Gender-bending in Baltimore: A small part of a big plan


National Catholic Register published an article yesterday revealing the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s complicity in encouraging a female third-grade Catholic school student who recently announced to her classmates and teachers that she’s a boy and wishes to be treated as such.

It’s a disturbing story on a number of levels, the most obvious concerning the fact that innocent children have no concept of “transgenderism” (a make-believe syndrome invented by godless liberals) unless subject to child abuse at the hands of morally corrupt adults over an extended period of time.

Less obvious, and unaddressed in the NCR piece, is the connection between the local bad actors (e.g., the poor child’s father, certain other adults, Archbishop William Lori); the authorities in Rome (a Vatican Congregation and their boss, Jorge Mario Bergoglio) and the globalist cabal that is laboring to remake the world under the aegis of the United Nations.

Writing for NCR, Judy Roberts reports:

… the Archdiocese of Baltimore reportedly approved accommodations to enable the student, whose father at the time was an administrator at the school, to present herself as a boy. She was allowed to use a masculine name, gender-neutral pronouns and a private bathroom.

Roberts went on to inform readers:

Furthermore, parents discovered that the school’s parent/student handbook had been altered to include “gender identity and expression” in the sections on discrimination and bullying.

If you think the gender-bending (more than likely homo, closeted or otherwise) dad is to blame for the updated school handbook, think again.

The policy manual written for all Archdiocese of Baltimore Catholic schools specifically references “gender identity and expression” no less than eight times, pledging that it in no way will be used as a cause for discrimination. In other words, students may express whatever gender they wish confident that the teachers and staff will play right along.

But what about the teachers and staff members themselves, one may ask?

The Archdiocese of Baltimore has a separate manual for employees dated August 2020, which states:

It is the policy of the Archdiocese to maintain a working environment free from harassment on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, national origin, religion, age, genetic information, disability, handicap, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other protected classification.

As for what constitutes a “protected classification,” this had been established two months earlier in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (June 15, 2020), whereby the Supreme Court ruled that gender identity includes “transgender status.”

So, this means that if Mr. Joe, an elementary school teacher at a Catholic School in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, shows up for work one day donning lipstick, a wig and a sundress, only to inform his impressionable little students that he is henceforth to be addressed as Miss Josephine, the Archbishop of Baltimore, Willian E. Lori, will have his back, so to speak.

[NOTE: No surprise given Lori’s legendary commitment to allowing homo-activism in his parishes. See HERE.]

But, one may object, the Archdiocesan school policy manual specifically states:

A school is not required to adopt any rule, regulation, or policy that conflicts with its religious or moral teachings.

OK, fair enough, but what exactly constitutes the current religious and moral posture of the institution presently housed in the buildings at the Vatican, in particular as it concerns the corruption of youth in Catholic schools?

For an answer, one need only consult a 2019 document published by the Congregation for Catholic Education entitled, Male and Female He Created Them: Toward a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Education. There, one finds the following:

Efforts to go beyond the constitutive male-female sexual difference, such as the ideas of “intersex” or “transgender”, lead to a masculinity or feminity [sp] that is ambiguous, even though (in a self-contradictory way), these concepts themselves actually presuppose the very sexual difference that they propose to negate or supersede.

So far so good, but then, citing Jorge Bergoglio’s dreadful Love Letter to Satan, Amoris Laetitia, the document goes on to say:

While the ideologies of gender claim to respond, as Pope Francis has indicated, “to what are at times understandable aspirations”, they also seek “to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised”, and thus preclude dialogue.

As for what constitutes the “understandable aspirations” of those who promote gender-bending is anyone’s guess; the “God of Surprises” (the overweight Argentinian heretic who authored the text) didn’t specify.

That said, one notes that Bergoglio and the so-called Congregation for Catholic Education aren’t really criticizing gender theory itself so much as they are denouncing those who would preclude almighty dialogue via the cardinal sin of asserting one’s doctrinal and moral imperatives as absolute and unquestionable.

To be fair, this is the same crime for which the one true Church of Christ has so often been indicted by the Conciliar Captains of Newchurch, not the least judgmental of whom is the man operating under the alias “Pope Francis.” It is he who openly disparaged “those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance.” It is he who also saw fit to criticize persons that value doctrines presented via “fixed formulations learned by heart or by specific words which express an absolutely invariable content.” (see Evangelii Gaudium)

Specifically, concerning the moral education of youth, this same Jorge Bergoglio posited:

Moral formation should always take place with active methods and a dialogue that teaches through sensitivity and by using a language children can understand.  It should also take place inductively, so that children can learn for themselves the importance of certain values, principles and norms, rather than by imposing these as absolute and unquestionable truths. (Amoris Laetitia 264)

The big takeaway from all of this isn’t just that the Archdiocese of Baltimore is a haven for homo-deviants and gender-benders, nor is it the fact that Jorge Bergoglio hasn’t a Catholic bone in his well-fed body; it is that the entire institution based in Rome – the same that is pleased to falsely present itself to the world as the Holy Catholic Church – exists not to Baptize the nations, teaching them everything whatsoever that Jesus commanded, but rather to promote an earthbound program based on the following conviction:

Absolute and unquestionable, BAD. Fluid and subjective, GOOD.

This same conviction also happens to lie at the very heart of the globalist agenda vis-à-vis religion. As Cornelia Ferreira recently wrote in an article for The Catholic inquisitor:

In the new world community, one may “belong” to a certain religion so long as one acknowledges it to be just a branch of the one-world church (presently called the United Religions Initiative).  One’s thinking must be indifferentist and syncretic; trying to convert others to one’s personal religious “branch” is forbidden by the United Nations.

In other words, as far as the gatekeepers of the one-world religion to come are concerned, one may profess to believe whatever one wishes, just as long as one never even dares to suggest that there is such a thing as objective, absolute and unquestionable truth.

Though it should go without say, the UN and its cabal of powerful globalists are pressing their aims forward in our day more aggressively than at any other time.

And make no mistake about it, my friends, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is their man, and the institution that he runs, the counterfeit church born at Vatican Council II, is an integral part of the operation.

aka Modernist war