Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Vol. XXI: Lavender Mafia edition.

ver at The Fed­er­al­ist you will find a long and ram­bling arti­cle by Dr. Paul Rahe, his­tory pro­fes­sor at Hills­dale who once upon a time taught at Yale. Dr. Rahe goes on—and on, for nigh on 2500 words—in an attempt to tie to­gether a bunch of dis­parate events scat­tered over six­ty years. These, he tells us, prove that the sinis­ter Laven­der Mafia “con­trols the papa­cy and the Vat­i­can over­all.” That is a large the­sis from such scat­tershot evi­dence. Would that I could refute it all in one blog arti­cle. But I want to call your atten­tion, dear read­er, to this one claim:

Since his elec­tion, Pope Fran­cis has done every­thing with­in his pow­er to sof­ten and sub­vert the church’s teach­ing con­cerning hu­man sex­u­al­i­ty.

The pope’s so-called soft­en­ing and sub­vert­ing is proof, to Dr. Rahe, of the wicked Laven­der Mafi­a’s de­monic grasp upon the Chair of St. Peter. The gates of hell may yet pre­vail. The trou­ble is, Dr. Rahe gives not one exam­ple of it. We are meant to take it as self-evi­dent, like the rights of man, that the pope has soft­ened and sub­vert­ed at every turn; that’s what pup­pets of the vile Laven­der Mafia do. But I’m a skep­tic. I go through the record. And there, I find many, many exam­ples of just the oppo­site. So one or two of Dr. Rahe’s own would have helped, but I search his arti­cle in vain. Not one in 2500 words. Slop­py work by the Hills­dale man, lat­ter­ly of Yale.

IS THIS THE REAL LIFE?
IS THIS JUST FANTASY?

So how does Dr. Rahe of Hills­dale, lat­ter­ly of Yale, know? Well, he cites an arti­cle at Van­i­ty Fair by Michael Joseph Gross. It’s called “The Vat­i­can’s Secret Life.” Mr. Gross “inter­viewed a great many cler­ics in Rome”—presumably all mem­bers of the Laven­der Mafia, though we’re sup­posed to accept Dr. Rahe at his word on this. (Mr. Gross him­self is skep­ti­cal of the idea of an Illu­mi­nati-like cabal of gay pow­er bro­kers. He calls it “tin­foil hat.”) And all these cler­ics were, Dr. Rahe tells us, “de­lighted with the choice of Ber­goglio.”

Well, yes, that is very sus­pi­cious. Noth­ing like it has ever been.

And, says Dr. Rahe, the St. Gallen Group—which, he tells us, upon his solemn word itself, is laven­der through and through—promoted Card­inal Bergoglio for the papa­cy. We know they did because Car­di­nal Got­tfried Daneels him­self said so in his wery mem­oirs. And Daneels said the open­ing prayer at the announce­ment of Bergoglio’s elec­tion. The wery prayer itself! So what do you have to say about that?

I say: Curi­ouser and curi­ouser. Rahe’s connect­ing the dots now. Line fol­lows line. Soon he’ll have some­thing.

But soft! Dr. Rahe hath more.

All of this—includ­ing the machina­tions of the St. Gal­len Group and the role Daneels played—is laid out in detail by an Eng­lish Catholic, who was in Rome dur­ing the ear­ly year of this papa­cy, and who writes under the pseu­do­nym Marc­antonio Co­lonna. The title is The Dic­ta­tor Pope: The Inside Sto­ry of the Fran­cis Papa­cy.

Scaramouch, Scaramouch

So dear God. Dr. Rahe of Hills­dale, lat­ter­ly of Yale, pro­motes The Dic­ta­tor Pope! Now, sources tell me that the blog Where Peter Is, whose sole pur­pose is to defend Pope Fran­cis against attacks from those besot­ted with PFDS, took the time to refute the chron­i­cal­ly con­fused Phil Lawler’s non­sense, and Ross Dou­that’s non­sense; but they would not stoop to both­er with the Dic­ta­tor garbage. It’s Alex Jones; it’s Jack Chick. (That’s “tin­foil hat” to Gross.). It pro­motes the long-dis­cred­it­ed “Fran­cis is a Per­o­nist” nar­ra­tive, and things like that. If you believe it, you would prob­a­bly also believe there’s a Laven­der Mafia at Area 51 and that the Bea­t­les real­ly want­ed the White Album to be called the Laven­der Album but George Mar­tin talked them out of it. And Paul is dead, because he was assas­si­nat­ed by the depraved Laven­der Mafia, who were dressed up in wal­rus cos­tumes for some per­verse bes­tial­i­ty role-play. Hear all about it when you play the White Album back­wards.

To gauge the lev­el of the tin­foil meter, all you need to know is that, among the top pro­mot­ers of that book, were Fake Site News, Church Petu­lant, One Luther Five, The Rem­nut. The cream of the kook.

The author’s real name is Hen­ry J.A. Sire; we need not spec­u­late what the J.A. stands for. Sire was sus­pend­ed from the Order of Mal­ta after writ­ing the book, and that’s real­ly say­ing some­thing if you know any­thing about the Order of Mal­ta. Car­di­nal Burke is their patron, and the word is, it suits him. But they will have none of Sire. Hills­dale, yes; Mal­ta, no.

Dave Arm­strong actu­al­ly both­ered to do some back­ground research on Sire, because he would; and here is what he found:

• Sire is anti-Vat­i­can II. He says that the Coun­cil was “a betray­al of the Church’s faith.” It should be “re­versed,” accord­ing to Sire. “Gaudi­um et Spes,” he says, is a “deplorable docu­ment.”
• Sire backs the SSPX, which is not in com­mu­nion with the Church.
• Sire rejects the Novus Ordo. He even goes so far as to say that many ordi­na­tions that occurred under the Pauline rite may not be valid.
• Sire rejects ecu­menism. He calls it a “per­ver­sion.” He dimiss­es it as “indif­ferent­ism.”

So. What I gath­er from all this is that Sire is a kook and he is pro­mot­ed by kooks. If he rejects Vat­i­can II, if he backs the schis­mat­ic SSPX, I imme­diately hold any­thing he has to say about the pope sus­pect. He’s not play­ing with a Catholic set of mar­bles. But this is who Dr. Rahe of Hills­dale, lat­ter­ly of Yale, finds so cre­dible he does not have time for the mildest caveat.

Thunderbolt & Lightning!

But you’d cer­tain­ly think there’d be evi­dence if the pope were soft­en­ing and sub­vert­ing Cath­olic teach­ing on sex­u­al ethics. And if the filthy Laven­der Mafia is behind it, you’d real­ly expect to see this soft­en­ing and sub­verting when it comes to LGBT issues dear to their own heart. Would you not? But do we find this, if we go search­ing?

No, we don’t. And Car­di­nal Ber­goglio strikes me as a very odd per­son for the schem­ing Laven­der Mafia to have set its heart upon as their man for the papa­cy. Bergog­lio, after all, was the man who called the push for same-sex mar­riage in Argenti­na “a machi­nation of the father of lies.” Imag­ine that! Even Fake Site News told that tale. E’en they. Here is John-Hen­ry West­en on March 13, 2013, the wery day of Bergoglio’s elec­tion:

Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Fran­cis, is known to [Fake]Site­News read­ers as a valiant de­fender of life and fam­i­ly. In terms of homo­sex­u­al ‘mar­riage,’ Card­inal Bergoglio fought valiant­ly to have the law in Argenti­na con­tin­ue to pro­tect the tra­di­tion­al fam­i­ly.

Imag­ine that. Fake Site News itself was delight­ed with the choice of Bergoglio. Thun­der­bolts! why would the hell­ish Laven­der Mafia have want­ed this guy? Fake Site reports:

To the cler­gy of the parish­es, Bergog­lio re­quested that all of them read from the pul­pits a dec­la­ra­tion defend­ing the true def­i­n­i­tion and under­stand­ing of mar­riage.

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me

“But Alt! Maybe the sith­like Laven­der Mafia knew that Pope Fran­cis could be turned to the gay side of the Church after his elec­tion to the papa­cy. He’d be like Anakin.”

The prob­lem with that is, LGBT groups have been quite unhap­py with Pope Fran­cis. In Amor­is Laeti­tia 56 the pope crit­i­cized an “ide­ol­o­gy of gen­der” which “denies the reci­procity in nature of a man and a woman.” Gen­der ide­ol­o­gy, the pope said, “envis­ages a soci­ety with­out sex­u­al dif­fer­ences, there­by elim­i­nat­ing the anthro­po­log­i­cal basis of the fam­i­ly.” To com­bat this, the pope went on in AL 285:

[T]he young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was cre­at­ed. … An appre­ci­a­tion of our body as male or female is also nec­es­sary for our own self-aware­ness in an encounter with oth­ers dif­fer­ent from our­selves.

LGBT groups were not hap­py with any of that. “No joy!” cried Dig­ni­ty USA. “When it comes to same-sex rela­tionships and gen­der iden­ti­ty ques­tions,” said Mari­anne Dud­dy-Burke, “Fran­cis sim­ply re­iterates the long-stand­ing teach­ings of the Church. There is no flex­i­bil­i­ty.”

Yes, the pope is Catholic. (The hor­ror! The hor­ror!) But where is this soft­en­ing and sub­vert­ing that Dr. Rahe of Hills­dale, lat­ter­ly of Yale, is so drop-dead sure we can find in the pope’s teach­ing? The joy­less Ms. Dud­dy-Burke is a leader of LGBT Cath­olics; she finds the pope in­flexible. How now?

And if, as Dr. Rahe insists, the pope stacked the syn­od with wicked agents of the sul­furous Laven­der Mafia, how is it that Amor­is Laeti­tia came out of that wery same syn­od beat­ing up on gen­der ideo­logy with great ham­mers of ortho­doxy and Ms. Dud­dy-Burke found no joy? How did this hap­pen?

And here I must point out, too, that the pope has a habit of call­ing gen­der ide­ol­o­gy “indoc­tri­na­tion” and com­par­ing it to the Hitler Youth Remem­ber? (Prob­a­bly you don’t; prob­a­bly you were vom­it­ing your pea soup and spin­ning your head over the rab­bits. But he com­pared gen­der ide­ol­o­gy to the Hitler Youth in the same inter­view.) LGBT apol­o­gists at the Dai­ly Screech, dressed up as aca­d­e­mics, were shocked by this.

Open your eyes,
look up to the skies & see.

I’m sor­ry, but I’ve been writ­ing about this for five years now. I have binders full of quotes in which the Catholic pope says Catholic things about sex­u­al ethics. Re­member when Pope Fran­cis was con­spir­ing to under­mine Humanae Vitae? I do, for I wrote about it. I cit­ed Amor­is Laeti­tia 80:

Nonethe­less, the conju­gal union is ordered to pro­cre­ation ‘by its very nature.’ The child who is born ‘does not come from out­side as some­thing added on to the mutu­al love of the spous­es, but springs from the very heart of that mutu­al giv­ing, as its fruit and ful­fill­ment. He or she does not appear at the end of a process, but is present from the begin­ning of love as an essen­tial fea­ture, one that can­not be denied with­out disfig­uring that love itself. From the out­set, love refus­es every impulse to close in on itself; it is open to a fruit­ful­ness that draws it beyond itself.’

I tell you, there’s some real soft­ening and sub­vert­ing going on there.

Remem­ber when Fake Site News and CRISIS!!!! said that Pope Fran­cis accepts same-sex civ­il unions? I do, for I wrote about it. It was a lie. Here’s what the pope actu­al­ly said:

What can we think of mar­riage between peo­ple of the same sex? “Mat­ri­mo­ny” is a his­tor­i­cal word. Always, in human­i­ty, and not just in the Church, it was a man and a woman. It’s not pos­si­ble to change it just like that. … It’s not pos­si­ble to change it. It is part of nature. That’s how it is. Let us call it, then, ‘civ­il unions.’ Let us not play with truths.

It’s true that behind all this we find gen­der ide­ol­o­gy. In books, kids learn that it’s pos­si­ble to change one’s sex. Could gen­der, to be a woman or to be a man, be an option and not a fact of nature? This leads to this error.

Let us call things by their names. Mat­ri­mo­ny is between a man and a woman. This is the pre­cise term. Let us call the same-sex union a ‘civ­il union.’ ”

Now, the pope does not mean civ­il unions are good or accept­able; what he does mean is, okay, since they exist, we have to call them some­thing, let’s just not say “mar­riage.” It’s not mar­riage. “Let’s not play with truths,” he says. “Gen­der ide­ol­o­gy” is behind it, he says, and Pope Fran­cis, pup­pet of the Laven­der Mafia, is con­stant­ly bash­ing gen­der ide­ol­o­gy.

Boy, I tell you, that laven­der mafia sure found just the guy to go soft­en­ing and sub­vert­ing, did­n’t they? They real­ly got the papa­cy in their gay hands. I could go on and on with this all day; I’ve got binders full of quotes; but I’ll stop there.