Skip to comments.Richard Wagner says the Catholic Church has an inconvenient secret
Posted on 04/18/2012 9:14:59 AM PDT by cleghornboy
Richard Wagner, a confused soul who resides in Seattle, Washington, has a brief biography at the website for the "Center for Progressive Christianity" which may be found here. This lost soul says that he works to "heal" professionals including religious leaders and that he has facilitated "support groups for gay clergy of numerous denominations for many years." Mr. Wagner offers his advice at a website titled drdicksexadvice.com.
Why am I even writing about him? Because this lost soul who suffers from the psychopathology of homosexuality describes himself as a "gay priest." His website, which may be found here, and his Blog both offer the same old tired homosexual agitprop. At his Blog, he asserts that, "For centuries homosexuals have been villified and persecuted by the Catholic Church, but throughout all of its history the Church has had a very inconvenient secret."
And what is this great secret? That there have been clergy and religious men and women who were homosexual! Gosh, who would have thought? Saint Catherine of Siena, a great mystic and Doctor of the Church, fought for reform at a time when many clergy had succumbed to the vice of homosexuality. So this doesn't exactly come as a news flash, unless of course you have been ignorant of the Church's history. In her Dialogues, St. Catherine said that, "...these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility [of a weak nature], but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind as fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are."
Saint Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, a Cardinal and great reformer of the clergy, wrote an entire treatise entitled the Book of Gomorrah against the inroads made by homosexuality among the clergy. In his important work, St. Damian describes the iniquity of homosexuality as well as its psychological and, more importantly, its moral consequences:
"Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices...It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth....The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell]....In fact, after this most poisonous serpent once sinks its fangs into the unhappy soul, sense is snatched away, memory is borne off, the sharpness of the mind is obscured. It becomes unmindful of God and even forgetful of itself. This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence. And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out."
Because the soul en route to Hell has lost faith and is utterly miserable, it seeks company on its journey to final impenitence and, ultimately, eternal damnation. Which is why Mr. Wagner advances the now exhausted argument that anyone who stands with the Church's moral teaching and opposes homosexuality because of divine revelation and or the natural moral law is a "homophobe" who secretly pines for a homosexual encounter. He asserts that, "one's level of homophobia" is in direct proportion to one's own brutally closeted desire for homosexual sex." Wagner argues that "the more you wail against something" the more likely it is that you are attracted to that thing. Operating on this theory may we assume that those heroic souls who opposed National Socialism in general and the Nazi Party more specifically were closeted Nazis? Perhaps Simon Wiesenthal hunted Nazi butchers because he secretly admired their genocidal mentality? And what of those who railed against the Ku Klux Klan or Atheistic Humanism with its record of genocide and sheer brutality?
Wagner, as with many of his associates in the homosexual hate movement, employs this argument because he has nothing substantive to offer. It is nothing more than a cheap attempt at intimidation: "If you oppose homosexuality I'll tell evreyone that you are a closeted homosexual."
If Richard Wagner was really a Catholic priest at one time, I'd like to know how and why he was ordained. But if this mental midget believes that he's telling us something we don't already know when he says that there have been priests and religious throughout the Church's history who were homosexual, he is deluding himself.
What of it? Alexander VI was a notorious sinner too. Does that mean we should all join him?
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corrptible man, and to birds, and four footed beats, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:21-25)
The largest number of people killed during the Spanish Inquisition were guilty of homosexual molestation. Contrary to the Black Legends, Muslims and Jews were immune to persecution (unless they falsely claimed to be Christian, but taught as Christianity their former faiths).
Lost among his outrageous slanders, Martin Luther was probably set off by witnessing homosexual molestation in the seminaries. Rather than opposing it directly, however, he concluded that mankind was powerless to control himself, and current religious practices completely useless. If only his reform had focused on the sinfulness of such molesters, instead of making up slanders to improve his political position with the ignoble noblemen of Germany.
The very first ecumenical council after the apostles (technically, Jerusalem is the first) dealt with those who “scandalize” children, insisting on their immediate defrocking and anathematization. This was 800 years before the imposition of celibacy for priests.
ON the topic of “if only,” a 1962 Vatican directive ordered vocations directors to screen homosexuals from the priesthood. The directive warned that the rigors of celibacy would pervert further disordered sexualities, and only the most psychosexually healthy should be considered for the priesthood. It was ignored by all but one American diocese.
The purpose of these statements is not intended to add to the burden of those living with sexual dysfunctions, which are a great enough cross for any soul to bear, but only to prevent the compounding of evil on top of misfortune.
Part of the Church’s immunity to reform stems from those who slander it. False accusations of homosexuality and homosexual abuse have also been a persistent tactic against the Church, from the Lollards to the Know-Nothings to the Stalinists. John Paul II, himself, according to George Weigel, was slow to realize the scope of the American crisis, because he had known of many false allegations made by the communists against the Catholics of Poland. (I would note that he was fantastically effective, nonetheless; the rate of sexual abuse in the US declined over 97% between 1980 and 1991.)
I once found at the very ground on which my apartment had been, had once stood a convent. One evening, roused by Protestant preachers, the townsfolk brutally murdered the entire convent. No-one was convicted.
Update: The entire convent was destroyed; I read where several of the nuns survived. The Wikipedia article makes no mention of the killings.
The old story about the boy crying “Wolf!” still applies.
I misunderstood a story encountered long ago; I checked it out myself, and I posted that I found my understanding to be wrong. I’m told by the friend I learned about the convent with that what we had read about said that the “convent was burned to the ground with the sisters inside it.” Apparently, although the nuns were within the convent, they were not in the buildings as they burnt, but had found an escape into a garden.
I don’t know what your beef is. It’s not like the boy went out and said, “whoops, it’s not actually a wolf.”
You might check out this document, though:
An account of the conflagration of the Ursuline Convent by a friend of religious toleration (1834).
The events are quite outrageous. A crowd of 4,000 (elsewhere estimated to be 2,000) gathered to watch as a mob encircled the convent with barrels of pitch and burnt it to the ground. Fire departments from all over the area were summoned, but they just watched. None were charged for abdicating their duties. No witnesses would name any of the many perpetrators, even though no-one bothered to conceal their identity. No charges were brought. A legislative subcommittee found that the state had failed its duty to protect private property, but an overwhelming majority of the legislature voted down recompense.
There had been 56 students, all girls, most Protestant, in the convent as it burned. Due to the heroism of the nuns, they did not perish, but the bystanders were plainly unaware that they had escaped, for they were hidden in the garden while the mob searched furiously for escapees, so clearly the intent of the mob was murder. The nuns and students did lose everything they owned; everything had been stolen from the convent as it burned, even pianos. Insurance covered no losses.
I'm glad that turned out to be a sick lie you posted. You should have the post removed by the moderators.
Because you’re totally cool with ATTEMPTED murder?
Seriously, this is some sick stuff to be trying to spread on the internet, you need to have it removed.
I have never seen such a nasty thing attempted on FR.
What nasty thing exactly are you accusing me of? I’m the one who pointed out, and corrected my mistake. At this point, however, I’m finding our entire conversation fascinating, though, so I’d rather prefer to allow my mistake to be kept public, which shouldn’t be harmful, since it has been very plainly corrected.
I might be sympathetic if I thought you were trying to spare people the heartbreak of “Oh, those poor nuns... o, wait, they’re alive.” I’m just getting a vibe that your concern is more with the reputation of the Boston townsfolk, who actually *did* ATTEMPT to murder an entire convent of nuns.
Wow, sick stuff, this is a revealing insight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.