You would think that the Jesuits had some sense of shame. Perhaps, a few have. The impression is, however, that most of them don’t. I can’t explain otherwise how a group old sixty-eighters (several of them, no doubt, homosexuals; some of them, very probably, sodomites) continue to march towards extinction as if this were a valuable end, and one worthy of pursuing.
Take this article from a magazine called – with unwanted humour – National Catholic Weekly. The author of this article wants you to absolutely know that if he is not an homosexual himself, he would so much like to be one.
Let us examine the forma mentis of our man from his way of writing:
1) He receives a letter from a reader. The reader points out to Pedro Arrupe, the former Superior General of the Jesuits, he who got the boot in 1981. (” a move that dismayed many Jesuits”, says the article’s author, and we don’t doubt it for a second). The reader points out in his letter that “so many Jesuits were screaming fags that something had to be done, you know, to clean the filth out of the clergy.” I can’t see how anyone can have anything to say against this self-evident statement. Unless he is a liberal Jesuit, of course, in which case:
a) the word “fag” will hurt the oh so delicate feelings of our man (to the point that he describes the word as “not the pleasantest thing to read in the morning”). This screams “homo” if nothing else does; and
b) he will not say a word confirming that homosexuality is “filth”. To him it is, probably, just an “orientation” in the liberal sense. Like preferring vanilla to strawberry, say. Again, besides saying much about his theology, this inspires some fears about his sexuality.
2) Read this:
Homophobia is still out there, no matter how much we would wish to think of ourselves as an enlightened culture, and exists in our church.
This is another beautiful example of homo-thinking. One would expect a religious to be worried about homosexuals within his orders, but does he spend a word on that? Emphatically, no. Instead, he throws around the favourite word of fags – and those who would like to be it – all over the planet: “homophobia”. “Homophobia” is, then: a) not compatible with an enlightened culture (read: Christianity pre-modern-Jesuits is backward and “homophobic”) and b) “homophobia” exists within the Church (which is a coherent statement, seen that “Christianity” and “Homophobia” really express the same concept). Just as an aside, note that “church” is written with the small “c”.
It doesn’t stop here. Exhibit 3) is this truly, truly disturbing statement:
Thus, the need for June as “LGBT month,” as just proclaimed by President Obama.
The brown-nosing to President Obama (he of the late-term abortion, and who considers a pregnancy a “punishment”; but our man doesn’t seem to care.. a fag) doesn’t hide the fact that here an explicitly homosexual language is used; a language which is never used by the Church in her official statements, like encyclical letters and the like. Not only does the Church never use the word “gay” (which is absurd: they just aren’t as their rate of depression, psychosomatic morbidity and suicide attests), but she obviously never uses the extremely homo-laden expression “LGBT”. This man, of course, does. He takes a certain pride in it, as you can read in the article. How very ………
It follows the most absurd attempt to smuggle some politically correct statement of the extremely liberal US bishops are….. Church teaching.
Church teaching is, if the man can read, here, where it says that homosexuality is not an acceptable option; but hey, let us not allow Church teaching to come in the way of pro-homo propaganda…
The last pearl (before I get tired) of this not-very-manly author is his oh-so-sensitive drowning in a huge wave of sympathy for the poor oppressed homos:
And shouldn’t a group of people be free to call themselves what they want?
“No”, is the simple answer.
He wouldn’t call a pedophile “Smart” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Ku Klux Klan member “Natty” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Neo-Nazi “Spiffy” if they decided to call themselves that way.
The problem is, that to this man homosexuality is so… natural, that he is even unable to see the problem and therefore writes the bollocks we have just read.
The work of cleaning of the Jesuits from the filth within them has certainly not been concluded with the kicking out of Arrupe, and one shudders at the thought of what the situation must have been at the time. Still, these Jesuits are such a public shame, that I hope the Pontiff will soon act to put an end to their antics as he has acted with the “irreligious sisters” in the USA.
He doesn’t have to call them “bunch of pot-smoking faggoty liberal idiots”. I understand that a religious will have to express himself in a less vitriolic way than an indignant layman would.
But if he gets the concept, it will be more than enough.
Shocking affirmation of the newly appointed chaplain of the United States Congress; unsurprisingly, a Jesuit.
Rev. Patrick Conroy is on record saying:
I never pray in the name of Jesus — except when I’m doing something Catholic — saying Mass, for example.
This would look like a serious case of schizophrenia, if it wasn’t just a normal case of being a Jesuit. A Jesuit like the chap tolerating homo masses in Manhattan, or like the chaps leading universities with links to Planned Parenthood, or like the chap denying the existence of Hell.
Interviewed for the liberal Huffington Post and – being a Jesuit – wanting to accommodate everyone and the devil, our hero of the day basically says that he prays in the name of Jesus only when he really must because of his profession but otherwise, hey, he is far too inclusive for narrow-minded acts like……… praying in the name of Jesus.
Someone of his confreres should explain to him the origin of his order’s name. If anyone still remembers it, or was taught it in the first place.
So we have a Jesuit appointed to a prestigious and exposed position, saying that Jesus for him is confined to the realm of strict professional duty. When he prays alone, or when he talks to others, he will simply ignore Jesus and pray – who knows – some other non specified, politically correct, inclusive, huffington-post-approved deity instead.
What this Jesuit (who might or might not be a Christian, but I doubt it) is basically doing, is:
1) denying Jesus in a way which, he thinks, wouldn’t automatically cost him his habit; he might be, unfortunately, right on his assumption, though if the Jesuits were still Christians I think the matter would look entirely different.
2) making of Jesus an embarrassment that he is ready to push out of the way whenever halfway practicable; and
3) making a clear statement of Assisi-I-style religious syncretism, in which Jesus is nothing more than a badge to wear on certain occasions, a particular aspect of one way to pray; basically, an option.
Of course, one must hope that the usual clarification will now hit the computer screens, explaining to us what a horrible misunderstanding this is and how “white” has clearly being misunderstood as “white” when it is clear that it means “black” instead. Only, no one – not even one who has probably long begun to forget what Christianity is, as I bet most Jesuit are doing – could have possibly conceived such an utterance without having a very clear idea of what the implications are and without asking for the text to be modified or, failing that, issuing a clarification together with the interview.
This has not happened; which means that Rev. Conroy is either blissfully unaware of what he has said, or doesn’t care a straw.
Yep, he must be a Jesuit.
The question is, my dear readers, not a rhetoric one.
One wonders whether the Jesuits should not be consigned to forced extinction before the sheer force of mortality extinguishes them; which it will do before long unless they recover sanity.
This here is the latest example. A Jesuit Catholic University decides that “domestic partners” should get the same benefits as married couples. Notice that the term of “domestic partner” is used, which might be a local particularity but might also be a clumsy attempt not to say (oh, that word…) “same-sex marriage”.
Most astonishing, though, is that such a scandalous decision is justified by the University with the allegedly Jesuit principle of cura personalis. In the nuChristianity of these deluded heretics such a principle justifies both scandal and being accessory to another’s sin; and this from an institution controlled by a religious organisation, led by a Jesuit; an organisation known the world over and therefore more easily confused by poorly instructed Catholic with authentic bearers of Christian values.
Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius would roll in their own grave at knowing that their successors disfigure their principles in the most cretinous of ways, even leaving the most elementary Christian principles out of the equation.
It is truly better that such cancerous organisations are abolished par ordre du mufti than to allow them to further sabotage the cause of Christianity.
The Church has closed long-standing institutions when they have covered themselves with such a shame that their survival could not be justified any more. The homo-seminary in Austria comes to mind, and various orders of “sisters irreligious” in the United States could soon follow the example. There is no reason why the Jesuits should be allowed to continue to sabotage Christianity in such a way. When they don’t deserve to live anymore they should die, the good ones among them (if any) moved to other orders to be properly re-instructed and the bad deprived of their habit and left to fend for themselves, as they didn’t want to fend for Christ.
Cura personalis, my aunt.
Cura te ipsum, rather.