than reaping the fruits of a revolution without the dangers of real armed combat. The perks, I suppose, of being a shameless and faithless Pope.
Reading Francis through… what?
Believe me, TMAHICH can be best read through Saul Alinsky, or Karl Marx, or Hans Küng, and I doubt he is one bit better than any of them.
He is sowing strife and controversies, breaking taboos, attacking sacraments, insulting the Blessed Virgin, disfiguring Christ, perverting the most basic rules of Christianity, without even the risk of a major revolt.
He will, I think, very publicly stop those who want to detonate the bombs. The excited Pollyannas will hail him as the saviour of Catholicism, whilst the mainstream idiots – bar very few, extreme idiots – will buy the “prudent moderniser Pope” without a second thought.
How do you like lío?
It is there now; dished in front of you every day; pickaxing at Catholicism every day God sends on this earth.
Please. Please. Please.
Free us from this scourge.
I generally devote to Father Nicholson the attention I dedicate to the blathering Dumbos: zero. I would love to continue with this, in my eyes, very sensible praxis; but Father Nicholson has left such a pool of stinking piss all over the floor, that the very pungent smell compels me to say a word or two about this disgraceful, intellectually challenged man, a disgrace for the habit he wears.
As many of you will know, Father Nicholson has not only compared the SSPX to satanists; he has maintained that the SSPX-promoted reparation mass for the black mass in Oklahoma is… worse than the black mass itself!
Stop here, and calm yourself. Do you generally get angry at the senseless blathering of a child? Thought not…
Let us first see where Father Dumdum is leading us here.
The Pontiff Emeritus has lifted the excommunication on people who are, in their acts, worse than Satanists; the Vatican has structures devoted to the dealing with people worse than Satanists; the Vatican has declared that these people, worse than Satanists, are in communion, though they embarrassingly (for them) tend to call this communion “imperfect”; a Cardinal has received people worse than Satanists only a few days ago, and released a very gentle communiqué about the matter.
I could go on, but you get the gist: Father Nicholson is just plain thick.
But let us now try to start a journey in the workings of this child's brain, and discover the reason for his extremely stupid affirmation, and childish pooping outside of the WC.
The man is, at his core, a Nazi. Better: he is a Nazi child. In his little mind, obedience to the Pope is all that matters, and there is nothing demanding from us a higher allegiance, on earth or in heaven. This is 100% Führerprinzip, and Father Nicholson has devoted to it all the scarce neurons at his command; with the smelling result I have just described.
These people may be stupid, but they are dangerous. Particularly so, when the clerical garb they wear induces other not-too-bright people to give credence to their absurd blathering. This is the most extreme form of clericalism you can find; a de facto deification of the Pope perfectly identical to the Nazi de facto deification of Adolf Hitler. This is purest heresy.
If I do not say an angel, but a Pope comes to him and tells him things in contrast with truth, not only Father Nicholson believes him like the dumdum he is; but he also accuses everyone who happens to side with 2000 years of Christianity of being… worse than Satanists!
Boy, this is one who has to be sent back I do not say in the seminary, but in the kindergarten.
Father Nicholson is the perfect Nazi. Hitler would be very proud of him.
Satan is, I am sure, rather pleased too.
Pray for Father Dumbo. He is in great need of it.
Concerning the matter in the title, I beg not to be counted among the optimists. I do not believe in the least that any sincere reconciliation effort will come from the Vatican. If any rapprochement were to be seen, it would probably only be aimed at dividing the SSPX, as already seen in 2011.
Still: it shall be allowed, I hope, to play a bit. Let us imagine, them, what would be reasonable and acceptable to the right side.
The principle that what the Church has always held stays, and that the SSPX has the right to refuse strange novelties, is too banal to merit discussion. The principle that in whatever V II documents have declared that is in harmony with Truth cannot be logically denied is also too banal to waste time on it. The fact that V II was a merely pastoral Council is also an undisputable fact for every sound Catholic.
The problem is, if you ask me, another: control. The Vatican might want to attract the SSPX in a mortal embrace, and they might even be ready to make concessions for this. But the SSPX will – I am sure of this – not accept any agreement that puts them at the mercy of the V II Church. Not with Benedict as Pope, much less with Francis.
Therefore, the issue, and the litmus test of the Vatican's honesty in any agreement, will be that of independence.
Own seminaries, own finances, complete freedom from episcopal interference, and – as unavoidable consequence – complete freedom to criticise Pope Francis and V II left, right and centre. Nothing else would be acceptable, nothing less should be accepted, and nothing else will.
Unacceptable for the Vatican? So be it. Profitable in the longer term, or just the Catholic thing to do? Welcome.
In theory, there would be an upside for Francis: the “mercy” rhetoric and the “inclusiveness” propaganda, and the personal satisfaction of having “succeeded” where Benedict failed. In practice, it will never happen: those who hate Catholicism, that is, Francis' audience and applauding public, would turn against him faster than you can say “Ricca”, and the myth of the revolutionary Pope would die a fast but horribly painful death, without making him more popular among true blue Catholics in the least. A heretic remains a heretic even if he embraces a saint.
Back to the issue of acceptable compromise, it is clear there can be no compromises on what is not negotiable (the issues of the Liturgy, of religious freedom, etc). It is also clear it would be suicide – an act Fellay or his would never commit – to deliver themselves to the mercy of V II Popes, who would – this, or the next, or the following one – subject the SSPX to the FFI treatment.
This, I think, is the inescapable frame of any serious discussion, or lack thereof.
Of course, the SSPX would not maintain that all of VII was evil. V II was a modernist mixture of truth and lie, and one can't deny the truth just because the Devil says it. Rather, the SSPX will maintain that everything that is not truth must be expunged from the teaching and the praxis of the Church; and that V II was, as a whole, the work of the devil in its mentality and inspiration, which both must be expunged from the Church, too.
Will, or should, the SSPX demand that the Vatican goes back to sanity before accepting reconciliation? Of course not. If the work of the SSPX can go on in exactly the same way, to refuse a freely offered reconciliation would be tantamount to elevating the SSPX to a parallel church, of which the Vatican is not worthy. It would be like refusing the blessing of a priest because one does not like the priest. One may despise the man, but one will still recognise the office.
This is, I think, the only possible frame of a reconciliation. At the same time, this is why the reconciliation will not work as long as The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) is in power.
Even a “gratuitous” exercise of “mercy” would be too expensive for the Vatican.
They know perfectly well how mercilessly the same people would attack them, who are now the beneficiaries of the fake “mercy” they peddle around.
Condomgate continues to rage and, if it was necessary, shows with increasing evidence the damage made to the Catholic cause by the careless example chosen by the Holy Father.
As I have (easily) predicted in the past, the discussion is now – among cafeteria catholics and all those who don’t want to accept Church teaching whenever it doesn’t suit them – about the Pope not having justified the use of condoms in certain circumstances, but having justified it anyway or, in some other version, being wrong in not doing it. In both cases, dissent is rearing its ugly head. This is a serious matter because we are not talking of individual weakness here, but of rebellion. Rebellion is the realm of Satan and his minions. A Catholic must accept the teaching and when he sees himself unable to understand it he must pray that he may get the…
View original post 842 more words
From some sides (and not only from the usual suspects, like Kasper) comes the idea to “delegate” the issue of annulment to the bishop. This is a frontal attack on marriage, and one is surprised that even a cardinal like Scola, whom one would have said more sound than to express such ideas, would even be an accomplice in launching these ballons d’essai.
I am not a canonist, but I am a sincere and devout Catholic. Qualities which, it is clearer every day, most of our Cardinals simply lack, and in the most grievous way. Let us see, then, what a devout Catholic (one who fears the Lord because he believes in his existence, loves Christ and His Church, and is aware of the importance of the Sacraments) must think of these ideas.
1. One does not need to be a genius to know that many dioceses in the West are the Catholic equivalent of Dresden after the carpet bombings. Whatever is entrusted to the bishop is going to become a pig’s breakfast, period. If one does not understand this simple concept, I question his intelligence.
2. But the proposal is much worse: it is a “streamlined”, in the sense of “non juridical”, in the sense of “no tribunal and process”- exercise. It is annulment for the “asking” and the “feeling”, with the fig leave of the bishop’s “quality guarantee”. This is simply atrocious. This would have devastating consequence not only on the Sacrament itself, which must be our first worry; but on the perception of both the institution and sacrament of marriage, and the rule concerning marriage annulment.
Titius lives in Diocese A. Diocese A is run by a fairly strict bishop, and annulments are fairly rare. His wife ran away with Sam, the Harley-Davidson driver with a penchant for alcohol and fights, but whom his wife found so excitingly wild. Titius bears his cross with patience, and Christian resignation. I do not know if he lives like a monk (I never ask such details; I am not his confessor, after all…), but a public scandal like an open mistress, or a concubine – and yes: Titius knows even a civilly remarried woman is still a concubine – is not in the cards.
His colleague, Gaius (yes, yes! That one! The one who left his wife, bought a sports car and sleeps with Vanessa, the buxom PA of the HR Department!) has now moved together with Vanessa in a sleek apartment in the city centre. He has a very liberal bishop. Annulments are, in his diocese, pretty much given for the asking. Gaius doesn’t really care for an annulment in the first place (hey, “Gad is luv!”), but Vanessa is a cafeteria Catholic of the “who am I to judge” sort and with a stricter mother. As such, she does not want to “feel judged”. A Catholic marriage will it, therefore, have to be. So romantic. Forevah and evah! Her girlfriends will envy her so much!
Give it ten years, and the sacrament of marriage will be made a mockery fit for kindergarten jokes. .
And we know that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHIC) would not be stingy with appointment a’ la Cupich, and his new little wolves would eat the Sacrament for breakfast. How can people who go around saying “who am I to judge” be given the task to judge of the validity of a marriage, be it the bishop concerning the marriage of the sheep, of the sheep concerning their own marriage? Who are they to judge? And therefore, who are they to decide?
The cancer would spread. One praxis here, another ten miles away; but most of them, very bad. Worlds apart, divided by diocese boundaries, but with very frequent abuses. Sacraments that are taken or not taken seriously – and generally aren’t – according to where a parish happens to be situated. Countless like Gaius and Vanessa queuing every Sunday to receive communion, in line together with countless like Titius above.
If this does not destroy at the very root the public perception of marriage as a sacred vow and lifelong commitment made in front of Christ, I do not know what could.
Yes, the Remnant would continue to be faithful. But a vast number of Catholics would still, whatever lie they have told to themselves, eat and drink their own damnation, with the bishop’s smiling approval. Thinking, perhaps, that if Christ allows the wolves to take over the Sacrament they should not be punished for eating of the wolves’ prey. Fools.
It is madness to think that Jesus said: “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, unless the bishop is ‘merciful’ “.
Marriage is marriage. Things are things. Truths are truths. Jesus won’t be fooled by Kasper or Scola, and Kasper and Scola are first-class fools if they think they can exempt the faithful from the observance of Jesus’ rules. This is the reason why the canonical process is often long and tedious, or costly; and the reason why easy annulments are, already today, seen as a great danger for both the sacrament and the social institution. But today, the complexity of the process is in place to defend the sacredness of the sacrament. Tomorrow, the banality of the non-juridical process could utter destroy the perception of its sacredness.
I am, also, angry whenever I hear that people complain that the actual canonical process is long.
*You are married, for Pete’s sake*. It’s not that you have the right to already “feel” that you are free from your marital bond, and think you have the right to be impatient for the slowness with which the tribunal fedexes the papers to you.
*Until the annulment comes You are married, period*. You are not “perhaps” married; you are not married “but I do not think I am really married, you know”; you are not married “only when the tribunal refuses the annulment”; you are not “really married to my new wife”.
What you “feel” counts zero. Your “new life” counts zero. Your “new family” isn’t one.
On the contrary: you are married to that other woman (oh yes! The one who isn’t as attractive as Vanessa! and if must be, even the one who ran away with the Harley-Davidson driver!). Your new life is a sacrilege and an open defiance to God. Your children are *born out of wedlock*. Your assumed wife is a concubine. Your family is formed by you and the wife you married.
This is harsh, you say. Life itself is very harsh. It’s a vale of tears. A training camp for heaven. No one ever promised a paradise on earth. Angry? Complain with Adam and Eve! And yourself!
Life is harsh, by the way, for everyone: married and single, rich and poor, ugly and beautiful, intelligent and stupid. Each one has his own cross to bear, and many bear crosses that are not of their choosing. The woman who left you, at least is the one you decided to marry. The husband who drinks, at least he is the one you chose to spend your life with. Cross as it undoubtedly is, it is a cross of one’s own choosing. The marital bed is always a bed of one’s own making, and this is another simple fact of life that simply does not enter the mind of the Kasper of this world, and is never mentioned in the newspapers. But our mothers and grandmothers knew it very well, our fathers and grandfathers had no doubts about it.
I think this proposal is purest madness. The equivalent of making a lottery for annulments, or a self-check counter. It will cause countless desecrations, and it will completely demolish the very idea of lifelong commitment among all but the most solidly instructed, or unusually pious.
I am not a canonist, but I can’t imagine Jesus’ rules are at any Cardinal’s disposal. if you ask me, no Cardinal can dispose of them, and therefore no Gaius or Vanessa can think they can with impunity avail themselves of the special “Kasper” or “Scola rule”. If it were so, then nothing in Catholicism would have any right to existence. Confessions could be made via smartphone app via pastoral decision of the bishop. Communion could be extended to cats and dogs, if their owner say “amen” for them with the right disposition. Communion could, in fact, be extended to people just coming from a drunken orgy; because hey, if one seeks the lord and has good will, who are we to judge? The perversion of Catholicism via pastoral decision of an extraordinary synod would have no limits.
What is happening is authentically diabolical. And even if it were not to become reality this year or next year, taboos are being broken every day, and an atmosphere of lio spread all over the West.
Let’s hope that the Lord rids us of TMAHICH soon, one way of the other. Let’s pray for it.
This Pope is a Catholic nightmare.
One of the unlinkable dissenting sites report of an openly homosexual Jesuit Seminarian who has now, after ten years trying to become a priest, decided to leave the Seminary because of the firing of several perverts from Catholic schools and institutions in the last months. “I can't be a Catholic right now”, or words to that effect, is the comment of the little fag.
Let us observe all that is wrong here; because, as so often in the case of Jesuits, the mistakes here pile up like as many strata of Satan's shit cake.
1. Ten years of attempts. Seriously? Are Jesuits of the opinion unless one is old one can't receive orders? Or did the man not even manage to become a friar in all this time? What happens with the money of the faithful? I am, here, hoping this is not the normal case, and the extremely costly exercise was due to the perverted nature of the little faggot. Which leads us to the next point…
2. How can it be that a man who openly proclaims his own perversion is allowed to remain in the seminary? Officially? For how many… ten years? What part of “deeply rooted homosexual tendency” was unclear here?
3. What does this say not only of this pathetic nutcases but of the deciders in that seminary? What does it say of the rector? Is he homosexual, too? Why on earth would anyone, upon being told one is a pervert, persist in trying to make of him a friar, or even a priest? I smell faggotry from a mile here. Diffused faggotry. Faggotry unashamedly practiced, defended and promoted under the thinnest of veils. These chaps (or girls) have allowed an open faggot to stay in the seminary for many years: how many closet faggots walk along the corridors of that seminary? What positions they have? How can it be that the rot has not set at the top of the institution?
4. The unlinkable site reports, with more than a hint of sympathy, an astonishing affirmation of the little Jesuit fag: he can't be a Catholic right now, because of the treatment of the above mentioned perverts.
This beggars belief: a man able to put his own faggotry before his very own Catholic identity was allowed to stay in a Jesuit seminary all these years! What does this tell us about the quality and sexual orientation of the average friar – or priest – going out of that particular seminary?
Jesuits are a plague. Not 100% of them of course. But in general, Jesuits are a plague. An order fully in the thrall of Satan, spreading error and sexual perversion from schools, universities and seminaries; letting out in the world, without a doubt, a number – limited, thankfully, because they are dying – of either open perverts, or closet perverts, or people so accustomed to perversion and malformed in a perverted sexual climate that they are a real danger for the souls of those around them.
The little faggot has written a letter to Francis: TMAHICH, “who am I to judge”-Supremo, and Great Merciful Protector Of Worldwide Faggotry.
Now: TMAHIC is notoriously affect by logorrhoea, a phone addict, and a first-class double-tongued Jesuit. It will be interesting to see whether Francis does respond to the letter in writing, ignores the little fag altogether, or prefers one of those ominous phone calls at the end of which the little faggot will tell the world that Francis told him what a hero he is, and Francis does not deny or confirm any of the content. Scandal is spread, plausible deniability is attempted, the Pollyannas are happy the oh so holy Father did nothing wrong, the perverts exult, the Catholics are confused.
Just another Jesuit's day.