Neo-Borgia-ism, or, the new pornocracy

August 5, 2018 § 17 Comments

I’m not a historian, let alone a historian of Catholicism.  But I know enough to be familiar with what has sometimes been referred to as the ‘pornocracy,’ the rule of medieval Borgia popes more interested in their mistresses and political power than in their often neglected job as appointed guardians of the Faith.

I am not a sociologist either.  But I’ve noticed that when heterosexual sins are condemned, the response of people who indulge in them tends to be something on the order of “Meh.”   By contrast, I’ve noticed that practicing homosexuals tend to find it utterly intolerable that anyone, anywhere, in any context, might slightly disapprove of their sexual behaviors.  As always there will be many individual exceptions; but I think there is enough truth in this observation to create a social gradient.

So I guess it should not be surprising that the thing that really contrasts the old pornocracy to the new, the medieval heterosexual clerical cabal to the Current Year homosexual cabal, is the accompanying internal assault on moral doctrine.

Also, I can’t be the only person to notice that applying a hermeneutic of whatever to moral doctrine makes a nice smokescreen, kicking up dust and hiding the writhing usury-sodomy nest from sunlight.

§ 17 Responses to Neo-Borgia-ism, or, the new pornocracy

  • Roman Lance says:

    Interesting that you talk about how homosexuals can’t stand the thought that people hate their acts. It reminds me of how Catholics( Traditional and Liberal) act when the subject of No Salvation Outside the Church is brought.

    They will calmly accept just about every questionable utterance from a person without much more than a “meh” reply, but tell them a person has to be a sacramentally baptized catholic professing the one true faith at the time of death and they have apoplectic seizures telling you how that’s heresy.

    It really interesting how quickly even the nicest person will turn on someone who suggest Father Feeney was right.

  • LarryDickson says:

    Feeneyism is not right. It is a condemned heresy, an attack (like Calvinism) on the goodness of God.

    But to return to the main topic: Zippy’s observations are excellent, but incomplete. I will quote a letter I just wrote to my sister on the same topic (McCarrick):

    “I am more interested in the question of why there is no fire. The question of why the molesters have had the upper hand in the Church hierarchy is akin to the question of why the abortionists have had the upper hand in the civil hierarchy. It seems that the purpose of office is for the people in office to display the trappings of office in a trouble-free fashion; and so bold, unapologetic evil shuts up justice even faster when the offense is more grievous.

    “I’m just pulling a thought out of my ear here, but perhaps the cult of achievement, which creates busyness, is to blame. Instead of an Accomplishment lauded in the diocesan newspaper every single week, maybe God intends me to accomplish ONE (or two?) big things in my lifetime? Then I am to deal honorably and remain alert, for the call may come at any time and from any direction. (Like a letter from some unknown, claiming hideous secret infliction by someone well thought of. Or for that matter like Bilbo Baggins.) And when it comes, then commit everything, all the position and wealth and network of connections and time I have.

    “As rare and momentous as the birth of a child.”

    To return to Zippy’s point: the cult of achievement and busyness is a fruit of usury, which treats the human being as a goods pump, not a servant of God like young Samuel. The Prophet Nathan had a day job (dresser of sycamores, perhaps?) but the moment came when God interrupted him and said it was time to head up to the castle and accuse the king of adultery and murder.

  • donnie says:

    I’m not a historian, let alone a historian of Catholicism. But I know enough to be familiar with what has sometimes been referred to as the ‘pornocracy,’ the rule of medieval Borgia popes…

    Evidently you do not know enough to be familiar with the pornocracy, else you would know it was far worse than the papacy of Rodrigo Borgia and ended nearly a half millennia before his birth:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

    Feeneyism is not right. It is a condemned heresy, an attack (like Calvinism) on the goodness of God.

    I also disagree with Feeneyism, however, it is wrong to disparage it as a condemned heresy. Fr Feeney was welcomed back into the Church during the papacy of Bl Paul VI and was not asked to recant his interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). His Benedict Center still exists and still teaches Feeneyism, yet remains in full communion with Rome. I agree their understanding of EENS is flawed but it is not accurate to describe them as heretics.

  • donnie says:

    Sorry Zippy – not sure why the formatting on that last comment failed but feel free to fix and delete this one if you’d like.

    [The closing tags lacked a ‘/‘ character. — Z]

  • MT says:

    Donnie, the point is still valid that there are many examples of Popes that were more concerned with vain worldly matters then their spiritual responsibility.

  • Zippy says:

    Alexander VI is just one of the most commonly cited / familiar “bad popes,” and thus an editorially useful example for the purposes of this post.

  • donnie says:

    The point stands regardless of the history of course, though for editorial purposes might I suggest the infamous Pope John XII – who in addition to being worse than Alexander VI actually reigned during the pornocracy:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII

    Frankly it boggles my mind that when the topic of scandalous papacies comes up everyone remembers that one Borgia pope but no one remembers the half dozen Theophylact popes who were orders of magnitude worse. If anyone wants confirmation that the Roman Catholic Church is divinely protected, the fact that Catholicism survived the 900s is it.

  • donnie says:

    Also (and I swear I’ll stop being pedantic after this), if you accept the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the end of the Middle Ages then Pope Alexander VI, whose reign began the same year Columbus arrived in the New World, can’t accurately be described as a medieval pope.

  • The Night Wind says:

    As anybody else noticed that, simultaneous with the push for homo ‘equality,’ that stories about the AIDS crisis completely vanished from the media and from political discussions?

  • imnobody00 says:

    After committing a sin, a sinner can have two different reactions: accepting that he has done something wrong (whether you repent or not) or fooling yourself telling yourself that what you did was right. Acceptance or rationalization.

    It seems to me that most homosexual people choose rationalization but they know in the guts they have done something wrong. This is why they are so nervous when somebody disapproves, because this disapproval reignites internal conflict (cognitive dissonance). On the contrary, heterosexual sinners have less problem accepting that they did something wrong, hence, the “meh” reaction.

  • T. Morris says:

    Donnie:

    If anyone wants confirmation that the Roman Catholic Church is divinely protected, the fact that Catholicism survived the 900s is it.

    My wife & I have been reading A Manual of Catholic Theology by Matthias Joseph Scheeben, and that point is brought out fairly early on as I recall. I’ll have to take the time to confirm that now, I suppose. Oh well, nothing lost, everything gained.

  • Rhetocrates says:

    and I swear I’ll stop being pedantic after this

    Aww, but I was enjoying it.

    This is why they are so nervous when somebody disapproves, because this disapproval reignites internal conflict (cognitive dissonance).

    I think there is also a third reaction: rebellion. The Law of God and your conscience and society condemn your actions, so you hoist the black flag and set them all ablaze as best you can.

    We see this a lot in these latter days, where men walk the path of Satan’s pride, and I think this is a large part of why organized homosexuality is so vociferous. They’re tearing things apart, they know it, and that’s their goal.

  • T. Morris says:

    Rhetocrates:

    … and I think this is a large part of why organized homosexuality is so vociferous. They’re tearing things apart, they know it, and that’s their goal.

    Someone said the other day at another place that the radical homosexual community (in San Francisco and elsewhere in the US) would “probably like nothing better than to start another plague.” Wait, that someone was me. Ha, ha. Of course, homosexuality is its own sort of a plague, but that’s a slightly different subject.

    I read a book once in which the claim was made that the Folsom Street Degenerates in San Francisco purposely infected the blood supply back in the mid-to-late ’80s in order to infect the general population with the HIV/AIDS virus. I of course don’t know how much truth there is to that, and it couldn’t be proven in any case, but one thing is sure: the Folsom Street Degenerates are obviously given over to strong delusions and reprobate minds, so I wouldn’t doubt it.

  • Rhetocrates says:

    I read a book once in which the claim was made that the Folsom Street Degenerates in San Francisco purposely infected the blood supply back in the mid-to-late ’80s in order to infect the general population with the HIV/AIDS virus.

    Relevant reading for the topic of homosexual degeneracy.

    A taste:

    “Well, number one was the baths, because we knew that was the main source of AIDS transmission. A gay man could pick up one or two partners in a bar, and they’d go off someplace to have their fun. There were back rooms in the bars, in the baths, too. They were called orgy rooms, where ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty men were dancing around with almost no light, and of course, anything happened there. That explained to us why a gay man would say, “I don’t know who I got it from. I never saw his face.” That sort of thing.

    The bars were not the best places to be, but at least, they would limit the amount of contact a man could have. In a bookshop, in a small sex club, out in the park–these places limited the contact. But in the baths… At a four-story bathhouse, Club Baths south of Market I think it was, 350 men would gather on a Saturday night at $10 a crack, and they got their $10 worth. And more. Including drugs in addition to poppers.”

  • […] the modernist usury-sodomy paradigm is a categorical, either/or proposition.  We are either for it, or against it.  Be […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Neo-Borgia-ism, or, the new pornocracy at Zippy Catholic.

meta