Print Friendly, PDF & Email

‘Amoris Laetitia’ in action…

Francis facilitates Sodomite Pseudo-Family’s Acceptance in Novus Ordo Parish

Bergoglian “accompaniment” is the gift that keeps on giving, and it will do so for decades to come if God does not intervene.

Today the so-called National Catholic Reporter happily informs us that thanks to Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”), a “married” sodomite couple is now raising “its” three children at a Novus Ordo parish in Rome.

Participating at a “Mass” with Francis at the Casa Santa Marta in the Vatican, Andrea Rubera (“Andrea” is a man’s name in Italian) had a letter given to Francis asking him for advice on whether he and his “husband”, Dario, should enroll “their” children in a Novus Ordo catechism program at a parish in Rome, or whether they would be rejected because of “prejudice.” The non-judgmental antipope called him on the phone to speak to him directly about the matter:

“I think you should do it,” Rubera remembers the pope saying. “Go to the pastor, ask for a meeting, introduce yourself transparently and I’m quite confident that everything is going to be all right.”

The layman did as the pope suggested. His three children have now each gone through the catechetical program and minister as altar servers. And the oldest is preparing to receive first Communion.

(Joshua J. McElwee, “Pope’s phone call helps children of Italian gay couple become Catholic”, National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 13, 2021)

For copyright reasons, we can’t quote more from this article, but be sure to click on the link and read the whole story so you get the full picture in its proper context.

What at first glance may appear to be a great charity towards the children — who, obviously, are entirely blameless in this entire disgusting affair — is in fact a most cunning way to stealthily introduce into churches and souls the de facto acceptance of sodomites and, by extension and implication, the sin of sodomy itself.

Under a pretext of charity, countless souls are thus poisoned and scandalized, for it is clear that the only way to bring about the integration of these dear children is by integrating the entire sodomite pseudo-family. And this, in turn, can be brought about only if parishioners (incl. their children) are persuaded or pressured to turn a blind eye to a public and manifest egregious moral evil. They are goaded to tolerate, nay accept, the idea that there are families with same-sex parents.

After all, we can only imagine how this sort of thing goes down: The new children show up for catechism class, and everyone acts (or is expected to act) as though it were completely normal and unproblematic that they have “two daddies”. No one will say a word of disapproval, for that would amount to “discrimination”. Even if the “parents” don’t attend the classes themselves, one or the other will pick the children up and begin mingling with other parents. Such a situation is intolerable for people — unless they decide to accept it, and that is precisely what typically happens. Welcome to Bergoglian integration!

The problem is exacerbated when the children attend the Novus Ordo worship service on Sundays together with “their fathers.” While some parishioners may initially be shocked and a few may even leave, the long-term effect is all but guaranteed: Most of the people will accept homosexual “families” and therefore also gradually come to believe that they are acceptable.

This last part is key, for it illustrates precisely how Francis operates: He makes evil acceptable precisely by having people accept it first. That is, in his ideology, actual acceptance (by one’s actions and words) precedes and eventually leads to acceptability (in one’s mind). Francis does not first show in theory that something is indeed acceptable and then allow practical acceptance to flow from it. He cannot do it that way because of course he cannot demonstrate sexual perversion to be acceptable.

So, what does Bergoglio do instead? He inverts the approach: He first obtains practical acceptance, knowing that theoretical acceptability will follow before long because people tend to shy away from rejecting in theory what they have already accepted in practice. Man’s reluctance to condemning his own actions and his propensity towards human respect works in the false pope’s favor in that regard. The justification that some will come up with — “I disagree with it personally, but…” — is a mere excuse to numb their conscience. Such hapless souls are only fooling themselves. Besides, consistently saying one thing while doing another is hypocrisy.

“Realities are greater than ideas”, the apostate Jesuit spouts in his exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (n. 233). With this principle, which is itself an idea, Francis reveals himself to be an existentialist: He likes to bring about facts first — the ideas will follow. This allows him to pay lip service to the sinfulness of sodomy (which he does affirm on rare occasion, especially when pressed), while at the same time establishing its de facto acceptance.

Existentialism was rejected by the Church in 1950:

Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 6)

Existentialism in morality is situation ethics, which is exactly what Francis has been preaching since at least his infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia. He wants things to be judged “case by case”, with no immutable moral principle providing a rigid rule for action.

Thus he tries to force a revolution in moral theology in an underhanded way. While appearing to leave doctrine untouched, he takes the practical route and makes people accept perversion under the guise of mercy, accompaniment, discernment, inclusion — whatever you want to call it. He knows that in the end, what matters is what is done, and what is done will eventually govern what is believed. Thus he has found an underhanded way to change people’s beliefs through the backdoor. A sly devil, that Argentinian Jesuit!

Although it may appear differently at first, Francis is not at all being charitable to children — or anyone else — with this line of action. No child should ever have to be subjected to same-sex parents, and no child should ever have to be exposed to a scenario of other children having “two daddies” or “two mommies” — least of all in church! But because of Bergoglio’s oh-so “merciful” approach, more Novus Ordo youngsters will now be exposed to such wickedness and be taught, whether formally and in theory or merely in practice, that it is perfectly normal and acceptable. Let us not mince words: This is spiritual and psychological child abuse!

It is precisely the just ostracization of unrepentant public sodomites (or any other type of public sinner) that prevents a lot of sin, especially a lot of scandal. For one thing, such marginalization discourages people from embracing a life of sin and consequently also prevents others from being exposed to it. The shame, the stigma, attached to something as horrendous as publicly manifest sexual perversion, is essential because it often restrains mortal sin (then again, that infernal liar Bergoglio tells people that sins of the flesh are among “the least serious” of sins).

In times past, for example, how many people were kept from viewing pornography only because it involved going, more or less publicly, to a filthy store that sold it? How many people did not let their marriage break up because of fear of what their neighbors would say or think? How many did not commit adultery because they were afraid of being found out? In general, how many mortal sins have not been committed in the history of the world because people feared the reactions of their fellow men (cf. Jn 3:19-20)?!

St. Paul himself counsels the marginalization of public sinners in the Church: “But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat” (1 Cor 5:11). Clearly, the Apostle did not believe in accompanying sinners to hell but in bringing them to repentance.

Exclusion, marginalization, ostracization, then, are a wholesome and salutary barrier against sin and its proliferation. To break it down, as Francis is trying to do with regard to publicly manifested sodomy under the pretext of letting children be “raised Catholic”, is criminal. It will have the effect of more people embracing such a mortally sinful lifestyle and more children being subjected or exposed to perversion.

But then, that seems to be precisely Bergoglio’s goal.

Image source: composite with elements from shutterstock.com
License: paid

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.