The rumour is alive that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) might be about to abolish the Swiss Guards altogether.
I am not sure this rumour has any basis. What I know is that this would be, if executed, very much like Francis: with one stroke, he would do a great favour to the army of sodomites walking around the Vatican – and able to go in and out without too many questions asked by inflexible Swiss soldiers – whilst at the same time looking as the simple, humble pope so allergic to pomp and circumstance.
In addition, you must know that the Swiss Guards are chosen among Swiss families of unquestionable Catholic tradition, and remain in charge only for a limited amount of time. It’s not that they are sent on the sidewalk, or consigned to destitution. The end of the institution would simply deprive them of a great honour and of a wonderful addition to their CV.
Of course, the Gendarmeria would remain. But these are professional policemen, with a family and a mortgage. They aren’t likely to pose too many questions about who goes in or out and, being Italian, they would most rapidly understand where the wind is blowing.
No, the problems of the fags are really the Swiss Guards, as we have seen already in the past (search this blog). In this perspective, it makes sense that the homos ask Francis what kind of useless pomp this one of the Guards is.
The problem is, though, that the Swiss Guards are a rather beloved Roman (in the broader sense) institution, the darlings of Romans and tourists alike. It is not only that they are only a part of the landscape; they are a part of the Roman heart; a bit like like the Corazzieri, the tall soldiers of a Carabinieri elite unit working as Presidential Guard. If, therefore, Francis were to just get rid of them, very many among the people would start to question what kind of mentality, and what kind of man, this is.
You see, when you make the calligraphers redundant (spare a prayer for the poor devils and their families if it really comes to that: unemployment in Rome is always a tragedy, but unemployment as a calligrapher must truly be a nightmare. I have not read any news about that, so I fear the worse) the general public does not really notice it. But when there are no Swiss Guards at the entrance, they notice it immediately.
Perhaps Francis will try some other solution that keeps both the people and the fags happy; like, say, suspending the Swiss Guard service at night so that they are “allowed to sleep”. Insert here some sugary story about how devastated Francis was at knowing about their long night watches in the cold and damp Roman nights, and Bob’s your uncle…
We shall see. There is no feat of which this Pope would be incapable of, if he were to think he has something to gain from it; and his behaviour suppressing the Vatican report on the homos abundantly shows he has protected them from day one in exchange for their help in his election.
Francis is, if not an old homo himself, certainly a man of the homo lobby in the Vatican. He has already removed a commander guilty of being too “Swiss” with his own fags. It remains to see how far he will go.
A dark, dirty, lewd old man, this one. I am pretty sure his ideal of the Swiss Guards is like in the video below. So un-threatening, un-Swiss, and judgment-free…
O dear Pope Benedict, why have you been so gullible…
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.
The defence of Catholic teaching in matters of homosexual perversion – heard from many corners since October – is certainly encouraging. Still, one cannot but notice one feature typical of all or almost all the interventions: the extreme reluctance to call homosexuality a “sexual perversion”.
Whilst there are not a few prelates who would use words like “intrinsically disordered” – which amounts to the same but said in a way most people will not fully understand – when it is about really making an impact, most of our prelates balk at the “p” word.
This leaves the public in a strange limbo, as they are told that homosexuality is wrong, but they aren’t really told why. Not, at least, in a way that drives the point home.
I am sure a lot of Catholics begin to think the Church condemns homosexuality for some reason that we will never fully grasp, but register it (for now at least) as fact. Apart from the perversion of healthy thinking such a thinking betrays, it makes dissent not all too difficult; actually, it invites it, because when things are not properly explained trouble can never be far away.
Perversion is a simple concept to understand: the thinking of someone whose sexual desire goes in the wrong (per; as in perjury) direction (versio; as in conversion). This is so, as every simple mind understands, irrespective of the person acting on his perversion, or not. The pedophile is a pedophile because he lusts after children; he does not begin to be a pedophile only when he rapes a child. The perversion is there before the action. The action – or the mindset – is particularly grave because it goes – other than, say, gluttony – against what the natural desire should be. Gluttony is the result of a god-given desire gone out of control. Perversion is a desire that must not be there in the first place.
When you put the issue in these simple words, it becomes easier for the faithful to understand the intrinsic depravity of homosexuality. If you keep talking of something “God does not want” without qualifications you are muddling the waters, because gluttony or fornication do not go frontally against the way we are built, but homosexuality, incest or pedophilia do. We also know that even mortal sins have different degrees of gravity; therefore, to invoke the fact that gluttony can induce a man to mortal sin does not help, either.
Clarity is the only way. Pussyfooting around doesn’t help anyone. Let the church abandon the concept of homosexuality as perversion, and your children will be – when sufficiently perverted in their reasoning – unable to understand what the fuss is all about. Hey, they remember when they stole from the cookie jar. That can be a mortal sin too, no?
We need more prelates and simple priests able and willing to pronounce the “p” word instead of using more or less indirect expressions, lacking in clarity and forcefulness even when they do not lack in meaning. We must not allow political correctness to prevent us from clearly expressing what the Church believes. Our shepherds should be the first to tell the truth whole, lest the real message (it’s a sexual perversion) goes lost in the pussyfooting (“God says he’d really like you not to; why it is so beats me, but hey…”).
Clarity creates clear alternatives and demands clear choices. “The Church says homosexuality is a perversion. No, really. This is what the Church believes. What do you say?”
Ten years of this, and things will change radically.
Nothing of this, and I see persecution coming.
I wonder if this Marco Tosatti article would have made for a good inspiration for a show in the style of MTV “Cribs” where, instead of the ear-ringed rap singer impossible to understand (no’ wha’ I’m say’? yo!) you get the somewhat more stylish, humble abode of His Humbleness himself.
I have already written about the fact that with Francis’ occupation of vast space (one entire floor, it seems; it makes sense, for security reasons) within the Domus Sanctae Marthae, rooms are taken away from the usual hotel guests, whilst the papal apartments are obviously (and let us hope no one gives Francis the idea) not given to illegal immigrants trying to introduce themselves into Italy through some shitty boat. But this here is different, because it exposes the hypocrisy of the “humble man” thinking in its minutest details.
Firstly: I have thought – like, I am sure, all of us – that the Domus Sanctae Marthae was a decorous, nice hotel for visiting prelates like many, shall we say, honest three star hotels you find in Italy. Something in the range of the 80-100 euro a room per night; undoubtedly nice, but no luxury.
Well, if you look at the photos you will see that this appears rather different, with the atrium revealing a more upscale concept (say: four stars, comfortably), which in turn lets one assume the rooms are equipped and sized accordingly. Yes, it’s not as splendid as the Papal Apartments certainly are; but then again this one is such a boor that in the middle of unspeakable beauty he would merely find himself uncomfortable. So much for the humble living, then.
But what about the “living among the people?” Haven’t we been delighted with the idea of the Pope happily walking among busy Monsignori (some of them not perverts, presumably), greeting them here and there, shaking hands in a friendly atmosphere, and eating together with all the others whilst discussing the news of the day, and asking what is there for lunch today? “!Ola, Paco! Que pasa?”
Well, not… quite.
It appears His Humbleness eats not only suitably detached from the clerical proletariat, but he does not want to be seen by them, either, with plants humbly but effectively screening him from the sight of the more or less adoring fans.
“Ah, but this has to be so, Mundabor!”, you will say, “otherwise everyone would want to shake hands, greet him, and co!”
Quite. Which is why you have the Papal Apartments, conveniently away from hotel rooms.
An apartment is there to keep you apart. If you want to live in community, well clearly you will have a community around you. Not difficult, really.
So: Pope Humble wants you to believe he lives in some humble abode, but it turns out the abode is quite the luxury establishment. He wants you to believe he lives in the middle of the hustle and bustle of the Monsignori, but he keeps himself away from them. And he takes away from them an entire floor of hotel rooms, or a number of hotel rooms, because to use the office in the Vatican is too much of a Renaissance Prince thing.
Congratulations. This wins the Uriah Heep Prize 2014 every day.
Now, let us say a couple of harsh things here: why, then, does Pope Francis the Humble Hotel Dweller live in the Domus Sanctae Marthae? And why does he accept to live under the supervision and the management of a scandalous homosexual priest?
Can it be only for the “image”? Yes, it can. It certainly can. For this man, Francis is everything.
But stop and think, for once, as you would if this were not the Pope, then this is very much a sui generis Pope. Could it be… worse?
Why on earth would one keep as gatekeeper a person obviously depending on his grace to even keep his clerical habit? Could it be, because he needs someone who shuts three eyes concerning who gets in and out, perhaps at night? Could it be that in such a way he has much more freedom of movement for himself and others – perhaps, movements the people better not be informed of – than he would in the papal apartments, with the endless corridors and the inability to move without all the planet knowing it, besides the distances to be covered to get out of the Leonine Walls?
From the Domus, one hop and you are out, in Rome, in the middle of the sheep. Which, at night, tend to be the most smelling ones. or, conversely, you can have all sort of sheep visiting you; with just a handful of people knowing, and they conveniently chosen. But to do this, you need someone who covers you and whom you can trust, because he has so much to lose if you only snap your finger; one who, says, hires and keeps in the strategic places other people who are as vulnerable as he is; then, you can have the people get in and out at ease, Pope included.
No, don’t look at me in that way (I know you are; I can see your face right now): one who openly lives in a hotel run by a well-known pervert at the margin of the Vatican City has deserved that questions are posed.
This isn’t Padre Pio, you see.
And let us leave it at that.
This morning, those of you who have attended a NO Mass have listened (or will listen) to the parable of the wheat and the tares.
As I was intently listening (the priest had an extremely loud and theatrical voice, full of zeal and passion; a very effective Gospel reader) I could not avoid making the following two reflections:
1. The reading is, in the present situation, very consoling. It is clear that we must face the abundant tares currently present within the Church, and accept that the field will be a mess until the harvest is imminent. The enemy has planted so much tares within the Church that countless Bishops, Cardinals, even the present Pope clearly belong to the tares rather than to the wheat. The tares are so abundant that they cannot be estirpated without seriously damaging the wheat harvest. More crucially, God will not get rid of the darnel before His appointed time. The Galantinos and the Veras, the Maradiagas and the Kaspers, and even the Bergoglios are the tares sowed by the Enemy to ruin the harvest. Like the tares, they are everywhere in the field. Some of them will, hopefully, repent. It is very realistic to think that most of them will not. The latter will, in due time, be gathered and burnt.
Let us say it once again: God will not cleanse the field for us before His appointed time. We must live with the damn tares. This is God’s will and God’s plan. Thinking of impending end of the world are, with great probability, nothing more than a pious hope born of the refusal to accept that the field has always had an awful lot of tares. The world was always meant to have a lot of tares, and the Church has never be deprived of them. Unfortunately, in this age the seeding of them has been particularly effective, and the darnel is now everywhere. It’s a very messy field. But in essentials, it is how the field has always been.
2. I doubt Bergoglio reads the Gospel other than to try to extract some of the stupid, populist, socialist, childish, or simply unintelligible nonsense he regales us so often with. I know he very probably does not believe in God, does not think he will stand in front of his Judge, and does not care a straw about doing his job as a Pope is expected to do. But I do wonder: if Francis were – perhaps after drinking a grappa too much – to make an effort to read the Gospel seriously and try to understand what it really means, how could he not be shocked at the parable?
It is clear to everyone with a brain to Dalai Bergoglio damnation is a very remote possibility; an event from which he clearly excludes all those who are “in good faith” and “seek the Lord”; actually, an event from which he is happy to exclude even those who do not believe in the Lord, at all (which makes sense, and squares perfectly with the extremely strong suspicion he does not believe in the Lord himself). In Bergoglio’s world, hell must be something reserved to “Pelagians” (that is: devout Catholics), “judgmental gossipers” (meant are again: devout Catholics), mafia bosses, and … well, no one else, really. There is, in fact, no need to even convert anyone to Catholicism, because Christ has already done the job for pretty much everyone.
In Francis’ field, the tares are very sparse, and mainly made of devout Catholics.
How would, then, this probably tipsy Bergoglio react, if he were to really pay attention to what the parable says? How would he explain the obviously huge quantity of the tares? How could he deny that the tares are so abundant that they cannot be uprooted without destroying the entire harvest?
Now: the usual Bergoglio would probably tell you that Jesus was just being cunning, and was deceiving his disciples so that they do not no bad things like, say, going back to Judaism (no, wait! This can’t be! Buddy Skorka is Jewish and perfectly fine where he is! please pick another example, will you?…). But tipsy Bergoglio, who for a moment forgets his own rubbish thinking and tries to really understand what Jesus says with the parable, must be simply terrified.
No worry, though. The event is not very probable.
We all know when Bergoglio is tipsy he is more likely to grab the next smartphone around and send a “video-selfie” to a so-called “brother bishop”, than to read the Gospel and try to get some use from it.
Possibly homosexual priest promotes sodomy his entire life.
Francis receives him.
He concelebrates Mass with him.
He even kisses his hand.
(The priest is the one dressed like a layman, with a cross added)
Homosexual priest has given open scandal in South America for many years.
He is allowed to run three Vatican hotels, where religious of a certain kind can, more or less casually, meet other religious of a certain kind, undisturbed.
Francis lives under his roof.
He also promoted the man to an extremely high position, at the head of the Vatican Bank.
Francis is photographed with him in a very friendly attitude.
Perfectly orthodox priests from a very saintly family co-founds a perfectly orthodox religious order that becomes among the most successful within the Church.
He is slandered and confined at home, whilst Francis goes over his order with the steamroller.
Time to wake up.
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.
The person of the Pope and the Papacy are separated. Of course they are. The latter is a divinely appointed office, the former is a fallible man elected by fallible men; men who may, or may not, ask for the guidance of the Holy Ghost during a Conclave.
Therefore, logic demands that it be allowed to criticise the fallible man – harshly, if his shortcomings are so extreme as to make it necessary – without this impinging on the sacred institution. On the contrary, the Pope is criticised exactly because of the damage he causes for the sacred institution of the Papacy and, by extension, of the Church.
It is rather disingenuous, and devoid of logic, to say that those who criticise the Pope damage the Papacy. They damage the Pope's credibility as a person – particularly if he has none, as in this case – but they do it to protect the Papacy, and by extension the Church and, ultimately, Her Bridegroom, Christ.
If, therefore, anyone were to say that the Pope cannot be criticised because this damages the Papacy, this would be tantamount as to say that the person of the Pope cannot be criticised if he damages – the current occupier, actually, insults or very obviously misrepresents – God. This borders on Papolatry, and makes no sense at all. Particularly then, when at the same time all the other ranks of the Church are considered fair game for criticism, and harsh criticism whenever necessary; only not the Pope, who does pretty much the same that the others do, but with infinitely more scandal as his every word is far more widely read and listened to.
Furthermore, it is not to be seen why criticism of the Pope would damage the Papacy, but criticism of the Successors of the Apostles or of Princes of the Church would not damage the Church. The Pope isn't a demigod on earth. In fact, the actual occupier of the office insists in seeing himself as a Bishop, and calling himself that way.
Either the Church is damaged by criticism to his prelates even when they are justified, or she isn't. Either it is allowed to criticise the Pope, or it is not allowed to criticise the bishops. Compulsory blindness when the line to the Pope has been crossed has never been the Church's way. Ask St Paul. Or St Peter, come to that. I wonder how many, today, would say to Paul that he can criticise everyone and everything, but he must stop in front of Peter.
It does not make any sense to compare traditionalist Catholics to Luther. The proof of the pudding is, as always, in the… Truth.
Traditionalist Catholics would stand the test of every generation of Catholics of the past. Luther wouldn't, and neither would Francis. You measure a Catholic according to his loyalty to Christ's Truth, not to his blind refusal to criticise the Pope.
Nor can it be said that the Pope is misread, the Cardinals aren't. Kasper is wrong, but Francis who supports him isn't. Homos within the Chutch are wrong, but Francis who shamelessly and publicly defends Ricca isn't. Liturgical wreckovators are wrong, but Bergoglio committing liturgical abuses – yes, it's a liturgical abuse even if one is Pope – isn't. I could go on.
It also does not make any sense to accuse friends of the SSPX to have “left the church”. They haven't, unless one is deranged enough to think that 2,000 years of Catholicism have left the Church. Again, adherence to Truth is what counts. Admirably, the SSPX practices this adherence to Truth in everything, including their obedience to the Pope whenever possible. But like every Catholic generation of the past, they do not let their obedience become blind Papolatry. Ask John XXII, or Pope Liberius, or Pope Honorius, whether this was the thinking of Catholics of the past.
Finally, it is very disappointing that someone who has been criticised in a very charitable way should accuse his opponents of outright malice.
Firstly, it is not clear why the same accusation could not be made to the same person when he criticises, say, Cardinal Dolan. Secondly, it has no basis in logic.
I do not accuse anyone of, say, not criticising the Pope because, say, his sponsors and donors – like, say, the Opus Dei – would stop giving money to him. I understand the thinking could simply be aligned. Similia similibus solvuntur. But I am rather grated when one who takes contributions to defend a certain line – contributions out of which his own livelihood is paid – accuses of ulterior motives many bloggers – and getting more numerous – who criticise the Pope out of sincere love for Christ and His Church; after working hours and sacrificing their own free time; and without any hope of monetary reward for their effort. Gratis et amore Dei.
It is astonishing, and utterly devoid of any logic, that one who is criticised for telling the Truth about anyone but the Pope should move the same accusations to those who do the same as he does, but with more coherence, and following 2,000 years of Church history from St Paul down.
I go as far to say that when such a malicious criticism is levelled, a breach of trust has occurred.
Avoid Michael Voris' channel.
Upon the election of Jorge Bergoglio, Rorate Caeli published the opinion of Marcelo Gonzalez, an Argentine Catholic journalist.
The Horror!Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was “blessed” by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the “powers” of the TV-pastors.This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual “marriage” [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion… and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.
I will not beat around the bush here: one year later, every single word of the man has been proved extremely accurate. Let us see in detail. No links, because it would take me occupied for hours. Search this blog.
1. He openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals.
Check. Salvation for atheists. “Who am I to judge”. God slaps you on the wrist at the worst. Hold on to your Koran. Countless others statements of the same tenor.
2. Faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.
Check. A notorious and scandalous homosexual at the head of the Vatican Bank, and left there after a worldwide scandal. The 300-page homo report buried in the sand. Creepy insistence on an imperfect church, that smells like the sheep. If you're orthodox and respect the rules, he doesn't trust you, and holds you for a hypocrite.
3. A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass. Has persecuted those interested in implementing Summorum Pontificum.
Check, and check. The TLM is a “fashion” for “addicted”. The FFI is openly persecuted. There is clearly no interest in fostering Summorum Pontificum. A past of Pinocchio and Tango Masses emerges.
4. Famous for his inconsistency. Unintelligible.
Check, and check. Runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds. Gives air to his teeth without the faintest idea of what he is saying. Journalists all over the world wonder what he really wanted to say. Baffled readers decide he must have said something smart, because he is the … Bishop of Rome.
5. Entourage under grave suspicion of moral misbehaviour.
Check. I will say two words: Monsignor Ricca. In addition: mockery of those worried for the homo lobby; hey, they do not go around with the gay mafia ID card.
6. Has not missed an occasion for “dialogue” of the most extreme sort. Blessed by Proddie “ministers”.
Check, and check. With Francis, Christianity is at times a distant echo. Hold on to your Koran. The Jews have their own reserved lane to salvation. Personal message to Muslims for the end of Ramadan: he shares their joy. May their life glorify the Almighty. Observers are not sure whether Francis believes in Allah. Not improbable. A Proddie preacher is called “brother bishop”. Francis washes feet to infidels and women.
7. Coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions.
Check, check, and check. “Casogate”, showing the extreme easiness with which taboo words escape his mouth. An orgy of Peronism for one entire year, showing the most appalling ignorance of basic concepts of economics. Francispeak and Doublespeak like it's going out of fashion.
8. No polyglot. No curial experience. Does not shine for his sanctity. Has not fought against abortion. Very weak against sodomarriage. No manners.
Check. Check. Check. Check. Check, and check. Italian is limping. English basically non existent. He reorganises the Curia by creating more red tape, and spending vast amounts of money for external consultants. He puts an homosexual friend at the head of a bank. He insists on a church that is, in a creepy way, dirty. He speaks against abortion only in private (with Bishop Scicluna, say), but never when he has a worldwide audience. He wants to avoid “obsession” with abortion and homosexuality. He does not show up at a classical music concert, and lets it be known he is not a “Renaissance Prince”. He is, simply, a boor.
9. Conversion cannot be excluded. Still, the future appears terrifying.
Check. And check. Think of the upcoming Synod, and all the archbishops and Cardinals now happily free-wheeling.
The author of the article (and Rorate by association) were, after the publication of this blog post, attacked for weeks in the most slanderous manner. Some of those who had accused them (like the Remnant troops) have made amend. Others have taken refuge in an extreme Pollyannism that refuses to see reality, merely because reality is not a pretty sight. Others still would attack one for saying the “Hail Mary”.
I have suspended judgment after the article, as I did not know the new Pope and, much as I listen with attention to what Rorate writes, I want to make my own opinion first. I think I can say that in the same way as I did not want to join the critics without proof, I have not been slow in looking at reality when it has progressively appeared to us in all its… horror.
One year later, the prophecy of the words reported above is absolutely uncanny. This again shows not only how well Mr Gonzalez had understood Francis, but also that Francis has – with the Uriah Heep ” 'umbleness” that is his own most distinctive mark – made no adaptation whatsoever to his new job, and has given us a Pope that is just as bad as the Cardinal Archbishop.
A vulgar man. Just as well at ease with, well, “casi” and coprophagia as he is with homosexuals in his own closest entourage. Who is he to judge?
A man with no fear of the Lord, who thinks He will slap one on the wrist at most. With no respect of Jesus, Whom he accuses of willing deception of the Apostles. With no respect for the Blessed Virgin, of whom he says she might have felt betrayed and lied to on seeing Christ on the Cross.
A man deeply confused, and who cannot give a justification for his job as Pope – even atheists are saved; Muslims should hold to their Koran; Jews don't need Christ anyway – other than helping people to feel more “joy” and to get more social justice before the inevitable salvation; a salvation from which he excludes, in case, only the “Neopelagians” who still love and follow Catholicism.
Horrible things are very probably about to come, with the Blessed Sacrament sacrilegiously offered to public adulterers. The Pope applauds the Cardinal who is at the head of the movement.
I am sure I am forgetting various other issues. No, I really am.
One year later, we can say it very loud: Bergoglio is the horror.
Let us pray for the restoration of sound Catholicism. Either with a converted Bergoglio, or with a Church free from Bergoglio.
As the anniversary of the Great Mistake approaches, I reflect on how easy it is to have the job of the Pope. Not in the sense that the job – properly made – be easy in itself, of course; rather in the sense that it comes which such an immense amount of goodwill – ready to translate into blindness – that the only way for a Pope to be unpopular or despised would be to seriously talk like a Pope should.
I could, for the anniversary of the election of a Pope who doesn't like to be called such, make a post with his blunders, heresies, offences to elementary Catholicism and common sense. I decided not too, because it simply does not make sense, such is the sheer vastness of the material. The best thing you can do is to search this blog and scroll down the results. If you were a person who got into a coma one year ago and goes out of it today, just reading about this man might be enough to send you into a coma again.
I have for some time now had very dark forebodings, that in the months and years to come our Catholicism is going to be tested as we would have thought inconceivable only one year ago. A work of destruction has begun that will probably be remembered in the centuries – after things have come to an end and the Lord has restored the Church to sanity. Still, how long this destruction and subversion is going to go on is not to be seen. Francis' appointments of Cardinals and Bishops are going to be – they already are – predictably bad, and the prostitute instinct of many of our bishops and aspiring such is already showing his poisoned fruits.
There is no saying what kind of betrayal we are going to experience in the years to come, as Francis' willing prostitutes jump on the Francis' bandwagon and start “not judging”, or even celebrating, everything from public adultery to sexual perversion.
Already the Archbishop of Lucca says we must “open up to diversity”. Fifteen years ago he would have been considered a nutcase by every Christian, and a possible homosexual by any sane person. This is a successor of the Apostles. For shame. He would like to be a Cardinal, surely. Unless he is a homo himself, obviously, in which case he is simply trying to make life easier for himself.
Ricca managed it wonderfully. It's about having the right friends, you see.
All this happens because our scandalous Pope encourages his people to do and say even more scandalous things than he does himself. But all this happens because most people – even among the thinking ones – decide to swallow whole the load of scandalous gestures and declarations Francis has bombarded us with in the last year.
Easy job being a Pope nowadays.
If a Pope of more Christian times had dared to repeatedly declare that atheists can die in their atheism and be saved, the call for an extraordinary Council declaring him a heretic unless he recants or says this is not what he means – which condemnation as heretic, by the way, would have possibly meant death at the stake – would have been very loud.
Nowadays, his own Archbishops and Cardinals want to overcome him in heresy. Cardinal Dolan is one who says “Bravo” to unrepentant sodomites. That's another one. A Cardinal for the time of Francis the Humble. Bravo, Cardinal Dolan! You might be Pope one day!
It's an easy job being a Pope today. Talk, behave, and even dress yourself like a clown and you will be just fine. Follow the world in all his errors, and millions will – oh, miracle! – “follow” you on Twitter, no less. Avoid saying anything at all uncomfortable when the world is listening, and a weekly magazine will be launched, devoted exclusively to you. Heavens, it will become a complete collection of papal heresies in print. Don't delay, subscribe today.
It's easy being a Pope today. Please everyone but Christ, do everything but your duty.
You will do just fine.
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.
Some days ago, Bishop Scicluna of Malta said something very normal about adoption and sexual perversion; better said, he said something that would have been normal, even banal, in usual times, but attracted predictable criticism in times of pope-sponsored “religion of mercy”.
The Bishop replied that he had spoken in the same terms with the Pontiff himself, and the latter had been so gracious as to express dismay at children being adopted by faggots, or dykes, and encouraged him so speak about it.
Predictably, the neo-con Pollyanna fraction was uncorking the bubbly, utterly in ecstasy at the prospect that the Pope might, this once, in private, allegedly, have spoken like a Catholic. Perhaps it would be useful to explain here a couple of concepts:
1. The Pope’s statements related by third parties do not make lasting headlines. Very probably, they aren’t even noticed by any other than those who read the specialised press or the Catholic blogs. The world at large will never know what the Pope would have said. They are, to all intents and purposes, little more than rumours. Particularly so, when we have a Pope clearly afflicted with a rather serious case of logorrhoea, and whose interviews and exhortations alone are now rapidly approaching 100,000 words.
2. If the Pope thinks about the issue as strongly as reported, that is, is “shocked at the idea of same-sex adoptions”, he has to do nothing else than say so himself in no uncertain terms. It would make worldwide headlines. Unsurprisingly, he just doesn’t. Worse still, when confronted some time later with the girl “raised” by the two dykes, he manages not only not to say anything openly critical, but even to fuel fears he might become “pastoral” in matter of pervert couples, happily throwing Catholic teaching out of the window in this matter as he has already done in so many others.
3. It’s rather easy to be a champion of orthodoxy when 100% of the intended audience (in this case: of one) agrees with you. It is rather more difficult when there is a price to pay in terms of popularity. Francis has his popularity very, very dear.
4. It is clear by now that Francis is a professional of the agreement. He say what people want to hear, and who cares about the Truth. He will agree with Scicluna in the same way as he agrees with Scalfari. He actually says to Bishop Scicluna to speak out about his concern when the latter says him so. The problem is clearly Scicluna’s, not Francis’. He mocks people who pray rosaries with “progressive” nuns, but says the truth must be said whole in front of his bishop. Then he speaks with Scalfari, and suddenly the truth must be denied. In this case, one can imagine the polite conversation. “Really, bishop? Shocking, eh? Is this issue near to your heart? By all means, do speak out about it…”.
Methinks, Francis calls this behaviour being “pastoral”. I call it being a Jesuit.
I am eagerly awaiting for a clear and public statement of Francis saying that he is appalled at perverts adopting children; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with homosexual couples; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with homosexuality; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with him, still tolerating Monsignor (note the title) Ricca as his host and even promoting him to an important position within the Vatican bank, all the while shrugging his shoulder at the rampant homosexuality within the Vatican (they do not have ID cards, you see), and liquidating Ricca’s elephant in the room with a Presbyterian “who am I to judge?”.
I think I might be waiting for a long, long time.
Monsignor Ricca, the creepy scandalous sodomite at the head of the Vatican Bank: who is he to judge?
Maria Immacolata Chaouqui, a rather sluttish E & Y consultant now promoted to “adviser” of the Pope. St Catherine of Siena, she ain’t.
Rabbi Skorka, the infidel who is in favour of so-called same sex couples. Closest buddy evah.
Clelia Luro, who left her husband to become the concubine of a former Catholic bishop. Phone call every week. Recently passed away.
You might – or not, as the case may be – think at times this Papacy follows a double railtrack strategy: Francis expresses himself in a vague but popular way, whilst the likes of Mueller keep thing in check and within the boundaries of orthodoxy (say: communion for public adulterers, or Medjugorje).
Let us see the implications of this, and whether this is a realistic scenario.
If this is a strategy, then it clearly is a fully deceitful, utterly Jesuitical one. It means that, like Scientology, the Church lures people with an easy message, and gives them the real content once the targets are “hooked” to the dream they have been sold. The “modernising” Francis as the hook, and the – for Bergoglio's standards; I'd still send him the Inquisition, and the real one at that – “orthodox” and “precise” Mueller as the fisher does not work as a theory, because it goes against the basic principle of Christianity, based on a God who cannot deceive and cannot be deceived. Francis represents the Church as Christ's Vicar on earth. He will decide on how the Church reflects Truth. If he decides not to speak the truth, no amount of work made by his lieutenant – provided they are good enough, which by Mueller is most certainly not the case – will ever even begin to repair the damage, nor will it ever justify the initial deception.
If, therefore, you share the above mentioned position, you must believe that at the present time the Church's evangelisation strategy is based on a huge lie, on marketing built over the fundamental falsehood that the Pope willingly promotes a certain (modern, pleasant, unthreatening, hip) idea of the church so that the public may buy the ticket and enter the circus tent, where Mueller performs the lion-taming.
The second consideration is whether this is a realistic proposition. Francis has appointed a “gang of eight” in order to examine a more or less radical reform of how the Church is run, and some of them have already abandoned themselves to savage talk. He commits liturgical abuses without thinking twice. He has homosexuals and sluttish women in his entourage. He has a penchant for heretical talk. He mocks even those who pray for him. He says and repeats that atheists can be saved if they follow their conscience. This is not the behaviour of a sleek marketing man. Clearly, there is an ideology behind the behaviour and clearly, the behaviour is program itself rather than just a pleasant facade to lure people into… orthodoxy.
I do not buy the one with the sleek marketing man working in tandem with the smart educator. The facts I have been observing rather speak for an utter Modernist Pope whose heresies are, in part, kept in check by people less overtly heretical than him.
I would so much like to think otherwise, but that's what it is. Let Francis and his minions and helpers deceive the simple. As for myself, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I will continue to call it a duck.