Troppa frociaggine.
It’s an Italian expression meaning “too much faggotry”—that’s not a rough translation, and the Italian word hits about as hard as the English—and Pope Francis reportedly used it in a closed-door gathering with the bishops of Italy last week in the Vatican, while discussing the admission of homosexual men to Italian seminaries (among other things), a sensitive topic in light of the Italian bishops’ ongoing work on new admissions standards for their seminaries.
“There is too much frociaggine in Italian seminaries,” the leading Italian papers quoted Pope Francis as having said, the implication being that there is too much of the thing already and therefore no need for more of it.
There’s been a lot of talk in the press—especially in the secular mainstream—about whether Pope Francis knew what he was saying, but there wasn’t much discussion of whether he said the thing.
Make no mistake: This is really bad—and practically unspinnable.
When is an apology …?
The press office eventually issued a statement, including an apology, but it came nearly a full day after the story began circulating and may well prove to be short of the line.
“Pope Francis is aware of the articles recently published about a conversation, behind closed doors, with the bishops of the CEI,” the statement begins.
The statement goes on to note how Pope Francis has spoken on numerous occasions of how the Church is open to all, without qualification or precondition. “In the Church,” the statement says, quoting Francis directly, “there is room for everyone, for everyone! Nobody is useless, nobody is superfluous, there is room for everyone. Just as we are, all [of us].”
“The Pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms,” the press office statement says, “and he apologizes to those who felt offended by the use of a term, [which was] reported by others.”
It isn’t surprising that an 87-year-old should have such language to hand—or harbor the sentiments behind such language, whatever his public persona is or may be—but there are lots of people and institutions deeply invested in the narrative of a pope open to everyone and ready to welcome all comers, which means no one should be surprised by the gymnastics on this one, either.
If one were to defend the substance of his remark, the defense would have to come along the lines of a distinction—poorly articulated as it may have been—between objection to the presence of homosexual men in formation houses as such, and concerns over the general cultural climate in such institutions.
It is possible to hold the objection and to have such concerns, together or separately, without exposing oneself to a charge of homophobia.
If Pope Francis attempted any similar distinction, no one has come forward to suggest he did or offer anything in the way of an explanation.
How’d we get here, and where to, now?
This media-savvy pope’s best hope is in the big secular mainstream narrative drivers giving him a pass on his nasty slur, mostly because they won’t let themselves be caught misreading any subject as badly as they’ve misread Pope Francis right from the start.
Pope Francis also appears to be counting on his erstwhile cheerleaders and apologists in the Cathosphere to make a show of perplexity (even disappointment) before getting back to business as usual, but that’s another story.
Quite apart from the PR side of the story—and most importantly—Pope Francis’s penchant for personal rule conducted by means of innuendo and indirection is laid bare.
Maybe now folks on every side can begin to pay something like the necessary attention to the context from which hacks ripped the five most famous words of the Francis pontificate: “Who am I to judge?”
That rhetorical question came from Pope Francis’s response to a journalist who had asked about the presence and activity of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican. The journalist had asked the question because Pope Francis had put Msgr. Battista Ricca in a sensitive post.
Ricca had reportedly been found—beaten—in a gay cruising area of Montevideo while on diplomatic assignment to Uruguay and even once discovered in the company of a young man who was a known quantity to the local authorities.
Ricca also is reported to have caused some considerable consternation to his superiors in the diplomatic service by seeking favors for a retired officer of the Swiss army who was his particular friend.
All that might have made Ricca’s appointment a no-no for security reasons, quite apart from considerations touching the private moral sphere, but apparently Pope Francis trusted Ricca because his personnel jacket was clean.
Almost everyone ignored the context of the statement, almost entirely, both in the moment and over the long haul of the Francis pontificate.
Pope Francis appears now to be banking on folks’ just not letting themselves be that wrong about anything, not if they can help it.
Wringing hands
The early hemming and hawing—even in what was supposed to be straight news copy—about whether Pope Francis really and fully intended to say what he said to the Italian bishops on May 20th suggests the pope may not have been entirely wrong, but it’s to early too say.
To that point, it is fair to note, Pope Francis has a pretty good grasp of the Italian tongue’s saltier side.
One thinks of the time he mispronounced the Italian word, caso–“case”—for another word, cazzo (slang for the male member), and quickly corrected himself. That was the sort of mistake as could happen to anyone in any language, native or mastered, a mere slip of the tongue and good for a laugh. He knew enough to correct himself.
This time, on May 20th in the new synod hall at the Vatican, in the presence of what was practically an entire national episcopate, the alleged remark was really something.
Pope Francis was certainly engaging in banter, which is telling, but was that all?
Comms people can minimize the damage of self-harm. Sometimes, they can get their own goals walked back. Occasionally, they can turn a defeat into a major PR victory. When your principal entertains that sort of language, however, you’ve already lost.
Either Pope Francis was only making talk, or he was also making something very like policy.
If the former, it is a disappointing show of colors.
If the latter, it means Pope Francis meant to convey at least his policy preferences to a group of senior leaders and meant that his preferences be known to those leaders but kept off the record.
What’s there to see?
A picture emerges of the narrow situation: A pope who wants the bishops of Italy to implement a sort of gentlemen’s agreement not to admit homosexual men to priestly formation, and also wants to keep dining out on the narrative of “Who am I to judge?” (and Todos! Todos! Todos!)—but wants everyone on every side of the narrow issue to think they know where he stands, and also wants everyone—everyone in the know—to know what the score really is.
Even if you agree with Pope Francis on the merits of the question—and there are plenty of good reasons to agree with him or at least be sympathetic to his concern over clerical culture—that’s just no way to talk about people.
The episode raises another, broad question: What other semi-secret quasi-policies are there?
This isn’t an atavistic reflex breaking through Pope Francis’s avuncular schtick, in other words, but a real and telling illustration of how this man governs. That is a problem for the Church, because this is no way to run any outfit, either, not even a club for grumpy old men.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
When you read the statements of Bergoglio’s predecessors, there was never any question about who was speaking. They all spoke with authority, logic, wisdom, tact and reverence. They were, in a word, papal.
They were men of faith.
Whereas this guy Bergoglio is anything but.
When he spews his ugliness, he sounds more like a truck driver than a pope.
Or maybe the manager of a bowling alley.
Or sometimes even Homer Simpson.
It’s getting very tiring.
That is a scurrilous insult to Homer Simpson.
And to bowling alley managers.
🙂
My mother’s grandfather was raised above the bowling alley his parents ran. I have to admit he did use some colourful and politically incorrect language.
Yes, I can see that, Lex.
Thank you for calling me to account.
If St. Francis doesn’t deserve to be associated with Bergoglio, then neither does Homer.
LOLOL!
Or, for that matter, bowling alley managers — thanks, mrs c!
Well, trying to figure out the “why” of this whole thing is certainly a “puzzlement,” to quote from “The King and I”. I submit, though, that the most puzzling aspect of this puzzlement is why the pope should suddenly reveal (albeit in “private”) that he actually detests the very people whose affection he’s been courting so passionately and (apparently) sincerely these past 11 years. After all, he’s been sorely offending all orthodox Catholics this whole time by repeatedly posturing as pro-gay–and now, this? On the other hand, the bishops’ motives for leaking this to the press in apparent violation of the pope’s expectations of privacy for a “private” meeting, I think, are much easier to discern. It’s reasonable to assume that the leakers, if not themselves gay, are at least on board the LGBTQ+… bandwagon, and have been assuming all along that Francis is just as enthusiastic as they are. Then all of a sudden, like a lightning bolt from a blue sky, to their utter amazement, he expresses strong contempt for homosexuality in earthy terms, and demands that the seminaries be rid of it! The bishops must have been standing (or sitting) there open-mouthed and goggle-eyed! They know now they’ve been had! Of course they squeal to the press. What else could they do?
Dear Larry, good comment. Yet, how sure can we be that the whole thing was not totally, cynically orchestrated?
This affair would seem far more sinister if the ‘uncertain’ & ‘accidental’ leak was cunningly planned as a way to try to assuage the anger of so many Catholics over the evidence of unrestricted clergy homosexual intercourse (the ‘lilac mafia cartel’) & PF’s persistent public cherishings of LGBT causes, including profane couple-blessings in Catholic churches.
Is this whole thing a: “Now you see me, now you don’t!” beat-up?
Premeditated ground-bait for the pope-hungry media?
“Truth? What is that?” P. Francis enacting P. Pilot?
Jesus Christ self-describes as THE TRUTH, not as the truths . . . but then, we might suppose, the PF pr machine will say He is in a box of suicidal conservatism.
Always in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
This pontificate makes me think of the movie SCEMO E PIÚ SCEMO.
In all fairness, this Pope often says one thing and does another. So what if he let slip a slur about active homosexual seminarians? At least the Pope has promoted and protected more active homosexuals, including pederasts, than any of his predecessors. Who is the NYT and New Ways Ministry to judge? It is wrong that they act like the Pope’s master, mercilessly demanding an apology for a bit of Peronist banter. The personal magisterium of Pope Francis need not apologize to anyone.
Well, let’s take a closer look at this. The pope’s rough, derogatory language coupled with the quick public apology show, pretty obviously, that he never expected that this episode would become public and was caught completely off guard when it did. I’ll bet he’s furious with the leakers. But what does that say? We can (and should) infer that here he shows us his real attitude on homosexuality. Whenever someone says something in private that would reflect badly on him were the remark to be made public, you know he is showing you his true self. But what else does this tell us about Francis? Clearly, he never expected that his listeners would be so shocked and offended that they would run singing to the press. He misjudged them. He took it for granted that this flagrant duplicity would never bother them. He believed they were as cold, calculating and pragmatic as he was, and he has found out, to his amazement I believe, that his listeners had taken seriously his numerous displays of affection and support for gays and their cause over the years–that these bishops were true believers (in his stated views)–who all this time thought he was sincerely working to achieve a gayer church, as were they. When all of a sudden in one unguarded moment, he revealed his true contempt and loathing for those whom he had been praising and lifting up all these years–I think it was like throwing a bucket of ice water in these bishops’ faces. Not only did they find out he’d been publicly running a scam just to win gays’ support, but they also found out that he believed the bishops were okay with that. A double slap–to the LGBTQ+ movement and to the bishops. Hence, the leak. This is not the end of the matter, by any means.
Who, when looking at today’s priesthood, cannot help but agree with Pope Francic’ salty assessment? Yes, we do need to be compassionate toward sinners and yes, any sinner should be able to get a blessing. But the priesthood demands that the priest be manly in the manner of Christ. However salty the Pope’s language, he happens to be right,
Beautifully done, dear Fool!
Now I will forever think of Bergoglio as Jeff Daniels.
Is it a slur against individuals or impolite language about certain behaviors ?
I want to believe the latter. But with this pope, I have absolutely no idea.
He didn’t, judging by the translation provided, say “too many faggots,” but rather “too much faggotry.” Thus he was referring to behavior. As in “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” There was no reason to apologize.
The only offensive thing was the spokesmen using the word “homophobic;” a nonsensical word invented to frame anyone who has moral objections to vile and evil behavior as mentally ill.
A Pope who took his position seriously would make upholding Catholic laws, beliefs and traditions responsibility number one. However this Pope is a master of vague two sided statements. And has been disturbingly loose about meeting and APPROVING the actions of pro-abortion politicians, and elevating homosexuality to acceptability. He allowed an Amazonian idol to be brought onto Vatican grounds, and a recently held Vatican youth day for children featured a man dressed in drag. Who approved that?? As the years have gone on this Pope has often needed his statements explained or revised because they are in opposition to Catholic law. At 87 years of age , maybe it is time for this Pope to follow the lead of Benedict and resign.
.
The BBC are not impressed with the apology https://x.com/CatholicSat/status/1795495699603497374
Leave it to the BBC…
Aleem Maqbool is Muslim. His two predecessors in the same role since 2009 are Muslim or of Muslim background.
Hardly coincidences!
https://vfjuk.org.uk/stop-aleem-maqbools-appointment-as-head-of-religion-for-the-bbc-sign-the-petition/
The last time the BBC did was during ww2 now their wokeism together with the murder of the unborn must be accepted if you want to join!
Nothing to see here folks. This is the same pope who meets with James Martin and blesses gay couples.
The destroyer.
Pope-splanation:
The Pontiff Francis is guilty of krypto-anti-homophilia.
One may suspect that Pope Francis desire to be politically correct exceeds his desire to be theologically correct whose Word truly, truly shall never pass those the reign of this Pope shall surely pass.
Our Call to Holiness is a Call to Abide In The Word Of God, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2011/09/to-abide-in-christ-to-abide-in-church.html
Jorge Bergoglio, as a cardinal, denied Christ’s Call to Holiness:
Jorge Bergoglio’s heresy became manifest and made public., demonstrating that as a cardinal he had defected from The Catholic Faith.
Jorge Bergoglio could not have been canonically elected to the Papacy due to the fact that prior to his election as pope, on page 117 of his book, On Heaven And Earth, demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and he continues to act accordingly, he stated: “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church: 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121 1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“
“Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
Perfect Love does not divide, it multiplies, as in The Miracle Of The Loaves And Fishes.
He’s a fake.
“…When he spews his ugliness, he sounds more like a truck driver than a pope…”.
Sorry Brineyman, I seriously disagree. In dealing with many many truck drivers over the years I much prefer them over Bergoglio. They generally are what they present themselves to be and most are solid righteous folks – and are not conniving and deceptive, which are the hallmark traits of the current papacy!
I certainty agree with that..,
Eh. It’s a perfectly apt way to describe an evil behavior.
I, too, resent the slur against truck drivers.
Just sayin’.
True.
A timely blessing for Memorial Day and its related needs from the Holy Spirit through The Mother & her beloved Son – the Holy Father, as a sigh and prayer for freedom from generational spirits too – https://spiritdailyblog.com/inspiration/question-of-the-week-whats-in-your-ancestry
Surprised at the surprise about the words of the Holy Father- any more wondering too if the author does these articles with a little chuckle, in his own deeply hidden affection for the Fatherly goodness of the Holy Father !
Grateful too for the attention being paid – seeing in same The Spirit manifesting – ‘all things work well for those who love God , called according to His Will ..’-
Feast Day of Pope St.Paul the V1 today – unsure if he ever used strong words like his name sake St.Paul on matters that grieved his heart.
Holy Father has been a prophetic voice on the matter at hand on enough occasions in the past too even when media has tried to do its mission of distortions ; he has been warning about the twisted roots that connect the evil – as clericalism, seven times worse demons, spiritual pride etc : in the denial of responsibility to be spiritual warriors in love and fidelity for The Lord , in those who have taken vows to bring the wounded unto The Father instead of choosing to serve the wolf !
Lord to be the judge too if there were decisions / choices made in the goodness of his heart trusting that like St.Paul, persons would convert soon enough , to become powerful tools in the Hands of The Mother !
May the prayers of all – holy souls and Sts accompany us all unto days hereafter too for the ongoing conversions needed ! Mercy !
Quote: “Holy Father has been a prophetic voice on the matter at hand on enough occasions in the past too even when media has tried to do its mission of distortions ; he has been warning about the twisted roots that connect the evil – as clericalism, seven times worse demons, spiritual pride etc : in the denial of responsibility to be spiritual warriors in love and fidelity for The Lord , in those who have taken vows to bring the wounded unto The Father instead of choosing to serve the wolf !
A voice of a false prophet, yes.
A man full of pride who is preaching against a sin of pride or a man whose actions are clericalism (take a case of Rupnik for example) who is preaching against clericalism achieves one thing only: he discredits what he preaches, teaches duplicity and induces despair in those very “wounded sheep” he speaks about so eloquently.
Why would saying there is too much faggotry in a place be any different than saying there is too much thievery in a place or too much violence? Why is the one offensive and the others not? They are all forms of fallen behavior, and that is so even if the faggotry stops short of sodomy but includes exaggerated effeminacy, etc.. I saw a lot that in seminaries and religious houses I visited back in the 80s and 90s when I considered a vocation. We are getting very prissy (no doubt some may be offended by that term) about our language are we not?
My respect for Francis notched up a bit this week. At least he has healthy reactions to such behaviour.
I’m genuinely baffled by the responses I’m reading. To my mind, this was one of the most refreshing things the Pope has said. There is too much of that in seminaries. An ugly slur? Well, it’s an ugly lifestyle. Are we so opposed to this Pope that we’ll defend the feelings of unrepentant sodomites just so we can have something else to bash Francis with?
SJ1970, I think you’ve missed the point. This Pope says one thing one day and then issues an apology the next. Besides his muddled thinking, he’s guilty of an intemperate character and he’s prone to scatological language directed at groups of people. The man was a poor choice for Pope.
This pope has the mental agility of a small soap dish.
Would that be the one holding the soap to wash one’s mouth out with?
🙂
Years ago, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio about the homosexual rights movement. There was a soft-spoken polite gentleman who called in and made some observations. At one point he used the word F&%ot. Limbaugh instantly cut him off and gave a lecture about the necessity of always being respectful when discussing a subject. I thought to myself at the time that if we have reached the point where sodomy has to be treated with respect then the debate was over. We had entered the period of the Neocons to whom the marketplace was everything. The Holy Father had just discovered that there were homosexual seminarians in the diocese of Rome and was justly furious. It is one thing for individuals to seek the prayer of the church that weakness and temptation may be overcome and quite another that an obviously unrepentant group is trying to infiltrate the clergy. In his anger Pope Francis is discrediting a meme that is common on this site. The fallback position is to denounce the common term for homosexuality in Italy for Crudity. Have we reached the point that we are expected to discuss sodomy in respectful terms.
Francis said he 2018 that he subscribed to the Benedict description of the problem, but Benedict directed visitations to seminaries, as I recall.
Meanwhile, after over 10yrs of Francis, the entire crop, and then some, of seminarians who are too “faggoty” have been enrolled and muchly matriculated in his own back yard, and what has been done about this past the recent ribald and guffawed bishop conference comment? How many visitations? How many vocation/seminary directors given the boot? How many bishops in charge of those semimaries have been given the boot? Any action at all past one ribald comment of very late?
The problem he just described is entire his baby.
So what good did visitations do? The scandals broke back in Saint John Paul II’s reign, well into his reign I might add. The priests were once seminarians too and so were those caught during Benidict XVI’s reign. Why didn’t they catch them in advance? We have for a long time been dealing with a criminal underground that has been worldwide.
Good point, dear JJR,
It’s impossible to think that Our LORD Jesus Christ left us with an apostolic leadership that was a self-generating cult of criminal-covering, pseudo-celibate clerks, with their hierarchy seizing control of all the resources of Christ’s flock of sheep, manipulating it to further their own prideful status in the world.
We must really thank GOD for genuinely Christlike priests and bishops who live lives that are genuine examples of Matthew 5:1-12 (today’s Gospel).
Lay Catholics should sponsor a blog to honour such men (and women) clergy. Or maybe CRW could provide space for this.
By giving honor where honor is truly due we might hope to exhort the general run of reprobate and criminal clergy (even a pope) to repent and reform . . .
Ever seeking to hear and lovingly obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty.
Finally, the clear truth from the Pope in 8 words or less. Good news indeed….!
Francis likes to be inscrutible, keeping friends and enemies off balance, as being predictable is how power is lost.
His crude commentary now, after the problem he described coming entirely on his watch for over 10yrs, and the guffaws with which it was met, suggests it not the hard line so many would like for it to be.
Given a conclave upcoming for his camp, and current outrage over his pro-gay Feducia Supplicans, having the entire continent of Africa defect and just say no, and much of India telling him to get stuffed over celebration of rites, he might just be looking for waffling conclave votes for a successor friendly to his aims.
But, no telling with this guy, who may not be the brightest, but certainly no slouch in scheming.
Not sure the media really misleads Francis. Francis plays a good game, but not really good.
One must pray for the conversion of Pope Francis every day. May we hope that a little light has dawned? Does he now see that the true coprophagia exists in perverted sexual practices especially in fellatio post sodomy? Sins below the belt are not washed away by papal diktat. Maybe he has a bad taste in his mouth,
Beware the wrath of a patient man.
“…How sure can we be that the whole thing was not totally, cynically orchestrated?” We can’t be sure, of course. But I think the pope’s use of–shall we say–“insensitive” language can almost surely rule that out, because it will probably alienate the LGBTQ+ folks without winning the trust of conservatives–not after this long a time. See my May 29 7:55 p.m. post for a fuller reply. We can’t have surety here. All I can say is that I think my scenario is more likely than yours. Love and blessings in return.
Dear Larry, thanks for that carefully reasoned response.
True: “We can’t have surety here.”
Maybe mine is more alert to the equivocations of the pr machinery PF has assembled.
All will be made clear later if one of his spinners makes a mint by publishing an honest, best-seller memoir!
Ever seeking to follow The Lamb of GOD; love & blessings from marty
The Pope has nothing to apologize for. He simply was protecting kids in his flock. Homosexuals have no business being priests and being around kids.
Dear Mark: “If only!”
“Too much faggotry…..” works for me! One of the truest statements Il Papa has made in his Pontificate!
“Make no mistake: This is really bad—and practically unspinnable.” Nonsense. The anti-Catholic common media ate highly selective from whom they demand an apology. Have they ever asked homosexual activists to apologize for the nastiness expressed for years against the Church? Francis need not apologize for expressing the truth.
I am surprised that so few really see what this devious pope is doing. He just published Fiducia Supplicans, and whole continents openly told him to his face they would not follow him. His Synod, most composed of gay or gay friendly enemies of the Catholic church, was roundly criticized as being a deceptive farce. In short, people were waking up and seeing that there is something really, really wrong with Francis. Being a Peronist ( a South American political type who openly and obviously is on every side of every issue in order to cause confusion and hide his true intentions) the Pope deviously decided to PRETEND to be anti gay for a moment or two. He knew full well that whatever he said during the Italian bishops conferences was immediately reported to the media. He knew that dropping that word would cause a world wide media sensation. And after he purposely used the word to that effect, his popesplaining legions immediately erupted in joy, screaming “See! Francis is really Catholic!”. But he is not, he is simply jerking everyone’s chain. Watch only what he does, not what he says. Saying things is easy and does not change anything. But all during his pontificate, what he does is to promote and establish the gay mafia in the church. He has not changed. He is very “subtil”, as the bible says.
Feast of Charels Lwanga and companions today – readings from the occasion of the canonisation ceremony in 1969 in Uganda by St.Pope Paul V1 in LOH today – to marvel at how properly and wonderfully The Spirit arranges things !
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/homilies/1969/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19690802.html#:~:text=Your%20Martyrs%20teach%20us%20just,much%20the%20Faith%20is%20worth!
The prophetic voice of the Pope who foresaw how the spirit of despair that underlie the contraceptive mentality would flood over to many other areas – manifesting also as despair that there are no Godly remedies to heal the wounds with its roots in envy / hatred/ contempt towards women for bringing forth life with its repsonsibilties , instead of being mere tools for unbridled carnal passions , same then spilling over to want to destroy The Church as well as the Father dignity and identity in others,thus in oneself !
That despair then demanding that others see same as even a virtue to be flaunted !
The wickedness of ingratitude for The Lord and The Mother in contemplating The Passion – as to how every sinful thought word and deed , every unholy attachment has been at the price of the suffering and tears for the hardness of human hearts that The Lord took upon Himself , forgiving us for same for us to accept same with gratitude to trust that in same each is given the grace and strength to live in holiness and its truth !
Feast of I.H.M .this Sat. – may the tears and love in same open hearts to trust that there is enough Love there to overcome much instead of effeminate excuses and its leaven ! Thank God too for the various ministries and devotions, along with the gentle Fatherly chiding from the Holy Father who discerns well the need for same to deal with the flood waters ! Mercy !
I can’t see how this is bad. Bad would be to say there is too little f@99ôtry in the seminaries. Based Pope Francis W.
Dear Rob Mooney, in the well-established Apostolic Catholic tradition, it’s surely seriously sinful for the pontif to say anything other than:
“Christ Our Lord and His chosen Apostles instruct that if a seminaraian is thinking of having sex (of any sort) he must put away those thoughts, under pain of serious sin. If they are actually engaging in sex (that – because they are committed to single life – is always fornication) they are in mortal sin and unfit to continue as a seminarian until they are shriven and sincerely committed to return to faithful asexuality.
How this very plain matter has become confusticated by PF & coterie, only the devil knows and only the devil benefits from such treachery to Apostolic teaching.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty