Holiness, and from 2011 what a testimony and lament that «a universal cloudburst has broken out in the Church». If today you have decided to use my styles and phrasebooks, at least pay me the royalties


To all the bishops that yesterday, not being able to deny the obvious problem I raised about poisoning lobby gay inside the church, they clung to the form to the point of calling me blasphemous, Today I have a very serious question to ask, this: the Roman Pontiff who speaks of "faggotness" is blasphemous or else, much more simply, it was finally discovered after a decade that his ghost-writer it's me?



PDF print format article



In my book of 2011, titled And Satan became triune, still distributed today by our Edizioni L'Isola di Patmos, in paragraph V of Chapter Two I deal with this delicate topic:

«Gay priests and careerists punished and expelled? nope: they lobby and are warmed like snakes in the bosom giving life to pornocracy clerical».

In the narrative of this chapter I made use of an expression about which some bishops with particularly sensitive uteruses - and therefore easy to be attacked by itching - complained to my then Bishop, the late Luigi Negri of blessed memory, that I needed to be corrected and rebuked for having resorted to blasphemy. In fact, it happened that this good Prelate of mine at the time, just arrived at the plenary of the Italian Episcopal Conference of 2012, during the first available break he was assailed by the jeremiads of several of his brother Bishops, those who incidentally, much to be understood, of the "nubifrossing» were directly responsible, as well as guilty before God and before men. The sentence judged blasphemous was the following:

«In this new, highly de-virilized ecclesial dimension, it seems that something has really broken out in the Church nubifrossing universal"

Thirteen years later the Supreme Pontiff Francis, during the plenary assembly of the Italian Episcopal Conference this May 2024, speaking behind closed doors with the Bishops, perfectly aware that the matter would be reported to journalists within a few hours - certainly by some prelate who had felt stung to the core - he complained that "There is too much fagotism in the seminaries". Inviting the Bishops not to admit into our disastrous seminaries - which for years and years I have complained are real branches of the Gay village - people with homosexual tendencies. Pointing out and clarifying in another closed-door speech made to the same Bishops in May of 2018:

«If there is a doubt about homosexuality, it is better not to let anyone enter the seminary» (cf.. WHO).

To all the bishops that yesterday, not being able to deny the obvious problem I raised about poisoning lobby gay inside the church, they clung to the form to the point of calling me blasphemous, Today I have a very serious question to ask, this: the Roman Pontiff who speaks of "faggotness", is he blasphemous or, much more simply, it was finally discovered after a decade that his ghost-writer it's me?

Below is the excerpt of that fifth paragraph taken from Chapter Two of my work And Satan became triune, a book written between 2008 and the 2010, published at the suggestion of my then Bishop only at the end of 2011.

From the island of Patmos 29 May 2024




(And Satan became triune, Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, Rome, 2011, Cap. II by. V)

A dirty body that gives off a strong odor of sweat should be stripped and washed thoroughly with soap and water, at the end of the wash it can be sprinkled with perfume; but if perfume is sprinkled on a dirty body that gives off a strong odor of sweat, the effect will be that the perfume mixed with sweat will end up making it stink more.

Involved in topics related to painful facts that afflict and humiliate the Church, at the end the prelate admonished me:

«The problem is not telling the truth but how it is said».

I replied:

«Jesus Christ did not die for the truths that the political and religious authorities wanted to hear, but for those truths that they were not willing to tolerate being merely sighed".

When the substance cannot be demolished, a last desperate defense is attempted by quibbling over the futile form, to best defend the right to spiritual blindness. When in fact it was not possible to rebuke Jesus for having healed a blind man by restoring his sight, he reproached himself with harsh criticism for having performed a miracle on the Sabbath, on a day when work is not permitted (cf.. GV 5, 2-16).

Or maybe we are, we modern Christians, so different from the Pharisees of ancient Judea? When we talk about Pharisees we tend to do so in the past tense, as if they were only one of the many Jewish sects present in Judea at the time; while the Pharisee is a being without time and religious connotation, it is a lifestyle that can take root anywhere, in every time and religious culture.

The desire for career, far from being a modern quirk, according to the words of Saint Paul it also existed in the apostolic era; even then there were those who aspired to the episcopate, so much so that the Apostle exhorts:

«What I tell you is worthy of belief: if one aspires episcopate, wants an excellent task, but the bishop must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, sober, prudent, decent, hospitable and capable of teaching, not addicted to wine, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not attached to money" (The Tm 3, 1-3).

Today the difference lies in the erotic-psychological approach. The careerists of the past were manfully driven by motivations that in the councils of the first centuries generated heated doctrinal battles, in subsequent political and religious struggles; social animals who believed in something beyond themselves and their lust for career.

For men of the past, making a career in the ecclesiastical world was a means of winning a battle, to impose their doctrine, their social or economic policy.

Today's is a careerism that comes to the surface in a world of little men e somewhere retreat into the hedonism of a social psychology that has reached the peak of collective narcissism. To the virility of the males who yesterday fought for the investitures and who were willing to risk their lives and the health of their souls to be able to impose what they believed in, the androgynous softness has been replaced by an aesthetic vision of social being and appearance, even through a privileged place like the Church, a set of international coverage which can bring bishops and priests into the limelight of the mass media, or in close contact with the world of politics, of culture and the public and private economy.

In this new highly devirilized ecclesial dimension, it seems that something has really broken out in the Church nubifrossing universal, led by a fierce army of monsignorini in career, friends of friends of friends... who have not yet been kicked out of the Roman Curia and who proliferate within it through the good offices of friends of friends of friends, often removing or keeping away everything pure that could enter it. But having to please and please to achieve the goal of pleasing and pleasing oneself, by intrinsic nature aesthetic careerists are not inclined to make decisions, this would imply the psycho-physical possession and use of those masculine attributes necessary to take on responsibilities, which in every society entail the high risk of pleasing two men and remaining unwelcome to two thousand, from time to time to be celebrated twenty years after their departure as far-sighted spirits by twenty million men against the negative opinion of only two obstinate fools.

The media ended up distorting the episcopal figure and in the collective imagination the bishop was transformed into a sort of Queen Elizabeth, representative icon for stamps, punts and Buckingham Palace parades. They speak of the bishop as a religious subject responsible for "representing his Church", starting from the first of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff, which “represents the Catholic Church”. Which is true but also ambiguous, if the hand is pressed on those concepts of "representation" which have erased from the collective memory that the fact that the bishop is called to govern his Church, before being its religious "representative" and merely managing director, or worse, bankruptcy trustee [1].

Today the pastoral and spiritual figure of the apostolic father who governs the family has been lost, guaranteeing the protection and education of children and also making the bite of authority and discipline felt when necessary.

Bishops govern the particular Churches entrusted to them as vicars and legates of Christ, with advice, persuasion, the example, but also with authority and sacred power, which, however, they do not use except to edify their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that whoever is bigger must do like the smaller one, and who is the boss, come chi serve (cf.. LC 22, 26-27).

This power, which they personally exercise in the name of Christ, it is its own, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately subject to the supreme authority of the Church and, within certain limits, with a view to the usefulness of the Church or the faithful, can be restricted.

«By virtue of this power bishops have the sacred right and before God the duty to give laws to their subjects, to judge and regulate everything that pertains to worship and the apostolate […][2] Under this, the Bishops govern the particular Churches entrusted to them, as vicars and delegates of Christ, with advice, persuasion, the example, but also with authority and sacred power, which, however, they do not use except to edify their flock in truth and holiness" […][3].

Lose all this, it means losing the spiritual and pastoral sense of the episcopate in the Church.

In his most important liturgical actions the bishop is called to proceed with the rod, the pastoral staff, which is a sign of his spiritual government and his Christian and psychological virility.

Even more so today it makes you blush with embarrassment, when certain aesthetic masters of ceremonies cover the poor bishops with cascades of lace and lace, which are more reminiscent of the bewitching female underwear rather than the vestments of the male Fathers of the Church.

Modern aesthetic and media careerism is based on a singular element: he is not virile but ephebic, feminine; asexual at best, at worst it leads to real sexual disorder due to obvious consequences of character.

In the unbalanced relationship with the ecclesiastical career, There are tremendously high numbers of individuals influenced by the typical instinct of the homosexual narcissist. And for the Church machine there is no worse engulfment than the devious personalities of repressed gays, ended up in considerable numbers like foxes in the henhouse in delicate roles where they end up "not to serve but to serve themselves"[4], not to please God, but to please others and please oneself, instead of exercising the power to decide according to charity and justice what that episcopal chair or that office of curia requires for the good of the Church and its faithful.

Hiding the truth does no one any good, especially to those who have to announce it to the world.

If we really want to seriously address this very dramatic problem, we must start from a sad fact of life: today, within the secular and religious clergy men, the number of homosexuals is alarmingly high, and is divided between gay gay practitioners and repressed; the most active seconds of the first exercise of their exhausting psychological homosexuality. Homosexuals for repressed psychic character in the body, They are far worse than those who practice homosexuality physical, causing always within the Church of sometimes enormous damage sometimes irreparable, always aiming to place itself in the highest positions and key government roles, the better to strengthen a powerful and united lobby inside, straight on pornocratici criteria.

what the pornocrazi to[5] is a drama that wounds the Church striking with deadly sinking. recent term of French origin, pornocrazi to It indicates a form of government characterized by the pernicious influence of fops and prostitutes on the men in charge of the exercise of power. Literally meaning "of prostitutes government", or government based in large part on the typical mechanisms of prostitution.

The hallmark of the pornocrazi to, It is not so much bartering for sexual favors with privileged positions, as in the usual relations between powerful and prostitute, because these power relations have not always been sexual connotations, species within certain pockets decaying, that they have formed in the past and present horrible ballast for the Church, where often the mechanism, far from being the completely natural one of heterosexual sexuality, It is based on asexuality, or of pure homosexuals mechanisms, often more psychological than physical.

In pornocrazi to clerical, homosexuality practiced at the physical level is just the tip of mental homosexuality radicalized and went often to power.

With the exercise of its influence on man power prostitute, or gay-prostitute, not so much they can indirectly exercise their personal power, because similar role mechanisms have been repeatedly applied in a quasi-institutional of the legitimate spouses of kings, or their various buddies-gay.

What is particularly stressful in the Church, more than in the secular civil power, is the prostitute ability to create their own personal power at times almost absolute, which often replaces the authority of the powerful, which often survives the same powerful.

Consider for example the young and adolescent secretary from whose lips hung the powerful, and that after an impact on the exercise of the power of the prelate - who was appointed to serve, not to drive by hitting it with the arrows of Cupid -, when he is about to retire from office for new arrivals age limit, he is promoted bishop, taking the place - in rank and sacramental dignity - of his platonically in love master[6].

The use of the term prostitute rather than prostitute, in a male society like the ecclesiastical one it is not accidental, whereas in the Church the pornocrazi to it tends to have eminently male subjects as driving characters.

The latter is the dramatic case of the powerful gay lobby, which within the Church has been able to impact and influence the driving force of the whole for some decades Orb Cattolica: the promotion of priests to the episcopate.

Predating by many centuries the classification of men placed by Leonardo Sciascia on the lips of the character of his novel, St. Bernard of Clairvaux[7] who is not a fictional character but an extraordinary saint and doctor of the Church, In the 1145 he wrote to his disciple Bernardo dei Paganelli, became Supreme Pontiff with the name of Eugene III, greeting his election to the See of Peter with a Treaty good for every Pope, carefully tailored for him. In this writing Bernardo does not fail to point out that certain mellifluous pages and young men with hair following bishops and cardinals are not happy at all around the Holy Father..

Wise exhortation addressed to a newly elected Pontiff nine centuries ago by a future saint and doctor of the Church.

Today some can say that we were not warned well in advance, regarding the damage that can be caused by certain smooth pages and young haired men to whom Saint Bernard of Clairvaux refers?[8] O, if to the medieval language of this Doctor of the Church, we prefer Sciascia's literary one from the 20th century: «take me e somewhere»?[9]



[1] On the governing power of the bishop and his ministry: Christ the Lord, n. 8 e n. 11, Apostolic Exhortation Herdsmen, n. 42, n. 54, n. 55 and the following.

[2] Dogmatic Constitution on the Church The light, n. 27.

[3] Apostolic Exhortation Shepherds of the flocks, n. 43.

[4] Meditation of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the IX Station ofthe Way of the cross, Colosseum in Rome, 25 March 2005. Benedict XVI: Way of the cross 2005, Libreria Editrice Vaticana Publishing House.

[5] Italian term coined on the film by Catherine Breillat whose original title is Anatomy of Hell. Prod. France, 2004.

[6] N.d.A. edition of 2019 - Made of record as reported by the press: «In the summer of 2017 the Vatican Gendarmerie arrests Mons. Louis Capozzi, of fifty years, Secretary of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and officer second class at the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, chaired by the cardinal. The fact: in his apartment located in the Vatican in the Holy Office building, Monsignor organized revels gay-based drugs, so much so that he was admitted to the Roman Pio XI clinic for detoxification therapies", cf.. Franca Giansoldati, The messenger, 29 June 2017; Francesco Antonio Grana, The Daily, 5 July 2017; Editorial, Free, 7 July 2017; Dominic Gramazio, The City of SalernO, 2 July 2017; Emanuele Barbieri, Correspondence Romana, 22 November 2017; Richard Cascioli, The New Compass Daily, 4 December 2017, etc..]. Referring to news they received from the inside of the Holy See, newspapers state that Monsignor "had already been proposed by the Cardinal to be raised to the episcopal dignity ', Francesco Antonio Grana, Daily fact, 28 June 2017. More than a year after the fact, journalists Maike Hickson and John Henry Westen LifeSiteNews they launch a piece of news later reported by the Vatican expert Marco Tosatti, pencil Court 11 October 2018 and Giuseppe Aloisi, The Journale, 11 October 2018 and various organs of Print: «Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio […] was present at party homosexual drug-based affair which the Vatican police raided in the summer of 2017 and he was arrested his secretary, Mons. Luigi Capozzi». At this news the same evening responds with a Tweet Cardinal Angelo Becciu, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, at the time of the incident Substitute of the Secretariat of State: «The news is baseless. I was the one to inform arrest of the priest Cardinal. Coccopalmerio end of the day, I did not find, for a mistake, the morning. The priest was not arrested during a phantom party, but in the courtyard of the house". Let's clarify everything: for over a year Cardinal Angelo Becciu allowed the newspapers to smear a priest by writing without ever being contradicted that «the arrest took place inside the apartment during a party gay a base drug», then, spent sixteen months - when at stake was pulled a cardinal - the former deputy to the Secretary of State, with timing diligent and sudden love for the truth, reports a Tweet that the arrest did not take place «during a phantom party» but «in the backyard» (!?) … «Il 29 August 2018 the roof of the Roman church of San Giuseppe ai Falegnami collapses", The Republic, 30 August 2018, whose title is held by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio. After having shown this faithful history not subject to denial, perhaps it would be good to keep close tabs, in order to avoid further sharp drops, the Etruscan necropolis of Roselle Maremma, of which Cardinal Angelo Becciu is titular Archbishop, so the roof of the Roman church of San Lino, of which he holds the title of Cardinals.

[7] Monk and then Abbot of the Cistercian Order (Fontaine les Dijon 1090 – City under Ferté 1153). He founded Clairvaux Abbey and other monasteries, including Chiaravalle Abbey in Italy. Canonized in 1174, he was declared Doctor of the Church in 1830. In 1953 the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII wanted to dedicate the Encyclical to him: Doctor Mellifluus.

[8] N.d.A. edition of 2019 – When in 2009 As I was writing these lines, the following reflection escaped me: perhaps, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, indicating «mellifluous pages and young men with hair», that is to say the gays present in certain ecclesiastical courts of the time, it could have been based on the Free Gomorrhianus written a few decades earlier by San Pier Damiani (Ravenna 1007 – Faenza 1072), work in which he begs the Roman Pontiff to dismiss those guilty of the foul sins of homosexuality from the priestly and episcopal ministry, ephebophilia and pedophilia. However, a powerful force already existed at the time lobby gay, and the Supreme Pontiff replied that these desired severe measures would be taken only in the event of a repeat offense.

[9] Leonardo Sciascia: The Day of the Owl. Torino, 1960, Einaudi publishing house.



Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos