I often wonder whether or not Benedict is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  Hopefully people don't pretend to be shocked, because I'm sure they've also thought about it.

The homoerotic acrobats were one thing, but he also, in his books, often refers to a very arcane French-American writer named Julien Green who was an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  Of course, I know Julien Green, and I'm not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, from my past as a bookworm, but this arcane gαy author is a truly bizarre person for a Cardinal to repeatedly cite in books about "faith."    

There are other indications about Ratzinger.  He appears to be one of those gnostic aesthetes of the kind that fawn over Brideshead Revisited.  Something I've observed about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, from my limited experience, is that they often believe their filthy proclivities give them some kind of secret, special knowledge.  There is almost something inherently GNOSTIC about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity itself, as you might expect, since such tastes are literally unfathomable to heterosɛҳuąƖ men.  Perhaps it is so traumatic to the mind to have participated in these foul acts that gαys, like schizophrenics, attempt to escape into an imaginary personality.  At any rate, like many other groups who don't want the truth, they do tend to construct an elaborate but ungodly ethos to justify their actions.  

I remember George Michael was once photographed having an assignation with an old man.  He said to the photographer, "Are you gαy?  No?  Then you don't know anything about it!"  In other words, you have to be one of the initiated, one of the elite, to understand why they act the way they do.  Being gαy doesn't mean they're sick, it means they are exquisite, sensitive, unique flowers.  Fallen angels, at times, but aspiring towards the empyrean climes...  All you have to do to understand what I'm talking about is take a look at someone like Oscar Wilde, who carried himself as if he was the pinnacle of civilization while all those who would impede his sodomite proclivities were barbaric fiends.  His life is treated by gαys as if he were Jesus, as if he suffered for humanity.  

This is why gαys often act bashful and sensitive and artistic.  It's like some kind of mask for their gross activity, a way to make it seem poetic instead of just deranged and diseased.  They essentially construct an entire philosophy, an ethics and an aesthetics around what is in reality a freakish and base desire.  This dichotomy surely accounts for their bad tempers, their ultra-sensitivity, as you will be familiar with if you have ever known a gαy.  They almost all have hair-trigger tempers and are violently unstable.  I knew one gαy guy, an actor, when I was in junior high, and I remember him storming angrily out of the room when he showed me one of his performances and I didn't say anything about how great he was within one or two minutes of watching it.  Like Jєωs, they put on an air of meekness and sweetness, but underneath there is often a self-loathing that is infinite, a self-loathing that could easily turn into hate for others.

Something that is VERY noticeable about the writings of Ratzinger is that this man is a full-blown gnostic, in a cult of one, speaking only to himself, as if he has some kind of private wisdom.  He will allow you to hear it, to be privy to it, but he will not give you the key to unlock it.  He doesn't even act as if he wants to be understood.  Like all gnostics, he appears to want to be seen as having an impenetrably deep mind, and to this effect he cloaks himself in nonsensical ambiguities.  In reality he sounds like an incompetent schoolboy who just read his first ten pages of Heidegger and decides to try to blend it with his rudimentary Christian faith.  But his obscure and "aesthetic" mind, in tandem with certain other events of his pontificate, sure does lead one to wonder.

A very interesting post, Raoul.  It would be very interesting to see how Pope Benedict would reply if a reporter simply asked him, "Your Holiness, are you ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?"

Too bad Bazz isn't here to defend a non-answer from B16 as being the most appropriate response.

Um, you might want to switch to decaf.

I suppose it is possible. I don't think Benedict is gαy, but you raise an interesting point Raoul. And Jitpring, what Raoul is doing isn't sinful. If he had come out and said "Benedict is definitely a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ that needs to come out of the closet!" then that would be sinful because he can't prove it. But he said he only wondered. Wondering if a person might be gαy isn't a sin, unless the person clearly isn't and you're just making stuff up. Just curious, Jitpring, why do you keep asking people to leave the forum for a while?

I suppose it is possible. I don't think Benedict is gαy, but you raise an interesting point Raoul. And Jitpring, what Raoul is doing isn't sinful. If he had come out and said "Benedict is definitely a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ that needs to come out of the closet!" then that would be sinful because he can't prove it. But he said he only wondered. Wondering if a person might be gαy isn't a sin, unless the person clearly isn't and you're just making stuff up. Just curious, Jitpring, why do you keep asking people to leave the forum for a while?

He didn't only wonder; he voiced this wonder publicly and without sufficient justification. This makes all the difference.

I haven't asked anyone to leave; I've suggested it. I've done so because of the sinful nastiness and chaos here and resulting lack of peace. I now see that it's I who should leave.

Without sufficient justification, Jitpring?  What, the covering-up of pedophiles, the acrobats from the gαy circus, his constant companion "Gorgeous George Ganswein"who fusses over this sad heretic like an old woman -- according to one article -- and the constant quotations from an arcane ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ author aren't enough to at least raise suspicion?  How about the fact that he is clearly an "aesthete"?  Sorry, I'm not worried God will have my head for this one.  

Actually I am very careful with my tongue.  I don't even comment on Paul VI possibly being gαy, though there is apparently some very solid proof of that.  I don't take it lightly even when it comes to suggesting someone is gαy, but in the case of this Ratzinger, people aren't saying enough.  Talking about his potential gαyness for me is part of the attempt to understand why he would fail so spectacularly to respond in any meaningful way to a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pedophile crisis in the "Church."  I don't think we can act like these things are happening in a vacuum.  

In order to show people what has gone wrong, they need to know that Vatican II is a gαy cult, that gαys have a stranglehold on the seminaries, and that this is a conspiracy of people who have given themselves over to abomination, and not just about men who are driven to sinful acts by celibacy.  Whether or not Ratzinger partakes in this gαy cult, he most certainly protects it.  

What I have observed in my study of gαys is, like I said, that they have codes and various reference points by which they understand each other -- it is known that gαys will wear, say, a flag in one pocket, or something like that, to signal to other gαys what they are.  But they also have a network of cultural references by which they know each other.   That is how they are able to work together, as it were, and block out anyone who is not "one of them" from getting into Vatican II, in so many cases.

I was very careful to draw no conclusions about Ratzinger, except that he is, and this can't be denied, the head of the largest gαy cult in the world.  I also wanted to point to an extremely pronounced cryptic, gnostic and self-absorbed tendency in the writings of Ratzinger.

Julien Green is a man whose books are decidedly gnostic ( he is an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, by the way, in case you want to have another hissy fit ); and Ratzinger, out of NOWHERE, has dug up this Julien Green and constantly quotes him, as if he has any relevance at all to the Catholic faith.  

If you want mollycoddling of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, go to Michael Voris.  I personally have no sympathy for what these people are doing in the name of the Church, and I sincerely question anyone who does.  These people are not special little snowflakes, they are duped by the devil into hideous acts, acts that lead to despair, which in turn leads to a seared conscience... And much more sin.  Why does Ratzinger do nothing to stop the scourge, after so much time in office?  

Let's put it this way, Jit -- you don't see any cause for concern that the head of the largest gαy cult in the world often quotes an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ gnostic author as if this man were some kind of oracle, and then invites homoerotic circus performers to the Vatican?  I'm the one you have a problem with?  

Let's put it this way.  I can see that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs would have a big problem with my post, because it shows that I clearly see through them with X-ray vision and know exactly how they operate and what they're up to.  I know about their little cultural aesthetic codes, I know about how they flatter themselves that they are tragic, beautiful creatures.

S2srea said:

Having an opinion or wondering isn't what's wrong. You are right- he voiced his wonder without justification publicly

I just gave you the justification.  I know many Catholics who crack jokes during that acrobat video like "Benedict is enjoying himself today!" etc.  I am far from the only one who thinks the man might be gαy.  

Do you think simply ignoring my evidence and defaming me instead is being a good Catholic?  You are the one who are making yourself suspicious by acting as if what I'm saying is out of the blue.