Bergoglio scandal silence

Bergoglio's stupidity catches up with his perversion - Sunday 12th of August to Saturday 8th of September

It has been far too long since I wrote, and it has not been for lack of topics, rather perhaps the exact opposite. There has been so much to write about that it has been difficult to know where to start.

Most of what has caught my attention has been Church scandals, but there have been some siginificant secular news as well. I shall make the unusual choice of starting with the secular news, although I shall only cover  the secular world in brief.  The rest will be taken up by Bergoglio's most headline-grabbing scandal to date, so perhaps it is just as well that my update-rate has been sub-optimal, for otherwise I would have been writing about that very thing all this time; so dominant has it been.

The most significant news was that China may scrap it's abhorrent two-child policy after 40 years of callous murders. What has often been called a one-child policy was for most people always a 2-child policy, since people outside the cities were 'allowed' 2 children, as were those without siblings. I write allowed in quotation marks because I cannot get over how absurd it is that the government sticks its nose into how many children  a couple has. A government can no more allow people to have more than 2 children than it can allow its citizens to breathe, which is to say that having children is a natural right which the government has no right to infringe upon more than it has on our right to breathe. It can only allow it only insofar as it has violated that right in the first place.

In any case, the 2-child policy created a childless society en large, which was not helped by the Chinese traditional preference for boys, or Chinas world-leading suicide rate among women. China is on course to have the oldest population in Asia in a few decades,  and all because of its communist ideologues. When you fight against nature, you will always lose.

I have, however, long maintained that China might indeed become the first country in modern times to outlaw the killing of unborn children, after having allowed and even mandated it. This is because the Chinese are not as ideological as their Western leftists. To them abortion was what they thought would bring them out of poverty. To the Westerners, abortion was a way to rebel against God and former Christendom's cultural and moral heritage, through the 'liberation' of women, which of course, has been the enslavement of women to their sexual appetites. The Chinese have no time for this nonsense; they are materialists. If killing hundreds of millions of children is what they think will bring them wealth, then kill hundreds of millions they shall. They have finally realised that children are not a cause of poverty, but rather a nation's greatest resource, and now they are despreate to increase the birthrate. The easiest and cheapest way is to simply outlaw the killing of children, and you can be sure that if they think that will help their bottom line, then it is exactly what they will do.

I recently read that the Chinese have spoken about introducing a tax on those who don't have children. In other words, my prediction is not far off from being realised.

A bridge collapsed killing at least 35 in Genoa, Italy. This collapse affected me more personally than most other tragedies since I am certain I drove over that very bridge last summer on my way to Florence. In other words, I could have been one of those people. The Italian government, with Salvini at the helm, blamed it on the EU, given it has forced Italy into budget cuts. I hope that was a statement brought out more by being overcome by emotions more than calculated political opportunism, because even by modern political discourse, that is stretching political truthiness beyond breaking point. I do like Salvini a lot, but that was well below the belt. There is much blame to go around, but the EU cannot be blamed for this.

The EU, to the extent it can even be blamed for forcing the Italians to attempt to live within their means, simply called for budget cuts. I am quite certain they never mandated that these cuts be on vital infrastructure. As one good piece pointed out, if Italy did not invest so much on the NATO racket, it might have had more to invest in its infrastructure. Instead of buying fighter jets costing hundreds of millions of euros, they could build very good bridges for much less than that, and save lives while doing it, instead of taking them.  Instead of going along with sanctions on Russia which could have brought billions which might have been used on infrastructure, they decided to go along with the American racket. They could have stood for their sovereignty in both cases. Instead they decided to put the money into the hands of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and the lives this and similar decisions took just ended up being their own.

Russia kept warning against a false-flag chemical-weapons attack in Syria, even providing evidence to the OPCW and the U.N.. The U.S., meanwhile, continued to protect its Syrian Islamists by making the militants know that any false or hoax flag conducted on them would lead to strikes on Syrian government positions, and being the lap dogs they are, the British and French followed suite. This comes as the Syrians and their Russian allies are preparing the final assault on the last major Islamist strong-hold in Syria, having cleared most of the country, despite American interference. The Netherlands, in turn, decided to end support for Syrian militant groups, which confirmed what we have been saying all along - that militants in Syria have been backed up by secular Western countries - in addition to Arab sheiks and Jewish zionists - from the very beginning.

This whole situation has got Peter Hitchens worried so much that he wrote his readers asking them to write to their MPs, lest we end up in a terrible war, again.

Sexual abuse allegations hit the U.N. as well, with a sodomitical gender equality official being accused of being a ‘predator’, having assaulted men. Imagine my surprise, a professed pervert involved in sexual predation! In other words, just like in NOChurch, it was a case of homosexual predation. Just like in NOChurch, there was a cover-up.

The  evil war-mongering waste-of-space John McCain died , in a rare piece of good news. That hast to fall under the category of "good riddance to bad rubbish". There has not been a war I know of which this man did not support. The number of deaths for which he bears responsibility numbers in the millions, and the refugees number in the tens of millions. If you had watched EWTN's coverage of his funeral, you would not have known any of this, as they showered him with praise and claimed that he was beloved by all, being the neo-con water-carriers they are. I have often referred to EWTN as Fox News for slightly more pious people. Donald Trump, to his credit, did not attend the funeral, although that was because McCain's family asked him not to attend. To his credit though, he went out and played golf instead, so even in his absense he managed to grab attention. I have been told that the funeral turned into yet another anti-Trump event, which was not exactly unexpected. Aretha Franklin, the famous singer, also was buried during the same period, and her funeral also turned out to be nothing but an anti-Trump fest, according to reports.

The one good thing about McCain, and probably the only good thing I should add, is that he was against torture. He didn't mind killing millions, or condemning children to living without their parents, or maiming them for life, but he was against torture of detainees, presumably because he himself was exposed to it. He is a classic example of what I have long maintained is the central intellectual deficiency in the Western world today: An inability to grasp abstractions and abstract concepts. It might be the case that had his daughter been killed from a bomb dropped from a fighter jet, or a cruise missile, then he might have been against these actions too, but alas she was not, so he was against all sorts of killing so long as it did not involve physical harm to detainees. At least he is better than Trump on the torture bit, pretty much the only bit in which he was morally superior.

Still, I am in total agreement Russian politician and arch-patriot Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who said that McCain belonged in a cage. He might well end up in one for all eternity, barring a sincere last-minute repentance and conversion.

Much more could be written about the secular world, but I must now turn my attentions to the increasingly frequent tradegies of NOChurch - the never-ending horror show.

In No Matter How Bad You Think the Corruption Is, It’s Worse, Peter Kwasniewski wrote a piece arguing just that. His piece was mainly about the homosexual scourge in the Church's hierarchy. The Penssylvania grand jury report which came out not long before found itself the subject of much criticism, as one author analysed it and shed details on many of its more questionable claims. Both of these pieces are well-worth reading. The first shows us just how rotten NOChurch has become, while the second warns us that just because we know it's rotten, it doesn't mean that the Church's enemies will not exploit this situation to make up lies about the Church in the hope of destroying Her.

As if to prove the point that NOChurch is rotten,  2 priests belonging to arch-sodomite Cupich's archdiocese of Chicago were arrested in Florida for public lewdness, while busily 'clericalising'* each other next to a children's playground. They were so into their sordid acts that they did not notice the policeman, who had to knock on the window of the car to get their attention. Crisis Magazine uses this as an example to show just how depraved the homosexual lifestyle is, that it's not enough to do sordid acts in the privacy of their homes, but rather they have to flaunt their wickedness to all.

The World Meeting of Families kicked off in Ireland, despite many calls to abandon the whole thing. Fortunately, the turn-out was sparse, although not as sparse as I would have hoped. The relative disaster of the event made what happened towards its end all the sweeter.

On Sunday August 25th, the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano published through several channels what has become known as  the Vigano sex abuse testimony. The good archbishop, who I have known about for a long time and respected, made detailed allegations against Bergoglio and his entourage. The most damning allegation was that Bergoglio knew that sodomital predator Cardinal McCarrick had been placed under restrictions by Pope Benedict, that he withdrew these punishments and made him a trusted advisor, and that his advice was responsible for some of Bergoglio's string of homosexualising episcopal appointments. As nuncio to the U.S., Vigano was in a privileged position to know all this, and he implicates the usual suspects - Cupich, Tobin, McElroy  - people who seemingly came out of nowhere to the highest positions in the Church. These are McCarrick appointments, he submits.

What caused Vigano to write this was the good of the Church, and the fury he felt at seeing Bergoglio meeting sex abuse victims, promising to do everything to work against sex abuse, all the time knowing that Bergoglio is appointing prominent sex abusers to prominent positions, or rehabilitating abusers who had been placed under canonical censure during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI. He called on Bergoglio to resign, given that Bergoglio has claimed a zero-tolerance policy on clerical sex abuse and its cover-up.

The achbishop wanted the testimony released on the Sunday of Bergoglio's flight back to Rome from the World Meeting of Families in Ireland, so that he would be confronted on the plane. Confronted he was, but Bergoglio - the papacy's greatest ever blabbermouth - for once decided to shut his big mouth, insisting that he "will not say a word" and urging journalists to dig into these stories and settle on a narrative. Many took it as hinting to the journalists that they should go after Vigano because they know as well as he does that he is their pope, and that they owe him protection, lest they should end up with a real Catholic as pope. I go further and argue that Bergoglio is Satan's pope.

There are numerous links to the testimony which sum it up better than I do, so those low-points will have to do as a summary.

As one might expect, this one topic has dominated Catholic media since, and not all of it in the right way. As could have been anticipated, Bergoglio's attack hounds and psychophants went on the offensive against Archbishop Vigano, completely uninterested in the veracity of the allegations. Many who have been on the fence with Bergoglio finally jumped against him. Some who have been against him but have not dared to come out publicly with it finally saw their chance, most notably Michael Voris, who called on Bergoglio to resign within a day of the allegations. Even Bergoglio appointments came out in support of Archbishop Vigano, or at least called for an investigation to reveal the truth.

It is interesting to note that there does not seem to be anyone who thinks Bergoglio is innocent of the charges, and the self-confessed coprophagian himself does not even deny the charges. His supporters have not even called for an investigation to clear his name, clearly showing that they believe he is guilty. His opponents need little proof of the man's guilt, given that he has rehabillitated so many perverts as it is, while appointing as many perverts as he could to prominent positions, surrounding himself with these types.

What troubled me immediately afterwards was how quickly all those who had been on the fence now jumped in against Bergoglio, as if he had unexpectedly done something completely unconscionable, when the data on Bergoglio promoting sexual deviancy including turning a blind eye on sexual child abuse has been there for anybody with even the slightest bit of curiosity to find. Now though, that a prominent archbishop had directly implicated him, directly accused him of that which anybody with half a mind would have concluded previously, the neo-Catholics could come out of their shells and voice their concerns.

Bergoglio can commit a thousand - literally - crimes against the faith and get away with it, but as soon as he commits the one sin which the world (just about) can bring itself to condemn nearly-universally, Catholics are then allowed to criticise him, or so one would surmise anyway. This was, in fact, the argument made by Michael Voris: they felt they could not raise criticism on "theological matters" - as if adultery is a theological matter! - but could do so when it came to crimes. In other words, what these people were saying is that the Church is really no different than a political party, or a sports organisation, and the only things which matter are those which the world takes seriously enough to criminalise, and not those which undermine the Divine Mission entrusted to the Church by Almighty God, a divine mission which these very same governments would also soon see criminalised if they had their way.

It is difficult to disagree with  this summation by Mundabor, which is an indictment of the whole NOChurch establishment:

This is the depressing part of the whole story: Francis has been offending Christ, the Church and Her Sacraments in every possible way for years, and no Archbishop besides the retired Gracida called for his deposition; besides, Gracida himself called for his deposition as invalidly elected, not because of his actions as a Pope.

This tells me that in today’s Church Christ is of so little consequence, and the world of such great importance, that a Pope who has offended Christ in a way infinitely more grave than every offence made to man (we need to repeat this, lest we lose all perspective) might be brought down not by his countless heretical statements, but by his inability to comply with the standards of the world. The fact, I add, that the standard of the world in matter of paedophilia are quite OK (those in matter of homosexuality, which is at the root of the issue, clearly aren’t) does not make the consideration less sad.

If Francis resigns on this (his pontificate is, by now, destroyed anyway) history will remember that a Pope able to stun the Catholic world with years of constant heretical statements was brought down by… his cover-up of sexual scandals. 

This is literally Bergoglio's smallest public scandal against the Church since he became pope, yet people are calling him to resign. It is okay for him to call Christ the devil, to say that the Virgin Mary felt cheated, to equate the Divine Commission to spread the world with jihad, to call the confessional a torture chamber, to say that adulterers are in a state of grace, to say that all religions are equally good, to say that evangelisation is a sin, to say that Christ sinned, to defame all his holy predecessors, yet as soon as he commits an administrative error, lo and behold, he is beyond the pale! This is madness!

I find myself in the unusual position of being the one who is not calling for Bergoglio's resignation - not that I would ever call for a pope to resign, even a dubious one. If we can put pressure on a pope - or whatever Bergoglio is - to resign on account of administrative errors, then I need to do little else to prove that NOChurch is the devil's creation.

These people are not even calling on Bergoglio to resign because he minimalises the gravity of homosexual actions, or of heresy, or of apostasy, or the murder of the unborn, or the violation of the sacred bond of marriage. No, they want him to resign because he did not sign, or because he rescinded, a piece of paper, or whatever administrative penalty was placed on the pervert McCarrick. They apply to him exactly the same moral standards that they would on the most decrepit politician, and not an ounce more. Yet they have the gall to call traditonalists pharisees, or accuse the SSPX of disrespecting the papacy!

It is like living in bizarro world, it really is! People really do have their priorities upside down if they feel they are justified in calling for Bergoglio to resign on account of administrative issues, when the man only seems to take the wine bottle off his mouth long enough only to devise new ways to destroy the Church.

The notion of having 2 retired popes living in the Vatican is too ridiculous to contemplate. Its bad enough having Pope Benedict XVI in there, but with Bergoglio there all of a sudden the Vatican would be turned into the most safely-guarded retirement home in the world. Even by NOChurch standards, this would be too absurd.

There are few people who dislike Bergoglio more than I do, and I have a long record of pointing out his many grievous offences against the Catholic Church, her glorious saints, her embattled Church militant, and even Almighty God Himself. You can, however, be sure that I shall not be calling on Bergoglio - or anyone else - to resign. Calling for someone to resign - regardless of position - is a cop-out, analogous to asking a rapist to be gentle. What you do if you want someone removed is ask his superior to have him removed. As the pope has no superior on Earth, then we ask for his superior in Heaven to do it. I would like to think that all good Catholics have been doing that for years. In the meantime, we resist him as much as possible, mocking him if we can, anything to shame him into doing the right thing because obviously we cannot appeal to his good senses.

My stance on Bergoglio is that I want his pontificate over as soon as possible. Whether it come through a natural death, or a heart attack while attending one of Cocco's infamous cocaine-fueled homosexual orgies, by an assassin's bullet, whether he is drowned by the people of Rome, or whether he is shot by a sodomite for whom he jostles for another sodomite's affection is irrelevant, although I have my preferences, which I shall not enumerate. His death should ideally be scandalous enough to prevent any of this 'sancto subito' nonsense, and ideally his body would rot so miraculously quickly that NOChurch could not claim it is incorrupt. Ideally he would have enough time to repent for his  many offences against God so that he can avoid eternal damnation, which he is almost certain to get if he continues on this path, and I must admit I have a hard time seeing how Bergoglio's conversion could possibly come about if he dies a peaceful death in his deathbed.

What I am not going to do, however, is to ask him to resign on account of the McCarrick scandal.

I shall, however, get behind the slogan: "We want a Catholic Pope: Convert or Resign!" That gets right to the heart of the matter in a way in which the sexual abuse scandal does not. Bergoglio is  diabolical not because he is a bad administrator, but because he is not Catholic, and because he is anti-Catholic.

He is Satan's pope, not the Vicar of Christ. We  knew that already, so let us not cower behind his handling of a sexual abuse case by one of his many sodomites, whose revelation really came as a suprise to nobody who has followed this diabolical man for any length of time.

Obviously, this post covering more than a week, I could not accurately award a Bergoglio victim-of-the-week award, but I shall do it all the same, however inaccurately, and really it could have been the same victim for all these weeks, so it is not entirely out of place. This week's/month's Bergoglio victim of the week is righteous rage.

I am yet to decide whether Bergoglio plays stupid or if he really is as stupid as he seems. Whatever the case, he gives a very convincing impression of a thoroughly stupid man. The world can pretty much bring itself to condenmn only one thing, and that one thing it just about manages to condemn. That thing is paedophilia, or child abuse generally. Bergoglio is so perverse that even with the world praising him for all his many perversions, he still had to fall for that one perversion , to such an extent that the world he so much loves is just about forced to look into his many other shady activities, and force itself into writing ill of him.

Still, the rage which has met Bergoglio from Catholics on this issue is as misdirected as I have ever seen. We are entitled to have righteous rage. Let us, however, direct it more vociferously towards Bergoglio when he attacks the deposit of faith, insults his holy predecessors, undermines the Church and insults Almighty God, rather than when he fails in his administrative duties and favours his perverts, especially when we all knew that the man was so inclined all along.

NB:

* Bergoglio has claimed that the sexual abuse clergy is due to clericalism, and not homosexual clergy on account of grave lack of faith, as is obvious to anyone who has been taking notes. Some in his entourage have followed suit, which has led to some using the word 'clericalising' mockingly to describe homosexual acts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Bergoglio scandal silence