Well, if it is not sabotage, then this just might explain some of these wrecks I remember a few years ago in Baltimore City Cars were swallowed up and tracks were covered in muddy upheavals Seemed sudden
I wonder if this scandal has anything to do with the 3rd secret. This could be what Sr Lucia agonized over. Back in 2010 this question was put to Pope Benedict.. Father Lombardi: Thank you, and now come to Fatima, in some way the culmination, even spiritually, of this visit. Your Holiness, what meaning do the Fatima apparitions have for us today? In June 2000, when you presented the text of the third secret in the Vatican Press Office, a number of us and our former colleagues were present. You were asked if the message could be extended, beyond the attack on John Paul II, to other sufferings on the part of the Popes. Is it possible, to your mind, to include in that vision the sufferings of the Church today for the sins involving the sexual abuse of minors?
A pause for some hope in what is still to come after the Holy Spirit renews the face of the earth and "recreates" us. Lovely Catholic hymns (was looking for Ave Verum Corpus to be included....but alas..) found on email from the mystic's, Cora Evans' (Servant of God currently) site. Some are special gifts to our Irish folk here! If you haven't read Cora's main book, "Refugee from Heaven", about the mystical humanity of Christ, well, I found it well worth it...as well as her "Selected Writings" (which includes some of the other book). This particular offering below has for its background the end scenes from the movie, "Fantasia", I believe.....the early morning of "grace" after the horrendous "Night on Bald Mountain" portion which seemed to me even as a child to be a kind of depiction of the "end" or at least those days of darkness with demons manifesting their final hurrah! Why we're told not to look out our windows!!! https://www.coraevans.com/blog/article/listen-to-the-most-beautiful-catholic-hymns And....that "Night on Bald Mountain":
Vatican to interview Chile victim in person Feb 7, 2018 ASSOCIATED PRESS Juan Carlos Cruz reads from his tablet during an interview with The Associated Press in Philadelphia, Sunday Feb. 4, 2017. Cruz says Pope Francis received a letter he wrote in 2015 detailing the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a priest and efforts by the Chilean church to cover it up, contradicting the pope’s recent insistence that no victims had come forward. (Credit: Yvonne Lee/AP.) ROME - The Vatican’s sex-crimes expert is changing plans and will fly to New York to take in-person testimony from a Chilean sex abuse victim after his pleas to be heard by Pope Francis were previously ignored, the victim told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The switch from a planned Skype interview came after the AP reported that Francis received a letter in 2015 from Juan Carlos Cruz, a survivor of Chile’s most notorious pedophile priest. Cruz wrote the pope that one of the priest’s proteges, Bishop Juan Barros, was present for his abuse and did nothing, and questioned Francis’s decision to make him a diocesan bishop. Barros has denied seeing or knowing of any abuse committed by Father Fernando Karadima, a charismatic priest sanctioned by the Vatican in 2011 for sexually abusing minors. Francis sparked an outcry during his recent visit to Chile by strongly defending Barros, describing the accusations against him as slander, and saying he never heard from any victims about Barros’ behavior. The AP report, published Monday, belied the pope’s claim that the victims had never come forward. Even before the report, the Vatican last week tapped Archbishop Charles Scicluna to go to Santiago to take testimony from victims and others with information about the Barros affair. Originally, Scicluna was to interview Cruz via Skype since he lives in Philadelphia. But Scicluna called Cruz on Tuesday, “on behalf of the pope,” and asked if they could meet in person, Cruz told the AP. Their meeting is scheduled for Feb. 17 in New York, where Cruz has to be for work that day anyway, Cruz said. From there, Scicluna will travel onto Santiago as originally planned. “I think the Vatican’s change of attitude is due to the tremors caused by The Associated Press article,” Cruz said. He said he appreciated Scicluna’s gesture as a sign that the Vatican was taking his testimony seriously. “I see a good disposition, that they’re not only taking my testimony seriously but also that of all those who are desperate living with the anguish of sexual abuse and a church that does nothing for them,” he told the AP. Scicluna declined to comment. For more than a decade, Scicluna was the Vatican’s lead sex crimes investigator, and famously went up against the Vatican hierarchy to sanction the serial pedophile Father Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ. For decades, Maciel was protected by the highest officials of the Catholic Church who blocked an investigation into his crimes. Once Scicluna was allowed to pursue it, he traveled all over - including to New York - to interview Maciel’s victims, preferring face-to-face testimony and to prevent victims already wounded by the Church from having to travel to come to him. Maciel, who raped and molested his seminarians, was sentenced to the same sanction as Karadima: A lifetime of “penance and prayer” for his crimes, the typical Church punishment given to elderly abusers. The Vatican has said Scicluna in his new mission is tasked with “listening to anyone who has expressed the desire to provide elements in their possession” about Barros. Francis sparked the Barros uproar in 2015 when he appointed him bishop of Osorno, Chile, over the opposition of many Chilean bishops. They were worried about the fallout from the Karadima scandal, which cost the Catholic Church much of its credibility in Chile. Karadima was responsible for cultivating dozens of priestly vocations and five bishops - including Barros - but he also kissed and fondled young boys in his community. Francis vetoed the bishops’ proposal that Barros and two other bishops trained by Karadima resign and take a year sabbatical, saying that if he accepted their resignations it would amount to an admission of their guilt. Francis said there was no proof they had done anything wrong. But even members of Francis’s own Commission for the Protection of Minors expressed concerns that if Barros didn’t recognize the homo-eroticized environment of Karadima’s community as abusive, he wouldn’t be able to detect abuse when he was a diocesan bishop, and responsible for protecting minors from pedophiles like his mentor. Four commission members flew to Rome in April 2015 to raise their concerns - and hand-deliver Cruz’s letter to the pope. Eva Vergara reported from Santiago, Chile. https://cruxnow.com/ap/2018/02/07/vatican-interview-chile-victim-person/
Here is a really good interview which does not come precisely from a bishop that anyone could label as a traditionalist, rigid, etc. It is no less than the bishop of the valley of St Gallen in Switzerland, the place area where the influential circle of cardinals known as the "mafia" st Gallen used to meet to create the mess in which we are in now, at least according to Cardinal Daneels. https://onepeterfive.com/interview-bishop-marian-eleganti-amoris-laetitia-little-ones/ Editor’s Note: The following interview with Bishop Marian Eleganti O.S.B was conducted by Dr. Maike Hickson on behalf of OnePeterFive. Eleganti is Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Chur, Switzerland and the Youth Bishop of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference. Bishop Eleganti has signed, a few days ago, the “Profession of the truth about sacramental marriage” of the bishops of Kazakhstan which responds to the confusion stemming from the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Maike Hickson (MH): You have signed a few days ago the statement of the Kazakh bishops concerning Amoris Laetitia in which the traditional Catholic moral teaching is being confirmed and the novelties concerning the “remarried” divorcees and their access to the Sacraments is being rejected. What has moved you to take this step? Bishop Marian Eleganti (BME): My conscience. Inconsistency is for me not a signature of the Holy Ghost. But now there exist several contradictory interpretations of Amoris Laetitia which are being promulgated and defended by bishops and bishops’ conferences; not to mention the chaos at the basis how every individual priest himself has to deal with the question, together with the concerned couples. Where are there any objective criteria left for the examination of conscience and the decision?After all, nobody can assess the state of grace. Since Pope Francis has remained silent concerning the serious questions connected with these problems, such as whether the heretofore teaching of the popes is still valid (here I think especially of John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor and also in this context of the traditional teaching on the intrinsically evil acts) – see here also the pope’s own conduct toward the Dubia – all kinds of people are talking. Why then not we, too? It is about the question as to whether the proclaimed, so-called “paradigm shift” through Amoris Laetitia is truly a breach (with Tradition) of the Church’s teaching or not, in accordance with the substance of this newly created word. If yes, the popes would contradict each other in their Magisterium, and even cancel each other. That would be fatal. This questions is currently also being discussed with regard to the so-called re-reading of Humanae Vitae. Here is indeed more at stake than a mere footnote. MH: As bishop in Switzerland, do you see the concrete consequences of the reigning confusion among the faithful since Amoris Laetitia? BME: It is more or less the same picture as everywhere. MH: Do you know of concrete cases where now “remarried” divorcees, without changing their state in life, go to the Sacraments? BME: This is not only since Amoris Laetitia the case. Many have praised themselves now with the fact that their heretofore illegitimate practice seemingly has now become official. I think of many pastors who have given access to Holy Communion to such couples for years, and for reasons of mercy and of conscience. MH: How do you see the danger that Amoris Laetitia and its claim that a couple in an “irregular situation” does not necessarily need to be in the state of mortal sin may have as a consequence the watering down of the whole moral law? That is to say – as is now already being stated for example by Father Chiodi in Rome with reference to Amoris Laetitia – that the use of the pill or of other contraceptives might sometimes be, not only not sinful, but even necessary? BME: No one can dare to make a judgment about the state of grace, neither the pastor nor the concerned couples themselves. Saint Pope John Paul II has stated in this context that only the objective situation of the civilly remarried couples itself is decisive as to why they may not go to Holy Communion, unless they abstain from sexual marital acts. He also then stated that this is also about the clarity of the teaching and the coherence between the doctrine and the sacramental practice in the Faith. With it, however, no judgment was made concerning the state of grace of the concerned persons. It was a great mistake at the two Synods on the Family that this differentiation has not been made understandable, but, rather that priests and civilly remarried couples have been misled by asking them to make an assessment of the state of grace which, with the best will, they can not make at all. Instead of holding on to objectively assessable facts – as done in the heretofore teaching tradition and sacramental practice – such as the nullity of the first marriage (the only legitimate reason for the justification of a so-called second marriage) and the existence of absolute norms that forbid everywhere and always intrinsically evil acts such as adultery (independent of circumstances, good intentions, and mitigating circumstances), one has created, in the meantime, more confusion and chaos of interpretations, rather than clarity. After all, there is no such a thing as a right life in the wrong [das richtige Leben im Falschen]. With other words: when there exists a valid, indissoluble marriage bond, nothing – not even the much invoked well-being of the children of a second union – justifies the living together more uxorio in a second civil marriage, unless one abstains from the sexual acts that are only reserved for the sacramental marriage. That is the case because they are – just like the Holy Eucharist – a real symbol and in both cases (Christ-Church; Bridegroom-Bride respectively Husband-Wife) they represent and at the same time realize the indissoluble covenant. Otherwise, we would really have the pastorally accompanied divorce and remarriage which Jesus very clearly rejected. Chiodi represents obviously a situation ethics which has been rejected by the heretofore Magisterium of the popes. MH: Cardinal Reinhard Marx – the President of the German Bishops’ Conference – has shown himself now to be fundamentally open toward possible blessings for homosexual couples. Would you like to comment this step? BME: This is not really surprising and follows the logic of the “individual case-exception-rule” [“Einzelfall-Ausnahme-Regelung”] which, by the way, at the long run becomes the rule and the normal case. For now, he speaks about individual cases, but the criteria for it are not being given. MH: As bishop, what is your concern in our situation of moral confusion, and what would you like to tell your fellow bishops? BME: This historical process, respectively this moment in the Church’s history in this question and other questions about which – as it says so nicely – one now “has to think anew” – such as, for example, the assessment of artificial methods of birth prevention 50 years after Humanae Vitae, and more, is not yet closed. As we know, time is greater than space and hopefully will prove where Christ stands. Therefore, the bishops have to come out and say what they believe in their consciences. Like Saint Ignatius, I always make the decisions with the view of a possible better insight and then act according to my conscience. Deeper insights can always come. It is, however, often a martyrdom to get to them or to present them according to one’s best will and conscience and with honorable and reasonable arguments and intentions. MH: What do you think, how could the Catholic Church come back to a clear voice with a clear teaching concerning the question what kind of conduct is pleasing to God and what kind of conduct puts the souls of people in danger and at risk? BME: In standing all together with the pope and in leading an honest dialogue, without manipulative tricks, intimidations, or taboos concerning what to say or what to think; but, rather in truth and with love, in s mutual respect and with reverence for the consciences of the others. Up to this point, however, the pope has in this context not yet presented an infallible new teaching, but, rather, has renounced to exercise his teaching office in not giving a clear, magisterial and unmistakable answer to the dubia. This is troubling to the Little Ones [the Parvuli] – of whom Jesus speaks in the Gospels and who write to me personally. I also think of them when I speak publicly.
This is by the way a very interesting entry which I found on an eastern catholic blog on the topic of remarried divorcees. [Objection:] “In the Christian Empire under Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and others, laws defined the various legal grounds and conditions on which divorce and remarriage were permissible. It is sufficient to say that they were relatively lenient. However, no Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) says, “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies). However, the Church always remained faithful to the New Testament ideal. Only the first and unique marriage was blessed in Church during the Eucharist. As seen above, second and third marriages, after widowhood, were concluded at a civil ceremony only, and implied a penance of one to five years of excommunication. After this period of penance, the couple was again considered as full members of the Church.” [Answer:] It was objected to by the Catholic Church. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: “A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity” (Labbe, “Concilia”, II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, “They are forbidden to marry” (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden. The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, “Epist. ad Exsuper.”, c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): “Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides.” Compare also with “Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.”, xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): “In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died.” The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin. newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm Quotes from Fathers of the Church are here: catholic.com/tracts/the-permanence-of-matrimony
The Vatican is about to interview people that Pope Francis has publicly discredited as slanderers. The dominant element of homo-eroticism, instances of which Cardinal Marx has no problem with blessing, shows itself again. Homosexualism is undoubtedly a weapon of assault by the evil one upon all that is good, trapping multiple human victims in its wake.
Jarg, those are two mighty posts of yours above. Thank God for Marian Eleganti (what a wonderful name), Bishop of St. Gallen (God retains His sense of humour!). What stuck out for me, in particular, is his emphasis on the impossibility of knowing the state of grace of a soul. Mere men have now begun to take upon themselves the prerogative of God Himself with their arrogant claim that, by 'accompanying' a sinner, they can 'discern' the state of a sinner's soul. This triumph of sentimental subjectivity over factual objectivity undoubtedly must have something to do with time being greater than space. I suppose people who think that 2+2 can make 5 are capable of believing anything. They should go the whole hog and submit themselves to the changeable, arbitrary god of the Mohammedans, who can, if his will so desires, pronounce good, evil and evil, good. This would suit these people down to the ground. It is also striking to read that the traditional theology of marriage that we are all familiar with was completely worked out so many centuries ago and hasn't changed one whit. I'd gamble my house that that tradition of the Fathers was itself unchanged right back to Peter and the Apostles. Yet, we are expected to reject, indeed damn, all this tradition from so many Popes, Saints, Fathers, not to mention Apostles and, whisper it, one Lord Jesus Christ Himself for the sake of one man, a man who contradicts them all, a man who has just been caught out contradicting himself.
All Pope Francis has to do, to alleviate all this argument and debate between us, is to answer the Dubia. He talks to journalists on planes, he talks to bicycle-pump abortionists, he talks to transexuals and their 'husband/wives' (who can distinguish?), he talks to atheist philosophers, he hardly ever stops talking, indeed he has recently talked himself into a self-contradiction about the most damaging Church issue of our time, but he'll let devout, holy Cardinals of the Church die rather than talk to them. You do see the irony of the Bishop of St. Gallen, named for Our Lady, taking a stand against the 'mafia'? Surely, you can't dismiss such synchronicities as this, along with our modern-day Athanasius, as just coincidences? Our Lord's and His Mother's elegant world is playing out His way, and no other.
Germaine to this thread I just listened to part 9 (1and2) of sensus fidellium of Our Lady of Revelation. A MUST hear. Part 8 was amazing in its depth and wisdom but part nine hits it out of the park particular with reference to Pope Francis. Charity and truth side by side. A must listen for every faithful Cstholic.
Even the secular media has taken note of this pope’s heterodoxy: https://townhall.com/columnists/laurahollis/2018/02/08/whats-going-on-at-the-vatican-n2446033 What's Going on at the Vatican? Laura Hollis News emanating from the Vatican caught my attention this week. In an interview with Vatican Insider, Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo -- the chancellor of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Science -- proclaimed the People's Republic of China as the country which is "implementing Catholic social teaching best." No, that isn't a headline from The Onion. And there's more. Sanchez described China as "extraordinary," and his fulsome praise for the communist country was set in stark contrast to his view of the United States. "The economy does not dominate politics, as happens in the United States," he said. "You do not have shantytowns, you do not have drugs." Chinese youth do not use drugs, according to Sanchez, because of a "positive national conscience." (A recent article in the Huffington Post about China's harsh crackdown on widespread illegal drug use reveals this to be a complete falsehood.) Sanchez also praised China for its "moral leadership" on the environment, saying that they were implementing Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Si' better than many other countries (including and especially the U.S.), and is actually working toward "the greater good of the planet." It is impossible to reconcile such glowing reviews of China with its history of forced abortions (numbering into the millions each year), infanticide -- particularly of female babies -- and mandatory sterilization, all resulting from China's "one child policy." How does any of that square with the teachings of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of human life? Nor is this the only news suggesting that the Vatican is making uncomfortable compromises to get on China's good side. The Vatican is eager to restore diplomatic relations with China. To that end, the Vatican has entered into an agreement with the Chinese government whereby it has asked two "underground" Chinese Catholic bishops -- previously officially recognized by the Vatican -- to step aside in favor of two which are appointed by the Chinese government. Cardinal Joseph Zen, former bishop of Hong Kong, published a scathing open letter to the Vatican in which he accuses the Vatican of "selling out" Chinese Catholics to the communist government of China. Zen scoffs at the notion that there can be good relations between the Catholic Church and China's "totalitarian regime," asking, "Can you imagine an agreement between St. Joseph and King Herod?" Is secular humanism and socialist public policy infecting the highest levels of the Catholic Church, and weakening its commitment to human life? Other actions taken by Pope Francis raise even more concerns. In August 2016, Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as president of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life. Paglia immediately wrote new rules that removed all 172 existing members of the Academy, and eliminated the former requirement that all members of the Academy sign a statement promising to defend the Church's official position on the sanctity of human life. In June of last year, Pope Francis named 45 new members to the Academy, including Oxford University professor Nigel Biggar, who has both defended abortion and -- albeit in limited circumstances -- euthanasia. Former members of the Academy and other pro-life activists around the world have criticized the new configuration of the Pontifical Academy for Life as completely inconsistent with the purpose of its founding by St. John Paul II. And then there is Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which many clergy and lay scholars alike have criticized as weakening the Church's positions on marriage, divorce and remarriage. The debate about the implications of that document continue to reverberate through the Church. While some of Pope Francis' statements -- such as his many criticisms of free market economics and capitalism -- have been charitably chalked up to ignorance, it is harder to make that claim in matters of the Church's magisterium on human sexuality and human life. Does this pope intend to dilute the official teachings of the Catholic Church to make them more palatable to the secular world? Will he take the Church down the same path that so many of the dwindling mainline Protestant denominations have gone? Devout Catholics -- and others -- who want to believe that a pope can never lead the faithful into doctrinal error are struggling to justify these events as anomalies or outliers. But each successive statement and official act makes that increasingly difficult. At some point, one must conclude that what is happening is deliberate, not inadvertent; intended to be the rule, not the exception. When Christ appointed Peter as the first head of the Church, Christ said that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." I believe that to be true. But that doesn't mean they won't put up a damn good fight.
https://onepeterfive.com/church-problem-not-pedophilia-homosexuality/ In the Church, The Problem is not Pedophilia but Homosexuality OnePeterFive February 8, 20180 Comments By Riccardo Cascioli The scandal of sexual abuse in Chile is now a loose cannon that threatens to explode even in Rome. The facts are now well-known and revolve around the extensive cover-up – in Chile above all, but now also in Rome – of a famous Chilean priest, Fr. Fernando Karadima, leader of a community from which various priests and bishops have come, among which is the highly controversial Juan Barros, at the center of the story that now also involves Pope Francis as a protagonist. The personal credibility of the Pope himself in addressing cases of pedophilia is now being questioned even by progressive voices, after what happened at the end of his recent visit to Chile. Already in the crosshairs for naming Barros as bishop of Osorno in January 2015, despite the strong opposition of one part of the Chilean episcopate and of the faithful of that diocese, the statements of Pope Francis at the end of his visit to Chile have raised up a real dust cloud. To those who asked him to explain this nomination, the Pope – with strong words – replied speaking of slander and a lack of evidence against Bishop Barros, a position that was then reiterated during the press conference on the airplane, although the Pope sought to somewhat correct the terminology used after being publicly censured by Cardinal O’Malley, one of the nine counselors called by the Pope to redesign the Roman Curia, who is also the head of the Vatican Commission for the Protection of Minors. Moreover, Pope Francis stated that he had never received any evidence from the alleged abuse victims who had accused Barros. Now however, the document published two days ago by the Associated Press demonstrates precisely the opposite: it was Cardinal O’Malley himself who in April 2015 gave to the Pope an eight-page letter in which one of the victims of Father Karadima recounted the details of the abuse he was subjected to and also the direct responsibility of Barros. Moreover, this denial of the Pope’s version of events seems to be the icing on the cake of an attitude that had already raised a great deal of perplexity. In fact in 2014 Pope Francis had already ordered that Barros would renounce his episcopal ministry, but he then retraced his steps and named him Bishop of Osorno and defended his appointment with sword drawn, despite the criticism of the Chilean Bishops’ Conference. The Pope did not give an explanation for his change of direction even when he returned from Chile, but Vatican sources indicate that the true cause of the transformation was Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz. The former Archbishop of Santiago is in fact a member of the famous “C9” (council of nine cardinals) who support the Pope in the reorganization of the Roman Curia. Errazuriz certainly enjoys the trust and esteem of the Pope, who wanted him to be a part of the C9, but in Chile he is known as the great “sandbag” because for years he prevented measures being taken against Karadima and he delayed any assessment being made of the truth. It is easy to think that the role of the elderly Chilean Cardinal has had a great deal to do with the attitude of the Pope. But separate from the reconstruction of the facts of the Barros affair, the case of Chile is important because it confirms what is already well-known but is always silenced: the so-called “pedophilia cases” are actually an overwhelming majority of incidents of homosexuality. As is known, pedophilia properly refers to the attraction of adults for pre-pubescent children. When such attraction is directed towards teenagers, one must instead speak of ephebophilia which is initiated by homosexual persons. This is what we are talking about in Chile, but it also is true for at least 80% of the cases which are erroneously reported in the news as cases of pedophilia in the Church. This is at least the conclusion which emerges from the reports of John Jay College on the cases of abuse registered in the Church in the United States. It might seem like a small difference – one could say that it is still dealing with the abuse of minors – but it is in fact a fundamental point, because it allows us to say clearly that the problem in the Church is not pedophilia but homosexuality. And this is a reality which is desired to be kept hidden because it is unpleasant to the gay lobby which is committed to promoting the normalization of homosexuality in the Church. Above all, in the last few years we are witnessing an unprecedented homosexual offensive, which has now come to the point of attacking the Catechism, as we have seen in the last few days. The case of the retreat for homosexual couples in Turin – now suspended after there was an outcry – and the blessing for homosexual couples endorsed by Cardinal Marx, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, are only the most recent episodes. It is clear that they are spinning the “welcome” of persons with homosexual tendencies – which in itself is a proper thing to do – in order to promote the acceptance of homosexuality itself, which is instead “an objective disorder” [words of the Catechism]. It is not by chance that in Italy, for example, the apostolates of accompaniment which are in accord with the Church’s teaching – like Courage and the “Lot Association” of Luca di Tolve – are being blocked in order to give room to those groups which promote the “LGBT experience” and maintain that homosexuality is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality. It is proof of how much the gay lobby has now become rooted within the Church; indeed, we can affirm with certainty that this lobby is actively climbing the ladder of the church hierarchy, with the occupation of key posts in the Vatican and in many dioceses and ecclesial structures (not to mention the media, see for example Avvenire). One can calmly say that the gay lobby has never been so powerful in the Church, and the present mess in Chile is a child of this strange interweaving of murky ties and blackmail. This factor [the ascendance of the gay lobby to unprecedented power] risks undermining a great part of the work done during the pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to address the sexual abuse of minors. It explains also the recent stripping of power from the disciplinary section of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which dealt with clerical sexual abuse cases. Until a few months ago there were ten officials of the Congregation who dealt with the voluminous dossiers in this regard, and because of the large amount of work an increase in staffing had been promised. But the sudden dismissal of three priests by Pope Francis (without giving any reason, an action denounced by then-Prefect Cardinal Gerhard Müller) reduced the number of officials entrusted with this work to seven, without even one of them a native French or English speaker. In other words, the Barros case is not an isolated episode, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Originally published at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Do you know what utterly astounds me about all this homosexual malarkey from members of the Roman Catholic Church, not to mention all the other denominations and even across society at all levels, who have supported or engaged in this atrocity against God and against nature. Remember silence is consent in law. I can remember when homosexuality, or to be more precise 'sodomy' was against the law of the land. If the governments decided to reinstate 'sodomy' as a crime against the law; they could decimate the Catholic Church because of these mentally deranged proponents of sodomy. And we could all be held to account as if we as ordinary Catholics were guilty of this abomination. I was told back in the early 1970's that the most common cause of divorce was when women cited 'sodomy' as their reason for wanting to get a divorce. Now it is supposedly legal, I wonder how women in that situation can legally be able to divorce husbands who impose this cruelty on them. And worse still has the Church any legal or moral stance to protect women who are abused by sodomite husbands in a marriage. I wonder.
This has the ring of truth. At the height of the priestly child abuse saga in Ireland, the rarer cases featuring abuse of young girls were the ones that made the headlines, while those of young boys, although far more prevalent, tended to be footnotes by comparison. Whether deliberate or not (and in the light of subsequent events, it seems intentional), the effect was to create an atmosphere of predominantly being one of girl-abuse. In all social fields, that is, other denominations, teachers, sports instructors, scout leaders and so on, the pattern is the same. Although homosexuals are only a small minority among men, the vast majority of victims of sexual abuse by men are young boys. I remember reading a statistic that 87% of child abuse perpetrators incarcerated in the US penal system are self-identifying male homosexuals.
DeGaulle, Father Wolfe states this in one of his videos also, Our Lady of Revelation part 8 or 9. I just binge watched them over the past 2 days, (probably part 8).
I don’t see how this papacy can survive this (well documented) scandal. View attachment 7442 View attachment 7441
Yes Brian. It has been a satanic "salting" of our seminaries with these deviants since the 30's. Once they reach prominence they bring in others. And up the ladder it goes. Horror. All of the West for sure and perhaps in Africa snd Asia as well. I knew young men in the 70's who were rejected by seminaries for not being "pastoral" enough--code for too heterosexual. The chickens come home to roost. There certainly will be a terrible cleansing. But now the Pope himself is outed as a defender of these predators. may God grant him the grace to realize what he is doing and to repent!!!!
