Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Jorge Bergoglio taught his Godson how to swear!

...which the Godson proceeded to display during one of Bergoglio's homilies

“When he was already wearing a collar” and much to her displeasure, the man who is Pope today taught swear words to his nephew, whose name was likewise Jorge and who was also his godson, according to Maria Elena Bergoglio. This led to an embarrassing situation when her brother began to preach “at an important Mass” with lots of priests, and her son, being surprised at seeing his uncle [at the pulpit], disturbed the calm by yelling out “a very bad word” — audible to all. “After Mass, Jorge came to us and could not stop laughing”, according to his sister. In addition, her brother dipped her child’s pacifier into whiskey. Her brother got the sanguine temperament and the joke-telling from his father, so [Maria Elena] Bergoglio. 
(“Kindheitserinnerungen von Papst Franziskus” [“Childhood Memories of Pope Francis”], ORF.at, Mar. 19, 2013; our translation.)
source: Novus Ordo Wire 

Can you imagine how outraged Francis would be if this had happened in a synagogue or mosque?

Why is Francis always laughing at the Catholic Faith?

What Godfather would teach his Godson how to curse?

Bergoglio as a Godfather is responsible for instructing his Godson in his religious duties and setting a good example for the boy.

Who is Jorge praying to if he sees this as funny?

To put it another way, would Bergoglio laugh if his Godson cursed at the Crucifixion of Our Lord?

Sadly, we at Call Me Jorge... feel he would.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Rabbi Bloom speaks at a Cathedral in Oakland

Interreligious dialogue with the adherents of the Talmudic Judaic religion has been the rage since the Second Vatican Council.  It is more truthful to refer to it as a monologue rather than a dialogue as the Catholics grovel at the feet of their 'Elder Brothers', who not only deny Our Lord Jesus the Christ but blaspheme Him and the most Holy Family, while these rabbis dictate to Catholics what they are to believe.  Recently (9 November 2014) in Oakland, California at The Cathedral of Christ the Light, an ugly monstrosity of modernism if there ever was one, Bishop Michael C. Barber, SJ had as a guest Rabbi Mark Bloom. Before introducing him Barber said,
"The more you study the Catholic faith and the Jewish faith, the more you realize the debt we Christians owe the Jews, and how many prayers and practices of the Jewish faith are incorporated into Catholic worship."
and further along the Catholic Voice's article one reads,
"The rabbi and I wear the same head covering," the bishop said, doffing his skullcap, or zucchetto, which is copied from the Jewish yarmulke."
We at Call Me Jorge... don't have the time right now but in the future plan to do an entry on the yarmulke. Wearing the yarmulke is an outward sign showing the wearer's denial of Christ!

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops this was the reading for the day:

The angel brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and I saw water flowing out from beneath the threshold of the temple toward the east,
for the façade of the temple was toward the east;
the water flowed down from the southern side of the temple, south of the altar.
He led me outside by the north gate, and around to the outer gate facing the east,
where I saw water trickling from the southern side.
He said to me, “This water flows into the eastern district down upon the Arabah,
and empties into the sea, the salt waters, which it makes fresh.
Wherever the river flows, every sort of living creature that can multiply shall live,
and there shall be abundant fish, for wherever this water comes the sea shall be made fresh.
Along both banks of the river, fruit trees of every kind shall grow;
their leaves shall not fade, nor their fruit fail.
Every month they shall bear fresh fruit,
for they shall be watered by the flow from the sanctuary.
Their fruit shall serve for food, and their leaves for medicine.”

The two priests Rabbi Bloom dedicates his anti-Christian speech to are:

— Fr. Ron Brassard

From Catholics will no longer address God as 'Yahweh', in the Rhode Island Catholic,
In the not-too-distant future, songs such as "You Are Near," "I Will Bless Yahweh" and "Rise, O Yahweh" will no longer be part of the Catholic worship experience in the United States. At the very least, the songs will be edited to remove the word "Yahweh" – a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.
Father Ronald E. Brassard, the pastor of Immaculate Conception parish in Cranston, said the new directive is "a good thing. This directive is the Church showing great sensitivity to... our Jewish brothers and sisters."
The Tetragrammaton is YHWH, the four consonants of the ancient Hebrew name for God.
"Essentially the tradition in Scripture and especially with Jewish people is that the name of God is so sacred that it's never said, you never say Yahweh, it's offensive to the Jewish people," Father Brassard explained. He added that the change apparently is to go into effect immediately. 

 Fr. Edward Flannery

Edward Flannery, a revolutionary destroyer of Catholicism

 The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism
by Fr. Edward Flannery

Listen to the talmudic wizard, Rabbi Bloom, enlighten those in attendance on the reading for the day.

Rabbi Bloom, diabolically perverts Ezechiel, Chapter 47, which prefigures the baptism of Christ, and of His doctrine and His grace into the 'lessons' below.

1) Lesson of Faith - Catholics have faith in the Talmudic rabbis while Jews don't.  Christians want to pray with them and think rabbis are great.  Talmudic Jews should learn from the brainwashed Catholics.

2) Lesson of Chutzpah - The Talmud is a law system of what Jews should think and do.  Rabbis have the audacity to argue against Tradition and their God.  This is the Talmudic Jews gift to the world and Catholics can learn from it.

3) Lesson of Fruit - What happens when Catholicism (Faith) and Talmudic Judaism (Chutzpah) unite?  (i.e. the interreligous monologue of so popular after Vatican II)  Abundant fruit and a bounty of blessings from God.  Why even possibly, Heaven on earth!

There you have it, one is a good Catholic if he worships the rabbis, argues with God,  and does what the rabbi says!

Friday, March 27, 2015

Francis to meet with the Waldensians

Who are the Waldensians?  They are the oldest sect of heretical Protestantism, which is so old it originated four centuries before the word Protestant was coined!

Peter Waldo, Valdo, Valdes, or Waldes , 
also Pierre Vaudès or de Vaux (1140 AD – 1205 AD)

The Vatican recently released the schedule of Francis for his visit to the city of Turin, Italy.  The official purpose of the trip is for Francis to make a pilgrimage to view the Shroud of Turin.  Tucked away in the schedule is a mention of a stop on 22 June 2015 at Tempio Valdese.  It will be the first time a pontiff has ever entered a Waldensian church.  The Waldensian religion originated in the 12th century and is considered the oldest Protestant religion in existence.  As the years have passed the Waldensians have aligned themselves with various heretical sects and today's modern Waldensians see themselves as inheritors of the so-called reforms of Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin.  In Italy, the Waldensians have aligned themselves with the Methodist churches.

The inscription over the entrance reads, "Believe in Jesus Chrit and you will be saved."
Tempio Valdese, Torino, Italia which Francis will visit.

Francis is scheduled to meet Waldensian dignitaries in the Tempio Valdese for one hour and a half.  Sometime in that period all parties involved will publicly pray the Lord's Prayer together.  In August 2014, Francis reached out to the group by sending a message to the Waldensian Methodist Synod in Italy.  What make this whole thing interesting is that the Waldensians are opposed to the veneration of any relics as well as all the saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Remember, Francis' reason for going to Turin is to see the Shroud.  Francis will probably chalk it up to the 'god of surprises' he believes in.  We feel if St. John Bosco were alive today, he would chase Francis from the city limits of Turin unless his faithful dog Grigio had beat him to it.  St. John Bosco was not known for his tenderness towards the Waldensians.  The reason for this besides them being heretics is the Waldensians made several unsuccessful attempts at assassinating St. John Bosco.

St. John Bosco died in Turin & his major shrine, the Basilica 
of Our Lady Help of Christians, is located there.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

more bilge from a talmudic jew

The article, Why Should a Jew Care Whether Christianity Lives or Dies by David Gelernter, published at First Things.  (Underlines are ours for emphasis)

Iargued last month that Pope Francis ought to see the reconversion of Europe as his most important task. Surely he agrees that European Christianity is in deep trouble. Surely he does not believe that Christianity no longer matters to Europe, or can no longer be compelling to Europeans. How can he ignore a catastrophe on his doorstep?
Some people asked in response: Why should a Jew care whether Europe is Christian? Rod Dreher in the American Conservative: “I am grateful for Gelernter’s encouragement, but would love to know why it matters so much to a believing Jew that Europe should be re-Christianized.” Good question, but one that is easy for me to answer. The key goes far beyond the opinions of one Jewish writer in Connecticut. It touches the heart of a fundamental change in relations between Judaism and Christianity.
My mother’s father was born near Kiev in 1899 and came to New York as a small child. When he was young, he thought of Christianity as a world of drunken mobs looking for Jews to murder with axes, especially at Easter. Of course, he changed—somewhat—as an adult. Having been reared strictly orthodox, he became a rabbi in the liberal wing of Judaism, and he admired the preaching of the eminent protestant ministers of the middle third of the last century. His synagogue in Brooklyn was across the street from a church, and he was a friend with the minister—who used to have his bells toll the theme of Kol Nidrei as Jews assembled on the evening of Yom Kippur. But despite these admirations and friendships, the church as an institution angered him his whole century-long life. The twentieth was a century that centered, after all, on the murder of Jews. His best friends among non-Jews were not ministers but pre-Cultural Revolution liberals and progressives who hated anti-Semitism—and tended to dislike and distrust Christianity, too.
Most Jews have felt that way about Christianity at least since Constantine invested the Church with the power of Rome; and that was some time ago. But among many of us that attitude has changed, because the Church itself has changed since the Second World War (everything has), and because the Jews’ anti-Christian bias—more than justified by history—has nonetheless caused the world real harm in the decades since the war. Strange but true. I’ll start with the harm.
Nazi Germany will always be one of the central nodes of human history. Naturally, Jews are among the leading historians of the Reich. As for non-Jewish historians, many or most are liberals—and the anti-Christian biases of liberalism grow louder all the time. None of the serious (non-crackpot) historians of Germany and the war let their personal prejudices affect their judgment, if they can help it. But most of us can’t ever help it, not completely. In this case, Nazi Germany is widely and deeply misunderstood by historians who have downplayed crucial facts in a way that suggests anti-Christian bias. And we can’t afford not to work hard to understand Nazi Germany, the Arschloch of human history—as the Nazis themselves would have put it (in their charming way) if only they’d taken a slightly longer view of their own achievements.
The totalitarian tyrannies of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Stalinist Russia had something crucial and telling in common. Amazingly, many of us don’t see it. All three were officially pagan regimes. The cult of the fuehrer (and the separate SS-cult), Shinto emperor-worship and the Stalin personality cult depended on the suppression of more sophisticated religions—in the first and third cases, Christianity.
Historians have too often misread the Nazis, who did not hate Christians but did hate Christianity. They saw it as a form of weakness, as a Jew-concocted poison that had helped ruin Germany. Historians have mostly failed to write about the importance of state paganism under the Nazis—both fuehrer-and-homeland worship (complete with scriptures and liturgy) in the schools and everyday life, and the special ceremonial of the SS, which had its own chapels and marriage ceremonies. Hatred of Christianity fed hatred of the Jews. Nor have we given the credit they deserve to the Christian heroes and martyrs of the anti-Nazi cause, not just Niemoller and Bonhoeffer and a few well-known others but the whole membership of the small yet robust German confessing church, and other nameless Protestants and Catholics who would not be reduced to animals.
Did German Christians rise en masse? No. But death-defying bravery is a trait not many of us have. Historians owe us a deeper, truer account of the nature of Nazism than most have provided. Nazi Jew-hatred swept the best-educated country in Europe because (many say) centuries of Christian anti-Semitism had paved the way. But Nazi denunciation of Christianity as weak Jewish nonsense also paved the way. Germans had been more restive under Christianity than any other major European people. Which paving counted more? Historians should be trying to answer that important question.
We must understand (not ignore!) Nazi hatred of Christianity so we can understand Germany, the moral character of the war in Europe, and the similarities between the three most bestial regimes in human history. Jewish anti-Christian bias is only one small factor in our lack of understanding, but it should be no factor at all. These topics are too important to shortchange.
But the most important reason for Jewish mistrust to change is that Christians have changed.
Not all of them, of course. Many of the mainstream liberal churches are anti-Zionist in a way they are anti-nothing else. When they tell Jews they are merely anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, we can only ask: what kind of fools do you take us for? Certainly you can oppose the Israeli government and (I suppose) dislike Israel itself, yet not be an anti-Semite. But you cannot oppose Israel with a toxic ferocity reserved for it alone, lie about Israel casually and constantly, yet not be an anti-Semite. Jews are often naïve, but not that naïve.
Of course, we know that mainstream liberal churches are dying. The same holds for the liberal branches of Judaism. In recent decades, too, we have witnessed Liberalism become a religion in its own right. Ultimately, liberal Christianity makes no more sense than Muslim Christianity. Yes, there have been practicing Christians who were also liberals, but increasingly that brief sharing of goals between the two religions looks like a temporary coincidence that was bound to end. As a believing Jew, my grandfather had to break with liberal Judaism towards the end of his life.
Conservatism on the other hand is no religion, and has rarely been mistaken for one.
The attitudes of many conservative Christian churches toward Judaism have changed in important ways, and Jews should acknowledge that change. At one point, those changes were symbolized for Jews by the saintly John XXIII. But that was long ago, and we have lost the thread. It is past time for Jews and Christians to take it up again and follow it to its logical conclusion.
Jews must acknowledge this truth: Christianity is a dialect of Judaism. It is ours—Jews must own it, proudly. Judaism has not always been dead-set against evangelizing, but it was never equipped to be a religion of multitudes. It is for stubborn people who love arguing, especially with God. This is the activity that defines Judaism: the constant challenges starting with Abraham’s in Genesis. “The judge of the whole earth not doing justice?” Judaism is a turbulent faith, a spiritual roller coaster. It is an exacting religion, too, that offers little assurance about the afterlife in return; and it shamelessly celebrates life on earth as God’s greatest gift.
Judaism has a message that every last human being needs to hear—but was unsuited to deliver it. Christianity was the chosen vehicle. The whole world has been touched directly either by Christianity (or, yes, Islam, a more remote Jewish dialect)—or by the idea of the modern liberal state. The modern liberal state was invented in America and inspired by the Hebrew Bible—as interpreted every Sunday by Christian preachers, who were influenced in turn by the English state and British philosophy—both developed by Christians, in what was once a deeply Christian nation. Jews and Englishmen loathe each other, unfortunately, but Jewish ideas plus English ideas are iron and carbon, and yield a fabulously strong carbon steel.
Christianity is a dialect of Judaism, is profoundly Jewish, not just because Jesus answered the famous question about how to merit salvation (“Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”; Luke 10:25) with two Hebrew verses. Jesus responds,
What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” (Luke 10: 26-27, citing Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18.)
Not just because the man Jesus and his mother, Paul and Peter and so many other Christian founders were Jews. Most important, because the story of the intermediary sent by God to man who was tortured to death by pagans but would not and could not remain dead, who could be killed but never die, is the story of the Jewish people. For Jews, Jesus is klal Yisrael, all Israel in the form of one man—Jesus is the Christian name for “the Jewish people.” And the Passion is Christianity’s recitation and sacralizing of Jewish history. (The Jews, of course, are repeatedly called the Lord’s first-born son in the Hebrew Bible.)
What is accomplished this way is a masterpiece of subtlety and paradox. Christians associate themselves with Jesus and his Roman murderers simultaneously. In the dark, bloody side of this extraordinary retelling, compression, intensification of history, Christians worshipped the murdered man while repeating the murder again and again, and sometimes worshipped the grieving mother while re-creating her grief. But they have passed through that age of blood; thank God it is over. They have come of age—as the Jews had to do so long ago when they were forced to leave home and confront God’s having moved out of prophecy, out of history, to the innermost depths of the soul. At last Christians can look clearly at what their faith means.
It is not time to forget (ever) or forgive (which we have no right to do), but it is time to move ahead. Jews and Christians can both look at the essence of Christianity, at the life and passion of Jesus, and accept it as true—which is a sort of miracle. To do so they must understand it in radically different ways, one seeing God’s son and the other their own selves, “God’s son”; but what’s amazing is not that they disagree along the way, but that in the end they do not. This is the true and sacred story of God and man. How long it will be before Christians and Jews generally accept this reading that joins them at the hip—like the soldiers’ church and the Dome des Invalides in Paris, two separate, unlike churches—one just a nave, one only a choir—that come together end-to-end to share one altar—is impossible to say. But it will happen some day.
It comes down to this: Christianity is the Jews’ gift to mankind; the most important gift mankind has ever received. That so many modern leftists would say to themselves, “All the more reason to hate the Jews,” merely underlines the point. The natural enemy of the Jew is the natural enemy of the Christian, too—the conscience-hater, the man who wants no witnesses.
Why should a Jew care whether Christianity lives or dies? Because he must care whether the message of Judaism lives or dies, whether the mission of Judaism fails or succeeds.
In the end, that hardly matters. The important question is not why a Jew, but why a human being should care about the fate of Christianity.
And the answer is exactly the same.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

John Paul I praises a Satanist during his Angelus Address!

Sunday Angelus Address 
of September 17, 1978

— English translation #1 —

— English translation #2 —

Giosuè Alessandro Giuseppe Carducci was an Italian poet, teacher, and a Senator of Italy.  In 1906 he became the first Italian to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.  He is considered the national poet of Italy.  So far so good, correct?  Read this quote of his,
"I know neither truth of God nor peace with the Vatican or any priests. They are the real and unaltering enemies of Italy."
or how about four excepts from his famous poem 'Hymn to Satan':


Put aside your sprinkler,
priest, and your litanies!
No, priest, Satan
does not retreat!

Behold! Rust erodes the mystic
sword of Michael
and the faithful

Archangel, deplumed,
drops into the void.
The thunderbolt lies frozen
in Jove’s hand


You breathe, O Satan
in my verses,
when from my heart explodes
a challenge to the god

Of wicked pontiffs,
bloody kings;
and like lightning you
shock men’s minds.


As Martin Luther
threw off his monkish robes,
so throw off your shackles,
O mind of man,

And crowned with flame,
shoot lightning and thunder;
Matter, arise;
Satan has won.


Hail, O Satan
O rebellion,
O you avenging force
of human reason!

Let holy incense
and prayers rise to you!
You have utterly vanquished
the Jehova of the Priests.


This is but a small sample of some of the blasphemous works of Carducci.  We think the reader gets the point without dredging up more poems and statements.  For those interested in seeing the original Italian poem side by side an English translation with notes, click here.

What does the Anton LaVey's church of Satan have to say about Carducci?

Which brings up back to the point, why was John Paul I mentioning Giosuè Carducci in his Angelus Address as someone to admire?

Friday, March 20, 2015

Francis on the death penalty

Why is Francis so fond of quoting the anti-Catholic, Fyodor Dostoevsky, 

Francis' letter to Federico Mayor, the President of the 
International Commission Against the Death Penalty

English translation of the two above paragraphs 
of the letter courtesy of Zenit


On the Fifth Commandment
Catechism of the Council of Trent

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X

Pius XII as quoted in Iota Unam, 
Chapter XXVI - The Death Penalty,  Section 190,  pp.435-36


English translation of Francis' letter to Federico Mayor

Your Excellency Mister
Federico Mayor
President of the International Commission against the Death Penalty
Mr. President:
With these letters, I wish to have my greeting reach all the members of the International Commission against the Death Penalty, to the group of countries that support it, and to those who collaborate with the organism over which you preside. I wish, in addition, to express my personal gratitude, and also that of men of good will, for your commitment to a world free of the death penalty and for your contribution to the establishment of a universal moratorium of executions worldwide, with a view to abolition of capital punishment.
I have shared some ideas on this subject in my letter to the International Association of Criminal Law and the Latin American Association of Criminal Law and Criminology, of May 30, 2014. I had the opportunity to reflect further on them in my allocution before the five great world associations dedicated to the study of criminal law, criminology, victimology and penitentiary questions of October 23, 2014. On this opportunity, I wish to share with you some reflections with which the Church can contribute to the Commission’s humanist efforts.
The Magisterium of the Church, beginning with Sacred Scripture and the centuries-old experience of the People of God, defends life from conception until natural death, and supports full human dignity in as much as image of God (Cf. Genesis 1:26). Human life is sacred because from its beginning, from the first instant of conception, it is fruit of the creative action of God (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2258), and from that moment, man, the only creature God loves for itself, is the object of personal love on the part of God (Cf. Gaudium et spes, 24).
States can kill by action when they apply the death penalty, when they take their peoples to war or when they carry out extra-judicial or summary executions. They can also kill by omission, when they do not guarantee to their peoples access to the essential means for life. “Just as the Commandment ‘do not kill’ puts a clear limit to ensure the value of human life, today we have to say ‘no to an economy of exclusion and inequality’” (Evangelii gaudium,53).
Life, especially human life, belongs to God alone. Not even the murderer loses his personal dignity and God himself makes himself its guarantor. As Saint Ambrose teaches, God did not want to punish Cain for the murder, as He wants the repentance of the sinner, not his death (Cf. Evangelium vitae, 9).
On some occasions it is necessary to repel proportionally an aggression underway to avoid an aggressor causing harm, and the necessity to neutralize him might entail his elimination: it is the case of legitimate defense (Cf. Evangelium vitae, 55). However, the assumptions of legitimate personal defense are not applicable to the social milieu, without risk of distortion. Because when the death penalty is applied, persons are killed not for present aggressions, but for harm caused in the past. Moreover, it is applied to persons whose capacity to harm is not present but has already been neutralized, and who find themselves deprived of their freedom.
Today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime of the condemned. It is an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person that contradicts God’s plan for man and society and His merciful justice, and it impedes fulfilling the just end of the punishments. It does no do justice to the victims, but foments vengeance.
For a State of Law, the death penalty represents a failure, because it obliges it to kill in the name of justice. Dostoevsky wrote: “To kill one who killed is an incomparably greater punishment than the crime itself. Killing in virtue of a sentence is far worse than the killing committed by a criminal.” Justice will never be reached by killing a human being.
The death penalty loses all legitimacy given the defective selectivity of the criminal system and in face of the possibility of judicial error. Human justice is imperfect, and not to recognize its fallibility can turn it into a source of injustices. With the application of capital punishment the condemned is denied the possibility of reparation or amendment of the harm caused; the possibility of Confession, by which man expresses his interior conversion; and contrition, gateway of repentance and of expiation, to comer to the encounter of the merciful and healing love of God.
Moreover, capital punishment is a frequent recourse used by some totalitarian regimes and fanatical groups, for the extermination of political dissidents, of minorities, and of any individual labelled “dangerous” or who can be perceived as a threat to one’s power or to carry out one’s ends. As in the first centuries, today also the Church suffers the application of this punishment to her new martyrs.
The death penalty is contrary to the meaning of humanitas and to divine mercy, which should be the model for men’s justice. It implies cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as is also the prior anguish to the moment of execution and the terrible waiting between the dictating of the sentence and the application of the punishment, it usually lasts many years, and, in the waiting-room of death, not rarely leads to sickness and madness.
In some places there are debates about the way to kill, as if there were a way to “do it well.” In the course of history, different mechanisms of death have been defended to reduce the suffering and agony of the condemned. However, there is no human way of killing another person.
At present, not only are there means to repress crime effectively, without depriving definitively the possibility of the one who has committed it from redeeming himself (Cf.Evangelium vitae, 27), but a greater moral sensibility has been developed in relation to the value of human life, causing increasing aversion to the death penalty and the support of public opinion to the different dispositions that tend to its abolition or the postponement of its application(Cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, n. 405).
On the other hand, the punishment of life imprisonment, as well as those that because of their duration entail the possibility for the one punished to plan a future in freedom, can be considered veiled death penalties, because with them the culprit is not deprived of freedom but there is an attempt to deprive him of hope. However, although the criminal system can take away time from the culprits, it can never take away their hope.
As I expressed in my allocution of last October 23, “the death penalty implies the denial of love to enemies, preached in the Gospel. All Christians and all men of good will are obliged not only to fight for the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also for prison conditions to be better, in respect of the human dignity of the persons deprived of freedom.”
Dear friends, I encourage you to continue with the work you do, as the world needs witnesses of the mercy and tenderness of God.
I take my leave entrusting you to the Lord Jesus, who in the days of his earthly life did not want his persecutors to be wounded in his defense – “Put your sword back into its place” (Matthew 26:52) --, he was arrested and condemned to death unjustly, and He identified himself with all prisoners, culpable or not: “I was in prison and you came to me” (Matthew25:36). May He, who before the adulterous woman did not question her culpability, but invited her accusers to examine their own consciences before stoning her (Cf. John 8:1-11), grant you the gift of wisdom, so that the actions you undertake in favour of abolition of this cruel punishment, are right and fruitful.
I beg you to pray for me.
Vatican, March 20, 2015

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Nothing says happy Feast of St. Patrick in New York City, like a Pharisee leading a parade with at least one sodomite group in it

Pharisee Dolan is the grand-marshal

“The most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it. From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals."

perversion in the NYC parade

...not to be outdone by their East Coast rivals, 

Boston's parade had sodomites too!