Now that December 21, 2012 has come and gone along with Y2K and the assorted prophecies of Nostradamus, I was starting to wonder if the millennarian fever had broken and the age of apocalypse was safely behind us.
But then the Pope Benedict XVI had to go and resign, bringing out the Malachi-watchers from the woodwork, gleefully reminding us that the next Pope will be “Petrus Romanus”, the last in a series of 116 named with great precision by the Irish seer Malachi in 1139. During Petrus Romanus’s time “the city of seven hills will be destroyed and the dreadful judge will judge his people”.
Speculation is already rampant whether Petrus Romanus is merely a poor dupe or actively abetting the rise of the Antichrist. According to reliable internet sources leading contenders for the title include Cardinal Peter Turkson from Ghana (who, if elected, would be the first black pope since the early days of the Church) or Cardinal Tarcisio Pietro Bertone (born in Romano Cavanese, Italy).
The followers of Malachi (Malachites? Malachians?) include Lutheran pastors, big-bellied TV show hosts from Idaho and other zealots with an alarming enthusiasm for stockpiling assault weapons and ammunition for the end of days. Books called “Petrus Romanus: the Final Pope is Here” are already sold out on amazon.com so hopefully they can get another print run in before it is too late. Authorities such as best-selling author Daymond Duck testify to the Biblical authenticity of this work on sites such as http://www.prophecyofthepopes.com where you can get your own library worth hundreds of dollars for free for a limited time, obviously.
Intriguingly, Malachites intersect with Fatimists, a group of Catholics convinced that successive Popes and senior cardinals have hidden the third (or last) secret prophecy given in the small Portuguese village of Fatima to three little shepherd children on the 13th day of six successive months in 1917 by “a woman brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal ball filled with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun.”
The apparition (identified as “Our Lady of the Rosary” or the Virgin Mary) gave the children a vision of sinners suffering in hell (the first secret), detailed instructions on the need to convert Russia and the consequences of not doing so - the second world war, the spread of communism and associated global conflicts (the second secret) and a third secret which was so terrible that poor Lucia Santos (the oldest of the three children) could barely endure to write it down thirty years later even as a middle-aged nun at the direct order of her bishop. Immured in a convent, Sister Lucia continued to have visions of the Virgin Mary until her death in 2005 at the age of 97.
According to the Fatimists, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI (when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith) have all had access to the last secret and have responded by either refusing to make it public or playing down its significance because it would be misinterpreted. Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger has been intimately involved in the Church's decision-making and public communications about the secrets of Fatima since at least 1986. Fatimists hotly dispute the official versions and interpretations released by figures like Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone and believe the secret has to do with a crisis of religious belief caused by apostasy in the Church at the highest levels. They feel vindicated by Pope Benedict’s pronouncement that the secret of Fatima remains valid because “the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies outside, but arises from sin in the Church.”
It takes a hard-core believer to consider the loss of belief in the Church worse than a world war. So what exactly is this “apostasy”, “persecution”, “sin” that is so terrible? What is a burden so heavy that Pope Benedict would break 600 years of tradition to resign his office?
But then the Pope Benedict XVI had to go and resign, bringing out the Malachi-watchers from the woodwork, gleefully reminding us that the next Pope will be “Petrus Romanus”, the last in a series of 116 named with great precision by the Irish seer Malachi in 1139. During Petrus Romanus’s time “the city of seven hills will be destroyed and the dreadful judge will judge his people”.
Speculation is already rampant whether Petrus Romanus is merely a poor dupe or actively abetting the rise of the Antichrist. According to reliable internet sources leading contenders for the title include Cardinal Peter Turkson from Ghana (who, if elected, would be the first black pope since the early days of the Church) or Cardinal Tarcisio Pietro Bertone (born in Romano Cavanese, Italy).
The followers of Malachi (Malachites? Malachians?) include Lutheran pastors, big-bellied TV show hosts from Idaho and other zealots with an alarming enthusiasm for stockpiling assault weapons and ammunition for the end of days. Books called “Petrus Romanus: the Final Pope is Here” are already sold out on amazon.com so hopefully they can get another print run in before it is too late. Authorities such as best-selling author Daymond Duck testify to the Biblical authenticity of this work on sites such as http://www.prophecyofthepopes.com where you can get your own library worth hundreds of dollars for free for a limited time, obviously.
Intriguingly, Malachites intersect with Fatimists, a group of Catholics convinced that successive Popes and senior cardinals have hidden the third (or last) secret prophecy given in the small Portuguese village of Fatima to three little shepherd children on the 13th day of six successive months in 1917 by “a woman brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal ball filled with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun.”
The apparition (identified as “Our Lady of the Rosary” or the Virgin Mary) gave the children a vision of sinners suffering in hell (the first secret), detailed instructions on the need to convert Russia and the consequences of not doing so - the second world war, the spread of communism and associated global conflicts (the second secret) and a third secret which was so terrible that poor Lucia Santos (the oldest of the three children) could barely endure to write it down thirty years later even as a middle-aged nun at the direct order of her bishop. Immured in a convent, Sister Lucia continued to have visions of the Virgin Mary until her death in 2005 at the age of 97.
According to the Fatimists, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI (when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith) have all had access to the last secret and have responded by either refusing to make it public or playing down its significance because it would be misinterpreted. Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger has been intimately involved in the Church's decision-making and public communications about the secrets of Fatima since at least 1986. Fatimists hotly dispute the official versions and interpretations released by figures like Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone and believe the secret has to do with a crisis of religious belief caused by apostasy in the Church at the highest levels. They feel vindicated by Pope Benedict’s pronouncement that the secret of Fatima remains valid because “the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies outside, but arises from sin in the Church.”
It takes a hard-core believer to consider the loss of belief in the Church worse than a world war. So what exactly is this “apostasy”, “persecution”, “sin” that is so terrible? What is a burden so heavy that Pope Benedict would break 600 years of tradition to resign his office?
According to the Washington Post: ‘Standing above the ancient tomb of Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI used his final homily as pontiff Wednesday to deliver a blunt reflection on religious hypocrisy... “We can reveal the face of the church and how this face is, at times, disfigured,” the German-born pontiff said, speaking in Italian on an exceedingly rare occasion: a Mass recognized to be the last of a sitting pope. “I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the church, of the divisions in the body of the church.”’
The Italian newspaper La Repubblica claims that the Pope decided to resign on December 17, the day he received a secret report from three cardinals investigating the Vatileaks scandal. The report (2 volumes bound in red, each 300 pages long) describes a Vatican divided into factions, one of whose members are united by their “sexual orientation”. According to the Guardian, the report ‘identified a series of meeting places in and around Rome. They included a villa outside the Italian capital, a sauna in a Rome suburb, a beauty parlour in the centre, and a former university residence that was in use by a provincial Italian archbishop. Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said: "Neither the cardinals' commission nor I will make comments to confirm or deny the things that are said about this matter. Let each one assume his or her own responsibilities. We shall not be following up on the observations that are made about this."’ A resounding non-denial that brought instant credibility to La Repubblica’s story from the world’s press. In the last two days, Scotland's Prelate has been stripped of his position due to allegations of inappropriate behaviour and will not be participating in the Conclave to elect the next (last?) Pope.
It is not exactly a secret that many Catholic priests are gay men. By some estimates, over half the young men in seminaries are homosexual. The Pope ought to know after a lifetime spent in positions of high authority in the Church. Most of his Papacy has been spent apologizing for the sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by priests and condoned by bishops around the world, while defending the Church as an institution and putting the blame for the abuse on a few homosexual priests. There has been no suggestion, yet anyway, that the Pope himself might be subject to public exposure for personal wrongdoing.
The Italian newspaper La Repubblica claims that the Pope decided to resign on December 17, the day he received a secret report from three cardinals investigating the Vatileaks scandal. The report (2 volumes bound in red, each 300 pages long) describes a Vatican divided into factions, one of whose members are united by their “sexual orientation”. According to the Guardian, the report ‘identified a series of meeting places in and around Rome. They included a villa outside the Italian capital, a sauna in a Rome suburb, a beauty parlour in the centre, and a former university residence that was in use by a provincial Italian archbishop. Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said: "Neither the cardinals' commission nor I will make comments to confirm or deny the things that are said about this matter. Let each one assume his or her own responsibilities. We shall not be following up on the observations that are made about this."’ A resounding non-denial that brought instant credibility to La Repubblica’s story from the world’s press. In the last two days, Scotland's Prelate has been stripped of his position due to allegations of inappropriate behaviour and will not be participating in the Conclave to elect the next (last?) Pope.
It is not exactly a secret that many Catholic priests are gay men. By some estimates, over half the young men in seminaries are homosexual. The Pope ought to know after a lifetime spent in positions of high authority in the Church. Most of his Papacy has been spent apologizing for the sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by priests and condoned by bishops around the world, while defending the Church as an institution and putting the blame for the abuse on a few homosexual priests. There has been no suggestion, yet anyway, that the Pope himself might be subject to public exposure for personal wrongdoing.
As a young boy in a school run by Christian Brothers, I wasn’t sexually abused by priests; however, there was definitely an overtone of sexual release in the pleasure they took in inflicting corporal punishment. Libido will find its way in the subterranean grottos and runnels of the repressed body or the villas and catacombs of Rome.
There must be astute people out there who can explain the status of the Virgin Mary in Catholic theology and the place of nuns and a largely female laity in the all-male, supposedly celibate, hierarchy of the Church. If homosexuality is un-natural, gay marriage is an aberration, and masturbation, contraception and abortion are crimes against life, then presumably the Church should support the flow of sexual energy between men and women. Yet since the early days of the Church, sex has been frowned on and discouraged as an earthly distraction from a focus on purity and preparation for the second coming which unfortunately never seems to happen in the true believer’s lifetime. Yet one must believe and carry on; Mary must carry both archetypes of Virgin and Mother; women must not have carnal appetites, yet must endure sexual intercourse because children (in particular, future priests) must be borne.
If priests stop believing in Mary and find sexual solace in their own flesh, gender and kind, then how will the Church perpetuate itself? Spare a sympathetic thought for the poor old Pope watching his flock and its shepherds fall away and apart from one another. The coming of the Beast would be better than this apocalypse of indifference.
If priests stop believing in Mary and find sexual solace in their own flesh, gender and kind, then how will the Church perpetuate itself? Spare a sympathetic thought for the poor old Pope watching his flock and its shepherds fall away and apart from one another. The coming of the Beast would be better than this apocalypse of indifference.
