About the Synod’s treatment of homosexuality, Pope Francis offered in his recent interview with La Nacion:
What we did talk about was of how a family with a homosexual child, whether a son or a daughter, goes about educating that child, how the family bears up, how to help that family to deal with that somewhat unusual situation. That is to say, the synod addressed the family and the homosexual persons in relation to their families, because we come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation. This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires. We have to find a way to help that father or that mother to stand by their son or daughter. That´s what the synod addressed. That´s why someone mentioned positive factors in the first draft. But this was just a draft.
So, according to Pope Francis, “We come across this reality all the time.”
That’s odd. Just a moment later he tells us, “This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires.”
So, which is it, Holy Father?
Does it come up “all the time,” or is this something that one might encounter just “several times” over the course of a forty year ecclesial career?
“We have to find a way!”
Alarmist talk such as this has always been the stock and trade of revolutionaries both within the Church and without.
John Courtney Murray, for example, in an attempt to anoint with Catholic chrism the American Constitutional model of religious liberty, the same eventually adopted at the Second Vatican Council, sent the following urgent plea to the future Pope Paul VI in a 1950 memorandum:
… the situation is critical: if this vital adaptation [of the Church’s traditional doctrine on religious liberty] is not immediately undertaken the result will be a progressive alienation of the American mind from the Catholic Church, with consequent damage to the apostolic activity of the Church.
In the present case, Pope Francis’ rhetoric seems to come straight from the playbook of the LGBT revolutionaries who, as a matter of strategy, have been deliberately lying about the prevalence of homosexuality for years; repeating the preposterous claim that some 10% of the population is gay, when study after study reveals that it’s really less than 2%.
Though unmentioned in the interview, consider a related alarmist claim that is being put forth by the Synodalistas; namely, the ludicrous assertion that the Church must create pastoral initiatives to address “people living in [same sex] unions [who] request a child’s baptism.” (cf Instrumentum Laboris for the Extraordinary Synod)
Let’s take a moment to consider just how urgent that need is, or is not, by applying some common sense to what we know to be true; beginning with the fact that less than 2% of the population is “homosexual.”
Now, even though it’s no secret that homosexuals as a whole are notoriously promiscuous (i.e., they’re not exactly the “marrying” type), let’s just say for the sake of argument that every last one of them is in an allegedly “stable” (don’t laugh) so-called “same-sex union.”
This would mean that of the general population, less than 1% is comprised of a “unit” that one might consider a “same sex couple” (assuming that they connect in twos in spite of this being dangerously close to adhering to a “norm”).
The LBGT activist group known as GLADD claims that roughly one-quarter of same sex couples are raising children.
While there is every reason to suspect that this too is a deliberately inflated figure, playing along for the sake of argument would mean that less than .25% of the general population is comprised of that unit known as “people living in a same sex union raising children.”
Of this group, how many self-identify as Catholic?
In the United States, the figure among the general population is slightly less than 25%. Surely, it is lower among active homosexuals, but let’s just apply that 1-in-4 figure to these couples as well, setting aside the fact that both “partners” aren’t necessarily of the same religion, just for the fun of it.
This would mean that only .0625% (that’s roughly 6 out of 10,000!) of the general population is comprised of that unit known as a “same sex couple that identifies as Catholic raising children.”
Now, of this statistically insignificant group of people, how many are banging on the rectory door “requesting baptism” for their kids?
The obvious answer? Practically none!
Clearly this tiny demographic doesn’t give a flying one-night stand in a gay bar bathroom about the sacraments, much less the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church.
Of those who claim as much, arguably some small portion thereof really is seeking to respond to the promptings of grace, and God help the cleric who provides accommodation (stones) instead of the unadulterated truth that calls them to conversion (bread).
That said, is there really anyone so naïve as to not realize that the overwhelming majority of those “same sex couples” who claim to desire baptism for their unfortunate children, small in number though they most certainly are, really are looking for little more than for the Church to validate their sexual deviancy?
Well, if we’re charitable, we have to conclude that there are some among us who are so naïve, and one of them is running the show in Rome.
An alternative explanation that comes to me off the top of my head is this: when you made as many enemies in Rome over the course of the last year and a half as Francis has, you can’t afford to lose the queers. 😉
PS Numbers don’t lie.
I’m not at all sure he has any enemies in Rome. The sycophants in Rome seem to support him all the way. It’s out here in “the provinces” that he’s seen for the evil that he is.
There is no such thing as “a homosexual man” or “a homosexual woman” as a matter of objective reality, so its prevalence cannot be measured. There are persons who choose to identify themselves in that way, who choose to describe a tendency to sexual attraction to persons of the same sex as something inherent. This is erroneous.
One develops such a tendency for various reasons, some of which may involve moral culpability on the part of that person, some which do not. The tendency is then either supported and further developed by the person by his intentional behaviour, or he chooses to acknowledge that it is disordered (ordered to evil) and tries not to act on any associated temptations (in thought, word or deed) but to do all he reasonably can, with the help of God’s grace to overcome the temptations. As with any kind of sinfulness, the temptations must be fought, not entertained.
The fact that so many have fallen for the lie that homosexuality is an inherent, unavoidable part of some persons, is what has allowed all of the dependent public evils to proliferate. This erroneous understanding or representation of man now dominates public life, and is causing the success of campaigns to outlaw the denial of the fallacy, or a refusal to recognise the fallacy as true.
This false, evil thinking has infected the Church to the highest levels. Liberalism, relativism, materialism, utilitarianism, etc. result from false reasoning.
What might be measured is: the prevalence of those who have experienced same sex attraction over a significant period of time; the prevalence of those who have experienced same, and have adopted a homosexual self-identity; or the prevalence of those who have experienced same but choose not to identify themselves by such experience. What about those who choose as a moral agent not to act on any such temptations? What about those who fight against such temptations, and those who overcome them, and do not sin in thought, word or deed, but who generally live in a state of grace?
The acceptance of false premises imposed by an atheistic, relativist and hedonist ideology, means the argument made against homosexuality will be faulty, and unconvincing, and over time will fail to convince anyone. (This is what has happened in the secular public square, and what is happening in the Church, as after decades of poor cathechesis and neglect of natural moral law, there are few leaders who will point out the fallacious reasoning underpinning the majority modernist cardinals and bishops.
We must never accept the false, pernicious notion that a person “is” homosexual. Human beings are heterosexual by nature. Disordered desires ought to be fought against, and with the grace of God, overcome. I understand that is what Fr John Harvey’s organisation, Courage, does, in accordance with Faith and morals.
Any person who has experienced same sex attraction can live a moral life (which includes not accepting homosexuality as an integral part of his person), and learn to successfully overcome such disordered attraction in his life, with good will, right thinking, and reliance on God.
he can to overcome the tendency
Excellent summary, Lynda. It exposes the drumbeat of propaganda that’s fixating public attention in all the wrong ways on this inherently distasteful topic. It also exposes Begoglio as a significant enabler for such propaganda on the world stage because he addresses the topic in the context of false charity and acceptance rather than the context of true charity and condemnation. In the face of such psychological bombardment, so many people seem to have trouble thinking straight (no pun intended.)
Thanks, Crawler. I haven’t expressed the point as well as I’d like (I suffer with ME, which impedes concentration, etc.) but I hope the point is , nevertheless, clear enough.
Lynda, excellent post, can’t tell you have any concentration problems at all.
Dear Louie and all,
1. ON THE SIZE OF THE GROUP: To our minds, these problems extend beyond a small homosexual population, because it’s the larger numbers of immoral sympathizers and indifferentists, who enable the passage of bad laws-which in turn punish legitimate moral discrimmination (such as hiring and refusing services) and demand we all tolerate if not support- these evil lifestyles as moral goods. Catholics who vote in rebellion or ignorance are a big part of that problem. Now factor in the liberal educational system- pushing for childhood gender-uncertainty, freedom from parental values, and openness to aberrant sexual lifestyles including, experimentation in the classroom setting (boys-wear-dresses days) and you have a much larger group presenting grave problems for parents and pastors today.
2. THE SOLUTION: All of that can be continually fought against by a Hierarchy and laity who are on-board morally, and act as a solid group-no matter how small. The biggest problems we face are sin, lack of Faith in the Church, and bad catechesis- which preach tolerance that corrupts society, which leads to bad laws that persecute the just.
3. A SYNOD? Not for discussing ways to “support” people who choose to continue living in sin-of ANY kind. . That is anti-Catholic thought. We need preachers to put the right fear of God and of eternity in Hell, back into people, the way the children of Fatima felt after seeing a vision of it.
4.a. WHAT WOULD JESUS HAVE US DO? Active Homosexuals are unrepentant sinners. Those who know and reject Church moral teachings are also heretics. Jesus taught that obstinate adult heretics need to be ostracized from the community until they repent. When they repent and have confessed and made a firm commitment to change; they get welcomed back to the family with a party -like the prodigal son. Communications in between consist of continual exhortations to repentance, doned in great sorrow and concern..
b. In non-adult children, no sexual activitiy outside of marriage is condoned. Home-schooling is very helpful, but they must be taught modesty and chastity of thought, word and deed, not modernist sex-ed. That means parents and clergy have to fight the outrageous things going on in schools and communities, that get children thinking about sex at all, with no need to think about “determining sexual preference”. Raise them as if they are normal, and if they don’t feel attracted to the opposite sex later, then they stay chaste and single and are loved as always, with special Catholic counseling if abberations become apparent–just as we do with any other physical or psychological problems. No special lessons are needed for parents on how to love our children. Sin and society’s bad values are what we need to fight tooth and nail, and forced classroom sex-ed that corrupts youth, and sadly, Popes who think like the world, that sin is something we are to tolerate while we make them as comfortable as possible in their obstinate state.
Although it’s not happening so much among traditional Catholics (just plain old Catholics, as Louie likes to say), who are used to fighting, I sense increasing despair among Novus Ordo Catholics I know. It’s caused by nonsense such as the Pope’s comments on homosexuals, and the whole Synod charade. That’s the real “Francis Effect.”
We must Keep the Faith until Jesus sorts this all out, preferably through Francis’ quick abdication. He’s old and has many ailments. He deserves a quite retirement.
Dear John Madison,
We’re sure S .Armaticus could provide you with a much longer list than we can, of the Pope’s current “enemies” in Rome–meaning those willing to stand up against him publicly, doing interviews and writing books that refute his heterodox or protestant stances and citing Church teachings that refute him. (Burke, Pell, Muller, …) even risking demotion “career-ending” transfers.
[ Don’t know if you’ve checked out his new blog – Deus Ex Machina
@ sarmaticusblog. wordpress.com ] but there you’ll find many posts on this particular topic. Maybe you have a different definition of enemies?
We’re thinking we’d all better pray for his conversion before the Fatima prophecy comes true and he’s attacked and killed as the “Bishop in White” in it. He won’t get a chance to retire or abdicate, if that happens.
Dear Indignus Famulus, Isn’t it strange how Catholic parents and grandparents with the knowledge of, and fidelity to, the Deposit of Faith and morals, such as yourselves, could not be found throughout the world, to “advise” at the Synod on the Family???
Catholics who truly believe, and seriously strive to live, the Faith are held in the utmost contempt by the Holy See, and most chanceries, and parishes.
Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .
Lynda, excellent post. Thank you for mentioning Courage. It is almost 35 years old but how many are even aware of it? Their website is http://www.couragerc.net with Information, films and testimonials.
Thanks for the kind words, but as long as disoriented modernists are in charge of things, we can probably expect more of the rainbow flag- wavers to be their chosen advisors, rather than folks like us who work from Our Lady’s hidden underground, (offering up our little daily “stuff” when we’re not griping ) and praying for those who persecute us and our families-including the Pope and all his cohorts.. Our plan is to either get them converted, or outlive them.
Can you imagine how we’re all going to feel when the Consecration gets done? More amazed than the 70,000 people who witnessed the miracle of the Sun, we bet. Just gotta hang in there….. 🙂 🙂
The absolute monarch of Vatican City again makes his intentions crystal clear in the new “Synod on the Family” questionnaire. Fresh from the success of October’s “Let a hundred flowers bloom” moment, which saw the removal of Burke, the new questionnaire appears at the end of this document, and is prefaced as follows:
“The proposed questions which follow…are intended to assist the bishops’ conferences in their reflection and to avoid, in their responses, a formulation of pastoral care based simply on an application of doctrine…”.
I suppose when you have questioned the sanctity of the handmaid of the Lord, said that “God does not exist: Do not be shocked!”, and, to be specific, that “there is no Catholic God”, trampling on the natural law should be a walk in the park. A park filled with 1.2 billion people, far too many of whom seem to be oblivious to these blasphemies against the Almighty, while not tolerating a single word against Bergoglio!
Remember the rule set forth by St. Paul for dealing with Church leaders who sin publicly:
“Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine: For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.”
1 Timothy 5 : 17 – 20
To only pray for the conversion of Jorge Bergoglio to the Catholic faith is to ignore the tonic prescribed by St. Paul and to substitute a remedy not prescribed by him. The only remedy prescribed by St. Paul is public embarrassment and humiliation of Jorge Bergoglio for his many sacrileges and blasphemies so “that the rest [of the Church leaders] also may have fear”. To wish that God speed him is to share in his wickedness!
Dear DumbOx, Very well stated, and info = central to this ongoing war.
Here’s how one balanced article draws the battle lines: “Leaders-at the Vatican repeatedly stressed that they are not going to alter long-standing doctrines. Does that mean the hopes for real changes are DOA?
[THE REFORMERS SAY “NO”]:
–“The reception of Communion is not a doctrinal position. It’s a pastoral application of the doctrine,” said Wash. C. Wuerl, an influential voice..” “That’s why we are having a synod,” “the church needs to find a way to “meet people where they are” when applying church doctrine.”
— Wuerl said of Pope Francis: “He’s saying, We know this, we believe this, this is what is at the heart of our teaching. BUT how do you meet people where they are? And bring them as much of that as they can take..?”
–C. Kasper said:(Jesuit America) “Nobody denies the indissolubility of marriage..“But discipline wants to apply a doctrine to concrete situations, which are contingent and can change.”
but [“A SIZABLE CONTINGENT FORCEFULLY REJECTED THE SEPARATION OF DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE outlined by Wuerl, Kasper.+ others]
— “IT’S SIMPLY A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, A TROJAN HORSE THAT COULD INTRODUCE DE FACTO CHANGES IN SETTLED DOCTRINE.” -Cardinal Burke-a canon lawyer said:
“THERE CAN’T BE IN THE CHURCH A DISCIPLINE WHICH IS NOT AT THE SERVICE OF DOCTRINE”
“The reformers were saying, “Oh, we’re not questioning the indissolubility of Marriage at all, we’re just going to make it easier for people to receive a declaration of nullity of Marriage, so they can receive the Sacraments.”
Burke’s response: “BUT THAT IS A VERY DECEPTIVE LINE OF ARGUMENT, WHICH I’VE BEEN HEARING MORE AND MORE in this whole debate.” “If that line prevails, CATHOLICS WILL see those who are divorced and remarried (without an annulment) taking Communion, and will ASSUME THAT THE TEACHING ON MARRIAGE HAS CHANGED, OR THEY WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE CHURCH IS HYPOCRITICAL..”
[THE REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ONGOING AGENDA]:
–“Burke’s opinion here is not insignificant — his court is the body ultimately responsible for processing annulment requests from Catholics around the world.” [We must note here– Francis just fired Burke, shifting his credentials from “Head of the Vatican’s Highest Court” to “travelling,-asst.-helper to Knights of Malta”)-which also effectively eliminated his eligibility for the final Synod on the Family next October.]
“other ideas to accomplish the same goal are also drawing some support:”
-TEMPERING ABSOLUTIST LANGUAGE TOWARDS “IRREGULAR UNIONS” — such as GAY AND UNMARRIED COUPLES “LIVING IN SIN”
-STREAMLINING THE ANNULMENT PROCESS TO INVALIDATE EARLIER MARRIAGE THAT ENDED IN DIVORCE
– [EMPLOYING] THE “LAW OF GRADULITY” – that recognizes that people gradually move toward holiness and don’t always understand or accept every church teaching at once.”
Dear Louie and all,
Any issue on which the Pope and Synod bypass genuine repentance of sin, obliterates the perceived need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation and thus strikes a blow to the heart of the Church. Next to Baptism, what else cleanses mortally sinful souls? Catholics seeing unrepentant receive the Eucharist will conclude that Penance is unnecessary for salvation, and die in their mortal sins. This is why their claims of Mercy are really the work of the Devil.
1. There is no way anyone who has read even one of our posts on Francis, should seriously conclude that we were advocating “only” praying for his conversion.
2. Praying for the conversion of a heretic as well as for that of all other sinners, is our (and your) Catholic DUTY., which , is far different thing from St. John’s admonition “not to even wish them God-Speed”
a. Wishing them Godspeed involves speaking to the person in question, and wishing them the Blessings of God implies – in the continuation of their ongoing life and work which includes their ongoing heresy, and constitutes a scandal
b. Praying for their conversion involves speaking to God, asking for the Graces necessary for that greatly-desired outcome of His for every soul on earth, and offering personal sacrifices to that end.
The two are quite separate and different, you see..
Who said I don’t pray for the conversion of the Pope, and, for that matter, all the religious throughout the world? Quick to assume, aren’t you! When was the last time you publicly and noisily confronted a priest or religious who was spreading error?
1.You just asked us above, “who said I don’t pray for the conversion of the Pope…? and then accused us of being “quick to assume”.
2. But didn’t you respond above that, to our post which had called for prayers for the Pope’s conversion, writing:? (our emphasis in all caps)
“To only pray for the conversion of Jorge Bergoglio to the Catholic faith is to ignore the tonic prescribed by St. Paul…” “The ONLY remedy prescribed by St. Paul is public embarrassment and humiliation of Jorge Bergoglio….”
3. We logically assumed from those words, that you were trying to admonish us for asking someone to pray for his conversion, because you said ONLY working to publicly shame him was prescribed by St. Paul.
4. So our response to you pointed out 1, that we never shy away from exposing his errors. 2. that we ALL have the duty to pray for conversions, and 3. that prayer wasn’t the same as “wishing Godspeed” so it wasn’t forbidden, as it seemed you were implying.
5. .Please feel free to explain where we mistook your meaning, since you seem to be saying we did. More importantly, please accept our appologies for any aggravation such a mistake may have caused, as it was only our intention to answer with the truth, what we saw as a couple of false statements.
God Bless 🙂 🙂
@IF: For the purposes of clarification my point was the following:
It is important for Catholics BOTH to pray for the conversion of those who have deviated from the faith AND to confront those false shepherds in leadership positions who publicly mislead the faithful. If my imprecision in expressing myself led you to believe that I was proposing that this was an either – or situation and not a both – and situation I apologize.
Regarding Pope Francis, I would suspect it would be a greater act of charity to publicly humiliate, embarrass and shame him rather than to pray for him since he appears to be of reprobate mind and therefore beyond amendment. He apparently takes great pride in his conformity to the world and its desires for only yesterday he sent a message to a climate change meeting in Lima, Peru:
Read this and weep! The science behind so-called “climate change” has already been exposed as a fraud. Yet those who are pushing the agenda continue to pursue it without shame. And Pope Francis thinks it appropriate to lend his papal prestige to this scam not only in a general sense, but also in a specific sense by actually repeating already discredited factual claims about the severity of so-called “climate change” in his message! He is perpetuating lies! The farthest thing from this man’s mind is the conversion of sinners and their salvation!
In view of this, I believe it more likely to get his attention that he be publicly humiliated in his favorite sphere – the world and its passing concerns – than by praying for his conversion. It seems that he has been very successful (!) up to this point in resisting God’s grace! Witness the destruction he wrought on the diocese of Buenos Aires!
It really sounds to us like we’re pretty much “on the same page” with you about Pope Francis–although maybe we’re a bit more inclined or motivated to pray for him, because of our long-standing belief that praying for those who disgust or upset you the most, is the most efficacious kind of prayer possible. 🙂 🙂
And he really fits the bill!
We noticed the environmental garbage spewing out of him a while ago, so it didn’t surprise us he’d buy into the whole mother earth and climate control thing, too.
Anyway, sorry again for adding to the earlier frustrating misunderstanding,
and have a nice remainder of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadaloupe.
The unavoidable implication in the way the Synod refers to expediting or streamlining the annulment process for those who have been civilly divorced, is that if you have got a civil divorce, then the Church ought to use the annulment procedure to declare that marriage null (non-existing), and quickly too!!
This is a false and a most egregious attack on the sacredness and inviolability and indissolubility of marriage. That baptised parties to a marriage have been divorced under evil civil laws, is no indication whatever that the marriage is not valid and does not subsist. The Church does not look to erroneous civil laws (which latterly provide for the evil of divorce) to determine whether or not a marriage exists. If there was a valid marriage from the beginning, it continues to be a valid marriage, and CANNOT be found to be null and void.
The Synod is making a mockery of marriage. A marriage either exists or does not exist, as a matter of fact. Acquisition of a civil divorce by one or both parties is not a criterion for the nullity of a marriage. It is generally a mortal sin on the part of those acquiring such a divorce – a public disowning of their subsisting marriage, and their solemn vows, and moral duties (public and private) to their spouse, children, etc.
@S.Armaticus: Your analysis of the Synod as being a bait-and-switch scam was very good. I remember arguing with Ganganelli about the Synod, and the supposition in our argument was that Synod was only concerned with communion for the divorced and remarried, and nothing else. Your characterizing of the homosexual aspect of the Synod as a hidden agenda and “bait-and-switch” was helpful to me in crystallizing my thoughts about the Synod.
When you state that Francis can’t afford to alienate the sodomites in the hierarchy perhaps you underestimate the actual situation. Maybe the whole VII establishment can’t afford to alienate the sodomites? Lets describe a conspiracy scenario which I don’t necessarily believe in, but which may be useful for illustrating issues.
Let’s assume that VII was engineered by external, non-catholic agencies who wished to eliminate the Church a la Bismarck as a threat to their global agenda. They managed in an anti-miraculous way to get their point man Paul VI and their agenda installed in the institutional Church by subverting only a very small part of the hierarchy.
Now, fifty years hence, the antithesis (reactionary traditionalism) rears its head and seeks to contest control of the Church. This is of relatively little importance to the hierarchy, but very important to the outside agencies who succeeded in corrupting the institutional Church. The outside agencies like the Church the way it is – descending into irrelevance – and call in their bargain and demand the hierarchy honor it.
The outside agencies observe the reality on the ground – traditional families and religious institutes are creating the conditions for a traditional Catholic rebirth, while VII families and religious institutes disappear over time. Hence, at some point in the future, the Church will resurrect itself and again be a threat to the outside agencies and their agenda.
The outside agencies know that traditional Catholic families and religious institutes cannot be trusted with their agenda – they create traditional catholic priests and religious that can remake the world in Our Lord’s image. So the outside agencies choose other agents they can use to keep the Church moribund and supine – an effeminate or better yet a sodomitical “priesthood”. The effiminate and sodomites have a vested interest in thwarting tradition because virile tradition, when it gets rolling, will weed the effeminate and sodomites out from leadership positions.
So can the Synod be better understood as a pre-emptive strike on the future agents of tradition who will by the attrition of barren modernists accede to the reins of power in the Church? The Synod is a reaction to the “gay dossier” handed to Benedict XVI that threatened the homosexual collective in the Vatican and the “Synod on the Family” has nothing to do with the family but rather is a transparent effort to normalize the position of active and open homosexuals in the Church?
Even if you change the scenario to a merely internal contest between VII ecumaniac true believers and reactionary traditionalists the analysis may still be true – the VII ecumaniacs are seeking to create conditions that allow homosexuals to continue to colonize the Catholic church. If they are not allowed to continue to colonize the Church, tradition will win out over time.
@S.Armaticus: Capsule summary of my comment: The Synod is Bella Dodd 2.0.
This whole Secret Synod dog and pony show is about two words in the Familiaris Concertio: “Intrinsic disorder”.
Nothing else matters.
Next post will go into detail.
I just put up part III, explaining why the communion for divorced remarried is a red herring.
PS Part IV will be the real motivation behind calling the entire Shameful Synod in the first place.
I agree completely with your “theory” and what’s disturbing is how easy it was to instigate. In an age of photography/video, all one had to do was gain incriminating evidence of debauchery–primarily homo/sodomite activity–and you own those men for life. “Shame” brings greater fear than any physical threat.
How the trad-reactionary movement can fightback against this menace and all those compromised is beyond my understanding. The idea that all this drama (over the last 50-100 years) is simply driven by a “modernist-liberal” wing is laughable–and people are avoiding the more disturbing reality.
Nice job running those numbers, Louie!
And the insight that the modernists are always screaming “crisis” (of one sort or another) is most poignant as well.
As a person with a sibling who has been ensnared by the homosexualist movement, this is a “personal” issue. Though I’m a terrible sinner indeed, unlike the supreme pontiff, I still call a spade by its name and could never, ever dream of betraying my Savior, the Creator of the Universe, by pandering to these disgusting perverts.
*sigh* So I guess the numbers are against me. I have a sibling (my sister, who I shared a room with growing up) who not only considers herself “gay” but also a devout Catholic! She had her second son baptized at their local parish with all the family present…including her sodomite “wife” and her family…and they even used the sodomite wife’s last name on the birth certificate. My sodomite sister is also a godmother to my nephew. And this is in a so called “conservative” diocese of Philadelphia. Heck, my sister and her ptaw (person she acts out with) bought a house at the Jersey shore across from the local Catholic Church we attended as children. Cont’d…
The scandal of course is supported by my parents who also consider themselves devout Catholics…they read the Magnificat daily, go to adoration, volunteer for Rachel’s Vineyard, and even run an online prayer list. Of course my parents told my sodomite sister “we don’t want this for you” in the beginning…but after that it was acceptance and go along galore. “Love them where they are at” is the answer when I point out their insanity and cooperation with evil. Welcome to the evil reality that comes from the Novus Ordo and post-conciliar church. I ALONE in my ENTIRE family who think they are Catholics fight against the sodomy and scandal. God bless~
Whoops…edit. They used the sodomite “wife’s” name on the BAPTISMAL certificate. My sodomite sister rages if I don’t address my nephews by the ptaw’s last name. Every single one of my parent’s friends (again who consider themselves devout Catholics in the archdiocese of Philadelphia, including a deacon in leadership) go along with my parents and their cooperation with this evil. I am accused of “not loving my sodomite sister” and “you’re just making things worse” whenever I try to speak the truth in kindness. I’ve lived this crazy for over 10 years so far. Thankfully I found a TRADITIONAL Catholic group for people whose loved ones are in this horrid lifestyle. Cont’d
The group is called “Encourage the Faithful” and is found in Yahoo Groups if you or anyone you know has a loved one/family member lost in sodomy. The group holds true to Tradition and doesn’t support any caving or enabling behaviors…it also helps us detach, grow spiritually, and support each other in the suffering and persecution that comes with the “gay” agenda. God has been faithful in this area…He will never leave nor forsake us:+) God bless~