In the small but noisy world of distorted traditionalism, where every morning someone wakes up worried about lace, frills and trim, there is an unusual buzz. Between a slander against a priest and the usual sexual innuendos, some blog curators are now protesting because Google has decided to shut down their platform.
Silere non possum has already repeatedly discussed these “psychoblogs”, which make a lot of noise online and have—paradoxically—for years discredited the world of Tradition, alienating many faithful who had approached it with sincere interest. They are thorns in the Church’s side, serial generators of division, even among the clergy. Their obsession, beyond lace and maniples, has a clear name: sex, and specifically homosexuality. Sex—which they may miss—they see everywhere; homosexuality—which likely affects them more than they admit—they project only onto others.
To this they add a compulsive tendency to denounce, to spread false information, and to systematically attack anyone who does not align with their narrative. Anyone who exposes their game is inevitably slandered, while anyone who dares criticize them is insulted. No arguments, only aggression.
When Silere non possum clarified that the closure of their blog by Google was not due to conspiracies or inconvenient “scoops”, but rather a violation of hate speech policies, the response was: “There’s nothing to comment on because they didn’t say anything concrete.”
So let’s recap the facts, concretely:
1. The blog was shut down for homophobic content, not for defending the Latin Mass.
2. Serious journalists do not fabricate anonymous dossiers against cardinals; those who do are not journalists, but poison manufacturers.
3. There are dozens of defamatory articles against priests, and thousands of denigrating posts against homosexuals, consistently described as “perverts”, “effeminate”, “sodomites”.
None of these points—clearly stated in the Director’s video published here—has received a response. Only sarcastic jabs, because Silere non possum has a following that others do not, and therefore they feel the need to defend themselves. The problem is not just the inability to argue, but a blatant struggle to understand the Italian language. Imagine what happens when they try Latin.
The accusation, it bears repeating, is clear: violation of Blogger’s hate speech policy, a platform owned by Google. Nothing to do with liturgy, confidential documents, or phantoms of power.
What does the Platform say?
Let’s get to the point. Blogger’s policy is explicit: “It is not permitted to incite hatred. Hate speech includes content that promotes or justifies violence against an individual or group based on ethnicity, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristics associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization; or content whose primary purpose is to foster contempt toward such individuals or groups.”
The measure was taken after the repeated publication of homophobic content, including the systematic use of terms like “sodomites”, “perverts”, “effeminate” to describe homosexuals. Such language not only does not reflect that of the Church, but also fosters a climate of contempt and marginalization, severely misrepresents the Magisterium, and contributes to a distorted view of Tradition. The decision by Google was neither automatic nor arbitrary. It came after numerous warnings by the platform, which had already taken down other problematic content. In short: the hosting service had warned them, repeatedly. And if a platform has rules, you either follow them or change platforms. There’s not much more to add. Complaining after ignoring the terms of service is just typical passive-aggressive behavior.
One must also clarify a point that many obscure with ambiguity: the absence of lawsuits does not prove innocence. The reasons are quite different:
1. No one sues you because you’re not influential: no one reads you, so no one considers you worth their attention.
2. You target clergy, who often have neither the time nor interest to engage in long and pointless civil cases. In fact, their bishops often discourage it to avoid fueling controversy.
3. If you don’t refer to specific people, but only attack a “category”, it’s hard for someone to sue. Associations don’t mobilize over marginal blogs no one reads and which don’t influence public opinion.
The same goes for those who don’t mention you. It’s not that they fear legal retaliation (who’s afraid of failed entrepreneurs obsessing over lace and trim?), but because they don’t want to give visibility to toxic content, sparing healthy readers from stumbling into such delirium. Simply put, they don’t consider you. And no, Silere non possum has never needed “publicity” from these psychoblogs. If anything, the opposite: they have illegally drawn from unauthorized materials, once again showing they cannot distinguish between information and copy-paste.
But as always, they pretend not to understand. And they go on playing the victim, when the truth is they have never accepted the rules of the game, nor those of civility, much less those of Christian charity.
No link with the Latin Mass
One important point must be stressed: those behind these blogs operate in complete anonymity. And we’re not talking about clergy, who must often remain silent to avoid retaliation in an ecclesial context where freedom of expression is, too often, just a dream. No: we’re talking about laypeople, who choose anonymity for very different—and certainly less noble—reasons. These faceless scribes, now crying “censorship”, are not victims of suppressed freedom, but rather promoters of toxic and denigrating speech. And no, it’s not “freedom of expression” to call people “sodomites”. It’s simply hate dressed up as orthodoxy. As we’ve explained before, these people don’t even know who Jesus Christ is, but they’re very confident in their political orientation.
And please, let’s not pretend it’s valid just because some ambiguous young married influencer defends you on social media. That someone attacks certain circles by day and secretly frequents them at night without his wife knowing doesn’t legitimize anything. On the contrary, it makes us even more ridiculous—and more distant from the truth we claim to defend.
The position of the Church
Contrary to what these psychoblogs claim or imply, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not sanction discriminatory language.
Paragraph 2358 reads: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
Nowhere in the catechism is the term “sodomy” used in reference to homosexual persons. On numerous occasions, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, and now Leone XIV have called the ecclesial community to charity, respect, and pastoral prudence. Never to contempt.
The false issue of freedom of expression
In classic Italian fashion, the usual network of “friends of friends” has rallied. Some defenders of the removed blog are speaking of an alleged violation of freedom of expression. But one must clarify this essential point: hate speech is not—nor can it be—protected by any democratic legislation, especially on digital platforms. Criticism, even sharp, is legitimate. But only when it respects the dignity of persons and avoids degrading, stereotyped, or violent language. Let’s be clear: calling someone an “illiterate” who has worked for the Holy See for years without publishing a grammatically correct text is not an insult. It’s a fact, a recognition of an objective truth.
Calling someone a “sodomite” or “pervert” because they’re allegedly homosexual, is an insult. And this isn’t about rhetorical nuance, but about the difference between judgment and contempt, between critique and verbal violence. And here we return to the real issue: the inability, in certain circles, to understand the Italian language. Which is reason enough to think that perhaps certain individuals should not have access to public platforms like blogs. Because before speaking of Tradition, Church, culture, or faith, one should at least know how to distinguish between words and insults.
A call to responsibility
In an era when digital communication is often used as a vehicle for delegitimization and hatred, this decision represents a much-needed call to responsibility. Defending doctrine can never justify offending the person. To use the words of Leone XIV: “Let us disarm communication of all prejudice and resentment, fanaticism and even hatred; let us free it from aggression. We do not need loud, forceful communication, but rather communication that is capable of listening and of gathering the voices of the weak who have no voice. Let us disarm words and we will help to disarm the world. Disarmed and disarming communication allows us to share a different view of the world and to act in a manner consistent with our human dignity"
d.V.P.
Silere non possum