The Unholy Father has regaled the media with another exercise of humbleness that, in fact, enhances his perception in the world as it damages the reputation of the Church.
I am, hopefully, not the only one who says that these disgraceful things must be put in context (in this country the BBC, the NHS and the very corridors of Westminster are now under scrutiny for events happened several decades ago, and which had been covered under a thick layer of silence), and that it would be high time that the Church – and therefore the Pope – would stop accepting the role of the world's villain without any resistance.
But he doesn't, and looks rather good as he speaks of his “shame” for something for which he is not personally responsible. This should make for a couple of good headlines: “Francis ashamed of Catholic Church”, or the like. Atheists and perverts will like it a lot.
But wait: if Francis is so ashamed, he will be ruthless in his exposing scandals and caring that no wrong behaviour is covered up, surely?
How is it, then, that a certainly explosive 300 page report about homosexuality and sodomy within the Vatican takes dust – or, who knows, was perhaps even destroyed – under the watch of the suitably ashamed Pope oh so concerned that Truth emerges and Justice is restored?
Take it from me: this oh so ashamed, humble man is a six pound note.
Yours truly has often written that if one accepts to be “inclusive” of the lifestyle of a sodomite it is difficult to see how those who have an attraction for a very young (and assenting) boy or girl (or for a dog, or for a ship, obviously with no “violence”) should be denied “inclusiveness” and see their “differences” “embraced”.
Predictably, the pedophiles have now taken the same road as the homosexuals (though you must be aware in not infrequent cases the two categories coincide, to the point that very many pedophiles are homosexual. If you don;t believe me, ask your bishop…) and demand to be considered “minor attracted people”.
As the latter definition is rather long, they will soon come to the idea of giving themselves some good-souding name. “Gay” being already taken, they will probably choose “smart”, or “happy”, or whatever else is one word long and sounds positive, modern, utterly cool.
When that happens it will be interesting to observe the reaction of the liberals, many of whom do have – notwithstanding massive contraception – children; then when the “gay friend of the family” starts to screw the liberally-raised young heir I can easily imagine the one or other long-cherished idea of “inclusiveness” will be forgotten, sharpish.
Also, the homos will be forced to either throw away the mask and awaken their straight contemporaries to the intrinsic perversion of their thinking, or be accused by the “smarts” (or however they will call themseves) of dealing with the “smarts” as the conservatives have been dealing with themselves. Of course the same words will fly around: “smartphobia”, “hate”, “bullying”, “human rights” and the like. The entire armoury of rhetoric words is already there, they will only need to apply it to them.
Unfortunately for both the “gays” and the “smarts”, the vast majority of people – who are, let us remind ourselves of the fact, neither the one nor the other – might well awaken to the horrible maness of both these perversion, and start acting as they should have done many years ago.
Interesting years ahead.