The recent interview, that I have still not watched, of Church Militant with Father Oko (an excellent priest about whom this little effort has already written several times) allows me to spend three and a half words about why, in my estimation, the homo lobby is infiltrating the Church with the success everyone with functioning eyes cannot but notice.
The first element is apparently prominently mentioned by Father Oko: fags in position of power use it to promote other fags. It is so everywhere. It is so among churchmen, too. Think Tucho “dreaming queen” Fernandez or Father James “Loretta” Martin and you will get the idea.
But then there is a second element that I would like to stress: all those priests and prelates who, whilst not homos themselves, have skeletons in the closet. The priest or bishop with the mistress on the side, with a story of either pedophilia or of protecting paedophile priests, with an alcohol problem, with a prostitute problem, or with any other problem will soon notice that siding with this powerful group will help them not to be exposed, or even allow them to advance their career.
Then there is a further group of priests and bishops who might not be guilty of the same shortcomings, but are guilty of excessive ambition, probably coupled with lack of faith. They don't have necessarily to fear being shamed, but they fear being put in the career freezer and left there forever. They will close an eye or three as they try to fake orthodoxy with their sheep in the manner that is practicable without incurring the ire of the homo Mafia.
Where does the Evil Clown position himself in all this? It is difficult to say. The man could well be a homo himself, and it is clear that a reputation of suspected homosexuality accompanied him in his Argentinian years. But the man might have other problems of the sort, as his repeated mention of “coprophagia” and “coprophilia” abundantly show. Lastly, the man might simply have understood which group is it wise to have near, in a satanical symbiosis that advances his career as he advances theirs.
What is clear is that the man has all but buried – or perhaps destroyed – the explosive report about homosexuality in the church prepared for Benedict; a report which the latter chose not to act upon, preferring to fly before the wolves instead.
The more time passes, the more I see Francis as an organic development of Benedict's, John Paul's and Paul's church: a development, the last one, that saw the evil advancing perhaps three step in one go; but an evil that was advancing nonetheless.
Let us console ourselves with this: the Lord will never leave us without the likes of Father Oko, few as they may be. It is for us to brew the best beer we can out of the ingredients at out disposal, and be confident that sure victory, and a definitive one, awaits the Church, and hopefully an undeserved recompense awaits those who do not waiver, and decide to live and die on the side of Father Oko.
No guarantee of salvation, of course.
But I certainly wouldn't want the odds of those on the other side.
And it came to pass that the credibility of the former priest who had denounced the existence of a ring of pedophile priests apparently was (and I quote from my previous post) “a whining queen desirous to slander as many as he can”. So much so, that Rorate reports the man is now under arrest.
My take on this, before the wetties begin to cry and to run to mamma:
1. It was not only very right, but the salt itself of Democracy that La7 (and Michael Voris) made the news public. The time of complicit silence towards the filth of the elites has gone, and the Vicariate barks at the moon if they think they can play victim now. The Vicar should not have had sodomite priests among his ranks (albeit defrocked in the meantime) in the first place. Let the Vicariate be worried about the homosexuals in their midst, rather than about the free Press of a free Country. The problem of sodomites within the Church is extremely serious and I have the impression the Vatican clergy are the only one who still do not get it, and try to deflect the attention instead.
2. The fact that the priest in question may turn up to be libellous does not mean everything he said was necessarily wrong. He might, for example, know some “meeting points”, and have slandered some of his enemies saying that they go there, and the like. As a faggot priest, he may well know enough to interest a prosecutor anyway, if said prosecutor thinks the ex priests has information leading to the discovery of criminal behaviour (pedophilia, but not sodomy, that Italy has stupidly decriminalised like almost everyone else in Europe).
3. The Vicar has expressed full confidence in the work of the judiciary. This is typical Italian parlance for ongoing investigations.
I will not publish any comment critical of the behaviour of the press. When people complain about the filth in the Vatican corridors but shoot at the free press that is one of the best checks to this corruption not only in the Vatican but the world over, it truly makes me sick.
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.
[…] the bishop sat quietly, his right hand trembling slightly as he ran his index finger along his mouth, chin and the cleft between his nose and upper lip.
He was dressed in a grey sportcoat, khaki pants and a tan shirt with the top few buttons undone. He wore glasses and his grey hair was neatly combed and gelled.
The bishop in question is Raymond Lahey, a man found in possession of hundreds of pornographic photos concerning nude boys, some of them extremely graphic and even concerning torture. In case you think the photos had been put there by, well, chance (??) his computer also had tales concerning torture.
The article doesn’t mention with one word the homosexuality of the chap. It doesn’t even waste one word to wonder how on earth can it happen that a homosexual becomes a bishop.
I know that I am being unfair here, but at times I get the impression that in the Sixties and Seventies if one wasn’t scum one didn’t have the possibility of becoming priest, at all. I know, it’s the magnifying lens effect of the press, but for heaven’s sake it can’t be that they didn’t see what kind of rubbish they were getting in. I wonder whether this chap, for example, ever had the possibility to exercise any direct or indirect influence regarding acceptance of seminarians.
If he had, it’s not difficult to imagine of which sort it was. How many others like him?
I’d bet a pint that this bishop wasn’t a staunch defender of the Tridentine Mass, but rather one of the liberal types. Am I wrong?
NuChurch: the gift that keeps on giving.
Hat tip to Rorate Caeli for this beautiful, beautiful article about the liturgical impact of homosexuality in the priesthood appeared in the CNA.
[…] more and more Catholics are coming to the unavoidable conclusion (contrary to “official findings”) that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases were directly related to homosexuality
One may further deduce that the historical spike in such incidents also likely coincided with an increase in the relative number of homosexual men in the priesthood – a proposition too unsavory (not to mention too politically incorrect) for many to acknowledge
Those who are willing to look at the situation with eyes opened wide are left to ponder, not just the aforementioned abuse crisis, but also the broader implications of homosexuality in the priesthood.
It follows an exam of the various way in which a homosexual priest is, ipso facto, unfit for the habit from the liturgical point of view:
About the priest as alter Christus:
Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert with more than 35 years of clinical experience treating priests and others who suffer with Same Sex Attraction (SSA), said in a recent interview with regard to homosexuality in the priesthood, “Narcissism – a personality disorder in which an insatiable need for admiration often leads to attention-seeking behavior – is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality. This conflict results in a need to draw attention to his own personality in the liturgy rather than to surrender his personal identity in favor of Christ.”
A priest is supposed to be “all male” as Christ was “all male”:
we must not fail to recognize that Christ also reveals in a uniquely profound way what it means to be “male,” and the reality of Christ’s maleness is made expressly manifest in the Mass where the Sacrifice willingly offered by Jesus in love for His Bride and their beloved children is re-presented. (The reader may also wish to consider how this factors into the Church’s inability to confer Holy Orders upon women.)
Insecurity adds to narcissism to tempt the homosexual priest to make of the liturgy his own show if he thinks that this is “popular” among the pewsitters.
“The insecurity inherent to SSA could also predispose the homosexual cleric to seek the approval of the laity by treating the liturgy as performance or by otherwise calling attention to himself”.
The pride so developed in homosexual persons makes the rest:
Furthermore, the underlying anger and disdain for authority that is also endemic to homosexuality could lead to rebelliousness and a determination to ‘do his own thing’ with the liturgy.”
Extreme self-centredness of the homosexual person, whose pleasure comes before everything else:
A quest for self-fulfillment on the part of the priest is the antithesis of the spirit of the liturgy, but according to Dr. Fitzgibbons, homosexuals often tend “to see and to treat their own pleasure as the highest end.”
With the introduction of the mass ad populum,
For the priest who also struggles with an underlying inclination toward narcissism, the temptation to use the liturgy as a venue for seeking attention and personal gratification can be all but overwhelming.
The article continues by saying that as no V II document ever mandated the Mass ad populum, the return of the Mass ad orientem for everyone (including NO) might be in the cards in a not-too-distant future.
This excellent article, of a lucidity and political incorrectness which some years ago would have been unthinkable, omits in my eyes to mention the most important reason why a homosexual can’t be priest: because he is a sexual pervert.
All the problem mentioned (the narcissism, the self-centredness, the search for pleasure, the love for show and attention, the tendency to rebellion) can be also present in a heterosexual male, albeit very often and very probably in lesser degree. But crucially, heterosexuals aren’t sexual perverts even if they are weak; homosexuals are sexual perverts even if they are chaste. This is why in the 1930 years or so before the V II madness the Church had – alas – plenty of the first, but didn’t want to have the second. This is also why a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies can’t be priest, even if chaste. Would you want a chaste person with attraction to children to be priest?
Vatican II has brought with itself – along with all the other problems – a perversion of the concept of perversion. Suddenly, taboos were considered minor problems. Whilst Pope Paul VI complained about the “fissures” through which the smoke of Satan was entering – without doing anything to close them, by the way – Satan was entering from the main entrance, undisturbed – nay, welcomed in the name of a new way of “being church” – and ready to wreak havoc for decades to come.
Similarly, and in another ironic/satanic twist of things, the liberal idiots who have opened the doors of the Church to homosexual priests are now pretty much the same people criticising the Church for the very problems they have created.
How long will it take before people realise that Vatican II was all wrong, because the mentality that originated it was wrong in the first place, is truly beyond me. The defenders of V II and the legend of it having being “hijacked” remind me of those senseless dreamers thinking that Communism was good, but its execution bad.
I prefer to keep my eyes open.