Christmas Campaign: Financial Insights
Clicks516
SML2
18
BREAKING: Pope Says It's Okay to Be Gay. While these weren't his exact words, the pope said that homosexuals are God's children and implied that God doesn't have any problem with homosexuals. Ray …More
BREAKING: Pope Says It's Okay to Be Gay.

While these weren't his exact words, the pope said that homosexuals are God's children and implied that God doesn't have any problem with homosexuals. Ray then shares some clips where he interviews people about God and homosexuality in our movie Audacity...
youtube.com/watch?v=pKxB0nU2EUU
Ultraviolet
Chris, you sound a tad butthurt. Getting debunked can make people that way. Do realize that repeating your silly name-calling won't make it true.

...and since you mentioned it, no... I don't sound angry at all. I sound arrogant and smug which is typical for me when I win.

Protip: the Pope could have just as easily summoned a " McCarrick toadie" subordinate for one last reprimand. Were you …More
Chris, you sound a tad butthurt. Getting debunked can make people that way. Do realize that repeating your silly name-calling won't make it true.

...and since you mentioned it, no... I don't sound angry at all. I sound arrogant and smug which is typical for me when I win.

Protip: the Pope could have just as easily summoned a " McCarrick toadie" subordinate for one last reprimand. Were you there? No.

So the implicit accusation you're deriving from your reference is, technically a genetic fallacy. Sloppy reasoning. In your case, deliberately so. You are so out of your league. :P

Typical of your tactics and those of previous anti-Catholic propagandists attacking the Papacy.
Ultraviolet
Face the truth, Chris . Repeating a lie only brands you a liar and a bad-faith, bottom-tier debator. You've lost,

Calling me a "shill" again only proves my point. This is all you've got left... "playing" to the casual reader with lies you know are lies.

A pro-homofolk pope doesnt defrock an evil homo-network cardinal and that's what Francis did to McCarrick.

You won't address the truth…More
Face the truth, Chris . Repeating a lie only brands you a liar and a bad-faith, bottom-tier debator. You've lost,

Calling me a "shill" again only proves my point. This is all you've got left... "playing" to the casual reader with lies you know are lies.

A pro-homofolk pope doesnt defrock an evil homo-network cardinal and that's what Francis did to McCarrick.

You won't address the truth, even when it disproves your claim. Like many in your profession, you're a maggot and the truth is of concern to you whatsoever... only scamming one more courtroom audience on behalf of your client.

You've forgotten an old legal adage that applies here, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

I've reached the limits of your technical abilities to defend your "client's" views sooner than I expected. I suppose the over-worked bureaucrats at INS have given you an overinflated opinion of your abilities to convincingly present falsehood.

Do I need to do a highlights reel of every falsehood you've presented that's been disproven? Probably not. The way you tip-toe away from them in favor of new ones is proof enough.

Now you're just showing re-runs,... settling for more hyperbole, loaded language and unsurprisingly, more falsehood.

Francis isn't a false pope and your "Canon Law" argument got curb-stomped into a bloody mess that was DOA.

No surprise. I'd seen it before, beaten it before, and did so against its original author. He doesn't post his "From Rome" canonical legalese here on GTV anymore. He knows what I'll do to it.

Francis defrocked and removed "Sodomfolk" so that disproves a claim he's "100% in their favor". Get a grip on your facts, man. Skip the arm-waving.

He's "100% pro-marxist folk" and that is the mistake you and the equally strident (and just as factually challenged) Arbishop Vigano keep making.

Like you, the good Archbishop has a real problem with dates, too, it seems. You can't write 'em in Latin and he can't remember them when defaming fellow Catholic clergy.

"Not one word" wuz contra-veened, amirite? :D Take your own advice about "due dilligence", counselor. Make sure the testimony of your star witness can stand up to even casual scrutiny. It took me literally only a minute's fact-checking to find factual error in the (breathless pause) Vigano Testimony...

Despite your skill at soap-box invective, you don't know what you're talking about and it shows. Up your game because I can "top up" the comments on this post just as easily as you can.

My advice... next time pick your opponent a little more carefully. That first fat lip you took over "today's date in Latin" should have been your cue to get out of the ring.
One more comment from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
Argumentum ad Nauseam for your first three points, @Chris Benischek Also, a lack of evidence (i.e. the McCarrick Report) is not evidence in itself of anything beyond bureaucratic incompetence.

I did not say Pope Francis is a "false pope". Don't ever put your words in my mouth. You are not "agreeing" with me because I made no such claim.

I notice from your other remarks you pulled a similar …More
Argumentum ad Nauseam for your first three points, @Chris Benischek Also, a lack of evidence (i.e. the McCarrick Report) is not evidence in itself of anything beyond bureaucratic incompetence.

I did not say Pope Francis is a "false pope". Don't ever put your words in my mouth. You are not "agreeing" with me because I made no such claim.

I notice from your other remarks you pulled a similar stunt with Benedict. As I pointed out elsewhere to a more honest critic, nothing Pope Francis' has done is comparable to the enormity of Vatican II and the loss of Catholics directly resulting from it.

"Yet if he were truly the pope, I would hesitate to call him that."

You have a gift for making vociferous accusations that are either factually unsupported or flat-out wrong and in this case, both.

Canon Law 751 is clear. "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff " and Canon Law 1364.1 states, "an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication".

One need not pass the bar to recognize how both laws applies to a man who describes the current temporal head of the Catholic Church as... "False Pope Francis the Apostate"
Ultraviolet
No one has to deny anything about Pope Francis. The burden of proof for your claims is on you, @Chris Benischek .

You could just as claim he's a Satanist Mason (and other idiots have seriously advanced this) with an equal lack of evidence.

If he is the head of anything connected to the Church, by virtue of being Pope, then so too were Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They, in fact, …More
No one has to deny anything about Pope Francis. The burden of proof for your claims is on you, @Chris Benischek .

You could just as claim he's a Satanist Mason (and other idiots have seriously advanced this) with an equal lack of evidence.

If he is the head of anything connected to the Church, by virtue of being Pope, then so too were Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They, in fact, have a much greater culpability since they furthered the careers of these men.

There wouldn't BE a "network" (assuming for discussion's sake it exists) if JP II and Benedict XVI had not appointed them to positions where such a "network" could be formed in the first place.

"Seven years of evidence is evidently not enough for some."

None presented here but simply referring to it as IF it existed is sufficient "evidence" for "some." :P

"That description--the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church (TM)--was first coined by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano"

Did he actually get it trade-marked? :D It's like a brand now? Will there be merchanise following? :P

"It's capitalized because it's a proper noun: a name of a particular gourp of persons."

To think... the best rebuttal you had for a correction of your pretentious attempts at Latin-esqe "liturgical dates" was pointing out a typo

If that's now a "proper noun, " it's one created at the whim of one man. Shakespeare was fond of such invention but, sadly, Archbishop Vigano is no Shakespeare. ;-)

Now then, Pardnah... Seem ya'll are choosin' to ignore which Popes put these men in power. There isn't a name that you've dropped that didn't end up directly where they are thanks to thanks to JP II or Benedict XVI. Nearly every last name you tossed around so casually got their bishop's ring from JP II.

Cardinals Bernadin, Mahony, and McCarrick were all John Paul II appointments.

If you were applying your standards honestly , JP II was the true creator of this "network" Archbishop Vigano describes.

That means Benedict XVI was also the "head" of the network since he inherited it along with the Fisherman's Ring.

...and so it falls to Francis. You're blaming Francis for a problem created and maintained by at least the last two Popes whose actions (and INaction) you choose to hypocritically overlook in favor of fixating entirely on the current papacy.

Francis' own appointments show he consistently favors men who share his left-wing world-view.

Meaning, showing that Pope Francis advances other leftists who may promote homosexuality along with a raft of other ills is not the same as showing he advances homosexuals for that reason alone. . That's a Fallacy of Division.

Francis promotes leftists because they support his many other despicable leftist ideological beliefs, notably facilitating illegal immigration and circumventing the legal safeguards in place to prevent it. The Vatican even issued a special "Migrants 'n Refugees" coin.

"It's important to know the enemy and naming it helps. "

It's also a handy tool for propaganda and prone to inaccurate over-simplification, as such labels invariably are..

"Not one word of that Vigano Testimony was controverted,"

Wrong.

"He (Vigano) added that this is how “the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich (to the Congregation of Bishops) right after he was made a cardinal.”

Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago responded, saying that Vigano must be “confused about the sequence of these events,” as he was named to the Congregation of Bishops on July 7, 2016, before he was named a cardinal on October 9, 2016."


So, yes, "one word" of that Vigano Testimony was controverted on purely factual grounds. Your claim fails. Again.

Others have noted that Archbishop Vigano....

“has not produced in his testimony any objectively verifiable proof that he in any way communicated to Cardinal Wuerl restrictions imposed on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, Archbishop Viganò’s testimony says that he did not.”

He's been controverted both for what he DID present (errors in date) and what he DIDN'T present, (externally verifiable proof of his claims).

"(which in another instance of apostasy Bergoglio denies exists.)"

You don't know how the Church defines "apostasy" and it shows. Canon Law 751, brah.

"False Pope Apostate Bergoglio"

The same also applies to the adjective "False".as applied to the current papacy.

"Hard to believe you missed that Testimony, UV. If you did you may wish to go catch up."

It's hard to believe you failed to recognize that Archbishop Vigano's testimony is irrelevant to the claim you originally made

You claimed, Pope Francis has (and I quote here) "done nothing but advance, protect, establish, and defend the clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church"

I have already shown that
a.) Pope Francis has "abolished the Vatican's secrecy policy over abuse cases , something the last two popes should have done decades ago".

b.) Ousted or allowed to resign bishops who were responsible for homosexual abuse within the church,

c.) Defrocked Cardinal McCarrick one of the supposed member of Archbishop Vigano's "network".

Therefore he he has done something

Specifically, Francis has done things that Benedict XVI and JP II didn't do. The last being contrary to your original claim (i.e. Benedict XVI "cashiered" McCarrick)

Pope Francis has demonstrably done something, in a positive way, to fight these evil baddies in the Church. Doing something is the exact opposite of doing nothing which is what you claimed.

Simply put, once again, what you said fails on factual grounds. You're in good company, shared by the esteemed Archbishop Vigano. ;-)

"Did you also miss the betrayal and literal destruction of the Catholic Church in China by the criminal netowrk of Bergoglio"

Criticizing Pope Francis for China is a gigantic Red Herring Fallacy in a discussion of the Pope's comments about civil unions or being the head of some supposed homosexual network.

Did you miss that? No, I don't think so. ;-)

I think you brought it up on purpose because you're floundering.

I think you brought it up because you're trying to redirect the discussion again. with more of your courtroom grand-standing.

That might work for F. Lee Bailey but you're no F. Lee Bailey either. :

"When will you UV stop shilling for the false pope?"

First, he isn't "the false pope". That would imply there's a "true pope". There isn't. Francis is the Pope. You're more than welcome to try arguing otherwise on the basis of Canon Law. ;-)

Second, I am not shilling for Francis. I am neither the Pope's spokesman nor his defender nor his promoter. Correcting YOUR falsehoods and misrepresentations in no way conveys any support for the current Pope. I've had to correct that mistake before.

"I do not support Pope Francis. I don't like Pope Francis. I don't approve of Pope Francis. But Pope Francis is the Pope. I don't like that either. I have repeatedly explained this to KristianKeller. I've repeatedly explained this to many people here. -UV April 16, 2019

I shouldn't have to tell a man who uses the word "slanderous" that accusing me of "shilling" is not only false, it's libel. Maybe not actionable under the circumstances, but still a flat out lie, all the same. In this case, it's a lie told to misrepresent, a lie told to blacken my reputation, which fits the criteria for a grave i.e. mortal sin under the Catechism paragraphs 2484-85

I stand up for the truth for its own sake, even when the truth favors an error-riddled oaf like Pope Francis. .

That's more Catholic than posting faux-Latin dates and pharisaical references to the feast days for some cheap virtue-signalling.

Neither offsets defaming a man, even an evil one, with everything from your selective focus on his appointments to one factual falsehood after another.

Your casual disregard for the truth might be an asset in your profession Mr. Benischek, but it's hadly a credit to your character or your supposed faith.
Ultraviolet
Vigano's Testimony does not in any way support your claim that Pope Francis has "done nothing but advance, protect, establish, and defend the clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church"

By contrast, I provided three concrete counter-examples of the Pope directly acting against homosexually oriented clergy. Even to the point of removing bishops and and even laicizing a cardinal. This …More
Vigano's Testimony does not in any way support your claim that Pope Francis has "done nothing but advance, protect, establish, and defend the clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church"

By contrast, I provided three concrete counter-examples of the Pope directly acting against homosexually oriented clergy. Even to the point of removing bishops and and even laicizing a cardinal. This directly disproves your claim he's done nothing.

You claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

"I hold the truth in highest regard. Our Lord Christ is the Truth. I therefore take issue with your charge of "casual disregard" of the truth."

You may take issue all you please. You've demonstrated a willingness to overlook the truth when it contradicts your opinions and to present falsehoods as though they were the truth.

That certainly qualifies as a casual disregard for the truth. Accusing me of "shilling" for Francis with an obvious intent to brand me a supporter of him is based on just such a disregard for it as well

I'm not griping, mind you, but I see no reason to sugar-coat my description of what you do and why you do it.

"I am nonetheless writing (however poorly) in good faith as well."

I'd like to believe that but your tactics demonstrate otherwise. The ends don't always justify the means.

(cont.)
Ultraviolet
"To my thinking, to hold a pope errs in Faith and morals to the extent you evidently hold (as to which I agree), is incompatible with the vary essence and definition of what it means to be pope...."

I can help here. Truly. History shows otherwise. Our last two Popes have erred enormously over matters of the Faith. Both demonstrated undeniably grave errors, in their statements and dealings with …More
"To my thinking, to hold a pope errs in Faith and morals to the extent you evidently hold (as to which I agree), is incompatible with the vary essence and definition of what it means to be pope...."

I can help here. Truly. History shows otherwise. Our last two Popes have erred enormously over matters of the Faith. Both demonstrated undeniably grave errors, in their statements and dealings with Islam. Saint Pope JP II both praised Pachamama and participated in Latin pagan religious services. Benedict XVI participated in Muslim religious services. Yet Catholics simply chose to overlook and ignore those errors.

Quoting myself from elsewwere, since it applies here as well...

GTV userF M Shyanguya recently quoted an Italian proverb that a fish starts rotting at the head. The "head" of the Church (in the cerebral sense) is formed by the theological minds comprising it.

Previous popes did their worst damage rotting the mind of the Church, through creative reinterpretations of theology and doctrine. The results of their efforts weren't immediately visible or even news-worthy. Pope So 'n So wrote "x" in his an encyclical. Pope Such 'n Such (notably the ever-voluble Benedict) published another book on man's relationship with God writing... "y".

Most of the laity never read those works, but the clergy did, particularly the decision-making intelligensia within the Vatican. That's where the rot started and that's how the rot that fostered an ideological shift that led to Francis' election as Pope.

By contrast, Francis' errors in faith are simply more accessible and understandable to the common man. They directly address the issues of the world instead of the way the Church should perceive and respond to that world.

In a way, this is a good thing. Pope Francis' errors are immediately and instantly recognizable as such. The sort quietly introduced by John Paul II and Benedict XVI through decades of their writings are far more insidious.

As for errors in morals, previous Popes notably the Borgia and Medicis, have Francis beat by the proverbial country mile.

Placed in the theological context of his two predecessors and the moral context of Papal history, Francis is little more than another loud-mouthed, two-bit Latin American Marxist despot.

(cont.)
3 more comments from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
"And lo, there's plenty of smoke there, starting w Benedict renouncing the Petrine ministry (later qualified to only the 'active' ministry), yet failing to renounce the Petrine Charge, Office or Mandate (i. e. the "munus") as required by Canon 332.2."

Canon Law 332.2 does not require the Pope to describe the nature, titles, or functions of the Papacy while resigning from it.
Get ready for a …More
"And lo, there's plenty of smoke there, starting w Benedict renouncing the Petrine ministry (later qualified to only the 'active' ministry), yet failing to renounce the Petrine Charge, Office or Mandate (i. e. the "munus") as required by Canon 332.2."

Canon Law 332.2 does not require the Pope to describe the nature, titles, or functions of the Papacy while resigning from it.
Get ready for a lot of "spilt ink". :D

Canon Law states 332 §2. "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

Canon Law does NOT require the Pope to renounce "the Petrine Charge, Office or Mandate". That phrase does not appear in 332.2 and neither does the word "munus", neither in the English translation nor in the Latin original which reads:

Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

You're doing what so many of Benedict's fanboys have done before you: re-writing Canon Law to invalidate an otherwise legitimate resignation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only resignaton your kind will ever accept is the one Benedict didn't make.

Referencing my earlier criticism, this is why I assert you argue in bad faith. You're making up Canon Law out of thin air.

Benedict clarifies the nature of his resignation when he writes: "I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Benedict resigned "in such a way" that "the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is"

Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict covers with his qualification "in such a way" that "a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked". Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict's resignation covers becaushe he resigns "in such a way" this must occur.

Benedict both anticipated and protected his resignation against exactly the sort of Canonical shenanigans of people like yourself.

(cont.)
Ultraviolet
Now let's examine what Canon Law 332.2 actually does require...

"If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

There are only two criteria required for a valid Papal resignation. Two criteria only. They are (verbatim) "freely and properly manifested."

Point…More
Now let's examine what Canon Law 332.2 actually does require...

"If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

There are only two criteria required for a valid Papal resignation. Two criteria only. They are (verbatim) "freely and properly manifested."

Point One: "Freely"
Benedict states the freedom of his resignation in his letter thusly: "For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare...

Point Two: "Properly Manifested"
The concept of "properly manifested" isn't defined under Canon Law 332.2 or anywhere else in Canon Law.

Benedict published a written letter of resignation and he publicly stated his resignation in his last General Audience, Wednesday, 27 February 2013

He stated: "I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church,.."

A public renunciation of the Papacy, at a formal (and final) General Audience certainly qualifies as proper manifestation.

Therefore, Benedict indisputably DID fulfill both criteria for a valid Papal resignation under Canon Law 332.2

Nowhere is there any "requirement" that he define the nature or the titles and functions Papacy while resigning from it.

This is the central error Benedict's fanboys make or choose to make. For the more intelligent ones it's a bad-faith attempt to invent a new requirement where none exists AND a way to gull less informed, less educated Catholics into sharing their beliefs.

Benedict has said , "Francis has a strong presence. Much stronger that I could ever have with my physical and mental weaknesses," he observed. "To remain in my office would not have been honest."

Benedict has explicitly used the term "office" in reference to the papacy and his renunciation of it, both during his resignation and afterwards. This shows conistency in Benedict's statements and in Benedict's understanding ofthe Papacy as an "office".

Benedict XVI resigned and all the wishful thinking and re-writing of Canon Law won't change that.

(cont.)
Ultraviolet
"Then Benedict continues to "remain in the enclosure of St Peter, at the foot of the Cross," and to bear all the trappings of office,

Wrong again.

Benedict did NOT say he would continue to bear all the trappings of office. Again, this is manifest dishonesty on your part. You quote Benedict's rhetorical dedication to his Catholic faith in his resignation and then slip in, very cleverly, your …More
"Then Benedict continues to "remain in the enclosure of St Peter, at the foot of the Cross," and to bear all the trappings of office,

Wrong again.

Benedict did NOT say he would continue to bear all the trappings of office. Again, this is manifest dishonesty on your part. You quote Benedict's rhetorical dedication to his Catholic faith in his resignation and then slip in, very cleverly, your addition as though he'd said it as well.

and you're still wrong, even in spite of such antics.

. Benedict does NOT "bear all the trappings of office" and he's explicitly refuted that claim himself. addressing his clothing Benedict says,

"At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made,"

Citing particular trappings... Benedict no longer wears the Papal shoulder-cape, the Papal sash, or the Papal ring. Pope Francis does. as seen in the attached photo
.
So again, your claim is wrong. Benedict does NOT "bear all the trappings of office" He's divested himself of them . More tellingly, he's repeatedly acknowledged Francis is the Pope.

"quite unlike the other famous resignation, that of Celestine V..."

Benedict is not required under Canon Law, much less the laws of decorum and good taste to follow Celestine V's theatrical example. ;-)

I don't honestly believe I'll change your beliefs. You'll believe whatever you choose to no matter how often I deconstruct and disprove your claims.

However, I see no reason to allow you to lead other Catholics outside the Church by making false claimse, introducing false reasoning, and presenting factually false information.

The truth is supported by facts, not falsehood.
Ultraviolet
"False Pope Francis the Apostate said..." Fact Check: First, he isn't a false Pope. Second, he isn't an apostate. either. Third, Pope Francis has also said, "same sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage. No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.” any such tolerance "does not mean approving of homosexual acts, not …More
"False Pope Francis the Apostate said..." Fact Check: First, he isn't a false Pope. Second, he isn't an apostate. either. Third, Pope Francis has also said, "same sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage. No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.” any such tolerance "does not mean approving of homosexual acts, not in the least."

"done nothing but advance, protect, establish, and defend the clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church"


...contradicted by the fact Pope Francis abolished the Vatican's secrecy policy over abuse cases , something the last two popes should have done decades ago.

...and under which pontificates did that network form, hmmm? Francis has inherited a problem that's at least half a century old and his loudest critics consistently ignore that which seems like hypocrisy in action. People who liked JP II and BXVI are more than willing to look the other way about "the clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church".

Raising the question) where you're getting your information from, @Chris Benischek?

I'd love to know why the "Homosexual Network Strangling the Church" needs capitalization, too.

"Church" does, but the rest? Is the "Homosexual Network" a company like the "Home Shopping Network"?

If it ain't, then captializing it is as idiosyncratic and pretentious as your use of "Latin" year numbers. Does that make your nonsense more official? More religious? More Catholic? No, I think not.

For starters, it's obvious you neither speak Latin nor do you have the slightest notion how to propery write a date in classical Latin

*ehem*

Est dies Mercuris ante diem quintum Kalendas Novembres MMXX Anno Domini

That's using the Church's numbering system. The Romans based their years on the founding of their first city. A truly Latin date would read:

Est dies Mercuris ante diem quintum Kalendas Novembres MMDCCLXXIII Ab Urbe condita

...and if this sort of withering academic correction is humiliating, just wait until I start in on you about the legal definition "apostasy" under the Canon Law. of the Catholic Church. ;-)
Ultraviolet
Nicely played, @Chris Benischek ;-) I'll willingly admit to my typo. Will you do the same for your ignorance and pretension?
Ultraviolet
You've also stated a "passel" of untruths, beginning literally with the first word in your first paragraph, followed by the fifth and that's just for starters.

"That you choose to ignore or deny them without substantiation..."

No examples given, meaning your accusation is, in point of fact, "without substantiation". Irony much? ;-)

"Likewise, your obfuscation."

See my last point. Further…More
You've also stated a "passel" of untruths, beginning literally with the first word in your first paragraph, followed by the fifth and that's just for starters.

"That you choose to ignore or deny them without substantiation..."

No examples given, meaning your accusation is, in point of fact, "without substantiation". Irony much? ;-)

"Likewise, your obfuscation."

See my last point. Further, parity is not obfuscation.

"Francis has a proven track record of recirculating abuser pederast priests."

Does
he now? Can you present examples of this "proven track record"?

This should be interesting. Popes don't normally handle diocesan-level reassignments of priests.

"Benedict had cashiered over 800 childmolesting priests like McCarrick."

Fact Check: McCarrick was defrocked by Pope Francis.
nytimes.com/…carrick-defrocked-vatican.html

So, no, Benedict didn't have McCarrick "cashiered". It was done by the very Pope you claim, " protected him and recirculated him too,"

Conversely, Francis attacked the cause of the cover-up culture, namely the bishops who were covering it up. He ousted the following Bishops..

Robert Finn (United States)
Gonzalo Galván Castillo (Mexico)
John McAreavey (Northern Ireland)
John C. Nienstedt (United States)
Aldo di Cillo Pagotto, S.S.S. (Brazil)
Lee Anthony Piché (United States)
Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano (Paraguay)

As for offering protection. Let's remember Saint John Paul II appointment of Cardinal Bernard Law. as "Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, a sinecure with only ceremonial duties. Some saw this an attempt to shield Law from potential criminal prosecution as his new position conveyed citizenship in Vatican City." (from Wiki)

I suggest you either offer a specific quote from Archbishop Vigano supporting any of your fatuous nonsense, or acknowledge it's a non-sequitur fallacy compounded by an implict fallacious appeal to authority.

"due dilligence': indeed. My, you are a pretentious one!

I'm going to have a lot of fun with you. :D
mccallansteve
Through the actions of Francis, he believes it's fine to be gay. However, this results in the loss of souls and he will answer to Almighty God one day for this.
Ultraviolet
You can thank society (media and the education system) for the formation of this creature's twisted beliefs. The same LGBT crowd citing "da Pope" as moral justification openly despises the "Religious Right" and "Intolerant Christians" in every other discussion.

The Pope won't have to answer for the loss of this clown's soul. It damned itself any number of times over and would have gone on …More
You can thank society (media and the education system) for the formation of this creature's twisted beliefs. The same LGBT crowd citing "da Pope" as moral justification openly despises the "Religious Right" and "Intolerant Christians" in every other discussion.

The Pope won't have to answer for the loss of this clown's soul. It damned itself any number of times over and would have gone on damning itself no matter who said what to it. The sternest Catholic Pope next to Peter himself could take this purple lipstick-wearing freak aside and explain Catholic teachings to it personally with no effect. They hear only what they want to hear and nothing else.

...something I find just as prevalent among many so-called "Catholics" today, even here on GTV. No, that's not a shot at you, either.
Ultraviolet
The Pope did NOT say that. The Pope did not imply any such thing since he's explicitly said homosexual acts are a no-no. He did NOT say it's "okay" to wear such tacky sunglasses, either.
petrus100452
Strange to ask for legal protection for something you think is a "no-no".
Ultraviolet
A civil-union is not a homosexual act. ;-)
aderito
That is not what God say ,