| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 26.829
Post: 9.314 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Master | |
|
Every morning, I wake up sincerely disposed to be fuzzy and warm about Pope Francis, and therefore totally uncritical about what I read about him in the media. Among my morning prayers, I ask the Lord to be spared of any new aggravation by anything I read about the Pope. And everyday, my resolve quickly disintegrates after reading the first few items in my limited but habitual systematic review of news about the Church and the Vatican.
It was easy when B16 was Pope, because, as a Benaddict (the reason for which I decided to take part in this Forum and the two others I was part of). my ambitious goal was to be able to post as many positive and neural items as I could find about B16, supplemented by as many photos as I could find. From time to time, I did post negative items to illustrate the disinformation, distortion and downright lies that media indulged in about anything that involved B16, and to go on record with a point-by-point rebuttal of their utter disregard for truth.
But reading news and commentary about Pope Francis these days has become very much an occasion of sin for me - the sin of ire, and yes, arrogance, to feel the way I do about the injustice and inherent dishonesty in much of what I read in the media today.
As far as I have seen, no one in the Italian media other than Vittorio Mesaori, has dared find any fault at all with the 'indiscretions' of Pope Francis - to use a favorite term used by Italian Vaticanistas when attributing supposed journalistic looks behind-the-scene to tattling from supposed insiders who are therefore purported to be 'in the know;.
And while the English sense of 'indiscretion' may well apply to the Pope's confidences to the Bishops of Puglia about the faith encyclical or the pressures he received to sack Mons. Guido Marini as his liturgical MC, and to the CLAR about corruption and the gay lobby in the Vatican, I sincerely believe the Pope was not being indiscreet at all, that he truly meant to convey the messages he did, in both cases, as they were fairly straightforward and not likely to be misinterpreted.
The bishops could not have invented or misunderstood what was said about the. faith encyclical - and the Pope soon confirmed what they said. And the six CLAR leaders could not all have possibly misheard two statements as "It is true there is a current of corruption in the Vatican: and "It is true there is a gay lobby in the Vatican" both said in parallel statements of identical construction. I repeat, the only problem with the latter statements is that unless the Pope also told the CLAR leaders he had objective bases for those statements, it was improper to have simply repeated the generic accusations that media and Pope Benedict's other detractors have been slinging about indiscriminately, like an octopus squirting black ink to cover its target in a blanket of slander. Especially since no one has bothered to substantiate those accusations at all in any specific manner.
The media wagons continue to circle around Pope Francis, both to praise him for his forthrightness in speaking of 'a current of corruption' and 'the gay lobby' in the Vatican, and to defend the circumstances in which he said what he did. Here is a typical article. much of which I post in purple - and I thank Lella and her blog for leading me to it:
Pope Francis wants to change
the Roman Curia once and for all
by Fabio Marchese Ragona
Translated from
Juene 13, 2013
A clear signal of change and a precise message: The Pope wants to change the Roman Curia once and for all. This is the conviction that reigns at the Vatican after the publication on a Chilean website of the private conversation between Francis and a group of Latin American religious, in the course of which the Pontiff supposedly confirmed the existence of a gay lobby in the Vatican.
A clarification from CLAR promptly followed to condemn the publication of the contents of that conversation, underscoring that "there was no audio recording made of the encounter" and that "the (published) text was prepared on the basis of the recollections by the participants".
Therefore, what was published was authentic, but, the CLAR continues, "singular expressions contained in the text cannot be attributed with certainty to the Pope, but only their general sense".
It is a fact that Bergoglio touched on the topic with his fellow religious, unaware [ignaro] that his words would soon echo around the world. [The statement assumes the Pope is naive about these matters, which he obviously is not. He could easily have asked the CLAR to "Keep this between you and me", but obviously did not do so, or the CLAR leaders, who are, after all, nuns and priests, would have admitted honestly to violating his confidence. That their 'synthesis' was published at all means they had furnished it to someone who belonged to the website Religion y Liberacion, or had access to it. The CLAR leadership obviously saw the immense news value of having the Pope himself confirm the general perception that 'something is rotten', to say the least, in the Roman Curia, even if he did not seem to have told them he had documents to back that perception.]
The article continues with this extreme defense and justification of the Pope's statements, from a theologian cardinal, no less:
"I am not very informed myself, but it is a very sad thing," Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier told Il Giornale. "If the Pope really made those statements to those religious leaders, it was surely to invite the persons [in the 'corruption' and 'gay lobby', presumably] to convert them.
The Swiss cardinal, who was once the theologian of the Pontifical Household under John Paul II, went on: "Within the Church, it is known that there are sinners both among the clergy and laymen. [DUH!] Francis is telling us that the weaker ones fall into temptation. From the beginning, he has been calling on priests to be holy {Yeah, like he was the first Pope ever to say so! As if Benedict XVI had not said that on every occasion he could, not just to priests, but to all the faithful, even children when he talked to them directly: 'Be saints'![ ] So if he referred to these scandals, it is because he wants to act and save everyone from sin!] [I can't believe the last statement came from a theologian!]
But the problem of the homosexual lobby in the Sacri Palazzi is said to be just the tip of an iceberg. There are those who are convinced that the great challenge for the new Pope is to confront the problem. [DUH again! The cardinal electors all said they chose Cardinal Bergoglio primarily to reform the Curia, as if that were the overriding mission of the Vicar of Christ on earth. But of course, he has to confront all the problems, real and perceived, that beset the Curia. What's to be convinced about?]
One of those so convinced is Fr. Dariusz Oko, professor of theology at the John Paul II Pontifical University of Cracow. Last December, Fr. Oko publicly denounced the presence of a gay lobby in the Vatican and reiterated today: "The Holy Father has confirmed something that many have known for years. I think that finally, he has broken through the wall of omerta [silence about criminal wrongdoings] that has existed for some time. But now, how to break down the wall of omerta in the seminaries? Whoever is concerned with Benedict XVI's revolution in forbidding the ordination of homosexual priests?"
The Polish priest is convinced that the Pope is facing a great battle about this: "The problem of a gay lobby in the Vatican is important but marginal. The true challenge to the Pope is the heresy of homosexuality itself - I call it 'homo-heresy' - which is the rejection of the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality, in which defenders of homosexuals favor priesthood even for gays. The Holy Father must combat this heresy which is widespread throughout the Church".
And the root of the problem, says Fr. Oko, can be found in the places where priests are 'formed': "Who in Italy has any interest in the actual situation in seminaries? It is there that the future of the Church is decided. The only way out is to continue the revolution by Ratzinger who wished to 'liberate' the seminaries from gay teachers and homosexual seminarians".
[My initial objection to Fr. Oko's statements (and there are even more when we examine them further) - even if he praises Benedict XVI - is that he uses the term 'homosexuality' as if the very condition itself was the sin, rather than the active practice of it. It's no stretch to think that throughout the history of the Church, there would have been quite a few homosexuals who became priests - and even saints - because the priestly vow of chastity helped them to suppress and sublimate their sexual desires in the same way that heterosexual priests do!]
The priest from Cracow, shortly after it was reported that the three-man commission of cardinals had submitted their report on Vatileaks to Benedict XVI, spoke of the "mafia-like methods' used by the so-called gay lobby in influencing nominations and promotions made at the Vatican. [Yes, but one must point out thathe does not have any details, either, no specifics, only generic statements, which is the reason I did not bother to post anything about his statements last February.]
He reiterated that today, pointing out that homosexuality is irreconcilable with the priesthood. [Once again, a mis-statement!]
"It is a notion that goes to the very essence of Catholicism... The problems caused by abuse of minors by priests and religious are as important as a gay lobby that is in a position to 'condition' the Church. But the crucial problem involves the Catholic view of the priesthood and the sacraments. If we wish to save the theology of priesthood that is faithful to Tradition, then our priests must be heterosexual males conformed to Christ. himself. In short: whether we admit homosexual candidates to the priesthood raises the question off whether we wish to safeguard the traditional Catholic view of the priest who acts in persona Christi".
I have therefore pulled up a report on Fr. Oko's statements in February about the gay lobby, whose existence he postulates from the obstacles that he found in the Curia when he first tried to call attention in the late 1990s to the misdeeds of Mons. Julius Paetz in Poland (seminarians complained he had abused them) and who was finally forced by John Paul II to resign as Archbishop of Poznan in 2002.
Being who he is, Fr. Oko could have brought it straight to the attention of Mons. Dsiwisx, then the personal secretary of John Paul II - except that it turns out (at least according to an account by Sandro Magister in 2003
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6986?eng=y) - said by Magister to be a close personal friend of Paetz, seemed to have been the primary obstacle!
So the one case Fr. Oko presents is not exactly convincing for the continuing existence of this so-called 'gay mafia', although it is very plausible and possible that he did meet up with obstacles lower down the food chain, but this would have been a reflection of the general attitude in the Curia before 2001 to just keep a lid on the priest-abuse stories. Did he, for instance, ever try to file a formal complaint against Paetz with the CDF, after this congregation was given the authority to deal with sex abuse cases in 2001?
But what most of the reporting about Fr. Oko missed underscoring (or even ignoring outright) is the very title of his paper - and his well-grounded statements that Benedict XVI began attacking the problem of actively homosexual priests by early moves he made in his Pontificate, and the implication that the 'gay Mafia' was well in place under the previous Pontificate.
Because of this, the attention-grabbing headline to the following article (a headline for which the writer may not have been responsible at all]) is misleading - it ignores Father Oko's thesis which is clearly stated in the title of his paper, and which the journalist does present in the second half of the article, and makes it appear that the 'gay lobby' was the whole point of Fr. Oko's paper - it was merely incidental, based on one particular experience (and apparently undocumented in terms of the offices and persons who placed obstacles in his way to presenting a complaint against a Polish bishop - to the case he has against what he calls 'homo-heresy' in the Church.
Catholic expert details
'huge homosexual underground in the Church'
by John-Henry Westen
KRAKOW, February 26, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent paper by a Ph.D. priest from Poland has been circling the globe in recent weeks and given heightened prominence by the recent revelations of a Vatican inquiry into a “gay mafia” inside the Vatican.
“Standing with the Pope against homoheresy” was written in late 2012 by Fr. Dariusz Oko, Ph.D., a priest of the Archdiocese of Krakow and Assistant Professor at the John Paul II Pontifical University in Krakow.
Fr. Oko notes that his discovery of a “huge homosexual underground in the Church” came from his work in philosophical criticism of homosexual propaganda and ideology, a study he was encouraged to undertake by various bishops and cardinals.
“I began my work as a struggle against a deadly, external threat to Christianity, but then gradually discovered,” he said, that “the enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it, as well,” [How naive of any priest to think that the Church does not face, as Benedict XVI pointed out, its greatest persecution from the sins of those who are 'within', in the same way that cancer is the worst illness because for the most part, it is arises from within oneself and is not inflicted! For instance, not all habitual smokers get lung cancer.]
In his essay, the philosophy professor reveals his own run in with a homosexual clique in the Roman Catholic Church blocking justice for those abused by homosexual clergy, in this case a homosexual bishop.
“I learned about Bishop [Juliusz] Paetz [Archbishop Emeritus of Poznań] by accident, from a seminarian who told me, all trembling from emotions and terror, about his having been molested by his own ordinary. He was at a brink of losing faith, as well as mental and spiritual integrity,” relates Fr. Oko.
“Our interventions at various levels of Church hierarchy were of no avail, however; we encountered a wall that could not be overcome, even in a case as self-evident as that,” he explained. What finally broke through the wall, he says, was “a tremendous commotion in the media and reaching the Pope himself.” [Again, why did he not just bring up the problem to Mons. Dsiwisz, or to any of the other influential Poles in the Roman Curia close to John Paul II? Anybody who interviewed Fr. Oko about his paper should have asked him this, to begin with!]
“Otherwise, everything was blocked at lower levels of local or Vatican hierarchy,” he adds. Describing the formation of homosexual cliques of clergy Fr. Oko says:
They know well, however, that they may be exposed and embarrassed, so they shield one another by offering mutual support. They build informal relationships reminding of a clique or even mafia, aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money.
When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them. This way, leading positions in the Church may be held by people suffering from deep internal wounds.
They may actually achieve a dominating position in many areas of church hierarchy, become a “backroom elite” which actually has tremendous power in deciding about important nominations and the whole life of the Church. Indeed, they may even prove to be too powerful for honest, well-meaning bishops.
[That's a generic 'description' anyone could make once you postulate that such a 'lobby' exists, because that's the way all lobbies work.]
Fr. Oko also identifies the “the fear and confusion of the clergy, particularly in certain dioceses and congregations, when faced with the topic of homosexuality. “They escape into silence, unable to articulate even elementary statements on the teaching of the Church on the subject. What are they afraid of?”
“Where does that fear in entire groups of mature, adult men come from?” he asks. “They must be afraid of some influential lobby which wields its power and which they may fall into disfavor with.” [Not necessarily. One does not have to write a paper to conclude, from common sense, that t could just be the simple distaste - and yes, genuine fear, too - of persons who do not want to confront a problem, perhaps out of denial because they themselves may have some guilt or propensity int his respect, and therefore fear exposure or blackmail in case they do not respond to pressures exerted on them to do, or fail to do, what they ought to do!.]
Fr. Oko posits that Pope Benedict XVI is well aware of this subculture within the Church and has publicly lamented its “filth” and the damage it has caused.
The Pope “made cleansing the Church from homosexual abuse and preventing its recurrence in the future one of the priorities of his pontificate,” says Fr. Oko. “He removed compromised clergymen from their offices with much energy. In the very first months following his election, still in 2005, he had an instruction issued to strictly forbid ordaining untreated homosexuals. The instruction was preceded by a letter sent from the Holy See to bishops around the world, ordering that priests with homosexual tendencies be immediately removed from any educational functions at seminaries.”
Later in 2008, the Pope would issue a directive forbidding even non-practicing homosexuals from becoming seminarians.
Ably demonstrating Benedict XVI’s grave concern, Fr. Oko quotes the Pope’s 2010 book Light of the World, wherein the Holy Father says: “The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”
Fr. Oko’s paper is remarkable, because it is not only descriptive but prescriptive, providing the tools necessary to engage in the battle to clean up the “filth.”
In a clarion call to his fellow clergy and to faithful Catholic layity, Fr. Oko recalls the Pope’s [Benedict XVI] heroism in combating the homolobby, but says, “He cannot do it all by himself.”
The Pope, “needs each and everyone of us. He needs support and healthy preaching in every local Church. It is a matter of remaining faithful to one’s conscience: defending the truth of salvation, no matter how much it should cost us.”
Fr. Oko says standing up for the truth of the faith on this issue is an existential need for Roman Catholics. “If homolobbyists are allowed to act freely, in a dozen or so years they may destroy entire congregations and dioceses,” he warns. “The situation is a bit like that in the beginning of the Reformation, when entire countries and nations left the Church.”
Fr. Oko explains how to identify the culprits and then how to engage in battle.
“Active homosexual priests are masters of camouflage,” he says quoting another experienced priest. “The real threat to the Church are cynical homosexual priests who take advantage of their functions on their own behalf, sometimes in an extraordinarily devious way.”
“The homolobby, says Fr. Oko, “represents the very centre of internal opposition against the Pope....Members of that lobby in the Church are a relatively small group, but often hold key positions (which they are very anxious to achieve), create a close network of relationships and support one another, which is what makes them dangerous.”
In terms of action, Fr. Oko suggests:
- The homosexual mafia in the Church must be dealt with in a very professional way . We must act like a prosecutor or an officer in the battlefield;
= It is important that we find a large group of people of goodwill to protect us and support what we do. That group should include clergymen, as high in the hierarchy as possible, experts in various fields, archive records specialists, lawyers, policemen, journalists, and as many believers as possible;
- It is good to exchange information, documents, and evidence. The global network of homolobbies and homomafias must be counterbalanced by a network of honest people;
- The Internet is an excellent tool, which makes it possible to create a global community of people concerned about the fate of the Church;
= The more we know, the more we can do. We need to remember that in these matters we are like “sheep sent among wolves,” and so we must be “as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (St. Matthew 10:16). We must have the courage to stand up against evildoers, as Christ had the courage to stand up against the Pharisees of his times;
- We cannot build our lives on sweet illusions, for only “the truth will set you free” (St. John 8:32), and that is why “God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7); and
- All interventions should be made with utmost respect and love for every person, including the abuser. He concludes that, remembering to “recognize them by their fruit” (cf. St. Matthew 7:16) – and with the publicly known events of the last quarter-century, the reaction of the Holy See, and the documents it issued – we must clearly and explicitly admit: yes, there is a strong homosexual underground in the Church.
Westen provides a link to Fr. Oko's paper:
www.lifesitenews.com/resources/with-the-pope-against-ho...
I have not had a chance to read it since I only came upon Westen's article today, as it is the only one in English about Fr. Oko's peper.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/06/2013 18:44] |