'Current of corruption' and 'gay lobby'
in the Vatican? Enough of innuendo!
Can someone please show us the facts?
Is anyone else bothered about
all this loose talk of 'a gay lobby' in the Vatican, 'confirmed' by Pope Francis himself, and therefore, now considered nothing less than Gospel truth, even when
none of it has so far been supported by a single objective fact?
My training as a journalist taught me one cannot make a generic statement that cannot be supported by fact. Obviously, that is no longer the rule in today's media world!
I have been pointing this out - "Show us the facts!", not just a generic statement - again and again since Mons. Vigano's letters were first made public in January 2012 about the blanket 'evil and corruption' accusation against the Vatican and its hierarchy, and then about this so-called 'gay lobby' first referred to as such by a
La Repubblica item in February that shamelessly rehashed material developed by Panorama writer Ignacio Ingrao, who postulated the existence of supposedly influential homosexuals in the Vatican and their lay gender brothers outside the Vatican said to be equally powerful and influential. But anyone can postulate that even without objective facts to back it up, if only because most seculars - and even many Catholics - simply assume that most priests are homosexual.
Ingrao claims he drew his conclusion about the 'gay lobby' from speaking to some of those who were interviewed by the three cardinals who investigated Vatileaks for Benedict XVI, and that these interviewees told him the questions they were asked by the cardinals. Specifically, he made his conclusion
not because he had seen the cardinals' report at all nor been told about it by anyone who had seen it. He simply made inferences from the one avenue he was able to pursue.
Obviously, as in any organization, there would be homosexuals who work in the Vatican - some of them may be priests, bishops or even cardinals. But that is their private business,
as long as they do not lead a homosexual lifestyle and its sexual activities, in which case they should quit the priesthood altogether because they are betraying the faith and the oath they swore when they became priests.
When the
Repubblica article came out on February 21 - it was as sleazy as a tabloid story based on nothing but innuendo that I did not deem it fit for translation, much less for consumption - I noted the following, after Fr. Lombardi dismissed it in a press briefing as among the many speculations regarding the cardinals' report to Benedict XVI:
First, consider the source. The sleazy article cited by Fr. Lombardi, generously larded with pietistic remarks simulating sympathy for the Pope, appears in La Repubblica, arch-foe of the Church and Benedict XVI. (Of course, one of the hypothesis presented as fact by the article was that the 'revelation' about the gay lobby precipitated Benedict XVI's decision to step down from the Papacy.)
The Repubblica story takes the form of the typical Italian news report about 'indiscrezioni' (i.e, rumor and gossip purported to be from 'inside' sources), different from the yellow journalism that is the stuff of tabloids only because the newspaper happens to be a leading Italian national daily.
The writer, citing 'sources close to the three cardinals', alleges that their inquiry into Vatileaks disclosed, among other things, power struggles among internal aggrupations (Jesuits, Salesians, Opus Dei, Lombards, Ligurians, what have you) - OK already, what's new about that? or rather, What? No Bertonians and Sodanians? - and the supposed existence of a secular 'gay lobby' of 'improper influence' that has established a network across many dicasteries of the Curia through their 'profane' relations with some members of the Curia. Gimme a break!: What would they be lobbying for - recognition of same-sex 'marriage'? Or smoking out any and all latent homosexuals in the various Curial offices for purposes of blackmailing them?
However, the article reports no new concrete facts at all , but rehashes - while claiming the episodes are part of the cardinals' report - previously well-reported stories in the past like that of now ex-Curial priest Tommaso Stenico who was filmed by a hidden camera during an appointment with a male prostitute sent by an Italian TV channel; the homosexual activities with boys of Italian businessman Angelo Balducci who was made a Gentleman of the Papal Household under John Paul II (and was promptly dropped by the Vatican under Benedict XVI when his scandalous activities came to light 2 or 3 years ago); or linking a Bertone protege, layman Marco Simeon, who is an RAI executive, to the gay lobby (Simeon was earlier accused by Mons. Carlo Vigano to have been the author of anonymous letters to an Italian daily seeking to discredit Vigano). [NB: While there are objective facts about Stenico and Balducci, I am not aware that anything was brought out against Simeon.
Should we then extrapolate from the known misdeeds of Stenico and Balducci - both of whom were immediately dismissed presumably from any responsibilities at the Vatican - to assume that most priests in the Vatican are active homosexuals who are also promoting the 'gender' cause opposed to the Church Magisterium?
In fact, some 'reports' in the Italian media today, commenting on Pope Francis's reported statement on the 'gay lobby', claim that this lobby has been seeking to promote a change in the Church's teaching about homosexual sex as sinful. Really? Or is this speculation just a logical projection of the secular notion that Church teaching can - or in any case, should - be modifiable by consensus? And who did they think would make the change? The Pope? The CDF?
They could not have thought this was even remotely possible under Benedict XVI, no matter how much they lobbied, or how 'powerful' their lobby was/is! If 'they' stopped to think about it, it could not be possible under any Pope at all - who is dutybound to preserve the deposit of faith that has been handed to him for custody, defense and active practice.
And through it all - almost four months by now since the
Repubblica hatchet job -
not a single fact to support the existence of this lobby, or any specific episode a la Stenico or Balducci, has been uncovered by any of the eager=beaver muckraking journslists exploiting the headline-making phrase 'gay lobby'.!]
[John Allen, where are you when we need you? You could well win a Pulitzer Prize or its equivalent in Italy if you did have a substantial story about this! What's stopping the media? My conclusion is that if there really were a story to tell, it would have been told by now. If anyone has uncovered anything new at all, he would have shouted it from the rooftops by now.
Even the traditionalist blogsite Rorate caeli, which first posted an English translation of Pope Francis's remarks to CLAR, is crowing today about the 'storm' that the remarks have created in the Vatican,
without once raising the question of what exactly do we know about the 'gay lobby' other than the allegation - as plausible as it might be - that it exists?
STORM IN THE VATICAN
Posted by New Catholic
June 13, 2013
While some dismiss the words of Pope Francis to his dear and close friends of the CLAR on June 6, as reported by those present, as "nothing", no subject has been more explosive than this within the Vatican walls since the beginning of the Bergoglian pontificate.
Carlo Marroni, the religious correspondent for Il Sole-24Ore, the main national business newspaper and most sober daily in the country, owned by the Italian industrial confederation Confindustria, reports on how the revelation of the Pope's words was received by some in the Vatican.
Storm in the Sacred Palaces
after the words on the "gay lobby"
attributed to the Pope
Analysis by Carlo Marroni
June 12, 2013
The words attributed to the Pope on the 'gay lobby' in the Vatican and on the 'stream of corruption' - not denied neither by the Holy See not by Bergoglio's interlocutors, the South American religious welcomed a few days ago - generated an underground storm in the Sacred Palaces, that is coming out shily [???] at the moment. ...[Pope Francis], however, does not seem to be disturbed by the incident. Quite the opposite.
...The doubt remains if he wished in some way that the words expressed in private on the "lobby" (a theme that would have been treated, as far as it is said, also in the voluminous dossier on Vatileaks) come out in the open - even if perhaps not in this way - in order to signal clearly within the Curia that it is a theme that he wants to tackle. [Wasn't he expected to tackle, in any case, all themes that have too do with 'reforming the Curia?]
"Bergoglio certainly does not have behind him a career as a Curia prelate dedicated solely to the management of political matters - a monsignore from beyond the Tiber affirms - but he remains always a Jesuit, and as all his confreres used to administer skillfully delicate matters." Francis's upcoming moves will have to be studied with great attention.
And from Matteo Mattuzzi in Il Foglio today:
But, if Bergoglio's words have raised some embarrassment beyond the Tiber - the "no comment" of Father Lombardi indicated it -, in the episcopate there are also those who applaud the papal remark: "Finally, he has said it," says an Italian bishop who prefers to remain anonymous. [Has said what? The 'gay' word? There is something to be said for Benedict XVI's precision (and that of the other Popes before him) in calling things by name properly. But the point I have been making is that it was imprudent, to say the least, for a Pope to casually say "It is true there is a current of corruption in the Vatican" and "It is true there is a gay lobby' as Pope Francis did, without at least saying, "I will not go into details but I have documents to show that this is so", so at least, he is not just echoing the media line that has already created such a public perception of evil in the Curia without anyone seeing the need for demonstrating it with verifiable facts. ]
And then, there's Robert Moynihan, who, in his current newsletter (thanks to Aqua who passes it on to me), seeks to rationalize and justify what the Pope said.
If the remarks had been all that innocuous, no one would need to rationalize and justify it at all:
The Pope uses this phrase because he knows it is familiar to his listeners as a sort of "catch-all" phrase summing up corruption in the Roman Curia and the leadership of the Church, especially because the phrase drew such press attention in February and March. [But Cardinal Bergoglio himself knew very well there was no substantiation whatsoever that was made public of that "catch all phrase". If he and the other cardinals - and now, more than ever, he as Pope - found such substantiation in the three cardinals' report on Vatileaks, then he ought to have qualified what he said , as I suggested above: "I will not go into details but I have documents to show that this is so" Not to have done so was irresponsible - obviously, not because the Pope intended to be irresponsible at all - but because to speak of such serious matters in a casual statement made off the cuff demonstrates why Popes have generally chosen not to be too chatty.[
He uses this term less as a reference to a certain sexual inclination or behavior -- as some articles are now proclaiming -- than as an example of bureaucratic behavior in the Curia, of "currents" and "lobbies" more interested in the mutual reinforcement of their own authority and influence than in supporting the Pope, or Catholic faith and tradition.
What the Pope is fundamentally focused on is the need for all "currents" and "lobbies" in the Church, and especially in the Curia, to abandon a "lobby" mentality and to defend perennial, authentic, Catholic faith and practice
IMHO, not that anyone cares, it was wrong and counter-productive to have flatly confirmed the existence of a 'current of corruption' and 'the gay lobby' in the Vatican - without a statement to say there are known facts to support the accusations! Especially since the Pope himself, and his deputy Secretary of State, have made it clear they have 'no timetable' for reforming the Curia.
Which implies, as I remarked yesterday, that somehow, the Vatican can afford to have these evils, so vehemently, variously and copiously denounced earlier when Benedict was Pope, to linger and fester until the Committee of Eight gets around to tackling them! Something is not right here, and someone in the media ought to be brave enough to at least ask, "Is the Emperor wearing any clothes at all!
P.S. It turns out John Allen has commented on the new 'gay lobby' kerfuffle. But no, he has no new facts to back its existence, or at least, to indicate more than what every reader is free to imagine wildly when he learns from no less than the Pope himself that "it is true there is a current of corruption" and "It is true there is a gay lobby" in the Vatican.
The Vatican's 'gay lobby,' round two
by John L. Allen Jr.
Jun. 12, 2013
Reports that Pope Francis allegedly referred to a "gay lobby" in the Vatican during a private session with Latin American religious have revived interest in a storyline that first erupted in February, following the surprise resignation announcement by Pope Benedict XVI and at the peak of the furor over the Vatican leaks affair.
Back then, Italian news outlets created a sensation by claiming that a commission of three cardinals empaneled by Benedict to investigate the leaks scandal identified a "gay lobby" potentially involved in airing the Vatican's dirty laundry. The reports also hinted that this lobby may have been behind Benedict's decision to step down.
Although the Vatican insisted the Pope quit for his stated reasons, meaning age and exhaustion, the Italian contretemps nevertheless turbo-charged frustration about how the Vatican was being run and probably contributed to the election of a complete outsider to the papacy with a track record of good governance in just five ballots.
It should be stressed that the reports in the air today are based on leaked notes from the meeting with Francis, and the Vatican has refused to confirm or deny their content, so we don't actually know what the Pope said.
[That's disingenuous. The 'synthesis' sounds very much Francis, especially in Spanish, and when one compares it to his equally off-the-cuff remarks to Caritas Itnernationalis at which he said "If need be, sell the churches to feed the poor". If it had been Benedict 'quoted' in some 'indiscretion' (to use the Italian term) when addressing a traditionalist group, I doubt that Allen would have said "We do not know exactly what the Pope said", but would have treated the 'synthesis' as the equivalent of a faithful transcript.]
Nonetheless, because the "gay lobby" business is back in the headlines, I'll repeat here what I said in February.
Bottom line: It's no secret there are gays in the Vatican, and it's reasonable to think officials would be concerned that insiders with a secret to keep might be vulnerable to various kinds of pressure. The issue, in other words, isn't so much their sexuality, but rather the potential for manipulation anytime someone serving the pope is leading a double life. That said, there's also no evidence this was the "real" reason Benedict quit just as there's no reason to believe now that Francis is on the cusp of launching an anti-gay witch hunt.
The following material comes from a blog I posted Feb. 22 about the "gay lobby" rumors.
As a rule of thumb, one should usually take unsourced speculation with a grain of salt, especially in the Italian papers. As I'm fond of saying, God love 'em, Italians have never seen a conspiracy theory they're not prepared to believe.
In terms of specifics, I don't know whether it's accurate that a commission of three cardinals created by Benedict XVI to investigate the Vatican leaks affair, composed of Cardinals Julian Herranz Casado, Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi, actually considered possible networks inside the Vatican based on sexual preference, but frankly, it would be a little surprising if they hadn't.
Here's why. In 2007, Msgr. Thomas Stenico in the Congregation for Clergy was suspended after being caught on hidden camera making contact with a young man posing as a potential "date" in gay-oriented chat rooms, then taking him back to his Vatican apartment. In 2010, a "Gentlemen of the Pope" named Angelo Balducci was caught in a wiretap trying to arrange sexual hookups through a Nigerian member of a Vatican choir. Both episodes were highly public and caused massive embarrassment.
In that context, it would seem odd if the cardinals didn't at least consider the possibility that somebody with a big secret to hide might be vulnerable to pressure to leak documents or spill the beans in other ways.
It also doesn't stretch credulity to believe there are still people in the system leading a double life, not just in terms of their sexual preference and activities, but possibly in other ways as well -- in terms of their financial interests, for example. Whether they form self-conscious cabals is open to question, but they may well naturally identify with each other, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that trying to chart such networks was part of what the three cardinals tried to do.
Among many cardinals around the world, it's become a fixed point of faith that the Vatican is long overdue for a serious housecleaning, [On what basis, exactly, and how can they see the mote of inefficiency and wrongdoing in the Roman Curia as though they didn't have a beam of the same problems in their own diocesan curias????] and certainly the furor unleashed by the La Repubblica piece is likely to strengthen that conviction.
However, it's probably a stretch to draw a straight line between all of this and Benedict's resignation. For the most part, one has to take the Pope at his word: He's stepping aside because he's old and tired, not because of any particular crisis.
That said, I don't believe you can completely discount the cumulative impact of the various meltdowns over the last eight years on Benedict's state of mind. [That's Allen's pet view all this time about B16's Pontificate, except that now what he once called 'gaffes' or 'major blunders' at worse, have turned to 'meltdowns'!. To follow his 'idiomatic' logic, there would have been nothing left of the Pontificate but a dribble of detritus from so many meltdowns!]
Read Benedict's anguished letter to the bishops of the world back in 2009, at the peak of the frenzy over the lifting of the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop, and it's crystal clear he was both pained by the criticism and frustrated the Vatican hadn't handled the whole thing more effectively. [No, Allen may see that letter merely as an expression of Benedict's personal pique - if it was, he would not be Benedict at all! But that letter was above all, an admonition against the most un-Christian attitude that many bishops took, illustrating so well what St. Paul had warned against in his letter to the Galatians, about misunderstanding 'freedom' to mean 'biting and devouring each other' and forgetting love, the supreme priority.]
If you want to understand why Benedict is tired, in other words, part of it is because he knows that putting things right inside the Vatican will take a tremendous investment of administrative energy, which he doesn't feel he can supply, and which probably isn't in his skill set in any event.
No, Benedict didn't quit under the pressure of a "gay lobby." But apparent disarray in the Vatican, which may well be one part perception and one part reality, probably made resignation look even better.
Apropos, do you think Cardinal Bertone feels any twinge of conscience at all that the reason for the 'disarray', perceived and real (even if this may not be as terrible as the perception) was his inability to administer the Curia as his function of secretary of State required him to do, and as Benedict XVI had every right to expect him, having named him to that position? But let me not get started about Bertone, who not once was anywhere to be found during the opening salvos of the many media barrages against Benedict XVI!....
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 16/06/2013 01:56]