Daily Archives: September 6, 2014

For Francis Too, It Takes A Village



One wonders whether there is only one common place of the liberal society that the Unholy Father will leave untapped.

This time, Francis reflected – speaking, as almost always, without a prepared script – on his own school days, when he was being a rascal and the teacher clearly told him “you’ll never be Pope”, or something like that; but this was in the blessed days before Vatican II, so it does not count.

Once again, though, we see that a Pope fully imbibed with secular mentality, and utterly desirous to get along with it, cannot avoid rehashing all its most abused common places.

The idea that you must reeducate the village in order for better children to be raised is so Hillary one wants to vomit. I wonder if he will write a book in it, or perhaps he might embark in the big “It Take A Village Tour” together with the lady in question, explaining to us that it does not take good parents to raise a child properly, but everything is to be seen, in pure secular way, as a collective endeavour. 

Hillary/Frank than goes on to complain about the declining birth rates; which is strange from one who has just downplayed the role of parents in the first place. Hey, if it takes a village I do not need to make children, do I? I will be involved in the raising of the village ones instead, thus feeling I am “making a difference” as I drive a brand new Audi and contracept like it’s going out of fashion. I will not even need to be married in church, either, as if something should “happen” and an unplanned pregnancy occur the Unholy Father himself will be happy to baptise the child of concubines, evidently believing that the heroic feat of not murdering a child is sufficient guarantee of raising a child in the Christian values.

This man is confused about everything but one concept: he will be loved by the masses, and he will do and say whatever it takes to make this happen. One wonders what kind of person would behave like that, and a Pope to boot.

Truly, it takes a nincompoop.





And The Winner Is….?

Now around 18 months in this incredibly challenging (nuEnglish for “rubbish”) pontificate, I am reflecting of what is the most representatively infamous, ignominious, shameless piece of populist nonsense that the Unholy Father, Bishop of Rome, has donated to the world in these 18 months of “uh?”, “ah?” and “no?”. What, in other words, is the piece of rubbish that most immediately explains everything that is wrong with this man? If you had to explain to someone what a clown this Pope is, and had only one example at your disposal

Upon reflection, and mentally reviewing what I remember of the long litany of heresies, blasphemies and simple everyday nonsense, I keep coming back to this pearl of stupidity:

If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?

This is stupid on so many levels, that almost every word is a blunder in itself. Even a retard would have to make a great effort to say something so effortlessly, authentically retarded in such a pity way.

The use of the word “gay” in this context is not only, well, gay*; but it clearly denotes a complicity with the sin of the sodomite, a downplaying of sins crying to heaven for vengeance, and the will to know-tow to popular feeling.

The “search for the Lord” is clearly a misleading statement, as “searching for the Lord” has never excused from mortal sin if the conditions for it are present. Luther probably searched for the Lord, at least when sober, at least when sober and not screwing a nun, at least every now and then when sober, and not screwing a nun; and probably even Mohammed searched for his own Allah when not screwing little girls.

The one with the “good will” is so blindingly retarded I should not waste time with it. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Che Guevara, Himmler, Goebbels, Obama, they all had at some point a good dose of “good will”, that in some of them must have been extreme.

The ways of hell, and all that. Simple common sense. Too much wisdom for The Super Duper Humble Pope.

Then, at the end, the master stroke. Francis is one of us; a bloke from the barrio; a common man of everyday feelings. Nothing special, really.

“Call me Jorge, dear. And yes, I will end up suppressing your Order. No appeal I am afraid. How do you say? You search for the Lord and have good will, too? Who gives a damn? You aren’t “gay”! Heck, you’re even Catholic!”

As Francis plays “man of the people”, he makes the job of the Pope redundant. The Pope is not a moral instance anymore, merely a good chap. He has made the Papacy totally irrelevant to you, which is why you should be so grateful to him. He will be ruthlessly exercising his prerogatives, of course; but only with good Catholics, those who – incidentally – really search the Lord. The world, however, has nothing to fear from him. It will be high-fiving all around.

This is the reason why I think that among the many valid contestants, “who am I to judge” takes the biscuit. Not the most blasphemous statement, or the most heretical; probably not even the most stupid; but in my eyes, the one that tells most of what kind of circus tool this man is. A man who spends his day belittling and undermining the Church he should protect, so that he may become more popular in the process.

If any of you has other suggestions he thinks more worth, he may want to drop a line.

No links, please. Short argument. No digressions.


*”gay” is allowed to decent men as mockery: “this is so gay”, “you are gayer than Elton John”, and the like.

St Patrick’s Day Parade: Two Takes

Monsignor Charles Pope on the removal of his blog post, 4 September 2014, 9:30 pm


I ask your charity and understanding for the Archdiocese of Washington which has always generously sponsored this blog and been supportive of our conversations.


I also hope you will understand if I cannot explain why it was removed.


I am a loyal son of the Church and I love my Archdiocese.

The source is among the comments, here,  5 September 10:23 pm


Monsignor Charles Pope on the removal of his blog post, blog post, 5 September 2014, no time stamp.

Many of you have expressed concern about a blog post I wrote on the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, which was removed. I am grateful for your concern about this and all the issues we discuss here. I removed the post upon further reflection due to the strong nature of the language I had used in parts of it. I apologize if the language I used caused offense.


“Yeah” and “nay” come to mind, but the situation is, admittedly, a difficult one. Methink, Monsignor was ordered to amend the explanation after he was ordered to remove the blog post.

As I write the original post has disappeared in its entirety. There is, therefore, no desire to have it published in an amended form, without the allegedly strong language.

Dear blogger priests, the time has come when if you think about starting a blog, you are well advised to do so anonymously. It will take much longer to build an audience, but you will not have to endure this kind of treatment, and will be free to do your work without being bullied by your bishop.   


Coexist! (Revised And Improved Version)







%d bloggers like this: