Matt Walsh: “Homosexuals must be banned from the priesthood — no exception. They must be banned. I said this has to be ruthless, brutal, uncompromising and so that’s one of those steps. Every homosexual priest — banned.”
Good statement. However, homo clergy are – officially – banned from the Church already, as homosexuality is – and has always been – not compatible with the priesthood.
Only an age as stupid as the Age of Insanity can come to the point of even beginning to believe that a person afflicted by this horrible perversion may have his hands consecrated, and everything should be fine provided he is celibate. Such a thinking shows a desensitisation for perversion that is, in itself, a sign of the vast perversion of sane thinking now reigning among the mainstream.
There is no place for priests in the Church. A priest is supposed to be – as much as possible – a holy man, and a pervert can never be a holy man, as Satan is ravaging him from the inside. Would anyone think that a person with an incestuous tendency can be a priest, provided he does not sleep with his mother? Seriously, what do these people have in their supposedly Catholic heads instead of a brain?
We need priest who know to speak out, as it is very reasonable to assume a lot of priests know a lot more than the average pewsitter about the Seminary time of their now-colleagues. We need journalists to publish credible and substantiated allegations. We need to force our clergy to purge as many homo priests and bishops as possible; not out of their own courage (which they don’t have) but because of the immense pressure coming from a laity now booing them at every step, not giving them every money, insulting them with everyone they know, denouncing them as the unworthy, miserable pariah and rejects they are; we need to create a climate in which it is too risky for a homosexual to think of the Ecclesiastical career, because if the events of 2018 start even a half serious purge and cause a number of prominent heads to fall there will be no saying when the next purge comes, and what its severity will be.
Every homosexual priest, banned.
Start getting used to the idea, and promote sanity within the Church again.
This is, in fact, no irony at all.
Cardinal McCarrick, a decade-long homosexual predator, truly deserves the “Spirit of Pope Francis award” given to him by no other than Cardinal Cupich.
McCarrick did what many of these these homo scoundrels do: they go among the poor, spreading money and favours and, in the meantime, looking for uneducated, very poor victims too hungry or too afraid to speak. This is the method of the curas villeros, the priest plunging (I should say: disappearing) into the Argentinian slums in search of easy prey, who so well epitomise this dirty papacy smelling of… shit.
If you have not understood by now that Cupich had to know about the allegations against McCarrick and the payments made to shush his accusers, and that he is clearly part and parcel, and immersed up to his neck, in this system of either homosexual conduct or, at least, homosexual blackmail, you have not been playing attention. How could, otherwise, a newly-minted Cardinal have been do dumb to link his name to a man the Cardinal had to know was unofficially radioactive?
I suspect of homosexuality every priest, Bishop or Cardinal who puts social work at the centre of his “pastoral” activity, and so should you. They do this, certainly, in order to create a diversion from their loss of faith and from their betrayal of the Church, earning th eeasy applause of the world and ready-made career opportunities; but more often than not, they do this in order to find prey among the “dispossessed”.
McCorrick actually was even happy (and dumb enough, in retrospect) to assault his own seminarians instead of going lookin gin the “peripheries”; but this only shows what a scoundrel he is, not that the method does not work, or that he has himself not used it.
Congratulations, Cardinal McCorrick. You truly are an extremely worthy recipient of the “Spirit of Francis” award.
Congratulations, Cardinal Cupich. You are one of the standard bearers of the Church in which the likes of McCorrick thrives for decades, honouring and enabling them and those like them.
We should talk about this “Spirit of Francis award” more.
It is clear that, at the moment, it is all the rage.
In case you had any doubts about the inclinations and attitude of Father James Martin, Society Of Homos, this blog post should remove it fast.
Father Martin goes full all-wheel-drive, twin-turbo, twelve-cylinder sodomy here. The (always fake) pretence that the Church be “open” to sodomites becomes a clear, open call for sodomitic sex and even sodomitic “marriage”.
Has a worse priest than this disgusting individual ever existed? Possibly not.
Every day in which this minion of Satan is not defrocked is a shame for the Church.
I don’t know who the bishop in charge of him is, but I dread to think of what must go on in that depraved soul.
Some of the events I had forgotten, some others I did not know.
Boy, this is impressive, and not in a good way.
Kudos to Fr Ray Blake for the guts.
Via Vox Cantoris, the Toronto Catholic Witness has the translation of a very interesting interview with Father Oko. Father Oko is already known to the older readers of this blog, and I have just reblogged one of his best efforts.
The interview has some very interesting points:
- Charamsa wasn’t an “obscure official”, buried in the offices of the CDF because it was embarrassing to keep him in Poland. No, he was vocally active in Polish magazines, and embarked in a smear campaign against Oko himself.
- Once again what yours truly incessantly preaches proves true: whenever a priest shows “progressive” tendencies, it is legitimate to suspect that either faggotry or a mistress are behind it.
- Once again, we notice that once Satan takes hold of a man through sexual perversion, he tries to destroy him completely. Charamsa has embarked on an ego-driven road to self-destruction because his perversion has literally eaten him out. Oko is very charitable in offering to pay for treatment. I prefer the old times, when the treatment was the scaffold.
Father Oko also has interesting words about the present situation in the Church, and the fact that bad apples will also be present in the finest catholic orchard. Not that the orchard is very fine at the moment…
Super Express: But he [Charamsa] finished in the seminary, is a doctor of theology, and until recently, was an important Vatican official. How is it possible to function like that in the Church for so many years?Fr. Oko: It is, unfortunately the dark side of the Church. I myself wrote about the homolobby. There were in the Church people like Archbishops Juliusz Paetz and Jozef Wesolowski. It would seem that people of their kind have provided a career for Fr. Charamsa. Those people are very supportive, it is the so-called ‘Lavender Mafia’. This sick part of the Church has always existed. Judas among the twelve apostles constituted 8.5 percent. If you convert that to the 30,000 priests in Poland, it turns out that more than 2.5 thousand priests are living badly, like Judases. Charamsa belongs to this group of Judases, of Cains. Betraying the Church the person places himself above the bishops, theologians, popes, one can even say: above God. Pope Benedict XVI said that genderism is worse than Marxism. Pope Francis said it is like a tsunami, demonic, satanic. Jesus spoke of whitewashed tombs, a brood of vipers, murderers of the prophets. According to Fr. Charamsa these words are unacceptable, our language should instead purr sweetly. If someone thinks he knows better than God on how to speak of this, it indicates a madness or possession.
The jury has been out a long time – but only because we are charitable, and he the Successor of Peter – to decide whether the Bishop of Rome is merely a minus habens or a positively evil one.
It is somewhat difficult to say, because the man is so unconcerned with contradicting himself in the most blatant way, so utterly indifferent whether he makes any sense at all or not, that a case of sheer stupidity cannot be excluded. What is certain, is that if a politician went around spreading the same nonsense day in and day out Francis regales us with, the world would laugh out loud, and he wouldn't be a politician for long.
Very recently, the Bishop of Rome gave us another stunning example of this astonishing behaviour: first he assured us that the Devil exists, and then he told us one of his most evil actions is to lead people to gossip.
As to the first part, yes we can read, and we know even the Gospel mentions the devil. Francis must think his audience have no idea at all of Christianity to make such platitudes the object of a homily. I mean, some not well meaning heretics may think that no one goes to hell, but no sane Christian would doubt the existence of the Devil.
Note, though, that in Francis' Catholic Disneyland there is no serious consequence attached to this existence of Satan: if God slaps us in the wrist at most – most days, I mean; on other days he sends you to hell if you are a mafioso; on no day common people are in danger of damnation – and following one's conscience is enough even if one is an atheist, Francis' Satan is nothing else than a bearded and horned nincompoop spinning around for no real or lasting purpose.
This cretinous thinking is shown by the other “teaching” of the Destroyer In Chief: Satan's great effort in order to lead us to… gossip.
Let us say it again: the same man living under the roof of a sodomite tells us the devil wants to make you gossip. How a man could be so senseless is difficult to even fathom, which is why on the balance one might well conclude Francis isn't really stupid, he just hopes we think so.
And by the way, why this obsession with gossip? Can it be entirely casual that we are confronted with a Bishop of Rome who, whilst the entire West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and threatens Christianity in an increasingly more evident way even in the West, is concerned about… gossip?
Could it rather not be that this rather strange character has every reason to fear revelations concerning his own past, his own character, his own very sexual behaviour at some point or other? And that he tries to prevent this by warning us about thinking ill of… him? How can, otherwise, this fixation with gossip whilst Christianity drowns in a see of perversion and he himself lives near to sodomites be halfway rationally explained?
And if this is so – and it might well be so: this is a former bouncer, and they aren't known for being innocent violets; nor would he be the first prelate who is blackmailed because of his past – would it then not provide a logical, rational, understandable (but not justifiable) explanation of the astonishing silence of this man, worrying about gossip as the West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and, soon, outright persecution of real Christians?
I am no fan of conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theories are, basically without exception, outlandish in their very object and obviously aimed at explaining some absurd theory behind them. But here it is different: what is outlandish, unreal, utterly absurd is a Pope concerned with gossip as Christianity is threatened all over the West, and to try to give a logical explanation to this absurd behaviour is, in fact, the rational and logical thing to do.
There is a perfectly logical – if morally untenable; but then Bergoglio was always morally untenable – explanation for a man apparently so astonishingly blind as this one: thatvthe gay mafia – in the Vatican or outside – has him in his hands. Then, it all makes sense: the necessity to keep the pervert near him, basically controlling through his staff everyone who gets in or out; the countless episodes of downplaying of both sodomitical behaviour and gay mafia, and the slowly absurd attempts at deflecting the attention from the issue of sexual perversion when the entire West doesn't talk of anything else.
Mind, this does not have to be so. The man would be Modernist enough in his outlook even if he were to notice the gravity of the sin of the sodomites, and would not surround himself with characters like Monsignor Ricca; and that he isn't a genius, but is very fond of popularity, should by now be clear even to a very dim intelligence.
It does not have to be so. But if you ask me it is plausible to think that it might be so; because it gives a logical, plausible, rational explanation to the absurd, outlandish, unreal, beyond stupid phenomenon of a Pope blabbering nonsense about gossip as the world is excoriated by the flame-throwers of the Gaystapo.
Many thanks to Gerard Brady for pointing me out to an Eponymous Flower blog post exposing an internet site shamelessly dedicated to the provision of “dating services” to homosexual priests, in several languages.
I never thought I’d see the day, that’s all. Such is the extent of the devastation the endemic stupidity of the post-Vatican II era has caused.
I read around this Pope will be judged by history according to his ability of dealing with the restructuring of the Curia.
I’d rather say this Pope will be judged by history (and from the Lord above) according to his energy in dealing with sexual perversion within and without Church structures.
Even after the felicitous departure of Cardinal Roger Mahony from the Diocese of Los Angeles – last time I looked, the biggest diocese of them all as far as the number of faithful is concerned – strange things continue to happen over there, hovering like ghosts over the diocese like the horrible Cathedral left to us as a memento of irreligiousness, wasteful megalomania and outright stupidity.
We are informed ( I have it from Father Z, who mentions the CNA, which mentions other sources) that a Los Angeles priest has been suspended for openly supporting what he astonishingly calls “gay marriage”.
Not so surprisingly, the chap describes himself as “a gay man and a celibate gay priest”.
Now, one can only approve of the decision of the Diocese to suspend the obviously heretical man from making further damage among his sheep; but the question is not this one.
The real question is: how likely it is that the man decided to “out” himself at the same time as he made public his support for the logical impossibility of so-called “gay marriage”? How likely it is, on the other hand, that the man was openly homosexual and had outed himself some time, perhaps a long time, before the event?
I write this because it strikes me as odd that the Priest be suspended because he “supports gay marriage”, whilst the fact that he is openly homosexual does not seem to have been a factor in the decision.
More gravely, CNA reports that the priest “will be suspended as long as he remains politically active”. What! Without making a complete abiura, and apologising for the damage done? Should he be, then, allowed to go back to his parishioners as an openly gay priest who used to publicly support “gay marriage” but is not able to do that anymore? What is this, an Anglican province of Los Angeles?
Even the notoriously weak and “nuanced” authorities if the Church in England made very clear, when the Ordinariates were announced, that no openly gay Anglican so-called priest would be accepted in the priesthood in the Catholic Church, for the simple and elementary fact that a priest cannot be more allowed to be homosexual than to be a paedophile or a lover of dogs, and that whilst the Church cannot enquire into the mind of people, once one has told that he is a sexual pervert the game is up, period.Good Lord, has the Diocese of Los Angeles not had enough problems in the past thanks to the ingress of sexual perverts (in great part homosexual) among her ranks? Are they so eager for the next payment of several hundred million dollar?
One reads such news, and wonders. There are dioceses that manage to make bad headlines even when they are supposed to make good ones, because the mismanagement, corruption or worse are so widely spread that it is difficult to give glimpses of the diocese’s workings without the rot emerging.
“Suspended as long as he remains politically active”, my foot.
Abject apology or kick him out, say I.
Is there one area, just one area of the faith that the modernist, hippie, liberal, progressive, watered-down-the-faith, bongo-pounding, liturgy-destroying, church-wreckovation modernist crowd has not destroyed?
This asks Michael Voris in this brilliant video and I’m afraid that – if we consider “destroyed” in a sociological rather than sacramental meaning – we know the answer.
This video is not about the travesty in drags proposed by our pervert community, but about the real thing. The dramatic drop in marriages is – as the Catholics in the United States clearly haven’t developed a sudden desire for collective bachelorhood – obviously linked to the downplaying of this sacrament by the liberal clergy . Voris actually puts it stronger than that, defining such shepherds as “liberal or gay* or modernist priests” and pointing out to an issue that should be discussed more often, that is: priests who are liberal because they’re homosexual.
Homosexual or not homosexual, many a priest has a very comfortable “let’s wait” attitude, which is in the best case similar to a “can’t be bothered” attitude, and in the worst to a “I agree with you” attitude. The idea is that, given time, everything adjusts itself and the prodigal (but oh so nice; and with the heart in the right place; and certainly environmentally friendly) sons and daughters will come back to marriage and sacramental life once they are settled.
“Are you mental!? No they do not come back!”,, is Voris’ emphatic answer. And in fact you must ask yourselves how would parents be considered who, seeing their children taking drugs and drifting toward alcoholism, reacts by saying “hey, no big deal; they’ll stop in due time”, and how many of those unfortunate teenagers would grow up to be responsible adults rather than, alas (can I say that without anyone being “hurt”?) junkies and drunkards. There’s a reason why a priest is called “father” instead of, say, “favourite, all-forgiving grand-grandmother”: his duty is to give guidance, to reproach when it is suitable, and to be able of showing some tough love when necessary.
The protestantisation of the liturgy has led us to this, because the protestantisation of the liturgy unavoidably leads to the protestantisation of the theology.
This unless even worse – like a homosexual priest pursuing his own diabolical agenda – is at play. Voris again refers to the problem when he invites his listeners to check that his priest is not a “less than ideal model of masculinity-priest” and he once again makes a connection with this and the “social justice”, “inclusiveness” mania.
The last remark is a rather general one, but valid nonetheless: in a very general sense, liberal priests are sawing off the branch they’re sitting on, as those “modern couples” who never came back are unlikely to fund their retirement.
A brilliant video, and one which in my eyes denotes Voris’ new, rather stronger stance about homosexuality both inside and outside the clergy.
* “gay” means here, strangely enough, “homosexual”.