There is no week now without this disgraceful man reaching for a new deep from the gutter in which he has already put himself.
Once again, the immense scandal he causes is born from his being so much in love with himself, that he cannot resist “humbly” making the world new in the presence of journalists. This time, we had 80 minutes of off-the-cuff “Francis show”, and if you have already photographed the arrogance and ignorance of this man – if you read this blog, it is probably because you have – you know that 80 minutes of Bergoglio Show can’t be good for Catholicism. More alarming still, is that the off-the-cuff remarks show how this man really thinks.
The Neo-conservative press is now desperately trying to spin the immense stupidity (or evil intent, or a mixture of the two) of this man; but you can spin as much as you like, the man is a plague.
Let us see what kind of subversive bollocks a Bergoglio can spit in one single day, when he feels in good form.
1. So-called Gay Lobby.
If there is one, Francis hasn’t seen it in the Vatican ID card. Besides the absurdity of the statement, this is so gay even Elton John – an admirer of his, you must know – must see it that way.
Seriously: what a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say. What an insult to the intelligence of every sane Catholic. What unspeakable arrogance. The Bishop of Rome is here clearly being the best ally of the “gay mafia” within the Vatican. He has clearly exposed himself as their man, elected by them so that he may not do anything against them, and help them.
Please let us wake up here. First important appointment is the one of a sodomite with levers everywhere within the Vatican; when a huge scandal involves this man, Francis refuses to get rid of him; then he proceeds to downplay the whole issue, so that he can be free to help his sodomitic friends without too much nuisance. Make no mistake, Screwtape would be delighted with Francis.
Innovating on 2000 years of Christianity, this extremely confused (or worse) man wants us to believe being an homosexual is something that doesn’t stay in the way of being a priest. This shows you, better than anything else, how deeply rotten this man’s thinking is. I wonder if he would say the same of people with a tendency to screw their own mother, or dog, or niece. Either the answer is “yes” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted in all matters of sexual abuse) or it is “no” (and then this man’s mind is profoundly perverted concerning the matter of homosexuality).
The moral of the story is that for this man, provided a homosexual is not part of a “gay lobby” (which he would allegedly not spot anyway; see the ID wannabe joke) not only can he be a priest, he can be one of his strictest collaborators, and who is he to judge?
Francis’ Christianity, and requirement for priesthood, ends by “accepting The Lord and having good Will”. Welcome, perverts the world over. The priesthood awaits you.
Satanic. Utterly and completely satanic.
Some people (like Jimmy Akin, who today makes a quadruple salto trying to defend the indefensible; I think we’ll see a lot of this in the years to come) will even try to sell you that, formally, Benedict’s explicitly stated policy of not allowing homos to the priesthood will not be touched. How can this be? If this is the example he gives; if this is the way he talks; if this is, very obviously, the way he thinks, how can this be?
Compared with this man, Pope Paul VI is merely an amateur. This here is Screwtape’s real deal.
You may or may not know that a good Catholic has traditionally had the faculty to pray for the painless death of the Pontiff if he is persuaded the Pontiff in question is a disgrace for the Church – as you can see, nothing new under the sun – .
I have a huge problem with praying for the painless death of Bergoglio, because in my naïveté something within me rebels to the idea of wishing the death of a Pontiff.
Still, the times are such that a Pope may well step aside if he finds himself in the physical impossibility of working as Pope. I have written in the past that I consider Benedict’s decision – seen in isolation – a wise one. If a Pope can’t make it, than he should not make it either, and leave his place to someone with the necessary strength.
You decide for yourself.
I start praying for the end of Bergoglio’s papacy today.
The Evil Clown has now promoted the notorious Tymothy Radcliffe to Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
It seems justice and peace are always the first preoccupation of perverts. Methinks, they need to feel “good” because they know very well how rotten they are.
This is a Papal appointment. It comes from the man himself. Radcliffe is too well-known, and far too outspoken in favour of sodomy, for anyone entertaining the silly idea that Francis might appoint him to such a position without fully knowing that in so doing he will promote the agenda of the sodomites.
It angers one enough that Francis should be so openly, how should I put it, gay. What angers one even more are those Catholics who keep writing nonsense like “I want to think he was not informed”. I do not doubt the very same people, on knowing Francis has been surprised in the midst of a sodomitical act, would comment “I want to think he did not know that was a man's backside”.
Open your big, blue eyes and realise that Francis is the enemy of Christ, the enemy of the Church, and your own personal enemy. He hates the Church and all it represents. He will wreak as much havoc as he can without risking being kicked out, or having his pontificate sink in a sea of accusations of heresy.
He hates us. He hates all of us. He hates all that we are.
He is on the side of the sodomites, the communists, the environ-mentalists. If you are an enemy of the West, Francis is your friend. If you hate Christian morality, Francis will do whatever he can to help you. It can be that Francis is not homosexual – something I personally find more and more difficult to believe -, but if this is the case, it goes to simply prove the point that he supports sodomites exactly because the Church condemns it.
Acts speak. Appointments count. It is utterly senseless to think these appointments have no meaning and no relevance. Even if Radcliffe were never to act once in his new position, not even ever to utter another word in public, his appointment to the Pontifical Council would still validate his perverted opinions – and, I bet my pint, mind and life – and further sabotage Catholicism.
Please do not say with this appointment Francis “confuses the Catholics”. He is not confusing in the least. He is very, very clear! Francis is at war with the Church, and his campaign will only stop where he fears destruction for himself or for his pontificate.
It pains me to say so, but at this point I think he got his calculations pretty right. Those who still did not get it after more than two years will probably – short of extreme acts like the proclamation of a false dogma, or the like – never get it. Francis will, therefore, continue to sabotage Catholicism through appointments, off-the-cuff speeches and any other way reasonably at his disposal, knowing that provided he avoids the very worst there will never be shortage of nincompoops ready to swallow all the excrements he dishes to them, and say they want to believe the Holy Father thinks it's chocolate.
They can eat Francis' excrements all they want. They will, one day, have to explain why they did so, and why they swallowed all of it so eagerly with nothing more than the most polite reservations.
We must call a spade a spade.
And I tell you: Francis is on the side of the Sodomites, and He wants to pervert your mind just as he has perverted his own.
Vox Cantoris has a chilling post about a bishop of the Evil Clown's Satanical Club, who – I do not post the link here, but it is there – “floats” the idea that one of the Apostles might have been homosexual, and Mary Magdalene a Lesbian.
Apparently, The Gospels “don't say”, so “we don't know”.
I allow myself here to follow this brilliant logic and apply it to the bishop. The article doesn't say whether Bishop Córdoba is a child rapist, so we don't know. I am sure Bidhop Cordoba fully agrees with this thinking.
To say it with the words of the blog post's author, “It defies logic that someone would take the position that this man does and not be one”. I fully agree. Unless – and I am making a great effort here – the degree of faithless rottenness of Bishop Córdoba is such that he sees his satanical assertions as a smart political positioning in light of the new course under the Evil Clown. But no, I think the man is most probably a queen.
In case you should think the Evil Clown isn't wreaking havoc within the Church just because he will, if he hasn't smoked his communist brain completely, renounce to a nuclear explosion,
The argument used by this despicable piece of FrancisChurch are also enough to make the blood boil: besides being explicitly mentioned by Our Lord himself as the epitome of evil, godless behaviour – which should be argument enough for a Protestant – sodomy has been uniformly condemned by the Magisterium since the very beginning. That a Catholic bishop, of all people, should ignore path is fact and try to fabricate an extremely stupid biblical argument tells you what kind of evil men we have as bishops.
I will now try to bring my blood temperature to normal, reflecting that the satanical affirmations of this piece of work have certainly not escaped the attention of not only the Angels as a body, but the Apostles and Mary Magdalene in heaven. This, on reflection, is enough to conclude that things will take its course in due time, and I can sip my camomile tea in relative serenity.
Note, however, that Wikipedia seems to state that the man was made a bishop by Ratzinger, giving another example of the atrocious appointments of that nice but far too accommodating man, who was probably even blissfully unaware of what kind of venomous plants he was planting in the middle of Our Lord's garden.
The Church has never said that reprobates would not become bishops. This here stinks of reprobation like Francis' faggot priests stink of sheep.
We have seen in the first part of this post that In the modern, secular world everything conspires in exposing your children to homosexual behaviour and – just so we do not think these homos are the innocent flowers – consider it not only normal but, if at all possible, their very own normality.
The conditions for that have never been so favourable since Sodom. You would think homosexuality would vastly increase. It clearly doesn’t. Let us see why.
If you remember the four points of the first part, you will recognise that the goodness in-built by God into everyone of us is very solidly established. Sexual instincts are solidly rooted. It isn’t easy to accustom one to liking crap instead of ice cream. One can see as many TV show as you want, but ice cream is what he will, very probably, still want.
Yes, there are certainly more people who eat crap – or commit acts of sodomy – in, say, England than in, say, Italy, as the strong separation of roles and the generally healthier families and enlarged families in the latter creates better conditions for the proper development of the young. But still, homosexuality isn’t anywhere near “mainstream”.
You Anglo readers, think of your school time, high school, university. How many were the pervs? Very few, I am sure. More than in Italy or Spain? Most certainly. Why is this? Because a better, cleaner environment makes life more difficult for the germs of sexual perversion.
Still, we are talking of small numbers. Between less than half a percent (in solid societies) and around one and a half percent (in broken societies) is what it is reasonable to assume and, coincidentally, what I remember reading on some sound Catholic source. These figures make sense. Even to assume a 3% perversion rate would mean that in every gymnasium class of thirty in your youth there would have been a homosexual or lesbian; which is patently absurd compared with the experience of everyone of us. I struggle to believe that even half that number apply, even in the UK, but again I grew up in a healthy environment. Still, we are talking very small numbers.
This means that an ocean of priests, countless bishops and cardinals, and even a Pope are prostituting themselves like saloon whores to a very, very tiny minority of people who don’t even care a straw for Catholicism, and to the forcibly very small number of their parents.
The numbers are obvious to everyone who has eyes to see, and they tell us that the phenomenon is, whilst shocking in its disgusting depravity, limited in its numbers. If our shepherds had some fear of the Lord, half of the discussions about sexual perversion would not take place, because it would be so easy to silence, isolate, shame and excommunicate thus small bunch of rebellious perverts. Unless…
Unless, that is, the shepherds are so cowardly, that they are afraid to tell a truth inconvenient to 1% of the population at large, and very probably less among Catholics (more intact families, etc.).
Or, alternatively, unless the numbers of homosexuals among priests is vastly, vastly superior to what can be found in society at large and, actually, a substantial multiple of the 0.5 to 1.5 percent already mentioned.
Which latter hypothesis brings, again, all the pieces in their own place: a very tiny minority of perverts, vastly over represented among those who should fight against sexual perversion the most.
The springtime of the Church turned out to have a very shrill voice. But you, you will call the devil’s bluff, and expose the prophets of “mercy” as a bunch of faggots.
The Pope has removed the head of the Swiss Guards and has sent him home for being… too much of a guard. He has also profited of the occasion to blame the man for his professionalism.
Yours truly is more than a tad cynical, and believes in Giulio Andreotti's quip, that “he who thinks badly of others commits a sin, but he is very often right”.
Let us, then, connect a couple of dots, and make a couple of hypotheses.
1. Francis feels safe enough in the Vatican. He doesn't like order, discipline, duty. He removes the head of the Swiss guard – who obviously like them – and feels good in the process. This is the “innocent” (stupid, but innocent) Francis.
2. Ricca & Co. Want more freedom to roam around at night, to get out and let people in. The rigid security of the Guards causes continuous problems by not allowing, or making a ruckus, everytime trannies and junkies should be allowed not only within the Leonine Walls, but even in the same building where the Pope lives. They refuse the homo junkies entry, and demand that the Pope authorises the entry. Ricca and his band of faggots get angry. The head of the guards is removed. This is the “accomplice of perverts” Francis.
3. Francis is fed up with the head of security obliging him to a rigid security standard. No going out at night among the assorted perverts for him. No tranny voyeurism. No smell of homosexual sheep. No plunging in that world of dirt, desperation, and corruption that seems to outright excite him. No questionable people inside, either. This cannot go on, can it now? Less rigidity! More freedom! Who the man thinks he is, a soldier? This is, in case you haven't got it, the pervert Francis.
These are just three possible scenarios. Feel free to make your own.
Before you think all this is unrealistic, reflect on this:
1. There were rumours of the Pope roaming the streets of Rome at night already. The Pope never denied. One like Benedict would have had strong words about it. One like Francis wants, at the very least, you to think he might do it. One wonders.
2. Swiss guards have already reported about the harassment from homosexual prelates within the very Leonine Walls.
3. The Pope lives under the very roof of a notorious faggot, and isn't fazed a bit.
4. It is known that several “gay saunas” are located in the immediate vicinity of the Vatican.
5. Whilst in and out of perverts certainly happened before, the Pope now living in the Domus Sanctae Marthae creates a very special security environment and very obvious security concerns. The edifice lies at the very boundaries of the Vatican City.
6. Many faggots have been killed from fag prostitutes wanting money from them. Pasolini is an example. Versace is another one. I certainly forget several others.
He who thinks badly of others commits a sin, but is very often right.
He who thinks badly of this Pope is merely connecting the dots.
One of the unlinkable dissenting sites report of an openly homosexual Jesuit Seminarian who has now, after ten years trying to become a priest, decided to leave the Seminary because of the firing of several perverts from Catholic schools and institutions in the last months. “I can't be a Catholic right now”, or words to that effect, is the comment of the little fag.
Let us observe all that is wrong here; because, as so often in the case of Jesuits, the mistakes here pile up like as many strata of Satan's shit cake.
1. Ten years of attempts. Seriously? Are Jesuits of the opinion unless one is old one can't receive orders? Or did the man not even manage to become a friar in all this time? What happens with the money of the faithful? I am, here, hoping this is not the normal case, and the extremely costly exercise was due to the perverted nature of the little faggot. Which leads us to the next point…
2. How can it be that a man who openly proclaims his own perversion is allowed to remain in the seminary? Officially? For how many… ten years? What part of “deeply rooted homosexual tendency” was unclear here?
3. What does this say not only of this pathetic nutcases but of the deciders in that seminary? What does it say of the rector? Is he homosexual, too? Why on earth would anyone, upon being told one is a pervert, persist in trying to make of him a friar, or even a priest? I smell faggotry from a mile here. Diffused faggotry. Faggotry unashamedly practiced, defended and promoted under the thinnest of veils. These chaps (or girls) have allowed an open faggot to stay in the seminary for many years: how many closet faggots walk along the corridors of that seminary? What positions they have? How can it be that the rot has not set at the top of the institution?
4. The unlinkable site reports, with more than a hint of sympathy, an astonishing affirmation of the little Jesuit fag: he can't be a Catholic right now, because of the treatment of the above mentioned perverts.
This beggars belief: a man able to put his own faggotry before his very own Catholic identity was allowed to stay in a Jesuit seminary all these years! What does this tell us about the quality and sexual orientation of the average friar – or priest – going out of that particular seminary?
Jesuits are a plague. Not 100% of them of course. But in general, Jesuits are a plague. An order fully in the thrall of Satan, spreading error and sexual perversion from schools, universities and seminaries; letting out in the world, without a doubt, a number – limited, thankfully, because they are dying – of either open perverts, or closet perverts, or people so accustomed to perversion and malformed in a perverted sexual climate that they are a real danger for the souls of those around them.
The little faggot has written a letter to Francis: TMAHICH, “who am I to judge”-Supremo, and Great Merciful Protector Of Worldwide Faggotry.
Now: TMAHIC is notoriously affect by logorrhoea, a phone addict, and a first-class double-tongued Jesuit. It will be interesting to see whether Francis does respond to the letter in writing, ignores the little fag altogether, or prefers one of those ominous phone calls at the end of which the little faggot will tell the world that Francis told him what a hero he is, and Francis does not deny or confirm any of the content. Scandal is spread, plausible deniability is attempted, the Pollyannas are happy the oh so holy Father did nothing wrong, the perverts exult, the Catholics are confused.
Just another Jesuit's day.
Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
This come from an important document issues in 1961, “Religiosorum Institutio”, a document written when the Great Mess had been already announced, but the Church still abounded in good, orthodox men not afraid of facts.
Many are the sound points made by this document, and certainly there is no trace of the modern desire to please. This is a document written to be approved by Jesus, not the adulterers in (or rather, outside of) the pews.
Please read carefully the expression above, and take note as follows:
1. Pederasty and homosexuality are put in the same ballpark. This is a point on which this blog continuously insist, and could never insist for long enough.
2. The tendency to homosexuality is called evil, because it is. And it is because homosexuality is evil, exactly as pederasty is evil. It is a madness of the modern, V Ii church, fueled by a mighty homosexual mafia, that the two are now often kept strictly separated, and homosexuality is only mentioned to remind one that the Church “loves the sinner”, at least implying she is fine with his homosexuality. She is not. She cannot be.
Homosexuality cannot be a sin, in the same way as pedophilia cannot be a sin, because only an action can be a sin. But this does not make them less wrong in the least. It is because the tendency is so evil, that the sin is so sharply condemned. And again, this is the first generation that is so stupid that it cannot even make these elementary distinctions, and waxes lyrical saying that fornication is also a sin, therefore the church considers sodomy in the same way as fornication. My foot.
The sin of sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance, ladies and gentlemen. There is a fundamental difference between sins going with nature, and sins going against nature. That our generation is so blinded from political correctness that it refuses to see such evident facts – therefore normalising perversion – is another testimony of the way the V II generation is trying to annihilate common sense, and with it every sensus catholicus, in a desperate fight against sanity shared with the secular world, and applauded by it.
It is a great consolation to know what wherever one looks in the Church of the past one finds all the Truth, all the reassurance, all the sound doctrine the present hierarchy is utterly unwilling and, I suspect, even unable to give us.
After the (second) former Swiss Guard to talk in just a week, Archbishop Becciu has encouraged him to speak openly with Vatican personnel and make the names.
Francis is interested in knowing the truth, he says.
Give me a break. There is a 300 page reports at his disposal. I assume Francis can read?
But of course the good archbishop does not believe himself in what he says. If you ask him, it’s all slander. We live in “such a beautiful and important spiritual time”, he blathers.
And the man truly contradicts himself: he accuses Maeder saying that it is “too easy” to talk without making names, but is fully aware himself of the legal implications of making names in newspaper articles.
It’s a Saddam moment: if you are an opposer you either come to the open (when you will be shot at) or you are a coward or a slanderer.
This is the kind of prelate we have now. He clearly isn’t concerned about the homos in the Vatican at all. It’s “such a beautiful and important spiritual time”
Do you remember the famous 300 page reports that was in everyone's minds – and blogs – around Christmas 2012? The one commissioned by then Pope Benedict XVI and concerning homosexual infiltration in the Vatican?
The last thing I remember is that Benedict had decided to put the report at the disposal of his successor, and that the dimension of the report and the little that had emerged indicated that things were serious indeed.
Nothing has emerged of the report since. We do not know whether Francis even bothered to read it. For all we know he might have put it in his fireside and used it as a humble way to heat his rather extensive humble quarters at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
In the meantime, we are informed a former Swiss Guard states he has received sexual advances from around two dozen clerical homos during his permanence at the Vatican, among them an undetermined number of bishops and one Cardinal. Swiss Guard soldiers generally stay two years. Do your math.
One wonders. The sin of the sodomites has utterly disappeared from the Vatican radar screens after Francis' election, as we are invited to not “obsess” about such trivial things as a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance. All the while, the Pontiff talks day in and day out of a new theology of mercy and doubt, according to which doctrinal security is bad, a priest must smell of favela, morality is not “pastoral”, and “who are we to judge”. A turn of phrase used by the Pontiff about, erm, the homosexual prelate running the hotel in which he lives. If it sounds creepy, it's because it is.
I do not know about you, but this sounds like open complicity with sodomy to me.
In the meantime the report, if it still exists, lies locked in some very robust safe, protected from the indiscreet eyes of whistleblowers.
We live in strange and disturbing times. And we have a very strange, and very disturbing Pope.
I have posted yesterday a video of a beautiful version of “Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat”. This is Gregorian chant, and the same version sung at the Brompton Oratory.
It is reverent but strong, and devoutly masculine. It is music written by a man, and meant to be sung by men.
Not inclusive enough, then; or enough effeminate, come to that.
Have your little “YouTube” tour searching for other version of this very song, and notice the utterly castrated rubbish of the same text that have been created after V II. Frightful stuff. Either girls' chirping, or as bent as Elton.
Now, why would anyone who has at his disposal a wonderful patrimony of ancient music recur to such utter rubbish? Because the rubbish is in his head first, that's why.
The desire to be “inclusive” and have music that would not let women feel “excluded” perfectly matches the agenda of the many Monsignor Riccas out there, to whom the Church must become as faggoty as just possible. As a result, the unholy alliance between the PC crowd and the perverted one creates an atmosphere of effeminacy, and makes of the sacred liturgy a hostage of the stupid and the perverts. Then we complain there are few altar servers, and a crisis of vocations.
Instead of blabbering about the role of women in the Church (there is no record the Blessed Virgin ever complained about her own, or the role of women within the Church in general) the Catholic clergy from the Pope down should talk more about the role of men in the Church. Priesthood must be seen again as something eminently and unmistakably masculine, not the last refuge for young males with uncertain sexuality – I have seen more than a couple of those – or worse – I think I have seen a couple of those, too -.
Men will be men. They will be helped to discover their vocation if they see in it their destiny as men, the accomplishment of the men God made them to be. If they see a camp atmosphere around them, they will naturally be put off from the priesthood. Not only is this very natural, but in agreement with God's plan, that the earthly Church be provided with many and good priests when she deserves it, and punished with a crisis of vocation, and mediocre or worse than mediocre clergy – up to the very top, of course – when she doesn't. We have seen this at work in the last 50 years.
As we pray for vocations, we must pray for an earthly Church that creates the conditions for both the abundance and the quality of them.
Keep the fags and the effeminate out of the temple.
Christus Vincit. Christus Regnat. Christus Imperat.
I have received, and published already, the following comment:
This Francis fool was the perfect candidate to weaken Papacy to the point of irrelevance, I visited Argentina 2 years ago, when I was working for a russian news agency and visited some slums in Buenos Aires to cover the work of the “curas villeros” (slum priests) in the many shanty towns of the capital, I was shocked to see that practically all those priests had concubines and had sons with them, other were openly homosexual or had transexual partners and everyone knew about this!I talked with people from the slums and asked them what did they think about this? their answers were basically the same: “it’s ok, they love each other, they harm nobody” I also talked with more cultured (and minoritarian) sectors of the catholic church in Buenos Aires who were infuriated by the situation but they were unable to do anything about it, they said they were largely outnumbered by the “populist priests”.They also told me that all the high hierarchy of the church in Buenos Aires, Bergoglio included, were aware of the dubious morality of the slum priests, the argentine traditionalist catholics also told me that in those slums the priest is considered a “fairy godmother” by the poor people who live there, in fact the priests are to many of them the only “help” since the hypecorrupt state is practically absent, thus the priest is perceived as a ” good nanny” who feeds and takes care, so no one dares or bothers to question his life and morality, to slum people everything the priests do is ok as long as they keep supplying them with free stuff…. a doctrine of sterile assistentialism that leads nowhere, keeps the poor in poverty, the lazy in laziness and the sinner happy with his sins.Bergoglio has started to export this model of spiritual misery and moral decay to the rest of the world since he was elected and sadly he will continue vomiting the filthy populist nonsense that’s been coming out of argentina provincial, ultracorrupt politics for decades.
This keeps haunting me, so it might be good to say a few words. The foreigner author of the comment is obviously well-read, an intelligent and enquiring mind, and concerned about Christian values. The occasion of his being there – the coverage of priestly activity in the slums – has also given him the opportunity to accumulate a great deal of information.
I have never been in an Argentinian slum, and can therefore not vouch for the truthfulness of what he writes. But boy, it all makes sense.
Let us then, for the sake of the argument, assume that there are a number of priests of that sort in the slums of Buenos Aires, and let us look at the dynamic of such “priesthood”.
A homosexual priest, or a priest so perverted he is attracted to trannies, or even a priest interested in sex with women will, in Bergoglio's diocese, only have one thing to do: discover his social vocation.
This will allow him to get deep into a world full of the miseries of dire poverty, and profit from it. Prey will be abundant. He will be a distributor of sought after earthly goods, and this will give him not only prestige, but power, and the ability to easily acquire sexual favours. Who will dare to go against his immorality or utter perversion in an environment that not only lives immersed in it, but is more or less heavily dependant on the favours and help of said priest?
Is it, then, not so, that the slum will attract those priests seeking in it those forbidden pleasures their sensual – or perverted – nature craves for, but that would not be allowed to them in the fairly well-ordered society outside?
I can well imagine the favela as a world apart, with miseries and a moral degradation to match. This is where the perverted priest needs to go if he wants to satisfy his lust undisturbed. He will be powerful and respected, and even those who loathe him will rather shut up than run the risk of being cut out from help when they most need it, or of being surrounded by hostility in their own community.
It goes without saying that such a priest will never be able – or willing – to do his job of saving souls. It isn't easy to tell people to repent and follow the Commandments when everyone knows you are a priest with a trannie on the side. No, such a priest will talk and act exactly like a Jorge Bergoglio: who am I to judge, the poor here, the poor there, the poor everywhere, and if you criticise the priest you are guilty of “gossip”; which, you might then well say, is akin to “murder”, because you need for the critics to really, really shut up.
At this point, this parody of Christianity can develop all his satanic potential: the priest supposed to reform the slum will become as filthy as the slum itself – or rather, the filth of the slum will attract priests just as filthy, and looking for prey -, whilst the slum dwellers will be left not only without guidance, but with even the horrible example of such priests. The “social” Church in South-American style will pretend to do the good of the poor, but she will betray Christ and help the very poor whose secular agenda she espouses on the path to damnation.
All this, of course, abundantly sprinkled with poverty rhetoric, which is also very useful in making the priest popular and in allowing him to go after his filthy business undisturbed. But hey, someone is “going out” and “helping the poor”, so the Bergoglios of the world will be not only unconcerned, but rather satisfied of the sterling work they are so humbly doing.
Again, we do not know whether the picture painted by our commenter is a realistic one. But… but…
Think of Francis' reaction when the Ricca scandal erupted. Arrogant jokes about the “gay lobby” not having an ID card, the “who am I to judge” mantra, and an astonishingly stubborn attitude in leaving an exposed sodomite at his place – and in the priesthood -. Is this not the behaviour of one who has lived in the middle of homosexual priests all his priestly life, and has happily ignored their perversion and sodomitic behaviour? Is this not the behaviour of one who does not care two straws whether a priest is a sodomite, and is even unable to understand the scandal that erupts outside of his cosy world when one of his closest men is exposed as one of them? How can one otherwise explain that whilst I write this, Monsignor Ricca is still a priest undisturbed, and is even still occupying his high place?
Francis has brought to us the filth of the favela all right. He glories in it, and speaks of the shepherd who must smell like his sheep; this is, very possibly, another veiled reference that to him, if a priest works in the favela it's no big deal if he has his own trannie.
We beg to differ.
And it came to pass we were informed the Bishop of Rome is being “messy” in his statements. We agree and applaud, because he certainly was.
Still, one cannot avoid asking if this “mess” is involuntary; better said, one cannot avoid asking how, after more than three months of mess, the mess can still be seen as involuntary. It certainly takes a huge dose of optimism.
I also disagree with the astonishing concept that on the famous aeroplane the Bishop would have been in line with Catholic teaching. And in fact, by listening to a certain video one has for a long time the impression a robust criticism is coming out, but in the end very little happens. And no, what Bishop Francis said is not in line with Catholic teaching.
It is absolutely not in line with Catholic teaching to think that there might be a time, or place, or circumstance in which it is all right for a priest to be bent. A bent Catholic priest is as much in order, or in line with Catholic teaching, as a priest sexually attracted to your dog, and you must think long and hard whether you would allow your son to serve mass, or otherwise have social contact, with such a priest.
Just as bad is the obvious forgetfulness of the scandal going on, under our very eyes, as I speak. There can be no excuse for a Monsignor exposed as an inveterate sodomite uncaring for scandal to remain a priest, much less for him to remain at his very influential place. This scandal will not go away by just ceasing to mention it.
As a whole, one notices there are some steps in the right direction, and the television channel in question must be bombarded by viewers' emails asking the responsible to look at reality as it is. But I frankly continue to notice that the main source of the trouble is not mentioned, or is considered not responsible, or if he is considered responsible, it is merely because of lack of experience. Which is involuntarily funny, being related to a man happily sailing towards eighty springs, and who in virtue of his past offices had to deal with the press for many years now.
One salutes a partial adjustment of course. Frankly, though, to me this still seems militancy somewhat blind from the right eye.
Of course I do not expect the same words you read in this blog; there are professional, legal and commercial implications to be taken care of, all of them legitimate, and the professional journalist is supposed to have ways and means and tricks of the trade the amateur blogger hasn't. Still, it is as if we were discussing Palestinian terrorism here, and no one of the mainstream or big outlets were – yet – willing to mention Arafat.
If you had any doubt about the devastating effect of Bishop Francis' senseless self-promotion at the expense of sound Catholicism and elementary truths, this one is only one of the very many articles now on the net concerning the news.
Note the usual two issues: “Francis good, Benedict bad” and “it's a beginning, but by far not enough”. You can read these narratives everywhere.
Now, someone might say “the leftist press spins the Bishop”, but I must strongly disagree.
When Francis himself does not miss any occasion to point out how different he is from his predecessor, can we really blame the press for jumping on it? Francis' and Benedict's attitude towards not only homosexuals, but even sodomites are so distant the two seem to belong to different religions. It is just plain blind to make every possible and impossible effort to try to reconcile the two. The entire planet has picked up the difference, because the difference is there.
How can any sane person expect that a Pontiff waffles the usual “who am I to judge?” Mantra without the world press picking it up? And do you really think Bishop Francis is so thick he thinks he can throw such a bomb without the explosion being heard everywhere? Come on…
Francis knew the conflagration would be huge. This is exactly why he threw the bomb. Or can anyone seriously believe this man is now systematically “misunderstood” in a way which makes him very popular with the world, and lets him appear like the good man “trying to change the Church as much as he can”?
People who don't want to be misunderstood do not insist with “off-the-cuff” comments regularly causing a pandemonium. They express themselves in public with carefully worded statements, that do not leave any space for “misunderstandings”. But this is a revolutionary… Bishop of Rome. He is interested in spreading as much confusion as he can, whilst making himself popular in the process. He says that openly, by the way, and the famous reference to the “noise” is nothing else than a further confirmation of the climate of permanent revolution he wants to create at the grassroots: in the dioceses, in the religious orders, in the universities, in the seminaries, everywhere.
I just wonder: how can a man go on doing exactly the same for four and a half months, without people believing that he does it on purpose?
Does all this, then, achieve some results? Of course it does.
1. Francis is the mascot of the world.
2. The world appreciate Francis' effort, but is not satisfied. “Baby steps”, says the linked article. Tsk, tsk. Not good enough. Much more to do towards the “gays” (a term, tellingly, now used by Francis himself: first time for a Pope). Francis is good, but still not like the world; but everyone understands it's not really his fault, so he does just fine.
Maximum damage for the Church and maximum confusion for the faithful, but maximum personal advantage for the humble Bishop.
As the disgraceful Francis throws away the mask and shows the true Jesuit behind it, it is perhaps fitting to say a couple of words about the way the highly emotional, rather short-tempered author of this blog will cope with the challenges of our time.
1. This is no place for Sedevacantists. Whilst we criticise the advanced state of decay in which the Church finds Herself, we are fully loyal to the Church.
One does not apply for a new passport – or, more fittingly put, denies the legitimacy of those issuing the passport – because one despises the bunch currently in charge. Particularly if it is Christ’s passport, and the passport to Purgatory. Every comment even vaguely reeking of Sedevacantism will be culled, because I do not want my blog to be occasion of scandal to the many good Catholics reading this effort every day; or encourage them, upset as they must understandably be, to sinful thoughts. Let us be firm in the intention of loving the Church more and more, as she is more and more trampled by this (generally speaking, and with the obvious exception of the good ones) disgraceful clergy of ours.
When the SSPX declares that the Sea is vacant, I will believe it. Not one day before.
2. This blog takes enough time, energy and adrenaline. My bad, I am sure, but I have none of them left for people posting messages on the lines of “perhaps Francis does all this because he has a rare virus compelling him to act strangely”, or “Francis must be such an innocent man that he is unable to see anything bad in homosexual priests, or sodomite helpers”.
Just for the record: if you think the like of this, you are stupid. No, you really are. Yes, I am talking to you.
Stay away from this blog, because this blog isn’t for the stupid, and the stupid will never get anything out of it. If you really can’t avoid reading it – which I can’t prevent; though I would if I could – at least don’t post.
There is no Kool-aid here. Click elsewhere. You are not wanted.
I have enough of people posting just to tell me how thick hey are, thinking – being thick – that they look good in the process. These are the people who have contributed most to the present situation, the professional Pollyannas and world champions of brainlessness; the Catholic Chamberlains unable to see an elephant in the room, but feeling so good because they don’t.
Enjoy Francis, then, little Chamberlains. And, at least on this blog, have the decency to shut up.
Life’s too short for your comments.