The Pope is dead: Benedict conspiracy theories still alive

 with Pope Benedict dying, the conspiracy theories about his election and resignation will die, or maybe not.

My conspiracy theory?

At the time, the European Union was planning to indict him for covering up pedophilia, never mind that Pope JP2 put him in charge of that office to clean it up, and even Professor Podles, who wrote one of the books on the problem, admit he tried.

And at the time, bank investigations by someone interfered with the Vatican bank: something about money laundering (which all the big banks do and get away with, and the infiltration of the vatican Bank by mafir is well known: see conspiracy theory about the death of JP1 or Windswept housem or even the movie Godfather 3). 

Well, anyway, ignoring the plank in their own institutions, the powers that be decided to criticize the mote in those of the vatican and voila, closed the ATM so that the (civilian) employees couldn't get paid.

Third: There was a large 300 page report on the infiltration of the church by dissadents/ gay mafia/ regular mafia/ freemasons/ bad guys (it was never clear) and this was a secret: (was this why the butler got charged for leaking? Who knows... and isn't it strange that as soon as Cardinal Burke started finding problems, an old, discredited pedophile case against him in Australia put him in jail, with the press there condemning him (in a way that reminds one of the anti religion hysterical reporting against the church lady whose baby was killed by a dingo but accused of killing her kid... see the movie a cry in the dark).

Well, anyway, the rule is that when there is a new pope, everyone in the Vatican curia and offices automatically turn in their resignations. Meaning that instead of persuing a long easily twarted legal case against each one suspected of wrong doing, they would no longer be employees and could be replaced by people who would be honest and true.

But when Francis took over, that large report disappeared into a black hole and was never seen again.

Finally, the manipulation of the college of cardinals by the St Gallen mafia let them promote Francis as a good guy, and many thought because he was an outsider he could do the church  cleanup better than an insider. Alas, this has proved false: he  has proved that the word "jesuitical" is still valid: i.e. lying and manipulative to get something done.

So what can we do? Pray the rosary.

Francis Alinskky tactics strike again

The German bishops wanted to "reform" the church, so they held a bishop's meeting on the family and tried to sneak their agenda (easy divorce) into the meeting, but got caught.

their ultimate aim is pushing fault free divorce and homosexual activity as not a sin, of course.

(quick theology note here: Yes, Catholics think that being gay is not a sin, and is probably at least partly inborn, similar to how substance abuse and bipolar/promiscuity is inborn: You were born with this weakness, but that doesn't give you a pass for your behavior. But it does mitigate the depth of the sin: the biggest sin  is not falling into sin from weakness, which is often repented by the person, but a sin based on pride and egotism).

They snuck it into a footnote of one of the Pope's 300 page tomes, presumably figuring no one will read the whole thing, and that has caused mischief, but never mind.

The problem goes beyong divorce/sexual issues and directly into the Eucharist.

Catholics are old fashioned, and agree with the bible that this is the actual body and blood of Christ, which is why the Christians were often accused of "cannibalism" in ancient Rome.

and as Paul notes: You don't receive the sacrament carelessly or when you are in sin.

But now the German bishops are ignoring the holiness of the sacrament, and insisting that it's okay for someone in a second or third marriage to receive it, and now insisting that "non Catholic spouses" who feel hurt should be allowed to receive the sacrament that they "feel" is just a nice piece of bread.

Uh, no. But never mind. Hurt feelings are more important than reality. But of course the German bishops are "modernists" who think the whole thigamabob of religion is just fantasy, so it doesn' t matter.

Crazylady AnnBarnhart says that it's easier to understand if you realize they just don't believe in the faith.

or if you read Rev Wilkerson's book from the 1970's The Vision, where he saw the church being infiltrated with career minded men who were planning to make the church into another SJW NGO.

Or if you read the message of "Akita" where she saw priests and bishops fighting with each other and some were sad because they couldn't follow what they were being told to do.

But anyway, the next agenda is of course wimenpriests. And married priests.

and that will be done by fiat by slight of hand via the "Amazon" meeting that is scheduled.

OnePeterFive has the report here

This goes beyond the question if women can lead: It goes to the basis of modern feminine ideas that women and men are interchangable. And of course, notice that believing nuns like Mother Teresa or Mother Angelica would be good priests, but don't want to be priests because they recognize that our inborn gender is part of us, and that social institutions work best when they are based on this reality and not on the utopian dreams of the modern day Marxists.

as for married priests: The Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches already allow married men to become priests, but one suspects what they want is that men who are already priests should break their vows and marry, the underlying idea is that hey, everyone needs sex, don't they?

As for pedophilia: open secret about gay cartels pressuring believing seminarians out of the seminary (if they got in: they often were screened by feminist nuns and pro homosexual psychologists, as was done in the Altoona diocese, so if they objected to the agenda they were deemed to "rigid" and denied a place).

but this is true in non Catholic seminaries too, where one report noted 30 to 50percent of those studying in mainline church seminaries are gay, and one dirty little secret is the lesbian womenpriests who are leading the charge to legalize abortion and the rest of the sexual agenda.

So the world is falling apart.

as for the Amazon: Remember those nasty Protestants who are trying to stop the Amazon tribes from killing their kids that I wrote about?

Wonder why these bishops say nothing about it?

Because they are part of the problem: again from 1pet5:

 the document highlights that we, the Catholic Church, can learn from those indigenous peoples. It highlights the role of “Wise elders – called interchangeably ‘payés, mestres, wayanga or chamanes,’ among others” who “promote the harmony of people among themselves and with the cosmos.” In light of the papal encyclical Laudato si and its attentiveness to putative ecological problems in the world, and thus to the need for an “ecological conversion,” the indigenous people are being presented as someone we should listen to and learn from...

Sandro Magister hits again

Father Z comments on a speech by a lay theologian/scholar on the Pope's opinion letter. e Overwhelm them with MEGO trivia and then hide the real agenda in a footnote.

Sandro Magister article in Chiesa title: Alice in Amoris L land has the entire speech.

Why the sheer wordiness of it, all 260 pages of it, more than three times the length of "Familiaris Consortio"? This is surely a great pastoral discourtesy. Yet Pope Francis wants "each part" to be "read patiently and carefully" (n. 7).

Well, some of us have had to do so. And so much of it is of a tedious, light-weight character. In general I find Pope Francis’ discourse, not only here, but everywhere else, flat and one dimensional. "Shallow" might capture it, and "facile" too: no sense of depth upon depth lying beneath words holy and true, inviting us to launch into the deep....

Several times through this document I have paused and wondered: “I haven’t heard of Christ for pages". 

All too often we are subjected to long tracts of homespun avuncular advice that could be given by any secular journalist without the faith, the sort of thing to be found in the pages of Reader’s Digest, or one of those Lifestyle inserts in weekend newspapers.
 It is true, some doctrines of the Church are robustly upheld, e.g. against same-sex unions (n. 52) and polygamy (n. 53), gender ideology (n. 56) and abortion (n. 84); there are affirmations of the indissolubility of marriage (n. 63), and its procreative end, and an upholding of "Humanae Vitae" (nn. 68, 83 ), the sovereign rights of parents in the education of their children (n. 84), the right of every child to a mother and a father (nn. 172, 175), the importance of fathers (nn. 176, 177). You can even occasionally find a poetic thought, such as ‘the gaze’ of contemplative love between spouses (nn. 127-8), or the maturing of good wine as an image of the maturing of spouses (n. 135 ).

But all this laudable doctrine is undermined, I submit, by the overall rhetoric of the exhortation, and by that of Pope Francis’ entire papacy. 

These affirmations of catholic doctrine are welcome, but, it needs to be asked, do they have any more weight than that of the passing and erratic enthusiasm of the current incumbent of St Peter’s Chair? 

I am serious here. My instinct is that the next position threatening to crumble, will be the issue of same-sex "marriage". 

If it is possible to construct a justification of states of objective adultery, on the basis of recognizing "the constructive elements in those situations not yet corresponding to the Church’s teaching on marriage" (n. 292), "when such unions attain a particular stability, legally recognized, are characterized by deep affection and responsibility for their offspring" (n. 293) etc., how long can you defer applying exactly the same line or reasoning to same-sex partnerships?

for later reading...