LifeSiteNews report: Pope Francis "autocratic" --- Robert Spaemann

Famed German Catholic philosopher makes waves for criticizing Pope Francis’ ‘autocratic’ style

 Catholic , Pope Francis , Robert Spaemann , Synod On The Family

April 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- In a recent lengthy interview with the German Catholic journal Herder Korrespondenz in an issue especially dedicated to the theme of Pope Francis, the renowned and arguably most prominent Catholic philosopher in Germany, Professor Robert Spaemann, a long-time friend of Pope Benedict, has gone public with a strong criticism of Pope Francis that is being discussed nation-wide.

At the beginning of this interview-discussion that included also another German Catholic philosopher, Professor Hans Joas, Spaemann in a calm and differentiated way first acknowledged Pope Francis' strengths and especially what he calls his “traditional piety”: “He speaks like a Latin-American bishop who is fully rooted in the piety of his people.” Spaemann continues:

“On the other side, in my view, his cult of spontaneity is not helping. In the Vatican, some people are already sighing: 'Today, he has already again another different idea from yesterday.' One does not fully get rid of the impression of chaos. And it is irritating how he prepares the Synod. It is the intention that two parties meet at the synod which the Pope wants to lead into a dialogue whereby he himself plays the role of a moderator. In the same time, however, he takes sides already in advance by favoring the position of Cardinal Walter Kasper, he has excluded the John Paul II Institute for Studies on the Family from the pre-Synod consultations and tries with the help of explicit pressure to influence those consultations.”

Spaemann then also criticized Pope Francis for dismissing personnel who have been close to Pope Benedict XVI: “Pope Francis always stresses his close bond with Pope Benedict. In certain ways that certainly also exists. But I wonder why he throws so many people out of the Vatican who had been called in by Benedict.”

The 87-year old Spaemann who had taught at important universities such as the University of Heidelberg and the University of Munich, also criticized Pope Francis for his way of electing new cardinals:

“Take the recent elections of new cardinals. There have now entered into the government of the whole Church completely unknown bishops who at times only have 15,000 Catholics in their dioceses. Bishops with larger dioceses, however, were passed by, even though one must have seen in them a certain extraordinary quality when they were chosen to be archbishops. Why are they then not called to the top? I ask myself, what will be the result in the end – next to a fleeting symbolic gesture? The upcoming Synod will especially have to show what the Holy Father intends.”

The progressive Professor Hans Joas, Spaemann's counterpart in this interview, largely supported Pope Francis, and even goes so far as to defend extramarital sexual commerce as such. But even he agreed with Spaemann in some of his criticism concerning the previous and the upcoming Synod on Marriage and the Family:

“The greater danger is, however – and here we agree – that, through this dynamic that he [Pope Francis] fosters, he could break loose massive conflicts and the bad centrifugal forces could put in danger the Church as a whole. The analogy to Mikhail Gorbachev comes to mind – with all its differences: There comes a reformer from above and the changes make the whole edifice sway. That has to be avoided at all cost.”

When Spaemann was then asked how he responded to the fact that the first words of the newly elected Pope Francis on the balcony were, “Buona sera [good evening],” Spaemann responded: “'O God, does this need to be?' I said.”

Spaemann's sharply critical view of Pope Francis becomes even clearer after he was asked about the possible future results of this papacy. In his critique, Spaemann refers to the teaching of the Gospels as his decisively formative guide:

“It can be that Francis' way is perceived as a new start – or as a failure. I always try to find a standard with which to measure by reading the Gospels and the Letters of the Apostles. St. Paul says that there will come teachers who say things that sound beautiful for the ears and the people will follow them. But you, says St. Paul to Timothy, shall not be confounded. Pass on the treasure that you have received, in an unfalsified and unshortened manner.”

Spaemann especially insists in this interview that one should not separate doctrine from practice. When asked about Pope Francis' warning against a Christendom of ideas and his favoring a Christendom of deeds, the philosopher replies:

“I find this formulation awkward. Both have to come together. Francis divides the two areas of the Church – theology and practice. And wants to keep them separate. The theologians shall do their work, but the shepherds shall not pay much attention to them. It seems to me that he does not read much, and does not care much about theology. However, in my view both have to be brought together. The theology becomes bloodless and abstract, when the pastoral experience does not flow into it. But vice versa, the pastoral care also becomes empty and does not know what it shall teach if it does not have a theological foundation.”

When asked whether the loving and liberating message of Christ should stand at the center of the Church's teaching, Spaemann reminds us that Jesus Christ also warned us of the danger of the eternal loss of our souls:

“But the teaching of the catechism is unambiguous: Jesus does not only proclaim the loving God; He announces Himself to be the Judge of the living and the dead. The ones He will receive into His kingdom, the others He condemns. Therefore, the sermons of Jesus are filled with warnings. Do we want to ignore them? Does this mean to ignore the signs of the time?”

On looking back upon the papacy of Benedict XVI, Spaemann sees that Benedict gave the Church the gift of a greater spiritual freedom. He says: “There is a spiritual freedom that Benedict XVI has brought into the Church.” The German philosopher also praises Benedict XVI for having removed some grave injustices concerning the liturgy:

“He has tried to integrate into the Church the spiritual potential of those people who like to attend the old Mass. That is a great achievement. Francis sometimes turns up his nose at the friends of the old Mass. I consider this to be hurtful. […] In Buenos Aires it was of all people Bergoglio who one week after the publication of Summorum Pontificum gave a significant Church to the followers of the old Mass.”

Spaemann, as well as his colleague, Joas, both express in this interview their critique of Pope Francis' sometimes “autocratic” methods and leadership. Spaemann says:

“The pope has the unrestricted power of definition and also the full jurisdiction, something that the Orthodoxy for example completely rejects. Francis stresses that he can directly intervene in every diocese of the world. If Benedict would have said something like that, there would have been an outcry. But with Francis, the powers of the Pope are again stressed in a stronger way. And no newspaper is upset.”

And at another place, Spaemann says: “This Pope is one of the most autocratic [popes] that we have had in a long time.”

Joas adds to this criticism:

“With regard to the changes in the Vatican, I considered the public humiliation of his employees in the speech of the Pope before Christmas to be problematic. A critique of such a manner has to happen either in a non-public form or there must be the possibility of expressed disagreement. To humiliate people publicly I consider to be autocratic in a negative sense.”

In relation to the last and to the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the Family, Spaemann shows clearly a concern that the pope could cause a split within the Church:

“There must be a true dialogue. […] But in the end, there will be the question of the outcome. Will the split within the Church grow larger, or can something be brought closer together? The Synod serves to take everybody along, that is a good thought, if only the pope omits to be moderator and partisan at the same time.”

Toward the end of the interview, Robert Spaemann makes some strong comments about the question of the “remarried” divorcees and about the fact that dioceses in the world treat this question in very different ways. Spaemann comments:

“No, it cannot be that in the one diocese it is dealt with in another fashion than in another one. Each bishop has authority in his diocese. But a true authority, for example, of a Bishop's Conference does not exist. Therefore, unified solutions are needed. And especially, things have to fit together. I can not speak on the one hand of the indissolubility of marriage and of the sinfulness of extramarital sexual commerce, and then on the other hand give the Church's blessing to a 'new bed community'.”

Professor Spaemann insists that the Church needs to transmit the moral teaching in a new and adapted manner, but not to adapt the teaching itself:

“If a greater adaptation to the modern 'way of life' of the Church would be the way, then Protestantism which goes this way should have fewer losses than the Catholic Church, which is not the case. The approval of the true indissolubility of marriage has to be the condition for admitting someone to the Sacrament of Marriage. Only in this way can a marriage experience the happiness that binds itself with the consciousness that this bond has been written in the stars from whence nobody can call it down.”

In this context, Spaemann repeats the teaching of the Church concerning extramarital sexual commerce and refers back to the time of Jesus Christ where people were shocked about His teaching:

“The Gospels say so [that it is forbidden]. These are the words of Jesus. Then people say that it is too difficult for the people of today. Yes, it also became difficult for the people at the times of Jesus. When Jesus said that the marriage cannot be dissolved, the reaction of the Apostles was not enthusiasm; on the contrary, they were shocked and asked who then still wanted to marry. They were shocked, just the same as people are shocked today.”

With these words, the German philosopher Spaemann reminds all of us that Christ's standard is always the same and will always remain the same and that the sinful and adulterous world of the time of Christ had to obey Him, just as our own world now has to adapt itself to Him Who came to redeem us and to save us.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/famed-german-catholic-philosopher-makes-waves-for-criticizing-pope-francis

Will the Catholic Register keep Catholic Michael Coren as a columnist?

He once wrote "Why Catholics are Right." Now we must ask, as he was right then, what has caused him to be so wrong now?

After insulting the very people that bought his books and paid him to speak at Catholic events he has spent the better part of a year insulting the same Catholics who aided his career now Michael Coren is confirmed as an apostate and has become an Anglican. He is also hosting 100 Huntley Street this week.

Is he still going to be kept on staff as a columnist at The Catholic Register?

Nothing more to say but this parting shot from Michael.

Catholic Church funeral for dog in Belgium!

Miss Roxy, now 14

I love dogs. This picture above is of Roxy, she is over 14 now and still acts as if she were a puppy. Roxy was a rescue from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She was one of about 150 dogs in a series of cages and boxes found in a barn north of Toronto in the summer of 2001. She was about 6 months old at the time and she has been a great dog. 

As I said, I love dogs, but sometimes, things go to far.

As if you thought things could not get lower for the Church in Belgium -- what a country, it has become so evil -- what can one expect when "they share a border with the Dutch!" It puts its citizens to death through euthanasia, it aborts its young and is not so slowly dying and being replaced by Muslims. It's bishop in Antwerp believes the Church should bless or marry sodomites and lesbians, its churches are empty its society and culture in collapse. It's preeminent Cardinal who refused to retire is a protector of sodomite pederasts and yet is so praised by our the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis and held in prominence for the sin-odd on the suffering family. Is this the more of the "Francis effect?"

What else can we expect from such a rotted society and culture but that said by a woman in the video below when she states, "the churches are deserted, for once they are full we must not criticise."

Wrong sister. We certainly must criticise. You, the priest, the rest of the clowns who would be present for such a scandal and those who destroyed the faith in this once great Catholic region. 

The "funeral" took place at the Church of St. Victor in the Diocese of Namur permitted and presided over by the pastor, Francois Lallemand. Belgium has become a sewer and the bishops and priests of the Church there are to blame.

So, without further adieu; here is the funeral for Miss Chewa a rather celebrated canine in life and death. I send out a special thanks to my brother-in-law Mario, Liliane his wife and the delightful Marie-Therese of Paris, her mother, for their impeccable translation through the Belgian accent.  

(Lady with black and white Chihuahua) – “Miss Chiwa fell in love with Kenzo. They were supposed to get married, but love sometimes goes in another direction and it resulted in her getting married with a second, whose name was Kenzo, who strangely resembles him. So there you go, this is why Kenzo, in memory, has come back to visit his first love.”

(Ladies talking) – Are those boys or girls? (in the buggy)

Song playing says “In the morning when I get up I have so much to do. I am Miss Chiwa....”

(Lady speaking to congregation in pews) – “The good thing about Miss Chiwa was to have always helped others who did not have kibbles for their animals and also refuge when ...[unintelligible] ... in several places. I am sorry if I am forgetting anyone but I would like to say thank you Monsieur (Father ?) for accepting to do a small ceremony, for Miss Chiwa. I am very grateful.”

(Priest) – Miss Chiwa became a ‘star’ meaning a star that must also bring its light on other realities...”

(Song) – “Dad and Mom, I would like to thank you for all the love that you give me...”

(Owner with Kenzo) – “You see this is your love. You are her love.”

(Song) – “I am Miss Chiwa...”

(Blonde owner outside church) – We drove her to Enzo I believe, the taxidermist. Her little body is there resting.  We will get her back in 3-4 months and she will come back home. I preferred this because my brother was cremated in car accident a few years ago and it really affected me. So she will always be here with us.  Yes we will continue, in the name of Miss Chiwa, the combat, for all the unhappy dogs, but in the name of Miss Chiwa”

(Lady outside church with glasses) – It is for all the friends who are here. We do not force anyone. The churches are deserted; for once that they are full we must not criticize. I am not a believer, but I am here.  Those who don’t have dogs cannot understand. Each person mourns differently. Those who are catholic go to church and others who are not will do something else.”

(Guy with red hat) – “Animals are worse than me. I hold on to them 100%. When I see an animal on the street, I cry. It’s cool to see, but I cried.”

Fr. Joe's Wall of Shame - Will Our Lady of Grace in Aurora ever get a truly Catholic Shepherd?

A few months ago, we reported on the situation at Our Lady of Grace parish in Aurora, Ontario in the Archdiocese of Toronto. The Pastor, Father Joe Gorman, was asked to take some time off after certain irregularities were discovered. Our sources indicate that repeated requests of pastoral care by the Cardinal Archbishop to this man were rebuffed. He has now made his decision. In a letter to the faithful of the parish, Thomas Cardinal Collins wrote that, “Unfortunately, Fr. Gorman has declined my requests to participate in the proposed path of reflection and has recently informed me of his decision to leave the priesthood."

Joe Gorman was on the "fast-track" since being ordained in only 2008 and clearly on the preferred team. The Gorman family is prominent in the Aurora and Newmarket area with significant business holdings and even municipal facilities named after the family. He was considered by Toronto's Catholic Register to be a "popular priest." 

At Gorman’s request a letter was distributed after Mass this weekend wherein he states:

“I first want to thank you for all the good wishes and support you have shown me over the last number of months,” said Fr. Gorman in his letter. “I love this parish. It is such a community of faith, I loved being a part of it. As your Pastor, I was always in awe of how you ministered to each other. You literally lived our Lord’s message of faith, love and peace. It was so inspiring to me. This journey we have been on, and I say ‘we’ because it affected all of us, has not been easy, but after a lot of prayer, thought and family support, I have decided to leave the priesthood. My heart and my mind are made up and I am happy with my decision. It is my decision and mine alone. Although I will miss seeing the parishioners of Our Lady of Grace on a daily basis, I feel truly at peace with myself and with God. Life is a gift that is meant to be lived with great love and faith, and always with hope. My hope for you is that you will continue to live your life in faith and love, and care for one another as you always have.”

This poor parish and the people of Aurora have suffered the presence of a previous Pastor who sodomised boys in the rectory and an Associate Pastor who was one of Canada's most notorious sodomite pederasts protected and covered up by Emmett Cardinal Carter in both London and Toronto.

Gorman spent his homilies on sports, allowed dogs in the sanctuary and did his own thing at Mass. It was the Father Joe Show! He misdirected intended funds from the collection plate to unauthorised charities, he performed an invalid marriage in the Church of two Catholics not able to marry and he even presided at a "marriage" in an Anglican Church of two Catholics and then forged the register to indicate that it was someone else. He broke Canon and Civil Law. We should ask why the Anglican layman in a priest collar could not perform the supposed "nuptials." Was there something in particular about the couple that this Gorman would have done such a thing?

There are many questions that the people of Aurora, and indeed Catholics in general in Toronto need to ask their curia:

Why was Joe Gorman ever ordained to the priesthood? What went wrong at St. Augustine's Seminary that the issues that presented themselves only seven years after ordination were not seen? What formation was there for Joseph Gorman on the issues of ecclesiology and obedience?  What test was made of his vocation to begin with? 

Another question is this:

Will the suffering faithful of Aurora ever get a truly Catholic pastor who cares more for the Lord and their souls than their own narcissism or the evil desire to sodomise children?

Communion in the hand is Eucharistic Sacrilege! (and an apology)

The cleric below is Bishop Manz, the Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago giving Holy Communion to the Chicago Fire Chief at yesterday's funeral for Cardinal George. The Fire Chief may or may not be a Catholic. If he is not a Catholic then he should not have presented himself for Holy Communion. If he is a Catholic then he should know better how to receive Holy Communion in the hand which will always be in my view, an abomination. 

Blase Cupich, the Archbishop gave Holy Communion to the non-Catholic governor Rauner.

I watched the video of this again. The Chief grabbed the Eucharist as Bishop Manz lifted the Lord. In writing originally, I indicated the Bishop committed a sacrilege. I was wrong and I apologise publicly to Bishop Manz and anyone offended by my statement. 

When will this abuse and desecration stop?

How to Receive the Eucharist

• 
  
• REV. ADRIAN J. PARCHER, O.S.B.
• 
  

Often in modern liturgy, the sense of reverence, of dignity, of awe, seems to have disappeared.

When you talk about what I'm going to talk about, people say, "Oh, my goodness, Father has me directly in mind, I know he's directing what he's saying at me."  People become self-conscious or even offended.  Recently I spoke to a congregation about the reception of Holy Communion.  I began by saying, "There are no flagrant violations or extreme problems here, but it's good always to remind ourselves of what happens when we receive the Eucharist and how we should receive it."  Then I continued in this vein:

We have the adage "Familiarity breeds contempt."  Not that we have contempt for the Eucharist, but we receive it so often that we can become slovenly.  Even priests can become slovenly in the way they say Mass.  As anyone who's been a superior of a community of priests knows, it's a delicate thing to approach the priest and say, "Father, look, you're saying Mass too fast; you're saying Mass too irreverently; you're doing this or that and you ought to correct it."  Several years ago a Jesuit published a book called How Not to Say Mass, and when we read it in refectory in the monastery one of the old monks said, "How strange that a Jesuit should write a book on how not to say Mass."  Well, here we go. 

If you were to ask me what two dispositions are absolutely necessary to approach the table of the Lord, I would say without hesitation that the first is faith — deep belief in our Lord who is truly present, body and soul, humanity and divinity who becomes present at the words of consecration and who comes into our lives, into our very beings, assimilates us into himself, through the reception of the Eucharist That is whom we are receiving.  We celebrate what Jesus enacted at the Last Supper and on Calvary.  We represent that act to the Father and bring its benefits upon ourselves. 

The Eucharist like all the great mysteries of our faith, is not something that one can explain rationally.  How can Jesus, how can God, be contained in what appears to be a small wafer of bread? But that's our strong belief, that Jesus is truly present on our altars.  Once we have received him in the Eucharist, he is present in our very persons, in our bodies.  We believe that by the reception of the Eucharist we become tabernacles, with our Lord contained within our very selves.  That is a marvelous mystery, and that's the first quality that we have to come with, that deep awareness, that deep faith, that deep belief.  That's what really makes Catholics Catholic.  Take away the Eucharist, and we're like everyone else.  There's no difference.  I think it was one of the French revolutionaries who said, "If I truly believed what the Church wants me to believe, that Christ truly becomes present on the altar at the moment of consecration, I would not walk to the communion rail — I would crawl on my belly.  That is how deep my faith and my humility would be." 

Now we certainly don't expect anyone to crawl, but there has to be that depth of faith.  Out of that faith there has to come a devotion.  You know each of us is baptized into the priesthood of Jesus, and one of the ways in which ordinary baptized Catholics exercise that priesthood is by receiving Holy Communion.  That is the exercise of a power we have from Christ.  It's an act of worship and so we do it.  We come with devotion, we come with humility.  We come — how should I put it? — with great reverence and respect.  I think that's what many people complain about in our modern liturgy, thc fact that the sense of reverence, of dignity, of awe, has disappeared.  But that's more in our disposition than in anything else. 

Now there are two ways in which Communion is received in the Latin Church: We receive either on the tongue or in the hand.  The priest holds up the Host and says, "The Body of Christ," and the communicant answers, "Amen" That is not an English word; it's an Aramaic word.  It really is pronounced "Ahmeen," and it means, "So be it" "I agree."  "I believe."  "It is the Body of Christ."  That's what the "Amen" means: "I honestly believe that when I receive, it is Christ, and so I say Amen." 

No one can dictate how one is to receive Holy Communion.  A priest can't say, "I'm only going to give the Eucharist on the tongue."  Nor can a priest demand that everyone who comes to Communion receive in the hand.  Who decides how one is to receive Holy Communion? The communicant and only the communicant.  It is the individual who decides how he is going to receive.  (The option applies only in countries whose national bishops' conferences have applied for and been granted permission to authorize Communion in the hand, of course.) Often I run into priests who say, "I'm only going to give it in the hand."  And I have to say, "Father, you cannot demand that"

If you are going to receive on the tongue, you should keep certain things in mind.  First, the head should be bent back slightly, and the head should be held erect, but kind of tilted back.  The tongue should come out over the bottom teeth, equal with the bottom lip, so that the priest has someplace to put the Host Sometimes people come up with their teeth clenched, and you wonder, "How am I going to get our Lord into that mouth?"

There are certain things that we priests talk about among ourselves (I'm telling the tricks of the trade now), comments we make about certain kinds of communicants.  We say, "That one was a snapping turtle," because he closes his mouth so quickly that the priest is afraid his fingers are going to be cut off by the teeth.  You look down sometimes and wonder, "Has blood been drawn?" Many a time, I've had the scar of the teeth on my knuckles.  There are also the plungers; they sort of leap forward.  Or you have the toe dancers, who come up on their toes, and you never know where they're going to light.  Others receive on the run; they don't stand squarely in front of you but they stand as if they can't wait to get away.  Come straight forward, face the priest, and don't be too far away, because its awfully difficult at times to reach. 

If you're going to receive in the hand, the best way is to put one hand down and put the other hand on top of it and make, as Tertullian used to say, a kind of throne for the Lord.  When the priest puts the Host on your hand, you say, "Amen."  Take a step or two to the side to make way for the next communicant, then receive our Lord.  Communion should not be received on the run, as you're walking back to your place; it should be consumed before you leave the area below the altar. 

I would like to remind people to indicate clearly how they wish to receive.  Sometimes communicants come up with their hands out and their mouths open, and the priest doesn't know which way to give the Host.  How does this person wish to receive? If you indicate clearly, it's easier.  If you're going to receive in the hand, be clear about where the Host should be placed so that it doesn't accidentally fall.  By the way, if it should fall on the floor, indicate it to the priest.  Sometimes the priest or extraordinary minister doesn't see it

That should be the overwhelming disposition with which we approach Holy Communion: "It is the Lord!"

If you're going to kneel for Communion — and it's all right to kneel — remember that, when you rise, you have people behind you.  Sometimes those who kneel to receive take a step or two back when they rise.  I've seen at times when an older person stands just behind the one who is rising.  A person who uses a cane to steady his walk may come close to being knocked over by someone rising up.  So remember to rise straight up, thinking about the person right behind you

Some people ask me at times, "Father, I see on television the Masses that come from Birmingham, from Mother Angelica, and I see the sisters genuflecting.  Should I genuflect before or after?" Only as a sign of piety; it's not necessary to genuflect, but it is necessary to make some gesture of reverence before receiving the Eucharist.  It may be kneeling, bowing, crossing oneself or some other act.  What is necessary is to receive with reverence and dignity.  I don't think there should be any genuflections after receiving Holy Eucharist.  I don't mean to sound facetious, but, at that moment, you don't want to genuflect to the tabernacle, because the Lord is within you; you are the tabernacle. 

Let me sum up by saying the two main dispositions that we need — faith and devotion.  Remember that scene, in the Fourth Gospel, that occurs after the Resurrection.  The disciples are out fishing, and the boats are coming toward the shore.  Peter, as usual, is completely immersed in what he is doing; he's got his outer clothes off so he can work more easily.  The beloved disciple sees someone standing on the shore and says to Peter, "It is the Lord."  Peter jumps into the water. 

That disposition of John, "It is the Lord" — that's what our faith demands.  It is the Lord that we are worshiping.  It is the Lord that we are receiving into ourselves.  It is the Lord who is giving us in the Eucharist a special way to participate in divine life.  It is the Lord who is sanctifying us.  That should be the overwhelming disposition with which we approach Holy Communion: "It is the Lord!"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/how-to-receive-the-eucharist.html

Where is the mercy for Asia Bibi?

Gloria TV reports that "Catholic journalist Antonio Socci criticized Pope Francis for his cold reception of the husband and daughter of Asia Bibi. Bibi is a Catholic mother condemned to death in Pakistan for allegedly having insulted Islam. Her husband and daughter were introduced to the Pope in Spanish during a general audience, but Francis quickly passed on. The desperate family had asked for a private audience with the Pope, but was refused. Quote Socci: “Is this the shepherd who wants to smell like the sheep?”

I have blogged previously on Asia Bibi and the seemingly outright refusal of the Pope or the Holy See's bureaucracy to become involved with her.

It is clear in this video that her husband and daughter were simply passed over.

The smell of the sheep, indeed!

The Homosexual Manifesto

Reports from Scotland indicate that Father Matthew Despard of the Diocese of Motherwell who declared that a "powerful gay mafia" existed in the Church in Scotland has been found guilty of defamation. Father Despard published a book available called Priesthood in Crisis - One Priest's Experience for which he was suspended and charged by his Bishop in the Courts. Yet, this is the same Church in Scotland that for decades harboured a sodomite who rose to the Cardinaliate which was recently removed by Pope Francis. 

In the United States, it has been discovered that the financial executive of Catholic Relief Services has engaged in a mockery of "married" to another man. 

This filth has infected the Catholic Church with priests, bishops and cardinals. I agree with the manifesto, they should be "outed." 

The cover-up must end. The time has come for the cleansing of the Church.

There can be no compromises with this evil no matter if they be a lay bureaucrat, a priest, a bishop or a cardinal.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/chapters/Chapter-13.pdf

THE HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO

By Michael Swift, "Gay Revolutionary." 
Reprinted from The Congressional Record of the United States Congress. 
First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987 

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. 

“Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man. 

“All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy. 

“If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies. 

“We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads. 

“Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing. 

“We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you. 

“There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers. 

“The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants. 

“All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

“The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. 

“We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man. 

“We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. 

“Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”

Pope Francis accepts resignation of Bishop Robert Finn

(Vatican Radio) The Holy Father has accepted the resignation of Bishop Robert W. Finn from the pastoral governance of the Diocese of Kansas City – St Joseph (USA), in conformity with canon 401, paragraph 2 of the Code of Canon Law.

Pope Francis on Tuesday also accepted the resignation of the Office of Auxiliary of the Archdiocese of Guadalajara (Mexico), presented by Bishop José Trinidad González Rodríguez, in conformity with canon 401, paragraph 2 of the Code of Canon Law.  

BREAKING: Pope visits prison, mercy abounds!

They'll lose their souls in San Francisco

A number of wealthy, and in their minds, influential Catholics have taken it upon themselves to place a full-page advertisement in a San Francisco newspaper calling upon Pope Francis to bow to their demands and remove Archbishop Cordileone. The Holy Father did not bow to the demands of the people of Osorno in Chile with a questionable appointment there of an Archbishop that was under suspicion of being present during and ignoring certain abuses by a perverted sodomite priest. Here we have those of influence in a city dominated by sodomites demanding that a bishop be removed.

The Holy Father is not going to bow to the demands of these lay folk if he did not bow to the demands of those in Osorno. 

As for the people who attached their signatures to this, shame on you. Many of you have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the likes of the DNC, Obama, Boxer and Pelosi. You have revealed yourselves.

For the facts on some of the rich and dissenting "Catholics" who paid for this add and signed it, First Things has a compilation.

• Charles Geschke is the co-chairman of Adobe Systems, which had 2014 revenue of $4.147 billion. He has given over $200,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign and $40,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Reuters reports his basic compensation at $4,129,090 with $5,302,000 in exercisable, $19,993,300 in unexercisable, and $10,993,600 in exercised options compensation. 

• Louis J. Giraudo is the former chairman of Pabst Brewing and a partner at Coblentz Patch Duffy and Bass LLP, where he “is focused on mergers and acquisitions of companies with revenues of $50 million to $2.5 billion.” He “has negotiated labor agreements for companies with as many as 11,000 employees, as well as acquisitions and sales of hotels and other real property.” 

• David Grubb is the former president of construction firm Swinerton Inc. After a 240-ton tower crane operated by a subcontractor hired by his firm fell and killed five people in 1989, he told a House subcommittee that “‘we don't deal with safety’ records when it comes to hiring subcontractors.” The company hired by his firm had been cited for fifty-nine violations between 1985 and 1988 with proposed fines totaling $110,000. 

• Larry Nibbi is CEO of Nibbi Brothers Construction, a company with $199 million in 2014 revenue according to the Engineering News-Record. The company was cited for three serious OSHA violations in 2011 after an inadequately constructed concrete form collapsed, allowing the wet concrete to partly bury three workers. OSHA determined that “the employer overloaded their working platform center support beam that broke in two, causing a catastrophic failure of the platform and the false work above.” The project the injured men were working on was worth $40 million. 

• Clint Reilly worked on political campaigns for Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer before becoming “founder and owner of the Clinton Reilly Holdings, a diversified family of commercial real estate and hospitality businesses” and amassing an “estimated $100 million fortune.” In 2001, a writer for SF Weekly described a visit to Reilly's home: “My leather-jacketed host, Clint Reilly, taps a code into the security system that unlocks the metal gate to his 120-acre estate in Napa County. In his black Mercedes sedan, we climb past hillside vineyards and through a pine forest, emerging on top of Mount Veeder, where we park in front of a chateau.”

For everyone else, there is this petition "I STAND WITH ARCHBISHOP CORDILEONE AGAINST SHAMEFUL ATTACKS!" It has 43,033 signatures at this writing. Let's move it to 50,000!