Certain sins bring infestation of demons: horrid #sodoclericalism “parties” close to the most important places in the Vatican

UPDATE:

Just because a bishop sets a “policy”, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us in a diocese are obliged to follow that “policy” if that policy clearly contradicts the universal law of the Church.

The failure of a bishop properly to act like a bishop does not dispense lay people or priests from acting like lay people and priests.  If a bishop throws Canon Law out the window, we are nevertheless obliged to observe it.

The great Ed Peters explains this in detail at his fine blog HERE.  And, at the end of his post, he asked a really good question.


 

LifeSite has a gruesome piece today. They report on the claims that a close collaborator of Francis, formerly head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Francesco Card. Coccopalmerio, was presiding over the drug and sodomy party in an apartment of the Palazzo Sant’Uffizio (where the CDF and Ecclesia Dei are also housed) where one of the partakers had an overdose. When the Vatican gendarmes or police were called, they had Cocco skedaddle before they got officially to work.

According to German news sources, Cocco was in favor of reinstating a child abuser, Italian Mauro Inzoli, to active ministry.

Also, if you take such things as omens, the roof of the Roman church to which as a cardinal Cocco was assigned collapsed during August 2018. San Giuseppe dei Falegnami (St. Joseph of the Carpenters). This church was new to the list of titular churches for cardinals. Cocco is the first titular. The church stands at the edge of the ancient Roman Forum, above the Mamertine prison where Sts. Peter and Paul were incarcerated.  I don’t think that St. Joseph approve of drug-fueled sodomy parties literally in the shadow of the dome of St. Peter.

You will recall that Cocco wrote a thin booklet in the wake of Amoris laetitia that said that Communion should be given to the divorced and remarried.

Speaking of Communion, we read that Chicago’s Card. Cupich has taken the same position as Cocco also about homosexual couples.  HERE

Cupich has established a “policy” in the Archdiocese of Chicago that they should not be denied, to hell with what canons 915 and 916 say, along with the perennial teaching and practice of the Church.   Apparently policies can override law and doctrine, thus making it possible for unrepentant men who inseminate each others openings to present themselves – scandalously – for Communion and not be denied.  I suppose it isn’t quite a public policy yet to punish priests who chose the Church’s law and teaching.  The treatment of Fr. Kalchik, who participated in the burning of a sacrilegious banner imposing a rainbow on a Cross, suggests that a policy has been formed but not officially promulgated.   After Kalchik, maybe they won’t have to.

I think that an experienced exorcist should go over the whole of the Palazzo Sant’Uffizio, where that party took place.   Demons attach themselves to places where certain sins are committed.  And that exorcist shouldn’t be limited to that one palazzo.  Use Ch. 3 of the title in the Rituale Romanum, for exorcisms of places.  More HERE for priests.

I think that experienced exorcists should go through all the rectories of Chicago, as well as the churches, sacristies, schools and chancery.   That goes for every diocese.

Si vis pacem para bellum!

The Devil is good at what he does and he tells us what he is up to.  Having drug/sodomy parties in the building where the CDF and where the office that oversees the use of the Traditional Roman Rite and the new traditional religious institutes are housed is a dead give away.  THAT’s precisely the sort of place to attach and infest with demonic presence.  It’s a stone’s throw from

a) the very place Peter was crucified
b) the tomb of Peter
c) the Paul VI audience hall, where the Synod (“walking together”) meets
d) the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which also handles cases of abuse
e) the offices of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” which, reinforced by Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum is providing support for that “Marshall Plan” for rebuilding that I’m always on about.

If I were looking at this from the eyes of an enemy, that’s exactly the sort of place I would seek to infiltrate.

Pray and perform acts of reparation.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Si vis pacem para bellum!, Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Certain sins bring infestation of demons: horrid #sodoclericalism “parties” close to the most important places in the Vatican

  1. scotus says:

    Cardinal Cupich told The Chicago Tribune:
    “It’s a lot easier to tell people what they are doing in black and white. The important thing in all of this as we move forward is to recognize that people’s lives are very complicated. There are mitigating circumstances, psychological, their own personal history, maybe even biological. It’s not a matter of detracting from what the ideal is.”
    Well if the sixth Commandment is just an ‘ideal’ then presumably that also applies to the seventh Commandment and presumably Cardinal Cupich won’t have any objection to a thief coming into his house and stealing all his valuables on the basis that he isn’t yet able to live up to the ‘ideal’.

  2. Amerikaner says:

    In my book, all prelates and priests that support the homosexual sphere are either homosexuals themselves or mentally deranged. No more money should be given in their dioceses or churches. Give it to good priests/communities or put it in an account for when things are back on track. I suppose according to them, God should apologize to sodom and gemorrah.

  3. iamlucky13 says:

    This is a very serious claim, and therefore I get really, really anxious about passing along claims of the level made about Cardinal Coccopalmerio by an anonymous source. This goes beyond reporting that something utterly inappropriate happened in the Vatican, and actually calls out specific people.

    Maybe the investigation actually has credible testimony about the Cardinal’s presence, and perhaps the original source has sufficiently serious reasons for sharing the alleged testimony, but the way I see it, those of us not privy to the details can not validate the accuracy of the claim. Therefore, is it prudent and consistent with CCC 2477 for us to repeat those claims, even if only by linking to them?

  4. JabbaPapa says:

    Also, if you take such things as omens, the roof of the Roman church to which as a cardinal Cocco was assigned collapsed during August 2018. San Giuseppe dei Falegnami (St. Joseph of the Carpenters).

    This is particularly significant — the most important work of a carpenter in the Ancient World was the construction of the wooden frameworks used in architectural work ; the very skeleton that each building is constructed around, and in VERY many cases, their principal support structures in their finished state.

  5. carn says:

    I can’t help to always after reading some words about mitigating circumstances, etc.:

    “It’s a lot easier to tell people what they are doing in black and white. The important thing in all of this as we move forward is to recognize that people’s lives are very complicated. There are mitigating circumstances, psychological, their own personal history, maybe even biological. It’s not a matter of detracting from what the ideal is.”

    think of the following:

    If there is some catholic who after careful study of the teaching of the Catholic Church, e.g. the catechism and the bible, and in light of actions and words of his bishop concludes, that his bishop has publically declared heretical believes, and then concludes in light of CIC 1364 §1 that thereby the bishop excommunicated himself and then concludes in light of CIC 194 § 1 that therefore he is to be removed from the office of bishop,

    and who then through some lack of competence in canon law which he is not aware of himself errenously thinks the excommunication is already valid under canon law (erring in that even an automatic excommunication needs official procedure to have legal effect) and thinks that the excommuicated person still acting as if he were bishop is an ongoing crime and who due to some general attitude that if authorities fail to stop ongoing crime then subjects themselvse are allowed to use the minimal means necessary to stop the ongoing crime

    who then – after careful prayer and discernment in an attempt to heed the Pope’s call for discernment – concludes that he should do the following:
    Walk right into the bishop’s see, take possesion of the mitre, the pectoral cross, the ecclesiastical ring, the chasuble, the pontifical dalmatic, the crosier (carried) and the zucchetto without using any physical force or harming anybody physically; and
    contact Rome to inform them, that according to (his understanding of) the law he removed a criminal imposter from the office and will of course give over the items to the new lawful bishop, when he arrives at the bishop’s see ;

    would all those “mitigating circumstances” talker then also readily call for lenience towards such a confused poor soul, as according to his best knowledge he did what he thought was right?

    I am sincerely in doubt. And that is because from my impression few of those “mitigating circumstances” talkers actually understand what mitigating circumstances are and would surely miss them in my example and would harshly condem my confused hypothetical catholic.

    Disclaimer: I think such an action would be wrong and the circumstances would not even be mitigating, as my hypothetical catholic failed to discuss the matter with a competent canon layer (i did not mention so in my description), which would be the minimal requirement before acting in such drastic way and failing to do so makes him liable, as it should be obvious to anybody that complicated matters of canon law should be double checked with neutral third parties.

  6. Bellarmino Vianney says:

    Fr. Z. mentioned the “sacrilegious banner imposing a rainbow on a Cross” that was rightly gotten rid of by the heroic action of Fr. Kalchik.

    That reminded this commentator of a certain bishop’s action. A certain bishop (wrongly labeled as “conservative” or “tradition-supporting”) published a picture of a Crucifix with a rainbow imposed on the Crucifix. The picture was in the diocesan “news” paper and the bishop is the publisher of that “news” paper.

    It was sacrilege. And it was not the only instance of sacrilege that this bishop has committed. This commentator, of course, did his duty and rebuked the bishop for the sacrilege. The bishop responded by saying something like the rainbow was a reminder of Noah’s Ark and the flood. That is, in part, how these people get away with furthering their diabolical agendas. They find half-truths which support their actions.

    In the end, the Cocco Puffs of the world will have to stand before God. God Himself says that those type of people who have not changed their lives and repented with a firm purpose of amendment will not get into heaven. Those who support (even those who support it silently), propagate (for instance, by publishing rainbow-Crucifixes in diocesan material), promote, or engage in the LGBT agenda will not get to heaven.

  7. Liz says:

    God have mercy on us! What you say makes so much sense, Father.

    When I read details about the evil around us it’s tempting to get sickened and discouraged, but I know we can’t. As I type this I can see Don Camillo’s picture. The little middles (one starts grouping one’s kids in a large family!) and I will watch The Return of Don Camillo tonight, and we will be inspired, and we will also laugh and laugh.

  8. jflare29 says:

    Part of Dr Peters’ comments on his blog have me a shade confused. Assuming I’m understanding him correctly, he says that cohabiting homosexual couples are assumed to be not engaging in sexual acts (especially with each other). I thought part of the matter related to forbidding homosexual marriages (and relationships in general) was related to the fact that we DO assume them to be committing acts of homosexual sex? Otherwise, we would treat their relationships as that of room-mates. Wouldn’t we?

Do you have a comment? Think BEFORE posting! Proof read. For special characters use Unicode.