Stephen K. Amos gets private audience with Bergoglio…

Francis tells Homosexual Atheist: “It does not matter … how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity”!

The 51-year-old British TV personality Stephen K. Amos is an atheist. He is also a stand-up comedian and a public sodomite. According to his Wikipedia entry, he once hosted a televised documentary on male genitalia.

In September of last year, Amos participated in a 15-day trekking challenge to Rome together with seven other celebrities, as part of the program Pilgrimage: The Road To Rome on BBC Two. The episode was just broadcast yesterday, Good Friday, Apr. 19.

Arriving in Rome, the group of trekkers was informed that Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis) wanted to meet with them “to talk about their achievement”, as one report put it. At first Amos didn’t want to go: “I’ve been quite vocal in my criticism in certain aspects of the Catholic Church. I thought a private audience meant you go and see him, he blesses you and you leave. I couldn’t in all conscience go and do that, it’s not me.” It’s nice to hear the British sodomite say that he has a conscience — unfortunately, it seems to be one that kicks in rather selectively.

When he actually met with Francis face to face and it was his turn to speak, Amos said: “So me coming on this pilgrimage, being non-religious, I was looking for answers and faith. But as a gay man, I don’t feel accepted.”

Francis’ response was absolutely stunning to Amos, but is not at all surprising to us or to anyone who has paid attention in the last six years. In fact, it would have been truly amazing if Francis had answered like a Catholic, but instead he said:

Giving more importance to the adjective [“gay”] rather than the noun [“man”], this is not good. We are all human beings and have dignity. It does not matter who you are or how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity. There are people that prefer to select or discard people because of the adjective – these people don’t have a human heart.

(Antipope Francis, quoted in Charles Collins, “Pope Francis tells gay man ‘you do not lose your dignity’ on BBC show”, Crux, Apr. 19, 2019; underlining added.)

Now this is curious: First Francis points out that all people have dignity because they’re human, and then he immediately denies the dignity of some because they have no “human heart.” So either Bergoglio is saying that these people are not human, or he is saying that not all humans have the same dignity after all. We’ve said this before about the Frankster: A genius he ain’t.

Those who will object now that we can’t be sure that this is what Francis really said, will be disappointed: The BBC released video of the conversation where Francis says these things. The clip is embedded in this tweet:

But let’s get to the substance of this latest Bergoglian poppycock. Giving greater importance to the adjective than to the noun? That can be fixed easily: Let’s just use a different noun. How about “sodomite”? St. Paul the Apostle, who also possessed human dignity, worked around this problem by using plenty of adjectives as nouns when he wrote under divine inspiration:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

(1 Cor 6:9-10)

The prophet Jeremias must have likewise been utterly unimpressed with the dignity of sinners when he “discarded” them as follows: “And the iniquity of the daughter of my people is made greater than the sin of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment…” (Lam 4:6).

Where does human dignity come from? It arises from two things: by (a) our having been created in the image of God (see Gen 1:26-27); and by (b) God the Son having become incarnate, taking on our human nature, as taught in the Roman Catechism:

When the faithful have placed these things before their eyes, let them also reflect that God condescended to assume the lowliness and frailty of our flesh in order to exalt man to the highest degree of dignity. This single reflection, that He who is true and perfect God became man, supplies sufficient proof of the exalted dignity conferred on the human race by the divine bounty; since we may now glory that the Son of God is bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, a privilege not given to Angels, for nowhere, says the Apostle, doth he take hold of the Angels: but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.

(Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Article III)

Thus it is clear that all human beings have dignity, and to that extent Francis is correct. Where Francis blunders badly is in the inference he draws from this fact. Francis intentionally gives the impression that because we are made in the image of God, “[i]t does not matter … how you live your life”. But the opposite is the case:

No man may with impunity outrage that human dignity which God Himself treats with great reverence, nor stand in the way of that higher life which is the preparation of the eternal life of heaven. Nay, more; no man has in this matter power over himself. To consent to any treatment which is calculated to defeat the end and purpose of his being is beyond his right; he cannot give up his soul to servitude, for it is not man’s own rights which are here in question, but the rights of God, the most sacred and inviolable of rights.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Rerum Novarum, n. 40)

Being made in the image of God “reveals both the love of God for man, whom he gratuitously raises to that level, and his duty to lead the type of life that the image of God demands” (Fr. Joseph Sagüés, On God the Creator and Sanctifier, n. 672; underlining added). Notice the term “demands” — not “suggests”, “desires”, “prefers”, or anything similar. Dignity is a two-edged sword — it does not only give, it also demands.

Being created in God’s image, our dignity has consequences: We are not simply brute animals, and therefore we are not permitted to act like brute animals, or worse. St. Thomas Aquinas points out: “For if sins of the flesh are shameful, because through them man is lowered to what is bestial in him, much more so are sins against nature, through which man sinks below the bestial…” (Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, n. 147).

We can thus come up with a very simple rule of thumb for us all: If you don’t want to be treated like an animal, don’t act like one. If you want to be accepted because of your dignity, then let your behavior reflect that dignity.

Francis could have used Amos’ awareness of his own dignity as a stepping stone to tell him about the life in Christ to which he is called (cf. Jn 10:10), but of course he chose not to. No, it is beyond clear that Bergoglio instead affirmed the British sodomite in his errors and in his gravely sinful life, which is why he got teary-eyed during the audience and said in a follow-up interview:

In all fairness [Francis] said something that was quite magnificent, because he is one of the most progressive popes in recent times. He didn’t shut anybody down, he was very clear in what we said about all being God’s children, all the things you don’t normally hear. So I was in full respect of the man. I had already planned what I would do if he had said something I didn’t agree with or that would add more shame on people’s lives, I would have respectfully excused myself.

(Stephen K. Amos, quoted in Laura Martin, “Stephen K Amos: ‘I refused to meet the Pope unless I could ask him about LGBT rights’”, iNews, Apr. 19, 2019; paragraph break removed.)

Mark Shea will probably tell us that because of Bergoglio’s “courageous witness”, Mr. Amos is now ready to “revisit what the Gospel has to say”, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. As the comedian (Amos, not Shea) makes clear above, the reason why he has respect for Francis is because he affirmed him in his lifestyle and did not tell him anything he didn’t agree with or found unacceptable, especially not anything about the depravity of the acts he habitually commits or the eternal punishment that awaits him if he should fail to amend his ways.

Francis had a duty to tell the truth to the atheist pervert, but that does not mean he would have had to be nasty to him. For example, a real Catholic response to Amos’ question could have looked like this: “Sir, the greatest disservice I could do to you is to lie to you. Those who tell you what you want to hear, do not love you. I have genuine charity for you, and so I will tell you the truth. You have a soul, you were made in the image and likeness of God, and God, whom you can know to an extent even by mere reason, without Faith, this God does not want to see you perish eternally but wants you to be happy with Him forever. That is the very reason why He created you. But knowing that you would not be able to attain this end without His help, He came to earth 2000 years ago, taking on a human nature, in order to redeem you and me and all of humanity. You want to be accepted as you are, with all your sins; but this will not make you happy, it will only lead to your certain ruin. We did not need a Redeemer to be accepted as we are, we needed a Redeemer to draw us to salvation, and that always means repenting of our sins and changing our ways. This goes for all of us, myself included.” Etc. Such would have been the beginning of a genuinely charitable conversation.

What does the Frankster do instead? He sees this man heading towards eternal ruin, mainly through his unbelief and through his unnatural impurity, and he simply tells him that he still has dignity and then sends him on his merry, impure way. Talk about discarding people! The souls in hell have no consolation knowing that they have, or had, dignity (not that Francis actually believes in hell). Rather, their agony is all the greater, realizing that they had such great dignity and abused it.

By the way, the YouTube channel British Comedy Guide released a brief video clip showing scenes from the meeting:

We have said several times in the past that Francis, being a Peronist, will say whatever best advances his apostate agenda. Thus, it is not surprising that we should see the Argentinian Jesuit contradict himself time and again, and this latest occasion is no exception.

On June 6, 2015, Francis visited Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and told youth in a question-and-answer session: “…if you look at dirty content on the computer, you lose your dignity.” Ah! So one’s dignity can be lost after all! Good to know. But let’s think about this for a minute: So browsing pornography makes one lose one’s dignity, but engaging in perverted sexual acts with another human being does not? Interesting theology!

Similarly, when the lawful state authority justly applies capital punishment to a man guilty of a capital crime, Francis decries it as “an attack on the … dignity of the person”; yet when a sodomite does what sodomites do (cf. Eph 5:12), then Francis assures him that his dignity is in no wise violated. It doesn’t take a master theologian to see what’s going on here: “Pope” Francis is straight from hell, and he wants to lead you there too.

Bergoglio dismissed the celebrity group from his audience with the profound observation that “life is a journey, whether ‘you have faith or do not have faith'”. Who would have thought!

Modern man loves to glory in his much-touted dignity but often refuses to acknowledge the source of that dignity, preferring instead to believe that we have evolved by accident from primordial slime and exist for no reason — yet somehow we are worthy of respect. Amos himself being an atheist, he denies the very basis on which human dignity is grounded, but this must have escaped Francis at that moment. Not that he’s a really deep thinker to begin with.

Returning from Vatican City to the United Kingdom, Amos had nothing of supernatural value to bring with him. He was looking for (correct) answers, as he said, and for faith, but Francis gave him neither. Amos did, however, receive something that makes for a great new addition to his stand-up comedy routine:

He can now offer a “theology of the bawdy.”

Image source: (British Comedy Guide; screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.