PopeWatch: And the Hits Keep on Coming

Further evidence that the Pope is a willing tool of the Lavender Mafia:

A highly placed Vatican source told LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, together with his much-experienced three CDF priests, was dismissed by Pope Francis because they all had tried to follow loyally the Church’s standing rules concerning abusive clergymen. In one specific case, Müller opposed the Pope’s wanting to re-instate Don Mauro Inzoli, an unmistakably cruel abuser of many boys; but the Pope would not listen to Müller. In another case, the Pope decided not to give a Vatican apartment to one of Müller’s own secretaries, but to the now-infamous Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, in spite of the fact that someone had warned the Pope about Capozzi’s grave problems. The Vatican source also said that it was known to several people in the Vatican that some restrictions were put on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, and he thereby confirms Viganò’s own claim.

When LifeSiteNews reached out to this very trustworthy and well-informed Vatican source, asking him about the then-breaking Viganò story and the archbishop’s allegations that Pope Francis knew of McCarrick’s habitual abuse, he answered: “Cardinal Müller [as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)] had always decidedly and most sharply followed up on these abuse cases, and that is why he was dismissed, just as his three good collaborators [the three CDF priests] were also dismissed.”

Go here to read the rest.  Each day it is becoming clearer that in Pope Francis the Lavender Mafia has the pope of their dreams.

More to explorer


  1. Liberace wasn’t gay, right? He just surrounded himself with gay guys. When will someone in the media pursue that story? It would explain a lot. I’ve never met someone who had that many gay friends who wasn’t.

  2. Out the pseudo captain, do damage control ( out the Lavender Mafia) and then reinstate Pope Emeritus. Now I’m dreaming.

  3. Liberace wasn’t gay, right? He just surrounded himself with gay guys.

    Liberace for many years had one or another catamite living with him (something that wasn’t public knowledge until he was past 60). IIRC, his circle of friends consisted of show-biz types, not homosexuals specifically. His public persona was, uh, flamboyant throughout most of his public career. Public reception of that would have been less catagorical in 1957 than it was in 1987 (or would be today).

    Whether or not Francis himself is homosexually inclined is an issue of secondary or tertiary import. He allows these people the run of the place and puts the kibosh on any disciplinary measures which might be applied to them.

  4. Liberace constantly denied he was homosexual, the worst kept secret in America, and even brought a lawsuit over it. He would date women to help conceal the fact that he was as gay as Truman Capote. He was also a devout Catholic and a conservative Republican. People are complex creatures, something that contemporary identity politics futilely seeks to deny. One of my earliest memories is watching Liberace on television. He was always a master showman.

  5. Don – just wanted to point out that you can’t be a devout Catholic if you’re in a state of unrepentant mortal sin (though I suppose Fr. James Martin and his ilk would argue otherwise). I agree with “Father of Seven” regarding a strong likelihood that Francis himself is one of the L.M. Anne Barnhardt has written several times about that, though her sedevacantism unfortunately affects her credibility. But when you consider that (a) Francis is a Jesuit (i.e. an order which has become little more than a private homosexual club); (b) he was elected by the Lavender Mafia; (c) he surrounds himself with them; (d) he constantly promotes them; (e) he effectively and cunningly pulled the rug out from under Catholic teaching on homosexuality with his “Who am I to judge?” remark; and now, (f) he fires those who try to correct the sleaze, then….the probability becomes virtually an elephant in the room.

  6. Oh, I have little doubt that Liberace was repentant, at least for a time. Repentance should always be followed by amendment but sadly it is frequently not. Liberace believed everything the Church taught, but did not act on all of those beliefs, something not uncommon with most of humanity. He never contended, so far as I know, that his favorite sins were not sins, which separates him from the popular view these days which is that if I like doing something it really can’t be a sin.

  7. Never understood what his public saw in him. Liberace was sufficiently outre that I imagine his homosexuality was understood by that public. OTOH, you have a number of public figures that people today (in a context where discussion of homosexuality is omnipresent) fancy are ‘campy’ or ‘obviously gay’ or ‘flamers’ who it’s a reasonable wager were simply not received that way when homosexuality was taking up very little rent-free space in people’s heads. Retrospective discussion of Paul Lynde is like this, and now Jim Nabors.

  8. I think speculating about Pope Bozo’s sexuality is not a worthwhile pursuit and gives ammo to the libs.
    I would also avoid Anne Barnhardt like the plague.

  9. Here is a post about a tweet from the Chicago cardinal. It consists of a copy of responses – one of which tries out a song. (99 tweets on the wall …)
    Most are in response to his speech on cap. punishment. Look it up if this excuse of a link is a fail – such as ‘airhead in a robe’.

  10. Anne Barnhardt has written several times about that, though her sedevacantism unfortunately affects her credibility

    Seeing as how she has never professed or stated she was a sedevacantist, you have unfortunately shot your own credibility. Her thesis has always been that BXVI did not validly resign the papacy, therefore he remains Pope and Bergoglio never was validly pope. Thus the See is not vacant – it is held by BXVI. Whether she is correct or not, she is not claiming the See is vacant, only disputing who is the current occupant. If you are going to make a statement about someone’s position, at least get it right.

  11. Bergoglio may or not be gay, but that is beside the point. In the Lavender Mafia, blackmail is cash, and therefore surrounding yourself with blackmailable people ensures your power. Whether that blackmail is outing because you are gay, had your hand in the till, or whatever is of secondary importance.

  12. Call me a fundamentalist if you wish — what does scripture say?

    In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: . . .

    “Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. ‘And his bishopric let another take.’ ”
    Acts 1;15-17,20 Douay Rheims

  13. Donald R McClarey wrote, “Oh, I have little doubt that Liberace was repentant, at least for a time.”

    Aristotle, a shrewd judge of human nature, had something good to say about this, as usual. He distinguishes between the Incontinent (άκρατης, akratēs) man and the Intemperate or Licentious (ακόλαστης, akolastēs) man. (In Aristotle’s usage, someone who is carried away by sudden passions is incontinent, whereas someone with ingrained, unresisted, bad habits is intemperate or licentious.)

    Since passion soon passes, whereas a habit is “a disposition difficult to remove,” the incontinent man repents at once, as soon as the passion has passed; but not so the intemperate man. In fact, he rejoices in having sinned (cf Proverbs 2:14), because the sinful act has become second nature to him; for custom and habit are a second nature.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: