Of Fags, Wheelchairs, And Confessionals.

Recently canonised

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.

Posted on January 5, 2022, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Of course, in the kind of world Pope Francis and his globalist totalitarian pals hope to create, no one would have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, as it, along with any other Sacraments, would be illegal.

  2. There is, accd to Amoris Laetitia, no hell for these people. There is, apparently, hell only for traditional catholics. Guy, Texas

  3. vincent capuano

    In the virtuous man, his passions, his intellect and his will all tend toward the good, making his doing the good easy, joyful and prompt.
    The continent man who has what Aristotle calls enkrateia is one who suffers temptation and resists it. That is to say that his sense appetite tends towards evil but his practical reason knows what is good recognizes the temptation as evil and his will chooses the good.
    The incontinent man who has what Aristotle calls akrasia is tempted and falls. That is to say that his sense appetite tends towards evil, his practical reason knows what is good recognizes the temptation as evil but his will choose evil.
    The vicious man on the other hand, not only has his sense appetite, his passions corrupted, but also his practical reason and will. All three examples of how to apply this analysis:

    The virtuous heterosexual is completely good in regards to unnatural homosexual act. He could be completely vicious in other respects but in this respect his passions, his intellect and his will all are geared toward the good. (There are also non-virtuous heterosexuals whose passions point them to the good but whose practical reason is corrupted and would be defenseless should their passions change.)
    The continent man has unruly passions but his practical reason and will are well functioning and keep his passions under control. This is the man who is tempted towards homosexual sin but does not fall because his will chooses the good.
    The incontinent man has passions that move him towards unnatural acts, but his reason recognizes this temptation as wrong. None the less, his will is weak and he chooses badly. This is the repentant homosexual who understands the sinful nature of his acts.
    The vicious homosexual who is completely corrupted in this respect (remember that in other respects he can possess many virtues) has his passions unbridled by his reason and will. The evil of the Gay movement is that it corrupts the practical reason of its adherents so that they do not even recognize the evil of unnatural acts.

    • The “repentant homosexual” who keeps choosing badly does not seem very repentant to me, though. Perversion isn’t like sins that go with nature. The repentant homosexual is the one who is disgusted of his inclinations and stay away from acting according to it.

  1. Pingback: Canon212 Update: Totalitarian – The Stumbling Block

%d bloggers like this: