This here is rather self-explanatory.
We will have to wait to see what emerges more in detail. But this could be huge. When the domino pieces start to fall, there’s no saying when they stop.
It is ironic that this huge scandal would – if the information is accurate – be started by a disgruntled sodomitical former priest.
The ways of the Lord, and all that…
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.
Am I the only one who is wondering what has happened to the famous dossier concerning the homosexual infiltration within the Church?
It is not unreasonable to think this dossier is what persuaded Benedict to throw in the towel and leave the hot potato in the hands of his successor; if this is true (and at least concerning the hotness of the potato there can not be any doubt) one would expect any acting in the matter to be accompanied by the spectacular removal of many in influential positions within the Vatican; a removal certainly made as discreetly as possible but such that it could never escape the attention of the Vaticanists and even of common people who read Church news. This, without considering that one or three would have to be disciplined, and again this would not easily escape attention.
Is anything of this happening? Or has the Holy Father decided the problem isn't so bad as it is widely believed to be, the heavy dossier is a grave case of paper and ink waste, and the perverts “do good” too, so “we will all meet in heaven” anyway?
It will soon be three months since the Pope's election. One wonders whether we will ever see some action in the matter during this pontificate.
Or else I am being unnecessarily suspicious just because nothing is happening. My bad, no doubt.
And so we are informed some prominent Franciscan called Father Groeschel is of the opinion that the minor is in many cases the seducer, and the priest or friar who has sex with him is “the poor guy”.
Now, I do understand that a pervert of, say, fifteen is not a child anymore, and outside of the always hysterically “protective” Anglo-Saxon countries a fifteen years old is considered to know jolly well what he does. The idea, therefore, that the priest be the only one who is wrong is – and I agree here with the Franciscan father – simply wrong.
What is extremely worrying, though, is that the same friar goes on to (more or less) exculpate the religious, because he is “seduced”, perhaps is going through a “difficult phase” and is – this should be repeated again – the “poor guy”.
What the chap does not tell us is that people do not indulge in sodomy od lewd acts with young men – however willing the latter may be – because they are in a difficult phase, but exclusively because they are perverts. It seems here that the extremely grave fact that there are perverted religious is considered a given, and the attention is fully directed on the young man who – it is reasonable to assume, in many cases willingly – acted in a way apt to “seduce” him.
This perspective makes of sexual perversion a “normal” thing, whilst it tries to deflect the attention from the perverted priest. Only, whilst it is unavoidable that there will be some rare perverts among the young, it is not normal that there should be even one among the clergy and the religious.
It is not surprising this absurd article has in the meantime been taken off and the NCR, who had published his article without any intelligent editing or control, have apologised.
Still, the impression remains of religious circles in which everything is considered worthy of worried reflection and consideration, but the homosexuality among their own ranks.
I do hope the discussion does not fo in the direction of the boy is never culpable”. Of course he is, if he is big enough to know what he is doing. Alas, this seems to be another holy cow of the Anglo-Saxon world, which for southern European is simply impossible to comprehend.