By Theodore Shoebat
235,000 Muslims are heading towards Italy. This is no doubt going to be a part of the Islamic invasion of Rome, an aspiration that has been being pursued since the time of Muhammad. Martin Kobler, who is the head of a UN peacekeeping mission working to bring stability to Libya, said:
“We have on our lists 235,000 migrants who are just waiting for a good opportunity to depart for Italy, and they will do it”
The only way to stop the inundation of these migrants into Italy, Kobler said, is to vanquish ISIS in Libya and unite the competing political factions in the region. Kobler went on to say:
“Very soon, Isil will no longer have control over territory in Libya… This is quite encouraging and could give hope to the country. At the same time, however, we need to stay vigilant, because terrorism is not finished and Isil’s militants will try to disperse to other regions.”
So far, more than 128,000 migrants have reached Italy, which is straining Italy’s capacity to accommodate them and to undergo the technicalities necessary to officiate them into the nation.
What is this? Germany is the nation that facilitated these mass migrations into Europe. What is the purpose? I believe that the objective behind this is to destabilize the region, cause chaos and terrorism, to provoke the Europeans into adopting fascistic governments. (I have written and spoken on this subject here, here and here)
But what is the root cause of all of this? The answer is simple, the decay of Christian identity. Instead of seeing Christians expanding their influence and conquering, we are witnessing supposed Christians acquiescing to the acolytes of antichrist. We’ve seen this with the Lutheran Church, for example, supporting the absorbing of Muslims into Germany, and manifesting this sentiment when they turned off the lights of their churches to protest the anti-jihad PEGIDA rallies.
We have seen this amongst the highest seats of power within the Vatican, with the Pope himself washing the feet of Muslims. The rite of foot washing was established by Jesus Christ when He “began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.” (John 13:5) When St. Peter asked Him, “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” Christ answered him, “What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.” (John 13:7)
What the Disciples did not understand at that moment, was that Christ was initiating them into the priesthood. For this was in accordance to the law God gave to the Levites, as we read in the Scriptures:
“Thou shalt make also a brazen laver with its foot, to wash in: and thou shalt set it between the tabernacle of the testimony and the altar. And water being put into it, Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet in it: when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony, and when they are to come to the altar, to offer on it incense to the Lord, lest perhaps they die. It shall be an everlasting law to him, and to his seed by successions.” (Exodus 30:18-21)
The ritual of foot washing is to be done solely unto Catholic men, not Muslims, not women, but men. To do otherwise would be to desecrate the sacred institution of the priesthood. So, when Francis washed the feet of Muslims, it was an absolute disgrace, and a sign of utter decay and spiritual degeneracy within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was once a golden city, with the illustrious light of sublime beauty radiating from her teachings, her valor, and her spirit of building true civilization; a flower that, once it bloomed, illumined the darkness that infected the world, it had pushed the masses to the apprehension that their souls were thirsty for the Light of the Holy Trinity. Now, it has been taken over by sodomites, and this is the result. The masses are now told that to immerse themselves into the darkness is okay, that we should tolerate the darkness, embrace the darkness, worship the darkness, and to never fight the darkness. We saw this also with Francis kissing the hand of Michele de Paolis, who is considered to be Italy’s most rebellious priest, a son of Belial who has been amongst the most active of the infiltrators in trying to have the Church change its teachings against homosexuality, and to accept and bow down to the religion of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Why homosexuality? As with Nazism, supremacy was sold to the masses as the “master race” of the “Aryans,” and with homosexuality, supremacy is marketed in the superior “homosexual gene,” which is why they keep pushing the idea that they are “born that way.” They want to advance homosexuality because that would establish a form of modern eugenics, in which sodomites will be esteemed as superior, while normal people will be deemed as inferior. (I wrote on this extensively, here).
The scourge of the Muslims heading for Italy, is only but a sign of a deeper disease within the body politic: Italy has forsaken its immune system — the Catholic Faith — and thus its people are going to have to suffer under the symptoms, until they realize the cure: Christian supremacy. The absence of Christian supremacy has led to the utter acceptance of homosexuality. Let us return to the true teachings as taught by the holy Apostle, St. Paul.
St. Paul, affirming with all zeal the divine law of God, wrote that sodomites are worthy of death (Romans 1:32). But, amongst the theologians of today there is a great many wicked deceivers who argue, with a vitriolic frenzy, that this verse is not solely directed against sodomites, but ‘towards all sinners,’ and thus the prescription of death is meant in a figurative way, and not a penal one. To prove this point they will say that St. Paul, after mentioning the sodomites, lists a number of sins, “malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy” as being worthy of death (Romans 1:29-31).
But this is a sophism. For if one were to read the whole verse, it is quite obvious that this is not a mere list of sins, or a classification of homosexuality as just be a sin amongst other sins. Rather, this is a description of homosexuals, and a very vivd one at that. He first describes these people as beginning with a corrupt perception on God:
“Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.” (Romans 1:21-23)
From having a corrupt view of God, they fell into depravity, specifically, homosexuality, and these very people exhibited the most sinister of ways, as the Scripture says:
Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” (Romans 1:24-32)
As one can see here, the description is continual, and does not stop at homosexuality to list separate sins, but points to theses sins as an illustration as to how the sodomites are, and it is truly accurate, considering how the sodomites act in our own times. For observe closely the words of Paul before he goes into his list, “God delivered them up to a reprobate sense”, in that Paul is continuously describes the same people, that is, the sodomites.
It is so evil to distort this verse of St. Paul, to make it seem that he is just listing homosexuality, as opposed to describing homosexuality. For such a misinterpretation feeds into the deceptive propaganda, that the sodomite is “just a sinner,” or that he is “struggling,” or that homosexuality just “another sin,” and that we should not pay attention to it as a danger, but instead “focus on ourselves,” as if the Christian is to be static as the acolytes of antichrist overrun the nations.
They will clamor like demons, and argue, “We are all worthy of death! So keep to yourself and stop judging others!” To such people, I will let St. Paul be my defense. For that holy Apostle made it very specific that the law is to be enacted against certain evildoers, and not to general sinners. In his epistle to Timothy he writes “that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine, which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust.” (1 Timothy 1:11)
Which one of these deceivers today would argue that this just a general list of sins? Let them say that murderers are not worthy of the law; let them come out with their pompous sophisms and exclaim that those who kidnap people or sell persons like slaves are not worthy of the law. Let them come out in all their superficiality and modish ways that patricides and matricides are not worthy of death! And after this, let them say that sodomites are not worthy of the law and not worthy of death!
St. Paul says that sodomites “are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” (Romans 1:32) But the deceivers will respond and say that in the next verse, St. Paul wrote:
“Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” (Romans 2:1)
They will then take this verse and argue, ‘You see! He says that we should not judge, and he is actually warning against being judgmental towards homosexuals!’ But this is, again, an utter distortion for the purpose of silencing the fighters against perversity. The verse, according to the golden tongued St. John Chrysostom, is not addressed to mere “judgmental people,” but actual judges of the state (in Paul’s case, Rome) who condemn criminals for certain crimes while doing nothing against perpetrators of perversity. In a homily on Romans, St. John Chrysostom says:
“‘Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.’ (Romans 1:32)
Having assumed here two objections, he in the first place removes them. For what reason have you to say, he means, that you know not the things which ought to be done? At best, even if you did not know, you are to blame in having left God who instructs you. But as it is by many arguments we have shown that you do know, and transgress willingly. But are you drawn by passion? Why then do you both coöperate therewith and praise it? For they not only do such things, he says, but have pleasure in them that do them. Having then put the more grievous and the unpardonable sin first, that he might have done with it (Or convict you of it, ἵ να ἑλῃ); (for he that praises the sin is far worse than even he that trespasses;) having then put this the first, he by this method grapples more powerfully with him in the sequel, speaking on this wise, Chap. ii. ver. 1. ‘Therefore you are inexcusable, O man; whosoever you are that judgest; for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself.’ (Romans 2:1) These things he says, with an aim at the rulers, inasmuch as that city [Rome] then had the rule of the world put into its hands. He anticipated them therefore by saying, You are depriving yourself of defence, whoever you may be; for when you condemn an adulterer, and yourself committest adultery, although no man condemns you, in your judgment upon the guilty person you have also passed sentence against yourself.” (Homily 5 on Romans)
And how fitting is this for today. St. Paul, then, was exhorting the political rulers to impose the law against sodomites and other perverts. Its directly the opposite of what the modern defenders of perversity say. Moreover, notice how Chrysostom affirms that the ones who encourage homosexuality are worse than the ones who actually do the evil. There are many of these types, who promote the evil and who also use Paul deceptively to rail against those who maintain the divine law, while at the same time calling themselves Catholic.
One of these, is Robert Spencer. Recently, Spencer wrote against me for simply exposing the sodomites and their defenders within the “counter-jihad” movement, and for maintaining the prescription of death upon sodomites and those who approve of them and their evils. While it takes one fool to write short articles at the strike of a pen, it takes the wise to write triple to refute it. I will quote Spencer, extensively:
In a video posted last Thursday, Theodore Shoebat says: “Pamela Geller is worthy of death.” Her crime? Appearing at a “Gays for Trump” event along with gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos at the Republican National Convention in July. For that, says the learned Shoebat the younger, “In Biblical law, in the government of Christendom, she is worthy of death.”
Is that so? Yes, says Theodore, because Romans 1:32 speaks of those who “having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” Pamela Geller is not homosexual, you see, but by appearing at the event, she gave “consent” to those who are, and thus she also is “worthy of death.”
Theodore Shoebat doesn’t mention that this passage refers not only to men who “have burned in their lusts one towards another,” but also to those who are guilty of “iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness,” and are “full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,” as well as “detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,” and those who are “foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy” (Romans 1:26-31). All of these people are, in the Apostle Paul’s view, “worthy of death.”
Why, then, do we not see Christians (or at least Christians outside of hysterical Hollywood fantasies) committing mass murder, bent on killing everyone who is envious, haughty, and disobedient to his parents? Because Paul’s saying that these people are “worthy of death” is not a call for mass executions and a reign of terror, but part of his argument that all people have sinned and are in need of the divine mercy.
In today’s overheated and jihad-preoccupied environment, however, Theodore Shoebat’s charge that Pamela Geller is worthy of death is not theological musing, but arguable incitement to murder.”
Robert is both, deceptively twisting my words, and insinuating that I am calling for someone to murder that lunatic wretch, Pamela Geller, and to carry out vigilantism. If Spencer watched the whole video that I did, which he quotes, he would have known that Geller was taking part in an event that has pederastic images of boys, that promotes homosexuality, that advances and inculcates the very evils that God absolutely hates and sees as worthy of destruction.
Geller also spoke with a sodomite named Milo, someone who teaches that sodomites are born inheriting genetics that give them higher IQs. This is absolutely akin to Nazism, and for Geller — a Jew — to be associating herself with some of a supremacist ideology, like that of the Nazis and the Social Darwinists — claiming the idea of superior genetics — is both evil and diabolical. And yet, I am the bad guy? I never asked anyone to murder Geller. What I said was that in the context of Christendom, heretics like Geller would be put to death, and rightfully so.
Also, as we know based on the elucidations of St. John Chrysostom, St. Paul was indeed directing his words towards judges to punish the evildoers, and we also know that it is obvious, based on a full reading of Romans 1, that Paul describes homosexuals, as opposed to merely listing homosexuality as a sin amongst sins.
Spencer goes on to say, “Theodore’s words demonstrate that old habits and mindsets die hard and aren’t always effaced by a change of creed”, thereby implying that I am still Islamic in my beliefs. Amazingly, this is coming from a person who does not see himself as judgmental. How does this person know from where I determined my beliefs on this issue? If he would have asked me, I would have shown him. He knows nothing about my intellectual evolution. He does not know that my affirmations were cultivated from reading, firstly, the Scriptures, and then amplified from the fathers and the ancient scholars, like Firmicus, Cyprian, Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Vitoria, St. Bernard, St. Bernardino of Siena, and others. Were all of these men jihadists?
Tell us, Mr. Spencer, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote:
“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.”
Tell us, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote that
“When God commands a thing to be done against the customs or agreement of any people, though it were never done by them heretofore, it is to be done”; and when he wrote afterwards: “For as among the powers of human society, the greater authority is obeyed in preference to the lesser, so must God in preference to all.” (Confess. iii, 8)
Tell us, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote:
“A sovereign serves God one way as man, another way as king; he serves Him as man by living according to the faith, he serves Him as king by exerting the necessary strength to sanction laws which command goodness and prohibit the opposite.” (Augustine, letter 185, ch. 19)
Tell us, was Augustine a jihadist when he wrote in praise of King Hezekiah and Nebuchadnezzar (who was not even a believer) when they enacted edicts against blasphemy and perversity? Was he a jihadist when he wrote:
“It was thus that Ezechias [Hezekiah] served Him [God] by destroying the groves and temples of idols and the high places which had been set up contrary to the commandments of God; thus Josias served Him by performing similar acts [see 2 Kings 23:1-25]; thus the king of the Ninevites served Him by compelling the whole city to appease the Lord; thus Darius served Him by giving Daniel power to break the idol, and by feeding his enemies to the lions; thus Nabuchodnosor, of whom we spoke above, served Him when he restrained all his subjects from blaspheming God by a terrible penalty.” (Augustine, letter 185, ch. 19, brackets mine)
Tell us, was King Josiah a jihadist when “he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove” (1 Kings 23:7)?
Tell us, was St. Thomas Aquinas a jihadist when he wrote:
“it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”
Tell us, was Aquinas a jihadist when he prescribed that “heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.” (Aquinas, St. Thomas Aquinas: Whether Heretics Should Be Tolerated, II-II, Q. 11, Art. 3, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, ch. v, p. 182)
The Manichaeans promoted homosexuality and cross-dressing, and even devised their own rite in which their followers would eat a false eucharist with male semen on it. Tell us, Spencer, was the Emperor Zeno a jihadist when he decreed:
“We ordain that persons who prefer the Manichaeans’ deadly error should have no freedom or leave to dwell in any place whatever of our state; but that, if ever they should have appeared or should have been found, they should be subject to capital punishment.” (Law of Zeno, or Anastasius I, from the year 487 or 510)
Tell us, were the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions jihadists when they affirmed the Mosaic Law against homosexuality and beastiality:
And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind.” “For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination.” “Every one that lieth with a beast, slay ye him: he has wrought wickedness in his people.” “And if any one defile a married woman, slay ye them both: they have wrought wickedness; they are guilty; let them die.”
Tell us, was St. Jerome a jihadist when he wrote: “To punish murderers and impious men is not shedding blood, but applying the laws.” (St. Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, in Bellarmine, On Secular People or Laymen, ch. 13, ed. Tutino, p. 50)
Tell us, was Pope Pius XII, a very recent pope, a jihadist when he wrote, “that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.” (As quoted by Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, part 1, p. 14)
Tell us, was Moses a jihadist when he had three thousand Jews slaughtered for worshipping the golden calf?
In 1550, a Franciscan friar from Brescia, named Calgano, was arrested for having a sodomomatical relationship with a boy, and for teaching that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with St. John. This blasphemer was put to death, without question. This is the Christendom that I love, the Christendom that I want back. But it was put to sleep, and is being kept asleep by heretics like Spencer, who does not want to see the holy laws against perverted heresies enacted. Spencer, in fact, says:
“I don’t believe in Islam and don’t wish to live under a government that forces me to conform to its sensibilities; nor do I wish to live under a Christian government that forces non-Christians to conform to its sensibilities.”
So Spencer is okay with sodomites roaming the streets, indulging in their evils, inundating society? Is he okay with Geller speaking in a room with disgusting images, with sodomites who demand for the toleration of homosexuality, a practice worthy of death?
Essentially, Spencer’s mentality would have us call Moses, King Josiah, Joshua, Hezekiah, and all of the holy men of Christianity who struck and killed evildoers, jihadists. Spencer’s perspective is essentially anti-Christian. It is of the Christian Faith to have governments destroy and uproot evil and perversity. As Augustine said, “they are called Catholic Christians, not servers of idols like your Julian [the pagan emperor]; not heretics, as certain ones have been and have persecuted the Church, when true Christians have suffered the most glorious martyrdom for Catholic truth, not justly deserved penalties for heretical error.” *Augustine, letter 105, brackets mine* St. Isidore said that law “is composed of no private advantage, but for the common benefit of the citizens.” *Isidore, Etymologiae, 5.21, in Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae 90, article 2*
Do you hear that Spencer? Law is for the public benefit, that does not mean the toleration of sodomites, or the freedom given to sodomotical practices. You will then say, “This is America!” Really? Lets look at the laws that were once in the law books, before heretics like yourself let the sodomites take over. Here is a law from New York, 1787:
Here is a law from 1796, from Connecticut:
Mr. Spencer, were the Americans who established these laws, jihadists? It seems that anyone who wishes to support the divine law against homosexuality is deemed as a “jihadist” or “like ISIS.” This is a manifestation of the Hegelian Dialectic, or controlled opposition. Point to a real threat, and then paint your enemies as being a part of that threat. It used to be that one would call a conservative, “a nazi,” but now they are calling Christians “jihadists” or “Muslims.” Its quite disgusting and low class, but what do you expect from a bunch of people who bow down to the homosexual god every time the sodomite elites want people to conform when they complain of true Christians? Orthodox Christians maintain the holy laws, the elite sodomites complain, and to their remonstrances the conservatives who want to be accepted will get on their hands and knees for the god of Sodom.
Spencer begins his article with, “These are times that try men’s souls”, truly they are, and I see what has happened after your soul has been tried, Mr. Spencer: you bow down to the sodomites, and a tart named Pamela has you on her fingertip.
Italy, and Catholic Christendom as a whole, once had the most enlightened of teachers to instill into the people the militant spirit to combat the agents of Satan. Let us look to some examples, and see what probity they had instructed, so that we, as a people, may admire them, and advance them. Let me introduce to you the sacred declarations and writings of St. Bernardino of Siena. St. Bernardino wrote and said more against homosexuality than any of the other Fathers of the Church. This holy man once made this declaration against the sodomites:
“Don’t you see that you are showing yourself to be against God, who said to the man and the woman, our first mother and father: ‘Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram? Increase and multiply, and fill the earth?’ O sodomite of the Devil, what are you doing? It’s as if you’re saying to God: ‘I want to spite you; I don’t want anyone to be born.’” Found in Mormando, The Preacher’s Demons, ch. 3, p. 128)
St. Bernardino praised the city of Venice for imposing the divinely inspired law of putting sodomites to death, and even recounted of how he himself saw a sodomite burned at the stake:
“I saw three things happening together: I saw [the sodomite] placed at the stake, and tied all the way up. [I saw] a keg of pitch, brushwood, and fire, and an executioner who set him on fire, and a lot of people, all around, watching. The sodomite felt the smoke and the fire, and he burned to death; the executioner felt only the smoke, and whoever was standing around watching saw nothing but smoke and fire. What this stands for is that: in hell the sodomites will burn with smoke and fire [while] their torturers down there will get the smoke. …Those who stand watching [represent] the blessed spirits in paradise who see the punishment of the sodomites and rejoice over it because they see the justice of God shining forth from it.” (Ibid, p. 152)
In 1427, St. Bernardino praised an official in Paris for conducting a policy of extermination against all sodomites in the city, eventually extirpating the perverts. In this speech, he declared:
“There was once a king in Paris — I don’t know if it was Saint Louis — and since this vice was rampant [in that town], a man approached him and said: ‘If you want, I will get rid of this vice in such a way that in the end there won’t be any of it left. If you give me permission [to do as I see fit], I will clean up this whole city of yours.’ The king said: ‘What are you going to do, burn the whole place down?’ The other guy said no, he had a better way. Asked what this better way was, he answered: ‘The first thing I want from you is full authority to do things my way; the matter will be taken care of with method and mercy.’ Receiving the man’s word that he would do as he promised, the king gave him the permission and said: ‘Go and do what needs to be done.’ The guy then asked for a certain number of armed men to be under his command, men who would do exactly as he ordered. The king had them given to him. Granted this permission, the guy went around the whole city, and at every intersection had a bonfire of brooms built. When the city was filled with these bonfires, he then combed the city, and whenever he received notice of some public sodomite, he had him burned immediately. Having burned that one, he resumed his tour of the city, and, when he got word of another, he immediately had him thrown into the bonfire. And so on in this way for several days, so that the entire city was purified in very little time, and from that day till now, that sin in not committed in that town.” (Ibid, p. 153)
St. Bernardino eventually began inculcating the same policy of extermination in Italy, and succeeded in having many of the sodomites executed. A biographer of St. Bernardino, Vespasiano da Bisticci, in his Lives of Illustrious Men, wrote of the purging of sodomites by Bernardino as such:
“There was a certain city of Italy in which every vice had multiplied and had risen sky-high, and especially the accursed and abominable and detestable sin of sodomy. The people were so entrenched in this blindness that the almighty God would have had to make sulphur and fire rain down again from the heavens, just as he did in Sodom and Gomorrah. Seeing this so great excess, Saint Bernardino began with his sermons to denounce and curse the perpetrators of such iniquity, and with the maledictions and terrible outcries in his sermons, he succeeded in extinguishing the vice entirely in that city and made the people come to hold that accursed and abominable sin with horror and detestation. …[A]nd his words had such great power that he purged not only that town, but all of Italy from all the iniquity with which it was filled.” (Ibid, p. 155, ellipses mine)
St. Bernardino’s influence led the city of Perugia to decree that the first offense of homosexuality was to be punished with a fine of two hundred “pounds of denarii”; in the case of a second offense, the sodomite was to be punished by being burned “in such a way and so that he is completely killed.” In Siena the anti-sodomite laws were also influenced by St. Bernardino, to the extent that the statutes were called the Riformagioni (or Riformazioni) di San Bernardino. In this jurisprudence if a sodomite did not pay three hundred lire within a month he was “to be hanged by his virile members in the principle market place, and there remain hanging … for an entire day.” *Ibid, pp. 156-157*
Lets look to some other fathers of the Church and see how they spoke on the solutions against perversions and spiritual aberrations. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, when speaking against the deranged Cathars, heretics who indulged in homosexuality and beastiality, said:
“It is better without a doubt that they be punished by the sword — the sword, that is, of him who does not bear it in vain — than to allow many people to be drawn into error. For he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon whoever does evil.” (St. Bernard, sermon 66 on the Songs of Songs, in Bellarmine, On Laymen or Secular People, ch. 21, ed. Tutino, p. 107)
Pope St. Pius V declared that sodomite priests should not be exempt from punishment, but be put to death as well. In his Horrendum illud scelus, he wrote:
“So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.”
Referencing St. Pope Pius V, as well as both the New and Old Testaments, Spanish Hieronymite scholar, Antonio de San Jose, in his Compendium Salmanticense, wrote:
“This execrable crime [of homosexuality] is punished in the first instance by divine law with the death penalty: If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination and they shall be put to death (Lev. 20.13). St Paul assigns the same penalty of death in Rom. 1 not only to those who commit this detestable offence but also to those who consent to it. According to St Thomas, every sodomite died before the night of the Lord’s birth, so that the nature which he assumed should not be defiled with such impurity. The lifeless sea washed over the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah, so that the land infected by that crime should not be seen any longer.
By human law, even among the gentiles, sodomites were punished with the penalty of death by burning. According to the civil law in the Liber Authenticarum, they are similarly subject to the death penalty. Under Spanish law, they are deservedly punished with death by burning and the confiscation of their property. Canon law punishes sodomitical laymen with the penalty of excommunication. In a constitution published in 1568, Pius V decreed that clerics, whether regular or secular, apart from the other punishments inflicted by the common law, should lose their office and be handed over to the secular power.”
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, amongst the most reputable of Catholic scholars, affirmed in his Homo Apostolicus:
“As for the punishments for sodomites, they are to be condemned to death by burning.”
The holy patriarchs of Israel affirmed the enactment of capital punishment on the sodomites. The sublime Moses declared:
“If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
May Christendom be awakened! Glory to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
CHRISTIANS ARE BEING KILLED AND RAPED EVERY SINGLE DAY, PLEASE CLICK HERE TO MAKE A DONATION TO OUR RESCUE TEAM THAT WILL SAVE THE LIVES OF CHRISTIANS FROM PERSECUTION
CLICK HERE TO GET OUR 2-DISK DVD SERIES ON CHRISTIAN MILITANCY AND CHRISTIAN WARFARE AND JOIN THE FIGHT TODAY!