quarta-feira, 28 de fevereiro de 2018

Vídeo: Onde estão as celebridades que enalteceram o regime venezuelano?

Bom, pode-se perguntar também onde estavam os filósofos e escritores que enalteceram aos países comunistas e até Stálin, quando caiu o Muro de Berlim e a URSS?.

Ou então onde estão aqueles que apoiaram Lula pelo lado ético do PT?

De forma geral, aqueles que se corrigem se escondem, mas a maioria insiste na defesa e usa a analogia do cavalo e do jóquei. É aquela história, o comunismo é o cavalo e o líder comunista, o jóquei. O problema para os que ainda insistem no comunismo é o jóquei.

Não querem enxergar que o problema é o cavalo, que nunca deu certo em lugar nenhum e em nenhum momento histórico.

No fim, há um problema moral profundo nesses artistas, filósofos e escritores.

segunda-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2018

CNBB, USCCB, Bernardo Kuster e o Papa Francisco

No Brasil, o leigo católico Bernard Kuster fez um trabalho histórico em denunciar com clareza uma coisa que todos sabem há décadas, a CNBB é parceira do PT, do MST, MTST, etc, de tudo que politiza a fé e prejudica a Igreja, como esposa de Cristo e seus sacramentos.

Mas o problema do esquerdismo/marxismo das conferências episcopais é global. Parecem-me aquelas entidades estudantis que só participa comunista porque os outros estudantes têm mais o que fazer.

Além de global, o problema se agravou ainda mais em tempos de Papa Francisco, coisa que Bernardo Kuster tenta não tocar muito no assunto.

Muitos conferências episcopais estão em guerra interna - aqueles que se unem a Francisco agem em detrimento dos sacramentos da Igreja, enquanto aqueles que defendem a Tradição da Igreja são demitidos.

É o que aconteceu com o Padre Thomas Weinandy que fazia parte como teólogo da conferência episcopal dos Estados Unidos (USCCB) e foi demitido por criticar o pontificado de Francisco.

Recentemente, o padre Weinandy fez um discurso na Universidade Notre Dame, de Sidney, Austrália. E falou de como o pontificado de Francisco está prejudicando a Igreja.

Há muitas partes a se mencionar nesse discurso de Weinandy.

Uma dessas partes exalta tipos de pessoa como Kuster, leigos que se lavantam em amor à Igreja contra as ações do pontificado de Francisco.

Outra diz que o Papa Francisco por vezes age como "agente de divisão" com atos ambíguos e confusos. E muitas vezes se omitindo.

Sobre as conferências episcopais, Weinandy lembra que elas devem respeitar a Doutrina da Igreja, participando da unidade da Fé. Mas que o Papa Francisco está adotando uma relação com essas conferências episcopais que permite diferentes interpretações da fé, de acordo com condições regionais.

Conclui dizendo que todos os católicos devem rezar pelo Papa Francisco, mas também devem defender a verdade mesmo contra ele.

E ainda que a Igreja tem quatro marcas teológicas: unicidade, sacra, catolicidade e apostolado. É dentro dessas quatro marcas que devemos defender nossa fé

Vejamos essas partes do discurso do padre Thomas Weinandy.

The Contemporary Challenge to the Four Marks of the Church and its Eucharistic Impact
Prior to and following upon Vatican II, St. Pope John XXIII and Blessed Paul VI, in their respective encyclicals, Mater et Magistra and Ecclesiam Suam, stressed the importance of the Church’s teaching office – a ministry that fostered and upheld the apostolic faith so as to assure the one, universal, holiness of God’s people.  John Paul II, then, not only follows upon Ignatius and Vatican II, but places himself squarely within the immediate preceding papacies. Thus, John Paul steadfastly holds that oneness is the fundamental and indispensable mark of the Church.  He writes in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:
"The Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1985 saw in the concept of an 'ecclesiology of communion' the central and foundational idea of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.  The Church is called during her earthly pilgrimage to maintain and promote communion with the Triune God and communion among the faithful.  For this purpose she possesses the word and the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, by which she 'constantly lives and grows' and in which she expresses her very nature.  It is not by chance that the term communion has become one of the names given to this sublime sacrament (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 34) (11).
Granted the post-Vatican II Church was rife with divisions – disputes over doctrine, morals and the liturgy.  These disagreements continue still.  However, at no time during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI was there ever any doubt as to what the Church teaches concerning her doctrine, morals, and liturgical practice.  Both recognized that what truly made the Church one is her unalterable apostolic and universal faith, and her sacraments, especially the Eucharist, as fount and means of her holiness.  They, therefore, faithfully taught, clearly developed, and ardently promoted the Church’s doctrinal and moral teaching, and her authentic sacramental practice – all for the sake of guaranteeing and fostering her ecclesial communion.  Such is not the case, in many significant ways, within the present pontificate of Pope Francis.
Challenge to the Church’s Oneness
Much of Pope Francis’s pontificate is admirable and praiseworthy.  One only needs to observe, to note a few, his defense of the sanctity of life, his concern for the poor and the marginalized, and his encouragement to the young.  At times, nonetheless, it would appear that Pope Francis identifies himself not as the promoter of unity but as the agent of division.  His practical philosophy, if it is an intentional philosophy, seems to consist in the belief that a greater unifying good will emerge from the present bedlam of divergent opinions and the turmoil of the resulting divisions.  My concern here is that such approach, even if unintentional, strikes at very essence of the Petrine ministry as intended by Jesus and as continuously understood by the Church.  The successor of St. Peter, by the very nature of the office, is to be, literally, the personal embodiment and thus the consummate sign of the Church’s ecclesial communion, and so the principle defender and promoter of the Church’s ecclesial communion.  Thus, a manner of proceeding that allows and even encourages doctrinal and moral divergences undermines the whole of Vatican II’s teaching on ecclesial communion, as well as that of the entire magisterial and theological tradition going back to Ignatius.  By seeming to encourage doctrinal division and moral discord within the Church the present pontificate has transgressed the foundational mark of the Church – her oneness.  How, nonetheless, does this offense against the Church’s unity manifest itself?  It does so by destabilizing the other three marks of the Church.
Challenge to the Church’s Apostolicity
Firstly, the apostolic nature of the Church is being undermined.  As has often been noted by theologians and bishops, and most frequently by the laity (those who possess the sensus fidelium), the teaching of the present pontiff is not noted for its clarity (12).  As the one most responsible for the unity of the Church, the pope is the one who is most responsible for ensuring the bond of faith.  To be in full ecclesial communion with the apostolic Church, whether it is the pope or the newest convert, it is necessary to believe what the Apostles handed on and what the apostolic Church has consistently taught.  For Pope Francis, then, as seen in Amoris Laetitia, to re-conceive and newly express the previously clear apostolic faith and magisterial tradition in a seemingly ambiguous manner, so as to leave confusion and puzzlement within the ecclesial community, is to contradict his own duties as the successor of Peter and to transgress the trust of his fellow bishops, as well as that of priests and the entire faithful.  Ignatius would be dismayed at such a situation.  If, for him, heretical teaching espoused by those who are only loosely associated with the Church is destructive to the Church’s unity, how much more devastating is ambiguous teaching when authored by a bishop who is divinely charged to ensure ecclesial unity.  At least heresy is a clear denial of the apostolic faith and so can be clearly identified and as such properly addressed.  Ambiguous teaching, precisely because of its murkiness, cannot be clearly identified, and so is even more troublesome for it fosters uncertainty as to how it is to be understood and thus how it is to be clarified.
Moreover, for Pope Francis to then take sides in the ensuing debate, a debate for which he himself is responsible, concerning the proper interpretation of the uncertain teaching is disingenuous.  He has now allowed others to be the arbiter of what is true, when it is precisely the apostolic mandate of the pope to be the one who confirms the brethren, both episcopal and laity, in the truth.  Furthermore, to appear to sanction an interpretation of doctrine or morals that contravenes what has been the received apostolic teaching and magisterial tradition of the Church – as dogmatically defined by Councils and doctrinally taught by previous popes and the bishops in communion with him, as well as accepted and believed by the faithful, cannot then be proposed as magisterial teaching.  The magisterium simply cannot fundamentally contradict itself concerning matters of faith and morals.  While such teaching and confirmation may be enacted by a member of the magisterium, such as the Pope, such teaching and confirmation is not magisterial precisely because it is not in accord with previous magisterial teaching.  To act in such a manner, the pontiff, or a bishop for that manner, is acting in a manner that places himself outside the magisterial communion of previous pontiffs and bishops, and so is not a magisterial act.  To act in a magisterial manner one has to be, including the pope, in communion with the entire ever-living magisterial tradition.  In the matter of faith and morals the teaching of no living pope takes apostolic and magisterial precedence over the magisterial teaching of previous pontiffs or the established magisterial doctrinal tradition.  The magisterial and apostolic import of a present pontiff’s teaching lies precisely in its being in conformity with and so in living-communion with the abiding historical magisterial and apostolic tradition.  That Pope Francis’ ambiguous teaching at times appears to fall outside the magisterial teaching of the historic apostolic ecclesial community thus gives cause for concern, for it, as stated above, fosters division and disharmony rather than unity and peace within the one apostolic Church.  There appears to be, as a consequence, no assurance of faith.
Challenge to the Church’s Catholicity
Secondly, as we saw in examining the ecclesiology of Ignatius and especially Vatican II, all of the bishops throughout the world, who are in communion with the pope, are together responsible for the apostolic oneness of the Church.  The universality of the Church is visibly manifested in that all of the particular churches are bound together, through the college of bishops in communion with the pope, by professing the same apostolic faith and by preaching the one universal Gospel to all of humankind.  We saw this clearly expressed in Ignatius’ letters.  Traditionally, this catholic oneness is most clearly exercised within universal councils and extraordinary synods.  Moreover, as Lumen Gentium acknowledges, national bishops’ conferences, while attending to pastoral issues that pertain to their own culture and locale, also exercise this catholicity by safeguarding and promoting the universal doctrinal and moral teaching of the Church as well as insuring that the universal sacramental and liturgical disciplines of the Church are properly observed.  Thus, as exemplified in Ignatius and Vatican II, the entire visible hierarchical governance of the universal Church is structured precisely to maintain and promote ecclesial communion – a communion that embodies the one apostolic faith.  This mark of catholic oneness is also presently challenged.
Pope Francis’ espousal of synodality has been much touted – the allowance of local geographical churches more self-determinative freedom.  On one level this decentralization is welcomed for it encourages national bishops’ conferences and local ordinaries to take more governing responsibility. As envisioned, however, by Pope Francis and advocated by others, this notion of synodality, instead of ensuring the universal oneness of the Catholic Church, an ecclesial communion composed of multiple particular churches, is now employed to undermine and so sanction divisions within the Church.  This rupture is not simply on matters of local and national significance, but on issues that bear upon the doctrinal and moral integrity of the one Church of Christ.  We are presently witnessing the disintegration of the Church’s catholicity, for local churches, both on the diocesan and national level, are often interpreting doctrinal norms and moral precepts in various conflicting and contradictory ways.  Thus, what the faithful are instructed to believe and practice in one diocese or country is not in conformity with what the faithful are instructed to believe and practice in another diocese or country.  The Church’s mark of oneness, a unity that the pope is divinely mandated to protect and engender, is losing its integrity because her marks of catholicity and apostolicity have fallen into doctrinal and moral disarray, a theological anarchy that the pope himself, maybe unwittingly, has initiated by advocating a flawed conception of synodality.  To put this erroneous notion into practice, then, is to violate the catholicity of the Church herself.

Challenge to the Church’s Holiness
Thirdly, this brings us to the fourth mark of the Church – her holiness.  This mark is equally under siege, most especially, but not surprisingly, in relationship to the Eucharist.
For John Paul, Eucharistic communion “confirms the Church in her unity as the body of Christ” (ibid. 23; cf. 24).  Because “the Eucharist builds the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist, it follows that there is a profound relationship between the two, so much so that we can apply to the Eucharistic mystery the very words with which, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, we profess the Church to be ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic’” (ibid. 26).  Of all the sacraments, therefore, it is “the Most Holy Sacrament” (ibid.).  Likewise, it is apostolic for Jesus entrusted it to the Apostles and to their successors (cf. ibid. 27).  “The Eucharist thus appears as the culmination of all the sacraments in perfecting our communion with God the Father by identification with his only-begotten Son through the working of the Holy Spirit” (ibid. 34).  Since the Eucharist conveys and nurtures most fully the four marks of the Church, John Paul insists:
"The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection.  The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order.  The profound relationship between the invisible and visible elements of ecclesial communion is constitutive of the Church as a sacrament of salvation" (ibid. 35) (13).
In this proclamation, John Paul confirms, as seen above, the teaching of Vatican II, as well echoes, inadvertently, Ignatius’ Eucharistic ecclesiology.  To participate fully in the Church’s Eucharist, a liturgy that embodies and cultivates the four marks of the Church, one must also embody the four marks of the Church, for only in so doing is one in full communion with the Church so as to receive communion – the risen body and blood of Jesus, the source and culmination of one’s union with the Father in the Holy Spirit.  Quoting from a document promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, John Paul insists: “In fact, the community, in receiving the Eucharistic presence of the Lord, receives the entire gift of salvation and shows, even in its lasting visible form, that is the image and true presence of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” (ibid. 39) (14).   In the light of this, John Paul proceeds to address those issues that contravene this doctrinal understanding of the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion.
The first issue John Paul addresses, and the one that concerns us here, pertains specifically to holiness (15).  While one must profess the Church’s one apostolic faith, faith itself is insufficient for receiving Christ in the Eucharist.  Referencing Vatican II, John Paul states that “we must persevere in sanctifying grace and love, remaining within the Church ‘bodily’ as well as ‘in our heart’” (ibid. 36) (16).  At the beginning of the Second Century, Ignatius, as we saw, made this same point – that one can only receive communion “in a state of grace” (Ad. Eph. 20).  Thus, in accordance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent, John Paul confirms: “I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, ‘one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin’” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia 36) (17).  In accordance with the doctrinal tradition of the Church, John Paul, therefore, insists that the sacrament of Penance is “necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice” when mortal sin is present (ibid. 37).  While he acknowledges that only the person can judge his or her state of grace, he asserts that “in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved” (ibid.).  John Paul intensifies his admonition by quoting Canon Law.  Where there is “a manifest lack of proper moral disposition,” that is, according to Canon Law, when persons “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin,” they are “not to be permitted to Eucharistic communion” (ibid.) (18).
Here we perceive the present challenge to the Church’s holiness and specifically the holiness of the Eucharist.  The question of whether divorced and remarried Catholic couples, who engage in marital acts, can receive communion revolves around the very issue of “outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm,” and, therefore, whether they possess “a manifest lack of proper moral disposition” for receiving communion.  Pope Francis rightly insists that such couples should be accompanied and so helped to form properly their consciences.  Granted that there are extraordinary marital cases where it can be rightfully discerned that a previous marriage was sacramentally invalid, even though evidence for an annulment is unobtainable, thus allowing a couple to receive communion.  Nonetheless, the ambiguous manner in which Pope Francis proposes this pastoral accompaniment permits a pastoral situation to evolve whereby the common practice will swiftly ensue that almost every divorced and remarried couple will judge themselves free to receive Holy Communion.  This pastoral situation will develop because moral negative commands, such as, “one shall not commit adultery,” are no longer recognized as absolute moral norms that can never be trespassed, but as moral ideals – goals that may be achieved over a period of time, or may never be realized in one’s lifetime (19).  In this indefinite interim people can continue, with the Church’s blessing, to strive, as best as they are able, to live “holy” lives, and so receive communion.  Such pastoral practice has multiple detrimental doctrinal and moral consequences.
First, to allow those who are objectively in manifest grave sin to receive communion is an overt public attack on the holiness of what John Paul terms “the Most Holy Sacrament.”  Grave sin, by its very nature, as Ignatius, Vatican II and John Paul attest, deprives one of holiness, for the Holy Spirit no longer abides within such a person, thus making the person unfit to receive holy communion.  For one to receive communion in such a, literally, disgraced state enacts a lie, for in receiving the sacrament one is asserting that one is in communion with Christ, when in actuality one is not.  Similarly, such a practice is also an offense against the holiness of the Church.  Yes, the Church is composed of saints and sinners, yet, those who do sin, which is everyone, must be repentant-sinners, specifically of grave sin, if they are to participate fully in the Eucharistic liturgy and so receive the most-holy risen body and blood of Jesus.  A person who is in grave sin may still be a member of the Church, but as a grave-sinner such a person no longer participates in the holiness of the Church as one of the holy faithful.  To receive communion in such an unholy state is, again, to enact a lie for in such a reception one is publicly attempting to testify that one is a graced and living member of the ecclesial community when one is not.
Second, and maybe more importantly, to allow those who persist in manifest grave sin to receive communion, seemingly as an act of mercy, is both to belittle the condemnatory evil of grave sin and to malign the magnitude and power of the Holy Spirit.  Such a pastoral practice is implicitly acknowledging that sin continues to govern humankind despite Jesus’ redeeming work and his anointing of the Holy Spirit upon all who believe and are baptized.  Jesus is actually not Savior and Lord, but rather Satan continues to reign.  Moreover, to sanction persons in grave sin is in no manner a benevolent or loving act, for one is endorsing a state wherein they could be eternally condemned, thus jeopardizing their salvation.  Likewise, in turn, one is also insulting such grave-sinners, for one is subtly telling them that they are so sinful that not even the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to help them change their sinful ways and make them holy.  They are inherently un-savable.  Actually, though, what is ultimately being tendered is the admission that the Church of Jesus Christ is not really holy and so is incapable of truly sanctifying her members.
Lastly, scandal is the public pastoral consequence of allowing persons in unrepentant manifest grave sin to receive Holy Communion.  It is not simply that the faithful members of the Eucharistic community will be dismayed and likely disgruntled, but, more importantly, they will be tempted to think that they too can sin gravely and continue in good standing with the Church.  Why attempt to live a holy life, even a heroic virtuous life, when the Church herself appears to demand neither such a life, or even to encourage such a life?  Here the Church becomes a mockery of herself and such a charade breeds nothing but scorn and disdain in the world, and derision and cynicism among the faithful, or at best, a hope against hope among the little ones.
My conclusion will be brief.  Much of what I have said, as you may have gathered, has been stated by others.  Some will dismiss it as excessive or even mean-spirited.  But that is not my intent or spirit at all.  As stated earlier there is much in the character of Pope Francis to admire, and we owe him our daily prayers for strength in facing the burdens of his ministry.  However, that cannot excuse us from speaking the truth in love.  Anyone experienced in religious life – or for that matter, in a marriage – will understand that sometimes the truth must be spoken bluntly – not out of bitterness, but out of fidelity to the persons involved and to safeguard the purpose they share.
What I have attempted to do, and I hope has been helpful, is place the contemporary crisis within the Church in its proper theological and doctrinal setting, that is, within the Church’s four defining marks.  Only when we grasp that the Church’s very oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity are at stake, what makes the Church truly herself, can we fully appreciate the degree and the consequence of the present crisis.  The Church’s very identity, our ecclesial communion, is being assailed, and because she is the Church of Christ, Jesus himself is being dishonored along with his saving work.  What is presently being offered in its place is an anemic Church, a Church where the Holy Spirit is enfeebled, and so a Church that is incapable of giving full glory to God the Father.
By attempting to manifest the perilous nature of the crisis, my goal was not simply to make this misfortune known, but to encourage all of us, bishops, priests and laity alike, to embark on an adequate response.  Such a response cannot be merely negative, a rebuttal of all the erroneous views and ambiguous arguments, though such is necessary, but rather it must also be a response that is robustly positive.  From the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the time of the Second Vatican Council and St. John Paul II the Church has continually proclaimed the good news of Jesus Christ and so the good news of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, a Church he conceived through his death and resurrection and to which he gave birth to in his sending forth the Holy Spirit.  This constructive proclamation is what will renew the Church and so restore the fallen world to life in Christ.
Moreover, we must defend and promote a proper knowledge of and love for the Eucharist, for here, as we saw, the four marks of the Church are most fully expressed and abundantly nourished.  In the Eucharist above all the Church’s identity is most clearly enacted and made visible.  For in the Eucharist we are made one with Christ and one with one another as together we profess and joyfully acclaim our one apostolic and universal faith, a faith that is imbued with the holiness of the Spirit, and so as one ecclesial community we worship and glorify God the Father – the source and end of all.  Within the Eucharist, then, the Church’s four marks most beautifully shine.

Rezemos pelos leigos, padres, bispos, cardeais que lutam pela Igreja eterna, em nome de Cristo.

Salve-nos São Miguel Arcanjo.

sexta-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2018

Vídeo: O Papa que Foge dos Lobos e o Papa que Dança com Lobos.

Realmente, não sei o que é pior: aquele que foge dos lobos e deixa as ovelhas à própria sorte, como disse o Cardeal Burke, ou aquele que se junta aos lobos.

O vídeo acima começa com Bento XVI pedindo que rezem por ele para que ele fique com medo e fuja dos lobos e termina com Francisco se juntando aos lobos.

No meio, menciona-se o comportamento, o desprezo pela Doutrina da Igreja e as diversas ações do Papa Francisco.

É, eu também detesto aquele sapato preto de Francisco (que o vídeo mostra), além da roupa preta por baixo que ele usa. E também detesto a roupa branca que Bento XVI usa (que o vídeo não mostra), como se fosse ainda papa.

Rezemos pela Igreja nesses tempos em que os lobos dançam.

quinta-feira, 22 de fevereiro de 2018

Vídeo: O Estado Islâmico da Suécia

Certa vez, eu fui apresentar meu artigo sobre terrorismo islâmico na Univerisdade de Uppsala, na Suécia. Esta é a principal universidade da Suécia. O fato de eu conseguir aprovação de meu texto para ser apresentado já é uma história a parte, mas essa foi a a presentação mais difícil que j´pa fiz na vida, virtualmente todos na sala, e especialmente a mulher que estava mediando o debate, queria me expulsar dali o mais rápido possível. Meu artigo basicamente mostrava que o Islã (Alcorão) justificava o terrorismo.

O grande Paul Joseph Watson fez um excelente vídeo sobre a Suécia, que o país com a maior taxa de estupros da Europa e o mais politicamente correto. Um país cujo líder é uma mulher gerenciando um país de estupros.

Seguindo a linha da estupidez do politicamente correto, Watson mostra que a Suécia decidiu silenciar os críticos ao invés de combater os estupros que são cometidos em 95,6% dos casos por estrangeiros/imigrantes. Está multando e pretendo qualquer um que mostre a verdade da imigração muçulmana.

E diz:

A Suécia é tão politicamente correta que tem um muçulmano para gerenciar o patrimônio cultural do país, que declaradamente não sabe nada de patrimônio cultural sueco.

A Suécia é tão politicamente correta que deplora sua bandeira, seu hino, seu dia de celebração nacional.

Até um muçulmano do Irã defende que a Europa limite a imigração muçulmana, daí ele é chamado de nazista.

Suécia é tão politicamente correta que não se pode perguntar alguém de onde ele é, pois seria racismo, na cabeça sueca.

O vídeo de Watson é tão engraçado que chega a comparar a moça do tempo na Suécia e no Iraque, quando o vídeo tem cinco minutos. É demais essa parte.

Suécia é tão politicamente correta que colocar a palavra refugiado entre aspas é considerado racismo.

Suécia é tão politicamente correta que um médico que mostrou que 80% das "crianças" imigrantes são adultos foi demitido.

Suécia é tão politicamente correta que feminista defende a poligamia.

Suécia é tão politicamente correta que dá casa a membros do Estado Islâmico.

Suécia é tão politicamente correta que países europeus estão alertando para não ir para lá, há muitas gangues.

Trump Ouviu os Estudantes e Pais dos Sobreviventes dos Ataques à Escola na Flórida

Presidente Trump, o vice-presidente Mike Pence e a Secretária de Educação Betsy Devos ouviram os estudantes e os pais dos sobreviventes da escola Marjory Stoneman Douglas da cidade de Parkland que foi atacada por um monstro atirador que era ex-aluno da escola.

Foi rezado antes de começar a reunião, Trump ouviu o sofrimento dos estudantes e pais e discutiram soluções para a praga de ataques malucos a estudantes de escolas nos Estados Unidos.

O presidente prometeu aumentar os controles para que alguém consiga comprar armas e mais controle sobre a a saúde mental de quem deseja comprar armas.

A postura de Trump, Pence e Debos frente a tanto sofrimento dos pais e estudantes foi a mais adequada possível.

Eu diria, e eles sabem, que é impossível eliminar esse tipo de monstro, uma pessoa sadia pode virar um monstro assassino a qualquer momento.

E diria também que o controle de armas em geral nunca é a solução, basta ver o caso do Brasil ou de cidades no próprio Estados Unidos, como Chicago e Baltimore que possuem as leis mais exigentes para se ter armas.

Finalmente, para se usar armas com retidão é preciso uma boa formação cultural e também religiosa, mas certamente as armas são também importantes em uma sociedade, muitas vezes precisamos fazer nossa legítima defesa.

Outra coisa, seria possível um encontro de um presidente brasileiro com vítimas de mortes por balas no Brasil?

Claro que não, vivemos uma guerra civil e temos uma cultura bem mais frouxa e vazia em termos de como se deve comportar em sociedade do que a cultura dos norte-americanos. Nosso cristianismo é também bem mais débil.

quarta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2018

Petição Histórica do Católicos da China Contra Acordo Vaticano-Governo da China

Assine uma petição histórica. Vai ser contada nos livros como parte reveladora do pontificado do Papa Francisco. É uma petição dos católicos da China contra as ações do Papa Francisco que obriga verdadeiros bispos católicos a renunciarem para que o governo comunista da China coloque os bispos "católicos"  que deseja.

A história da Igreja especialmente depois do Concílio Vaticano II é plena de leigos católicos  se levantando contra as ações perniciosas de papas. Ficou célebre a petição de católicos famosos contra a destruição da missa tridentina no pontificado de Paulo VI, assinada inclusive por não católicos, que resultou no chamado "Agatha Christie Indulto", porque Agatha Christie, apesar de também não ser católica, assinou a petição.

Para assinar  a petição chinesa, clique aqui.

Abaixo vai o texto histórico dos católicos da China?

An Open Letter to Conferences of Catholic Bishops Across the World Regarding the Possible Agreement Between the Holy See and the Government of the People’s Republic of China

Your Eminence and Most Reverend,
We are a group of Catholics. Recently there has been news reports indicating that the Holy See and the government of the People’s Republic of China will soon reach an agreement over the issue of bishop appointment, as well as recognition of seven illicit “bishops”. We are deeply shocked and disappointed. With our love and allegiance to the Holy Mother Church, we hope you and the bishops conferences would pay attention to such development.
According to the teachings of the Holy Mother Church, bishops are the successors of the Apostles, bearing the duties of leading and tending the flock: “The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” ( Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.”(Catechism, 869) All bishops must therefore be appointed by the Successor of Peter — the Holy Father, the Pope. And they must be men of moral principles and wisdom. The government must play no role in the selection process:
“[T]he right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the church and of promoting more conveniently and efficiently the welfare of the faithful, this holy council desires that in future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities.” (Christus Dominus, para. 20)
Yet, the seven illicitly ordained “bishops” were not appointed by the Pope, and their moral integrity is questionable. They do not have the trust of the faithful, and have never repented publicly. If they were to be recognized as legitimate, the faithful in Greater China would be plunged into confusion and pain, and schism would be created in the Church in China.
We fully understand that the Holy See is eager to be able to evangelize in China more effectively. However, we are deeply worried that the deal would create damages that cannot be remedied. The Communist Party in China, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, has repeatedly destroyed crosses and churches, and the Patriotic Association maintains its heavy-handed control over the Church. Religious persecution has never stopped. Xi has also made it clear that the Party will strengthen its control over religions. So there is no possibility that the Church can enjoy more freedom. In addition, the Communist Party has a long history of breaking promises. We are worried that the agreement would not only fail to guarantee the limited freedom desired by the Church, but also damage the Church’s holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, and deal a blow to the Church’s moral power. The Church would no longer be able to have the trust of people, and “serves as a leaven and as a kind of soul for human society as it is to be renewed in Christ and transformed into God’s family.” (Gaudium et Spes, 40)
In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, our beloved Pope Francis writes: “Sometimes I wonder if there are people in today’s world who are really concerned about generating processes of people-building, as opposed to obtaining immediate results which yield easy, quick short-term political gains, but do not enhance human fullness… The Lord himself, during his earthly life, often warned his disciples that there were things they could not yet understand and that they would have to await the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:12-13). The parable of the weeds among the wheat (Mt 13:24-30) graphically illustrates an important aspect of evangelization: the enemy can intrude upon the kingdom and sow harm, but ultimately he is defeated by the goodness of the wheat.” (224-225) The Spirit of God sometimes does not allow us to proceed. (ref. Act 16:6) Though the force of evil is growing, time belongs to God. By putting our trust in the Lord, the dark night will eventually pass. Rushing for a quick achievement, taking a wrong step, can  result in total failure.
His Holiness has always been attentive to the sufferings of persecuted Christians. He once said: “Legal systems, therefore, whether state or international, are called upon to recognize, guarantee and protect religious freedom, which is an intrinsic right inherent to human nature, to the dignity of being free, and is also a sign of a healthy democracy and one of the principal sources of the legitimacy of the State.” “It causes me great pain to know that Christians in the world submit to the greatest amount of such discrimination. Persecution against Christians today is actually worse than in the first centuries of the Church, and there are more Christian martyrs today than in that era.” We believe that persecution of Christians in China also pains His Holiness. Therefore, we urge that any agreement must be grounded in the protection of religious freedom, and an end to religious persecution. Unfortunately, as a newly-revised Regulation on Religious Affairs, which allows for stricter scrutiny over religions, has just been put into effect in early February, we cannot see any possibility that the coming agreement can result in the Chinese government stopping its persecution of the Church, and ceasing its violations of religious freedom.
Your Eminence and Most Reverend, we earnestly hope that, you, your brothers and your flock continue to pray for the communion of the Church in China, as well as her pastoral ministry. We earnestly ask you, with the love on the people of God, appeal to the Holy See: Please rethink the current agreement, and stop making an irreversible and regrettable mistake.
May the Almighty God bless the Church in China!
Martyr Saints of China, pray for us!

terça-feira, 20 de fevereiro de 2018

Escândalo Financeiro: Papa Francisco Tirando dos Pobres para Dar aos Ricos?

Humm...documentos vazados dizem que o Papa pediu à fundação americana Papal Foundation, que é comandada pelos bispos americanos e ajuda os pobres no mundo todo, que desse dinheiro para um hospital católico corrupto, acusado de lavar dinheiro na Itália.

Papa Francisco tirando dinheiro dos pobres para dar aos ricos?


Vejam parte do texto do Life Site News, leiam tudo clicando no link

Leaked docs raise question of Pope’s personal role in new Vatican financial scandal

ROME, February 20, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Leaked documents obtained by LifeSiteNews connect the Pope himself to a new Vatican financial scandal and raise serious questions about his global reputation as the “pope for the poor.”
LifeSiteNews has obtained internal documents of the U.S.-based Papal Foundation, a charity with a stellar history of assisting the world’s poor, showing that last summer the Pope personally requested, and obtained in part, a $25 million grant to a corruption-plagued, Church-owned dermatological hospital in Rome accused of money laundering. Records from the financial police indicate the hospital has liabilities over one billion USD – an amount larger than the national debt of some 20 nations.
The grant has lay members of the Papal Foundation up in arms, and some tendering resignations. Responding to questions from LifeSiteNews, Papal Foundation staff sent a statement saying that it is not their practice to comment on individual requests.
Speaking of grants in general, the Papal Foundation said their mission has not changed. “The grants to help those in need around the world and of significance to the Holy Father are reviewed and approved through well-accepted philanthropic processes by the Board and its committees,” it said.
Lay membership or becoming a “steward” in the Papal Foundation involves the pledge “to give $1 million over the course of no more than ten years with a minimum donation of $100,000 per year.”  Those monies are invested in order to make a perpetual fund to assist the Church.
However, the majority of the board is composed of U.S. bishops, including every U.S. Cardinal living in America. The foundation customarily gives grants of $200,000 or less to organizations in the developing world (see a grant list for 2017 here) via the Holy See.
According to the internal documents, the Pope made the request for the massive grant, which is 100 times larger than its normal grants, through Papal Foundation board chairman Cardinal Donald Wuerl in the summer of 2017.
Despite opposition from the lay “stewards,” the bishops on the board voted in December to send an $8 million payment to the Holy See. In January, the documents reveal, lay members raised alarm about what they consider a gross misuse of their funds, but despite their protests another $5 million was sent with Cardinal Wuerl brooking no dissent.
Along with this report, LifeSite is publishing three leaked documents. Access them herehere, and here.

‘Negligent… flawed… reckless’

On January 6, the steward who until then served as chairman of the Foundation’s audit committee submitted his resignation along with a report of the committee’s grave objections to the grant.

The controversial hospital

The lay members of the board have good reason to be concerned about the supposed recipient of their generosity. Pope Francis asked for the funds to be directed to the Istituto Dermopatico dell'Immacolata (IDI), a dermatological hospital in Rome that has been plagued with corruption and financial scandal for years.
On May 15, 2013, ANSA, the leading news wire in Italy, reported “police confiscated over six million euros worth of property and bank accounts as part of investigations into alleged corruption at the Italian hospital group Istituto Dermopatico dell'Immacolata (IDI).”
The news of Vatican financial corruption connected to the IDI hit international headlines in 2015 with a June 20 Reuters article showing the Italian magistrates suspected Vatican Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi diverted 30 million euros destined for a Church-owned children’s hospital to the Church-owned IDI.
Another ANSA piece from 2016 reported, “Finance police discovered IDI was 845 million euros in the red and 450 million euros in tax evasion while 82 million euros had been diverted and six million euros in public funds embezzled.”
In May 2017, La Repubblica – the only newspaper Pope Francis says he reads – reported on court rulings revolving around the IDI detailing twenty-four indictments, leading to a dozen convictions, some of which carried over three years in prison. The court recognized the evidence from the financial police including “about 845 million euros in balance sheet liabilities and over 82 million in diverted funds, plus the undue use of another 6 million public funds.”

‘He is the Pope, and we listen to him’

On January 19, after numerous calls and emails among lay members supporting the audit committee’s position, the Foundation’s executive committee sent a letter trying to placate the donating members.
That document, sent by Foundation President Bishop Michael Bransfield, and signed by Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, as well as several Stewards on the executive, highlights that the request for the donation came directly from Pope Francis. They wrote:

The Papal Foundation’s record

The Papal Foundation has a stellar record of assisting the Popes to support the poor, largely in developing nations. Since their first gift to Pope St. John Paul II in 1990, the Foundation’s fund has grown to over $215 million, and has given a total of $121 million in grants and scholarships.
From a look at their recent grants it is evident that the use of funds heretofore has been above reproach. The wealthy American Catholic families funded the building of churches, monasteries, schools and seminaries in impoverished nations. AIDS hospices, facilities for care of youth with physical and mental disabilities, and the like have also benefited from their generosity.
It seems this scandal is the first in the 30-year history of the organization. The executive letter states: “It is true that over the last fifteen years, if not longer, most of our donations have gone to the poor, and most of those poor have been in the poorer countries of the world.” It acknowledges that throughout the organization’s history, “almost all of the decisions of the organization were made with near unanimity of the Board.”

segunda-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2018

Theodore Dalrympole: O Estado Islâmico Francês. Macron o "Grande Imã".

Emmanuel Macron deseja "estruturar" o Islã na França, para que não se tenha "extremistas" no país e as mesquistas na França não seja financiadas por países muçulmanos.

Humm...por que será que o Islã precisa disso?

O renomado psiquiatra e autor de diversos livros imensamente vendidos no mundo, Theodore Dalrympole, comentou essa vontade de Macron.

Dalrympole lembrou o ateísmo de Macron, o secularismo francês, o fato de que mesquitas na França são financiadas por países muçulmanos e mostrou que o estado francês se enche de muçulmanos para tentar conter o Islã, mesmo que esses próprios muçulmanos dentro do governo saibam que isso é impossível.

O site Jihad Watch detalhou o que Macron deseja fazer. Macron deseja:

1) Determinar um "Grande Imã", que seria responsável pela doutrina islâmica na França (hummm...nem a Arábia Saudita consegue isso, nem na história do Islã pós-Maomé se conseguiu);

2) Proibir que países estrangeiros financiem mesquitas, financiando as mesquitas com dinheiro público, retirado de um imposto sobre os produtos comprados por muçulmanos (hummm...o estado secular francês financiando mesquitas?);

3) Fiscalizar o treinamento dos imãs (hummm...isso não incentivaria ainda mais a radicalização, tendo o estado laico invadindo uma religião?).

Mas repito: por que mesmo o Islã precisa disso tudo? Será algum problema com o Alcorão e o Maomé?

O texto de Dalrympole foi publicado no City Journal.

Vejamos um pedaço de texto:

State Islam in France
Theodore Dalrympole, 16 Februray 2018.

Asked once whether he believed in God, French president Emmanuel Macron replied, “That’s a real question, a complex question. I undoubtedly believe in a transcendence. I am not sure any more that I believe in a God. Yes, I believe in transcendence.”
Another real and complex question for him to answer is that regarding the relationship of the French Republic with Islam. France is a militantly secular country whose militancy has seemed only to grow stronger as the Church grows weaker. France rejects all connection between religion and state; in the mouth of a French intellectual, the words très catho (very Catholic) sound more like an accusation than a description. The ghost of Marshal Pétain—who replaced “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” with “Work, Family, Fatherland”—still rides.
Macron seeks something different. He wants to “structure” French Islam, with a view to undermining extremism and foreign influence. It is said that North African and Persian Gulf states pay some 300 imams in France; they also pay for the construction of new mosques (which is illegal). However, the financing of mosques is very murky: the mosques do not render very clear accounts, hiding behind financial regulations for non-profitmaking organizations that are much less stringent than those for religious organizations.
A Muslim adviser to President Macron, Hakim El Karoui (who, like the president, once worked for the Rothschild Bank), has suggested that there should be a Grand Imam of France, as well as an organization that concerns itself with the financing of mosques and the education, training, and payment of imams—all under the aegis of the state. In other words, the French Republic would be the ultimate arbiter of Islamic theology. This is a far cry from secularism. El Karoui himself recognizes the futility of the arrangement when he says: “Imams are trained by the state in the whole Arab world, but that has not prevented the fundamentalists from prospering.”

sexta-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2018

"Comer Cahorros, Não!" - Imigrantes Comendo Cachorros na Itália.

Outro dia, eu li que imigrantes nigerianos que mataram uma moça chamada Pamela Mastropietro na Itália podem ter comido literalmente ela, é o que dizem o psiquiatra Alessandro Meluzzi e um criminologista, um vez que o corpo de Pamela foi encontrado desmembrado, sem algumas partes, sem ossos e lavado em alvejante.

Agora leio que imigrantes nigerianos na Itália estão comendo cachorros. Os ambientalistas estão reagindo para proteger os cachorros, sobre a Pamela, eles não disseram nada.

Os nigerianos além de trazerem uma cultura total diferente para a Europa, o que inclui o hábito de comer, trazem também a máfia nigeriana, muito conhecida na África e até no mundo.

Não li nenhuma reação do Papa Francisco sobre o assassinato terrível da Pamela na Itália, será que se juntará aos ambientalistas?

Que horrendo e satânico tudo isso.

Vejam o texto do Breirbart sobre os nigerianos e os cachorros na Itália . 

Culture Shock: Italians Aghast as Immigrants Barbecue Dog at Welcome Center

Animal rights activists are up in arms over attempts to barbecue a dog at an immigrant welcome center in southern Italy, with migrants insisting the practice is normal where they come from.

Members of the Carabinieri, an Italian military police force, intervened immediately after receiving a call from an employee of the center who had witnessed the scene of a 29-year-old Nigerian man intent on roasting a dog at the center in Vibo Valentia, in the Italian region of Calabria.
The man had succeeded in skinning and chopping up the canine and was in the process of grilling it for himself and some friends when he was stopped by law enforcement officers. The young woman who called the police also volunteers at a pro-animal organization in the area.
Explaining to police that such a practice is “normal where we come from,” the migrant insisted that he didn’t kill the dog but had found it dead by the side of the road and had decided to grill it. He also pleaded ignorance of Italian laws forbidding eating cats and dogs.
Police transferred the migrant to a different welcome center, located in the former Hotel Miragolfo in the nearby town of Nicotera.
Among countries of origin, Nigeria accounts for the largest single group of migrants entering Italy at present, with nearly twice as many (15.7 percent) Nigerians entering Italy during 2017 as those from Guinea, the second largest immigrant group by country of provenance (8.4 percent).
This African nation has been the focus of much local media attention in recent weeks, with reports of growth of a “ruthless” Nigerian mafia on Italian soil, and the brutal murder and dismemberment of an 18-year-old Italian girl, Pamela Mastropietro, allegedly at the hands of three Nigerian migrants.
Mastropietro’s dismembered corpse was discovered earlier this month in two suitcases outside the central Italian town of Macerata, but was missing her neck, heart and genitals. The body had also been deboned and washed in bleach.
A prominent Italian criminologist said that the modus operandi in this case matched methods typically adopted by the Nigerian mafia.
What we have seen in the case of Pamela are the same methods the Nigerian mafia systematically employs in Nigeria and elsewhere,” Meluzzi said. “It is a routine to cut victims into pieces and, in some cases, to eat parts of their bodies.”
Troubling as well have been reports of startling percentages of female Nigerian migrants into Italy who wind up as prostitutes, whether by choice or coercion, and become virtual slaves of the Nigerian mafia.
Currently, some 80 percent of Nigerian girls and women migrating to Italy end up in prostitution, a form of sexual slavery from which the girls and women have no recourse. Roughly half of the prostitutes currently working in Italy are Nigerians.
Nigerian traffickers have exploited Europe’s migrant crisis to traffic girls across the Mediterranean to Italy to force into prostitution. From 2014-2016, more than 12,000 Nigerian girls and young women arrived in Italy, and of these, some 9,400 wound up as sex workers.

quinta-feira, 15 de fevereiro de 2018

Dep. Gowdy: "Mostre-me uma Lei que Previna Ataques a Tiros em Escolas"

O deputado Trey Gowdy deu o tom correto do debate sobre posse de armas nos Estados Unidos: "mostre-me uma lei que previna esses ataques a tiros em escolas que eu assinarei na hora".

Leis são feitas por homens, homens são o limite da lei, não é possível banir qualquer pecado com leis. Um povo é mais respeitoso que outro não por conta de leis, mas por conta da cultura/religião.

Nos Estados Unidos, há muitas leis de controle de posse de armas, mas não conseguem conter a violência terrível que ocorreu na Flórida contra inocentes crianças e jovens.

O estado de Chicago é o o estado onde ocorrem mais assassinatos nos Estados Unidos e é o estado com leis mais rígidas para posse de armas.

No Brasil, é proibido a posse de armas, e a matança é do tamanho de uma guerra civil, em escolas, ruas, etc.

Aliás, quem usa a arma é quem determina se faz certo ou errado, a arma não é culpada em si.

Como disse Cristo, o pecado está no coração dos homens e não fora dele.

No meu livro sobre Guerra Justa, eu discuto por exemplo a ideia de se alcançar a paz na Terra, algo que filósofos com gigantesca mania de grandeza como Immanuel Kant imaginaram ser possível, com uma teoria cheia de buracos lógicos e históricos.

Não é possível, o homem é um ser pecador. Paz verdadeira só em e com Cristo.

Claro que devemos tentar inibir que os assassinatos ocorram e devemos punir os assassinos quando ocorrem, mas imaginar que é possível banir assassinatos com leis é simplesmente não saber o que é o ser humano.

Para diminuir os crimes no Brasil, nos Estados Unidos ou em qualquer lugar do mundo precisamos melhorar a cultura e o povo.

Rezemos pelas vítimas.

quarta-feira, 14 de fevereiro de 2018

Vídeo: Gays Dominam Vaticano como Dominam o Carnaval.

Você também acha que os gays e lésbicas tomaram conta do Carnaval? O Carnaval sempre foi um período de orgia gay mais liberada, mas agora eles chegaram ao poder.

O mesmo ocorre com o Vaticano. Por décadas houve lobby gay no Vaticano, mas com o Papa Francisco, os gays estão no poder, a ponto de alguns imaginarem que o próprio Papa pode ser gay, como é o caso do blog Mundabor.

Foi essa sensação que tive sobre o Vaticano quando vi o vídeo do Vortex. O vídeo fala do números de cardeais, bispos e padres que ou são gays ou apoiam os gays e estão recebendo apoio do Papa e estão muito bem posicionados na hierarquia do Vaticano. O vídeo diz algo que precisa ser repetido sempre: "quem apoia a sodomia, não tem fé no sobrenatural, acha que a Igreja é apenas uma instituição humana".

Infelizmente, para quem gosta de carnaval e não é gay, vai ser quase impossível tirar o poder dos gays sobre o carnaval. Será também extremamente difícil retirar o poder dos homossexuais dentro do Vaticano, depois que chegaram ao topo. No caso do Vaticano, a gente pode contar, graças a Deus, com o Espírito Santo.

As portas do inferno não dominam nem dominarão a Igreja, mas elas atualmente, no mínimo, estão derrubando vários obstáculos, chegaram na mesa do Papa Francisco.

Precisamos rezar muito pela Igreja. Muito mesmo. Precisamos fazer a nossa parte na guerra cultural que vivemos, defendendo Cristo e rezar, implorando por intervenção divina.

O site do Church Militant disponibiliza o texto do vídeo, vejam abaixo:


Time is running out.

February 12, 2018

Has it appeared "odd" to anyone else that there are so many promoters of sodomy around Pope Francis? Hardly a week goes by where some outlandish gay thing after another fails to make an appearance in some manner, shape or form — from reports of the gay orgy in the apartment of Cdl. (Francesco) Coccopalmerio's assistant near the end of last year to Abp. (Vincenzo) Paglia's homoerotic painting to the gay-themed Nativity set in St. Peter's Square to gay cheerleaders Fr. James Martin and Fr. Thomas Rosica's special jobs in the Vatican bureaucracy to a very gay-friendly company running aspects of the Vatican's communications apparatus to the infamous line in the Synod on the Family's 2014 Midterm Relatio that homosexuals have certain gifts and qualities, an idea sneaked into the document by Abp. Bruno Forte, known to be extremely gay-friendly. It's so much, people are wondering when the Dome of St. Peter's is going to be painted pink. And believe us when we say those examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
The ascendancy of the homosexual clerical culture really took off in Rome and other quarters of the Church decades ago — slowly at first but then has picked up steam. Pope Benedict even admitted recently that he had encountered a group of four or five homosexual cardinals he had to deal with.
Pope Francis at the beginning of his pontificate created international headlines when he admitted privately there was a gay lobby inside the Vatican. Of course, many people became very concerned when the Holy Father appointed Msgr. Battista Ricca to head up the Vatican Bank. Ricca was reported to have carried on a gay relationship with a captain in the Swiss guard during his time in Uruguay  — so notorious in fact that clergy there appealed to the Vatican to have him removed. It was Battista, as a sidebar, that Pope Francis was talking about back in 2013 when he gave his well-documented comment, "Who am I to judge?"
It's also important to note that privately various orthodox types in the Vatican and Rome are expressing deep concern that homosexual practice in the Vatican "has never been worse," as recorded this past summer in multiple news reports. The Vatican has been overrun by a gay culture which promotes its own kind from within. The great danger, here, is of course that active gay clergy or those who support it cannot be transmitters of the authentic faith. They are living lives or supporting others who live these lives which run in complete contradiction to the tenets of Catholicism, yet they seem to have control over practically everything in the Church. And it has a supporting or trickle-down effect throughout the Church.
For example, in next months, virtually heretical Religious Education Congress — sponsored by Los Angeles Abp. Jose Gomez — one pro-homosexualist after another dot the lineup of invited speakers. Privately, here in the United States, priests will tell you that a gay mob runs practically every level of the Church which we have ample proof of in Cdl. Timothy Dolan's archdiocese of New York. Last month, a homosexual priest came out to his parish at Sunday Mass in the archdiocese of Milwaukee, and Abp. Jerome Listecki praised him and said Catholics should support him.
Father James Martin is allowed to openly lie about Church teaching in parish after parish and diocese after diocese, and practically no one in the hierarchy says a word. In fact just the opposite, they come out and support him and even one-up him in their assaults against the Faith, saying gay couples can receive Holy Communion as Cdl. Blase Cupich did in Chicago or that we can just ignore all that sin stuff and have a pilgrimage for gays like Cdl. Joseph Tobin did in Newark, New Jersey. And on the other side of the Atlantic, Cdl. Reinhard Marx has come out publicly and said the Church should begin blessing same-sex unions, something Abp. Johan Bonny of Antwerp, Belgium, had already called for a couple of years ago.
All over the Church in the West calls for the embracing of sodomy from the hierarchy are accelerating and increasing in volume. They style it as respect and compassion and human rights etc. But what is at the heart of this is sodomy, plain and simple? Nobody is saying that people struggling with their crosses, whatever type of cross they have, should be treated in any other way than with compassion and respect. Of course they should. It even says that in the catechism. But it is a bridge too far to call on Catholics to accept the sin, thinly veiling it as love when it is anything but love. Call it what it is, it's sodomy. And these bishops and cardinals cannot support what they claim to support without also supporting that.
These gay unions that they want to bless, uplift and support are unions centered around the belief that sodomy is a perfectly legitimate expression of their feelings of love for each other. At some point, reasonable minds have to pose the question: is the reason so many prelates and cardinals are pushing so hard for something that affects so few people because they are homosexuals themselves? Seriously, if Martians landed on earth tomorrow, they would think the Church was the gay rights lobby in robes. It's practically all they ever go on about.
These men are sowing confusion and error in the hearts and minds of the faithful, as well as promoting an evil agenda which the world embraces, and they are using or rather abusing their authority and influence to do so. They need to repent of their wickedness before they die or hellfire awaits them. And they need to publicly admit the horrible circumstances in to which they have placed many souls, pushing them to the precipice of Hell.
What the laity have to understand is this simple fact as hard as it is, maybe, and as unpleasant it is to think about it; these men hate the Church, even while they claim to love it. They hate the Truth because it convicts them and their consciences and exposes the evil that they harbor. And they hide all this evil and contempt and scorn for the Church under cries and appeals for compassion and kindness, something they are unwilling to extend to souls who actually need it.
They have found in Pope Francis, who cares about mercy, even to the point of allowing confusion to foster, a man whose strings they can easily tug, using that "mercy" argument to hide their real agenda which is an overthrow of the Church. A final warning to them since they have no supernatural faith — and you cannot have supernatural faith and behave like this — they are incapable of seeing the Church in a supernatural way. To them, it is a merely human institution that can be altered and refashioned according to the whims of mere humans. But the Church is not merely human. It is a joining, a mysterious union between God and man, and as such it belongs to God.

He will not allow this to continue much longer because the rabid gays in the Church are now touching sacred things, wanting to declare that which is evil, good, and that which is good, evil. When Our Blessed Lord sets about to offer correction, it's usually a fearsome prospect.