 |
| Predator gazing at you from the panopticon of history |
Edit: some people will remember the original series with the diabolical Francis Ewan Urquhart, a Tory with a family history of various reactionary connections, like the Jacobites. In the American version of this tale, the villain is played by the accused sexual predator, Kevin Spacey. Here’s an astonishing interview that for me, breaks the fourth wall and lets a strange not-so-fictional world pour into this one through the wonders of Tucker.
AMDGEp. 56 A Christmas Eve election surprise pic.twitter.com/Z7nofE1KT4
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 24, 2023
22 comments:
If I was a citizen, I'd vote for him. And, if anyone has a ballot they don't care to fill out, I'll give you ₤20 for it.
The Carson kiddie is good for a protracted whin garnished with a frozen grimace.
No wonder Rupert gave him the flick.
Might also explain Fox’s -50% return in the last five years.
😂
Rupert plays the long game. Carlson plays with himself.
Losing 50% of your stock price and alienating your demographic is a long game? Do tell!
Ruper plays the long game. Carlson plays with himself. Ask Bonker.
He’ll probably be dead by the time Fox gets sold to Tesla.
I think I'll phone Kevin's agent about portraying Bergoglio in a film starting with the attempted putsch in 2007. Not thinking about the rest of the cast yet, so many old gays swanning around Hollywood that they'll do it for next to nothing, the memories alone of the old days spent with LA area priests are probably worth more to them. And a cameo role goes to Gaybriel as the Santa Marta assistant men's room attendant and head theologian.
Gaybrielle is so verklempt that he can’t retort.
"Not thinking about the rest of the cast yet, ..."
Don't forget to do a 'Father Stu', Barney and cast yourself, real life, as the clapped out, over imbibed, rusted on Pius X reactionary, loitering around St Peter's Square and who has benefited from Pope Francis generosity in providing the transients with food, showers and clothing. Be sure in manufacturing a smile for the cameras, old chap.
That’s Saint Pius X to you catamite!
Pius X was a neurotic who was so terrified of anything he could not understand that he classified them as demonic.
He set the Church back well over a century. It was only Pius XI and Benedict XV who undid some of the damage the bastard did.
Gaybriel, your potherings are incredible. "Set the Church back well over a century." What does that even mean? Where would it have been had there been no St. Pius X? On target? What did the target consist of? and where would the church be now? Introduce this amazingly shallow and Marxist thesis in the 10,000 words that an introduction to a multivolume work warrants.
At least progress your progressive self to some restorative therapy. A good New Year resolution for you, really.
If only Benedict XV had recognized g@y unions!
What damage did Pius X do? And what did the Popes after him do to undo this "damage"?
“What damage did Pius X do? And what did the Popes after him do to undo this "damage"?“
Sorry Anon, Gaybrielle doesn’t talk to people without advanced degrees. He’s not accountable to the lower orders!
"What damage did Pius X do? And what did the Popes after him do to undo this "damage"?"
Pius X became increasingly terrified at the accelerating socio-economic-political change that was occurring at the end of the 19th century and early 2oth. This coincided with the spread of mass education assisted by huge advances in communications eg early radio and telephones.
Instead of embracing this new world and evangelizing it in a way the world could understand, he dug in, regressed and adopted an adversarial attitude. His paranoia and neurotic personality dominated any native sense of insight and judgment. This even extended to a disordered understanding of the structure of the Church. Take a look at his letter to the French clergy in 1906, Vehementer Nos.
One of Pius X's biggest mistakes was to lower the age for first confession which allowed predator priests to shift their attention in the confessional from teenage kids to very young children. The flood gates of mass clerical child sexual abuse were opened and they are still so in some countries.
His successors have had to deal with this massive scandal which has never been fully addressed by the Catholic Church. Papa Sarto was not part of the solution but the cause of a great many of the Church's problems. He retarded the Church's missionary drive in the world by scores of years.
Let me get this straight, clergy is predisposed, mechanically, to abuse their offices and take advantage of sexually mature youths, but also prepubescents in the confessional? Wow, I think this says a lot motte about you, Gaybrielle.
Early Church responses to the social scourge of paedophilia: The Didache (153 AD); the first Church laws against the sexual abuse of boys were enacted at the Council of Elvira (306 AD), followed by Constantine who decreed that the Church enforce its own discipline against paedophile clergy which included stripping the guilty of the clerical state.
The Decrees of Gratian in 1140 AD stipulated that clerics found guilty of sexual abuse of children should be ‘laicized’ and handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. This, in many cases, meant execution.
These processes lasted until 1922 when Pius XI issued the decree Crimen Solicitationis directed at the escalation of abuses of children in the confessional by predator clergy. Pius X had lowered the age of first confession and Holy Communion which effectively provided vast new possibilities for priests with a disordered attraction to children.
From well before the French Revolution, anti-clericalism was on the rise so it was predictable that the Church should counter by glorifying the ‘divine’ nature of the Church and its priesthood. In his Little Catechism, John Vianney included a chapter on the priesthood which concluded with the declaration. ‘After God, the priest is everything.’
Pius X beatified Vianney in 2005 and with him, the priesthood. Under Crimen Solicitationis (1922) the Church alone would prosecute and punish clerics who sexually abuse children and all in complete secrecy – the ‘Pontifical Secret’. This was in place until early 2023.
Prove that lowering the age of reason to seven offered “vast” possibilities to sexually abuse children.
Did SAINT Pius X travel forward in time to beatify Saint John Vianney in 2005?
Moreover, what does that have to do with children being abused? You’re losing the plot, Gaybrielle.
Does “Father” Rupnik venerate Saint John Vianney, I wonder?
The abrogation of Crimean Solicitutianis didn’t do Rupnik’s victims any good?
I guess CS didn’t do what its detractors said of it after all.
“Pius X beatified Vianney in 2005 and with him, the priesthood. Under Crimen Solicitationis (1922) the Church alone would prosecute and punish clerics who sexually abuse children and all in complete secrecy – the ‘Pontifical Secret’. This was in place until early 2023.“
"The abrogation of Crimean Solicitutianis didn’t do Rupnik’s victims any good?"
Two things to look at Barney: a) loaded questions and, b) misspelling the title of an official Church document. Room for improvement old Twerp.
Post a Comment