Amoris Laetitia in Action…
Brazilian Homo Couple flaunts Vatican Letter for Baptism of “Their” Children
David Harrad and Toni Reis
[UPDATE 09-AUG-2017 20:20 UTC: Toni Reis posts original letter sent to Francis]
[UPDATE o9-AUG-2017 14:20 UTC: Vatican sources say gay couple received standard form letter, not endorsement]
On April 23, 2017, two homo perverts had “their” adoptive children baptized in Our Lady of Light Cathedral of the “Archdiocese” of Curitiba, Brazil. At the time, this made front-page news in the secular press because, all silly arguments about footnotes and “what the Pope really meant” aside, this shows that the Novus Ordo Sect is now approving of sodomite relationships de facto.
The “parents” in question are Toni Reis and David Harrad. They are well-known homosexual activists in Brazil and were the plaintiffs in the historic court case that legalized the adoption of children by sodomite couples in 2011 (source). Reis and Harrad have since adopted three children: Alyson, Jessica, and Felipe (see photos further below).
As though this scandal weren’t big enough yet (cf. Mt 18:6-7), the Vatican has now made things worse. In response to a letter Reis had sent to the “Holy Father” about the baptism of the three youngsters, the Secretariat of State has responded assuring the “family” of Francis’ appreciation, good wishes, and his “Apostolic Blessing”.
This was publicly revealed yesterday, Aug. 7, when Toni Reis published a scanned copy of the letter on his Facebook page and notified the press, which has happily picked up on it:
- El papa felicita a una pareja gay de Brasil por el bautismo de sus hijos (El Deber)
- Papa Francisco felicita a pareja gay que bautizó tres hijos adoptivos (El Tiempo)
- Carta do Papa surpreende casal gay que conseguiu batizar filhos (UOL)
Curitiba’s local radio station has even had Toni Reis on its program to discuss the matter (audio available):
Here is a screenshot of Reis’ post on Facebook together with the appended scanned copy of the letter from the Vatican (click each image for a larger version):
Here is an English translation of the letter, which is signed by “Monsignor” Paolo Borgia on behalf of “Pope” Francis:
Vatican, July 10, 2017
Dear Sir,
The Holy Father has looked appreciatively at your letter, in which you expressed feelings of esteem and veneration and expressed your wishes for the good spiritual fruits of his ministry as Pastor of the Universal Church.
In thanking [you] on behalf of the Successor of Peter for your demonstration of attachment and [your] honorable words, I can assure you that Pope Francis also wishes you all the best and invokes for your family an abundance of divine graces, in order [that you may] live constantly and faithfully as Christians, as good children of God and of the Church, sending you an indulgenced Apostolic Blessing, asking you not to forget to pray for him.
I take this occasion to express my fraternal esteem in Christ the Lord.
Mons. Paolo Borgia
Assessor of General Affairs
The letter from the Vatican is dated July 10, 2017. According to an AFP report quoted here, the reason it was not published until now is that the sodomites had been on a trip to Europe, from which they did not return until the other day, when they received all their mail.
Now, some are already crying “fake news!” because, although Reis is flaunting the Vatican letter as an endorsement of his sin crying to Heaven for vengeance, the letter itself does not state anything directly in that regard, and there is reason to believe that this is little more than a form letter, which is sent to presumably thousands of people each month. In addition, there is nothing in the letter specifically about a baptism at all.
Could it be that Francis really didn’t “look appreciately at [the] letter”? Sure it could. But at the same time, we also know that Francis has expressed again and again that he is in favor of the baptism of children in “irregular” unions, and in his time as “Archbishop” of Buenos Aires, he ensured that such scandals would be approved on his turf. We also know that Francis has a disturbing attitude, to say the least, regarding homosexuality and homosexuals. It is certainly clear that, the specific facts about this particular Vatican letter aside, an effective endorsement of sodomite “families” is entirely consistent with Francis’ approach of “integration” and “accompaniment”, which was laid out officially in the infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia. In this document, the “Pope” shows that he looks upon sin as simply an imperfect realization of virtue, and hence one must simply affirm the positive “elements” in any sinful situation so as to eventually attain to the ideal (see our criticism here).
The following photo is taken from Toni Reis’ public Facebook profile. It shows the two perverts with “their” three children:
Regardless of whether the Vatican letter was more or less a standard form letter to which not much thought was given and that unwittingly found its way to the “wrong” recipient, the fact of the matter is that with Toni Reis and the secular press blasting this across the internet as a “papal” endorsement of sodomite “families” and their reception of Novus Ordo sacraments, there is now an objectively scandalous situation involving “Pope” Francis that the Vatican must condemn and repair or else become guilty of tacit approval through silence.
Let’s be clear about this: For the sin of scandal, it suffices that there be the mere appearance of evil: “Scandal in its theological sense is any word or action which has at least the appearance of evil and is the occasion of sin to another” (Fr. Thomas Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, 5th ed., vol. 1 [1925], p. 129; underlining added). Thus, it is now morally obligatory for Francis to redress and repair the scandal caused, publicly explain that this whole thing was an unfortunate misunderstanding, and that he condemns sodomite unions and the purchasing of children by homosexuals and their subsequent baptism.
What are the chances that will happen?
Image source: facebook.com
Licenses: fair use
;
As to the question then of form, matter and intention; dealing with these contrivances and these three souls being above the age of reason another zero sum game is achieved.
The humor sense of NOW is really getting hardcore, because “it is now morally obligatory for Francis to redress and repair the scandal caused” almost made me break in loud laughs. But seriously, at this point, and as I stated in another comment, it is very plausible that Frankie himself may be a wanna-be-homosexual. It’s just a matter of his Talmudic masters command him to ‘get out of the closet’.
As scandalous as this is, is it contrary to canon law? I don’t think, according to canon law, those with civil custody of children need to be married to baptize the children. They only need civil custody.
Of course sodomite-perverts should not be around children whatsoever, let alone given any kind of “parental rights” over children, so it could be argued this civil “law” is really no law at all and that the Church should not defer to the state for determining the custody of children-to-be-baptized. Might it be better for these children were they not baptized, considering their “parents” will raise them unto abomination?
Cf. 1917 canon 777 §2.
I don’t have time to really research this now, but to my knowledge, before a child can be baptized, it must be morally certain that he will be raised in the Catholic faith. With two sodomites as “parents”, it’s certain that that’s not going to happen. Of course that’s not the child’s fault, but then baptism has to be postponed until such time as the child can become a Catholic.
In addition, whenever there is a need to celebrate a sacrament that involves scandal — for example, if a cohabitating couple with a child get married — then it has to be done in prviate, it cannot happen publicly.
Here’s a brief video documentary about two sodomites getting their adopted baby baptized by “Fr.” Joseph Muth here in Baltimore at St. Matthew’s.
I couldn’t find the canon regarding that “it must be morally certain that he will be raised in the Catholic faith”, but I do remember reading one to that effect.
Not only is it “certain that that’s not going to happen” that the children of sodomites be raised in the Catholic faith, but it cannot happen.
Yes, you’re right that there are canons against giving scandal.
A little research on Facebook shows that at least two of the three adopted children have been well indoctrinated in homosexual perversity already.
3 SODOMITES!
The PRIEST and the sodomite “parents!
It’s like something you’d see in the 3 Stooges!
A similar issue is the Novus Ordo schools’ cooperation with the destruction of the family. Woman is getting a divorce and wants to enroll her children. She informs the school of her court-ordered custody and visitation arrangement by which the father is unjustly and outrageously deprived of his natural rights. School officials respond how… ?
Private schools can expel children, so I don’t see why they couldn’t refuse to accept children of divorcees.
“Of course sodomite-perverts should not be around children whatsoever”
No church for you, Jimmy and noway are you going into a Confessional box!
But why?
Because them places are full of sodomite-perverts!
The answer to your last question is that outside of a miraculous conversion by Bergoglio the chances are zero. At most he might send out his press secretary to make a statement to the effect that the “Holy Father” in no way intended to endorse what the Church still considers a sin, but merely wished to express pastoral charity for all involved, blah, blah, blah.
While not in any way condoning their repellent practices, the children in the keeping of these two men are, as mikefanning states, old enough to decide for themselves if they want to be members of the NO or not, so the homosexuals are largely irrelevant here.
I also feel bound to comment that we cannot assume that all homosexuals are ipso facto paedophiles, so what is the lesser evil here for these children? Had these men not “adopted” them, where would they be? In an orphanage being abused by NO “priests”? On the streets being subjected to worse even than that? In either of those scenarios they would not be getting a good Catholic upbringing, so they would be no better off spiritually, and considerably worse off materially and emotionally.
In the understandable – and necessary – desire to condemn the NO and all its works, we still need to keep some perspective. And please do let us remember that the NO is not the Roman Catholic Church, so it matters not what it does – any more than it matters what other protestant sects do. Condemning the NO for not being Catholic is pointless; surely what needs to be concentrated on is leading people to the understanding that IT IS NOT CATHOLIC, and you make that more difficult by being outraged by its non-Catholic behaviour.
No one is saying that these two men are in any way sexually abusing these children. The abuse lies in subjecting them to two male “parents”. That is absolutely intolerable. You cannot justify that on the grounds that if they hadn’t been adopted, they might now be living on the street. Someone living on the street can have the Catholic faith and be saved. Someone raised in such a household is going to be imbued with a perverted ideology that is antithetical to Catholicism. You are arguing for a Trojan Horse that will do precisely what these perverts want: the normalization and social acceptance of pseudo-families with parents of the same sex.
The Novus Ordo Sect, as you state, is not the Catholic Church. But it does not follow that it therefore doesn’t matter what it does. It matters greatly, because you forgot one thing: Almost everyone in the world *believes* it to be the Catholic Church, and that is the reason why it has been able to do so much damage to souls.
God bless.
Excellent response…thanks!
Your points are very fair and I have no wish to argue for the social acceptance of any kind of perversion – and I do *not* think this situation a good one (although I do think that the chances, without instruction, of salvation on the streets of Brazil are as non-existent as they are in the NO).
I fear that I didn’t express myself very well on my second point and, frankly, I don’t think I can do any better now. I just have the feeling that complaining about Bergoglio not being Catholic gives the NO a certain amount of legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve; it’s almost an R&Rist approach. Before Bergoglio there was a sense that there could have been a turning back. It all seems too late, now.
Apologies for rambling – I’m trying to feel my way through my confusion!
God bless you, too.
Your writing is actually quite clear here & to a certain extent I agree with you.
The weird crooked smiles on the couple, especially on Reis, definitely mark the two as “not to be trusted around children” in my book.
Latest development: “Vatican clarifies: Gay couple received standard form letter from Pope, not endorsement” – http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-clarifies-gay-couple-received-standard-form-letter-from-pope-not-endorsement-62273/
If it condemns it, surely it’s just for the ‘chosen ones’, not for the goyms (btw, the ‘traditional’ Rabbis who wrote the Talmud say a lot of filth things about our Lord).
JESUS IN THE TALMUD
Many passages in the Talmudic books treat of the birth, life, death, and teachings of Jesus. He is not always referred to by the same name, however, but is diversely called ” That Man,” “A Certain One,” “The Carpenter’s Son,” “The One Who Was Hanged,” etc.
CONCERNING THE NAMES OF JESUS
1. His real name in Hebrew is Jeschua Hanotsri – Jesus the Nazarene. He is called Notsri from the city of Nazareth in which he was brought up. Thus in the Talmud Christians also are called Notsrim – Nazarenes.
Since the word Jeschua means “Savior,” the name Jesus rarely occurs in the Jewish books. It is almost always abbreviated to Jeschu, which is maliciously taken as if it were composed of the initial letters of the three words Immach Schemo Vezikro –
“May his name and memory be blotted out.”
2. In the Talmud Jesus is called Otho Isch – “That man,” i.e. the one who is known to all. In the tract Abhodah Zarah, 6a, we read: “He is called a Christian who follows the false teachings of that man, who taught them to celebrate the feast on the first day of the Sabbath, that is, to worship on the first day after the Sabbath”
3. Elsewhere he is simply called Peloni – “A Certain One.” In Chagigah, 4b, we read:
“Mary…the mother of a certain one, of whom it is related in Schabbath…” (104b)
That this Mary is none other than the mother of Jesus will be shown later.
4. Out of contempt, Jesus is also called Naggar bar naggar – “the carpenter son of a carpenter”, also Ben charsch etaim – “the son of a wood worker.”
5. He is also called Talui – “The one who was hanged.” Rabbi Samuel, the son of Mair, in the Hilch. Akum of Maimonides, refers to the fact that it was forbidden to take part in the Christian feats of Christmas and Easter because they were celebrated on account of him who was hanged. And Rabbi Aben Ezra, in a commentary on Genes. also calls him Talui, whose image the Emperor Constantine reproduced on his banner. “…in the days of Constantine, who made a change of religion and placed the figure of the one who was hanged on his banner.”
The “shaping operation” continues.They are “shaping” public opinion and the “consensus” until it is a fait accompli. In Infocom parlance, I don’t see a “Holy Father” here. Hypothetically, they might be able to put that “indulgenced Apostolic Blessing” if they confess and conform themselves to the Holy Will of our Lord.
The evil deeds done in the name of Our Lady; done in the name of Christ; done under the stolen auspices of name, ‘Catholic’.
There are a windfall of lawyers – so-called Catholic – who support the leader of these deeds (pretending not to support the deeds is just thick – these blokes support the presider/excuser of the sin, and pretend to excuse themselves from the consequences of that support).
“THE JEWISH TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD”!
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.
The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud,” Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:
“THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time.
IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH…”
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”
This “divine truth” which “a whole people venerate” of which “not a single letter of it is missing” and today “is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history” is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:
SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
(footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood(a dildo).”
(footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Kethuboth 11b.
“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing …like putting a finger in the eye”
BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Menahoth 43b-44a.
“A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave”.