Vatican hires world's leading pro-homosexual corporations as advisors
This is so disheartening! Now the question: Is it stupidity, negligence, or malice? Randy Engel believes it's deliberate. Here are the two concluding paragraphs of her eye-opening article article:
I have no doubt that the Vatican officials and clerics who hired these morally bankrupt firms to "reform" the Vatican's administration and finances, and who have given God's enemies free access to administrative and financial secret data of all kinds, knew exactly what they were doing when they made the appointments. The fact that not a single Vatican official including the current occupant of the Chair of Saint Peter, has publicly raised the issue of possible moral turpitude practiced and advanced by these mega business firms confirms what all true Catholics know in their heart of hearts – that we are living in the shadow of the Antichrist.
This is why, during this very Holy Season of the year, let each of us, in our own …More
"Professor," I got the dot metaphor. It is quite common, one might say hackneyed. Why would the Vatican use these companies?
One possibility is:
“On 15 June, the Pope appointed Monsignor Battista Ricca, an Italian cleric and former Vatican diplomat, to be ‘prelate’ of the bank, formally known as the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR)." You may read up about Mon. Ricca.
This "dot" would reinforce the rumor of a "gay lobby" aka "gay mafia" in the Curia, which was widely circulated.
Why would the Pope hire such a person for this position, who in turn would bring more scandal and degeneracy to an institution mired in degeneracy?
The Pope clearly set up the situation where a notorious homosexual would be in a position to further the homosexual agenda with Vatican money.
The answer to this question relates to the over all intentions of the Pope for the future of the Church.
Do you believe that the Pope has demonstrated, through all of his remarks and actions that he is in the image of the Good Shepherd, or in the image of the bad shepherd, or wolf, who scatters the flock? Has the Pope been faithful to the deposit of the Faith with which he was entrusted, or has he sown confusion and discord and actually changed the clear message of the Gospel as stated by Christ? Have his remarks led people closer to Our Lord, or have they put more souls in peril? Has he shown in word in action that he is a moral beacon in the world, that he has a rudimentary understanding of Catholic Doctrine regarding the Faith, morals and ethics, or has his Papacy so far been a scandal to the Faithful? The only reason that there is not more outrage is the pathetic state of the "Faithful's" knowledge and understanding of their religion.
I honestly believe that the appalling silence of the clergy concerning this Papacy is the indicator of just how far the Church has be subverted from within. All the priests try to do is find some way of making the behavior and words of the Pope acceptable; not inspirational, or guiding mind you, just acceptable. There is simply no way that this can be done in good conscience. But, the defenders of the Faith clearly are a degraded and debauched lot who had no real "calling." They formed a gay coalition, they networked with political powers outside the Church, they drove off the straight men who might not go along with them. The wolves are indeed guarding the hen house. The only thing that will change this situation is Divine Intervention. And it is going to happen, I believe that. No "dots" Prof., it's a crispy clear Poloraid taken with my Brownie Instamatic.
@speck: I do read the articles, and I did read this one; but often see broader or narrower aspects. It belongs to my professional training reflect and to theorize. I do that spontaneously in comments. Let me explain the "dots"-metaphor.
Often in newspapers (of my day), a series of dots are presented and keys to connecting them. Only when lines are drawn connecting the dots, do they present a visible "outline" such that the curious reader knows, viz., understands what he sees, previously obscured because there was no dot-connection.
What you say about the group hired was perfectly clear to me. No misunderstanding whatsoever!!! That "piece" of information proves just WHAT? What is the BIG picture behind it all? Can one outline what is all means? Could it be that the Pope is a practicing homosexual and wants to spread the movement about? Nonsense!!! What this piece of information does is to indicate a non-expected, really quite strange, perhaps outrageous, i.e., "weird" relationship between the Vatican and a leading homosexual group. This weird connection I have called a "dot". It indicates something, but exactly what I do not know. The Vatican is certainly not in the business of actively promoting homosexuality. Or? But if the Vatican is so engaged, I cannot logical deduce such a conclusion, such an "outline", from that ONE "weird dot" contained in and as the article. Can you? If you answer "yes", then ground logically your thesis without references to any other pieces of information. I bet that you cannot do that! (Indeed, what is your all-embracing interpretation about what such a terribly weird act means? No outrage, just understanding.)
Whatever is indicated, I will call, using my analogy, the "outline" that connects that single piece of information, taken in dot-like isolation, with others and organizes them into a whole, i.e., into a revealing and understandable OUTLINE. My suggestion is to, so to speak, jot down pieces of information re Vat/Pope/homosexuality, often strikingly "weird", viz., not expected, as dots. My hope is that a collection of such dots will enable (me) to make a founded and grounded judgment as to what all this means. I reject "off-the-cuff", emotionally motivated conclusions from inadequate information.
@speck, please inform me if my explanation above has informed you of what I was seeking to do in my "lengthy remarks". I would appreciate the communicatin, which I can then use as a means to improve my style. If, perchance, my "lengthy remarks" in themselves bother you and readers, then let me know and I will cease and desist with them. I am not primarily interested is expressing shock, scandal, distaste, anger or any other outraged emotion. I want to understand what is going on and that requires of me "lengthy remarks".
Let there be Peace amongst Friends!
Tell Me With Whom You Walk and I Will Tell You Who You Are. 
An open letter to Pope Francis
By Randy Engel
On a Papal Commission of Inquiry into Homosexuality, Pederasty and La Lobby Gay in The Catholic Church
www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/131110
"Professor" I'm always a little puzzled by your lengthy remarks. Frequently they indicate that you did not actually read the article you are commenting on.
For instance, it is difficult to believe that someone who read the entire article would say: "hires an organization noted for its support of homosexuality. Proof that the Pope is soft on homosexuality? No! But it is a weird "dot"."
The article states that the four companies that the Vatican hired are particularly noted for promoting the homosexual agenda which includes abortion. Ernst and Young is run by homosexuals, lobbies for homosexual causes, was instrumental in the recent opening of the Boy Scouts to homosexuals, and works for pro-abortion causes. They have seminars where homosexuals help younger homosexuals professionally and personally. They all belong to a network of homosexual corporations that lobby Washington and donate money to politicians that will further their aims. This is the point of the article the incredible disconnect between Catholic morality and the hiring of such rabidly pro-homo companies. Seems like maybe you are just trolling for conspiracy theories. Maybe if you connect a few more dots you can find one on your own; or, you could just try reading Father Malachi Martin.
Hey Bishop of Rome, False prophet you Francis... Gay Lobby is evil you said when asked, but hired this guys talking about Ambiguity and evil your master has taught you well (who is not Christ). May God open our eyes and give us the joy of NOT following pleasers of the world, may He gives us the Joy of following Jesus alone through the apostolic teachings of His Catholic Church.
Schocked? No! Why? Not fully sure, but two points:
1. I suggest consulting YouTube for a. Michael Voris, Vortex, Pope Francis and the Aberrosexual Heresy". Voris intoduces a long study by a Fr. Dariuz Oko of Poland entitled: "With the Pope [Benedict XVI] against the Homoheresy". This article, availbale in English or German, deals with Polish resistance to homosexual infiltratation of the Polish Church. Fr. Oko estimates that 1/3 of Jesuits in the USA are homosexuals. Voris reflects on the problem. b. M. Voris, ChurchMilitant "Homosexuality" for an hour long discussion of homosexuality in the Church. c. Bella Dodd, Commuinist Leader on Communist Inflitration of the Catholic Church. Dodd was a leader of the CPUSA until converted by Bishop Sheen. In a long speeech (1:47) she claims at point (I have forgotten the second) that she was responsible for placing some 1300 homosexuals in Seminaries with the Soviet idea of infliltrating the Church. I believe this was a worldwide strategy. (Note: Such priests would have been of age for paticipation in Vat II).
2. Let us play (seriously) a connect the dot game. One knows a tree by the fruits that it brings forth. One knows the attitude of a CEO by the persons he highers. Let me give two dots. a. This articles given above. The Papacy (must have Francis' approval along the line of hiring) hires an organization noted for its support of homosexuality. Proof that the Pope is soft on homosexuality? No! But it is a weird "dot". b. The man who coached the bishops to swing, sway and dance at the Rio gig aka Youth Meeting is a leading homosexual activist in Brazil. Proof of a proclivity of some sort towards homosexuality by the Papacy? No! But it too is a strange "dot". Two such "dots" make me on a VERY preliminary basis suspicious that there is some unsavory connection between this Pope as the tree of hiring and the fruits that he hires. Just a suspicion, nothing probative. I would like more such "dots" confirming or disconfirming the suspicios inkling I have.
Suggestion: I would like to understand the modus vivendi of Pp Francis, i.e., his motivational beliefs as evidence in his words an deeds. I mentioned to "weird" dots above. I would ask my fellow traditionalist to jot down any "weird" reaction to the Pope's bahavior (e.g., interview with an atheist and various comments he made). I hope someday to have enough dots that can be coherently connected into an outline revealing something significant about Pope Francis' papacy.