In March, Francis publicly took the hand of Fr. Luigi Ciotti, an openly pro-homosexual priest.

WHEN Jorge Bergoglio uttered his famous phrase, “Who am I to judge?” last year, many Catholics refused to believe that he was saying what he was saying. They made copious excuses. They complained of the deviousness of the media. They said his message of mercy had value. Even as he was lavished by awards and praise by homosexual organizations and publications, they claimed Bergoglio was being misinterpreted. Now perhaps those who were in denial can recognize the truth: Bergoglio does not consider sodomy gravely sinful and believes that homosexuals should be publicly welcomed into the Church. The recent midterm report by the “Extraordinary Synod of the Bishops on Family” goes much farther than Bergoglio’s seemingly off-the-cuff statement in a plane interview. The report was introduced and read in front of Francis, who has not repudiated it.

Would it ever occur to you to say that thieves have good qualities? Thieves and even murderers do have good qualities. But if someone said to you, “Thieves and murderers have much to offer the Christian community,” you would probably find that offensive because a thief cannot offer anything good to a Christian community until he first stops being a thief or the Christian community first stops being Christian. 

The following statement in the synod report is entirely predicated on the idea that homosexual activity is not wrong and that those engaged in the sin of sodomy can be members in good standing of the Catholic Church:

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

 Substitute robbery or assault and battery for the references to homosexuality above and in the rest of the statement:

51. The question of homosexuality [robbery] leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the [economic] sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that [robbery] unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as [honest financial transactions] matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

52. Without denying the moral problems connected to [robbery] homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice [between two burglars] constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with [robbers] couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

According to Thomas Droleskey, this passage “reflects the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio perfectly.” Dr. Droleskey writes:

It also reflects the “mind,” such as it is, of the man who presided over most of the “Second” Vatican Council, Giovanni Battista Montini/Paul VI, who will be “beatified” in but five days from today. Montini’s own “homosexual gifts” made him subject to blackmail by agents of the Soviet Union into betraying Catholic priests behind the Iron Curtain, each of whom was discovered and killed, when he was working in the Secretariat of State under Pope Pius XII. Those same “gifts” made him subject to further blackmail as “Pope Paul VI” when was blackmailed by the Masons in Italy into authorizing the cremation of bodies in 1964:

[Atila[ Guimarães quotes Franco Bellegrandi, a former member of the Vatican Noble Guard, part of the papal military corps, who witnessed the unfortunate changes that occurred at the Vatican after Pope Paul VI took office.

Bellegrandi repeats the charge that while Archbishop of Milan, Montini, dressed in civilian clothes, was picked up by the local police on one of the archbishop’s nocturnal visits to the male brothels of the city.

The former Vatican guard describes the homosexual colonization process that he says began under Pope John XXIII, but which accelerated under Montini’s rule–a process with [which] the reader should by now be thoroughly familiar. Bellegrandi says that old employees were turned out of their jobs at the Vatican to make room for Montini’s favored brethren afflicted with the same vice. They in turn brought along their favorite catamites–“effeminate young men wearing elegant uniforms and make-up on their faces to dissimulate their beards,” says Bellegrandi.

Bellegrandi says that he was told by an official of the Vatican security service that Montini’s actor friend was permitted free access to the pontifical apartments and was seen taking the elevator late at night.

One of the statements made by Bellegrandi that attracted my attention was that Montini no sooner took office than he was subject to blackmail by Italian Freemasons. In exchange for their silence regarding Archbishop Montini’s furtive sojourns to Switzerland to rendezvous with his actor-lover, who appears to have been quite open about his relationship with the prelate, the Masons demanded that the pope eliminate the Church’s traditional ban on cremation after death. The pope complied. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, p. 1156)

An elderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an official interpreter for high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer that the Soviets blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of priests whom the Vatican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent to the gulag.

The extent to which Pope Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Church will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini’s cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the other hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI.

There can be no question that Pope Paul VI’s homosexuality was instrumental in the paradigm shift that saw the rise of the Homosexual Collective in the Catholic Church in the United States, at the Vatican and around the world in the mid-20th century.

Pope Paul VI played a decisive role in the selection and advancement of many homosexual members of the American hierarchy, including Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Terence Cardinal Cooke, John Cardinal Wright and Archbishop Rembert Weakland and Bishops George H. Guilfoyle, Francis Mugavero, Joseph Hart, Joseph Ferrario, James Rausch and their heirs.

The knowledge that a homosexual sat in the Chair of Peter–knowledge that spread like wild-fire on the “gay” gossip circuit–would certainly have served as an inducement for homosexual men to aspire to the priesthood and even prompt them to contemplate the unthinkable–a religious order or community composed exclusively of sodomites.

Most important, the long-guarded quasi-secret of Paul VI’s homosexual life has, for decades, contributed to the silence and cover-up by the American hierarchy on the issue of homosexuality in general and the criminal activities of pederast priests in particular.

But it is a secret no longer.

The final piece of the puzzle has been put in place.

“Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.” Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1156-1157)

Indeed, the conciliar revolution that was spawned at least in part by those inclined to the commission of perverse sins against nature, something that can be demonstrated in the art, architecture and music of the conciliar liturgy as well as by its orations, most of which mention nothing about a God who judges or about the possibility of eternal damnation or even the necessity of doing penance for one’s sins, has created given diocesans and schools and hospitals in the control of the conciliar officials a decidedly lavender slant, if you will.

As the conciliar church is “all inclusive,” except to those who reject its blasphemies, outrages and sacrileges without agreeing to silence as a price of “admission” and tolerance, it is not surprising to find clerics and lavender activists in the conciliar structures who justify their support for unrepentant sins against nature … to justify themselves before men. They are as militant and as “in your face” as they are because their mission is convince everyone, including God Himself, that they are right, that anyone who opposes them is “hateful” and opposed to “human rights.” Thus it is that they must protest that the following warning that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave about the fate of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha wasn’t really spoken by Him but was placed in His mouth by others, which is utter blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired every word of Sacred Scripture to be written exactly as we read them today:

And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10: 11-15.)

Our Lord was wrong?

Please follow and like us: