Comments are closed.
The website of this magazine and the editions take name from the Aegean island in which the Blessed Apostle John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, isola also known as «the place of the last revelation»
«God revealed the secrets of others ALTIUS»
(in higher than the others, John has left the Church, the arcane mysteries of God)
The bezel used as the cover of our home page is a 16th century fresco by Correggio. preserved in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma
Creator and editor of this magazine website:
MANUELA LUZZARDI
the Rev. Padri: if I understand correctly, those who oppose this vaccine do so because at its base there are two voluntarily aborted fetuses. According to the opponents, ( 1 ) getting vaccinated is not just equivalent to publicly approving those two voluntary abortions (outrageous approval that a Christian surely cannot do) ma ( 2 ) also to encourage researchers to do more abortions for further research. E’ easy to see that the two reasons don't hold up. Indeed, about the point (1): using the fruit of a crime is not the same as approving it, for example, space travel does not mean being a Nazi, even if the rocket was invented by the Germans to win an unjust war and therefore for criminal purposes. About the point (2): researchers are not obliged to use voluntarily aborted fetuses, they can use spontaneously aborted fetuses which unfortunately are very numerous (almost one a day in Italy). If you think that two fetuses were enough to prepare the anticovid vaccine, it is immediately evident that researchers do not have and will never need to kill to obtain the cells necessary for their studies. In conclusion, I don't see where the problem lies and I don't understand how so many intelligent Catholics are so overwhelmed by emotion that they don't understand that vaccination is perfectly legitimate on a moral level. To understand this, there is no need for an official Vatican statement (indeed even three! ).
Reagisco alla sua affermazione secondo la quale i tessuti possono essere prelevati da aborti spontanei. Fake.
I tessuti devono essere prelevati da soggetti VIVI (che quindi devono essere VIVISEZIONATI).
Invito tutti quelli che capiscono l’inglese a documentarsi sull’argomento con questa eccellente inchiesta in due parti.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/05/17/exploring-the-dark-world-of-vaccines-and-fetal-tissue-research-part-1/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/05/26/exploring-the-dark-world-of-vaccines-and-fetal-tissue-research-part-2/
Sabato scorso ho inviato un commento con riferimento ad alcune anteprime dell’intervista concessa dal Papa al TG5, andata poi in onda domenica sera. Lamentavo la presa di posizione, a mio avviso sconsiderata, del pontefice a favore dei vaccini, il suo giudizio etico censorio contro chi non intendesse farsi vaccinare e, niente meno, l’appellativo di “negazionismo suicida” per stigmatizzare tale legittima posizione. Mi chiedevo anche, invero in modo retorico, come tali pubbliche dichiarazioni conciliassero con la Nota della CDF recentemente approvata dal Papa (“sulla moralità dell’uso di alcuni vaccini anti-Covid-19”, 21.12.2020), che invece ribadisce che “la vaccinazione non è, di norma, un obbligo morale”. Paventavo anche che tali esternazioni vanificassero ogni tentativo di opposizione civica ad un eventuale obbligo vaccinale e la possibilità di appello all’obiezione di coscienza. La redazione ha valutato di non pubblicare queste mie considerazioni, evidentemente giudicandole poco pertinenti, o forse inopportune; tuttavia, dopo soli tre giorni scopro che l’obbligo vaccinale è già stato introdotto dal Governo nelle pieghe del primo Decreto Legge dell’anno (DL n.1 del 5 gennaio 2021) che all’art.5 , comma 4, autorizza il direttore sanitario, con ricorso al giudice tutelare, a somministrare il vaccino ai ricoverati presso le strutture sanitarie assistite, anche senza il consenso dell’interessato, e contro la volontà dei parenti o affini, se incapace (https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2021/01/05/21G00001/sg). Non so, ma a me sembra il caso di parlarne.
I learn that Sunday 10 January, at 20.40 on Canale 5 an exclusive worldwide interview will be broadcast on Pope Francis’s TG5, which are circulated on the internet, among other, the following quotes: “I believe that ethically everyone should get the vaccine” e – with reference to the so-called deniers – “There is a suicidal denial that I cannot explain, but today we have to get vaccinated”. I wonder: how can the Pope countersign a Note from the CDF in which it reaffirms – albeit in the fold of a document that no one will ever read – that vaccination must be voluntary, and immediately after declaring worldwide that there is a moral obligation to vaccinate? And don't say that affirming the moral obligation does not mean supporting the mandatory nature of vaccines, because if the government wants to impose the vaccine on everyone by law, how will the man on the street be more able – but also the Pope himself – assuming he wants to – prove that he is acting immoral? I would say that we have had enough of this disturbed communication modality. These stances are absolutely foolhardy for spiritual health as well, stavolta, also physics of the faithful.
As amply demonstrated by Dr. Mangiagalli (therefore blacked out from all TV channels), today no one dies of Covid if treated in time at home with negligible cost therapies, practically nil (https://youtu.be/PHE8KZ_otQg). This would open up a series of reflections on the spread and management of the pandemic and on the responsibilities of our government and its international representatives., as well as on the vaccine and the universal vaccination project, but for this there is neither space nor relevance to the theme.
However, to stay on the subject, with regard to the anticovid vaccine, the use of cell chains of human fetuses is not the only ethical reserve, there are more serious and important ones as evidenced by the Nobel Prize virologist Luc Montagnier (https://youtu.be/kHGtn_vnrJ8). It is not clear then why the moral reservations placed by Montagnier did not attract the attention of the Vatican like the fetal cells, e, notably, of the CDF and of the Pope in particular; who, on the contrary, perhaps misinformed, called for the widest possible diffusion of the vaccine, also and above all towards the poorest populations (that would end up being the guinea pig for the richest ones), rather than prefer (for everyone) access to home care within anyone's reach, which would also have the advantage of freeing the whole world not only from the pandemic, but from the technocratic slavery of international pharmaceuticals.
She says:
«[…] the Nobel Prize Virologist Luc Montagnier (https://youtu.be/kHGtn_vnrJ8). It is not clear then why the moral reservations placed by Montagnier did not attract the attention of the Vatican like the fetal cells, e, notably, of the CDF and of the Pope in particular […]»
I answer her:
San Tommaso Aquino, regarding the infusion of the soul into the human body, follows the Aristotelian theory (Book of the generation of animals, (II), III, 736A35), he expressly cited in QUESTION, III, 33, ob. 3, according to which "in later times the body is formed and prepared to receive the soul". So the matter of the body receives the human soul not at the instant of conception, but around the 40th day from
concezione. First we have the living reality – the alive -, then the animal reality – l’animal-, and finally human reality – l’homo -, that “absorbs”, includes and “oversteps” previous (therein, I, 118, 2, 2m).
Today, however, the Church teaches as a definitive truth of faith that the soul is infused from the moment of conception.
Well, answer this question on the merits: San Tommaso Aquino, that he was not a simple Nobel Prize winner like the one you mentioned Luc Montagnier, but who is one of the greatest doctors of the universal history of the Church, he was wrong or he was right?
Answer yes or no: he was wrong “no” O “and”, or he was right “and” O “no”.
Believe me, responding on the merits is very easy, lo faccia, because maybe he will find that, if even an excellent speculative mind like Aquinas can be wrong, even more can a simple Nobel Prize be mistaken.
I wanted to raise a question, don't ask her a question. Anyway Yes, St. Thomas was wrong, but its claim (di lei) to force me to say it makes no sense. When St. Thomas, as an academic, expounded his theory, Catholic doctrine in this matter had not yet been defined. So I raise the challenge: but he was wrong about what? Then, his argument admits the case that in the future the Church may recognize vaccines and vaccination policies a value of faith, that's what he's telling me? Spero di no. Instead, I argue that the Church is wrong to commit its authority to defend at least dubious vaccination policies (per dire il meno). In this way, the Church invades a field that does not belong to it, takes part in a part of the scientific world – it is not known with what specific skills – and it contradicts the very foundation of the science whose authority it would like to defend, that is doubt (science proceeds by reproving previous acquisitions of knowledge). Montagnier is not St. Thomas, but he talks about things he knows, with the advantage of not being on anyone's payroll. Moreover, for what it matters here, raises very serious ethical doubts (in the company of far less famous than him). So I insist on re-proposing the question: because the Church expresses itself on a secondary moral question (but with potential repercussions on individual freedoms, as I complained in previous interventions), but it leaves out much more serious moral issues, however politically incorrect?
@ Stefano: I believe that the problems debated here are two and quite distinct:
( 1 ) it is permissible to use this vaccine?
(2) If it is lawful, it is also mandatory? And if it is, it is under penalty of mortal or venial sin?
The answer must be given by the Church and here by Church I mean the Pope, certainly not the bishops since the episcopate is divided on this issue. Now from what I understand (correggetemi se sbaglio) the Pope replied like this:
( 1 ) Yup (and he affirmed it not only in words, but also by example, getting vaccinated).
(2 ) No, but it is advisable (so if you don't get vaccinated you don't sin, but if you get vaccinated you get worth it).
At this point I see no problems of conscience. “You have the Old and the New Testament, and the Pastor of the Church who guides you; this is enough for your salvation”.
estimated Father,
I find myself noting the following things
1) generalized paralysis of western economies (and therefore worldwide), with the load of unemployment, despair, deaths and poverty that it will carry with it for decades to come, proposed as a reasonable countermeasure against a virus that has death rates of 0,01
2) the stop by numerous national bodies of effective treatments such as hydroxychloroquine on the basis of a totally fallacious study funded by who knows who (no one has ever bothered to seriously investigate)
3) the placing on the market of vaccines developed in a very short time, very little tested, based on experimental technologies, with potentially devastating effects, but certainly unknown in the medium and long term, among the generalized hosannas of the media, with all the critical voices mocked (nel migliore dei casi) or criminalized (here in France).
there, I find myself having to find explanations “rational” for this type of event.
I'm asked to believe the official version without asking myself, worth being treated by “stupido” who believes in “plots of strong powers” (thanks for the excellent example). Purtroppo si, in the face of colossal contradictions of this kind, on a planetary scale, one begins to doubt the veracity of news and videos such as those you quote.
The fool apologizes for the time stolen from the Fathers.
Dear Roberto,
no one would dare to call her stupid, also because the expression "even to stupidity there is a limit" was not addressed to her but it is an evident rhetorical expression in a broad sense.
None of the Fathers replied to his comment, but one of the editorial staff (from Bergamo) who lost three family members due to Covid-19, the youngest of which is 38 years of age. This is a real dead man, actually died of Covid-19, died without his family ever seeing him again.
There are people who have lost parents, siblings, sisters, without even being able to see them again. And when they hear certain issues raised, they stay bad. Especially when they hear the so-called deniers saying “covid-19 does not exist”. Affirmations to which they react by getting angry and asking: “Then my father … my mother … my brother … he died of a disease that does not exist?”.
For example, imagine a person who lost a family member under a bombing and another person who raised doubts about the fact that there really was a bombing.
Definitely, who has lost the familiar under the bombs, well there remains.
That in the Covid-19 affair something does not return at the political and economic level, we too affirm this at the end of our book dedicated to this theme: The Church and the coronavirus.
I add in a personal capacity: and China, that first created this situation still to be defined in all its contours, and today it is preparing to buy itself entire European countries, where we put it?
Of course, that many things do not add up, altrochè!
estimated Father,
thank you for the calm reply. Non sto dicendo che “the virus does not exist” or that “no one died of COVID”. As I said in my first speech, several acquaintances have had it, some in rather heavy forms. I say that the statistical incidence of deaths does not justify the ongoing socio-economic destruction, which will result in much greater human losses in the years to come. I am not absolutely sure, just a very strong suspicion e, in my opinion, founded. E’ all that I can humanly do. The topic “the media blames you”, for the other reasons listed, vale 0 (in this historical moment).
What happened in Bergamo? I do not know. I just know that such things have not happened in a generalized way.
So when the Commission talks about a serious epidemic, I think of the black plague, to the dead piling up in houses and streets, to mass graves. All things my personal experience (and not mass media virtual reality) negano. If I honestly thought there was such an immediate mortal risk, I would understand the urgency of using all possible methods, including those ethically problematic. I think we are not in such conditions, therefore the acceptance of such a vaccine remains deeply problematic for me, and boils down to “have no trouble with the state”.
So I return to my original question. My conscience tells me that the imminent mortal risk is not such. My cowardice advises me to “do what they tell you to do without fuss or you'll have trouble”. How should I…
Stimati Padri,
regarding COVID, the document of the Congregation affirms that the use of vaccines derived from aborted fetuses is not a sin “if there is a serious danger, like diffusion, otherwise irrepressible, of a serious pathogen: in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19.”
there, personally, in all conscience, all my personal experience from 10 months now he tells me that this pathogen is no more serious than a seasonal flu. None of the people I know have died from this virus, although several people have contracted it, with sometimes unpleasant but not fatal effects.
The “gravità” it is repeated to me in every way by the media, of which I have very little confidence, and I don't think we need to say why. Several reputable scientists, even if not very audible in the media, I am of my opinion. I go so far as to say (correct me if i'm wrong) that the Congregation itself has no scientific authority to disprove me on this point.
So if I agreed to undergo such a vaccine it would be solely for compulsion, direct or indirect, such as job loss for example, something feared more and more often here in France where I live, or other limitations of my individual freedoms, or the fact that my daughter would be denied access to kindergartens and schools. Such a compulsion, would be a reason “grave” to agree to have these vaccines inoculated me?
Ci faccia capire …
1. the number of 820 died in a single day in Bergamo, I'm a hoax? Or maybe he means "… and who proves that they died from Covid-19 "? Already, they died of cold!
2. The collapsing city cemeteries that could not cope on the spot with the burials of the bodies and the crematorium that could not cremate the bodies, are also this an invention of … “strong powers” to scare the Boeotian people?
3. The military trucks carrying hundreds of coffins, I'm a fiction from a war movie and passed off as real, while in reality they are actors and extras on a film shooting set?
Not everyone has the gift of intelligence, But, sincerely, even in blind stupidity there is a limit.
Watch this video, then say that it is false or that "it is a conspiracy of the strong powers":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8n3IskA-d4
Merry Christmas of our Lord Jesus to the Fathers of the Island and to all those who love the whole truth.
In the hope of being able to return to the delicate theme of this section with more serenity and question some aspects of the CDF document.
I won't go into the merits of vaccines whether they are ethical or not, but I would like to comment on the point where the ‘ author states that l’ abortion would be close to being rejected by the people, instead I believe that not only will this not happen but it will also be legalized in countries where only a few years ago it was strongly paid as is happening in Argentina, with ‘ happened in Ireland and as it seems it will also happen in Poland. One’ nurse in a ‘ interview stated that compared to twenty years ago in our country girls abort with the same nonchalance with which they do any medical examination while before many girls were crying. (D)’ on the other hand the legalization of the ‘ abortion quest’ year has turned 100 year old (USSR) and the fall of communism certainly did not limit it, indeed it has spread further. The same speech for euthanasia that quest ‘ year and was approved in Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands is now open to all for any cause. If I have not misunderstood some of Father Di Gualdo's affirmations, evil has now overflowed irreversibly both in the Church and in the world and not even God can intervene to change things, so I see the confirmation that the ‘ abortion and l’ euthanasia will increasingly be seen as something neutral, indeed a positive choice.
Without going into the theological-moral merits of the question treated here, However, one cannot fail to note that the effect of the CDF note is also to create a clear discrepancy with other documents of the magisterium in assessing the degree of participation in evil between those who are vaccinated with derivatives of aborted human fetuses and those who, to es, fails to do separate collection; or, between the use of cell chains from aborted fetuses for the production of vaccines, and the use of fossil fuels for heating.
These are forcings of common sense that, even where they do not appear immediately evident to the intellect of the man in the street, however, they are perceived at a sub-rational level, generating disaffection and distrust. Normal faith cannot stand these stress tests without slipping into convention either, worse, in superstition and fear.
The note from the CDF is as flawless as that from 2005 of Pav , that of 2008 of the CDF “Dignitas personae” and also that of the SSPX.
Rightly Scandroglio on the NBQ wonders where such critics were in 2005 and in 2008…
Last very sore point. The document of Cardinal Janis Pujats, Metropolitan Archbishop Emeritus of Riga (Latvia), by bishops Tomash Peta, archbishop of the archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana (Kazakhstan), Jan Pawel Lenga, emeritus of Karaganda (Kazakhstan), Joseph E. Strickland, bishop of Tyler (Usa) e Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Maria Santissima in Astana (Kazakhstan) by title “On the moral unlawfulness of the use of vaccines based on cells derived from aborted human fetuses” USE SENTIMENTALISM IN PLACE OF REASON. By heterogenesis of ends, we have gods “Conservatives” who use the typically modernist modus operandi…
@ Alfredo Grande: your question is interesting, and I propose it again here: the prelates who today protest against a document of 2020 which essentially repeats the same concepts written in the documents of 2005 he was born in 2008, why they did not protest even then? One possible answer could be this: are protesting only today because today's document was approved by the hated Pope Francis I. Now, I don't know if Francis I is a great pope or a ruin for the Church (there are conflicting rumors about it and only God knows the truth) but one thing is sure: these bishops scandalize and confuse the faithful by blatantly despising the directives of a Roman Pontiff to whom they must obey even if he is not a pontiff to their taste. And apart from that, they realize that their sophisms will lead countless Catholics to reject the vaccine? They realize that this refusal will produce a trail of disabled and dead? In addition to deforming consciences, they also want to cause a massacre?
“The person who has an abortion is not condemned, always welcomed with great delicacy and kindness by us confessors.”
According to you then, in an ideal society, it would not be appropriate to institute the crime of abortion, with so much penalty for doctors, intermediaries and people who pushed women to abortion, as for the woman herself?
We must distinguish between Confession and civil law. The law should defend the fetus and the only way to do this is to outlaw abortion and hit offenders, but the confessor is on a completely different level, the confessor is not the judge of the court. The woman goes to him not to boast of the evil done but because she is repentant. Otherwise he wouldn't go there. We men do not realize the agony a woman feels when after having an abortion (maybe after many years but sooner or later the moment arrives) he realizes he has killed a son. Why rage?
Dear Fathers of The Island of Patmos (e, believe it or not, I write it with profound sincerity), you could enter into the merits of the question raised by Roberto Ceccarelli, relating to the Vatican political assessment of the abortionist Biden and that bad guy Trump, as well as the choice of Jeffrey Sachs, as spokesperson for the social doctrine of the Church, instead of sneaking with yours… tasty and more often than not appreciated irony?
"The reigning Pontiff branded with severe words and terms that St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI would never have used (sic!): Abortion is like hiring a hitman to kill a person ".
There is only one difference between John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the reigning Pontiff: the first two in the fight against abortion have always stood out for their consistency, the reigning Pontiff for incoherence to say the least frightening.
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2020/12/17/non-censura-ma-silenzio-calcolato-una-lettera-dall%e2%80%99argentina-sul-papa-e-l%e2%80%99aborto/
Even between you and your wife, between her and her grandfather, there is a big difference between her and a trapeze artist from the Moira Orfei circus. We who are logical and speculative minds, but above all men of faith, we would never set out to draw certain differences, because they would be neither logical nor relevant.
It is called the philosophy of common sense, or more simply, common sense.
Granted that talking about theology is not the exclusive domain of you enlightened insiders, I disagree with you. According to her, Mgr. Viganò is a supercazzolaro? Approve the use of a vaccine containing DNA of abortive fetal origin, in my opinion at least it actually authorizes pharmaceutical companies to continue producing vaccines with genetic material from aborted fetuses. If I am not mistaken, it is like accepting evil “minore” to have a greater good that is NOT E’ LAWFUL. The “clear condemnation” of his beloved Bergoglio strongly clashes with the inconsistency of having supported the abortionist Biden and condemned the defender of life Trump as well as having invited a scientist, Jeffrey Sachs, abortionist and of clear Malthusian fame (we are too many , we are polluting the earth and seriously offending Pachamama, ergo we must limit the births and eliminate a little’ di gente). I could still go on to list numerous other cases in which Pope has perhaps deliberately fallen into contradiction with the millennial Magisterium, with the Commandments and with some sacraments, to generate confusion and disorientation in the people of God. If you had the courage to take note that Bergoglio was elected by a conspiracy orchestrated by the mafia of S. Gallo (all confirmed by the deathbed confession of one of the members such Card. Danneels) and that therefore according to Dominici Gregis his appointment is void, the cataracts from her eyes would fall.
The Fathers de The Island of Patmos they thank her for having wanted to offer this variegated soup of various vegetables near Christmas, among other things, we did not hesitate to immediately understand from which deranged multi-excommunicated tele-barker he took the recipe, that is from that guy who airs every night from Sicily on Facebook with his program of poisoned recipes followed by four angry wives and two confused like her …
The fact that organic substances derived from human fetuses are used to produce (also) vaccines such as anticovid is one of the legal levers that some associations of lawyers, on the basis of existing constitutional protections, have suggested using those who want to legally oppose the feared mandatory vaccination by governments on certain categories of workers, O, really, on the whole population.
Now, the note from the CDF comes to tick, de facto, the main legal weapon available to those wishing to oppose any request to undergo mandatory vaccination. The thing is all the more paradoxical (therefore rightfully suspect) because in the same document it is specified that “vaccination is not, normally, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary ". That is, on one side, if he says (but in an absolutely marginal position in the document) that vaccination must be voluntary, on the other, it takes away the possibility (that would already exist) to make conscientious objection (whoever did it could not invoke Catholic teaching).
It will be said that whoever wanted to be vaccinated, but had some ethical scruples, however, he has the right to know that he can do so by acting in a morally lawful manner. Ok, but then the document had to treat with the same centrality and rigor also the moral illegality of compulsory vaccination (except in very rare cases and in any case never on the whole population), and the use of human fetuses for the production of vaccines (or whatever), which otherwise is indirectly authorized by vaccinations.
If I am allowed to draw a personal conclusion to the above reasoning, I would say that, whether the individual participation in the disease of those undergoing vaccination can be considered remote, the participation in the evil of this improvised note from the CDF, even more so if requested directly by the pope (as the necessary imprimatur on the document would suggest), it seems much less remote. The direct and indirect effects that will follow the raising of the cataracts go in fact from enslavement (it doesn't matter if it's true or false, provided it is apparent) of the Church of Christ to the demands of the pandemic moloch, up to the abandonment of the faithful to their inauspicious fate under the yoke of totalitarian globalism and politically correct health slavery. However, all within a frame of natural law and moral lawfulness certified by the Catholic Church. Which is then the figure of this pontificate of dissolution: “We must start processes and not occupy spaces”.
Supercazzolari… I see that the illuminating example of triviality of a certain Father of this island, now spreads among the other Fathers. What a great sadness!
… and we take note instead that she has never read the Gospels, perché Gesù Cristo, when it addresses the supercazzolari of the time, use much more severe and offensive expressions, particularly incisive in the original text of the Gospels in Greek a little’ mitigated in translations.
We are not talking about the texts of the Holy Prophets of Israel, I don't know if he has them present … precisely those that are read in the liturgy of the word during Holy Mass, we have the Holy Mass present? E’ that rite that is celebrated in Catholic churches.
Good, there the translators had to take a fancy flight when they translated from Hebrew to Greek and then from Greek to modern languages.
Think, in the original text the Prophet Malachi threatens to “throwing the shit of sacrificial temple animals in the faces of the priests” and not happy he continues threatening them that “the shit will drag you away”.
You see, ignorance – that is, not knowing – leads Puritans like her to live a Christianity that does not exist and that has never existed, according to the Holy Scriptures at least, that she obviously doesn't know, admitted and not granted that none of the Fathers ever used the strong and aggressive "trivial" terms contained in the Old and New Testament.
So you don't belong to Catholicism, if anything, to bigottolism.
Listen to this….Now Our Lord Jesus was also suffering from coprolalia!
The prophet may also come from the slums, but Jesus no! Full of the Holy Spirit, and therefore capable of domination, he would never have expressed himself vulgarly. His Mother is also the righteous Saint Joseph (unlike yours) they were great parents.
You get called “Fathers” while you are not even children….
You must learn to apologize when you make a mistake instead of always posing as masters by accusing those who are better than you of ignorance and bigotry..
The result is that you look like donkeys disguised as wise men!
Dear Mrs,
one of two: or she is a spinster so acidic that if she put a finger in a glass of milk she would turn it into yogurt instantly, or she suffers from the betrayal of a husband who completely snubs her and who has a good time with a mistress who is half her age, because only from painful and deep wounds that generate sentimental frustrations of this kind can a ferocious and utterly unrestrained wickedness arise as a reaction.
But I go further …
In order for my pious brother, author of the article, not to get your hands dirty I'll answer you on the merits of what you wrote, moreover on Christmas Eve, finding nothing better to do than seriously insult three priests in the name of his strange and unspecified idea of Christ the Lord, of the Blessed Virgin and Patriarch Joseph.
Not happy, his wickedness – because she gives concrete proof of being really evil – it goes so far as to insult the memory of our parents, that nearly all three of us have lost, a couple of us even at a young age.
Well know that I would like to be his father – ie its parent – for only 15 minutes, or even better: his husband. Why after finding out, as a father or as a husband, how she goes around the net spewing hatred on people, on my return home I would have given her all the deserved prizes.
And may God have mercy on her, because it is precisely for lost people like her that we pray and offer our mortifications and penances.
Look for a confessor, but especially, please, do not send us more comments, not for us, but for the sake of his soul. If he will send them to us, they will be immediately trashed.
I would like to add that the word shit is also used by St. Paul in Philippians, cap. 3, v. 8 : la traduzione “sweetened” that we usually read is “I have dropped all these things and consider them as garbage in order to gain Christ “. One of the best biblical scholars of the last century, the abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, in his book “St. Paul” , commenting on this verse clearly says that the original Greek word is not “trash” but it is instead ” the word used by Cambronne”.
It seems that the story of the bad word (σκύβαλα) in São Paulo it was a false belief: https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/did-the-apostle-paul-use-profanity.