Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

credit attribution: futureGalore /

Jesus Christ selected his 12 apostles and among them was his betrayer Judas; given Jesus – as God’s Son (and the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, therefore, God) – possessed of the knowledge of what Judas was about, why would he choose Judas? Was it necessary for the Son-of-Man (Jesus) to be betrayed by one of his apostles to be hung upon the Cross? Answer: No! So then why would the Christ choose Judas? We suggest that as the apostles referred to Christ as “teacher” – a designation (title) which Christ embraced – that Jesus chose Judas to teach that it is a mistake to assume mortal flesh is trustworthy, that even among the “elect” rotten apples may to be found… That parents over-the-years have entrusted to deliver their children into the hand-of-strangers (All souls are strangers – to all – only God Almighty knows us humans…), speaks to the lack of moral understanding as to what abject evil every human soul is capable. As it is all moral agents/beings have a moral obligation – since us humans were evicted from Eden, nothing has changed – to contemplate the human potential for wickedness, and act, and interact with others with circumspection.

Post-Vatican II (1963-67) the Catholic Church began attenuating its moral teaching and dogmatic sequestering rituals. This was something which reflected modernist schools of thought (modernism is a collection of heresies predicated upon a scientism/materialism; note that the Thomists battled these schools throughout up until Vatican II) in the Seminaries & Universities; we contend that Church teaching which reflected/emphasized and accompanied doctrinal stamp of Saint Thomas Aquinas ‘pen,’ was not amenable to the ‘spirit-of-ecumenism,’ the spirit which animated the 2nd Vatican Council. And the new spirit of aggiornamento (updating; the push for ‘opening the Church windows to ‘fresh air of change’ was a concomitant) Pope John XXIII… Consequentially, the Catholic Church began to emphasize sentiment/emotion and de-emphasize teaching moral doctrine. As it is the it has been over 25 years since this writer has heard a sermon addressing abortion, infidelity, divorce, premarital-sex et al; the Church generally does not address sin at all, and if it does, it does in the most general banal manner… The post-Vatican II Church began to emphasize “Love” (undefined; thus the individual is allowed to define love; it shouldn’t surprise that is generally understood as tolerance, acceptance, affirmation, and absent any judgment…); forgiveness (acknowledging wrongdoing isn’t necessary…) and the Church also began to admonish those that do make moral judgments… Thus, the Catholic Church began to condition its flock so as to make them even more susceptible to ‘ravenous wolves’ adorned in fleece…

Christ, besides choosing Judas – as we opined above, to ‘teach the peril of presumed trustworthiness of any mortal moral being’ – also warned followers “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves” Matthew 7:15. This too would seem to be an indication that Jesus Christ was forewarning those which would embrace the faith that the trust-of-doctrine (or truth of doctrine) differs significantly from trust-of-flesh (or truth of flesh). In public – and absent any duress – subtle is the difference between a soul ordered in virtue and one wearing a carefully fashioned facade. Souls may be ordered emotionally (sentimentally) – and as consequence they tend to – “color” what is “moral and immoral” to accord with their sentiment; such is typical those whose attachment-to-life and animating principles are subordinated to their sentiments. Sentimentalists may avow principles of morality – with their lips – but, unconsciously, in their actions, reject those very principles, and – as sentimentalists – they are susceptible to the dulcet tones of flattery and manipulation uttered by enfleeced ravenous wolves well practiced in flattery… We note that a sentimentally ordered individual is somewhat blinded to what is good and what is evil, being more concerned with “packaging” rather than the package; such as they are prone to ‘look, but not see, and listen, but not hear’ which leaves themselves and their loved one’s vulnerable to the cunningly wicked.

The famous – or infamous – bank robber Willie Sutton was ostensibly asked by a judge: “Why do you rob banks?” Mr. Sutton’s well known reply was: “Because that is where the money is!” If one returns to the culture prior to the sexual-revolution (The Kinsey Report was published in 1948; it took awhile to widely adversely affect society…) one may see that since society had little to offer the homosexual (we suggest only visceral disgust), and the culture – and the Church – was animated by Christian belief; the Church offered a meaningful life to believing homosexual; thus – perhaps – this would explain a high number of vocations that were homosexuals? It could also be the case that a number of “Willie Suttons” were among the seminarians…?

Although the Catholic Church is in the headlights regarding its endemic molestation of children – predominantly boys (Note: NAMBLA has a smaller counter-part NAMGLA; which would seem to indicate that there are far fewer pedophiles interested in young girls, than young boys; that would seem to indicate the prevalence of pedophiles are homosexuals. Moreover, given that the citizenry is roughly 98-99% heterosexual, the number of homosexual pedophiles – relative to the size of the homosexual population – must be incredibly high… Bill Donohue – of the Catholic League – reports 81 % of the victims were males; 78% of which were post-pubescent; and thus – of you do the math, most pedophiles are also homosexuals. We offer an explanation, viz:

We suggest that hedonism and homosexuality are both particular (related) forms of sociopathy; if the homosexual fights his/her inclination they may have moments of weakness, but their restrain is predicated upon an avowal that homosexual activity is immoral/sinful; if the homosexual holds ‘right-and-wrong’ are arbitrarily (if arbitrary, then what is the difference between 18 years of age, and 17? 17 and 16? 16 and 15? 15 and…?) established social-constructs (as social science disciplines teach), then the homosexual’s ‘fight’ against his/her inclination would only be motivated by legal peril… Now we related hedonism (activity and lifestyle motivated by seeking pleasure) and homosexuality, because the only restraint upon a hedonists activity is the law; if their appetites desire “X” then they pursue “X,” the caveat is the cost-benefit analysis regarding the legal penalty if “X” is illegal. Hugh Hefner – Playboy magazine – in the mid-1980’s was being interviewed by Dick Cavett on A&E (it may have been a re-broadcast from years before?), and Hefner acknowledged having sex with men. Cavett said: ‘But you are not a homosexual?’ and Hefner went on to explain that ‘he was a hedonist, he prefers women, but during a drug/booze state in orgies, one rolls off a woman and encounters a man…’ Hefner intimated such encounters were rare… Our point is that if one is not restrained by an internal moral sanction, one may do whatever one desires; the only sanction would be the fear of punishment if the activity is illegal… Now once the culture embraced hedonism – as it began to do in the 1950’s (1953 Playboy magazine is founded) – accelerating during the 60’s 70’s and 80’s, then the Christian (Catholicism as well) faith gradually conformed to the culture of hedonism, and we suggest that the ‘faithfully’ restrained clergy met the ‘Willie Sutton like’ clergy and hedonism begins to proliferate throughout the Church… Thus, cultural changes – in the Church and in society – have created morally entropic and spiritually enervating condition whereby wickedness and wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing can flourish…

As we close we offer one manner to deal with pedophiles (whether they be heterosexual, or homosexual pedophiles); Thomas Jefferson in writing to the Virginia Law school instructed how unbridled prurient libidinous activity should be addressed, viz: ‘Promiscuous women should have a hole cut in their noses – no less than 1/2 inch in diameter, and sodomites should be castrated…’ We note that Jefferson was likely the most morally latitudinal of the Founding Father’s… And since it seems that pedophiles are incorrigible (incapable of being rendered safe to children by mental, moral or spiritual alteration), we think it that a convicted pedophile should be neutered for the safety of the innocent (whether released into the general population – or otherwise i.e., presuming they are paroled), and have periodic examinations whereby a professional Medical examiner may substantiate their condition of castration/neutering…

iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?