Most Modern Bishops & Clergy Don’t Believe in the Devil… Kidding, Right?

Most Modern Bishops & Clergy Don’t Believe in the Devil… Kidding, Right?

Image

Organizers of a recent exorcism conference in Rome spoke to the Telegraph Newspaper about the growing problem of demonic possession:

…Giuseppe Ferrari, from GRIS, a Catholic research group that organized the conference, said there was an ever growing need for priests to be trained to perform exorcisms because of the increasing number of lay people tempted to dabble in black magic, paganism and the occult…

About 250 priests were trained as exorcists in Italy, but many more were needed, the conference organizers claimed.

“Just in the dioceses of Rome, around a third of calls that are received are requests for the services of an exorcist,” said Fr Cesar Truqui, a priest and exorcist from Switzerland and a member of the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative Catholic order.

What was not mentioned, however, is that the Congregation for Divine Worship replaced the traditional rite of exorcism with a new one in 1999. In 2001 the famous Father Gabriele Amorth, founder and honorary president of the International Association of Exorcists was interviewed about the new rite by 30 Days magazine.

In the interview Fr. Amorth stated, “A Rite so long-awaited has turned out to be a joke, an incredible cord that is tying us in knots in our work against the Devil.”

Fr. Amorth was later asked the following direct question, “Are you saying that the new Rite is useless in the struggle against the Devil?” His response:

AMORTH: Yes. Their intention was to arm us with a blunt sword. Some effective prayers were cancelled, prayers with 12 centuries of history. New ineffective prayers were written in…

In 2002, Father X, who holds an STL in Dogmatic Theology, wrote about the tragedy of the new exorcism rite in Latin Mass Magazine. He stated:

…The new ritual scandalously gives the priest a choice of two forms of exorcism, which it calls “deprecatory” and “imperative.” “Deprecatory” means a prayer to God, in this case to ask Him to deliver the demoniac. “Imperative” means a command issued to the demon in the name of God to depart. The imperative formula is a real exorcism, but the deprecatory form is not an exorcism at all. A prayer is a request to God; an exorcism is a command to a demon. The so-called “deprecatory exorcism” is simply a petitionary prayer to God. It is not an exorcism. (If it is an exorcism, then the final petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “deliver us from evil,” would also be an exorcism!)

As with the so-called “exorcism” in the modern Rite of Baptism, simply placing the sub-heading Exorcism does not make what follows an exorcism. What is extremely worrying is that, according to the new rubrics, the deprecatory form must always be used, but the second form, the imperative, is an optional extra. What lies behind this change? The same denigration of the priesthood described above. It is a true Protestantization: the reduction of the ordained priest to the level of the common priesthood. It is the fruit of embarrassment about the visible priesthood. It is the mentality that is at work when a priest says at the end of Mass: “May Almighty God bless us….” When a priest does that, he is losing his identity, and is uncomfortable about the fact that he is different, and that he can confer blessings…

…Dishonest is the use of the word instauratum (restored) in the subheading of the title page: the new exorcism ritual is in no way a restoration. It is a fabrication. The Latin should have read fabricatum or innovatum or maybe concoctum!…

Although use of the old rite can be permitted, this permission is predictably at the mercy of the Bishop:

According to the president of the International Association of Exorcists, Father Gabriele Amorth (30 Days, no. 6, 2001), when the new rite was ready, Cardinals Ratzinger and Medina sought to add a provision in its introduction authorizing the use of the previous rite. This move of theirs was rejected, so Cardinal Medina issued a separate notification that an exorcist can use the old rite if his bishop asks the Congregation for Divine Worship, who will “gladly provide the requested permission” (Notitiae, vol. 35, 1999).

Whether Summorum Pontificum included the right of every priest to use the old rite of exorcism is not clear. What is clear, however, is the attitude of most modern bishops towards exorcism. As Fr. Amorth explained:

We have a clergy and an Episcopate who no longer believe in the Devil , in exorcism, in the exceptional evil the Devil can instill, or even in the power that Jesus bestowed to cast out demons…We have entire Episcopates trying to counter exorcism. We have countries completely devoid of exorcists, such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal. This is a shameful shortfall.

…The bishops are the first victims of this situation in the Catholic Church, whose belief that the Devil exists is fading. Before this new Rite came out, the German Episcopate wrote in a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger that there was no point in a new Rite in that exorcisms should no longer be performed…

…I could give you the names of so many bishops and cardinals who, on their appointment to a diocese, stripped exorcists of their faculty to perform the rite. Or there are bishops who openly say they don’t believe that these are things of the past…

The Pope continues to complain about the problem of the devil, and incidents of demonic possession are on the rise, especially in Rome. The primary reason for this surge of evil is the mass apostasy in the Church brought about the Council. The Council weakened the Church not only through its documents, but also through its implementation.

Although it took the conciliar implementers 34 years, they finally got around to destroying the last vestige of Catholic ritual and liturgical tradition in the Church’s rite of exorcism. If there is any doubt that the Council was used as a justification for destroying the rite of exorcism, one need only look at the references in the new rite’s Prefatory Decree. There the authors clearly cite the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium as the authorization for the “revision.”

May Our Lord please exorcise the Spirit of Vatican II from His Church…and fast.  Source 

Comment 

Is there anyone out there who is genuinely surprised that “we have a clergy and episcopate who do not believe in the Devil”, according to Fr Amorth? And if they don’t believe in the Devil, well… what “Gospel” are they reading? There’s a letter in today’s Catholic Herald from a priest – Fr Julian Shurgold, Surrey, England – who tells us that he thought the winning song in the Eurovision Song Contest, performed by bearded drag queen. Conchita, “was a well deserved black eye for Putin, certain members of the Russian Orthodox Church and other vile, bullying Russian homophobes.” He concludes his daft letter by opining that the fact that “many leading Russians were seriously upset by Conchita…all goes to show that there may be justice in the world after all!”

Er…”homophobes”?  Justice in the world because a bearded “drag queen” won a song contest?  For the record, he thought her song was “very poor”; for the record, I think his letter is a disgrace but that’s not the point.   Just ask yourself this question: would a priest  who believes in the Devil, be using the language of the homosexual lobby to describe people who are opposed to unnatural pseudo-sexual activity? That’s one example of a clergyman who, in my opinion, appears not to believe in the Devil (maybe he’ll come on here to tell us differently – I’ll be sending him the link) and there are plenty of other examples. All in all, it seems crystal clear to the Catholic Truth Team that, given the chaos in the Church today, worldwide, for Fr Amorth to say “most modern bishops (and priests) do not believe in the Devil” is akin to saying “Christmas comes in December”.  It’s a no brainer.  Or maybe you disagree?

Comments (72)

  • Josephine

    That’s a powerful article about the new vs old rite of exorcism. I’m amazed that Fr Amorth is getting away with being so outspoken about the damage done by Vatican II – the closing words of prayer say it all: “May Our Lord please exorcise the Spirit of Vatican II from His Church…and fast.” Hear hear!

    Its a disgrace for a priest to use the word “homophobe”. I think I’ve said it on here before, but if someone uses the word “homophobe” then IMHO they are likely to be a homosexual themselves or at least in sympathy with the homosexual lobby. If they thought there was anything unnatural or wrong about two men having simulated sex, they wouldn’t be speaking like that.

    May 26, 2014 at 12:07 am
    • Faith of Our Fathers

      I completely agree with you even anyone who uses that self inflicted homosexual thought up word are as bent as the back road to Loch Lomond .Sorry if the language is a bit colourful but some times we have to tell it as it is this anything goes as far as queers is concerned is starting to have a 100% negative effect on young people. Also its time priests like him were shown the door good on Putin for standing up to the homosexual lobby.

      May 28, 2014 at 2:02 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Most modern and ancient religions have professed belief in evil, non-corporeal, spiritual beings, i.e. demons: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, various Pagan systems. Archaeology has proven that humans have been visited by demons since the world began, so to tempt us to idolatry.

    May 26, 2014 at 12:13 am
  • Nicky

    “Although use of the old rite can be permitted, this permission is predictably at the mercy of the Bishop”

    I don’t think that’s right. Summorum Pontificum freed up all the sacraments in the old rite and I can’t see why the rite of exorcism in the old rite would be any different.

    No, I’m not at all surprised that most priests and bishops don’t believe in the devil. They don’t believe in God so why would they believe in the devil?

    Yes, I do think any priest who would speak the language of the homosexuals is unlikely to believe in the devil. What does “homophobe” mean anyway? It means “fear of men”. It was a stupid choice of word to begin with because it doesn’t get across the reality of what they are trying to stamp out which is any criticism of what they do sexually. People who respect the God given natural law have a horror (not a fear) of unnatural sexual behaviour, so “homophobe” doesn’t get that across.

    May 26, 2014 at 12:16 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    John Paul II promulgated this allegedly ineffective Rite, but I digress.

    According to the author of an excellent CTS booklet on the subject, himself a priest and exorcist in Britain, many exorcists elect to use the Traditional Rite of Exorcism.

    I believe that Modernist Biblical exegesis (or rather eisegesis), itself borrowed from liberal Protestant theologies, which has been taught as the norm in post-conciliar seminaries (e.g. the Jerome Biblical Commentary) has led to this incredulity among the clergy. So now they’re inclined to think that possessed person in the bible were ‘mentally ill’, or ‘epileptic’, and all the rest is the superstitious angst of a primitive people.

    May 26, 2014 at 12:27 am
    • Margaret Mary

      I’ve heard that said in sermons that the cures in the Gospels can be explained by modern science and psychology. That’s why I’m not surprised that Fr Amorth says there’s a loss of belief in the devil in the modern church. There definitely is.

      May 26, 2014 at 12:37 pm
  • Michaela

    No, I don’t think any informed Catholic will be surprised to learn that a majority of priests and bishops don’t believe in the devil. As Nicky says, they don’t believe in God so it would be incongruous if they believed in Satan.

    Their unbelief shows in many ways, from their support of homosexual behaviour (see the case of Fr Shurgold – you don’t use the word “homophobe” unless you approve of homosexual behaviour) and it shows in their support for Communion for pro-abortion politicians, for Communion for the divorced and remarried etc. etc.

    Miles Immaculatae put a very good comment on another thread showing the different types or stages of “Catholics” but I can’t remember if he included apostates. Fr Amorth has spelt it out clearly, that Vatican II has been a major obstacle to belief, especially belief in evil and the devil, thanks to the new rite of exorcism, and the spread of apostasy or unbelief is no doubt linked to the “liberal” spirit of Vatican II where all gods are equal.

    May 26, 2014 at 10:16 am
  • editor

    Good Morning, all…

    Below is my correspondence with Fr Julian Shurgold, mentioned in the Comment section at the end of the blog article:

    1) My EMAIL TO FR SHURGOLD, 25 May, 2014

    Fr Shurgold,

    I was surprised, to put it mildly, to read your reference to “homophobes” in today’s Catholic Herald. Your indulgent attitude towards the “drag queen” who won the daft Eurovision Song Contest was also something of a surprise – but then I’m probably guilty of having a much too “serious, humourless and overly pious view of the world”. Silly me. I mean, who pays any attention to “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” anymore? Talk about “serious, humourless and overly pious” – with bells on…

    For your information, I’ve mentioned your letter in the Comment section at the end of a discussion thread just posted on our blog. You can read the article and my comment here (I gave the link to this thread)

    2) REPLY FROM FR SHURGOLD, 26 May, 2014

    Dear [Editor]

    I shall look forward to reading your comments when I return from a short break; your email to me proves the point of my letter which was intended to provoke your type of reaction. How wicked of me to be “indulgent” to Conchita – after all she`s only a human being who`s different, and I`m in good company as Cardinal Schornborn, the Archbishop of Vienna has said: “I am glad that Tom Neuwirth [Conchita]had such success . . . as we all know, there is multi-coloured variety in God`s garden”, and Conchita`s parish priest is also delighted, remembering her as a member of the parish choir who used to undertake an outdoor collection on the parish choir`s behalf. Tut, tut, I hope I`m not getting too charitable and upsetting all those ‘right-thinking’ people who`ve got God in their pocket! I`ll write soon!

    Yours sincerely,
    Fr. Julian Shurgold

    3) MY REPLY TO FR SHURGOLD’S REPLY, 26 May, 2014

    Fr Shurgold,

    You were indulgent to Conchita (real name Thomas Neuwirth) not because [s]he’s a human being, but because, manifestly, you see nothing wrong with “transgenderism” any more than you apparently believe there is anything wrong with homosexual activity.

    As for your quote from Cardinal Schonborn – thanks for that. I already knew, of course, that he is a blatant dissenter and, aside from the many examples of his dissent on the public record, it’s useful to know that he regards the insult to God of “transgenderism” as nothing more than an example of “variety in God’s garden.”

    “Conchita” collected money for the parish choir? Shucks. That’s all right then. I’ve collected for charity in the past – even undertook a sponsored walk and later a sponsored silence, both of which (especially the latter) almost killed me, so does that mean you’ll be “charitable” towards me? Thought not.

    Anyway, I take it you won’t mind if I post your email to me (and my response) on our blog. Then, if you choose to participate you can confirm or deny your support for both men and women undergoing sex-change operations and your – it seems to me – self-evident support for homosexual activity. Otherwise, Father, you’d be a “homophobe”, too, since I’ve yet to meet a Catholic who denounced the aberrant sexual behaviour of those engaged in homosexual behaviour who felt hatred towards the persons concerned or would think of discriminating against them in terms of employment etc. Everyone is entitled to our respect, just because they are human beings. We cannot hate anyone. But we must hate two things: sin and heresy. You won’t hear that from the lips of Cardinal Schonborn. Trust me. END.

    Important Note:

    I’ve just realised that, despite putting the name in inverted commas, I fell into the trap of referring to “Conchita” as “[s]he” instead of using the male pronoun. Apologies.

    May 26, 2014 at 10:44 am
    • mikidiki

      Editor
      In amongst the hubbub triggered by Father Julian Shurgold’s intemperate and regrettable correspondence, it might be revelatory to cast a sideways glance at the track record of his superior, one Archbishop Peter Smith.
      From 1995 to 2001 Peter Smith was Bushop of East Anglia where he authorised and championed a schools’ text book written by an ex-nun married to an ex-priest. Clare Richards and her husband were neighbours and friends of the Bishop and he showered praise on the book, entitled Roman Catholic Christianity, even after he was summoned to Rome (initially refusing to go) and being commanded, by the then Cadinal Ratzinger, to withdraw the book’s imprimatur.
      The bulk of the sorry and disgraceful tale is reported in an article in the December 2003 issue of Christian Order entitled The Unstoppable Clare Richards! written by Daphne McLeod.
      Further pause for thought is engendered by the knowledge that Peter Smith was appointed Archbishop of Cardiff in 2001 and later to his current post as Archbishop of Southwark in 2010.

      May 26, 2014 at 5:37 pm
      • editor

        Mikidiki,

        I’m very well aware indeed of Archbishop Smith’s support for Clare Richards. I was teaching RE at the time and her book was a total disgrace. Ignorance, with multi-coloured ribbons and whistles attached, filled its objectionable pages.

        You are correct about the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s fury about the book as reported in Christian Order. Still, despite the removal of the imprimatur, Clare Richards went on to write another piece of nonsense, peddling the same errors as were contained in the banned book. And the banned book continued to be used in Catholic schools, despite the removal of the imprimatur. Sheer nerve.

        Of course, it’s because they know that they have the support of their Bishop that modernist priests feel confident in writing letters to the Catholic press which essentially preach tolerance of (and even approval of) behaviours which are crying to Heaven for vengeance. Fr Shurgold has nothing to fear from his Ordinary. Not unless he decides to offer a Sunday Traditional Latin Mass in his parish. And he knows it.

        May 26, 2014 at 11:36 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I personally am not surprised that many Priests no longer in the Devil, but I would be interested to see comments from individual Priests, or even a statistic. I’m generally cautious of hyperbole and sweeping statements. I know that my PP, in the Novus Ordo believes in the Devil, as to I. The Devil has tempted me many times and I have fallen into his traps. I fail to see how a Priest could not believe in the Devil given that Our Lord was tempted thrice by the Evil One, and Jesus exorcised a possessed man in Luke 8:26-30. Does the Bible mean nothing to these idiots?

    As for ‘homophobia’, I don’t believe it exists, because I have never met anyone with an irrational fear of the same sex. . Homophobia is a word employed to victimise and denigrate normal people who support the traditional family and marriage. However, violence against people is abhorrent, because it is un-Christian to harm someone. We must love the sinner but hate the sin. Needless, Mr Neuwirth’s victory was a disgrace, and shows the extent of apostasy across Europe. I refuse to call him a ‘she’. He can have all the operations in the World, but genetically speaking he is still a man. Also, just because he was a choir boy, doesn’t make him a Catholic.

    May 26, 2014 at 1:04 pm
    • Josephine

      Catholic Convert,

      I don’t think many priests would tell you or me that they didn’t believe in the devil. They always speak with forked tongues, so it’s difficult to always know what they believe. However, if a priest talked to me about “homophobia” meaning people who believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral behaviour, then I’d wonder if he believed in God at all, let alone the devil.

      Also, I can’t see why Fr Amorth would want to tell a lie about such a thing. He obviously meets with priests to talk about exorcism and if they were going to tell anybody they didn’t believe in evil spirits then they’d surely tell him, IMHO.

      May 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm
      • Josephine

        Sorry I meant priests who don’t believe or deny certain dogmas speak with forked tongues. Not all priests.

        May 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      “I’m generally cautious of hyperbole and sweeping statements.”

      Goodness, you’re missing all the fun!

      May 26, 2014 at 11:21 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Agreed, Ed, we cannot discriminate against someone where there is a right to something, i.e employment, housing, healthcare etc, but marriage etc is not a right, but a basic biological reality.

    May 26, 2014 at 1:07 pm
    • Josephine

      I totally agree that nobody should be discriminated against for jobs etc. But there is never any right to sin, and that’s what priests like Fr Shurgold should be saying, not accusing people of being “homophobic” for speaking out against the sin of homo-sex.

      May 26, 2014 at 2:57 pm
  • Vianney

    It doesn’t surprise me that many of the clergy don’t believe in the devil. Many people just regard him like the bogey man, just a myth made up to frighten people. I remember a few years ago a visiting American telling me that her priest had said from the pulpit that Vatican II had extinguished the flames of hell. Sadly, she believed him.

    May 26, 2014 at 3:25 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    My mom always blessed all of us and our home every morning and night with Holy Water. That always gave me an awareness that she was protecting us and I’ve always done the same. I remember that she was concerned about the new way the priests were making Holy Water. I don’t know what they changed but she was eager to get it made in the old way.

    May 26, 2014 at 4:36 pm
  • Theresa Rose

    I cannot say that I am surprised that many clergy do not believe in the existence of the devil or hell. For those who do not, they are “wolves in sheeps’ clothing”, who are a danger to the salvation of souls in their supposed care.

    Yet there are those who do believe and preach about. Perhaps the clergy should be reminded of Saint Leonard of Port Maurice who did preach about hell. I know this link has been on previous threads, but useful again on this one.

    http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

    I agree with Josephine that the above is a powerful article about the new versus old rite of exorcism.
    Fr Amorth is alerting us all to the dangers of what is happening. It is a wonder he has got away with it so far.
    Yet the Pope complains of the rise of demonic possession.

    The devil must be laughing in that he has control of so many priests, to do his bidding. And with bells on.
    No wonder Our Lady of Fatima asks us to pray and make sacrifices for poor souls who are in danger of falling into hell.

    May 26, 2014 at 5:43 pm
  • Helen

    I see Fr. Julian Shurgold has reached a new low. I often wonder why these people become priests. Probably a soft option, especially if they are not the marrying type.

    May 26, 2014 at 6:45 pm
  • crofterlady

    I’m surprised that any Catholic, let alone a priest, would write such a letter to a Catholic newspaper. I suppose it’s a sign of the times that they printed it.

    May 26, 2014 at 6:55 pm
  • Crouchback

    Anybody any idea if the SSPX has exorcists available…??…I seem to recall that bishops are “automatically” exorcists by right of episcopal ordination….??…there should not be too much call for casting out of demons in the average SSPX congregation…they tend to cast themselves out every now and again….I even casted my self out many moons ago….but I’m feeling a lot better now….!!!

    May 26, 2014 at 10:50 pm
    • editor

      Crouchback,

      No offence, Sugar Plum, but there’s not an exorcist in the world can help you. Try Fr Shurgold 😀

      May 26, 2014 at 10:57 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      A former friend of mine insinuated on a few occasions that my Traditional orientation and SSPX sympathies were the result of demonic interference.

      No guesses as to why he is a former friend. The double-standards, the contempt and spitefulness of neo-Catholics is irksome beyond endurance.

      Absurdly, this former friend of mine was well in to Medjugorje, which is manifestly demonic, what with its alchemy and trances. Its UFOs. Its haunted spooky mountain. Its Madonna that turns black. Its Madonna that laughs. Its Madonna that lies and contradict herself. Its mute Madonna…

      May 27, 2014 at 12:46 am
  • gabriel syme

    Haha – if you do a google image search for Fr Julian Shurgold, (I was trying to learn more about him), the creepy image from the top of this thread appears in the results!

    May 26, 2014 at 11:54 pm
    • editor

      Gabriel Syme,

      I Googled Fr Julian Shurgold but this thread doesn’t appear until page 2, and then it’s just the link – not the image. How can that be – I would have thought we’d all get the same result(s). The wonders of technology…

      May 27, 2014 at 12:13 am
    • Fidelis

      Gabriel Syme,

      I Googled Fr Julian Shurgold and didn’t get the “creepy image” either. However, I found this article where he is complaining about people “babbling” the Rosary – the full context is given here.
      http://donmcgoverns.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/fr-shergold-and-babbling-sic-rosary.html

      The article is written by a man called Graham Moorhouse who describes himself as a traditionalist although the blog has links to all the well known neo-Catholic sites. Catholic Truth is not linked, BTW.

      I’m wondering if this is the same Graham Moorhouse who the newsletter for May reports has taken over as Chair of Pro Ecclesia, after Daphne McLeod resigned. Does anyone know?

      May 27, 2014 at 11:20 am
  • mikidiki

    Referring to Bishops, here is the latest from Bishop Gallantino,, Secretary General of the Italian Bishops Conference, as reported on Monday May 26th 2014 in lifenews.com, under the heading ‘Father Pavone and other Catholic leaders respond to Italian bishop who criticized pro lifers.’

    Bishop Gallantino called for the Church to listen without any taboos to the arguments in favour of married priests, the Eucharist for the divorced and homosexuality.
    He further stated that “In the past we have concentrated too much on abortion and euthanasia. It mustn’t be this way because in the middle there is real life which is instantly changing.”
    He denigrated those who recited rosaries whilst standing outside abortion facilities.

    Who the devil does he think he is!

    May 27, 2014 at 1:26 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Among the most ancient objectives of the Evil One is to make murderers of us. He tricked us into human sacrifice in antiquity, and he continues to trick us into murdering humans through abortion and IVF.

      May 27, 2014 at 1:59 am
    • editor

      Mikidiki,

      Bishop Gallantino would never have said such a shocking thing about leaving the unborn to their deadly fate, had Pope Francis not got there first.

      We must never forget that the buck, without a shred of doubt, stops at whatever bus is transporting the “humble” and “simple” pontiff to his next appointment with his adoring media.

      May 27, 2014 at 9:17 am
  • Frankier

    .
    So why are these unfortunate people, if everything they do is acceptable and above board, so reluctant to call themselves by their proper titles: buggers or sodomites?

    As Nicky correctly states, homophobia means a fear of men, not a fear or hatred of homosexuals, although the latest dictionaries would have you believe that.

    There must have been a lot of the abused children with a fear of men so they are the ones who can be correctly described as homophobic, not someone with a repugnancy for unnatural acts.

    The human body is perfectly designed for certain, natural things. Anything unnatural is obviously wrong and it is certainly unnatural for members of the same, or even opposite, sex to be using parts of the body for something for which it wasn`t designed or intended.

    I wonder if Fr Shergar would accept if I, free of charge, offered to shove pencils up his nostrils and to hammer 6″ nails into his ears.

    Personally, I would rather have that than unnatural sex.

    May 27, 2014 at 9:20 am
    • Helen

      Frankier, Shergar is a racehorse, I think.

      May 27, 2014 at 10:50 am
      • pew catholic

        Was a racehorse, Helen. But we’re off-topic …

        May 27, 2014 at 11:20 am
      • Frankier

        Helen

        I know it was but I couldn`t be bothered checking up on his real name.

        Who knows, maybe the IRA will kidnap him too.

        May 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm
  • Fidelis

    I am not surprised that Father Shurgold used the word “homophobes” because modernist priests have not had the solid training in moral theology that they surely need to stand strong against the propaganda of the homosexual rights groups. Having said that, ordinary people without any training have an instinctive understanding of the unnatural-ness and therefore wrongness of these acts, so it is difficult to comprehend why priests like him go with the flow on moral issues.

    I’m not at all surprised that most priests and bishops don’t believe in the devil. I can’t really add anything to what has been said but if they really believed, they would stand out from the crowd. They don’t stand out and when you see them on TV in controversial discussions they bleat on about “love” being all that is needed to “tolerate” one another and, like Fr Shurgold, they say that these people with aberrant sexual appetites and desires are just “a human being who`s different.” Why don’t they say that about paedophiles, or is it they are waiting for that to be legalised first? There are people campaigning for the legalisation of paedophilia and some argue that the first steps were taken in that direction when sex education came into the schools. Maybe when that is legalised, Fr Shurgold will defend paedophiles as “a human being who’s different” just like transgenders and homosexuals, more proof of the variety in God’s garden, as Cardinal Schonborn says.

    May 27, 2014 at 11:35 am
  • Fidelis

    If Cardinal Schonborn’s statement that transgender people are proof of the “multi-coloured variety in God’s garden” is not a statement of unbelief in the God of revelation and the devil, I don’t know what is. I am thoroughly horrified that a cardinal of the Church could be so approving of such grave immorality as a man wanting to change into a woman. But Cardinal Schonborn is a supporter of the diabolical Medjugorje scam, so this makes me recall, “by their fruits shall ye know them” .

    May 27, 2014 at 11:41 am
  • Frankier

    I suppose God is bothered by weeds in the garden too.

    May 27, 2014 at 12:36 pm

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: