Daily Archives: January 5, 2022
As not only Frankie, but apparently other people are confused about the tragedy of sexual perversion, I think it will be good to explain a couple of things.
Firstly: homosexuality is not a sin. Homosexuality is a perversion. The person who is homosexual has a huge problem in what he is, because homosexuality is something one is, not something one does.
The sin of sodomy is the sin that perverts practice when they act on their perverted attitude. Sodomy is not something a pervert is, it is something a pervert does.
Being homosexual does not compel anyone to engage in sodomy any more than being a pedophile compels one to rape children. Perverted humans are still human. They do not become animals compelled to a certain behaviour like a sporty cat seeing a mouse, or a hungry lion spotting a gazelle. Humans have agency. Homos are humans. Homos have agency.
From this follows that no homo is ever more justified in engaging in sodomy than a pedophile is justified in engaging in child rape. If this does not make perfect sense to you, you are already advanced in the ways of Father Georgina, and I can smell the brimstone from here.
Saint Francisco Wheelcharius was recently quoted with saying that many homos can access the sacrament of penance (which they clearly can) and the church “helps them to move forward in their lives”. What he has not said is how this moving forward would actually happen.
The homosexual approaching the confessional should do so in horror of the horrible sin of sodomy and in disgust of the horrible perversion of homosexuality. If this horror and disgust are not there, how can said homo “move forward in his life”? If the homosexual does not deeply loathe his perversion, how can he present himself in front of Christ and hope for a valid absolution? Such a person would be a person who approves of his perversion, and therefore condemns Christ as homophobic. This seems a moving backward to me; it seems, to me, a sacrilege.
I wonder now: when Saint Francisco Wheelcharius speaks of moving forward, does this entail that total rejection of both the perversion and the sin? If this is the case, the guy could bloody well mention it, as this is not a trifling matter. In fact, if this is not said with very clear words, it would almost look like, for Francis, homosexuality unavoidably means sodomy, and the “moving forward” is a motion of a sodomite who remains such.
Am I being harsh here? I don’t think so. Why would I give any slack to a man who keeps living under the roof of a notorious homosexual and receives screeching pro-homo Jesuits who talk, look and gesticulate as deviant just as Stalin looked communist? As I have read somewhere, if he talks like a fag, walks like a fag and quacks like a fag, he is very probably a fag.
There. I have said it. Saint Francisco Wheelcharius will hate me. But then again, he might be a fag himself, so I not sure I will be impressed.