1. resulting from or relating to an irresistible urge, especially one that is against one’s conscious wishes. synonyms: irresistible, uncontrollable, compelling
The brain of a compulsive liar is so twisted up, their lying behavior becomes uncontrollable. Uncontrollable to the point where they will lie even in situations where 1) they really don’t have to, and 2) they know, at that moment, that the lie will likely do them more harm than good. In their mind, the lying seems like “the right thing to do.” Let that sink in.
“A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right.
Simply put, for a compulsive liar, lying becomes second nature.
Not only do compulsive liars bend the truth about issues large and small, they take comfort in it. For the compulsive liar, lying feels safe and this fuels the desire to lie even more. Making matters even more complicated, compulsive lying is often a symptom of a much larger personality disorder, which only makes the problem more difficult to resolve (see narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder).” HERE
Francis, in the same interview as the now infamous, “people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia”, which is a pretty big and disgusting lie in itself, also could not resist this:
“…either there is a pyramidal Church, in which what Peter says is done, or there is a synodal Church, in which Peter is Peter but he accompanies the Church, he lets her grow, he listens to her, he learns from this reality and goes about harmonising it, discerning what comes from the Church and restoring it to her. The richest experience of all this was that of the last two Synods. There all the bishops of the world were heard, during preparation; all the Churches of the world, the dioceses, worked. All this material was worked on during the first Synod, which gave its results to the Church, and then we returned a second time – the second Synod – to complete all this… And so there is a post-Synodal exhortation, which is Amoris Laetitia, which is the result of two Synods… It is interesting that all that it contains [Amoris Laetitia], in the Synod it was approved by more than two thirds of the fathers. And this is a guarantee…But there is a Latin phrase, that says that the Churches are always cum Petro et sub Petro. Peter is the guarantor of the unity of the Church. He is the guarantor.” HERE
Just a little bit of pathology going on there, especially at the end. It’s important to see the whole passive-aggressive context. The entire passage is a lie, but the big lie is the underlined part.
The amazing thing to keep in mind is that the pope doesn’t need anyone’s permission to make up whatever rules he wants. He can legislate however (but not whatever) he wants. Francis didn’t need the synods; he chose to use them because he overestimated support for the heresy and underestimated the resistance. This was never, ever about any sort of appetite for “synodal” feedback for Francis. What a joke. He manipulated multiple documents when he didn’t get his way. Then he issued AL.
Then you mutter an total lie, easily verifiable as a lie, because you just can’t help it.
Then you publish it on your own website.
7 thoughts on “Liars gonna lie… even when they don’t have to. Because compulsion.”
Are we officially in a Fellini movie? This is beyond surreal and is now deep in the unreal. The Truth is not even visible from here.
Not to mention that the pope picked many of the attendees of the synods. Usually when you put your friends in place, the results are going to be skewed in your favor. But even that didn’t happen; his side still lost.
Great point. He stacked the delegates after the local bishops conferences had already picked their attendees.
All great comments and accurate.
I do not recall reading anything about voting at the Synod. This, of course, doesn’t mean that there wasn’t voting either. As far as I remember there were only discussions and then documents pertaining to the discussions were produced.
Correct me, please, if I’m wrong.
The difference in knowing is the following: if there was voting, then we know for certain the percentage of cardinals who are in fact snakes in the garden.
There was voting. A high percentage of snakes, but not two-thirds.
I think the Russians hacked the vote.😋