Categories
Uncategorized

WHAT ARE “DEEPSEATED HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES”?

FRANCISresize

by Jamie Manson National Catholic Reporter

The pope who once famously said about gay priests, “Who am I to judge?”, is judging again.
In a newly published, book-length interview, Pope Francis has reasserted his worries about the presence of gay men in the clergy and of gays and lesbians in consecrated life.
His statement is a response to this question, posed by the interviewer, Claretian Fr. Fernando Prado: “It is not a secret that in consecrated life and in the clergy there are also people with homosexual tendencies. What can you say about that?”
Francis offers a response that is rather meandering, and even muddled in some parts. He claims that homosexuality is “fashionable” in some societies and that this “mentality also influences the life of the Church.”
He recounts a story about a bishop who was “shocked” to realize that in his very large diocese there were “several homosexual priests.” The bishop, Francis says, “intervened, first of all, in the matter of formation in order to form a different type of clergy.”
But the heart of the confusion and controversy about Francis’ latest statement surrounds his story about a male religious who realizes some of his students and professed religious were gay. The male religious decided that “it is definitely not that serious … it is only an expression of affection.”
It remains unclear whether these gay seminarians and religious were breaking their vows of celibacy. Were they were actually expressing their homosexuality through affection, or does the male religious view homosexuality generally as an “expression of affection”? Either way, Francis doesn’t like it. He condemns this view as “wrong.”
“For this reason,” Francis says, “the Church recommends that people with this deep-seated tendency not be accepted into ministry or into consecrated life. Their place is not in ministry or in consecrated life.”
A number of progressive Catholics have rushed to Francis’ defense. Some argue that he is only opposed to priests and religious who break their vows of celibacy. Others insist that he did not include heterosexuals in his condemnation of celibacy-breakers because the interviewer’s question was specifically about gay priests and gay and lesbian religious.
But to apologize for Francis in these ways is to deny what he has said previously about homosexuality and about admitting gay men to the priesthood.
In December 2016, Francis signed a rather homophobic document called “The Gift of the Priestly Vocation.”
That document quoted a 2005 instruction signed by Pope Benedict XVI that said, “The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’ “
This statement clarifies Francis’ obtuse words in his recent interview. It states clearly that even if a priest is not breaking his vow of celibacy, if his “homosexual tendencies” are “deep-seated,” he loses his chance to be a priest.
In May 2018, Francis also weighed in on the issue during a closed session with the Italian Episcopal Conference. As La Stampa reported, Francis expressed his concern about admitting seminarians with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, telling the clergymen, “If you have even the slightest doubt, it is better not to let them in.”

Priests sit below the statue of St. Peter as Pope Francis celebrates Mass marking the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican June 29. (CNS/Paul Haring)
But what precisely is a “deep-seated homosexual tendency”?
The phrase seems to have first been used in the 2005 document, called “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.”
That document made the distinction between “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual tendencies” that are “transitory.”
The instruction doesn’t define precisely what deep-seated homosexual tendencies are, but does declare that they are “objectively disordered” and “often constitute a trial.”
Transitory tendencies, on the other hand, are inclinations that either go away or can be overcome, “for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded.
“Nevertheless,” the instruction continues, “such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”
This notion of “transitory tendencies” should worry all of us who are troubled by the harm done to many young LGBTQ people through reparative therapy programs, such as the one featured in the new film “Boy Erased.”
Francis has alluded to transitory homosexual tendencies in the past, perhaps most shockingly during the papal plane ride home from Dublin last August. In comments that were later redacted in the official Vatican transcript, but reported by The Guardian, the pope seemed to suggest that homosexual tendencies could be treated if they surfaced during childhood.
“When it shows itself from childhood, there is a lot that can be done through psychiatry, to see how things are. It is something else if it shows itself after 20 years,” he said when asked by a journalist what he would say to parents who observed homosexual traits in their children.
The only research I could find on these so-called deep-seated and transitory tendencies was a paper titled “The Distinction between Deep-Seated Homosexual Tendencies and Transitory Same-Sex Attractions in Candidates for Seminary and Religious Life.” Written by Peter Kleponis, Ph.D., and Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D., it was published in 2011 in The Linacre Quarterly, the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association.
The intention of the paper was to offer research that supports the Vatican’s 2005 instruction banning gay priests.
According to the website MaritalHealing.com, Kleponis participates in evaluating candidates for priesthood and religious life and has given conferences to Courage, a Catholic organization that treats homosexuality like an addiction.
Fitzgibbons has been an adjunct professor at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. In 2008, Benedict XVI appointed him a consultor to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, a position he no longer holds, according to the latest Vatican yearbook.
According to Kleponis and Fitzgibbons:
Those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies often identify themselves as “gay men” which is based to a large extent upon their sexual attractions. They often reject the current scientific findings that there is no genetic or biological basis for SSA [same-sex attraction] and believe they were born this way. They do not view homosexuality as a disordered inclination, are comfortable with their sexual attractions, subscribe to the increasingly prevalent belief that homosexuality is a normal variation in human sexuality, and think there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. Their beliefs make them highly vulnerable to sexual acting out.
And what do the doctors believe are the causes of these deep-seated homosexual tendencies? They explain:
Men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are usually unwilling to examine the possibility that they experienced emotional conflicts in significant male relationships that result in same-sex attraction. When asked, they are often unable to name a best male friend in elementary school. Their strong physical attraction to other men’s bodies and to the masculinity of others is the result of profound weakness in male confidence, a craving for male acceptance, and a poor body image. They have a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual. Their insecurity leads them to avoid close friendships with other men who do not have SSA.
The paper later goes on to argue that gay men have significantly higher incidences of cancer and psychiatric illness.

And as for transitory same-sex attraction, Kleponis and Fitzgibbons “deem it preferable to the use of the terms ‘ego-dystonic’ homosexuality or ‘obligatory’ or ‘optional’ homosexuality because it implies the ability to change,” they write.
Is this the kind of junk science that Francis, the bishops, seminary rectors, and members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are relying on to support the barring of gay men from ordained ministry and gays and lesbians from consecrated life? Is this the “research” that is keeping all LGBTQ people from enjoying the fullness of life in their church?
Francis’ words in this interview and the teaching contained in “The Gift of the Priestly Vocation” seem to suggest so.
To Francis’ credit, he does not associate homosexuality with clerical sex abuse. But some of the ideas he expresses in this new book are still quite damaging.
The pope says that gays who are already ordained and lesbians and gays who are in consecrated life must “be exquisitely responsible, trying not to scandalize their communities or the holy and faithful People of God by living a double life.”
Francis’ words paint a portrait of gays and lesbians as those who will always struggle to remain celibate and who always run a high risk of causing a scandal. That he holds them to a special standard of sinless perfection suggests that he not only sees homosexuality as deviant, he also sees gays and lesbians as somehow powerless against their sexual desires and highly vulnerable to acting out sexually.
The fact that Francis returns to this issue so frequently suggests it is one of his top concerns. The question is why? And why doesn’t he fret nearly so much about heterosexual priests breaking their vows of celibacy?
Many Vatican insiders predict that at next year’s Synod of Bishops, Francis may attempt to relax the celibacy requirement. He has said more than once that the celibacy rule is changeable. Is the pope’s preoccupation with the celibacy requirement for gay priests his way of shoring up this rule, should the time come that there will no longer be mandatory celibacy? Is he afraid that, when that day comes, gay priests will feel as entitled to sexual love as straight priests?
Regardless of his motivations, Francis’ characterizations of gays and lesbians and his notion of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” will only foster the toxic homophobic attitudes that are already so prevalent in seminaries and religious communities, as well as in the wider church. In his attempt to discuss “the strength of a vocation,” he has only weakened what little hope LGBTQ Catholics still have for his pontificate.
[Jamie Manson is a columnist and the books editor at the National Catholic Reporter.]

PAT SAYS:

If I want to know about RC doctrines I ask an RC theologian or clergyman. That’s their area of expertise, if you call RCism an area of knowledge.

But If I want an expert view on homosexuality I will ask a biologist, a psychologist or a sexologist.

What give RC clerics, at any level, the expertise to render homosexuality a “disorder”?

Most of the experts on sexuality say that homosexuality is a perfectly normal human sexual orientation.

I think what has screwed up RCs and RC clerics sexually is the RC brainwashing we all were all subjected to by popes, bishops and priests and brothers and nuns.

And what makes it worse is that these corrupt bishops and priests have not, and do not practice the sexual doctrines they try and impose on everyone else.

They want us to be as white as the driven snow while they copulate like wild rabbits.

It is these clerics who are gravely disordered – not ordinary people discovering love, intimacy and pleasure in an open and honest way.

104 replies on “WHAT ARE “DEEPSEATED HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES”?”

Poor Pope Francis. It is almost tempting to give him a pass on this issue, because of his age and, to be honest, his unremarkable intellect. But it would be a temptation not worth indulging, since Francis is, so far, either the most hypocritical pope of the 21st century, or its most senile. Not only does he judge those he claimed himself unable to judge (gay priests), but he goes on to approve undermining the physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of gay young people. This is the man who, a year or two ago, supported Mexican bishops in their drive to prevent the Mexican Government from criminalising so-called ‘Reparative Therapy’, but who then (bizzarely, in light of this support) seemingly told Juan Carlos Cruz, one of the Chilean abuse survivors, ‘God made you gay’. (The Vatican has never denied this statement, reported by Carlos Cruz after a private meeting with Pope Francis earlier this year.)
Why would Pope Francis tell a gay man that God had made him this way, all the while approving for gay young people what some have described as a form of ‘torture’, (and ineffective to boot)? Why would he seek to put asunder what God had made? Surely a blasphemy?
So which is it for Francis? Blatant hypocrisy? Or worrying senility? It’s one or the other. And whichever it is, he should not remain as pope.

Like

Mad Magna Caca at 12:33am!!
Polly you really are so ageist, it’s not as if you’re a spring chicken yourself, you must be at least 50! And of course the fact that in your delusional opinion nobody has the same intellect as you. It tells us that the drink has you confused you’re forever giving out about the clergy being parasites, when that’s what you are. You’re posting on this blog day and night, so you are not gainfully employed. Go out and get a job and stop being a parasite and living off the taxpayer.
Evviva Maria!

Like

I almost forgot. Deep-seated homosexual tendencies is a concept based on faux psychology, that homosexuality can be a ‘phase’ ( often the explanation given to worried teenagers by concerned parents) and is, therefore, eradicible.
I’m with Freud on this one: every person, without exception (and this includes Magna), is actually bisexual, with some leaning more strongly to either homosexuality or heterosexuality. No one is exclusively homosexual or heterosexual; everyone is capable of falling in love with someone of the same or opposite sex. If same-sex attraction has never happened for you, it is because the ‘right’ person did not come along, not because you are ontologically beyond such a thing.
Just think: one day we may see Pope Francis stroll casually, coyly but flirtatiously, hand in hand with one of his cardinals in Bernini’s colonnade. Freud would not rule out the possibility of it.
Oh! For those of you speculatng feverishly about Magna: he has yet to meet the bloke who could set him afire… with ‘lurve’. 👬

Like

Here we go again. When will the RC institution waken up and smell the coffee? When will they start tackling the real problems within the church and stop their smokescreens? When will they clear out the abusers, the spendthrifts, the hypocrites, the cover up merchants, the power hungry? When will they become more concerned about the teachings of Christ and not be so worried about trying to bail out their sinking ship? The RC institution’s response is becoming tedious and dangerous. I despair at their foolishness and their lack of Christian responses. I’ve said it many many times before, gay love is love. Celibacy is not Christ imposed. It is RC imposed. Again and again it is do as we say and not as we do. How long does Francis think that his church can go on this way? The leadership of the Irish RC church is so bloody arrogant and totalitarian. It is nothing more than a cabal of angry self serving old men. Christianity is not about the practices of the RC church. It is about Jesus Christ. The sooner they realise and accept this the better we will all be

Like

Oh this is easy. Transitory tendencies mean the same as ‘prison gay’. They want heteros who have been to prison. All clear now?

Like

Oooohhh, 08:16, you sound so hateful so early in the morning. God knows what you will be like later on in the day. How dare you use such discriminatory and hateful language about gays. You might get away with that here, but if you said that publicly in the street, you probably would be reported to the police. I’d be careful if I were you, otherwise you might find yourself spending some time in the clink. Where you might find yourself having a new arsehole ripped for you by those “nasty” gays (or fa***ts as you call them), and you wouldn’t like that, would you ?!

Like

Actually, 8:16, I think it’s rather too many old men with unremarkable but hypocritical and harpish intellects who are ruining the Church. But then, they aren’t ruining it, really, because this is what the Church nearly always has been, only largely concealed from a gullible laity. (Ask Useless Bellarmine.😆)

Like

Mad Magn Caca at 11:23

Actually Polly you are GAS you have just described yourself, you’re unremarkable,absolutely hypocritical and you have the most harpish intellect of all. The Holy Church was very wise in recognizing that and got rid of you. Because she knew that you would ruin anything as you are USELESS!
Evviv Maria!

Like

Leviticus 18:22 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Romans 1;18 -27
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Like

1 Timothy 1:8-11 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Like

Jude 7 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

7 just as Sodom and Gomor′rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Like

Yup! It’s the Free Presbyterians.

Their biblical literalism (aka ‘poor understanding of Scripture and endless repitition of its homophobic “clobber passages” ‘) is a dead giveaway.😆

Like

+ Pat, your analysis is spot on !

1. The outdated theological and biblical view on homosexuality, indeed sexuality as a whole, has been discredited by medical and psychological science. God gave us intelligence and reason, so why not follow it to where the evidence leads ?

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that a moral and ethical interpretation and application of the outdated and discredited Church view on homosexuality, over the centuries, has brought about grave injustices and a warped culture in which homosexuality and homosexuals have been vilified and targets of prejudicial language and behaviour, as well as discrimination. The Church and its teaching has been at the forefront of this warped culture and has fostered hatred, discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals.

3. We know that while all this was happening, the clerical classes of the Church were applying different rules to themselves, and conniving at all kinds of dysfunctional sexual behaviour by clerics, not just between consenting adults, but abusive crimes against children and vulnerable people, using their clerical superiority and entitlement to get away with it. This was tolerated, or at the very best interpretation allowed to happen by turning a blind eye. This is why the likes of + Vincent of Westminster are being hauled in front of various tribunals to find out what they did and when and why. And the evidence is not going to be pretty. No wonder + Vincent has been off sick. He knows what is coming. And he is worried shitless.

4. Weighing up the lives of homosexual people, and their desire for love, intimacy and relationship, against the callous self-serving abusive behaviour of the clerical classes in the Church, it is right for + Pat to say that the ones who are ‘gravely disordered’ are the clerics who for so long have inflicted such suffering on others while doing what they want to satisfy their own disordered desires. They have got away with this for too long. it is right that + Pat and others shine the light in to these dark hidden corners, and call out these clerics – bishops and priests – and hold them accountable for the damage they have done to others, as well as their mind-boggling hypocrisy.

5. I note that the Church has reverted to type in trying to shift the blame for their sins. It is all the fault of the Devil – apparently ! – which is short hand for saying “It’s not me, Guv !” And, a feeble, but dangerous attempt, to transfer blame to – yes, you got it, homosexuals / gays in the Church. It’s all their fault – apparently. Well, Francis, bishops, and priests, you better know that we do not buy that anymore and we will not be the agents of your warped and dysfunctional culture of hatred and discrimination against our homosexual brothers and sisters. Rather, we will turn our eyes towards you, and call you out, and call you to account. It is your turn to be the focus of the moral judgement of the Church, namely the People of God. No wonder you are squealing and trying to shift the blame and the focus on to the Devil and homosexuals, as you try to save your own skins.

Like

Anonymous at 9:01
Absolute rubbish! typical of liberal freethinkers who like to interpret scripture to suit their own agenda. The fact that Patsy thinks the post is excellent confirms it.
Evviva Maria!

Like

On what INTELLECTUAL (not ad hominem) ground is it ‘rubbish’?
For once in your useless, bitter and twisted old age, make a decent counter-argument.

Like

St. Catherine relays words of Our Lord, about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacred ministers, He said: “They not only fail from resisting this frailty [ of fallen human nature]…but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid having dimmed the light of the understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that , for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them…It is disagreeable to the demon, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demons who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demons leaves.
St.Catherine of Siena, El diabolo, in Orbas de Santa Catarina de Siena

Like

God could not have said any such thing to Catherine because, if he had, he would have contradicted what he told the prophet Ezekiel in the inspired word of God, Sacred Scripture. According to Ezekiel, God razed the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their inhospitality, in other words, ‘the wickedness displayed by them was lack of charity’.

However, even this explanation cannot withstand rational, intelligent scrutiny, because it renders God unjust: lashing out, indiscriminately, by ‘punishing’ the innocent along with the good (there must have been children, including babies, present in those cities)

The greatest enemy of Scripture, and of religion in general, are uneducated, irrational, gullible and superstitious minds. Like yours, 11:28.

It’s almost enough to turn a fellow atheist. 😆

Like

Catholic Culture.org

The Bible mentions only four sins which cry out to God for vengeance. Considering the source and the emphasis, we have little choice but to examine our consciences on these points. A cursory examination will not do; we must cast off our cultural preconceptions to see beyond the obvious.

Sodomy

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21) The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of homosexual activity. So far gone were they in this vice that the men of the town would not even accept heterosexual license with Lot’s daughters, both virgins, as a means of sating their lust (see 19:8-9).

Here we have another case in point for cultural conditioning. It is far more difficult for our contraceptive culture to see how contrary to nature homosexuality is. Those of us who instinctively feel its deep unnaturalness rightly react to homosexual activity with disgust, but logical arguments are unlikely to produce the same reaction in those whose instincts are damaged, blunted or rationalized away.

It is precisely in such situations that Divine Revelation is so very useful, for we cannot trust our feelings when they run counter to reality. We require a better guide. Sodomy strikes at the root of human nature because of its perversion of the procreative impulse, without which the race must die. But in case we don’t see it, God does.

Like

You react to ‘homosexual acts’ with disgust? Is that a rational, and fair, basis for moralising about them? If it is, then I want banned sex acts between obese people, because the thought of obese people writhing on a badly strained bed makes me want to puke.
And while you’re at it (in a manner of speaking, of course) ban sex acts between old people. Because the mere thought of Useless Bellarmine cavorting, buck naked… Jeez! Enough!!
How many more scripturally ignorant Catholics are out there? You’re absolutely embarrassing! The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not ‘homosexual activity’, but violent inhospitality. Ask the prophet Ezekiel a little farther on in the Old Testament. And while you’re at it (in a manner of speaking, of course) drop in on Isaiah: he’ll tell you a similar story.
Read to the end of that episode in Genesis, where Lots’ two daughters get their oul fella drunk, and then screw his brains out in order to conceive, because that hot-headed silly bugger, God, destroyed all of the men in those cities, leaving Lots dynasty on the precipice of extinction.
Why didn’t God get pissed off by these grotesque sex acts, incest?

Like

.Mad Magna Caca at 1pm

Polly what a disgusting person you really are you don’t like old people you don’t like obese people and the thought of poor Patsy cavorting with her ‘partner’ Jeez! is too much for you, she wont like that because as I’ve pointed out she is the same age as me. Anyway your certainly giving out the ad hominem’s today. So don’t complain when they come back to you, you USELESS piece of caca.
Evviva Maria!

Like

So Ezekiel from the Old Testament somehow negates the letter of Jude from the New Testament? You incoherent and uneducated person! You have no understanding or knowledge of authentic biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, Church history and teaching, or Sacred Tradition.
Their sins were both sodomy and inhospitality.
MC, you are a Philistine!

Like

What’s wrong, Useless Old Bella? Does being intellectually incapable of making a rational and informed counter-argument (one that actually addresses another’s points) leave you so frustrated that your only possible response is the ill-tempered, foul-mouthed tantrum of an under-achieving 12-year-old?😆

Like

6:46, if you knew anything at all about the ancient tradition of victorious warriors’ raping their defeated male opponents, you would know that action of this kind did not signify homosexuality, but psychological subjugation as a method of punishment and/or control. And it was widely practised in the ancient world.

What was about to happen in Sodom (male gang rape) had nothing whatever to do with homosexuality, but with punishing the two angels for Lot’s violation of the city’s code, which prohibited the admission and boarding of strangers. The account in Genesis states that the men of the city (in other words, ‘all the male inhabitants’) gathered outside Lot’s home to punish the strangers in this way. Have you sufficient common sense to draw the obvious conclusion here? No? Well, let me spell it out for you: Were ALL the inhabitants of Sodom queer? Because this is what you must accept if you continue to insist on the ridiculous notion that what happened here was about homosexuality. And remember that two of these would-be rapists were engaged to marry Lot’s daughters. Were they queer ‘n’ all?

You stupid little man. 😆

Like

Saint Augustine

“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.”

“Your punishments are for sins which men commit against themselves, because, although they sin against You, they do wrong in their own souls and their malice is self-betrayed. They corrupt and pervert their own nature, which You made and for which You shaped the rules, either by making wrong use of the things which You allow, or by becoming inflamed with passion to make unnatural use of things which You do not allow” (Rom. 1:26). (St. Augustine, Confessions, Book III, chap. 8)

Saint John Chrysostom

“All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men…. The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only the one according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down!

Therefore, not only are their passions [of the homosexuals] satanic, but their lives are diabolic….. So I say to you that these are even worse than murderers, and that it would be better to die than to live in such dishonor. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body…..

Like

Augustine? Wasn’t he the guy who declared that the souls of unbaptised infants and adults were eschatologically destined for Hell, leaving (God knows how many) generations of desperate parents broken, in mental agony, over the supposed fate of their stillborn, unbaptised children?
And wasn’t he the guy who, basically, raised two fingers to Jesus’ teaching on love of enemy by conceiving the theological grounds for what he portentously called ‘Just War’?
I shouldn’t set much store by Augustine’s word. Really.
Better heed Jesus than Augustine. Yes?

Like

John Chrysostom? Ha ha ha 😅 He’s known nit for love, butbfor hatred.
Are you that desperate to win an argument? Have you read his rants against the Jews? He was a rabid anti-semite. Capable of extraordinary anti-Jewish hatred.
Hatred of others, including homosexuals, is not a proper, nor Christian, basis for moralising about them. And his hatred of homosexuals (and he possibly was homosexual himself) was as fierce and as irrational as his hatred of Jews.
And to think the institutional Roman Catholc Church canonised this anti-Christ.😕

Like

Saint Gregory the Great

“Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns.

It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.” (St. Gregory the Great, Commento morale a Giobbe, XIV, 23, vol. II, p. 371, Ibid., p. 7)

Like

I think Gregory was revealing more about himself here (his repressed homosexuality) than God’s will on the matter. His words were just a tad too, er, fiery not to raise concern about his motivation.
Besides, as I’ve already made clear (and produced evidence for it), the sin of Sodom, like its twin city Gomorrah, was inhospirality, not homosexual activity.
Greg was as pig-ignorant of biblical hermenutics as some posting here today.

Like

Saint Thomas Aquinas
“However, they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): ‘For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.’
For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum I, 26, pp. 27f)

Like

Ah! That big, fat, gluttonous bastardo, Thomas Aquinas. I wondered when at least one of you would get round to him.

That pericope in Ephesians does not necessarily refer to homosexual acts. In fact, given its immediate and preceding context (5: 1 through 11) it likely, instead, references fornication, ‘heterosexual “hanky-panky” ‘, in other words.

Poor Thomas: he was no more a biblical scholar than he was a medical geneticist. Did you know that he morally approved abortion, because he believed that a fertilised human egg was merely vegetable (non-human) matter until it was ‘ensouled’, months after conception? Well, he was wrong about this, and much else besides (including, for Roman Catholics) his disbelief in the immaculate conception.

There is something perverse, almost amusing, about a glutton lecturing others on abstention of any kind. (Did you know that his fellow friars had to have a semi-circular incision made in the refectory table? So that the BFB could get near enough to, well, stuff his bloated, ugly face again.

Like

Saint Bernardine of Siena
“No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God….. Such passion for undue forms borders on madness. This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul, drags great thoughts to petty ones, makes [men] pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything.
Furthermore, the will, being agitated by the insatiable drive for pleasure, no longer follows reason, but furor…. Someone who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pains in Hell than any one else, because this is the worst sin that there is.” (St. Bernardine of Siena, Predica XXXIX, in Le prediche volgari (Milan: Rizzoli, 1936), pp. 869ff., 915, in F. Bernadei, op. cit., pp. 11f)

Like

Jesus himself said nothing, not a sausage, on homosexuality. He clearly wasn’t that bothered about it. Well, not so botherd as that… Who was it you quoted?

Like

Saint Peter Damian’s Liber Gomorrhianus [Book of Gomorrha]
“This vice strives to destroy the walls of one’s heavenly motherland and rebuild those of devastated Sodom. Indeed, it violates temperance, kills purity, stifles chastity and annihilates virginity … with the sword of a most infamous union. It infects, stains and pollutes everything; it leaves nothing pure, there is nothing but filth …
This vice expels one from the choir of the ecclesiastical host and obliges one to join the energumens and those who work in league with the devil; it separates the soul from God and links it with the demons. This most pestiferous queen of the Sodomites [which is homosexuality] makes those who obey her tyrannical laws repugnant to men and hateful to God … It humiliates at church, condemns at court, defiles in secret, dishonors in public, gnaws at the person’s conscience like a worm and burns his flesh like fire…
“The miserable flesh burns with the fire of lust, the cold intelligence trembles under the rancor of suspicion, and the unfortunate man’s heart is possessed by hellish chaos, and his pains of conscience are as great as the tortures in punishment he will suffer … Indeed, this scourge destroys the foundations of faith, weakens the force of hope, dissipates the bonds of charity, annihilates justice, undermines fortitude, … and dulls the edge of prudence.
“What else shall I say? It expels all the forces of virtue from the temple of the human heart and, pulling the door from its hinges, introduces into it all the barbarity of vice … In effect, the one whom … this atrocious beast [of homosexuality] has swallowed down its bloody throat is prevented, by the weight of his chains, from practicing all good works and is precipitated into the very abysses of its uttermost wickedness.
Thus, as soon as someone has fallen into this chasm of extreme perdition, he is exiled from the heavenly motherland, separated from the Body of Christ, confounded by the authority of the whole Church, condemned by the judgment of all the Holy Fathers, despised by men on earth, and reproved by the society of heavenly citizens. He creates for himself an earth of iron and a sky of bronze … He cannot be happy while he lives nor have hope when he dies, because in life he is obliged to suffer the ignominy of men’s derision and later, the torment of eternal condemnation” (Liber Gomorrhianus, in PL 145, col. 159-178).

Like

Peter Damian seems to have known a lot about homosexual acts; rather too much, in my opinion.
Seriously, 1:25. Listen to the guy; he’s practically frothing at the mouth with, er, passion for his subject-matter, He’s as barking as…well…as Bellarmine, really.
I know you mean kindly, dear, but do try to read actively rather than passively. You know: a little more critically, and less receptively.
No wonder modern Catholics were so f****d up over sex, with these sexually repressed arseholes sublimating their sexual desires in volcanically eruptive discourses on sex of one kind or another. Either this, or projected guilt at having too much of it. 😕

Like

Mad Magna Caca at 1:54

Polly it is you who is truly barking! Trying desperately to justify your own disgusting lifestyle, witch is probably a non event for you anyway, because of the gargle it will be brewer’s droop all the the way for you. Anyway the very thought of you cavorting with any one is too sick making.
Evviva Maria!

Like

Matthew 5:27-28 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Like

Saint Basil of Caesarea:

“The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week.

After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship … with young people.” (St. Basil of Caesarea, in St. Peter Damien, Liber Gomorrhianus, op. cit. cols. 174f.)

Liked by 1 person

The Code of Canon Law undertaken at the initiative and encouragement of Saint Pius X, and published in 1917 by his successor Pope Benedict XV, says this: “So far as laymen are concerned, the sin of sodomy is punished ipso facto with the pain of infamy and other sanctions to be applied according to the prudent judgment of the Bishop depending on the gravity of each case (Can. 2357). As for ecclesiastics and religious, if they are clerici minoris [that is, of the degree lower than deacon], let them be punished with various measures, proportional to the gravity of the fault, that can even include dismissal from the clerical state (Can. 2358); if they are clerici maiores [that is, deacons, priests or bishops], let them ‘be declared infamous and suspended from every post, benefit, dignity, deprived of their eventual stipend and, in the gravest cases, let them be deposed’ (Can. 2359, par. 2)”

Like

Tertullian, the great apologist of the Church in the second century, writes: “All other frenzies of lusts which exceed the laws of nature and are impious toward both bodies and the sexes we banish … from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities.” (Tertullian, De pudicitia, IV, in J. McNeil, op. cit., p. 89)

Like

Yes, Tertullian had much to apologise for, not least his tendency to unreliable, highly personal, histrionic denunciation.

Like

Saint Bonaventure, speaking in a sermon at the church of Saint Mary of Portiuncula about the miracles that took place simultaneously with the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, narrates this: “Seventh prodigy: All sodomites—men and women—died all over the earth, as Saint Jerome said in his commentary on the psalm ‘The light was born for the just.’ This made it clear that He was born to reform nature and promote chastity.” (St. Bonaventure, Sermon XXI—In Nativitate Domini, in Catolicismo (Campos/Sao Paulo), December 1987, p. 3; F. Bernardei, op. cit., p. 11)

Like

Oh, dear. Jerome wasn’t a reliable academic bedrock. Did you know that his mistranslation, into Latin, of the Greek word ‘metanoia’ set Roman Catholicism on a course of dualistic self-loathing for many centuries? It’s hardly surprising, then, that homosexuals didn’t escape its lash…in a manner of speaking.

Jerome mistranslated ‘metanoia’ (meaning ‘repentance’…’choosing to turn away from wrong conduct’) as ‘do penance’. It turned, Roman Catholic clerics (but especially monastic religious) into self-loathing, literally self-flagellating dualists: hating the flesh, but ‘loving’ the soul. No wonder many of these were so foul and short tempered. After all, someone had to pay a social price (hatred, persecution, and ostracisation) for all of that (unnecessary) self-privation.

And minorities, like queers and Jews, are always convenient scapegoats, aren’t they?

If Jerome isn’t infallible, then neither is Bonaventure.

Like

Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).
“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).

Like

Cyprian, in obvious exclamatory mode here, sounds as if he is, er, getting off on this information. Did he see these things take place? If he did, he sure hung around long enough to take detailed notes.
Is this really the best you can come up with? Some frustrated old perv who had to compensate for not joining in by prolonged viewing, and the inevitable wank followed by a massive, hysterical guilt-trip?

Liked by 1 person

The Apostolic Constitutions
“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious” (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).

Like

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

Like

Justin Martyr
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).

Like

A Christian apologist named Aristides, writing in the early second century, stated:
“Now the Greeks, O King, as they follow base practices in intercourse with males, and a mother and a sister and a daughter, impute their monstrous impurity in turn to the Christians,” (Aristides’ Apology, Verse 17 in the Syriac Edition).
Likewise a later second century Christian apologist named Athenagoras wrote:
“The things said of us are an example of the proverb, “The harlot reproves the chaste.” For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure,—who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations,” (A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 34).
While the emphasis was most often on male homosexuality, it was condemned in women as well. For example, one mid second century writer spoke of:
“those who defiled their bodies, behaving like women. And the women with them, these were those who lay with one another as a man with a woman,” (Apocalypse of Peter, Verse 31).
While more references could be added, it should be apparent from these that the early Churches understood homosexuality to be sinful and incompatible with Christian morality. Thus, the Christians living closest to the time that the New Testament was written understood its morality in no uncertain terms to reject homosexual practice and to allow sexual activity only within marriage, and marriage defined strictly in heterosexual terms.

Like

Yes, but why does the Didache state this? Because its authors believed the tripe in Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah. THEY WEREN’T BIBLICAL SCHOLARS, MORE BIBLICAL LITERALISTS, who accepted as historical truth such things as the Creation Accounts in Genesis.
You are relying on ancient people for light on a fairly modern phenomenon: homosexuality as a distinct, and God-given sexuality.
Ask Pope Francis. 😆

Like

Origen, c. A.D. 230
Even in regard to those [Christians] who … have not gone into these deep questions, we find that they believe in the Most High God, in his only-begotten Son, the Word and God, and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, purity, and integrity, while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men doing that which is unseemly” [Rom. 1:27]. (Against Celsus VII:50)

Like

There can be no wisdom without truth, for then, what would there to be wise about?😆 And the truth is that many homosexual acts are not about lust, which is what Origen is referring to here.

Maybe you didn’t know this, but the Church Fathers, being uneducated in most matters we today take for granted, believed that homosexuality was the issue of excessive and indulged HETEROSEXUAL passion. They took their cue for this from Romans, where it is clear that Paul believes precisely the same thing. Well, they all were wrong, weren’t they?

There is no doubt that much moral ‘wisdom’ from the Church Fathers was pig-ignorant, superstitious, hysterical supposition.

At least we can laugh at it now. And I do; I really do. And at those today who rely on this shite for serious discussion. 😅

😆

Like

MC and Patrick Buckley have been accurately described by the saints and doctors of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Like

Saint Jerome (340-420; author of the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible): “Sodom and Gomorrah might have appeased God’s wrath had they been willing to repent; and through the aid of fasting gain themselves tears of repentance.”

Like

He didn’t speak the truth about the Chilean abuse survivors: publicly called them liars.

And he didn’t speak the truth about the sexual-abuse criminality in the Church, in general.

Blamed Satan, not the clerical parasites under his feeble command.

Francis does not speak the truth. Nor do you, for that matter. 😆

Like

Pat, people visit your blog to see what the gossip is, who is getting it in the neck on any given day, whose turn it is to be spit roasted.

But proper healthy debate has, for the most part been killed off by that insufferable boor, who isn’t even a real human being – the composite “Magna Carta” – the invention of God knows who/what.

Into the mouth of this “creation” are put, obviously by a committee of reprobates, the most obnoxious and venomous comments.

No sensible person should lower himself/herself to engage with this vicious little entity. Those who do are pissing in the wind.

Like

More ad hominem from the intellectually challenged…or intellectually jealous.
What’s wrong? Afraid I’ll publicly tear you apart if you engage me in debate? Is this why you posted your comment to Bishop Pat, to whine about me in his ear?
At least those who did engage me directly, without resorting to ad hominem, showed moral backbone. 😆

Like

5.12: Moral degenerates and haters like Magna are deserving only of contempt. We should not ever again respond to “it”. Read Wikipedia instead of his long, tedious posts.

Like

4.50: More a modern day psychopath, seriously deranged and creepy, possessing of a madness that’s very scary. Stay away from this fool called Magna.

Like

4.44: You may as well piss in the wind. Pat depends on this vile entity, M.C. for the continuation of his blog. Despite M. C’s obnoxious poisonous and hate inciting comments, Pat doesn’t care and is not capable of intelligent debate.

Like

Oh, Pat is. And so am I.
Why don’t you join in, instead of standing on the sidelines sniffling ‘snot fair, so ‘snot’?

Like

2 Corinthians 4 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

4 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Like

You really do put such faith in Paul-The-Self-Styled-Apostle. It’s almost commendable…if it weren’t for the fact that it’s downright dangerous (and not just spiritually) to set so much reliance on a…well, on a fallible human being. And Paul was fallible, you know. Not just for the obvious reason…that he was human. But because he left us written evidence of his flawed teaching.
Did you know that alcoholics, despite being ill, are all going to Hell? Yes, I’m afraid so, because Paul declared it. He denied alcoholics entry to the kingdom. (Paul, according to midern translations, used the word ‘drunkards’.)
(Of course, Paul is referring here to the Parousia, when Jesus will, according to Paul et alii, establish his kingdom on Earth. And what’s more, in their lifetime. Isn’t this wonderful?! Any day now, Christ is coming. In fact some of the New Testament writings make it clear that Jesus’ bags are packed and he’s on his way. That debt you owed the guy next door? Forget about it! Jesus is rocketing to Earth and soon money will matter no more.
If you stay with Paul’s letters, you find that he eventually had to lower his expectations about Jesus’ Second Coming. Seems he wasn’t on his way after all. Paul had been wrong, but that proud pharisiacal head would not lower itself in humble apology for the expectations he himself had raised in the small Christian communities he co-founded.)
But to get back to alcoholics, it is obvious, except to the small-minded, that Paul hadn’t the first clue about excessive drinking as a pathology. Today we call it alcoholism, and we recognise it as an an addiction, an illness. And we don’t, unless we’re small-minded, condemn those affected by it. You might argue that Paul could hardly have known about alcoholism and should not, therefore, be judged by people today. And yes, you would have a point, but then HE shouldn’t have been judging anyone either as fit or not for the kingdom, since the only person qualified to do this, in perfect knowledge of every individual, is Jesus himsrld. And Paul wasn’t Jesus.
So stop, 5:45, relying so uncritically on him.😆

Like

MC, you state @ 12:44 that the prophet Ezekiel is the “inspired word of God”and yet you try to undermine St Paul’s New Testament Epistles as those written by an “infallible human being”.
Your short term memory is shot from all the booze buddy!

Like

10:16, buddy, old pal, I said no such thing. It isn’t short-term memory problems with you, but either deficient literacy skill and/or basic comprehension. I called Paul ‘fallible’, not ‘infallible’.
You poor prune. But at least you made an effort.

Like

“Fallible” is what I obviously meant you twit. That is quite clear from the context of my response.

Like

Here’s the thing. The Christian tradition is solidly against the *practice* of same-sex sexual acts.
My own opinion is that it is not redeemable in this sense and anyone with LGBTQ+ orientation should shake the dust off their feet.
*But* Magna is dead right that for the majority of Christian history there has been no such thing as a homosexual, sexuality wasn’t seen like that until relatively recently. So modern Christians should take this changing perception of human sexuality into account when reading the texts like those above. If you are actually going to go with Christian tradition you would ignore the modern idea of orientation and go by acts alone. So a virgin who may only be attracted to men could be ordained.
Incidentally the use of ego-dystonic in the connection of transitory sexual desires is wrong. It merely means unwanted so you could have ego-dystonic homosexual inclinations life-long and have them completely deep-seated.
I also disagree with Magna’s idea of universal bisexuality. I’m a Kinsey 6 and have never felt the slightest attraction to a woman. I think this is quite rare though?
Oh and how Freudian it is to talk about spit roasting on this blog. Does the writer claim not to know that that is a sexual position? 😇

Like

Given the perverts that roost here, “spit roasting” is an apt term.
A few weeks ago it was a young 18 year old seminarian who was up for grabs. Who knows who will be next come Midnight, when Buckley rises from his coffin, to post the latest unveiling of his mind.
“Magna Carta” itself is possessed of several sexual orientations within its composite. At least one of them has a “thing” for slim, blue-eyed, blond boys.

Like

No, you fool! I’M the ‘slim, blue-eyed, blond (sic) boy’, but I am most decidedly not in love with myself.

(Then again, could I do better?😆)

Like

Quite intellectual today. Pity so many of those Church “Fathers” were raving fruitcakes who assortedly castrated themselves, described women as fallen gateways and thought Mary’s hymen remained intact before, during and after giving birth. Let’s lighten up a bit. Anyone seen the report in The Tablet about two teaching sisters in LA who for years had been embezzling money from their school, blowing it in on gambling trips to Vegas. Always together, best friends apparently. I think we get the picture.

Like

Good (historically truthful) post.
But the modern-day fruitcakes (Have you met Useless Old Bella?) will have none of it. Would disturb their comfort zone.

Like

I am from the Archdiocese of Glasgow. Lots of gay sex goes on here. If any Clergy or Laity from elsewhere would like to join in, please make contact with any PP who will point you in the right direction. Infact, all Dioceses of Scotland can accommodate.

Like

Magna Carta –
I believe that you (bishop Buckley ) should not just ordain this remarkable creature a priest but since he regards Pope Francis and as being of ‘unremarkable intellect’ should ordain him as bishop to replace archbishop Eamon, appoint him a cardinal – elect him as Pope.
He does believe he is our Saviour, I.e God.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s