Let us come back to the episode of the Cocaine Fag Partying Monsignor recently arrested in the very old building of the Sant'Uffizio (the old CDF of when they believed in Catholicism and had therefore much more to do).
How do you keep secret, in a place like the Vatican, perverted orgies with drug consumption?
You don't. You simply can't.
Therefore, the very reasonable assumption here is that such parties were the object of whispers of various kind, and the Cardinal who supported the arrested Monsignore is either a pervert like him, or too afraid of the perverts' lobby, or just too dumb to be a Cardinal. Albeit I much favour the first hypothesis.
However, I would like to make two other considerations:
1) For something like this to happen, much more must have been going on for a long time. The impudence of Monsignor Fag's behaviour is not born overnight. It grows slowly, nurtured by many years of complicity and silence and, very probably, the protection of powerful Cardinals.
The rot in the Vatican must have biblical proportions. Obviously, and very much in character with the rest of the man, Francis joked about the existence of the “gay lobby” and asked whether they go around with the badge. Well they possibly do even that by now, you lewd old nincompoop.
2) Nothing really happens by chance. It is difficult to imagine that the Vatican Gendarmeria has not known for a long while that drugs 'n fags were part of the menu in Vatican palaces. Is one, therefore, so far off the mark thinking that there are still some people in the Vatican with some sense of decency, and who decided that something must be done irrespective of how Francis might punish the “culprits” not of the deeds, but of exposing them?
Someone should watch the movements of the upper echelons of the Vatican police. Before you know, it could be run by Father Rosica or Father Martin.
3) Hopefully no one will say that “good Francis” is draining the swamp. Not only Francis is the swamp, but he has exposed himself on this a tad too often, for example with the episodes of “Don Mercedes” and of the Chilean bishop (no time to check names now ; do your homework).
Perverts run under the sun in the Vatican, many of them certainly in clerical habit. They grow so impudent that they think the Vatican palaces the best and safest placed for drug-propelled Fag Parties. All this has, of course, begun many years ago, but there can be no doubt it has become worse under Francis.
Francis is the anti-Midas. Whatever he touches turns to shit. There is absolutely nothing in which he is not a total disaster.
Who will, who will then be the Cardinal who abetted the homo orgies of his own trusted Monsignor in the same building of the CDF?
We don't know. 'Course we don't. We don't take part in homo orgies, do we now?
However, this Cardinal – whoever he may be; and who will he be, one wonders? – must perforce be a damn fag so much smelling of dirt that his sheep must smell him from the Castelli Romani! Francis will be so pleased at his man carrying with him such a fashionable fragrance. They can them fudge packers for a reason after all.
We don't know who this Cock living Cardinal is. But what we know is that there is a pretty notorious Cardinal who might well be him.
Who, you will ask?
Ah, dear readers, don't be so curious! Don't you know that many of these Cardinals are either homos themselves, or blackmailed by the homo lobby because of indiscretions in their private lives, or are just too terrified to go against Francis and his rainbow-coloured minions?
Can't wait for the same revelations happening about, say, Monsignor Ricca.
We know who his “Cardinal” is.
Pity Nancy Pelosi, old botoxed hag marching towards hell with a very solid faith in her divinity. As to the others, perhaps a couple of words are in order.
Firstly, Catholicism has never said that homosexuality is compatible with anything. On the contrary, Catholicism has always maintained that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, and not one iota will ever change in Christ's and the Church's teaching. Therefore, when the old hag claims that homosexuality is compatible with Catholicism, she is saying that Catholicism is a fraud and she does not know jack of Catholicism. She is, therefore, being stupid twice.
Secondly, I wonder whether there are still people who believe in basic decency in Washington or among Democratic voters at large. If you come to the point of thinking that sodomy is in any way normal, it is clear that your mind has already been perverted to the point of not seeing the stench and the filth of sexual perversion. And yes, the two go hand in hand, because it is impossible to be disgusted by sodomy and still think that homosexuality is compatible with anything different from a perverted mind.
Thirdly, these people just forget plain common sense. They think the human brain has worked the wrong way until their own botoxed mug appeared on the scene. Even the Bolscheviks loathed homosexuality, and the Gospel had nothing to do with it. It was just plain thinking, of which even those people were capable.
Pity the old botoxed hag. So old, so vain, so stupid, and such a damn fool.
You might be asked (as I was) whether it is possible that the unrepentant sodomites killed in Orlando might have escaped hell because (don't laugh) “they did not know sodomy is a mortal sin”.
I replied (as you should) with the following arguments:
Firstly, sodomy goes against natural law. No one can claim ignorance of natural law, because its rules are “imprinted” in every soul at birth. The argument of the sodomite who “did not know” dies already at this point. Note also the vaguely blasphemous undertone of this “question”: that sodomy may be a kind of accident due to lack of information.
Secondly, we must not lie to ourselves to the point of idiocy. It is more probable that a snowball in hell does not melt, than a sod in Orlando, Florida, USA “does not know” what the Church says about sodomy. You can safely assume that – even leaving aside the first argument – everyone among the victims in possession of a halfway functioning brain knew.
Thirdly, “ignorance” in Catholic doctrine never extends to “I have deluded myself into believing that the Church does not mean what she has always meant”. If this were the case, one could claim innocence for any atrocity. It would be pure “Francis church”: if you follow your “conscience”, you will be fine. Hitler, Biden, Pelosi & Co. would be as pure as snow. Francis would be a wonderful Catholic.
Fourthly, the entire propaganda lie of the last decades is based exactly on this assumption: that Christians condemn perverts as sinner. Everything these people say and do (from calling themselves “gay” to congregate in “gay bars”) is the result of their being in opposition to traditional, and therefore Christian, morality.
No, it does not work that way. The argument is non-existent.
The question is not whether an unrepentant sodomite will be saved. Of course he won't, or Christianity is a lie; and woe to those (as be they Popes) who try to smuggle a new religion of “niceness” as Christianity.
The question is, on the contrary, whether the single sodomite was saved by being given the grace of final repentance. We can hope for this or that good outcome in individual cases, well knowing that the fox at the bottom of the hole is, on hearing the hound approaching, greatly encouraged to a fox-ish contrition. However, Catholic doctrine teaches us that unrepented mortal sin will not even be forgiven – outside of valid confession – thank to an imperfect contrition, and that a perfect contrition is required instead. Imagine what a mockery and an exercise in futility and stupidity Christianity would be, if “ignorance” could be used by merely claiming it.
The “man” texting to his mother “I am gonna die” should have texted after that: “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner”, and one could have pointed out to this as a reason to have some hope for him. Coincidentally or not, such messages never seem to make it to the Mainstream Sodom Press. But honestly, I think the majority of the victims never thought about contrition. The idea of persevering in faith and trying to live a good life is that this strengthens our resolution, provides us with good habits, and as a result increases our chances of salvation. It is absurd to think that a person may dig for himself a hole of depravity and lye in it without this greatly increasing the probability that he is a reprobate. There is a difference between striving to live a Christian life (sinners as we all are) and striding towards hell day in and day out.
The bottom line is this: God will not be mocked, and those who think they can mock God by kidding themselves into their own convenient set of beliefs are, exactly, kidding themselves.
We wish salvation to everyone, even to those disgusting sods who were “celebrating” their perversion until they heard the first shots. We hope that many of them may have been saved, though we can reasonably assume that their number was limited. But we know as a certainty of the faith that all those who died unrepentant of their sin of sodomy are now in hell, because God shall not be mocked.
Sobering, uh? But that's how it is.
Beware of those (and may they be Popes) who suggest to you that one only needs to kid oneself out of natural law to avoid damnation.
We are informed that the heroic Kim Davis (may the Lord give her one thousand blessings, among them the grace to convert to Catholicism) has consented to meet Pope Francis. As a consequence, the neocon camp is trying to persuade us that Francis is a Catholic tough guy (no, he is neither), and some liberals are venting disappointment at the Gay Pope meeting with a “homophobic” woman.
I think both sides are wrong, and the logic of the meeting is to be sought in one word:Jesuitism.
I have observed many times that Francis has the habit of doing something Catholic on a Monday morning so he can appease the simple and go on being a full-fledged heretic the rest of the week. The visit to the tomb of Pius X, the vague references to the “family”, and the “concessions” to the SSPX, whom he certainly fears, are all part of this forma mentis.
Like Manzonis Don Abbondio, Francis is always eager to let the side he works against know that there is nothing personal, and if they had been stronger he would have supported them instead. Alas, he has to be with the winner; but he is also afraid of the loser, so there…
The Kim Davis episode is the latest illuminating episode. If Francis had wanted to send a strong message he would have met Kim Davis in front of several hundred journalists, and would have addressed words of approval and encouragement to her, coram populo.
He did not do anything of the sort. He merely needed to give some fodder to the pigeons. Kim Davis was just the ticket.
This is the way Francis thinks, and it is surprising that this is not universally recognised by now.
Today is, as every Brit knows, VJ, Victory over Japan day; and as this is a round anniversary, the pomp and rhetoric will be commensurate to the occasion.
What no one seems to ask is how all the soldiers who gave their life for their Fatherland would have felt in knowing that, merely two generations from their sacrifice, not only the Empire would have been lost, but the Country for which they gave their lives would have become worse than heathenish, positively recognising and actively supporting sexual perversion.
Seventy years later the United Kingdom is a Country where perverts can not only contract “civil partnerships” (utterly satanic), or “marry” (the same), but even adopt children (the same, but please add the heightened danger of child abuse).
Would those soldiers have died for a Country like this? Could they have even imagined that things would have reached such a level of moral decay and sexual perversion only decades after their sacrifice?
Today, a Country still wallowing in the feeling of a past greatness, and long downgraded to middle-class regional power with no world policy of its own (whatever influence they still had at least in the Middle East obviously gone since the Gulf War, and I wonder how much was left of that even then), has betrayed not only its own past greatness, but the very Christian foundation – wrong, because Protestant; but Christian nevertheless – of that greatness. The result is unprecedented faggotry flaunted like it’s the latest fashion (another thing faggots clearly like), and made a banner of the new United Kingdom of Sodom and Gomorrha.
Today, this Country has nothing to celebrate. Today, this Country ought to be ashamed, and start a serious reflection on where Satan has been leading it for now many years.
Don’t hold your breath. Prepare for the rhetoric of peace and inclusiveness. Prepare to see Sodom and Gomorrah celebrated as a development of the victory obtained with the blood of soldiers who would have been horrified at what is happening today.
Britain, you won on the battlefield against Germany and Japan. But not only this cost you the Empire, as Hitler in the end broke your spine and your ability to suffer for the sake of something bigger than individual happiness. No, it cost you your soul, as you have started then – and continued to this day – to betray Christian values for the sake of material comfort and a life lived in the immature, ultimately stupid quest of a personal self-fulfillment that can be found only in God.
The Country that only a few years before VJ day had vowed, at one with its brave leader, never to surrender, and to defend their island, whatever the cost may be, must now recognise that Satan has swallowed their island whole, and that they have surrendered to an ideology made of sexual perversion, indifference or open enmity to all that is sacred, and proud of it like Churchill was proud of the Empire.
VJ should be a day of somber reflection, and firm desire to change the Country’s way.
Exactly the contrary will happen.
The Evil Clown has now promoted the notorious Tymothy Radcliffe to Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
It seems justice and peace are always the first preoccupation of perverts. Methinks, they need to feel “good” because they know very well how rotten they are.
This is a Papal appointment. It comes from the man himself. Radcliffe is too well-known, and far too outspoken in favour of sodomy, for anyone entertaining the silly idea that Francis might appoint him to such a position without fully knowing that in so doing he will promote the agenda of the sodomites.
It angers one enough that Francis should be so openly, how should I put it, gay. What angers one even more are those Catholics who keep writing nonsense like “I want to think he was not informed”. I do not doubt the very same people, on knowing Francis has been surprised in the midst of a sodomitical act, would comment “I want to think he did not know that was a man's backside”.
Open your big, blue eyes and realise that Francis is the enemy of Christ, the enemy of the Church, and your own personal enemy. He hates the Church and all it represents. He will wreak as much havoc as he can without risking being kicked out, or having his pontificate sink in a sea of accusations of heresy.
He hates us. He hates all of us. He hates all that we are.
He is on the side of the sodomites, the communists, the environ-mentalists. If you are an enemy of the West, Francis is your friend. If you hate Christian morality, Francis will do whatever he can to help you. It can be that Francis is not homosexual – something I personally find more and more difficult to believe -, but if this is the case, it goes to simply prove the point that he supports sodomites exactly because the Church condemns it.
Acts speak. Appointments count. It is utterly senseless to think these appointments have no meaning and no relevance. Even if Radcliffe were never to act once in his new position, not even ever to utter another word in public, his appointment to the Pontifical Council would still validate his perverted opinions – and, I bet my pint, mind and life – and further sabotage Catholicism.
Please do not say with this appointment Francis “confuses the Catholics”. He is not confusing in the least. He is very, very clear! Francis is at war with the Church, and his campaign will only stop where he fears destruction for himself or for his pontificate.
It pains me to say so, but at this point I think he got his calculations pretty right. Those who still did not get it after more than two years will probably – short of extreme acts like the proclamation of a false dogma, or the like – never get it. Francis will, therefore, continue to sabotage Catholicism through appointments, off-the-cuff speeches and any other way reasonably at his disposal, knowing that provided he avoids the very worst there will never be shortage of nincompoops ready to swallow all the excrements he dishes to them, and say they want to believe the Holy Father thinks it's chocolate.
They can eat Francis' excrements all they want. They will, one day, have to explain why they did so, and why they swallowed all of it so eagerly with nothing more than the most polite reservations.
We must call a spade a spade.
And I tell you: Francis is on the side of the Sodomites, and He wants to pervert your mind just as he has perverted his own.
I stumbled upon a rather good article about the obscene celebration of sexual perversion to which St. Patrick's Day Parade has been, well, perverted by, oh well, perverts and those who are accomplices in their sin crying to heaven for vengeance.
However, it seems to me that in this way no battle will be ever won. The way I see it, this article and the many contributions like this have one serious shortcoming, that should be addressed.
You will notice that the “P” word is never spoken. Sexual perversion is a serious matter, which, by its own very nature, cannot be reduced to simple “immorality” as the one caused by the weakness of human nature. I wonder how many would write that child abuse is immoral and, well, premarital sex is also immoral. Some sins cry to heaven for vengeance, and some not. Some sins go with our nature, some sins go against it. We must make this distinction, or we will give the impression that sexual perversion is just on the same level as common human weakness, or that all grave sins are much of a muchness. They aren't. Hell isn't a common room, either.
Words convey messages. If the message is to be strong, the words used to convey it must be strong, too. I do not expect a priest to write “faggot” in his article, but if words like “gay” and “LGBT” are used in in implicit acceptance that they are the proper way to describe perverted people, then I do not see how we can persuade anyone that is not already persuaded.
The garden variety homo (or dyke, trannie, and all the circus tools of the sort; perverts all of them) never hesitates in employing a very emotionally charged, inflammatory language against you; and if you answer to his accusations of “homophobia” without telling him that he is just a pervert who would, in better times, have gone to jail for his perverted scandal*, then we are going to go absolutely nowhere; because we will be perceived, and rightly so, as people afraid of their own argument, and therefore unable to oppose more than a meowing to the roaring of Satan's lions.
They insult us. We answer by adopting their own language, and being oh so attentive not to hurt their feelings. No battle was ever won sounding the trumpet of the enemy.
The “P” word must come back in the debate about… perversion. There is no other way of tackling the issue than by saying loud and clear what the issue is. Similarly, the word “gay” and expressions like “LGBT” must be refused legitimacy and be used only in an ironic or mocking way (yes, mocking; mockery wins wars), never calling perverts the way the want to be called, but always calling them what they are.
Refuse to do so, out of a misguided sense of “charity” or politeness, and it will not be long until the very use of the word “pervert” will make you persecuted. A persecution which you will have called on yourself out of your own desire to be polite with people with no desire at all to be polite to you.
The Italian says: “chi agnello si fa, il lupo se lo mangia”, or “he who makes himself a lamb, the wolf eats him”.
Perverts are wolves. Be a lamb with them, and you will be eaten.
*In some European Countries the homosexual scandal, not sodomy in itself, was a criminal offence.
Sickening and sad, but also interesting story on LifeSiteNews about a mother whose husband – and biological father of their two children – not only discovers his own perversion and throws himself in a world of militant faggotry, but also manages – no doubt, through extremely perverted judges – to obtain the custody of the children; children who must henceforward endure life in the presence of an über faggoty father and his own, also militant, “lover”, and in the midst of a “community” that could inspire a film comedy in very, very bad taste.
This immense tragedy also has a message for the big public, particularly the liberal one: watch out, mothers!
In the new brave world of “faggots’ rights”, a woman could have her children taken away by her husband, because the husband belongs to the new Most Favourite Minority, the one of the sexual perverts.
I cannot avoid thinking that there is some horribly poetic justice in a “liberal” mother who, after saying for years how much she supports what she calls “gay rights”, loses her own children exactly on the altar of this particular, and oh so enlightened new religion.
Serves you right, Ma’am. And you will you take part in the next “gay parade”? What? Please, ma’am: language!
But the issue concerns, in fact, every mother, not only the liberal ones, as the risk of losing one’s children to faggotry is clearly not limited to the effeminate liberal environment; though it stands to reason that the liberal metrosexual with limp wrist and shrill voice is far more likely to develop an utter perversion than the robustly masculine type you tend to find in a traditionally minded environment where men are expected to be men, and women women.
It truly is almost funny – no; it is clearly an unmitigated tragedy; but with a funny angle nevertheless – to see how liberal thinking eats not only its own children, but their own mothers, too.
Christianity is sanity. Once the traditional valued championed by Christianity are seen as merely an “option”, the result will be a societal demolition the first liberal generation could not even imagine. A demolition caused by the simple fact that once Christian values are abandoned, sanity goes with them; a fact that the proponent of such an abandonment will, at some point, get to experience on their very skin.
Christianity is sanity. Liberal thinking is utter madness.
Mothers, think of your children, and start making the right choices before you prepare for them a world you would not have thought in your most horrible nightmares.
Can you imagine the first community of Pilgrims celebrating the harvest feast together with “couples” of sexual perverts? No? Ever wondered why?
It was, if you ask me, because in the mind of a Christian it seems the utter absurdity to thank God for an abundant harvest as one offends Him by openly giving scandal, or being accomplices to this scandal.
God gives graces of all sorts to men, and then expects them to conform to His laws. Whilst we are all sinners, it is certainly absurd to act in a way that says “Thank you, Lord, for this abundant harvest that will assure our survival in these new territories. Thanks! Have a slap in the face!”
If a Christian does not see Thanksgiving as a profoundly Christian moment, and an eminent Christian festivity, then he can celebrate the Day of Mother Earth, The Week of Auntie Rain, as well.
It's a Christian festivity. Don't allow the atheists and the secular people to say it's not so. For a Christian, it must be so.
Which leads us to the topic touched at the beginning: Faggotry must stay out. This is do always, of course; but particularly so on a day in which, of all things, God's bountiful generosity is gratefully remembered.
I am sure none of you, faithful readers, would dream (or have a nightmare) of inviting the faggot friend of the faggot relative for Thanksgiving. This is not charity. This is complicity In the iniquity.
Similarly, I invite all of you who have been invited to such a place to reflect where their allegiance really lies. I know, there are wheels within wheels, and many could say “but in my case it's different”. Perhaps auntie is 109 years old and has so insisted that you accept the invitation. Perhaps wifey has told you her sister might commit suicide if she sees herself “rejected”. Perhaps the “boyfriend” is dying of AIDS and could, oh, uh, no? Be “converted” at seeing the “warm embrace” of the family…
Many of these scenarios are thinkable. No one works.
Auntie will be helped to die in clear danger of damnation. Sister must stop manipulating people, and take responsibility for her (gravely wrong) actions. “Boyfriend” is helped by making very clear to him that he is bound for hell. You get my drift.
I invite each one of you who, perhaps out of a very misplaced sense of charity, should have accepted such an invitation to say “no”, in the way you consider more appropriate. Have a headache if you really have to, but I invite you to be a real witness of charity by saying why you do not participate. And let the wife or husband go alone, if he or she so wishes. And let there be discusdions, if discusdions have to be had.
But you, dear reader, you will not be another brick in the normalisation of sexual perversion.
Not a long time ago, fathers smashed their daughters on the street, doomed to utter poverty and very possibly prostitution, for much less than open, shameless lesbian scandal. They would chase away and disinherit their first born for something as atrocious as proclaimed, openly celebrated sodomy.
You may say they were too harsh, and I – a man of my time after all – agree with you. But you can't deny that It was a Christian world, that would have never thought it fitting to put one's emotions simply before one's duty to uphold Christian thinking. A Christian father of the Victorian era would take his salvation, and the one of his beloved ones, very seriously instead of wallowing in effeminate sentimentalism.
It is astonishing that our times should be so unChristian, and so effeminate, that even refusing an invitation to an open faggot – and declining to accept such an invitation – should be seen as too much, too harsh, or in any way “uncharitable”.
Glimpses of sanity in the Archdioceses of Detroit, and at the same time a sign that a Pope can’t change the way the Church thinks overnight.
One of the many faggots (real, or honorary) within the Church, wolves in wolves’ clothes, has an “advocacy” group called “New Ways” which, under pretence of “supporting” perverts, actually encourages them in their perversion. I did not like the tone of the article one bit, therefore no link.
ArchbishopVigneron reacted with a sort of: “new ways? No way!”, and prohibited the faggots (real, or honorary) from meeting in one of his parishes.
The dialectic is interesting: the leader of “New Ways” says there should be “outreach” to “gay Catholics”, as Francis says. The Archbishop doesn’t care a straw, whatever Francis may say.
Ironically, “New Ways” wanted to give its support to a local group, apparently called “Fortunate Families”. Whilst I am not interested in gathering more information about this kind of people, it seems rather clear to me these people consider themselves “fortunate” in having a fag or dyke among them. What was always considered a shame for the entire family involved – besides being a tragedy for the soul – is now something, apparently, celebrated.
Boy, they should move along and enter the Presbyterian so-called “church” down the road.
What do we take home from this? That Francis’ evil propaganda will be exploited by all those who want to poison the church with Satan’s ways, but it will not be easy, because there are an awful lot of bishops around, and an awful lot of them will keep being Catholic (in the very imperfect, compromise-prone, weak V II-catholic way; but still, Catholic) whatever Pope Pothead says.
On the usual wrong site, there was the usual pathetic attempt to explain why it is good that Elton Fag is so appreciative of the Unholy Father.
The thinking seems to be that when there is trust this is the first step on a path that might lead one to the Church. Not one word of this makes any sense.
Elton John has shown a massive support for Francis as opposed to the Church. He supports him not because he says what the Church says, but because he doesn’t. He pits Francis against the Church, and chooses the former.
If Elton John had said something along the lines of “Francis is leading me to reexamine my convictions in light of the teaching of the Church” we could see that Francis is, perhaps, slowly working. If Elton John had at least said “I still struggle to cope with Her teaching, but Pope Francis is leading me to examine the Church with a new appreciation of her sincere role for the salvation of souls” we could say that at least trust is advancing. But the man’s approbation extends solely to Francis, not to the Church.
This is an unrepentant sodomite living in sin with his faggot concubine, and even “adopting” poor unfortunate creatures! There is no word of repudiation of his ideology! How does this show “trust” in the Church?
Francis is working. No doubt about that. He is working at keeping people out of the Church, or in opposition to Her. If you are looking for excuses to reject the Church’s teaching, Francis clearly is the man for you. A man openly saying, himself, that he is not interested in converting anyone. Heresy and rebellion, dished right from the top. Elton Fag sees it, and pushes Francis as much as he can. What he wants, is that you convert to the Church of Francis, the arch-enemy of Catholicism…
This is not trust in Catholicism. This is warfare against it. Warfare helped by the fifth column inside the Church: Francis and his heretic fellows.