Posted on 10/31/2018 1:31:18 PM PDT by ebb tide
At the closing of the synod on Saturday, October 27, Jorge Mario Bergoglio once again identified the “Great Accuser,” Satan, as the ultimate author of the accusations unleashed against him, the pope, in order to strike out in reality against “Mother Church”:
“This is why it is time to defend the Mother. […] Because the Accuser in attacking us is attacking the Mother, but the Mother is not to be touched.”
With this Francis justified yet again his silence in the face of the accusation - publicly addressed to him by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former nuncio in the United States - of having long kept with him as a trusted advisor a cardinal such as the the American Theodore McCarrick, even though like many both in and outside of the Vatican he knew about his homosexual activity with seminarians and young people.
But there is another silence to which the pope constantly adheres. And it is on the homosexuality practiced by many churchmen. Francis never mentions it when he denounces the scourge of sexual abuse. What is instead at the origin of everything, he maintains, is “clericalism.” Even the final document of the synod, in the paragraphs concerning abuse, makes this judgment of Francis its own, and defines clericalism as “an elitist and exclusive vision of vocation, which interprets the ministry received as a power to be exercised rather than a free and generous service.”
They are a silence and a diagnosis, these of the pope, that are meeting with strong criticism above all in the United States, where public opinion both Catholic and not, both progressive and conservative, is more active than ever in reclaiming truth and transparency.
One particularly revealing expression of this public opinion is the article that came out on October 26 - right when the synod was wrapping up - in “Commonweal,” a storied magazine of “liberal” American Catholicism, written by Kenneth L. Woodward, for thirty-eight years the esteemed vaticanista of “Newsweek”:
In Woodward’s judgment, the McCarrick case is revealing of the extent to which homosexuality is really rampant among churchmen, on all levels, as already documented starting in 2003 by the famous report of the Jay College of Criminal Justice, according to which “eight out of ten reported abuses by priests over the past seventy years were cases of males abusing other males.”
Therefore “one would have to be either blind or dishonest,” Woodward writes, to reject as “homophobia” the denunciation of the role of homosexuality in the abuse scandal.
In his decades of work as a vaticanista, Woodward recalls having collected innumerable accounts not only of individual cases of homosexuality but of genuine “networks” of support and complicity among churchmen living a double life, in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and other dioceses. In Chicago, the priest Andrew Greeley, one of the most widely read sociologists and writers in the United States, publicly denounced the presence of gay circles in the offices of the diocese, which was managed by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, his friend and a highly influential leader of the progressive wing of the American Catholic Church.
But even the Vatican curia was infected, Woodward further recalls. And he cites the case of John J. Wright (1909–1979), for ten years the bishop of Pittsburgh and in 1961 the founder of an “oratory” for young university students in that diocese that drew in homosexual priests like bees to honey. Wright was a brilliant intellectual, hosted by “liberal” journals including “Commonweal,” but orthodox in doctrine, and Paul VI called him to Rome in 1969 to head the Vatican congregation for the clergy, making him a cardinal. And yet many knew about his double life with young lovers, precisely while he was overseeing the formation of Catholic priests all over the world.
Not only that. Among those today who “would surely know the truth” about him - Woodward continues - is Cardinal Donald Wuerl, until a few weeks ago the powerful archbishop of Washington, he too accused of having “covered up” cases of abuse, but granted his retirement by Francis with moving expressions of esteem. Wuerl was Wright’s personal secretary when he was bishop of Pittsburgh, and he also remained “closer to the cardinal than the hair on his head,” to the point of assisting him at the conclave of 1978 that elected John Paul II.
Woodward does not cite other specific cases of homosexuality practiced by dignitaries of the Roman curia. But a reliable illustration came out in Italy in 1999 in a whistleblowing book entitled “Gone with the wind in the Vatican,” by an anonymous author who was later identified as the curial monsignor Luigi Marinelli, who died the next year. It tells about the career of an American prelate with a weakness for young people, who was called to Rome at the Vatican congregation for bishops and then was sent back to his country as the head of an important diocese that was visited for the first time by a pope, John Paul II, on one of his journeys, and was then promoted to an even more prominent diocese and made a cardinal, and finally retired for reasons of age. Or one reads in it about a high-level diplomat who put together agreements on the most complicated fronts, from Israel to Vietnam, from China to Venezuela. Recent events have added to this cross section, which in recent years seems to be on the rise, not in decline.
In the United States they are called “lavender lobbies,” the homosexual networks that permeate seminaries, dioceses, chanceries. The trouble, Woodward writes, is that “no one in the Catholic hierarchy seems eager to investigate,” not even after ex-nuncio Viganò took the lid off the scandal and held Pope Francis himself answerable.
Woodward concludes:
“Total transparency is probably too much to expect. But if structural reforms are necessary to protect the young from abuse, the scandals of the summer of 2018 ought to be seen as spurs to thoughtful action, not occasions for fruitless displays of anger, shock, shame, and despair. The danger of clerical double lives – of secrets that can be used as weapons to protect other secrets – should now be clear to everyone. There will be clerical hypocrisy as long as there is a church, but we can and should do more to combat it.”
Certainly neither silence nor improperly sounding the alarm against “clericalism” can lead to more transparency and to an elimination of the scourge.
Full title:
New Charges of Homosexuality in the Church. But the Pope Is Silent, and Blames “Clericalism”
Ping
Speaking of homos, I’m watching Milo do a live program on youtube right now. The nameplate on his desk says “Dr. Christine Blazing Faggot.” He dressed up like Dr. ford.
I suspect anti-Pope Francis is homosexual and part of the pink mafia that has infested our church. I may be wrong, but doubt it.
Sorry, lavender mafia...
He’s pretty funny on this chat. He just took off the costume and is going to answer questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o3axvL5CBg
The photos here support your conjecture:
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/10/22/qa-ann-what-do-the-sodomites-want-what-is-their-endgame/
The solution, throw all queers completely out of the church clergy. That is the only cure that will work. It is long since time that it should be done.
One would have to start with the so-called pope.
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.