The Unholy Father has regaled the media with another exercise of humbleness that, in fact, enhances his perception in the world as it damages the reputation of the Church.
I am, hopefully, not the only one who says that these disgraceful things must be put in context (in this country the BBC, the NHS and the very corridors of Westminster are now under scrutiny for events happened several decades ago, and which had been covered under a thick layer of silence), and that it would be high time that the Church – and therefore the Pope – would stop accepting the role of the world's villain without any resistance.
But he doesn't, and looks rather good as he speaks of his “shame” for something for which he is not personally responsible. This should make for a couple of good headlines: “Francis ashamed of Catholic Church”, or the like. Atheists and perverts will like it a lot.
But wait: if Francis is so ashamed, he will be ruthless in his exposing scandals and caring that no wrong behaviour is covered up, surely?
How is it, then, that a certainly explosive 300 page report about homosexuality and sodomy within the Vatican takes dust – or, who knows, was perhaps even destroyed – under the watch of the suitably ashamed Pope oh so concerned that Truth emerges and Justice is restored?
Take it from me: this oh so ashamed, humble man is a six pound note.
A few days after his return to Rome, Pope Francis was more clear. He had the secretariat of state informed that Monsignor Ricca “will remain in his position.”
And thus with him there will remain intact the glaring contradiction between the work of housecleaning and reorganization of the Roman curia that Pope Francis has repeatedly said he wants and the “prelate” of his appointment in whom he continues to place his trust, a perfect emblem precisely of those scandalous behaviors and of those “lobbies” of power which should be swept away.
One has to like Sandro Magister. In these times of shameless brown-nosing of everyone who is popular – Bishop of Rome absolutely not excluded – he is the only one among the worldwide respected and followed voices who says very clear that Bishop Francis keeps giving scandal and still doesn’t get it.
In a long article, Magister says very clearly that the King – or I should say, the Bishop – is naked. I find it particularly noteworthy that whilst the article mainly deals with the other scandalous appointment of the questionable woman from Calabria, Magister does not forget to keep his readers alert to the permanent scandal that is the support the Bishop of Rome continues to give to the, again, scandalous sodomite in the highest ranks, and an appointment of his very modest self.
Whilst Michael Voris avoids real criticism, Father Z looks for positive news with an ever more powerful magnifying glass and the varied progressive troop with a varnish of pretended conservatism swoon over how cool sacrilegious beach masses are, Magister points out with a rather stringent logic to two of the biggest problems of Francis: a) making wrong decisions and b) refusing to correct them when they explode like hand granates just very shortly after he has released them.
The hubris of this man is impressive, if not very humble. Once he has made a gigantic cock-up, he takes refuge in “not judging”, and certainly not acting. It should not be seen that the… bishop of Rome has made a rookie’s mistake; actually, already very many of them; and he Seventy-Seven.
Either Francis is so much in love with his public image that he thinks it worthwhile that the Church suffers every scandal for the sake of his own popularity; or he is so much the obedient puppet of the sodomite mafia that he does not dare to cross them; not even when the filth is there for everyone to see, and the stink goes up to heaven.
Kudos to Magister, then, for the very special act of courage of reminding his readers of how Ricca represents all that is wrong with this papacy; a papacy so wrong, that it doesn’t even want to be called with its own name.
And so it came to pass the Bishop of Rome decided a sodomite can remain, at least for the moment, at the head of the scandal-plagued Vatican bank, probably because… he is too humble to kick the man out and admit he has made a huge mistake, and the chap is his lunch buddy.
The sodomites within the Vatican will be rejoicing: in Bishop Francis they have truly found a valiant ally, with no fear of ridicule or damnation.
At this point there can, in fact, not be any excuses anymore, and those who have kept dreaming about the oh so innocent Pope may wake up and smell the coffee. The crude reality of the matter is that even admitting the Bishop of Rome was not informed beforehand, he is most certainly informed now and is still doing nothing.
At this point, yours truly allows himself to say the Bishop's reaction does not allow one to exclude he was informed about Ricca's tendencies all right. If Bishop Francis had been duped, the only reasonable reaction would have been to immediately suspend Ricca and start an investigation about who kept information from him, and why. He does not do anything of the sort, and as I write “homo lunch buddy” remains at his place. Reach your own conclusions.
The best that can happen now is that Bishop Francis has given Ricca the opportunity to resign whilst he himself is in Brazil, in order not to give the impression the Monsignor got the boot from Francis. But even if this should happen, it would leave the Bishop's credibility – provided he ever had one – in tatters, being in front of serious Catholics the world over the man who puts his personal buddies before the reputation of Holy Mother Church.
As I write this, Bishop Francis is on an Alitalia aeroplane headed towards Brazil, where he will be for several days the object of deafening praise and worldwide flattering. He may well think he can, after all, leave everything as it is, waiting for the press to forget the matter.
If this is what he thinks, he is even more dangerous, and more arrogant, that I ever thought possible; and God knows I am not one of his admirers.
Still, the only reasonable hypothesis at the moment is that Ricca will be allowed a graceful exit from his position at the IOR, as everything else would be the purest madness.
As to Ricca he should, of course, be speedily defrocked.
Someway, I find it difficult to believe this is going to happen.
One of the assertions that leave one most speechless is the strange idea according to which when things are dirty they cannot be cleaned because… they are dirty.
“How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? There are so many of them!”, some people say. If there were any truth in such statements, nothing would even improve and nothing would be ever done to remedy wrong situations. In this perspective wrong situations can’t be righted, because they’re wrong. Another of my favourite ones is “How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? They do not go around saying they are homosexual!”. Ah, blessed ignorance! Terrorists didn’t go around saying they’re terrorist, either, and the mafia being extremely secretive hasn’t prevented countless mafiosi to be put in jail.
I answer to this that when there’s a will there’s a way, and in my experience a rotten situation can always be improved if the will and the good men to do it are there.
Pope Benedict started the work in a rather smart way: giving three old and trusted men, above suspicion of having ulterior motives, the task to sniff and ask everywhere. The result is an extensive report which, if the premises are correct and the men trustworthy, must be very accurate and highly credible.
Pope Francis should now do what every sound Pope – one who is determined to eradicate the problem, not “seeing what he can do” – would do in his place: form a commission of fearless and trusted Inquisitors to act on the report line for line, spy on everyone suspicious for as long as necessary, interrogate everyone and snoop everywhere, gather allegations and rumours, immediately suspend from every function those who do not collaborate in full, follow the leads to sufficiently robust facts, and immediately act on them removing from all Vatican offices and any priestly functions all those who have been found not to be above suspicion. Then, the leads should be followed outside of the Vatican, uncovering the friends outside: the sponsors and protectors, and the network of complicity.
After the first phase of the cleaning, those who, at the end of the usual, and usually lenghty, CDF investigations, have been found to be homosexuals should be defrocked, and kicked on the street. They have been a fraud probably since their first day in the seminary, so no injustice here.
As every Italian anti-mafia or anti-terrorism prosecutor will tell you, you eradicate mafia or terrorist structures by causing all those who have information about it or are involved with it to fear you more than they fear their own. If the Italian government was able to be feared more than the mafia and the terrorists (and it was: the Italian mafia is now a pale reflection of what it was until the Nineties, and terrorists have sung like canary birds notwithstanding the grave threats to their and their families’ lives), the Pope’s prosecutors will certainly be able to be feared infinitely more than the bunch of faggots working within the Vatican; but this, again, only if there is the will that it be so. You can’t eradicate a brutal problem any other way than by using brutal methods, and again the Italian experience – when excellent results against both terrorists and mafiosi were obtained only when ruthless determination took the place of politically correct pussyfooting – shows it works with problems infinitely more serious and more dangerous than a bunch of undercover faggots.
“But how to do this, Mundabor? How, how, ohhhh how? It is soooo, soooo difficult!”
It isn’t difficult at all, and can be done rather easily by smart guys with the right determination. If you have ever worked in biggish organisations you know what can be done, and fast, when the will is there to do it. It is almost impossible for a homosexual to avoid some people knowing, and some suspicions arising, then homosexual thinking must at some point translate into some form of homosexual acting. If a homosexual is, then, also a sodomite (I realise some won’t be, though I’d bet many will) there will be a series of leads linking to him: the people he knows, the places he frequents (yes, initially you’d have to have him followed: plenty of firms to assist you in that), what he has among his private possessions, the emails he writes, what he has on his computer, the expenses on his cards or his withdrawals from cash machines, what old friends and school mates say of him, and so on. I can’t imagine any homosexual priest could undergo this kind of scrutiny and still manage to hide his homosexuality. The Vatican also has the added bonus of not having to deal with all the guarantees of the legal system: a priest can have his computer confiscated, his possessions searched, his credit card statements seized etc just because he is ordered to do so, nor has the Vatican justice to ask the Italian authorities for permission to follow his own, search their rooms, hack their computers, & Co.
An investigator’s paradise.
The truth is that, in this as in many other cases, this homosexual net could develop and prosper only thanks to the indifference, incompetence, stupidity or complicity of many within the Church. Once the humous for the spreading of this cancer has been removed, there is no way it can survive.
Where there’s a will there’s a way. People far more dangerous and far better organised than this bunch of sods have been unmasked and neutralised. Don’t tell me a Pope can’t solve this problem in a matter of a few months, if he wants.
Let me tell you why I do not like the words “gay lobby” used by the Pontiff to describe the problem.
“Gay” means, as we all know, “happy”, “debonair” or “serene”. It doesn’t mean “pervert”. If a pervert starts calling himself “angelic”, he doesn’t become so, nor must we pander to his satanical self-delusion. If you don’t want to say “sod”, “faggot” or “fag”, “homo” will do admirably.
“Lobby” is also the wrong term, as lobbying is a perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate activity. This is in very sharp contrast to homosexuality, which is not compatible with the habit. It is not a coincidence that when the UK Ordinariate was instituted, it was said very clearly homosexual converts from Anglicanism would not be considered as priest. As a result, the homo activities of homosexual clergy are forbidden and are secretive, not allowed work of people who should not wear a habit in the first place; “mafia” is, therefore, a far more appropriate word than “lobby”.
Therefore, I invite you to read “homo mafia” whenever the Pontiff, or other prelates, use the term “gay lobby”. “Gay” is not an acceptable term to define homosexuals. It is politically correct, untrue, and utterly dangerous because it allows the perverts to give a positive twist to their perversion, and to change its perception.
This is exactly what has been happening in the past decades, and one of the most important single reasons why we are now confronted with the institutionalisation of said abomination. Pay attention to the words you use, because words are powerful and can be used to change perceptions, which one day will reshape realities.
Again, exactly he situation in which we are now.
I thought I would integrate the series of blog posts about the now fateful “chat” of our so pleasantly chatty Pontiff with his reflections on the “homosexual mafia”.
Firstly, the words of the Pontiff as reported. We are in the meantime assured even if we are asked to pretend they were not said verbatim (try another one; as if any religious group would dare to report the Pope’s words clearly as quotations of his own words if they weren’t, and with not one word denied by Vatican officers), the content is the same. So here we are:
And, yes… it is difficult. In the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true… The “gay lobby” is mentioned, and it is true, it is there… We need to see what we can do…
I didn’t understand the surprise at this, because it’s really nothing new. Besides the wild speculations about the 300-page report given to Pope Benedict in December, and probably what mainly moved him to resign, there is a matter of simple common sense that can only escape those who are so blinded by political correctness they can’t recognise an army of fags when they have it before them.
Sodomy is one of the worst perversions imaginable. The idea that more and more prelates express themselves in a way that indirectly supports it or makes it socially acceptable can in some cases be explained with extreme prostitution to the popular opinion, but one does not need to be a genius to understand that many among them must be perverts themselves. Again, it is a matter of logic and common sense. Alas, common sense is not so common nowadays, and is being substituted for common stupidity, because it looks nice.
Cardinal Danneels speaks in an extremely thinly veiled way in favour of so-called same-sex unions. Should his life not be scrutinised carefully? Cardinal Schoenborn promotes faggotry among the laity: is the suspicion of homosexual tendency not perfectly justified? Archbishop Paglia suddenly forgets two thousand years of Christianity: really? Why on earth would all these people promote such a horrible abomination? Purely to be popular? Or are they trying to satisfy the demons that have possessed them all their lives, giving an acceptable face to homosexuality?
Seriously, where do you think all these faggots are, “somewhere else”? Where is “somewhere else”? Could they operate only from the Vatican without support from powerful friends outside who pave their way to Rome? Could a powerful “gay lobby” within the Vatican work without the favour of bishops and Cardinals in- and outside? For how long are we going to kid ourselves?
It is, therefore, not surprising at all that there is a grave problem, or that this Pope – one who clearly doesn’t have his tongue under strict control, or under any control – would admit the existence of the problem during his friendly “chat”.
What is surprising, is that instead of using words like “we will have to eradicate this problem fast”, or “we must absolutely act on this”, he says “we need to see what we can do”, as if … there were things a Pope cannot do to tackle the problem. This is surprising from a Pope for whom “to do things” seems to be the first priority, and who had just told to the present(and I quote)
“I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up…”
Obviously, these are just few words among leftists friends, so I have not made of this the object of any post until now, preferring to deal with the vastly more important matter of the Rosary, or the other interesting matter of the religious orders, instead. But as I do not have a great confidence that this Pope can do much else than chatting, I cannot avoid being afraid people far smarter than him (no scarcity of that, I am absolutely sure) will soon persuade him what he can do is really not much, and there is not even any reason to create chaos and give ammunition to the enemies of the church: after all, Bishop X will retire in only 12 years, Monsignor Y can be moved to the next door office for a while, and Cardinal Z should be invited to pray much…
We shall see how this pans out. I wonder whether the Pope has read the famous 300 page report in the first place, because he doesn’t give the impression of being the avid reader, or the man eager to tackle different issues, preferring the easy and popular activities instead.
Of course the Homo mafia is powerful within the Church.
Just look at what our clergy say, and you’ll have no doubts.
You wouldn’t believe it, but there are perverts out there asking that Bert & Ernie (pre-schooler audience ) have a so-called same-sex marriage. Millions of very little children should be confronted with sexual perversion from the tenderest age. This is then called (if you are a pervert) to “beat homophobia” and to “express tolerance for gay people”.
I have the impression that the intolerance for perversion must be stepped up, instead. If you let them have their way, these perverts will start corrupting toddlers.
In a move that sounds more dictated from common sense and entrepreneurial instinct that from rebellion to the homo mafia, the sesame workshop has flatly refused to follow the call to the perversion of little children. The argument (rather stupid, if you ask me) is that, wait for this, puppets don’t have sexual orientation. Well no they aren’t supposed to be perverts of course, but if they are called Bert and Ernie instead of, say, Martha & Agatha it is clear that these puppets are male puppets. I mean, no one would say that Miss Piggy can’t fall in love with Kermit because a pig can’t fall in love with a frog.
I do suspect that the reason for the refusal is a different one: to do as the homos demanded would have satisfied 1% of the population, but killed an extremely fortunate children’s program. It’s not that there aren’t alternatives available, and many parents would have reacted as they should.
Therefore, and all the reasoning of the sesame workshop notwithstanding, Bert & Ernie will remain… straight.