Cardinal Pell, Settling The Scores, And The Statute Of Limitation

Thought I would post this here...

In another very eventful day, Cardinal Pell was forced to leave his post and fly back to Australia to defend himself from charges of boys molestation.

I take these charges cum grano salis. Two men apparently allege that the Cardinal touched them inappropriately in… the Seventies. Unless the two have been frozen shortly after the alleged facts and have been thawed very recently, I would take such accusations with great, great care.

Not, mind, that I consider Pell above suspicion. It is merely that in my eyes this thing of criminal proceedings for alleged facts of the Seventies has to stop, and it has to stop in any case; unless it is for genocide or, just perhaps, multiple murder.

Statutes of limitation exist exactly to avoid easy abuses like the one we might be confronted here; and in any case it is very reasonable to say that he who has shut up for forty years, including at least three decades of adulthood, should now forever hold his tongue; too many nameless priests have already had their lives ruined by people imagining, or pretending, to remember episodes many decades later. Madness, says I. Let us learn from civilised countries like Italy (last time I looked at least) and let us put an end to this nonsense.

My gut feeling (which might be wrong) is that someone is trying to settle scores with Cardinal Pell by slinging dirt at him; and not finding anything of KO value, has recurred to the easily trumped-up accusations of people in their forties. What a coincidence, huh? As we all know, some of the dirt will stick anyway.

Imagine how easy would be to make such accusations against Burke, Caffarra, or Brandmueller. Some old fag willing to state he thinks he remembers he was molested et voilà, the reputation is gone forever.

But even if I am wrong, and Pell is guilty, and obviously a fag or a perv, the statute of limitation should apply anyway. We are sliding into witch hunt land, and this makes it too easy to target good people.

M

 

Cardinal CockLovingErio?

Who will, who will then be the Cardinal who abetted the homo orgies of his own trusted Monsignor in the same building of the CDF?

We don't know. 'Course we don't. We don't take part in homo orgies, do we now?

However, this Cardinal – whoever he may be; and who will he be, one wonders? – must perforce be a damn fag so much smelling of dirt that his sheep must smell him from the Castelli Romani! Francis will be so pleased at his man carrying with him such a fashionable fragrance. They can them fudge packers for a reason after all.

We don't know who this Cock living Cardinal is. But what we know is that there is a pretty notorious Cardinal who might well be him.

Who, you will ask?

Who?

Ah, dear readers, don't be so curious! Don't you know that many of these Cardinals are either homos themselves, or blackmailed by the homo lobby because of indiscretions in their private lives, or are just too terrified to go against Francis and his rainbow-coloured minions?

Can't wait for the same revelations happening about, say, Monsignor Ricca.

We know who his “Cardinal” is.

M

 

On The Necessity Of Limbo

How can you refuse it heaven?

After reading this article I felt the need to add my own considerations. Limbo is not only theologically necessary, but also logically so.

If murdering an innocent child were enough to merit him paradise, aborting a child would be the most merciful thing one can do to any soul. Nazi and Commie genocides were, unwittingly, the greatest benefactors. Every pregnant mother would have an influence on the soul of her boy of literally infinite importance, a power much bigger than the one of great saints in heaven. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Planned Parenthood would be great benefactors, more relevant than any great saint.

Actually, a religion proposing the killing of the unborn with great success would be more efficacious in sending souls to heaven than the Church. Conversely, the desire to have a child born would be no more than this: the risk of the loss of infinite beatitude in heaven for the selfish desire to see one's own children grow, or to allow them to live a handful of decades in this imperfect vale of tears dominated by injustice, disease, decay and, of course, sin and the snares of the devil. Monstrous selfishness would this be.

The absurdity of the conclusion demonstrates the absurdity of the premise from a logical point of view alone; without even considering the dogma.

We live in time of such confusion that people spread heresy and blasphemy and feel that they are the good guys, because in their fantasy world God could never be, erm, the One the Church has taught us about for 2000 years. Their fake god is a strange mixture of satanical licence and sugary, effeminate, all-pervading fake love that, by denying all the rest (from justice to faith, to the obedience due to Christ) denies the very love it wants to upheld.

We must cut this rubbish and go back to Christianity.

Hell exists.

Original Sin is very real.

Baptism is extremely important.

The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons.

All self-evident truths many are trying to forget.

This senseless good-ism is the work of the devil, and it has to stop.

M