"Gay" Rights Campaign Obtains the Imprimatur of "Pope" Francis and his "Magic Circle"

By Michael Hoffman Copyright©2020

From the website of the Jesuit publication, America, we read:

In the new documentary, “Francesco,” the filmmaker, Evgeny Afineevsky, asked Pope Francis during an interview about the place of L.G.B.T. ("Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender") Catholics in the church. Francis reemphasized his belief that L.G.B.T. people should be made to feel welcome in the church. “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” the pope said. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable because of it. “What we have to create is a civil union law,” he said. “That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.” As pope, Francis has urged a more welcoming church for L.G.B.T. people, beginning with his response to a question in 2013 about gay priests, “Who am I to judge?” Juan Carlos Cruz, a survivor of clergy sexual abuse who clashed with church leaders over the pope’s handling of sexual abuse in Chile, has developed a friendship with Francis. In the documentary, Mr. Cruz says he has discussed his sexuality with the pope, who allegedly told him, “God made you gay. God loves you like you are and you have to love yourself. (End quote).

This is not going to be a prolix column because not a great deal needs to be said. The fewer words the better was George Orwell’s writing philosophy and we concur. It’s like being asked whether or not America is a white supremacist nation. While white racism is real and undenaibly exists in pockets in this country (along with anti-Hispanic, anti-white and anti-Asian racism), no disquisition on white supremacy as America's alleged signature contemporary pestilence, is necessary. Reply in seventeen words and end the matter: “
No nation that twice elected a black man to its highest office is a white supremacist nation.”

Case closed.

We would prefer to be just as succinct with anti-Pope Francis: “
No Catholic pontiff can welcome into the Church those who practice sodomy.”

Case closed.

Yet, in dealing with Vatican
pilpul and flummery it is necessary to elucidate at least a few dimensions of this crisis for the sake of clarity.This is necessary because Francis and his conferes are likely to generate a smokescreen by arguing that they are not welcoming those who actively engage in sodomy, but only those who have an orientation toward it.

Let's test this putative pontiff's sincerity. Substitute for “L.G.B.T. people” the holocaust revisionists who doubt, according to conscience, the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. Imagine Francis issuing the following pronouncement:

“Holocaust revisionist people have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God. Nobody should be thrown out because of it.”

Anti-Pope Francis would never make that statement. Why? Because Francis believes that doubting the existence of execution gas chambers is a grave sin. So what is the logical corollary? “L.G.B.T. people” are not committing grave sins. His absolution is contrary to the law of God; concerning which, we should contemplate Psalm 119, and the words of Jesus in John 14:15, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” To rehabilitate homosexual acts, one must nullify the Torah.

“But Jesus never spoke against homosexuality,” is the reply. Neither did He speak contra abortion. He did however, define marriage exactly as His Father decreed in Genesis 5:2: between a man and a woman. Sex is a transgression against divine law on any occasion when it is not between a male and female within the bonds of matrimony.

This is fixed dogma which permits no loopholes, or the infamous casuistry which this pope, like many before him, employs. It is at this juncture that our position differs radically from almost all other conservative Catholics, when we observe that sex with men and boys was
institutionalized inside the Church long before Vatican II. Molestations were at epidemic levels in pontificates regarded as “traditional,” due to the perceived need to protect the reputation of the “higher-souled” priest-molester, and because of the secrecy in which is wrapped the homosexual activities of the Roman hierarchy (which are as labyrinthine as its financial dealings).

The most faithful and effective opponent of sodomy in the past 500 years was an Italian Dominican who Pope Alexander VI excommunicated and demanded be executed by fire. The pope’s wish was made reality on May 23, 1498.

The burning of Savonarola and two of his supporters, Florence, 1498

The martyr’s name was Girolamo Savonarola and he had turned Florence, previously the capital of sodomy in Italy, into a renewed Catholic community free of the homosexual gangs that had roamed brazenly. After he was stripped and burned in the city’s central Plaza della Signoria, the “gay” elite were heard to remark, “Now we can sodomize!” and Florence quickly returned to its pagan putrescence (cf. The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, pp. 222-237).

As far back as a thousand years ago Saint Peter Damian spoke of a “
Satanic tyranny” that had spread the “cancer of sodomy” inside the Church. (cf. The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, pp. 481-498). He recognized that a celibate religious priesthood must exercise constant vigilance against the attraction of homosexually-oriented persons to its ranks, and to keep from positions of ecclesiastical influence or power those individuals, while maintaining a relentless Biblical polemic contra sodomy. Such are the minimum requirements of male celibacy lived in community, which prudence dictates.

Search the records: over a millennia Peter Damian and Savonarola comprised only a minuscule number who raised this warning, and of these two, one of them was burned to death at the urging of the reigning pontiff.

Centuries after St. Damian, and twenty-nine years after the judicial murder of Savonarola, on Maundy Thursday, 1527, the heroic Italian peasant street preacher Brandano da Petroio called Medici Pope Clement VII
to his face, “Bastardo sodomita!” (“sodomite bastard”) an act of intrepid truth-telling for which he was imprisoned under harsh conditions, until liberated by Spanish troops during the sack of Rome.

In the ensuing 493 years no other jeremiad against papal and Vatican sodomy appeared until the extent of the systematic molestation of youths was made notorious beginning in the early years of this century. The molestation network is still in place, however. For example, in Spokane, Washington a “Catholic” institute has been created, named for William Skylstad, the bishop who facilitated molester priests in the diocese. It advertises in the local newspaper. Moreover, beginning in 2007,
Blase Cupich, while bishop of Spokane, conspired with the Jesuits of Gonzaga University to secretly harbor child molesters at Cardinal Bea House, a priests' retirement home situated on the campus. This area was frequented by many dozens of children of the local St. Aloysius parish church, and thousands of students at the university. Cupich was subsequently rewarded by being elevated to the rank of cardinal by “Pope” Francis.

Under Francis, the charming and voluble Rev. Fr. James Martin has become the highest profile “homosexual rights” campaigner in the English-speaking world, spreading the "Catholic" gospel of “gay.”

It is a truism that homosexually-oriented persons who do not engage in the sin of sodomy are as deserving of rights and protection as any other human being. Thoughts, emotions and proclivities are not in themselves criminal or even necessarily sinful, and yes — some people are “born that way.”

Yet, we ought to keep in mind that certain individuals from a young age have over-powering desires to engage in incest. In the name of their “love” for their mother, sister or daughter, shall we “make them feel welcome in the Church” as they practice their perversions?

Some people would also seem to have developed, from early youth, tendencies toward murderous predation, cannibalism, sex with children and even bestiality. How is a strong orientation from a young age toward abominable sins, grounds for accommodating those sins by “welcoming" those who engage in them?

For the views of Francis to be even remotely Catholic, he would have to strenuosuly and without a trace of ambiguity, differentiate between celibate homosexuality and practicing homosexuality, and warn in the gravest terms against the latter.

Francis would also have to be cognizant that a lax attitude even toward non-practicing homosexuals can lead to the further entrenchment of the sub-rosa “gay” culture inside the hierarchy and priesthood of the Church. It is incumbent on him to parse his words in such a way that he makes it clear that Jesus offers complete liberation from all forms of bondage, including sex addictions. No one need accommodate themselves to the torment of a disordered orientation—least of all the Church itself. The first step in the divine healing process is for the individual to acknowledge his sinfulness and then call upon the grace of Jesus Christ to change his ways in sorrow for his transgressions: “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19).  We see no such call coming from Francis. Rather he is sending signals of accommodation of the predominant media culture, of the continue-in-your-sins variety, normalizing the unnatural. This is the voice of the Vatican's centuries-old "gay" mafia, not of anything holy or counter-cultural.

In the name of the compassion which Our Lord offers to all of us sinners, including filthy usury bankers, wicked environmental polluters of our air, soil and water, ruthless purveyors of ruinous false witness and gossip, and all of the other mortal sins of which we are guilty, we must surely feel pity and exhibit profound Christian charity toward those
afflicted with a homosexual orientation.

Admittedly, this charity has been lacking in self-righteous Right wing and conservative circles. This omission on their part has contributed to the sense on the Left that persons with homosexual feelings have been wronged by the Catholic world. Both views are unbalanced. Biblical truth must be affirmed and proclaimed without fear of being termed politically incorrect or "bigoted," yet these Scriptural admonitions should be offered from a foundation of loving kindness.

In the long tradition of fork-tongued Vatican double-talk, we think that this papacy will exploit the confusion concerning what is at issue in this struggle. Francis and his allies will
say they are defenders only of those who “were born that way.” Perish the thought that their intention is to welcome into the Church men who have sex in the sewer of the human body. But make no mistake: that is the end result of this latest papal pronouncement.

As damage control, we predict that in the future Francis will shade and modify the remarks he made to film-maker Evgeny Afineevsky. He will run the gamut between the casuist’s poles of laxity and severity. By this stratagem his supporters on the Left can cite the declaration of Francis in the “Francesco” documentary to harass Catholic schools and hospitals that have thus far rebuffed employees engaged in homosexual “civil unions” and “marriages.”

The moderating "clarification" which he or his cronies will issue will convey something along the lines of, “In no way has the pope ever intended to depart from the doctrine of the Church on this matter.” This ruse will in turn provide Catholics on the Right with the ammunition they need to deceive themselves and others into fantasizing that their pope is not engaged in opening the ecclesiastical door ever wider to the curse of sodomy, and the enablement of the homosexual cabal which, since the Middle Ages, has clamored for control at the highest levels.

We have seen many references to "Sodom and Gomorrah" in the course of this upheaval, as if that was the only event in the Bible that takes up coercion and violence by homosexuals. Because Christians in general and Catholics in particular seldom actually read the Scriptures in depth, a Scriptural case far more relevant to the current crisis is being overlooked. It is found in the last three chapters of the Book of Judges, which some exegetes have termed darker and more grim than anything in the whole of the rest of the Old Testament. In Judges we read that
members of God’s own covenant people defied Yahweh and forced homosexuality on their brethren.

While it’s true that the papacy is in a state of disrepute not seen since the era of Luther and Calvin, this man Jorge Bergoglio who is styled, “Pope Francis,” continues to retain star power in the media, along with the ability to direct the massive resources of the occult Church of Rome in the direction of further revolutionary betrayal of the Gospel.

With reference to the network of cardinals, bishops and priests around the “gay rights” campaign of Francis, dissident
Archbishop Carlo Viganó has termed it a “magic circle.” We don’t think he chose those words by accident.

Michael Hoffman is the editor of the periodical Revisionist History® and the author of many books, including Twilight Language, forthcoming in 2021. His work is supported by donations from truth-seekers and the sale of his writings and recordings.


Francis Blesses Homosexual Unions
Damage Control Now Underway

By Michael Hoffman

In the preceding column we analyzed the ramifications of the pope's comments as recorded in the new documentary film "Francesco," extending his "Who am I to judge?" existentialism concerning homosexuality, into outright papal approbation for "gay civil unions.”

 In our column we warned about the damage control that would inevitably be launched on the Right, heavily laden with the intelligence agency concept of plausible denial. First at bat on the morning of October 23 was the Right wing Ignatius Institute, an allegedly "conservative" Jesuit operation that publishes the online "Catholic World Report." They suggest that the pope's remarks on homosexuals were taken out of context, spliced together; that they were not contiguous, that the pope is made to say what he did not say in the way he said it, not explicitly. If you think that sounds more like a Rodney Dangerfield comedy monologue than a reasonable exculpation of the pope's beliefs, you're probably correct. 

From the same “Catholic World Report” another columnist comes nearer to the truth of the matter and skirts dangerously close to revealing the game afoot. We'll quote from him and then add our own comments:

The deeply flawed opportunism of Pope Francis

By Carl E. Olson

The matter of the specific question might not be clear, but the end result of this quintessentially Francis moment seems clear enough: more controversy, more confusion, further sniping over what the Church really teaches, and where papal comments in documentaries should be placed in the realm of magisterial statements: Above interviews given to an elderly, atheist Italian journalist? Below off-the-cuff remarks made while flying at 30,000 feet? Close to private phone calls made to this mother or that old friend?

Here’s the thing: if Francis’s remarks were made without prudential concern for how they would be received, they are deeply troubling. Or worse. If they were carefully made with specific attention to how they would be received, they are deeply troubling. Or worse.

Yes, everyone has a “right” to be a “part of a family”; their very existence suggests they came from a family. But is Francis then saying that homosexuals have a “right” to have a family? It appears so. As the Catholic News Agency report notes, the film includes a story of Francis “encouraging two Italian men in a same-sex relationship to raise their children in their parish church, which, one of the men said, was greatly beneficial to his children.” 

But “ his 2013 book On Heaven and Earth, Francis stated that...if same-sex couples “are given adoption rights, there could be affected children. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.” 

So, which is it? Well, that probably depends on the day and week. Changing course and shifting narrative parameters for different audiences has been a regular feature of this pontificate... 

End quote from Mr. Olson)

Whether he is aware of it or not, the utility of Olson’s last paragraph is that it accurately articulates the profound deceptions that began to emerge from the papacy, beginning in the late fifteenth century, with the clandestine “baptism” of the Talmud and Kabbalah, which is the subject of our book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.

We would revise Mr. Olson’s observation, “Changing course and shifting narrative parameters for different audiences has been a regular feature of this pontificate,” to note that this camouflage and shape-shifting has been a regular feature not just of Francis, but of dozens of pontificates long before the liberal Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. 

In 1515 Pope Leo X issued a bull permitting interest on loans for the good cause of his Medici relatives’ charity banks (the main charity being the Medici). E. Michael Jones has challenged our assertion that the Church gradually betrayed the dogma banning the renting of money. He did so by alluding to Pope Benedict XIV’s Vix Pervenit, which ostensibly reasserts the immemorial anti-usury teaching of the Bible and the sacred tradition that is in line with it. Dr. Jones missed the “fine print” in this document, however. The pope inserted an escape clause permitting a little bit of interest on loans, if reasonable and necessary in certain situations, rather like permitting whoredom in “extenuating circumstances” so long as the prostitute’s rates are discounted. Usurers, like their brethren in the legal profession, are fairly adept at smelling the odor of situation ethics and reading fine print. Consequently, the historical record shows that usury increased among Catholics after the issuance of the “great and wonderfully orthodox” Vix Pervenit.

We could furnish a hundred more examples of papal swindles like this one, from far back in the “traditional Catholic” past. How about the papally-spomsored publication of the finest edition of the Babylonian Talmud ever printed up to 1521? No, you protest, the Renaissance popes burned the Talmud! Yes, they did, but first they made certain they rescued the Talmud from the oblivion in which it was descending in the early sixteenth century. They made it what it is today, even ensuring that Rashi was included as a canonical part of the text, an underwriting the survival and expansion of the Talmud. Later, the Renaissance papacy burned copies of the Talmud as damage control in order to keep their Right wing faithful to their dictatorship. Sound familiar? Do you imagine the tactics of “Pope” Francis are new? He inherited them as part of the ancient Neoplatonic-Hermetic gnosis.

In one case we documented in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, Spanish troops were outraged that the pontiff’s forces were protecting the Talmud. The troops searched for other diabolic rabbinic books in Italy, one of which was the demonology known as the Kabbalah, which was the “bible” of Renaissance “Catholic” occultism. The clever pontiff of the time ordered the Talmud burned (the Spanish would have done it anyway), to distract the Spaniards’ attention from the stockpile of Kabbalah texts that the papacy was protecting. The sly misdirection succeeded. The Kabbalah was saved while some copies of the Talmud were burned. The event entered history as, “Anti-Semitic Pontiff Burns Talmud.” The part about doing so to protect the stock of Kabbalah volumes is never reported. And so it goes: misdirection after misdirection, deception after deception. 

As we tried to show in our book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, and in the volume we are currently writing, Twilight Language, the Cryptocracy proceeds over time in stages. What it divulges now it could not have made public 70 years ago without dire consequences to its operations. The current stage in the human alchemy which is at the core of the process of our transformation and devolution, is to reveal to us the Satanic harm perpetrated by our esteemed leaders, whether the “Holy Father” or the Queen of England or the President of the United States, and then have us do nothing, thereby exponentially increasing our bondage to the dark forces. My teacher James Shelby Downard termed it, the “Revelation of the Method,” and alternately, the “Making Manifest of All that is Hidden” (Luke 8:17).

Perverse irony of ironies: the secrets-keeping Cryptocracy that killed, maimed or ruined everyone from Capt. William Morgan (drowned in New York in 1826), James Forrestal (defenestrated in 1949), Lee Harvey Oswald (shot to death in 1963), to Jeffrey Epstein (choked to death in 2019), to prevent them from revealing secrets, is increasingly publicly disclosing their secrets to us, as Francis did in “Francesco.” This is accomplished for reasons of psychological warfare and timed to coincide with our own enervated condition. Thus far their gambit has succeeded. We are more than ever distracted, demoralized, indifferent, misdirected, confused and fatigued. Our humanity is being drained. We dress like slobs and casually employ obscene language which formerly was the lingo only of pimps, perverts and drunken sailors. We claim to love truth but in fact we are awed by our Satanic Majesties’ digital carnival, promising daily ever more apocalyptic thrills and adrenaline rushes.

This week, as the presidential election jolted us in one direction and another like passengers on a Twilight Zone roller coaster, and while NASA’s spacecraft dubbed “Osiris Rex,” after the supreme king of the Pharaonic Egyptian magic that is the root of the Kabbalah, snatched prima materia from an asteroid, the “Holy Father” stepped forth from the pit of hell to bless the practice that across millennia has been universally recognized by every civilization that observed the natural law, to be a malediction that destroys nations.

Michael Hoffman is the editor of the periodical 
Revisionist History®, published six times a year.

Copyright©2020 by Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA


April 12, 2007

Don Imus, Trash-Talk and the Decline of Civility in America

By Michael Hoffman

My daughter studies piano and classical Latin, is an honor student and co-cpatain of her high school basketball team. She has many role models, among them the college women's NCAA championship teams. 

Don Imus said that the black women on the championship Rutgers basketball team were nappy-headed.

But those women did not design the texture of their hair, God did. Imus said they are whores ("ho's"). To utter that slander, when they are in fact scholar-athletes, is like something out of the Talmud.

False witness against the German people is a deadly sin; how can false witness against black women at Rutgers, who are trying their best to contribute to our society, be anything less grave?

Of course Imus has the absolute constitutional right to speak his mind. But I have no problem with sponsors and networks who speak theirs by no longer supporting or employing him; that too is their constitutional right.

His accusation against the university women is being described as a "racial" slur. The media are omitting the fact that his accusation was also a sexual slur, an imputation of moral turpitude. I notice that Imus does not accuse scantily-clad cheerleaders and half-time dancers of being "ho's," only the women athletes in the modestly long uniforms. It seems that he has no problem with women who shimmy and shake for him half-dressed. His problem seems to be with women who pursue a higher education, while excelling at a difficult and demanding collegiate sport, modestly attired.

Mr. Imus has talked trash, and trash-talk is a symptom of the incivility and decaying standards in dress and deportment which we see on display in America today. From George Bush's pride in his slovenly speech and unbecoming swagger, to the I-just-rolled-out-of-bed-and-came-to-the-mall-in-my-pajamas fashion statement, which some Americans favor for all occasions, our nation appears to have lost its sense of shame and self-respect.

The attempt to make Imus' attack on the Rutgers women a black/white-divide issue, reveals a hidden agenda. Imus' false witness is so unjust and despicable that fifty years ago Americans North and South, black and white would have, in unison, decried and repudiated it as nausea worthy of either a drunk or a bum. But in our 21st century, Imus is an underground hit, slyly commended by the outlaw
kulchur as just the sort of shock-o-rama titillation that drives up ratings, thanks to the enthusiasm of American kids-gone-wild on the devolutionary road from angels to beasts.

This case is not without its contradictions. Some of the sick behavior can be found in black male "gangsta" circles where the slur Imus wielded is a not uncommon epithet. This too needs to be addressed. Moreover, the exploitation of the controversy by Al Sharpton does no one any credit, but then it was Imus who chose to go running to Sharpton. Furthermore, to be credible, it is incumbent on American society, including the television networks, to combat reverse discrimination and hatred of poor and working class whites. In Miami on April 10, during the Imus controversy, NBA basketball star Adam Morrison, who is white, was repeatedly racially harassed and called "white trash" throughout the game. Yet it was Morrison who was the one who was fined, for having, in exasperation, responded with an obscene gesture. Nothing happened to the racial heckler, nor did the heckler's anti-white bigotry become an issue in the press.
To be effective, to unite us, justice must be blind.

But the fact that there are bigots among other races in no way diminishes the offense against the Rutgers team. Imus should know better; with his prominent position comes responsibility.
And let's be real. Any black talk-show host who called a sports team comprised of Judaic girls "shikses" or "zonah," would be out of a job faster than you can spell A-D-L.

With all the temptations that assail young people of any color nowadays, the Rutgers ladies have set an academic and athletic example that requires courage and asceticism, dignity and self-respect, precisely the qualities fathers like this writer pray their daughters will evince in these strange and challenging times. The popularity of Don Imus is in exact proportion to the degree to which Americans have lost their dignity and perhaps to some extent, even their souls; hence, the need to mock those who have not. 

Copyright ©2007

Home | News Bureau