Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Keep On Truckin' ?

 In an act of incredible audacity, the former "Cardinal-Archbishop" of Sydney, Australia, Mr. George Pell said the Vatican II sect was no more responsible for cases of child abuse carried out by church figures than a trucking company would be if it employed a driver who molested women. Those who were sexually abused by the Vatican II clergy reacted with righteous anger at his comments.

 He said, "It would not be appropriate, because it’s contrary to the policy, for the ownership, leadership of that company to be held responsible,” Pell told the Australian government's inquiry into sex abuse. “Similarly with the church and the head of any other organization. It is, I think, not appropriate for legal culpability to be foisted on the authority figure.”

 Mr. Pell is as ignorant of civil and international law as he is of Divine and Canon Law (not to mention general principles of Moral Theology). Under the English common law (adopted, so to speak, in the U.S. and Australia) there is the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, i.e., "let the master answer." This occurs when an employee, acting within the scope of his employment, commits a tort or criminal act against a third party. The injured party can bring legal action against BOTH the employee and the employer, who is held responsible by vicarious liability.

  Whether or not such vicarious liability will be applied, depends on a number of factors, the most important of which are:
1.Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the employment?

2. Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the employee is authorized to perform?

3. Was the employee motivated to any degree to benefit the employer by committing the act? Did the employer take reasonable care to ensure the employee was fit for the job (e.g. criminal background check, no history of mental illness, etc)?

 Let's see how these apply to Mr. Bergoglio's sect. As to question #1, a priest is "on duty" 24/7, so the answer is yes. As to question #2, the molestations were incidental to the priest's duties (if Vatican II sect "priests" can be said to have any real "duties"). As to question #3, there can be said to be a mutual benefit of the sodomite perverts covering for one another--the so-called "gay mafia." Did the Vatican II sect take reasonable care to ensure the seminarian was fit for the job, the answer is a resounding "NO"! Forgetting the act of hiding these perverts AFTER their crimes are known, the sect has allowed men morally unfit for duty into their ranks.

 Beginning in 1970, the seminaries in the U.S. and countries around the world, lifted the ban on those men with "same sex attraction" (SSA). This practice of letting in perverts was implicitly and explicitly condone by the sect's bishops. In 2002, the year the pedophile scandal came to fore, former Bp. Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit wrote an article in America magazine defending the ordination of sodomites. Gumbleton would wear a miter with a cross, a rainbow (symbol of homosexual perversion), and a pink triangle (the symbol used in Nazi Germany to designate sodomites). Gumbleton's article, entitled "Yes, Gay Men Should Be Ordained," gave the following reasons for his conclusion:

  • The homosexual was created by God as such. Since God is responsible for making the person this way, it is a gift to be a homosexual. 
 My response: There is no definitive answer as to whether or not homosexuals are genetically determined, and even if they were it wouldn't matter. If alcoholism is determined to be genetic, will he tell the drunk that God is responsible for this so keep on drinking? 

  • Through the testimony of their suffering, God has chosen homosexuals to reveal something about Him that heterosexuals do not.
My response:  Reveal that "the wages of sin is death" perhaps? Those with bipolar disorder suffer too. Should they be ordained as well?

  • God has called many homosexual men to the priesthood and episcopate.
My response: And he knows this...how? God calls no one who is unfit to the priesthood. Least of all those who practice one of the Four Sins Crying To Heaven For Vengeance.

  • Homosexual priests have an exceptional ability to proclaim the truth.
My response: Unless the truth he is proclaiming is that "I'm disordered, and celibate," he has no special ability for proclaiming truth. This is a propositional statement devoid of any/all proof.

  • Homosexual priests have more compassion than many heterosexual priests.
My response: Another gratuitous assertion with nothing to back it up.

 To summarize, if a trucking company hired a driver who had a mental/moral disorder that made him violent towards women, and he raped someone, the company would certainly be on the hook! Add to that fiasco the hiding of the criminal once his acts are known, and the president of that company (and anyone else involved) should be locked up, and the key thrown away. 

 Mr. Pell, and the rest of the Vatican II sect, have not come to grips with the fact that "gay is NOT OK" and you SHOULD judge them unfit (hear that Jorge?). The judgement to which someday THEY will  be held liable, is neither civil nor criminal, but eternal---in the flames of Hell. 


  1. I mean, the novus ordo sect has a lot of people in it. I'm surprised they can't recruit more "priests" rather than fight out these kind of ridiculous battles of "saving face". Probably because they don't want to save souls but rather save face.

  2. Vatican II is a nice word for zionist/freemasonic infiltration.