Gabriela Selser


This Aug. 29, 2008 file photo shows Nicaraguan priest and poet Ernesto Cardenal in his home while under house arrest, in Managua, Nicaragua. Cardenal has died on Sunday, March 1, 2020, according to his personal assistant Luz Marina Acosta. (Credit: Esteban Felix/AP.)

MANAGUA, Nicaragua – Ernesto Cardenal, the renowned poet and Catholic cleric who became a symbol of revolutionary verse in Nicaragua and around Latin America, and whose suspension from the priesthood by St. John Paul II lasted over three decades, died Sunday. He was 95.

Known for his trademark black beret and loose white peasant shirts, the author of works such as “Epigrams” and “Zero Hour” was one of the most important and honored poets in Nicaraguan history. Cardenal penned verse that went around the globe, and lived until his last days with a lucidity that inspired amazement and admiration in the literary world.

“Our beloved poet has begun the process of integrating with the universe, with the greatest intimacy with God,” his personal assistant, Luz Marina Acosta, said Sunday.

Bosco Centeno, a close friend of Cardenal, told The Associated Press the poet was hospitalized in Nicaragua’s capital of Managua a couple of days ago with a heart problem.

Cardenal received numerous awards during his lifetime including the Reina Sofia poetry prize in 2012, and the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade in 1980.

Argentine poet Jorge Boccanera once said of Cardenal’s writing that he “loses his life and at the same time discovers it in a profound delivery; in consecrating and offering himself in that dialogue of soul and blood.”
Cardenal was also an essayist and sculptor, and the herons he fashioned from stone and metal are highly prized in Central American cultural circles.

Born Jan. 20, 1925, to a wealthy family in the colonial city of Granada southeast of the Nicaraguan capital, Cardenal became a priest in Colombia and later became enamored of the leftist Liberation Theology movement that swept through Latin America during the 1960s, centered on ministering to the poor and liberating the oppressed.

On the Solentiname Islands in Lake Nicaragua, he founded a community of peasants, poets and painters in 1966 that came to symbolize artistic opposition to the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza, who was overthrown in 1979 by Sandinista rebels.
Cardenal actively supported the revolution and served as culture minister during the first government of former Sandinista guerrilla Daniel Ortega – causing him to run afoul of then-Pope John Paul II, who firmly held that clerics should not hold political office. The pontiff was also staunchly anti-communist and opposed some parts of Liberation Theology.
In 1983, John Paul publicly upbraided Cardenal at Managua’s international airport at the beginning of a tense visit. When Cardenal knelt in front of the pope and moved to kiss his hand, the pontiff withdrew it and pointed his finger at him in a moment caught in a widely circulated photograph.

“You should regularize your situation,” the pope scolded. Later that year he suspended Cardenal from the priesthood along with his brother Fernando, who was then serving as minister of education.

Only late in life was Cardenal’s suspension lifted by Pope Francis: In February 2019, as Cardenal was in the hospital, the Vatican noted that he had accepted the punishment, refrained from pastoral activity and long ago abandoned the political arena.

The Vatican’s ambassador to Nicaragua visited him at the hospital and joined him in celebrating Mass, a moment that Cardenal’s personal assistant described as “very moving” and said made him “very happy.”
While Cardenal never held political office again, that didn’t mean he shied away from speaking his mind, and the erstwhile supporter of Ortega distanced himself from his former Sandinista sympathizers over his disagreement with the ex-guerrilla’s partisan leadership.

After Ortega returned to the presidency in 2007, Cardenal denounced what he called the beginning of “a family dictatorship.” And in 2018, when anti-government protests broke out that posed the biggest challenge to Ortega’s increasingly authoritarian hold on power, Cardenal quickly aligned himself with the opposition.

“What we want is for there to be a different government, a democratic republic,” he said in a handwritten message of support, adding that dialogue with the Ortega camp would be useless.
“Now suddenly across the country the young people have risen up in protests, taking the streets,” Cardenal said, “something that was unexpected because the youth had seemed to be sleeping, or that a sepulchral slab had fallen on them.”
As he turned his back on Ortega, Sandinista officialdom turned its back on him.
Cardenal faced legal problems he attributed to “political persecution” for his criticisms of Ortega and Rosario Murillo, Ortega’s first lady and currently vice president. And in 2015, when Cardenal turned 90, he was feted in Mexico – where he had lived and studied theology as a young man – as the Sandinista government had nothing but silence for a man it viewed as a turncoat.
Cardenal continued to hold a dim view of John Paul for decades after their run-in, calling his canonization in 2014 a “monstrosity.”

He was more supportive of Francis and his calls to build a better world for those on the margins of society.
“I try to live with the message of the gospel,” Cardenal once said, “which is a political message, which is changing the world so that there is a better world after 100,000 years of inequality.”


I have always greatly admired Ernesto Cardenal.

I have always been a huge believed in Liberation Theology.

In fact I think the whole church should be based on Liberation Theology.

Jesus said that he came to set us free and that when he set us free we would be free indeed.

But instead of being a force of liberation and freedom the RCC has enslaved its members for at least 1700 years.

I was disgusted when that old bastard JP 11 publicly reprimanded Cardenel. Cardenal. Cardenal should have decked him. JP 11 was a visitor to the country and Cardenal was a government minister.

I wish all priests were the priest Cardenal was.


I’m afraid Pat you haven’t a clue what liberation theolgy means. I too am an admirer of Fr. Ernesto Cardenal. Love his poetry. But you’ll never emulate the influence this man had on people in oppressive and unjust situations. He had PASSION and an inspiring, unquenchable thirst for JUSTICE. His narratives, poetry and writings, while calling for the breaking of unjust ststems were not immersed in nasty, vindictive, life destroying sentiments. Take heed … .. hatred and vengeance are a waste of energy. Ernesto teaches much by way of true renewal in God’s ways.


You’re the geezer, 9.54 who recently, pontificated on what you called the redundant ‘of’ in the phrase ‘outside of’ and you listed grammar (not syntax, mind you) as the reason for your umbrage.

Here’s news for you. Even at your age, life-long learning can enhance living:

‘Outside’ is primarily used in concrete situations i.e. geographical location.

‘Outside of’ is employed in abstract contexts, such as a synonym for ‘in addition to.’

Stick to the day job!



Yes, I am indeed that ‘geezer’, who educated a poster (you?) on correct grammar. No, I didn’t pontificate (don’t use words with which you are not familiar, otherwise you tend to look stupid): I educated (you, I presume), but it seems the lesson went over your head.

As you correctly stated ‘of’ in ‘outside of’ is redundant (unnecessary) because ‘outside’ alone expresses the intended sense without the auxilliary use of ‘of’.

And it does, indeed, concern a mistake in grammar: in this case, the wrong grammatical construction of a sentence: syntax. Either word is appropriate in this case.

Whether used concretely or abstractly, the point I made remains: the intended sense is still expressed fully by ‘outside’ alone. Therefore ‘outside of’, in either case, is a wordy phrase, with ‘of’ redundant.

Don’t dabble in what appear to be shallow depths, especially when you can’t swim very well.


You don’t know the difference between grammar and syntax.
Longwinded verbiage may relieve your obsessive impulses. It doesn’t address, much less refute the object of your obsession.
Wikipedia is an unreliable source.
‘Outside’ a preposition, shortened from ‘outside of.’ – Oxford Universal Dictionary. Your pontificating, posturing and postulating of a qualitative difference between these two, in your reaction to the first poster, show you up for the sham you are.


Ah well! At least Ernesto wasn’t a paedophile/ephebophile protector/enabler.

I should imagine that God waved more than a finger at the fossilised old Pole when he arrived at the Pearly Gates, loudly demanding to be admitted.

I should imagine that God gave him the back of his hand on that big bald head, followed by the boot… in the opposite direction.

That’s what I should imagine, so it is.

(Just sayin’, like. For argument’s sake, y’ know. 😀)


And here’s your bonus education: ‘outside of’ is an Americanism; it is not preferred in British English. For the reason I stated in the post above.


An Americanism? Really?
The Oxford English Dictionary records the phrase ‘outside of’ from as far back as 1783 from a British source (O’ Keefe’s ‘The Poor Soldier.’)
Your obsessive reaction to the first poster didn’t speak in terms of preference, but in terms of grammar (sic)!
Educate yourself beyond Wikipedia!


Question: “Why did Satan think he could defeat Christ?
Answer: It is hard to imagine a being like Lucifer (Satan) believing he could even do battle with God much less defeat Him. Even the most depraved mind should be able to see that a creature cannot possibly contend with the Creator. Yet Satan attempted to dethrone God and strives to this day to defy God’s authority, thwart His plans, and damage His children.
Perhaps part of the explanation is that pride has blinded Satan to reality. Two Old Testament passages (Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19) discuss Satan’s original position and the reasons for his loss of that position: his fall from grace! They tell of an exalted angelic being, one of God’s creatures, who became proud, determined to take the throne of God for himself. But God removed him from his position — his wickedness and deceitfulness being revealed.
The reins of God on Satan’s activities are illustrated when Satan asked God for permission to afflict Job (Job 1:7-12). Satan is permitted to afflict God’s people (Luke 13:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; Hebrews 2:14), but he is Never permitted to win an ultimate Victory over them (John 14:30-31; 16:33). A part of Satan’s continuing ambition to replace God is his passionate yearning to have others worship and notice him (Matthew 4:8-9; Revelation 13:4, 12). Satan is “The wicked one” (Matthew 13:19, 38), while God is “The Holy One” (Isaiah 1:4).
Despite Satan’s self-delusion that he can defeat God, Satan is destined to fail. His final defeat is predicted in John 12:31, Revelation 12:9, and 20:10. The death of Christ on the cross is the basis for Satan’s final defeat (Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 Peter 3:18, 22). That event was the great climax to a sinless life during which Christ triumphed over the enemy, repeatedly (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Satan probably rejoiced in the death of Christ, believing it to be a victory for him, but like all his victories, that one, too, was short-lived… — When Jesus rose from the grave, Satan was once more defeated — The final victory will come when Christ returns and Satan is cast into the pit (Revelation 20:1-15).
Satan’s nature is malicious and deceitful; he is opposed to Christ and His ways — Truth. He is the father of all lies and wanders round looking for unsuspecting souls to devour.
During Lent let’s acknowledge our own shortcomings, remembering that the devil, and the foolish, do not get the last say — that is for Christ on Easter Sunday!


Magna, are you off again, luv. It’s Lent, Magna, dearest. ‘Devil’ is diverse: allegorical for evil people of this world, you know. Especially those who hurt innocence and cover-up these abuses. What have you given up for Lent, Maggy? And don’t say poppers! Your own little Calvary!


‘Devil’ is indeed semantically diverse, my dear. So diverse it can refer to Satan, that conglomeration of fallen angels in Hell. (Who tripped them up, I wonder. 🤔) A musing which brings me to the ultimate manifestation of this diversity: ‘Devil’ can mean even ‘Lucifer’, the meaning intended by the poster at 1.36.😀
A-ha ha ha 🤣🤣🙃


The cornerstone which was rejected became their stumbling block, Christ. He is the foundation of the Church. Christ is the only one who can defeat evil — I am nothing without Him. He is my rock and my refuge; my light and my help in whom I trust. I trust in Christ with the docility of a child; He has never let me down. I have listened in awe at angels singing Praise to God. I have seen, literally, the light of Christ’s countenance. I cannot put it into words, but when you see this beautiful light you will just know. It is like a filter is removed and you see the world from a higher perspective.


You diminish your post by saying that Christ is the foundation of the Church, if by ‘Church’ you mean ‘the Roman Strumpet’.


The body of Christ: you and I, we are the Church, including anybody who accepts Christ in their heart and is faithful unto Him, and only Him. Rome is an organisation that cannot accept the Roman Empire ended centuries ago. Quite sad, really. Their credibility is in tatters; their true colours know to all. NO POWER, they cannot even silence people.


At 1:36 a.m. (Are you an American commentator from the fundamentalist bible belt?)

Your interpretations are bizarre and way off the mark. I have time to deal with only the first two of the texts you reference.

1. Isaiah 14:12-15 does not refer to Satan and to a fall from grace. If you go back to v. 3 of the same chapter, you’ll see clearly that the text is referring to the king of Babylon.

2. Ezekiel 28.11-19 is, similarly, not a reference to Satan. It’s a diatribe against the king of Tyre, to whom it is addressed.

I won’t go in to other biblical passages to which you refer. Suffice it to say that your exegesis leaves much to be desired.


Anon at @ 9:11pm – Isaiah 14: –
12 ‘’How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.’’ – this is allegorical imagery, it is used throughout the scriptures. This is the context of evil in rulers and those in high places! (The fall from grace was referring to recent events, something you may not know of…). It is Babylon is, in biblical exegesis, synonymous with the sin and the Devil.
The Neo-Babylon Empire of the mid-first millennium BC, Babylon has both a historic role and a theological role in the Bible. Certain themes become associated with it. In the Book of Revelation, they culminate in the image of the whore of Babylon. As a result of this biblical imagery, Babylon has transcended its historical significance to become synonymous with sin and pride in Western art and literature.
I hope this helps a little Anon?


The whole liberation theology thing has worked out well for Catholicism in Latin America. In 1963, Nicaragua was 95% Catholic.
The U.S. government estimates the total population at 6.1 million (July 2018 estimate). According to the 2005 census (the most recent available), conducted by the Nicaraguan Institute of Statistics and Census, 59% of the population is Catholic and 22% evangelical Protestant, including Pentecostals, Mennonites and Baptists. A survey conducted in June 2017 by M&R Consultants estimates Catholics compose 46% of the population, evangelical Protestants 33%, and religious believers without affiliation 14%. Groups that together constitute less than 4% of the population include Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Lutherans, Jews, Muslims, and nonbelievers.
The evangelicals brought their “prosperity Gospel” from the US. If priests such as this poet had spent more time tending their flock and left politics to the laity (it is a lay vocation) the Church in the region would be in a much healthier state.



Same goes for the Vatican… in reverse! 😨

Just imagine had that bespectacled old fraud, Pius XII, been more righteously involved in German politics during the run-up to, and throughout, WWII, more Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust.

A Christian who is not involved in politics is not following Christ’s example. Doesn’t the Vatican have ambassadors (nuncios) across the globe? They may not officially be members of political parties and governments, but this does not mean that they aren’t actively supporting them. The whole pretense by the Vatican of non-involvement in party politics is just that: a pretense.

JPII was a hypocrite for wagging fingers at Ernesto. He should have grabbed each finger of the arrogant Polish paedophile/ephebophile protector/enabler…and bent them right back.

But Ernesto?! Why did you genuflect to that papal fraud? You genuflect to no one but Christ. And you most emphatically do not bend the knee to paedophile/ephebophile protectors/enablers. Nor to any Romanist cleric. 😱


Good point about Jesus and politics! Jesus was a political activist, in today’s perspective certainly! He is well and truly up for the challenge: and the religious authorities are getting quite worried that He is upsetting the status quo. He has to go — a humongous task! The religious authorities are unable to comprehend His ways; sadly, they do not understand the Scriptures. Principalities and empires are more important to them! They tried, but failed, to silence Him using all kinds of underhanded tricks, but He would not keep his mouth shut. He is walking up the Mount and exclaiming the good news all a louder! What really annoys Him is the outright injustice and duplicitousness He is faced with… I have fed the hungry and addicted, visited the sick and comforted the dying. I stand for those who cannot defend themselves (in hope of preventing more hurt, damage and pain). I want them to understand that I do love them; genuinely love them. I even forgive them — and so Jesus Christ! But love and forgiveness are only the start here: they are the bedrock. There are still present some danger factors which need very careful consideration…


Politics, a lay vocation? What about the political administration of the Papal States? Was that not political? It wasn’t lay.


Haha I can’t wait to read the comments from Fathers Fauntleroy and Cartland today. You’re bang on right again, Pat, especially with the Patron Saint of paedophiles!


7.36: And we look forward to your erudite and enlightening analysis and contribution, Little Lord Cynic. Come on….we wait in hope. Show us your encyclopaedic learning. Try to rise above your shitty mouth.


Pat, your expression of disgust at “that old bastard, POPE ST. JOHN PAUL 11” is about as cheap and ignorant as it can be. Like the rest if your Pat Says, it’s trailer read, tabloid commentary. Seems you are incapable of anything better….


Just shows you how things have changed in Ireland, Bp Pat, when you can freely call the pope an old cuss! And no one gives a wit or a jot about it.


Pat you let yourself down badly with this and show your true nasty colours. May St John Paul II put a curse on you and those closest to you.



You’ve just confirmed that JPII burns in Hell. For nowhere else could curses (willing evil on someone) be made; certainly not in Heaven.

What a pleasant thought! 😁👿


Matthew 25:41 ‘Then the king will say: ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” (The Son of Man in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.)


@4.27pm. What a warped mind to wish that virus on anyone. I dislike Magna intensely but I would never wish that on him or anyone. I don’t know anyone yet who is infected but it must be worrying beyond imagination. That was a despicable thing you wished for. You are probably at the front of the altar rails during lent.



It also rhymes with Muller Rice, which I like.

You weren’t paying attention, were you? 🤣


How is that other cheerleader for Liberation Theology, Leonardo Boff, doin’ these days?

(I think Che Guevera has a lot to answer for. I mean: that iconic beret of his caught on, didn’t it? With Liberation theologians? 🤔)


Ernesto died in peace and reconciled. Buckley hating to the grave and beyond.
Buckley wouldn’t understand liberation theology.


None of the RC junta will get near my death bed.

I did not need them in life. Why would I need them in death?

I am always disappointed with fighters who go over to Rome at the end.

“On to Moscow”, I say.


You’ll be squealing for Rome in the end Buckley when the death rattle sets in. You will be shitting and cacing yourself like the rest.


Your excellency,
If they do get near to you I am sure you will offer them the opportunity to be reconciled to you and will offer them your gracious blessing.
In reality the only circumstances any of them would come near to you would be if they were forced to with the bribe of preferment.
Luckily God gives those who love him discernment and you can thus discern the spirits.




‘To Rome’ , you mean? 😂

You don’t ‘get it’, do you? Reconciliation to the Strumpet avails one of nothing; in fact, Rome is a false God, an idol, which Romanist priests serve over Christ. It is why so very many of them fail to do the things of Christ, like the Polish fathead, who protected/enabled paedophiles and ephebophiles.

Reconciliation with Christ is what matters, not cosying up to an evil, man-made institution. I’m sure Ernesto knew the difference. I hope he did.


1.30: Mag the Rot, don’t you think you should seek real, meaningful reconciliation with CHRIST? If you we’re, your crappy, shitty, ugly and vicious hate speech would be transformed. You would be A CHANGED PERSON……


A-hah hah hah 😅😅😅
You don’t ‘get it’ either, do you? That metanoia and metamorphosis has already taken place. I have gone from being one who bent a deferntial knee to Rome, and to her pimp priests, UNQUESTIONINGLY and UNCRITICALLY. And I am ashamed of the former I, no longer recognisable by me, no longer wanted by me, and ever disowned by me.
If only I could have my time again, I should not do what I did.
But the future is mine. It certainly isn’t that dying, disease-ridden Strumpet’s. 😕
(Just sayin’, so a am. 😆)


2.44: But Magna, don’t forget that the person you now are is UNQUESTIONINGLY DIFFERENT than the “I” you were in the past. The sad news is, if in your words alone, you have changed for the worse. You cannot expect to be accepted as normal, changed and renewed when there is an unstoppable tsunami of hate speech flowing through the repetitive ugly commentary you write. It seems all too easy to activate those self destruct panels in your brain. Mind yourself – emotionally, mentally, spirituality. The endless flow of anger has achieved nothing worthwhile and never will. You are worth more than the lilies of the fields. Remember the Gospel of Jesus….here we will find the vision and pathway to inner calm. None of us alone can change everything we find distasteful and wrong and abhorrent, but we can change ourselves.



Are you intellectually challenged? In a clinical way?

Have you read, in the Old Testament especially, how, and in what words, God hates?

Get over the infantile barrier that expressing hatred is abnormal and sinful.

And if the Fossilised Polish Fathead, and paedophile/ephebophile protector/enabler, can pass through those Pearly Gates, I shall be given a fanfare welcome, and a lift on that old, disused papal sedan.😆


JP II was of the no surrender muscular christianity brigade. It probably served him well when he was standing up to the Communists in Poland. His autocratic and tough stance probably didn’t serve him that well when he was Pope, as seen in his intransigence to listen to concerns about abuse, as in the case of Maciel, or to see the strengths of those who thought differently to him, as seen in the case of Liberation Theology and people like Ernesto Cardenale. This was certainly a lack in JP II’s character and ability. He was binary – black and white, right and wrong were his only two positions, and he was white and right ! Or so he believed.

We see an awful lot about robust leaders and managers these days tipping over in to bullying and disrespect for those they are supposed to lead. Little Priti Patel in the UK is the latest example. She is toast. It is only a matter of time. In the Church, too, we see leaders that don’t listen to people, don’t take advice, diminish those around them, and generally act like tin pot dictators. There are even those who find it hard to contain their tempers, + ‘Brainless’ Brain of Salford being an example – he would throw things at priests with whom he was angry ! + Nichols of Westminster does it in a less obvious form, but he is so convinced of his rightness that he is disinclined to take advice and sidelines people. His priests do not love him. The ex-Anglo Catholic band hate his guts with a vengeance. He is taking lots of flak about the Westminster Cathedral choir trouble at the moment, and even though it is obvious that he has made the wrong choice, and in spite of lots of offers of help from benefactors to the tune of millions of £, he will not back down, because he is arrogant, convinced of his own rightness, and has to win at all costs. No matter the collateral damage. Oh, for holy, kind, wise, fatherly, and gentle bishops who love their priests and people, and don’t make it all about themselves and their ambitions.


Brain was a total waste of space. Another Couve Coco de Bournville product. His nickname among clergy was bungalow brain because he didn’t have anything upstairs. Horrible cad.


There are some interesting assumptions amongst comments today.
Being RC = success.
Being RC = peace.
Being anything else = hatred and failure.
And they try to make out that it isn’t a cult, when it so obviously is!


12.27: Yes Sir Bucks. Excellent in its lies, which are part of your DNA. Didn’t Jesus say something about lies, evil and wrongdoing beung driven out only by prayer and fasting? Or have you, Pat, written your gospel of easy convenience?


Irrefutable points.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still the watchword of many today about the institutional RCC, even though Jesus himself made no such statement, even though he founded no specific assembly, and even though he expressly said of himself ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life ‘.
Is Jesus assembly? Is he church?


12.25: The RCC is not a cult. Errant nonsense. The same soubriquet could most definitely be attributed to Larne – a cult headed by Buckkey. Simple as…..


Rome IS a cult, you blind fool.
Look at her history. Right from the get-go she was demanding absolute doctrinal and behavioural obedience. Familiarise yourself with Paul’s letters: his motto could have been ‘My way, or no way’.
That sense of authoritarianism carried on into the Middle Ages, and beyond. You’ve at least heard of the Papal Inquisition and of its roving death machines, the papal tribunals? People tortured, and put to death for daring to hold what Rome regarded as wrong opinions.
And post physical violence and death by the Roman Strumpet for daring to hold these opinions, punisment by other forms: censorship, silencing, discrimination in jobs (e.g. teaching), etc
Calling Rome a non-cult, with her evil history, is risible.
Grow up, and we’ll stop laughing at you.
Meantime…a-ha ha ha 😅


1:54 also shows a classic denial and diversion pattern.
‘The church is a cult’
Responded with
‘[some other ecclesial body] is a cult’
‘CSA is a problem in the church’
Responded with
‘CSA is a problem in society/the C of E etc’
This pattern of denial is very dangerous because (those who use it will deny this) it actually makes these problems normal and they thus absolve themselves of the need to act. If CSA is a problem for society then it follows that it is for society to deal with it, and the church can ignore it.
A healthy ecclesial body will do a full and frank inventory of its behaviour, will analyse one’s which could be controlling or manipulative and take steps to deal with them. That ain’t the kneejerk reaction of the Cathbots on here lol


I see Mary McAleese is coming out very forcefully about the Jean Vanier affair / scandal:
She might well be seen to be jumping on a bandwagon, but I think that she has something of a point. It does seem possible that bishops and the Vatican did know about Vanier’s ‘proclivities’ for quite some time, perhaps even for decades, and yet did little or nothing to address them. More coverup. Was it a case of the Vatican being enamoured with his good works, as it was with McCarrick’s fundraising and networking abilities, so that it was prepared to overlook his failings ? Perhaps that goes on a lot in the Church ? If somebody has a side or skill that is exceptional, why endanger it by addressing the other side of the coin, their failings ? Well, I would hope that we have all by now learned the lesson that if there is stuff to be addressed, it should be addressed rather than ignoring it or covering it up. Because, eventually it will out, and it will cause even more damage at a later date. And, surely, and more importantly, if there are innocent and vulnerable victims being harmed, should there not be a moral imperative that the matter is addressed as soon as possible, rather than ignored by delay or coverup ? Lots of questions here.


It’s sour grapes with that old hag droopy tits McAleese and that’s it. She couldn’t give a cuss about Vanier as it’s the only excuse she has at hitting back at the Vatican. I suggest Papa Francis uses her letter as toilet paper to show what caca she really is. Horrible bitch.


So the Romanist priest-pimps didn’t know, or know of, the darker side of Vanier?

You’re one of these pimps, aren’t you? Or a Cathbot?


Truth and justice (in a word ‘Christ’) doesn’t matter to any of you parasites, does it?

You make me sick, the lot of you.


4.02: McAleese is in crisis in herself. Pity she doesn’t go on a Lenten fast. What a hag she now is. She has not, unlike Mrs. Robinson, shown any respect to the former office she held nor to the Irish electorate. She abused the CATHOLIC CONSTITUENCY for purely political purposes. Absolute hypocrite. Fake Catholic.


Of course you are right, however I fear your hope is frustrated because I don’t think anyone in the church has actually learned this lesson.
I also think a contributory factor is the high expectations the church has in its official publications. For example, living in sin would not stop you being a doctor or a judge, or even having an affair as long as it wasn’t with a vulnerable person, but it should stop promotion in the church…. Although it doesn’t, and this culture of not expecting the leadership to live up to the official teaching creates a leadership of milksops.


Off topic (sort of), but last night I watched back-to-back episodes of The Trials of Gabriel Fernandez, a Netflix docu-serial. It tells the torturing to death of a little boy in southern California from late 2012 to May 2013, by his own mother, and by her 6ft 2ins, fat-bastard boyfriend.


Here’s some of how.

By starvation.

By daily beatings.

By locking the boy in a small cupboard, night after night (and sometimes during the day), with a bandana over his head, and a sock stuffed into his mouth.

By feeding the boy soiled cat litter when he was ‘bold’ and starving.

By shooting him with ball-bearing pistols, at least once in the face.

By regularly stubbing out cigarettes on his bare flesh.

By punching him in the face.

By scourging him with the buckled end of a leather belt.

And finally, by that big, fat bastard’s lifting a little boy, only 4ft 1ins, right off the floor by his throat, multiple times, and each time slamming his great, big fist into that agonised, terrified little face. And then by tossing him onto the floor, where he stood over him and continued to slam that enormous fist into that broken face. Not content with this, he was joined by the boy’s mother, and the two of them then put the boot into the dying child.

Why did they do this?

Because they thought the child was gay.

I said that my post was only ‘sort of’ off topic, because there is a connection here with the institutional RCC, and the finger-wagging, hypocrite, JPII.

This church has incited hatred of gay people down the centuries, and has used extreme violence against them, from castration, through hanging by the genitalia, all the way to burning alive.

If you think the hatred and contempt that drove so-called ‘men of God’ to these satanic lengths is history, cast your mind back to 1986, to that infamous pastoral letter by Pope Emeritus Benedict (when, as Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, he was prefect of the CDF), in which he warned homosexuals seeking equality with heterosexuals that they shouldn’t be surprised that some might be violent towards them for this. He would have said just the same back when his evil, sadistic predecessors were torturing and murdering gay people. His words, regardless of what he says elsewhere in the same document, were not only incitement to violence, but a justification of it.

The Fossilised Polish Fathead, JPII, approved that infamous letter.

Some fools posting today have lionised the Fossilised Polish Fathead. Doubtless they would do likewise the ex-Nazi, Benedict. But then, I did say elsewhere of Romanist priests that their loyalty to this vile cult prevents them doing the things of Christ.

And just to pre-empt accusations that I myself have incited hatred against Romanist priests, the evidence is clear: I have expressed hatred of these parasites, and I make absolutely no apology for it. But I have not incited it. And I certainly have not castrated any of them, or had them hung by their genitalia, or burned alive. So to all the Romanist pimps who will burn to make this point about me: stick it guys; I ain’t interested. Stay on this topic: the hatred and violence the church YOU serve has done to LGBT people, not just in history, but even today.


3.46: Marge Bargy: Of course you are a hate inciting bastard. A monster hater. A vile sub species. You ABUSE by YOUR WORDS. You are an ugly bigot, hater and fascist. Your world is inky abiut you, you, you. Yes indeed Marge, you have creared within your body a monstrous hateful, dangerous human being.


5.34: Good laugh. The monster is getting larger. It, Magna, is on the loose with hatred. Doesn’t matter what it says. It is out of control on drink.


3.46: What a bore. Magna….yawn, yawn, yawn….😑😑😄😄😄🦍🦍🦍🦍


Magna you’ve hit some nerves 👍
Perhaps other of the faithful will be invoking the curse of the Patron Saint of paedophiles on you! That’s the level they function at lol


Magna, I have more than once called you out over intemperate language, but in this case I think your anger is righteous and appropriate. I don’t need to reinforce what you say, but rather support you in your condemnation of the disgusting history of incitement to violence which has characterized the Church’s hostility to gay people. It undermines any claim to justice; and don’t even get me started on those old frauds among the Orthodox, let alone “deniers” among the Evangelical right.


4.54: McAleese is looking contorted with pretend anger. She is not the only one who feels betrayed by Vanier. She is a disgrace. Even looks haggard, worn and aged. That’s what anger and hatred does to your body.


5.52: Magna, why don’t you care? Psychologically, most drink dependent psychos don’t care about anything or anyone but him/herself. It’s part of the illness. You fit this category in an eminent way, but so destructive to your emotional intelligence. Get help.


Drink-dependent psychos? You’ll find a lot of these in the RCC. Men who could rape little girls and boys, and feel nothing for their victims. Men so filled with the compassion of Christ that they went on to abuse again, and again, and again.
Men so devoid of even a vestige of emotion, or of compassion, that they thought it right to protect these criminals rather than the children they had cowardly attacked.
Men, like Pope Emeritus Benedict, who described the sadistic monsters of the Papal Inquisition as ‘filled with zeal for God’. That’s right: you read correctly. This is how ex-Nazis think; this is their mindset. Cruelty is contorted to become what it clearly is not, and this form of percrption is a mark of the schizophrenic, or of the delusionally disordered. And, from a spiritual point of view, there is no probing this mind; no understanding it. Because it is not the mind of Christ. I should love to have Benny take the ink-blot test: the results would be fascinating, if predictable.
Your church, priest, is vanishing into a blackhole of…human indifference. You no longer matter, because most people no longer give a damn what you say, since you have nothing to say that could raise a soul to God.
When people aren’t angry and disgusted with you, they are laughing at you, such is your utter unimportance to them.
Many people now are thinking as ordinary Germans did post-WWII: How did we ever allow ourselves to be seduced by self-serving madmen? 😆


7.15: Margaret: Now stop your hating. Find more productive outlets for all that energy, not with children or vulnerable adults: you’d scare them but hop on down to a nearby farm and play around with the goats and hogs!! You might even find a slug or two. Good company you’d make for them…


Magna at 7.15: You deserve all hirrible criticism levelled against you. Prove to us that YOU are a human being. The nasty things said about you are self inflicted. If you give out dirty, ugly poison, be prepared to receive the same. Otherwise shut up.


6.18: Magna, we all know you probably are the one most qualified to see the flaws of her majesty, McAleese, as it is now evident that you bith share a dangerous propensity for angry, nasty, vitriolic prose. God forbid she woukd ever be ordained!! Much like you, she has a deep reservoir of passive aggression in her, the result of feeling rejected. If Mrs. McAleese spoke so aggressively to fellow human being like this in a parish setting, or treated any of them in dismissive, mocking terms, she’d have harrassment law suits against her. If she is threatening to leave the Catholic Church, she’ll have great difficulty finding the perfect church community.


This is another recurring theme in denial, because it implies the critic is looking for something unattainable or unreasonable, thus shifting the problem to them and distracting from the thing being criticised. Not once have I heard a critic of the RC junta make unreasonable demands such as expecting perfection, so this can only be a deliberate distraction.
Rather, the critics of the RC junta are critical of its long history of criminal activity, covering up crime and continuing to fail to put efficient safeguards in place to stop this happening again. They are also critical of the church’s targeting of people such as gays, it’s rules which cause poverty and misery in the faithful and its immense wealth and financial corruption.
But hey ho, if you see these things as small imperfections which can be tolerated, the RC church is just the place for you!


5.49: Not nerves Magna has hit!! It’s the bottles of gin….Don’t you think? 🐽🐽🐽🐽🐽🐽🍋🍋🍋🍋🍋🍋….


Nobody has made the Occam’s razor comment about today. The figures are up there 👆
Since Liberation Theology became a thing in Nicaragua the proportion of the population who is RC has significantly fallen. This is a success for liberation theology because guess what it’s about LIBERATION, and a high proportion of the population has been liberated! 🤣


Good point.
Liberation Theology, at its most fundamental, is about freeing people from oppression, whether that be political, or pseudi-religious.
The Fossilised Polish Fathead, JPII, coming from the backwoods of a Poland crushed by oppression should have understood this, especially since his own vile cult, the RCC, is one of the oldest oppressors of humankind.


The Church is a political institution. It has manipulated if not hijacked the powerful moral reality that is the life and work of the Galilean Jew, Yeshua. Whatever can be ascertained from his life has been set aside in the desire to create a theological fantasia which has gripped this institution for almost 2 millenia.

Christianity? We need to substitute that word with something far more fitting- CHURCHIANITY

Ernesto Cardenal is the victim of a political institution called The Church and its Churchianity . Ernesto’s life exemplifies the life and work of the Galilean Jew, Yeshua.


Please note, the saner among you.
I, truly, long for the days of the Spanish Republicans, who dealt with Romanist clerics and others as they should have been dealt with.


Good point NatLog.
We know all to well what is the agenda of Rome: politically and morally. No virtue to be found here.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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