Daily Archives: June 13, 2015
Well, this is not unbelievable. But only, of course, because we have been accustomed to the otherwise unbelievable.
Riscossa Cristiana (article in Italian) reports that Francis will meet in July a “married” pervert activist.
The meeting is, reports the original source (the Italian newspaper “Il Giornale”), due to the initiative of the Vatican. In plain English, this means that the perv did not even dream of such a platform, but Francis insists on giving it to him.
Even more disquieting is the fact that the meeting is allegedly due to the “role of the organisation in the society” of the Country (Paraguay) in which the pervert (Argentinian like Bergoglio) and his organisation are active. This cannot but be interpreted as the acknowledgment of a positive role.
Open your big, blue eyes here. Francis is doing whatever he can to promote the cause of institutionalised perversion. He is pushing the homo agenda out of his own initiative, preventing any initiative from the other side. he truly wants to side with them, he wants to help them in ways which go beyond their wildest hopes.
And now yours truly must pose the question: is this Pope homosexual?
Who, other than a pervert, would go to such extent to defend and promote the cause of these disgusting individuals, and he the Pope? Who, indeed, if not a pervert?
What an utterly disgusting, filthy old man the Cardinals have picked.
Pray for him, that he may embrace Catholicism and, actually, Christianity.
Pray for the Church, that she may be freed from this rotten man.
Pray for all of us, that we may be happily obtain entrance to Purgatory notwithstanding the diabolical disorientation spread by this walking disgrace.
God will not be fooled. The fool, here, is Francis; together, of course, with those who follow him in his satanical way, or celebrate it, or cover it in any way.
You cannot believe the kind of rubbish the fake catholic sites will print in order to deny reality.
After the huge uproar even before the release of the encyclical (no surprise about that, when Enviro-Dr-Goebbels advises the Pope) we are told (here the link that does not link) that we should simply relax: hey, Popes have always loved a tree, right?
This is the usual smoke bomb of the Catholic libtards, and it might be useful to say a word or two: there is an immense difference between being a friend of the environment and being an environmentalist. Catholicism teaches to use Creation with respect, it does not teach to make of Creation a religion.
Francis made a first huge step in the wrong direction in that he accepts the environ-madness of Prof. Schellnhuber & Co; so much so, that he allows the man to be of the three (and the only layman) who introduce the rubbish work to the press. Having made the first, hugely wrong step, other absurd mistakes (none of them promoted by past Popes, let alone Church teaching) will be unavoidable: the world government madness to keep environment and poverty in check, the enmity with even normal Western lifestyle, and the like. Further steps the Evil Clown will not openly endorse, but they are the unavoidable consequence of such thinking: population control in form of massive recourse to contraception and abortion.
Grima Wormtongue can tell us not to fuss as much as he wants, but this encyclical will be a huge shame for the Church. Not because it will introduce any new “truth”, but certainly because it will show to the posterity what kind of talking ass was made Pope in 2013.
The likes of Prof Schellnhuber shape Papal policy on the environment. This truly says it all.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15).
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Mark 6:11)
I can’t hear anymore that now widespread lie according to which “Jesus does not mention homosexuality”. Let us clarify a couple of things, shall we?
It is known even to Elton John that for around 6,000 years both Jews and Christians have said “sodomites” to indicate those culpable of practising sodomy and other forms of same-sex sexual perversion. If anyone is so stupid that he believes that 200 generations could be wrong concerning what the Bible means, than he is also too stupid to be helped. But the others, they certainly will not have any doubt.
Also, whoever has a minimum of acquaintance with the Gospel knows the fiery, imaginative, powerful language often used by Our Lord. He makes his point in a very emphatic way. He hammers it down the ears of the listeners. He uses expression like “depart from me, you cursed, in everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” instead of “I should make you aware that when you die you might get in some big trouble because you did not help the poor”.
It must also be said that the Jews in the time of Jesus (and all Jews and Christians afterwards) had no doubt whatsoever about the gravity and depravity of the homosexual acts. We all know that the refusal of such sexual perversion was very strong among the Jews, and that they took the Genesis episode extremely seriously.
Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. (Genesis 19: 24-25).
There can be no doubt, no hesitation whatsoever in the realisation that every single adult listener and reader of Our Lord’s word in the following 2,000 years was perfectly aware of the sins in question, of their gravity, and of the gravity of the perversion that gives rise to them.
In the episode mentioned above, Jesus is making a very simple point: those who refuse to receive the Apostle and hear their words – those, in a word, who refuse to accept the message and authority of Christ through those he has sent to spread it – are culpable of an extremely grave sin; a sin whose gravity has quite a new quality, in obvious correspondence with the new situation created by the Incarnation. Therefore, Jesus expresses the gravity of the refusal to receive His truth in a very emphatic way: saying that those who make themselves culpable of such a sin will be punished even more gravely than those culpable of the very epitome of extremely gravely sinful behaviour: the Sodomites and the Gomorrheans, in which drawer all sexual pervs, trannies, and assorted freak shows find easily a place.
The point is so simple, so evident, and made so loudly that there is no explanation how anyone could say that Jesus does not mention homosexuality, other than the fact that the ones who talks in such a way has never read the Gospel.
Here, the obfuscation artists try to hide behind the usual V II finger and state that Jesus is speaking of sodomy qua behaviour, not homosexuality qua “attraction”. This is a typical madness of the new times, and one that no one applies to any issue other than homosexuality. No one says, for example, that pedophilia as attraction is not a problem, only raping children is. A perversion can never be a behaviour, and therefore never a sin in itself; but there is no doubt that logic and sanity demand that the perversion be condemned as perversion with the same energy with which we condemn the behaviour as behaviour.
Here, Jesus is speaking of an extremely bad behaviour. A behaviour that was considered, so to speak, almost – and bar blasphemy, and the like – the mother of all bad behaviours. But no sane person can have any doubt that the perversion is grave in the same proportion as the act following upon it is sinful. There is no way the inclination to commit incestuous acts can be considered something, in the sphere of perversions, lighter than the act of committing incest in the sphere of behaviour; or that the inclination to screw one’s own dog is little matter, and it only gets bad when one actually does it.
No. If you have a functioning brain you must recognise that Jesus has chosen the extremely grave perversion of homosexuality to express, in the extremely grave sin of sodomy it originates, the sin of all sins bar the direct refusal of God. There is simply no way you can accept the gravity of sodomy whilst downplaying the perversion that originates it. This is not the way logic works, and is not the way every single reader or listener of the Gospel in these 2,000 years would have understood it.
Jesus did not touch on homosexuality? Please, please let us stop with this nonsense.