Francis: The hell with Canon Law, the hell with the mind of the Church, I declare most marriages invalid

Francis has asserted that most sacramental marriages are "invalid." See here.

The Church, unlike Francis who seems to be having a mental breakdown, accepts every marriage as valid until proven otherwise.

This is a matter of Canon Law.  The Code of Canon Law, which Francis should familiarize himself with, States CLEARLY:

"Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven." (c. 1060).

Francis, who has admitted to suffering from mental illness, would appear to suffer as well from delusions of grandeur, believing himself wiser than the mind of the Church while dispensing with Church Law.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, shield the faithful from this nonsense.  Saint Michael, defend the Church.

Pope Francis: The Homosexual Disorder is not a concern, only a commitment to Tradition

Pope Francis has admitted that he has "some nerve problems" which require treatment as well as various neuroses. See here. A neuroses is defined as, "A relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress such as depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior and hypochondria."

Now, I would never make light of another person's mental illness or disorder.  There but for the grace of God go I as Saint Philip Neri once said.  I have been through exhaustive psychological exams and screenings both for the United States Air Force (to obtain a security clearance above top secret) and for a religious community which determined that I was "too devoted to Magisterial teaching" (whatever that means). In both cases, I was given a clean bill of psychological health and determined to be free of any and all pathologies, neuroses etc.

But I find it alarming that a self-admitted neurotic with "nerve problems" would request religious communities to refuse orthodox candidates on the grounds that such people are mentally ill and " might not be suited for religious life."

What happened to "Who am I to judge?" Oh that's right, that rule only applies to those with a homosexual inclination. Pope Francis has no problem with priests who suffer from the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED" homosexual inclination, he only has a problem with candidates to the priesthood and religious life who are deemed "rigid" because of their commitment to truth, order and structure.

Frank Walker over at Pewsitter explains:


At the Radical Catholic there's no reason to start glossing over the Pope's naked contempt for the Faithful.  It's not like it's going to stop.

The great Vatican II is the Church in entirety!  Those Catholics who retain beliefs from the prior Church must be branded insane - and this in the Year of Mercy.

Doubling down on Cardinal João Braz de Aviz' warning to religious vocations directors from around the world about the consequences of distancing oneself from the "great lines" of the Second Vatican Council, the following day Pope Francis gave the same group a short list of warning signs that a young person might not be suited for religious life.*

Given the state of the Church, one might be tempted to expect such a list to include, say, active homosexuality, pedophilia, theological and/or pastoral dissent, careerism, inordinate fondness of polyester pantsuits, etc. But I suspect that even considering such things as being potentially harmful to religious vocations is to have already distanced oneself from Vatican II - perhaps irreparably so. No, the real threat to religious vocations is to be found elsewhere: deep in the Freudian Unconscious. Pope Francis explains:

All the people who know the human personality - may they be psychologists, spiritual fathers, spiritual mothers - tell us that young people who unconsciously feel they have something unbalanced or some problem of mental imbalance or deviation unconsciously seek strong structures that protect them, to protect themselves.

Faithful Catholics, people who are conservative, grounded, Christian; they are unbalanced.  Ask anyone who knows the 'human personality' like a psychologist.  Nothing trendy about psychology, no.  It trumps all.

While insinuating mental imbalance in one who seeks structure is somewhat new - I mention only in passing his description of Christian ideology as a "serious illness" - decrying the threefold evil of 'structures, rules and habits' is an established trope of Pope Francis' personal magisterium. As he wrote in Evangelii Gaudium (§49):

More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: "Give them something to eat."

Again, is there any doubt as to who is meant here? And could the modus operandi of setting up false dichotomies be any clearer?

Why is it that every aspect of the 1970s church, which produced, among other things, the endless sex abuse lawsuits and scandals, has to be replicated today?  How many faithful vocations were subjected to these psychological screening attacks back then?

Personally I find little encouraging in the fact there are about a hundred more ordinations in the U.S. this year.  It's still a miniscule number for a country with over 300 million people.  I know Pope Francis says he's all about quality, but I can't help but thinking they've probably become more lax in at least one key area.  After all, they'd probably have thousands of vocations if they really wanted them, not hundreds.

At his core, the place where there should be Faith and wisdom, doesn't something seem deeply twisted in the mind of Pope Francis?  It's almost a crushing hatred for those who obstruct his goals, a determination to succeed at their expense.  It's the kind of force which drove the Protestant Reformation: a deranged (ideological?) mind at the helm with all the powerful establishment lined up behind him.

I hate to say it, but I don't know what else to call it.

Abbie Goldberg: Objective scientist or homosexual propagandist?

Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, is asserting that her research shows homosexual parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents."  Goldberg says that, "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement." 

According to this Huffington Post article, "research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.."

Homosexual parents are motivated and committed?  That's just wonderful.  But then, a serial killer is also motivated and committed to his cause.  Does this justify his end?

Is Ms. Goldberg an objective scientist/researcher interested in drawing honest conclusions or is she merely another homosexual propagandist who could care less if the hand that rocks the cradle is warped in personality?  Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association, says that, "...adoption agencies have disregarded the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders than the general public."

In an interview with ZENIT, which may be found here, O'Leary says that the CMA has found in its research that, "..the social workers in the adoption field are disproportionately homosexual themselves or are extremely sympathetic to homosexual adoptions and are directing children to same-sex couples, when there are married heterosexual couples available. She is extremely concerned about this trend.


I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption.

This, of course, is only anecdotal evidence, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders.

A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.

And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.

Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child. When dealing with married heterosexual couples, agencies have been extremely strict in ruling out couples with risk factors, yet seem to be ignoring real risk when evaluating same-sex couples who want to adopt."

But Goldberg, who is less interested in science and objective reality than she is with engaging in radical homosexual agitprop, insists that same-sex couples with adopted children living in states with "anti-gay" adoption laws and attitudes had more mental health issues in their first year of parenthood than couples with adopted children living in more accepting states."  You see what Ms. Goldberg is doing here?  She is assigning blame for the mental-health issues of homosexual parents on the communities in which they live.  She insists that, "..anti-gay attitudes [which obviously have their root in Christian moral opposition toward homosexuality] reflected in anti-gay adoption policies are likely to 'trickle down into community attitudes' and that her data suggests this can have a negative effect on the mental health of gay and lesbian parents." (See here).

The mental health of gay and lesbian parents?  Is Ms. Goldberg serious?  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).


The term neurotic describes the homosexual relationship well.  And neurosis is not the foundation of healthy parenting.

Abbie Goldberg: scientist or propagandist?