I’ve asked advice from many people about staying silent or telling the truth about “The Hero.” They all said that it would be a mortal sin for me to remain silent about “The Hero” and are content that I’m willing to face whatever consequences for telling the truth about “The Hero,” whether mere slander or even being dismissed from the clerical state. “The Hero” is today in a position to do whatever he wants.
People don’t want to hear about “The Hero” not being a hero. We need to get over that. The last time I tried to say something about “The Hero” on a blog of mine a call quickly came in from Rome to some ecclesiastical superiors, a call which had me smacked down so hard that I ended up in a dumpster, literally, to search for food (good stuff in there, actually). Having had that experience, I don’t care about anything in this world anymore. I don’t even care about the exercise of priestly ministry and, by the way, just to be clear, neither did Jesus, who instead went to the Cross, which, by the way, is THE priestly ministry. As the Master so the disciple, right? We need to get back to what the priesthood is all about. It’s not about stuff to do so much as being available to the priesthood of The Priest, who prefers to give up on stuff He could do and instead go to the cross.
Let’s talk hero worship so we know what we’re talking about. Take, for example, McCarrick, who was “tough on abuse,” which made him look like a hero. Was he a hero, really? There are legion just like him, all heroes, all because they are “tough on abuse.” Is this about being tough on abuse so as to hide behind being a hero so as to promote bullying homosexualisticness which one knows one can get away with because of being such a hero? If you’re a hero for being tough on abuse, you can do no wrong, right? But the likes of a McCarrick is not what I’m really talking about. Instead:
“The Hero” of all such “heroes” is, instead, at the epicenter of setting policy for the entire Church, and is set to be the shaker and mover behind the Synod of Abuse in February 2019. He’s “The Hero” because of the way he’s “tough on abuse” on an epic scale. “The Hero” is also a promoter of homosexualisticness. It cannot be denied, but people do deny this because… because… he’s “The Hero.” It seems by all accounts and any construing of the facts, that “The Hero” is the one who ordered that I be silenced and smacked down hard. And that happened. Just a bit of self-protection on his part. But, pay attention:
Promoting homosexualisticness is one of the major causes of the abuse crisis. To set up “The Hero” (who promotes bullying homosexualisticness) as the one who sets policy for the entire Church, and this as a solution to the abuse crisis which in part came about because of promoting bullying homosexualisticness… well… that’s just absurd, surreal, like a terroristic clown…
And yet, “The Hero” is protected by all, both conservatives and liberals, by conservatives because “The Hero” is “tough on abuse” (you know, like McCarrick) and by liberals because “The Hero” promotes homosexualisticness. Conservatives have been ostriches for years. Liberals laugh. What to do?
The last time I presented my evidence not only did I have to take down the post. I had to take down the entire blog. I was silenced.
It’s time to put up this post again. “The Hero” is the one who will be the one guiding through and implementing policy for the entire church this coming February 2019 at the Synod of Abuse. My question is this: Is “The Hero” the one who is most apt to have a policy of proscribing the promotion of homosexualisticness? No? I wonder whether I’ll be smacked down again by conservatives and liberals when I once again put up proof about all this in a few days. It’s not so easy to give up on one’s heroes. But what if they are not really heroes? What if “The Hero” is just a terroristic clown? Stay tuned.