If we didn't already think it by inference and deduction, then this article confirms what we think, especially considering that it was published in a notoriously leftist Catholic magazine...
Commonweal article by former Newsweek editor says
homosexual networks within the Church protect their own
[And reveals what we did not previously know about Donald Wuerl-
it should raise more red alerts about Bergoglio's 'noble' cardinal]
by Dorothy Cummings McLean
NEW YORK CITY, October 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) ― A former religion editor of Newsweek has published an article in a liberal Catholic magazine about networks of sexually active homosexual priests and prelates in the Catholic Church
Kenneth L. Woodward, an award-winning journalist, editor and author, acknowledged in an article written for the left-leaning
Commonweal magazine that homosexuality has played a role in the clerical sexual abuse scandals and their cover-up.
In Woodward’s essay “Double Lives,” he discusses the outing of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick as a sexual predator and alleges that sexually active homosexual clerics protect each other.
“ … It wasn’t just clericalism that allowed McCarrick to abuse seminarians and young priests for decades, even though his behavior was widely known within clerical circles,” he wrote. “And it wasn’t just his ecclesiastical clout that provided him protection. It was networks, too.”
“By networks, I mean groups of gay priests, diocesan and religious, who encourage the sexual grooming of seminarians and younger priests, and who themselves lead double lives — breaking their vows of chastity while ministering to the laity and staffing the various bureaucracies of the church,” Woodward continued.
The veteran religious affairs journalist said he had heard about such networks throughout his almost 40-year career at Newsweek:
“During the nearly four decades I spent writing about religion for Newsweek, I heard numerous tales of ‘lavender lobbies’ in certain seminaries and chanceries, told mostly by straight men who had abandoned their priestly vocations after encountering them,” he wrote.
One of the few priests to complain publicly was the late priest-novelist, Andrew Greeley, who alleged that a homosexual network was active in Cardinal Bernadin’s Chicago archdiocese. Woodward also heard about networks in the Vatican “mostly from Italians, who are generally more relaxed about homosexuality than Americans and unsurprised when those leading double lives are outed.”
The essayist said that
what concerns him is not only “personal hypocrisy, but whether there are gay networks that protect members who are sexually active.”
Woodward was thinking specifically of the late Cardinal John J. Wright, whose Pittsburgh diocese was reputed to be a “haven for actively gay clerics.” Wright was elevated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 to the cardinalate at age 60 and appointed
the prefect of the Congregation for Priests[!] in Rome.
After that, Woodward began to hear stories of Wright living semi-secretly with a younger lover. However, it is Wright’s relationship with another younger man that is of greater concern to the veteran journalist:
“What interests me now is not the private details of (Wright’s) double life, but whether it influenced how he ran the congregation overseeing the selection, training, and formation of the clergy.
Donald Wuerl, who recently resigned as archbishop of Washington D.C., would surely know the truth about Wright. Wuerl’s first assignment after ordination at the age of 31 was as secretary to then-Bishop Wright of Pittsburgh in 1966.
“The younger priest was said to be closer to the cardinal than the hair on his head. He became Wright’s omnipresent full-time personal assistant when the latter moved to Rome, even sitting in for him during the papal conclave that elected John Paul II". [dim]
Earlier in his essay, Woodward concentrated on the general role homosexuality has played in the current crisis rocking the Church.
“One cannot deny that homosexuality has played a role in the abuse scandals and their cover-up, and to dismiss this aspect as homophobia one would have to be either blind or dishonest,” he wrote.
Woodward believes that men who are attracted to other males are “naturally drawn” to the priesthood and other professions or associations that give them access to boys and young men.
“ … Men who discover that they are sexually attracted to pre- or post-pubescent males are naturally drawn to occupations like the priesthood — and teaching and coaching and scouting — because of the trust accorded the members of these occupations, as well as the access to boys all these occupations provide,” he wrote.
The McCarrick case serves to illustrate the true nature of the clerical sexual abuse crisis, the journalist believes.
“To begin with, McCarrick doesn’t seem to fit the standard profile of a pedophile,” Woodward explained.
“In clinical terms, a pedophile is any adult who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
According to the John Jay Report, only about 5 percent of cases of clerical sex abuse in the past 70 years involved prepubescent children,” he continued.
“McCarrick’s abuse of adolescent seminarians, dating back to a time when the church still maintained special seminaries for students of high-school age, does fit the clinical profile of an ephebophile — that is, someone who is sexually attracted to postpubescent minors, typically between the ages of 12 and 18.”
Woodward said ephebophiles are often “sick, sexually maladjusted adults,” but also stated that “like most middle-aged men, whether heterosexual or homosexual, McCarrick was attracted to younger bodies.”
He noted that McCarrick had preyed on minors, perhaps even pre-pubescent minors, which is why he has been dismissed from ministry, but pointed out that
there are no laws, even canon laws, against a cleric having sex with adults. This means we are unlikely to find out how many of the seminarians and priests that, however grudgingly, granted McCarrick sexual favours, are still sexually active.
“ ... What about all the young men with whom the bishop shared a bed at his beach house and elsewhere?” Woodward asked. “Some were surely coerced, some seduced. They were all initiated by a powerful church figure into a sexual double life to which McCarrick, as a bishop and cardinal, gave sanction by his acts. How many are still living that double life?”
The dangers of actively homosexual clergy living a double life were now very clear, he said.
“There will be clerical hypocrisy as long as there is a church, but we can and should do more to combat it.”
Woodward is unlikely to be dismissed as a wild-eyed conservative. In his otherwise excellent essay, he takes potshots at “wealthy, politically conservative Catholics” and the Knights of Malta, whom he believes guilty of clericalism.
He is also, without naming them, especially scathing in his criticism of media outlets to whom Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò chose to publish his testimony linking Pope Francis to the McCarrick scandal. Those include LifeSiteNews. [I have to rad the full article, but this does suggest that Woodward is also the typical ultra-liberal Bergogliophile seduced by the latter's agenda which does include some way to allow if not 'legitimize' homosexual practices in 'the Church'.]
Meanwhile, a blogging pastor of the Washington, DC Archdiocese lavishes hyperbolic praise on Mons. Vigano's third letter...
On Archbishop Viganò’s
courageous third letter
October 22, 2018
As I finished reading Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s third letter, I had an immediate sense that I had just read something that is destined to be one of the great pastoral and literary moments of the Church’s history. There was an air of greatness about it that I cannot fully describe.
I was stunned at its soteriological quality — at its stirring and yet stark reminder of our own judgment day. In effect he reminded us that this is more than a quibble over terminology or who wins on this or that point, or who is respectful enough of whom.
This is about the salvation of souls, including our own. We almost never hear bishops or priests speak like this today!
Others will write adequately on the canonical, ecclesial and political aspects of Archbishop Viganò latest and very concise summary of the case. As most of you know, I have fully affirmed elsewhere that I find his allegations credible and that they should be fully investigated. But in this post I want to explore further the priestly qualities manifest in this third letter, qualities that are too often missing in action today.
To begin with, he has in mind the moral condition of souls.
The Archbishop warns in several places of the danger posed to the souls of the faithful by the silence and confusing actions of many bishops and priests and the Pope. He laments that this, along with the homosexual subculture in the Church, “continues to wreak great harm in the Church — harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, and to the faithful at large.”
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, this was the first concern of most every priest: the moral condition of souls, including his own.
- Today, many bishops and priests, as well as many parents and other leaders in the Church, seem far more concerned with the feelings, and emotional happiness of those under their care than with their actual moral condition.
- They worry more about political correctness and not upsetting those who engage in identity politics and base their whole identity on aberrant and sinful habits and disordered inclinations.
- That a person be pleased and affirmed today is seemingly more important than that they be summoned to repentance and healing or be made ready for their judgment day.
- Passing and apparent happiness eclipses true and eternal happiness.
- Further,
silence in the face of horrible sin, deferring to and fawning over powerful churchmen, and cultural leaders of this world seems to outweigh any concern for the harm caused to the souls and lives of others.
Yes,
too often, the only thing that really matters, the salvation of souls, is hardly considered. As others have rightly pointed out,
this points to a loss of faith and a bland universalism wherein all, or the vast majority, attain to Heaven. Further, the possibility of Hell is all but dismissed — almost never preached, let alone considered a factor in how we should pastorally guide people.
In all of this,
Archbishop Viganò still has that “old-time religion.” He takes seriously Jesus’s admonitions regarding Judgment Day, his many warnings about Hell and the absolute need to decide whom we will serve: God or the world, the Gospel or popular culture, the flesh or the spirit. Viganò’s final two paragraphs could not be clearer:
You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.
On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.” I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice — on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge — you will not regret having made.
This is powerful. I could be reading St. John Chrysostom, Pope St. Gregory the Great or St. Alphonsus Liguori. Honestly, I cannot recall many times I have heard a modern bishop or even priest speak like this. There are exceptions of course, such as the great Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, but clarity is rare. I hope too that some of the deacons, priests and bishops who might read this are saying, “I too am an exception. I often preach like this.”
But my general experience tells me, from many who write to me, that
their priests and bishops never mention mortal sin, Hell or judgement. And if they do preach on sin they use abstractions and generalities, euphemisms and other safe terms such as “injustice” and “woundedness.”
In this letter Archbishop Viganò writes as if he never got the memo to obfuscate and speak in cloaked and guarded ways; to speak in such hazy terms that no one really has any idea what you are saying.
Instead the Archbishop comes right out and says,
This very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names.
This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform.
- It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons.
- It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality.
- It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.… the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming. …
- To claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry.
Here too there have been very few bishops or priest willing to speak so clearly and to depart from euphemisms. There are exceptions, but they are too few. And, for a bonus round, the good archbishop even reintroduces an older term that has fallen out of use:
"Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large".
A philanderer is a man who exploits women, a “womanizer.” He is one who, in an often-casual way exploits a woman, but has little or no intention of marrying her. He will exploit her for his needs but not consider her as a person deserving of his ultimate respect and loyalty in marriage.
Sadly this too exists in the priesthood, but on a far more limited basis. Whatever the number or percentage of philanderers — one is too many — the much larger number of homosexual offenses (80 percent) in clergy sexual delicts shouts for attention.
But few, very few bishops or Vatican officials are willing to talk openly and clearly about it. This must change if any solutions are to be credible and trust is to be restored with God’s people.
- Excluding any reference to active homosexuality in the priesthood is like excluding any talk about cigarette smoking as a cause for lung cancer.
- It results in a pointless and laughable discussion that no one can take seriously.
Will any other bishops follow the lead of Archbishop Viganò and a few others, such as Bishop Robert Morlino? It remains to be seen, but credibility remains in the balance.
Finally, Archbishop Viganò, in a Pauline sort of way, has taken up the necessary mantle of
opposing Peter’s (i.e., Pope Francis’s) behavior to his face and publicly. While some wonder why this is not done privately, the answer must surely be, “How could he approach Pope Francis privately?”
Pope Francis has steadfastly refused to engage his questioners. He has taken up a policy of “weaponized ambiguity” and when legitimate questions are asked, they are greeted with silence. Far from answering his flock, he often refers to them as monsters, accusers, scandalmongers and worse when they press for clarity and seek for answers and accountability.
How rare it is that other bishops are willing to speak out so clearly of their concerns.
Only four cardinals issued the dubia. Why is this? Where are the rest?
Only in recent weeks has the Pope even hinted that there may be an allowable investigation of the Vatican Archives. One must still ask: When? How? And to what extent? It will take a courageous insistence on the part of the faithful and bishops to see this through.
In the end, I am deeply grateful for Archbishop Viganò’s dose of “old-time religion.”
It is refreshing to hear an archbishop actually call sin by name; to show concern for the moral condition of souls, not just the emotional state; to warn of judgment and summon us all to decide — not just hide, obfuscate and fret about “getting along” while souls are being lost.
It is hopeful that an archbishop of high reputation is willing to call the Pope and the Vatican to account. This sort of leadership is too little in evidence today among the hierarchy and priests.
Some will surely bristle at the Archbishop’s “strong language.” But I ask you, is it really so different from the way the Lord Jesus spoke? Perhaps the bristling is more emblematic of our dainty and thin-skinned times — times marked by identity politics, cries of victimization, and every form of shock and outrage over the slightest reproach.
In my estimation this letter of Archbishop Viganò will go down in history as one of the great moments of pastoral exhortation and integrity. It will shine forth as a clarion call in an age of timid silence from too many other prelates and priests.
May the Archbishop’s courage inspire many more to come forth and respectfully but clearly insist on answers and honesty. May his warning on our Judgement Day be salutary. May repentance, renewal and courage be growing realities in God’s Church!
Viganó’s critics and the end of history
Presentism and historicism are readily evident in the thinking of far too many Catholics, such
that the Christian faith has become merely a means to change social and economic structures.
by Brian Jones
October 22, 2018
There has been much commentary on Archbishop Carlo Viganó’s recent bombshell letters, including from many who have strongly criticized both Archbishop Viganó’s motives and the contents of his testimonies.
My interest here is to draw out a more explicit assumption, or first principle, at work in many of the writings of Vigano’s critics. This is not a critique of Pope Francis, but an attempt to show that
those who have sought to undermine Vigano’s account do so by portraying Francis’s papacy through a lens that is imitative of Francis Fukayama’s “End of History” dialectic.
Two recent criticisms set the stage for this argument.
The first comes from a comment made on Twitter by Villanova professor Massimo Faggioli:
I am afraid alt-right figures are using this —Vigano and not only — as an opportunity to destroy the institution in order to gain control of it. Turn bishops against one another. Get the laity to mistrust the leaders and work for their demise.
[In which Faggioli is simply describing the familiar modus operandi of the Catholic left since Vatican II!And have succeeded with the election of Bergoglio as pope, whose ambitions far exceed that of his fellow 'spirit of Vatican II' progressivists, and has begun to commplish many of their most extreme goals and beyond!]
A second was given by the English priest James Alison. Alison considers what the Catholic Church can do in light of the recent sex abuse scandals, most especially within the context of Pope Francis’S pontificate. Writing in the Tablet, Alison ponders:
What is to be done, and what is quietly happening? In my view, the first thing is for the laity to be encouraged in their fast growing majority acceptance of being gay as a normal part of life. This, despite fierce resistance from elements of the clerical closet. Pope Francis’S reported conversation with Juan Carlos Cruz (a gay man abused in his youth by the Chilean priest, Fr Karadima) is a gem in this area: “Look, Juan Carlos, the pope loves you this way. God made you like this and he loves you”. This remark led to much spluttering and explaining away from those who realize that the moment you say “God made you like this” then the game is up as regards the “intrinsic evil” of the acts.
Nevertheless, it is only when straightforward, and obviously true, Christian messaging like Francis’s[!!!] becomes normal among the laity themselves that honesty can become the norm among the clergy.
Faggioli and Alison’s comments (as well as similar remarks given by Jesuit priests Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Fr. James Martin) display an attempt to understand the Francis Pontificate that is remarkably akin to Francis Fukayama’s “End of History” narrative.
For Fukayama, the notion of the “end of history” does not mean that history is now over. Rather, the notion refers to
“the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
In this rationalist account,
history is understood as an entity, a Being that has given to the world a totalizing system that can solve the problems of human living in this world. According to the “end of history” dialectic, the various problems associated with living in a modern liberal democracy are not the result of democracy’s own internal problems. Rather, there is a misunderstanding or misapplication. The solution is to have more, not less, democracy.
Many of Vigano’s critics seem convinced that the Francis pontificate is analogous to modern liberal democracy. They presuppose that the problems facing the church can never stem from Francis himself. Francis’s actions and words can never be understood as a source of confusion or discord.
This coincides with an additional component of the “end of history” dialectic witnessed in many of Vigano’s critics.
- Anyone who would call into question the overarching narrative are ultimately conceived as enemies of an inevitable force that is unstoppable.
- If one opposes the trajectory of history as an entity, defeat is the only possibility.
- Similarly, the force that seems to be moving Francis’s pontificate as well as the issues that many of Vigano’s critics deem fundamental to the faith are believed to be unstoppable.
As Fr. Spadaro recently wrote,
“…the Franciscan revolution is under way and in spite of his vehement critics the revolution will roll on and new horizons will be opened for the one and a half billion Catholics in the world today”.
This presentism and historicism is certainly at work in Alison’s defense of the church changing its teaching on homosexuality:
the laity are “to be encouraged in their fast-growing majority acceptance of being gay as a normal part of life.” From such a viewpoint, the most serious problem is what Alison calls “fierce resistance” to what is already accepted by so many.
It is for this reason that when topics related to faith, mercy, compassion, or marriage are spoken about within the Catholic Church, it is rare to hear anything different from what everyone else is saying. Fr. James Schall, S.J., in Christianity and Politics, has addressed succinctly this very temptation for contemporary Christianity:
Christians are forbidden to define happiness or virtue in exclusively this-worldly terms. When they do, they are disloyal precisely to the world itself as well as their faith. Probably, if there is any constant temptation in the history of Christianity…it is the pressure to make religion a formula for refashioning the political and economic structures of the world.
Much of what goes for Christian thought today has really succumbed to the temptation to which Fr. Schall speaks.
The trans-political character of the Christian faith is so often replaced with a this-worldly orientation.
Ironically, Fukayama contends that the end of history will be a sad time. And
many of Vigano’s critics seem to have a deep-seated anxiousness that is revealed in their openness, or perhaps determination, to see reality and the order of things “changed for the better”. More often than not, what comes through in their remarks is a recognition that the world can no longer be tolerated and accepted as it is.
This is certainly an apt description of
the often depressing state of contemporary Catholic moral, spiritual, and intellectual life.
- What Catholics have been left with, in far too many cases, is a faith that is devoid of robust content.
- We simply “live” our faith as an activity that has no real intellectual potency to be related to anything else except our own desires.
- Worse than this, there is a rather close affinity between what the Catholic faith ought to be and what the contemporary culture deems good.
- For many, the Christian faith has become, in most respects, merely a means to change our social and economic structures.
Fukayama’s insights are prophetic in this regard, since even
much “dialogue” in the church is politicized, wherein salvation becomes univocal with modern social justice.
Alas, Fukayama was right: we are living in sad times.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/10/2018 05:22]