The Vatican Releases Statement Saying That It Has “shame and sorrow” for “criminally and morally reprehensible” actions of priests who raped and molested children in six dioceses In Pennsylvania In which a priest tied up a victim with a rope in a confessional booth, and when the victim refused to perform sex, the priest assaulted him with a crucifix.

By Theodore Shoebat

The Vatican has released a statement saying that it has “shame and sorrow” for “criminally and morally reprehensible” actions of priests who raped and molested children in six dioceses In Pennsylvania. As one report from Fox News:

The Vatican expressed “shame and sorrow” Thursday over a scathing Pennsylvania grand jury report about clergy who raped and molested children in six dioceses in that state, calling the abuse “criminally and morally reprehensible” and says Pope Francis wants to eradicate “this tragic horror.”

In a written statement using uncharacteristically strong language for the Holy See even in matters like the long-running abuse scandals staining the U.S. church, Vatican spokesman Greg Burke sought to assure victims that “the pope is on their side.”

Pope Francis himself wasn’t quoted in the statement, and there was no mention of demands in the United States among some Roman Catholics for the resignation of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington.

The grand jury report made public this week accused the cardinal of helping to protect some molester priests while he was bishop of the Pennsylvania city of Pittsburgh.

Burke said the incidents of abuse graphically documented in the report were “betrayals of trust that robbed survivors of their dignity and their faith.”

“The church must learn hard lessons from its past, and there should be accountability for both abusers and those who permitted abuse to occur,” he said.

Victims and their advocates for decades have lamented that top Catholic churchmen repeatedly put the reputation of the church ahead of obligations to protect children from harm from pedophile priests.

In a sign that Pope Francis wants to end that pervasive mind set among church hierachy, including bishops and cardinals, he recently accepted the resignation from cardinal’s rank of former Washington archbishop Theodore McCarrick amid allegations that the American prelate had engaged in sexual misconduct.

Resignations by cardinals are extremely rare, and McCarrick’s was the first time a prelate lost his cardinal’s rank in a sexual abuse scandal.

Burke said Francis “understands well how much these crimes can shake the faith and the spirit of believers and reiterates the call to make every effort to create a safe environment for minors and vulnerable adults in the church and in all of society.”

The grand jury report documented how pedophile priests were often protected by church hierarchy or moved to other postings without the faithful being told of the priests’ sexual predatory history.

The long-awaited grand jury report was full of vivid examples of horrendous abuse. In one such example, a young girl was raped by a priest visiting her while she was in a hospital following surgery to remove her tonsils. In another, a priest tied up a victim with a rope in a confessional booth, and when the victim refused to perform sex, the priest assaulted him with a crucifix.

Speaking about Francis, Burke said: “Those who have suffered are his priority, and the church wants to listen to them to root out this tragic horror that destroys the lives of the innocent.”

Even before the report was released, a series of scandals over the last few decades involving pedophile priests and systematic attempts by pastors and bishops to cover up the abuse by shuttling offenders to new parishes had rocked the faith of many Catholics in the United States.

Similar abuse and determination by protect abusers had also stained the reputation of the Catholic Church in many other countries.

Francis recently did a turnaround on how accusations by victims in Chile were viewed by the Vatican. After casting doubt on the victims’ accounts during his visit to Chile earlier this year, Francis apologized to them, hosted the victims at the Vatican and later accepted the resignations of some of the country’s bishops, who offered en masse to step down.

On Thursday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops invited the Vatican to play a key role in investigating the scandal involving McCarrick, who allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct with minors and adult seminarians.

The conference’s president, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, said he would go to Rome to ask the Vatican to conduct a high-level investigation known as an “apostolic visitation” to deal with McCarrick’s case, working together with a group of predominantly lay experts.

Given the condition of the Church today, how it has been overrun by sodomites, and how it has become so weak in its response against the sodomite infiltration, this story is really nothing to marvel at. It is but another evidence as to how the Church has been being invaded by the armies of Sodom. St. Paul wrote to the Church of Rome, warning about the sodomites, affirming that “those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:32) But, the Church has, to such a horrid extent, decided to ignore the words of the holy Apostle.

Look at what St. Paul writes: the sodomite is not the only one deemed “worthy of death,” but also those approve of the sodomites. Those who express favor for the evils of Sodom, are as well citizens of Sodom. This cardinal, by answering the question with “Yes” at the beginning of his response, is but a reflection as to how deep this disease has decayed the body of the Church. Christendom is dead, but like Lazarus, it will be brought back to life through a miracle.

I told people, years ago, how to fix this problem. I told them about Operation Whip, about how we must confront these evil priests, and nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to do it. I confronted one of these sodomite priests, Msgr. Michael Yarbrough, back in 2015, and most of the response I got was a bunch of acrimonious talk about how I was wrong because, because I went to a mass that Yarbrough was conducting.

I am sure there were a lot of people who got enraged at Christ when overturned the tables in Temple during the Passover, the holiest day for the Jews.

I sent the video over to Church Militant TV (a Catholic TV station that is suppose to promote fighting for the faith), headed by Michael Voris, and what did they tell me? They told me that they don’t want to air the video because they don’t want to encourage others to emulate what I did.

Almost all of the conservative media outlets that we were familiar with, have bowed down to Sodom. The whole Western world is being polarized, not by Islam, but by the sodomite agenda. Like a torrent of shadows, all of the political and theological media establishments, even those that claim to be for “family values,” are promoting the religion of Sodom and Gomorrah, advancing the most diabolical things, homosexuality and pedophilia.

We had thought that the Catholic conservative establishment, Church Militant TV — which presents itself as a place “where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed,” had been the last media outlet for true Catholic activism. But, even Church Militant — with its name “Militant” denoting combat against Satan and all of his wiles — has bowed down to the gods of Sodom and Gomorrah. They are now promoting one of the trending sodomites of our time, Milo Yiannopoulos.

So, we decided that we are going to confront Michael Voris. Theodore Shoebat called him, he answered, and they argued it out:

Just yesterday, Church Militant TV posted an interview between Milo and America magazine. Supposedly, so the story goes, Milo interviewed with America magazine which then reneged from publishing it. Church Militant, to further aid Milo, published this interview, which is utterly diabolical. Prefacing the interview, Church Militant writes in regards to Milo:

we [Milo and Church Militant] are on the same page with regard to the unchanging teachings of the Church and opposing Catholics who would try to change Christ’s teachings to make them more comfortable.

We took a snapshot of this post by Church Militant, and underlined this sentence:

So, according to Church Militant TV and its leader, Michael Voris, Milo, this sodomite who promotes pedophilia, eugenics and homosexuality, is someone who upholds the teachings of the Church. Milo is a major promoter of pedophilia who participated in pedophile parties in Hollywood. To quote Milo:

“The relationships with those with older men have helped those young boys discover who they are. And give them security and safety, provide them with love and reliable and sort of a rock. Where they can’t speak to their parents.”

To expose this further, Milo, someone who promotes Hitlerian sodomite eugenics, is on “the same page” with Church Militant and Michael Voris. Milo, the eugenist sodomite of the right-wing, writes: “gay men are smarter. we test higher for IQ than our heterosexual counterparts. Intelligence allows us to ‘transcend’ our evolutionary programming”.

Voris’ excuse is that Church Militant was simply posting an interview that America magazine refused to publish. But so what? There is no context, in which presenting the work of a pedophile, sodomite and eugenist, is good.

Voris, and Church Militant, have revealed that, while they cover themselves with Catholicism, they are part of the sodomite satanic underworld that so pervades and controls the society.

Robert L. Kincl, who was appointed by the Pope, had befriended us as a fan of Shoebat.com acting as conservative, yet referred to homosexual fondling as permissible in the conversation. Having been shocked at his remarks, I told Kincl:

How can you, as a priest, be so liberal toward such a sick evil as two men fondling each other, or as two men having a “relationship” just as long as they are not going with other men. It is evil and it is reprobate.

I also told him:

It is not tolerable for you, as both a priest and a canon law judge, to be permissive to somebody having a homosexual relationship just as long as they are not being promiscuous with other men. It is deplorable, and in the words of St. Paul, “worthy of death” (Romans 1:32).

Kincl defended his position and responded with a rejection of the Old Testament and a twisting of St. Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans, stating

We do not follow the Hebrew Scriptures. We follow Jesus Christ who never mentioned gay relationships. When St. Paul mentioned such a relationship he was referring to the promiscuousness of the Romans using sodomy.

Shoebat.com decided to investigate Kincl and found that he has a dark past. In 1993, Kincl worked as a Commander in charge of clergy at the U.S. Navy, and while he was in the service he defended another chaplain confirmed to be guilty of child molestation, named Robert Hrdlicka.

The investigation revealed that Robert L. Kincl had even written the authorities, not to charge the pedophile who molested the young boys, but urged them to send him back to serve as a chaplain:

Catholic chaplain Lt. Robert Hrdlicka pleaded guilty to molesting boys in 1993. Before his sentencing, six other Catholic Navy chaplains and the church’s archbishop for the military services urged authorities to send Lt. Hrdlicka to a church-run treatment center.

“It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will be able to return to the active ministry as soon as possible,” wrote then-Cmdr. Robert L. Kincl.

Instead, Lt. Hrdlicka went to prison.

Shoebat.com looked up Kincl’s My Life page, to find out that after all these years Kincl is still friends with Hrdlicka the pedophile, since he is on his friends list, of which I took snapshots:

Just as we have Muslims, like Bergdahl, who have infiltrated the military, we have people like Kincl who have infiltrated both the military and the Catholic Church, with their depravity.

Kincl is now serving as a priest in Our Lady’s Maronite Catholic Church alongside Msgr. Don Sawyer. When I confronted Sawyer on Kincl, Sawyer vehemently defended Kincl.

Shoebat.com decided to contact the Diocese of Austin to file a complaint, and spoke with the Very Reverend Daniel E. Garcia as the Vicar General for the Diocese of Austin, and Chancellor and Secretariat Director for Administration, Deacon Ron Walker, who were under Bishop Joe S. Vásquez of the Diocese of Austin.

We asked them how could someone who supports homosexuality and defended a pedophile still be serving as a priest and not be excommunicated, to which Deacon Ron Walker, rolling his eyes, said that the Church’s main objective would be to reconcile him with God, and not excommunicate him.

It seems that the Diocese of Austin could care less if one of its priests supports homosexuality and defended a pedophile.

Why is this man serving as a priest when the Catholic Church, in its teachings, forbids homosexuality?

It is not surprising to see how far reaching homosexuality has gone in the Vatican. What other deviancies will enter the Vatican in the next decade remains to be seen. Whatever happened to normal sin? In the good old days, steeling a chicken perhaps constituted such sin, but these days, its sleeping with it.

Christianity is not about sycophancy, its about war against evil and the devil. We must arm ourselves to fight in this war.

So many today, fattened by materialism and lost in their own ego, want nothing to do with the holy words of the prophet Moses, nor any of the prophets after him, nor the words of the Apostle who declared that sodomites are worthy of death, but continuously want to teach the precepts of a vain secular moralism. I am not speaking of the atheist who denies everything holy and whose blasphemies are expected; I am speaking of supposed “Christians” who carry the title of conservative and who tout themselves as advocates for family values, while at the same time exert themselves to please the sodomites and the acolytes of perversion as they try to censure those who honor the laws of God.

I myself have dealt with this numerous times. I remember when I posted my video of me calling thirteen pro-homosexual and homosexual bakeries and asking them for a cake that says “Gay marriage is wrong,” and being denied service every time. The video went viral. Not too long after this happened, Janet Porter a well known conservative personality who I respect, contacted me asking if I would allow her to use clips of my video to add to her documentary exposing the homosexual agenda. I said it would be no problem. The documentary has been out for some time and has already had showings in select theaters in the United States.

But then, the spirit of fear crept its way inside. Peter LaBarbera, an Evangelical who is in the documentary, was confronted by the leftist media on the fact he is in the same documentary with me, the man who believes in God’s law that says that sodomites are to be put to death. Instead of defending the law of the Bible, which he claims to believe, this hireling decided to push for me to recant my statements, and said that if I didn’t that I should be removed from the documentary. Janet called me urging me to make a statement to “clarify” what I really believed, that I really don’t believe in the death penalty for sodomites, but simply in the anti-sodomy laws that were once enacted in Texas.

To be honest I was quite hesitant to do this because to do so would mean recanting all of my writings in support for the death penalty. Janet sent me the first draft of the statement to receive my stamp of approval. The draft stated:

“While I have had homosexual activists call for my death and beheading, etc., I have not called for anyone to take the life of those practicing homosexual behavior. I do want the laws of the United States to once again make sodomy illegal as they did prior to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling because such practice is not only immoral, but physically dangerous, as well.”

But Peter LaBarbera objected to the draft and expressed his dissatisfaction with it, pushing for me to recant my position that an inquisition should be established to uproot homosexuality and other perversities. Peter LaBarbera responded to the draft with this email to Janet:

“Not good enough, if he called for an “Inquisition” against homosexuals. We need to look at the exact comments and craft a statement based on those. I do not have time to do that today or tomorrow as I’m driving to DC. We need transcripts of the exact comments and then he needs to disavow that approach (or clarify what he meant). Otherwise people will keep asking about those specific comments.”

All of these words are filled with fear. LaBarbera is afraid of negative attention from the leftist media. Such behavior is contrary to God, Who is Love, “because perfect love expels all fear.” (1 John 4:18) Why should a Christian be afraid or ashamed of the law of God which states that “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:13)? Why should a Christian be ashamed of the words of the Apostle when he said that homosexuals do things that “are worthy of death” (Romans 1:32)? They will say that such words are against love. But how could a Christian use such argumentation when St. Paul himself says that “the purpose of the commandment is love” (1 Timothy 1:5), and in the same epistle goes on to say that “we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites” (1 Timothy 1:8-10)?

In Christianity, love and justice and indistinguishable, for all virtues, be it justice, charity or endurance, are in love, for God is Love, and in God is all virtue. So how could such Christians say that I am against love, when the purpose of the law is love, and this very law declares that sodomites are worthy of death?

Peter LaBarbera was blocked from entering Canada, and he goes before the media showing how persecuted he is, but yet he wants to block me — a Christian — from being in a documentary for being more politically incorrect than him. And at the same time, he kisses the feet of the sodomite to deny me as Peter denied Christ. A filthy sodomite who calls himself “Joe My God”, began to attack LaBarbera for being in the documentary with me. Peter LaBarbera quickly went on Twitter to appease the sodomite, even going to far as to address him with the blasphemous title of “Joe My God”:

There are many of these types, who promote the evil, while at the same time calling themselves Catholic.

One of these, is Robert Spencer. Recently, Spencer wrote against me for simply exposing the sodomites and their defenders within the “counter-jihad” movement, and for maintaining the prescription of death upon sodomites and those who approve of them and their evils. While it takes one fool to write short articles at the strike of a pen, it takes the wise to write triple to refute it. I will quote Spencer, extensively:

In a video posted last Thursday, Theodore Shoebat says: “Pamela Geller is worthy of death.” Her crime? Appearing at a “Gays for Trump” event along with gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos at the Republican National Convention in July. For that, says the learned Shoebat the younger, “In Biblical law, in the government of Christendom, she is worthy of death.”

Is that so? Yes, says Theodore, because Romans 1:32 speaks of those who “having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” Pamela Geller is not homosexual, you see, but by appearing at the event, she gave “consent” to those who are, and thus she also is “worthy of death.”

Theodore Shoebat doesn’t mention that this passage refers not only to men who “have burned in their lusts one towards another,” but also to those who are guilty of “iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness,” and are “full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,” as well as “detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,” and those who are “foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy” (Romans 1:26-31). All of these people are, in the Apostle Paul’s view, “worthy of death.”

Why, then, do we not see Christians (or at least Christians outside of hysterical Hollywood fantasies) committing mass murder, bent on killing everyone who is envious, haughty, and disobedient to his parents? Because Paul’s saying that these people are “worthy of death” is not a call for mass executions and a reign of terror, but part of his argument that all people have sinned and are in need of the divine mercy.

In today’s overheated and jihad-preoccupied environment, however, Theodore Shoebat’s charge that Pamela Geller is worthy of death is not theological musing, but arguable incitement to murder.”

Robert is both, deceptively twisting my words, and insinuating that I am calling for someone to murder that lunatic wretch, Pamela Geller, and to carry out vigilantism. If Spencer watched the whole video that I did, which he quotes, he would have known that Geller was taking part in an event that has pederastic images of boys, that promotes homosexuality, that advances and inculcates the very evils that God absolutely hates and sees as worthy of destruction.

Geller also spoke with a sodomite named Milo, someone who teaches that sodomites are born inheriting genetics that give them higher IQs. This is absolutely akin to Nazism, and for Geller — a Jew — to be associating herself with some of a supremacist ideology, like that of the Nazis and the Social Darwinists — claiming the idea of superior genetics —  is both evil and diabolical. And yet, I am the bad guy? I never asked anyone to murder Geller. What I said was that in the context of Christendom, heretics like Geller would be put to death, and rightfully so.

Also, as we know based on the elucidations of St. John Chrysostom, St. Paul was indeed directing his words towards judges to punish the evildoers, and we also know that it is obvious, based on a full reading of Romans 1, that Paul describes homosexuals, as opposed to merely listing homosexuality as a sin amongst sins.

Spencer goes on to say, “Theodore’s words demonstrate that old habits and mindsets die hard and aren’t always effaced by a change of creed”, thereby implying that I am still Islamic in my beliefs. Amazingly, this is coming from a person who does not see himself as judgmental. How does this person know from where I determined my beliefs on this issue? If he would have asked me, I would have shown him. He knows nothing about my intellectual evolution. He does not know that my affirmations were cultivated from reading, firstly, the Scriptures, and then amplified from the fathers and the ancient scholars, like Firmicus, Cyprian, Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Vitoria, St. Bernard, St. Bernardino of Siena, and others. Were all of these men jihadists?

Tell us, Mr. Spencer, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote:

“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.”

 Tell us, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote that

“When God commands a thing to be done against the customs or agreement of any people, though it were never done by them heretofore, it is to be done”; and when he wrote afterwards: “For as among the powers of human society, the greater authority is obeyed in preference to the lesser, so must God in preference to all.”  (Confess. iii, 8)

Tell us, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote:

“A sovereign serves God one way as man, another way as king; he serves Him as man by living according to the faith, he serves Him as king by exerting the necessary strength to sanction laws which command goodness and prohibit the opposite.” (Augustine, letter 185, ch. 19)

Tell us, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote in praise of King Hezekiah and Nebuchadnezzar (who was not even a believer) when they enacted edicts against blasphemy and perversity? Was he a jihadist when he wrote:

“It was thus that Ezechias [Hezekiah] served Him [God] by destroying the groves and temples of idols and the high places which had been set up contrary to the commandments of God; thus Josias served Him by performing similar acts [see 2 Kings 23:1-25]; thus the king of the Ninevites served Him by compelling the whole city to appease the Lord; thus Darius served Him by giving Daniel power to break the idol, and by feeding his enemies to the lions; thus Nabuchodnosor, of whom we spoke above, served Him when he restrained all his subjects from blaspheming God by a terrible penalty.” (Augustine, letter 185, ch. 19, brackets mine)     

Tell us, was King Josiah a jihadist when “he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove” (1 Kings 23:7)? 

Tell us, was St. Thomas Aquinas a jihadist when he wrote:

“it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”

Tell us, was Aquinas a jihadist when he prescribed that “heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.” (Aquinas, St. Thomas Aquinas: Whether Heretics Should Be Tolerated, II-II, Q. 11, Art. 3, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, ch. v, p. 182)

The Manichaeans promoted homosexuality and cross-dressing, and even devised their own rite in which their followers would eat a false eucharist with male semen on it. Tell us, Spencer, was the Emperor Zeno a jihadist when he decreed:

“We ordain that persons who prefer the Manichaeans’ deadly error should have no freedom or leave to dwell in any place whatever of our state; but that, if ever they should have appeared or should have been found, they should be subject to capital punishment.” (Law of Zeno, or Anastasius I, from the year 487 or 510)

Tell us, were the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions jihadists when they affirmed the Mosaic Law against homosexuality and beastiality:

And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind.”  “For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination.” “Every one that lieth with a beast, slay ye him: he has wrought wickedness in his people.” “And if any one defile a married woman, slay ye them both: they have wrought wickedness; they are guilty; let them die.”

Tell us, was St. Jerome a jihadist when he wrote: “To punish murderers and impious men is not shedding blood, but applying the laws.” (St. Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, in Bellarmine, On Secular People or Laymen, ch. 13, ed. Tutino, p. 50)

Tell us, was Pope Pius XII, a very recent pope, a jihadist when he wrote, “that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.” (As quoted by Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, part 1, p. 14)

Tell us, was Moses a jihadist when he had three thousand Jews slaughtered for worshipping the golden calf? 

In 1550, a Franciscan friar from Brescia, named Calgano, was arrested for having a sodomomatical relationship with a boy, and for teaching that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with St. John. This blasphemer was put to death, without question. This is the Christendom that I love, the Christendom that I want back. But it was put to sleep, and is being kept asleep by heretics like Spencer, who does not want to see the holy laws against perverted heresies enacted.  Spencer, in fact, says:

“I don’t believe in Islam and don’t wish to live under a government that forces me to conform to its sensibilities; nor do I wish to live under a Christian government that forces non-Christians to conform to its sensibilities.”

So Spencer is okay with sodomites roaming the streets, indulging in their evils, inundating society? Is he okay with Geller speaking in a room with disgusting images, with sodomites who demand for the toleration of homosexuality, a practice worthy of death?

Essentially, Spencer’s mentality would have us call Moses, King Josiah, Joshua, Hezekiah, and all of the holy men of Christianity who struck and killed evildoers, jihadists. Spencer’s perspective is essentially anti-Christian. It is of the Christian Faith to have governments destroy and uproot evil and perversity. As Augustine said, “they are called Catholic Christians, not servers of idols like your Julian [the pagan emperor]; not heretics, as certain ones have been and have persecuted the Church, when true Christians have suffered the most glorious martyrdom for Catholic truth, not justly deserved penalties for heretical error.” *Augustine, letter 105, brackets mine* St. Isidore said that law “is composed of no private advantage, but for the common benefit of the citizens.” *Isidore, Etymologiae, 5.21, in Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae 90, article 2*

Do you hear that Spencer? Law is for the public benefit, that does not mean the toleration of sodomites, or the freedom given to sodomotical practices. You will then say, “This is America!” Really? Lets look at the laws that were once in the law books, before heretics like yourself let the sodomites take over. Here is a law from New York, 1787:

Here is a law from 1796, from Connecticut:

  

Mr. Spencer, were the Americans who established these laws, jihadists? It seems that anyone who wishes to support the divine law against homosexuality is deemed as a “jihadist” or “like ISIS.” This is a manifestation of the Hegelian Dialectic, or controlled opposition. Point to a real threat, and then paint your enemies as being a part of that threat. It used to be that one would call a conservative, “a nazi,” but now they are calling Christians “jihadists” or “Muslims.” Its quite disgusting and low class, but what do you expect from a bunch of people who bow down to the homosexual god every time the sodomite elites want people to conform when they complain of true Christians? Orthodox Christians maintain the holy laws, the elite sodomites complain, and to their remonstrances the conservatives who want to be accepted will get on their hands and knees for the god of Sodom.

Spencer begins his article with, “These are times that try men’s souls”, truly they are, and I see what has happened after your soul has been tried, Mr. Spencer: you bow down to the sodomites, and a tart named Pamela has you on her fingertip.

Very recently Robert Spencer wrote an article for PJ Media, openly promoting homosexual pornographic material. Of course, the article is guised as being “Counterjihad,” while at the same time pushing for perverted and degenerate homosexual writing. The article is entitled, “When a Gay Playwright Discovers Islamic Jihad,” and its actually a review for a homosexual novel written by sodomite activist Bruce Bawer, who was actually one of the major devisers of the sodomite marriage movement.

Spencer describes the author and the book as such: “Bruce Bawer is to be commended for his honesty and courage in writing this superb novel.” Robert Spencer expresses his own anti-Christian hatred in this line of his perverted article:

“Bawer is the author of the 1997 book Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity — an eloquent, impassioned rebuke to the judgmental fundamentalism in which, Bawer contended, all too many Christians place adherence to dogma, in particular that of the sinfulness of homosexual activity, above the demands of Christian charity.”

An anti-Christian book is described by Spencer, a supposed Catholic, as “an eloquent, impassioned rebuke” to “judgmental fundamentalism”. A Christian would never describe a sodomite book with such words. Spencer then writes of the book’s “many other passages” as having “full awareness of the jihadi belief system and mindset,” since it is about a sodomite named Steve who, while partaking in vile acts, learns the truth about the jihadist threat. Spencer, who obviously read the sodomite book, writes: “One of Steve’s numerous harrowing encounters takes place when his search for one of the jihad plotters leads him to a gay sauna in Munich.”

Sodomite saunas? Really Robert? This is perversity. Such reprobate drivel fits right into the deranged ways of the Counterjihad movement, which is nothing but a propaganda machine to spread perversity and genocidal ideology. It is obvious that Spencer read this book, and its obvious that it is perverted. Spencer is now in the business of promoting homosexual pornographic literature. Here is just one part of the book, just to show you what perversion Spencer is promoting, and how degenerate and depraved Robert Spencer really is:

In Robert Spencer’s article he writes of how the novel has a plot in which Muslim terrorists want to kill “gay anti-Islam politician”. And in this disgusting book, it speaks of this politician sodomizing men, and this horrific promotion of degeneracy and utter vile sickness worthy of death, is being advocated by Robert Spencer. Here is a photo of the book’s pederastic sickness:

This evil sickness looks like it came straight from some medieval homosexual Islamic text. There is no way that Robert Spencer can promote this evil and be Catholic. He was a deacon in Our Lady of the Cedars Catholic Church. But he no longer serves as a deacon there.

On Robert Spencer’s website it reads that the sodomite novel “will open eyes.” Really? These posts have opened our eyes to the reality that Robert Spencer is a son of Sodom. In our last article on the Counterjihad movement, we showed that Robert Spencer travelled to Iceland to speak for a neo-pagan and neo-Nazi cult called Vakur, which is led by Sigurfreyr Jonasson, an occultist and neo-Nazi who promotes occult homosexuality. This article that Spencer wrote marketing for homosexual pornography further shows that Spencer is indeed a pervert son of Sodom, worthy of death in the hegemony of the Holy Inquisition.

Spencer is both normalizing homosexuality by portraying sodomites as victims, and explicitly promoting this evil by marketing for this demonic book which belongs in a heaping fire. The acolytes of antichrist are obsessed with “free speech”; they bow down before the altar of “free speech”; their creed is “free speech.” Its all the freedom to do evil, to be a degenerate, a vile and wicked agent for the demons and all their wiles, all done in the name of “fighting Islam.”

Numerous times has Robert Spencer promoted the citizens of Sodom. Recently he praised Milo Yiannopoulos, a homosexual eugenist who promotes pedophilia. Spencer recently did a vide promoting an event led by Pamela Geller in which Milo spoke. Spencer said of the pedophile:

“There us a protest set for May 25th, at 42nd St. in New York, led by my colleague Pamela Geller, and featuring a tremendous array of great speakers including Noni Darwish, Milo…”

Spencer will go on and on about how Muhammad had sex with a nine year old, but he has no repulsion in promoting an utter degenerate like Milo, describing him as a “great” speaker. And that wretch of a witch, Pamela Geller, smiling with that degenerate smile, working with a pedophile, what a disgusting woman she is. That Pamela Geller, as I said before, is a wretch who, if we were in a Christian state, would rightly be cast into the flames of justice. Read the words of Milo himself, and then realize what perversity these perfidious agents are promoting. Here are his own words:

Spencer talks about Islamic deviancy, but he has no issue in promoting sodomite degeneracy? Lets not forget that Milo also has said that sodomites genetically inherit a higher intelligence than normal people, writing that “gay men are smarter: we test higher for IQ than our heterosexual counterparts. Intelligence allows us to “transcend” our evolutionary programming, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, which may explain the correlation between homosexuality and high IQ.”

Notice that Milo references Kanazawa, a eugenist who promotes that sodomites have superior genes. I wrote an entire investigative article on how sodomites view themselves as superior to people who aren’t perverts, which you can read by clicking here.

Spencer talks about Islamic supremacy, but never about sodomite supremacist ideology. Oh, look what I have here, a photo of Robert Spencer with sodomite Douglas Murray:

Douglas once boasted about how he argued for “the conservative case for gay marriage,” he also goes against, as he writes, “the opinions of certain homophobes who claim that gays are dangerous precisely because they are somehow going to ‘gay up’ wider society.” Douglas also chided Christians in Africa, saying that they have “a backward attitude towards homosexuality”. Thats right. If you do not accept homosexuality, think its evil and perverted, then you are “backwards,” according to the social darwinists of the “counter jihad movement.” And Robert Spencer, even though he claims to be Catholic, has no problem working and associating himself with such a degenerate nazi.