Yet all concerned pretend it's not there...
Homosexuality is the root of the Catholic
Church’s clerical sex abuse problem
But neither the Church nor the media will admit it
By PETER WOLFGANG
February 15, 2019
“All eyes and ears will be on the Vatican during an unprecedented gathering Feb. 21-24,” reports Catholic News Service, “to discuss the protection of minors in the Catholic Church.” That’s true — unfortunately, because the gathering is going to be a bust.
The Catholic sex-abuse crisis is not primarily heterosexual or pedophiliac. The Catholic crisis is primarily homosexual. The gathering is going to be a bust because it is only about “the protection of minors in the Catholic Church.”
Seventeen years after the first wave of clergy sex abuse scandals hit the Catholic Church, “the [pink] elephant in the sacristy” is still “the part of the Catholic Church’s priest-abuse scandal that no one talks about.”
That it is primarily homosexual has been known with sociological certainty since the 2004 John Jay report. That revealed that 81% of the victims were male. And most of that 81% were post-pubescent males.
That’s homosexuality, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children. And yet both the Church and the media would rather talk about the crisis as if it was mostly just about the abuse of minors in general.
In response to the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, dioceses across the country are now releasing lists of priests they deem to have been “credibly accused” of the sexual abuse of minors. Many are also hiring outside investigators to do more detailed reports of their records.
It is an admirable step in the direction of greater transparency and making a fresh start. But it fudges the issue. To be sure, “minors” is a legal term, not a biological one. It includes both pre- and post-pubescent victims.
The public has already known since 2002 that Catholic bishops had covered up clergy sex abuse of minors. Despite the extra and quite gory details, the Pennsylvania report told us something we already knew.
So, for instance, my own Archdiocese in Hartford releases its list of 'credibly accused' priests, a list that by its very nature does not include Fr. Kevin Gray. He baptized my oldest child. He’s also the guy sentenced to three years in prison for stealing a million dollars to fund a secret gay lifestyle in New York City. He used the money to pay for male escorts, strip clubs, the works.
It doesn’t include Fr. Michael F.X. Hinckley. He baptized two more of my children. He left the priesthood, “married” a man, and now promotes various gay and transgender causes on his Facebook. And worse? He was once our archdiocese’s bioethics expert. He had a regular column in the diocesan newspaper.
In fact, he was my pastor when I was leading a campaign to overturn our State Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. My wife was near tears for several Sundays that October, wondering why the Family Institute of Connecticut executive director’s own seemingly faithful pastor was refusing to even mention the campaign from the pulpit. The Church asked every pastor to do so. Now we know why.
And it doesn’t include any reference to this strange story. The subheading says it all: “A 2012 investigation at the Connecticut seminary found evidence of a homosexual network that extended into several dioceses, and despite its findings, some of those involved were subsequently ordained to the priesthood.”
And it is not only the Church that is avoiding the elephant in the sacristy. The media is, as usual, worse.
When the Archdiocese of Hartford released its list of accused priests,
The Hartford Courant did its due diligence. It reported that one of them was in the Hall of Fame of the Connecticut State Firefighters Association.
But when the neighboring Norwich Diocese released its own list of priests credibly accused of abusing minors, the
Courant did not inform its readers that the list included a priest who got a glowing obituary from the newspaper for his out and proud gay ministry.
The Church and the press are talking about one so as to avoid talking about the other. We have to talk about homosexuality in the priesthood. That is what the new wave of scandals that have rocked the Church since last summer are primarily about.
Did the 20,000 men who left the priesthood in the U.S. after Vatican II, most of them to marry, leave us with a priesthood that is disproportionately homosexual? Did that, in turn, create a homoerotic subculture within the priesthood that made the current scandals possible? If so, how can we turn it around?
These are the questions that ought to be discussed, from our local dioceses all the way up to Pope Francis’s sex-abuse summit. Bishop Wilton Gregory, then the head of the American bishops, said back in 2002:
“It’s an ongoing struggle to make sure the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.” Almost no one in the Church’s hierarchy is actually struggling. And no one in the media is urging them to.
The voluntary release of lists of priests credibly accused of abusing minors shows good will on the part of the Church and a desire for greater transparency. Unless Church leaders address the elephant in the sacristy, they are just kicking the can down the road. The crisis will only grow worse.
More about SODOMA, a book that Vatican insiders appeared to have facilitated and encouraged to help its author push the homosexualist-LGBTist agenda and get the Bergoglio Vatican to 'normalize' sexual deviancy.
New book by gay sociologist claims
rampant homosexual subculture inside
the Vatican is well covered up
by Maike Hickson and John-Henry Westen
February 15, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A new book to be released on the first day of the February 21-24 Vatican summit on sexual abuse is likely to upset many on both sides of the supposed ideological divide in the Church.
The author, Frederic Martel, is a sociologist and homosexual activist. He is all for changing the Church’s teachings against homosexuality, even suggesting that bishops who fight homosexuality strenuously are themselves repressed homosexuals.
Nonetheless, the book reveals, at times from purported first-hand accounts, that high-ranking prelates in Rome – many of whom are named in the book – were aware of the active homosexuality of clergy but only expected them to keep it secret, rather than take remedial action.
Professor Roberto de Mattei, a leading defender of orthodoxy in the Church, has condemned Martel’s book as a “fiasco” seeking to “disqualify the Churchmen faithful to Tradition; to prevent the debate on the scourge of homosexuality in the Church, especially at the next summit.”
Prof. de Mattei adds, however, that “the LGBT support to Pope Francis will certainly not help” the Pope in an agenda to liberalize the Church. The “cardinals and bishops demonized in the book will come out stronger after this attack so badly conducted,” he adds.
One advocate for the LGBT cause, Father James Martin, S.J., praises the book for exactly the same reasons de Mattei condemns it. But Martin is worried the book will “backfire.”
- It will, the pro-homosexual Jesuit worries, “lead to a renewed and intensified witch hunt for gay priests.”
- It will also, he warns, “based on admittedly deep reporting on one part of the church, serve to confirm the stereotype of the sexually active gay priest in all parts of the church. It will therefore make it less likely for gay priests to speak openly about their situations.”
Martel claims in his book that the majority of the clergymen working in the Vatican are homosexuals, but this claim must be tempered by his patently false belief that all those who fight homosexuality are themselves homosexual.
However, it’s plausible that he spoke with many high-ranking prelates and priests and, being himself a homosexual, has had direct access to some homosexually active clergymen in the Vatican.
Martel’s specific description of the state of affairs in the Vatican, he says, is based on interviews with 41 cardinals, 52 bishops and monsignors, and 45 papal nuncios, as well as 200 priests and seminarians (and with the help of some 80 correspondents, translators, and collaborators).
Monsignor Battista Ricca, the controversial head of Santa Marta – the Pope’s residence – is said to have invited Martel for a visit at Santa Marta. Ricca, notorious for his homosexual exploits, seems to have been a key player granting Martel access to the Vatican and its homosexual network.
The first chapter of the book, made available to LifeSiteNews, shows a homosexual network in the Vatican similar to the one described by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò – a presence even the Pope himself acknowledged when he spoke of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican.
“Homophilic cardinals,” Martel explains, “privilege those prelates who have the same inclination and who themselves choose gay priests. The nuncios – the ambassadors of the Pope who are charged with the selection of bishops – among whom the percentage of homosexuals reaches records, themselves work on a ‘natural’ selection.”
Many priests, he adds, are being promoted for a “given favor.” Thus, Martel claims that “the higher one is in the Church’s hierarchy, the higher the number of homosexuals.” He says for the Vatican, the rule is that “homosexuality is the norm, heterosexuality the exception.”
Although not released, those who have read the book tell LifeSite that
it shows that Pope Francis is working with various cardinals and bishops in the Vatican to alter the Church’s teaching to normalize homosexuality.
Martel praises Pope Francis and even calls him “the most gay-friendly pope of the modern popes.” According to the French sociologist, due to his liberalism, the Pope is being exposed to a “violent campaign” by “conservative cardinals who are very homophobic.”
Martel makes it clear that his book is intended to help Pope Francis in his attempt to stop the “rigidity” behind which “there is often to be found a double life.” (Martel reads the Pope as suggesting it is the “traddies” and “conservatives” who are the “rigid” ones leading “double [lives].”)
In line with the Pope’s warning about people who lead “a double life,” Martel hopes that the Vatican will drop the facade and just come out as being mostly homosexual, thus normalizing homosexual relationships within the Church. Martel says: “50 years after Stonewall [1969 riots in New York City organized by LGBT activists] – the homosexual revolution in the U.S. – the Vatican is the last bastion to be liberated!”
The book reveals the lax way the Vatican has treated homosexuality for decades. The homosexual author, however, proposes solutions contrary to the 2,000-year-old tradition of the Catholic Church. For example, Martel says that “by forbidding priests to marry, the Church became sociologically homosexual,” and thereby points to celibacy as the underlying problem which promotes this double life of the prelates (including sexual abuse they commit) that he claims to be calling out.
Martel quotes in his first chapter an archbishop who tells him that 80 percent of Vatican clergy are homosexual and that three out of the last five popes have been “homophilic,” to include “certain of their assistants and Secretaries of State.”
He also often extensively quotes as a key witness in his first chapter laicized priest Francesco Lepore. Lepore was ordained in 2000 and worked as a Latin translator at the Vatican. In conversations with Martel, Lepore names cardinals and other high-ranking prelates he says are homosexuals.
Most importantly – and this story has been confirmed by some of the prelates themselves – Lepore describes how, after he started to work at the Vatican, he became more lax in his priestly life. He was not celebrating Mass regularly and began wearing civilian clothes more and more. Due to this evident change of life – he started to live out his own homosexuality when he came to Rome for his work – some Vatican officials thought it was fitting to remove him entirely from the Vatican.
However, Lepore told Martel, at the time there were two influential men in the Vatican who protected him: Monsignor Stanislaw Dziwisz – then John Paul II's personal secretary – and the editor of L'Osservatore Romano at the time. Both men “succeeded in my remaining at the Vatican,” Lepore tells Martel.
Subsequently, Lepore was removed from his translation post, but named special secretary to Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's “foreign minister,” who he says knew of Lepore's moral problem.
When Lepore's Vatican computer was years later (around 2015) found to have various opened homosexual websites on it, he was removed from his position. However, Lepore says Cardinal Tauran at the time
only told him that he “should have been more careful.” “He did not rebuke me for being gay, he only accused me of letting myself caught!” Lepore told Martel.
Lepore describes the reaction of a bishop and other high-ranking prelates whom Lepore told about his first homosexual relationship.
-
He says they just told him to “keep it secret,” but that he “should not feel guilty about it.”
- According to Martel, after he had left the priesthood, Pope Francis thanked Lepore for having kept his life “discreet.”
“Toleration with discretion” is the Vatican motto, says Martel.
It is this very secrecy and double life that Martel says he wants to end. Deprived of any belief in supernatural grace, Martel cannot imagine a celibate priesthood and thus sees hypocrisy everywhere. His deplorable attacks and insinuations against Cardinal Raymond Burke – insinuating that he is a drag queen – are a case in point.
While fraught with admitted bias, the book may reveal some of the underbelly of the rampant homosexual network in the Vatican. The difficulty with the book comes down to discernment of what is the author’s conjecture and what is worthwhile information to be gleaned about the state inside the Vatican.
One has to wonder whether Martel's book contains some degree of concordance with the report commissioned by Benedict XVI from three retired cardinals in 2012. A report Bergoglio appears to have ignored altogether after it was turned over to him by his predecessor, along with the documentation provided for the report. Will we ever get to know what was in it?
Copies of the report were supposed to have been given all the cardinals before the 2013 Conclave. It is most unusual that not one of them has broken omerta on the issue. If there were nothing to it - or it was 'no big deal, really' - they would have gladly stepped up to say so. Will we ever get to know what was in it?
The following has been widely expected so I will include the report in this post about things related because it represents for now the worst possible example of the clerical sex abuse crisis in the Church. Its unreported implications are far more consequential regarding genuine clericalism and abuse of power in the Church, not to mention implicit confirmation of the homosexual subculture that has appeared to dominate the Church hierarchy including the Vatican Curia in those who enabled the dazzling career ascent and influence of a patently evil man. But we come to that later...
McCarrick laicized by Pope Francis
by Hannah Brockhaus
VATICAN CITY, February 16, 2019 CNA/EWTNNews) - Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ordered this week the laicization of Theodore McCarrick, a former cardinal and archbishop emeritus of Washington, and a once powerful figure in ecclesiastical, diplomatic, and political circles in the U.S. and around the world.
The decision followed an administrative penal process conducted by the CDF, which found McCarrick guilty of “solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and with adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power,” according to a February 16 Vatican communique.
The conviction was made following an “administrative penal process,” which is a much-abbreviated penal mechanism used in cases in which the evidence is so clear that a full trial is unnecessary.
Because Pope Francis personally approved the guilty verdict and the penalty of laicization, it is formally impossible for the decision to be appealed.
According to a statement from the Vatican on February 16, the decree finding McCarrick guilty was issued on January 11 and followed by an appeal, which was rejected by the CDF on February 13.
McCarrick was notified of the decision on February 15 and Pope Francis “has recognized the definitive nature of this decision made in accord with law, rendering it a res iudicata (i.e., admitting of no further recourse.)”
This week, CNA contacted McCarrick’s canonical advocate, who declined to comment on the case.
McCarrick, 88, was publicly accused last year of sexually abusing at least two adolescent boys, and of engaging for decades in coercive sexual behavior toward priests and seminarians.
The allegations were first made public in June 2018, when the Archdiocese of New York reported that it had received a “credible” allegation that McCarrick sexually abused a teenage boy in the 1970s, while serving as a New York priest. The same month McCarrick stepped down from all public ministry at the direction of the Holy See.
In July, Pope Francis accepted his resignation from the College of Cardinals, ordering McCarrick to a life of prayer and penance pending the completion of the canonical process concerning the allegations. Since the end of September, McCarrick has been residing at the St. Fidelis Capuchin Friary in Victoria, Kansas.
Key among McCarrick’s accusers is James Grein, who gave evidence before specially deputized archdiocesan officials in New York on December 27.
As part of the CDF’s investigation, Grein testified that McCarrick, a family friend, sexually abused him over a period of years, beginning when he was 11 years old. He also alleged that McCarrick carried out some of the abuse during the sacrament of confession – itself a separate canonical crime that can lead to the penalty of laicization.
The CDF has also reportedly received evidence from an additional alleged victim of McCarrick – 13 at the time of the alleged abuse began – and from as many as 8 seminarian-victims in the New Jersey dioceses of Newark and Metuchen, where McCarrick previously served as bishop.
As emeritus Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and before that Bishop of Metuchen and Archbishop of Newark, McCarrick occupied a place of prominence in the US Church.
He was also a leading participant in the development of the 2002 Dallas Charter and USCCB Essential Norms, which established procedures for handling allegations of sexual abuse concerning priests.
Though laicized, McCarrick does not cease to be a bishop, sacramentally speaking, since once conferred, the sacrament of ordination and episcopal consecration cannot be undone.
The penalty of reduction from the clerical state – often called laicization – prevents McCarrick from referring to himself or functioning as a priest, in public or private. Since ordination imparts a sacramental character, it cannot be undone by an act of the Church. But following laicization he is stripped of all the rights and privileges of a cleric including, in theory, the right to receive financial support from the Church.
All of which leaves the far thornier issue in the McCarrick case still wide open. The Vatican may think it has closed the book on McCarrick but far from that.
- All the questions raised by Mons. Carlo Viganò remain unanswered, despite the fact that the pope himself promised back in September 2018 that the Vatican would look into all its documents to answer Viganò's allegations.
[The papally-prompted rebuke from Cardinal Marc Ouelet to Viganò promptly backfired because Ouellet basically confirmed much of what Viganò claimed (except, of course, the truth or untruth of his June 2013 conversation with the pope when Viganò says he informed him of McCarrick's record, but was seemingly ignored, because McCarrick's closeness to the new pope was almost immediately confirmed when shortly after that conversation, he,McCarrick, gloatingly informed Viganò that the pope was sending him to China as his personal envoy. And so on to the high-profile appointments of McCarrick proteges Cupich, Tobin and Farrell and McCarrick missions to China, Iran, Cuba, who knows where else in behalf of Jorge Bergoglio.]
- What happened to that investigation? Will there ever be a report on it, or will the Vatican consider it moot and academic now that McCarrick has been laicized?
- So the man has received his 'just reward' - some at least - for his misdeeds. What about his enablers?
- The Catholic faithful still have a right to know who were McCarrick's principal enablers, so to speak, at the Vatican since he was appointed Archbishop of Washington, DC, in 2000, retiring in 2006 when he turned 75 and ended up being one of the reigning pope's most trusted associates despite penalties previously imposed by Benedict XVI on McCarrick.
[Considering how prominent McCarrick was with his high-profile activism in the Church, didn't people wonder in 2006 why Benedict XVI would have promptly accepted his resignation when he turned 75? Bishops far less prestigious than McCarrick, when not frankly incompetent or unsatisfactory, are usually allowed to stay on a few more years, some even until they reach 80.]
No, the book on McCarrick is far from closed, and if Jorge Bergoglio is determined to - falsely - blame 'clericalism' for the sexual abuses of priests and their episcopal cover-ups, what could be worse clericalism than that which prevails at the Vatican that allowed the rise and undue influence of an evil man like Theodore McCarrick?
Bergoglio probably thinks now that he will go into the Feb 21-24 'summit' on the 'protection of minors' wearing the halo of 'the pope who laicized McCarrick' - and I can even imagine someone in the synod hall proposing some time during the opening ceremonies a round of applause and alleluias for the pope for having done so - and all of them deliberately ignoring that McCarrick's laicization in time for the summit is classic scapegoating, in the vain hope that the now hapless scapegoat will expiate even the sins of those who enabled him and favored him with undue influence in the Church.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 16/02/2019 15:26]