Involves the Vatican, a homosexual prostitution ring, young teen-age males, and 10-20 Roman clergy, possibly including four bishops; and a recruiter for the child prostitution ring stealing consecrated hosts and selling them to Satanists in and around Rome. Unbelievable. I've been praying that the corruption would be cleaned up. One never knows how deep the corruption may run, although nobody who believes in Original Sin should be totally surprised by scandals like this.
And the irony ... all this right on the heels of our national Gay love fest, cheered by Hollywood along with our first gay president.
Updates: The sordid details -- gay bar named Twink:
More details pour out in multiple posts HERE.
Update (June 20, 2013):
When a Divinely Designed Church pretends that sodomy is not one of the fours sins crying to Heaven for vengeance and when it stands silently by while innumerable Bishops and Priests promote pro-sodomy legislation secure in the knowledge that their actions will not call down upon them severe discipline from the Pope and the Magisterium, this is absolutely no surprise.
ReplyDeleteSo, we will, once again be the laughing stock of the world. Thanks Vatican Two Popes and Bishops.
It wasn't enough for you to destroy the Roman Rite, was it? You had to completely embrace the world, your ancient and permanent enemy.
The Catholic Church gives grave scandal and its epicene ecclesiastics are worse than ineffective; they are positively disgusting and destructive.
The plain and simple truth is that EVERY Pope from Pope Paul Vi through Pope Benedict XVI knew this was happening and they did not give enough of shit about it to act.
Remember the news breaking just before the Conclave about the Church purchasing offices in a building that had the largest homosexual baths in Rome?
Try and tell me nobody in the Vatican knew the facts before that purchase; go ahead, just try...
I believe Vorris said the Vatican investigator dismissed the entire fair? Is that not either breathtaking or laugh-out-loud predictable repeat behavior from years of sex scandals that later devastated both morale and coffers?
ReplyDeleteRev. James Martin, a pre-eminent spokesman for moderate/liberal Catholicism, estimates 30% of American priests are gay. He wouldn't touch the question of Bishops.
The Catholic leadership, even the 'conservative' element, seems to live in a house of tissue paper ideas, where they can proclaim Jesus is the only savior but then teach missionary work is really incidental, or that gay marriage is wrong and homosexuality a mortal sin, but then stress that what we really need to worry about is affirming the dignity, value and vitality of our homosexual brethren. It has been going on for so long that unless you are quite removed from the scenario you don't even notice the ludicrously inconsistent nature of the catechesis. Our children however, fresher to the classrooms, intuit such and simply intuit we don't mean what we say by any negative qualifiers--they embrace the 'positive,' inclusive ideas trumpeted by the larger culture.
Whether priests with SSA are actively gay or simply resigned to celibacy, they are wounded and handicapped in ministry in a culture where homosexuality is one of the central flash points of the battle. It is a scandal in every sense of the word.
I admit I *was* encouraged that, despite what I found to be incomplete content, even clerics as compromised as Cardinal Theodore McCarrick provided fairly emphatic protests to the latest US legal skirmishes. It is a remote consolation that amidst the drift in almost all other official ecclesiastical quarters, the official Church position does for now still seem protected from Above.
All I can add is GOD BLESS MICHAEL VORRIS, pink tie and all. His broadcast is bracing in its clarity. The only remotely similar thing I have seen even in Evangelical quarters is this:
That deafening noise you will now hear is the silence from all official quarters as they deal with what they deem to be the genuinely pressing issues of helping to guide governmental policies to heal the planet.
A "defrocked" priest and a teenage hustler - at this stage in the investigation - do not make them discredited sources. In this type of investigation you want witnesses who have VERY UP CLOSE to the acts being invested. That's going to net some very sordid folks.
ReplyDeleteOf course, a media-wise "spokesperson" will know how to use the filth clinging to a witness to discredit the source.
But, then, as Benedict 16th remarked in '05, we must wash the priesthood of its filth. How can one do that without using one's hands to scrub the garments?
And decent Italian newspaper knows how to source a source - including a revengeful ex-priest and a poor souled teenage whore.
At least, let's give the boy a hearing - that in spite of his sin (and ours of willful blindness) he can speak the truth of observed facts - especially since they are those of his own eyes.
But, then, as Benedict 16th remarked in '05, we must wash the priesthood of its filth.
ReplyDeleteThen why didn't HE do it?
Was it because he was too busy writing his Trilogy in which he said that Jews need not be converted, that there was an error in one of the Gospels, that John did not write his Gospel, all the time quoting protestant sources?
Or was it because he was too busy haunting Mosques and praying with Imans as he faced Mecca?
Or was it because he was too busy wring love letters to Jews and standing before Rabbis in the Synagogues of Satan silently accepting their correction?
Or was it because he was too busy flying to America and congratulating us on Religious Liberty?
Or was it because he was taking tea with Kung?
Or was it...
It ain't what he said, it is what he did and didn't do that showed us all what he believed in and, just like ALL Popes from John XXIII up to and including Pope Francis, what their actions tell us is that they did not believe the same truths as did the 260 Popes who preceded them and to pretend otherwise is an act of self-delusion
1. "Synagogues of Satan" ouch.
ReplyDelete2. Ratzinger wrote John did not write his Gospel? I did not catch that.
My impression is He is a conservative progressive, one who wants to hang on to Tradition while admitting to what he thinks are the non-invasive elements of liberal scholarship and theology, the ones that make the larger message palatable. Whule that doesn't make him right, he was at least sympathetic to the larger cause of tradition, which was pleasant.
At this point, being bitter about the Popes is simply redundant. We either have to expect more of the same, and just realize we are along for the dismaying ride (like visiting kids we want to strangle sometimes), or go over to the SSPX. Those are really the two options. All the ongoing outrage is simply too exhausting. And I write as one who has exhausted myself!
Me, I find a good dose of informed and targeted outrage invigorating, like the smell of napalm in the morning. Nothing exhausting about it. As a matter of fact, I find the effort to squelch outrage exhausting. And it leads me to wonder why, for whose pleasure, am I squelching it?
ReplyDeleteAs for the pope emeritus, he has been hoisted with his own petard, and with his petard's petard's petard, to the point that perhaps comparisons to Rube Goldberg would be more appropriate.
Meanwhile, I am passing the time by reading up on The Next Big Thing in Catholicism -- the rehabilitation of liberation theology! Gutierrez, the Boff Bros, and for 0.01 cents I even got a used copy of a little book on the subject by the presbyterian buffoon and rapt council participant Robert McAfee Brown. If the sack of methane were still topside, I expect events of the last conclave might be enough to make a convert of him. After all, the liberationists are mostly Catholic, and Brown is to them what Leonard Bernstein was to the Black Panthers.
Dear JM.. His progression from Seminarian to Priest to Bishop to Cardinal to Pope was continuity - a continuity of modernism. He was no friend of Traditionalists but they claimed he was even though he identified them as troublemakers who had to be watched and he promulgated S.P. purely as an act of tolerance,
ReplyDeleteMr. James Larson has deconstructed his modernism (see War against being and so I will just post what he had to say about The Catholic Church versus what a previous Pope had to say in foreshadowing the error proposed by von Balthasar, Ratzinger (and now Pope Francis)
First, Cardinal Ratzinger:
Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task.
And now Pope Pius XIII
Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner. All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."
Dear JM Synagogues of Satan in right out of the New Testament and from scores of commentary by the Early Church Fathers (especially Saint John Chrysostom) but that is nothing compared to what Jesus said:
ReplyDeleteLuke 19: But I say to you, that to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: and from him that hath not, even that which he hath, shall be taken from him. But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me.
Gee, I wonder why that is never read to the Faithful at Mass?
Well, I suppose it is because such truth is hard to set to the grotesque guitar geegaws composed by the Saint Louis Jebbies
IANS,
ReplyDeleteThe Luke 19 text is interesting and powerful, and from a parable -- the Parable of the Ten Minas. I can see the connection you're drawing. I would also like, however, to see the connection made and commented upon by Church Fathers, if you know any who do so. The distinction between OT Judaism and post-temple (post 70-AD) Judaism is also an interesting issue, about which I know little. It would be fascinating to sort this all out.
Related to that, I wish I could say more also about the relationship of the Old and New Testaments, or Covenants. In one sense, surely, there is only ONE covenant between God and men by which they are saved, and even Abraham, if saved, as we believe, is saved by Christ (as Christ attests that Abraham saw His day and rejoiced, Jn. 8:56). Yet multiple distinctions can be made between various individual covenants as well between God and Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., down to the time of Jesus. I do believe that the Church is the New Israel, that there is no other salvific 'covenant' independent of that one covenant in Christ's blood. But I haven't begun to sort all this out. Meredith Kline, I recall, had some good material on this, though I haven't read it.
Dear Dr. Scott Hahn wrote a pretty good book re Covenants (drawing upon the work of the Church Fathers ( I read it but can't find it today) essentially depicting various covenants from Adam and Eve to Families to tribes a nation to the universal covenant; that is, each succeeding covenant represented a Divinely-Directed Covenantal system that included ever more people than previous covenants- and not just Jews.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I think it was James Bruen (sp?) who first observed that Abram was an ante-semite
Is this what celibacy produces?
ReplyDeleteNo, Anonymous, this is what sexually-active disordered dispositions produce, which is why sexual abuse of minors is even slightly more common among married Protestant clergy. Celibacy is a requirement of Roman clergy, and for the vast majority of priests faithful to their vows and vocation, it is a blessing to the Church and to themselves. But you would have to search beyond the drive-by media to learn that.
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. 'zactly.
ReplyDeleteThe rate of sex crimes in protestant communities is higher than that in the One, True, Church but both pale in comparison to the sex crimes committed in the public school system - but, lawyers cant sue, say, the creep clown who is Mayor of New York, or Obama, as the ultimate head of the public school system so nobody really gives a crap
Celibacy is not the cause of the vice of Lust, it is a virtue, the practice of which is the antidote of Lust. but in a crummy country ruled by the Price of the world, inversion of truth is what one expects