Synod: Francis And Satan Are Dancing The Tango, Part Two
Continuing our short comment over the satanic abomination published by the Vatican yesterday, we find the argument of sexual perversion introduced.
This is, make no mistake, the clear indication that the Homomafia is now running the show at the Vatican, helped by the man who, whether a homosexual himself or not, decided they were not a problem because they don’t go around with the “Vatican Gay Lobby ID card”. Today, for a change, I will abandon the “what they really said” method.
If you ever wondered why Francis buried in the sand the famous 300 page report, you can cease wondering now.
So, there it goes:
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The smell of brimstone is strong in this one.
I have never heard of “homo detector” devices being put at the entrance of churches, and when it “beeps” people being chased away by ushers crying: “Go away!” “No homosexuals in our church!”
The Church has never forbidden the approach to the altar to pedophiles, homosexuals, murderers, incestuous people, and people screwing animals.
What the Church has always said, is that these are abominations. Therefore, on the one hand no pervert is allowed to act on his perversion, and on the other hand no pervert is allowed to give scandal by advertising it.
Which introduces the problem of “welcoming”. The soul is welcome to contrition and repentance. The homo is not welcome as homo. He is not welcome if, in any way whatsoever, he wants to have his perversion accepted, “valued”, “evaluated”, “appraised” or “appreciated” in any way whatsoever; because this would be welcoming scandal, not souls, and leading souls to hell, not heaven.
The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge.
Homosexuality isn’t a “question”. It’s a sexual perversion. It leads people to hell. Its obvious (not “natural”; actually, unnatural) byproduct, sodomy, cries to heaven for vengeance. It’s in the same ballpark as screwing one’s dog, or one’s father, or one’s little nephew. That’s it. Live with it.
Still, our little Satan’s whores now dare to tell us that such perversion should move us to “elaborate a realistic path of affective growth”. This means, for all but the stupid, that the pervs are encouraged in their “feelings” for each other. The “integration of the sexual dimension” is, and cannot be read in any other way, an acceptance of sodomy, perhaps waiting that two sodomites who are told how much sodomy accompanies them in their “affective growth” then suddenly cease to commit sodomy because… because… no one knows why. The end is another bomb, as the “educative challenge” seem to be addressed not to the homos, but to the Catholic people, who must be “educated” to the “welcoming” of sodomites in their midst.
The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
The little bastards get very sneaky here: as they repeat, with a very low voice, that the sacrament of marriage and two sodomites or lesbians living together in sin aren’t quite the same thing, they effectively put homosexual “couples” almost on the same sexual footing as the sacrament of matrimony. The defence of the doctrine is here reduced to saying that Holy matrimony is still on a better footing than two sodomites living together! O you Angels in heaven, do you hear them??
The gravity of this is immense.
But fear not: there will be Pollyannas around so happy to write that the little whores have “upheld Catholic doctrine”.
Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
More whoring. Open sodomitical scandal is nothing more than a “problem”. Does it lead to damnation? Well, looky here: some faggots make a living out of other faggots! Isn’t this a beautiful “sacrifice” from, say, the old man who pays for the young pervert? I am so moved I want to cry. Do you have a handkerchief?
About the children, we are told that even their adoption from fags and lesbians is now a-ok! Lord, protect us and the little ones from these devils!
————–
I say it once again: there is nowhere to hide. No level of imbecility can justify anyone in pretending that
1. this is not atrociously satanic, and
2. this is not orchestrated by TMAHICH
TMAHICH is the man who put the liberal whores in the team in charge of writing this abomination. TMAHICH is the man who wanted both this Synod and the way it is going. TMAHICH is the man attacking Catholicism at every step, in every way he can.
In a way, and shocking as it is to say this, the situation is not entirely bad. I mean, it is obviously atrocious, but the upside of it is that the mask has fallen. Those who accept to pretend that the mask is still there have abundantly deserved to be punished for their folly, because they obviously value their quiet life and the desire to avoid uncomfortable questions infinitely more than Christ.
Francis here, Christ there. Francis is comfortable and easy, Christ is uncomfortable and difficult.
Pick your side, and pay the price.
Mundabor
Share this:
Posted on October 14, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged Extraordinary Synod 2014 synod, homosexuality, Sodomy, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History TMAHICH. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
I believe that report was brought to the conclave. Threat of exposure garnered votes.
Interesting reflection.
In fact, it would not even be necessary to get one’s hands on it.
Every Cardinal with something to hide in “that” area would be scared of it.
It was culpably weak and naive of Benedict not to act on it.
M
This is so bad. The whole thing is basically about homosexuality and adultery. There’s no need to have a Synod on that. The Catechism is already clear on the topic – – including pastoral care of persons suffering from that disorder or a broken marriage.
In the words of Antonio Socci, a great darkness surrounds Rome.
I’m surprised that perpetually conniving Francis abandoned his slow strangulation strategy (which was working quite well in the world) and pushed this through so quickly and so transparently. I think he messed up.
He probably felt the cretins are dumb enough to swallow it, with a bit of pressure.
Actually, I think he is right.
Look at how he has walked over the bishops…
M
It does not take me by surprise, I’ve been hearing stories about Bergoglio and his special “friends” for years here in Argentina.
Thanks, time then to post a little reminder of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Tango
where originally men danced mostly with men.
Has there ever been such mass delusion in the history of the Church, or mass dissembling by those who must know that what the Pope has been continually doing and saying is all of a single woven piece that is defying the truths of the Faith and the Natural Moral Law? It breaks my heart that so many good people could turn away from the objective truth that they upheld before Francis’s election – it didn’t take much for the majority to compromise (certainly not the threat of losing their life). Lord, have mercy.
IV Century, Arian heresy.
I can’t remember, or imagine, any other time, at least on a Christianity-wide scale.
On a national scale, from what I have read around the destruction of the Church in France during the French revolution must have seemed the Apocalypse to the locals.They certainly thought en masse that the end of the world would not be far.
The world did not end. Around ten years later, though, Catholicism was back with a vengeance: not only allowed, but State Religion.
Thank to God, and Cardinal Consalvi.
M
Shortly after my wife & I first began attending the Tridentine Masses of the ICK, I explained to the priest that it was the abject modernism of a local aux bishop that had sent us there. “Bishop XXX is a great ally of Tradition”, he responded, in jest, meaning that he was pushing people toward the true Mass despite his intentions. That was nearly a decade ago. Now, the Bishop of Rome is doing the same work on a worldwide scale. That is the only benefit of this diabolical work: peoples’ eyes are being opened. People who previously dismissed the Traditionalist story are beginning to understand.
Francis is not an aberration, but the conciliar pope par excellence; he is the fulfillment of the Council.
But my understanding of the Arian heresy is that it was generally limited to bishops, priests or theologians and not many of the lay people were corrupted by it.
I wasn’t there ;), but my reading is that when the bishops betrayed, the laity followed in the great numbers, as it is rather unavoidable that it be so; and a vocal remnant remained, often forced to worship out of their churches.
When it is said that the laity was at the forefront, I think it is meant something like today: only a small number of the Eusebius and Athanasius and Burke and Schneider among the clergy, and a bigger number among the laity, but the minority still.
I can’t imagine Pope Liberius outlawing the Creed in church, unless because of the desire of “going with the tide” (I am, of course, here not even thinking that exile of even threat of death could influence a Pope to somethign like that).
M