Priest says ‘trans’ people
he has ministered to have deep wounds
ACI Prensa Staff, Apr 4, 2024 / 14:00 pm
Father Francisco “Patxi” Bronchalo of the Diocese
of Getafe in Spain shared on X about the emotional wounds he has encountered
throughout his pastoral experience in persons who declare themselves “trans.”
The priest began a thread on X on April 3 affirming that “a man
who says he’s a woman is not a woman but a man who says he’s a woman,” which
“seems obvious” but nevertheless means going against “the ideological trans
dogma and makes many people cry to high heaven.”
The priest explained that among people who declare
themselves “trans,” he has always found in his pastoral experience that “there
are deep wounds that have led to nonacceptance of their biological reality.”
Given this, instead of facing their problems, they
are offered an “escape forward” into an ideology “that says that biological
reality does not define what a person is but that what is defining is how this
person perceives himself.”
Consequently, “a whole new anthropological, moral,
and legal construction is proposed to justify the ideology” that leads to
teaching children in schools “the 37 different genders that are said to exist,”
the priest continued.
Sexual abuse and
bullying at school
Bronchalo explained in his detailed thread on X
that the wounds he has encountered when as a priest he has had to care for
people who don’t identify with their biological nature are of two kinds.
Either there is “sexual, physical, and
psychological abuse by a family member that leads them to reject who they are”
or there is “bullying at school, rejection by friends for being more shy,
sensitive, or withdrawn.”
“There is always something of this: Children broken
by very hard life experiences in the most intimate of environments,” the priest
emphasized, noting that “the family is a place where the person finds security
and affection,” and without it the person is hurt and the damage done “will
cause suffering in the future.”
A flag and some
hormones
Bronchalo explained that many of these young people
are given “a flag and some hormones” as a solution. The flag “makes them
identify with a group,” so “at first they feel good,” but then “they begin to
enter the entire ideological world that teaches them that everyone hates them.”
Regarding taking opposite-sex hormones, the priest
warned that it’s a decision “that can lead to irreversible consequences.” He
pointed out that “people talk about trans visibility but visibility is not
given to those who regret the process.” However, this can be easily remedied
with “a quick Google search.”
“Many discover that when they have done the entire
process they still feel bad. Because the wounds are still there,” the priest
explained, lamenting that because of this “there are those who fall into drugs
to alleviate emotional pain, into unbridled sex, prostitution, in order to feel
loved. It’s hard. Their hearts are broken.”
Bronchalo asks himself: “What truly heals wounds?”
His response is clear: “Affection and security. True love. What was missing
could be given to them. Without escapes or ideologies. Teaching through true
human love what the unconditional love that God has for us is.”
What is the point of this ballsachingly tedious piffle, Gene? You don't bother to read it yourself, so why expect anyone else to? And, lest we forget:
ReplyDeleteAnd, lest we forget:
Had Ratzinger unfrocked Kiesle in 1985, the abuse of children at St Joseph's would not have continued for a further three years. That is a FACT, no matter how often you try to deny it.
Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows [my footnotes}:
“I can only express to all the victims [1] of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness. I have had great responsibilities [2] in the Catholic Church. All the greater is my pain for the abuses [3] and the errors [4] hat occurred in those different places [5] during the time of my mandate."[6]
1 ALL THE VICTIMS, Gene: victimS, plural: you can tell this by the S on the end of the word. All the victims of sexual abuse that occurred during Ratzingers time as Archbishop of Munich [1977- 1982] and later head of the Congregation of the Faith and Pope - that is, 1985 - 2013. The phrase "ALL THE VICTIMS therefore must include the victims of Stephen Kiesle between the years 1985-1988, when Ratzinger failed to unfrock Kiesle. [2] I HAVE HAD GREAT RESPONSIBILITES [see 1 above]: and one of those was to detect, root out and expel priests and others in the Catholic Church whose favourite hobby was buggering small boys and raping little girls. These GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES obviously include those children abused by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him in 1985. [3] THE ABUSES - these must include the abuses committed by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him [unless you can prove differently, Gene?].
[4] THE ERRORS - these must include Ratzinger's failure to unfrock Kiesle in 1985 and probably his failure to alert Fr Thomas Ryan that he was allowing a convicted paedophile rapist to minister to the young people in his church.
[5] THOSE DIFFERENT PLACES - except, of course at St Joseph's Church, Penole, CA, where Stephen Kiesle, still a priest, continued to abuse children during the years 1985-1988 - Ratzinger made it clear that his apology did not include this, didn't he, Gene, and you can prove that, can't you? What's that? oh, you can't? Dear me, and YOU call ME a lying tosser... [5] DURING MY MANDATE: that is, during the years 1985 - 2013.
It is clear to anyone whose mind has a greater ratiocinatory capacity than a pair of skid-marked underpants that Ratzinger was apologising for all the sexual abuse committed on his watch 1985-2013 by priests whom he failed either properly to oversee, accurately to diagnose and condignly to punish, as well as arranging for their being unable to access children and young people ever again.
"I can only express to ALL the victims of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness." It's that word ALL that gives it away, Gene: I'm sorry if it's confusing. Stuff your pissy little opinions up your arse. I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth. In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
"The genius of James Joyce is alive and well and living amongst us. His name is Gene Vincent." [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.