That won't happen as long as the pope and most of the voting members of the Church hierarchy are members of the Lavender Mafia. Because the laity are not "voting" members, their voices are not heard and their objections are ignored as long as they continue to "pay, pray, and obey." You need to STOP putting money into your parish collection baskets with a note, "I will continue supporting the Church only after abusive and sexually promiscuous bishops and priests are laicized or excommunicated."
This suggestion always annoys me for the silliness of the naivete; it's a very American response. People who object to all the shenanigans are normal Mass-going regular folk, but they're not funding all the s's. The fiver you pop into the collection basket isn't paying for McCarrick's flights to China or the Holy office rent-boy-and-cocaine parties. They're paying for the parish to get the plumbing fixed. The diocesan tax doesn't make it to Rome either. The money doesn't come from us. In Rome it comes from real estate holdings the Church has had since Charlemagne. In DC it comes from McCarrick's globalist billionaire friends.
It also come from Catholic Charities whose bishops reap in the cash from the so called resettlement and clinics for illegal immigrants under the title Faith Based money that bush baby put into practice.
It is paying for the continuation of the false veneer of respectability and competence and functionality (right down to stuff like the parish plumbing) that the corrupt bishops and priests enjoy in the eyes of normal Mass-going regular folk. Is that a good thing? Is that an acceptable indirect participation in evil? Or do the normal Mass-going regular folk need to wake up? I'm not sure. I can't see it's just a matter of silly naivete.
Like marriage is not also a corrupted institution. No. The solution is to demand that Humanae Vitae be preached every week for the fifty years it wasn't. And to annul every oxymoronic homosex priest. Homosex priests are a thumb in the eye of married couples trying to be chaste.
As a former Episcopalian, I can tell you that the problem is not married clergy, but the fact that the episcopal church, having abandoned any ties to actual Christianity, has been flooded with homosexual men and women who are welcomed into ordained ministry with open arms. My prediction is that their "priests" will be primarily lesbians in 20 years, but there will be no Episcopal Church left by then. A denomination that regards abortion as quasi-sacred has np future. In the days when the Episcopal Church was still Christian, there were very few scandals.
It is perfectly obvious that that is neither a solution, nor (even if it was) would it be simple. You'd be better off saying, "The solution is simple. Stop sinning, and start obeying the commandments." That too would be a stupidly simplistic proposal, but it at least has the virtue of not also being either simply false, or at least violently question-begging.
I've never quite understood this position. If you are a normal guy and are forced to be celibate to be a priest, why would you go behind the back of the Church to rape children? Wouldn't you instead go behind the back of the Church to have consensual sex with adult women?
If you were forced to be celibate for whatever reason, or freely chose it yourself, would you become a pedophile?
Most U.S. born priests today are closeted homosexuals. They are not interested in consensual sex with women. No more than 5% of clerical sex abuse involved pedophilia. Over 80% involves ephebophilia (sex with adolescents between 11 & 19). 73% of gay men admit to having had sex with an adolescent. That’s why the Boy Scouts have a similar problem now that, like the Catholic Church, they allowed gays to be Scoutmasters. Consequently, as long as you allow gays to be priests, you should expect 73% of them to be coming on to teenage boys like Pope Francis did with Jesuit novices in Argentina; like McCarrick did in the US., and like any number of other gay bishops and priests are doing at this very moment. Just remember that most of those gay predator clerics were preyed upon and groomed when they were young. They are abusing young men and boys just like a boy who witnesses his father abusing his mother my then go on to abuse his wife when he gets married. It’s called, “passing the tradition on.”
More to the point: If you are a normal guy and not forced to become either celibate or a priest, and you didn't want to be celibate, why would you become a priest, if that meant you were forced to be celibate? (Then again, it's no more 'normal' to want to become a priest than it is to want to be celibate... so maybe we should go full-Prot and abjure the divine institution of the priesthood?? Or why not just clean the slate and say God doesn't really exist and Jesus was just an interesting historical figure, while we're at it??)
To date, silence, just like Francis who did not respond to allegations that he had sex with Jesuit novices in Argentina. They feel they are above the law and don’t answer to anyone.
This article makes abundantly clear to the world that homosexual clergy are on the rise. The homosexual bishops are the very clergy eho decades ago equated homosexual relations with the relations experienced between s as married man and woman. If homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, then which of the two male homosexual lovers is to imitate the wife by being impregnated
The ecclesiastical bishops have destroyed the faith of millions of Catholics without even one serious expression of shared clerical opposition to this pretense that homosexual and heterosexual love are the same. Really? Ever meet an impregnated man? Interesting question? What would you say? !
Utterly disgusting! No wonder my two children are no longer to be seen inside a church, nor have they ever brought their own children to church! They simply don’t trust any clerics. So sad!
He was long suspected as being the gatekeeper in the Maciel affair. It was only after Dr Wanda Poltawska made an end run around him (being a personal friend of John Paul II) that the truth seeped through to the conned pope). She was much maligned with the standard LC whisper campaign afterwards. Of course, the truth eventually came out…
I befriended JP II before he was elected pope when we met in Rome. I have no reason to look for dirt where it doesn't exist. However, I later learned that Philadelphia Cardinal Krol hand carried Father Tom Doyle's Sex Report to him in 1985 and a report sent to him in Polish from a Polish Buffalo Seminarian about abusive Auxuilary Bishop Grosz and other predator Buffalo priests was not acted upon but returned to the predator senior clergy who got rid of the Polish seminarian. Ironically, that seminarian was inspired to become a priest because of JP II.
Not good. I was wondering if Hilary had anything specific on the Maciel case. I guess my understanding there was the old story of he said, she said, and JPII chose to believe that evil/misguided people were trying to slander Maciel -- as I gather often does happen (i.e., slander) too. So perhaps there is no question, he was aware of allegations, but the question is whether he has any excuse for the way that he handled those allegations. (For instance, did he really 'know' they were accurate/credible but ignored them anyway? Or was he somehow a dupe, convinced it couldn't be true?)
While there is a lot of well justified attention on religious authorities, I would be surprised if similar levels of depravity didn't materialize if we gave the same attention to other professions with authority over children (teachers, police, doctors, lawyers, social workers, etc).
These psychopaths aren't drawn to the Church per se, but to power over children. Indeed, as the abuse in the Church has become such a scandal and most churches have enacted (in some cases absurdly overreaching) safe church policies, I have no doubt that the psychopaths would actively choose those other powerful professions, as it makes staying in the shadows easier.
"Safe Church" policies are not just absurdly overreaching, they're complete BS, seems to me. They're about as credible as "Safe Spaces" at universities.
Thank you for this report, which makes the reporting Michael Voris used to do on Church MilkToast pale by comparison. At this point, I have no doubt that the Catholic hierarchy is a systemic mess of corruption, dominated by a Lavender Mafia, who are just playing clerics. God help us when all this is finally exposed and people wake up.
You are "echoing "what I said in the past. In a recent email to the editor of Complicit Clergy who was contacted by someone who questioned the veracity of my article on Cardinal Dziwisz and Wieslaw Walawender, I wrote, "You are probably familiar with Father Darius Oko who teaches at the seminary in Krakow. He has suffered much for exposing clerical homosexual behavior. My sources say that he believes Polish clergy know about Dziwisz, his homosexual orientation, and his relationship with Nardotto, just like many U.S. bishops and priests knew for years about McCarrick's 'thing' for seminarians and young priests. Remember what Bishop Lopes said, 'Everyone knew'."
It wasn't just clergy. Anyone involved in the Catholic media knew as well, both McCarrick and Dziwisz. And please, let's just get ahead of the exhausted "JPII couldn't have known" tropes. Enough of that.
If all this is true, this is disappointing, disturbing, depressing.
How has the Cardinal responded?
In fact, how do we know the ground truth of all these allegations? What if this is a massive character assassination campaign against the Cardinal?
And I disagree with Pope Francis in a number of things, some of which are serious. But this allegation of abuse against him? What are the facts and where can they be found?
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence and I see none here.
Hey, I’m jaded and no longer impressed by our human capacity for evil, even among those who should know better, those we were raised to show great respect.
But as an analyst by trade, I need more facts: who, what, where, when, why, and how. I hope and pray that as a professional yourself you may be able to provided them at your earliest convenience.
Who, what, when, etc. are very important questions which I ask. Also, I don't usually rely upon one source. It's like abuse cases. If you say I abused you when you were my altar boy, and I deny it, then it's your word against my word. However, if Billy and Bobby come forth and say that I abused them too in another parish, then your allegation is going to be taken far more seriously. Vigano came forward with allegations from Jesuit novices who were different from the Jesuit source I have who alleges that Bergoglio sodomized a Jesuit novice positioned on a chair in Cordoba. My source cannot come forward because he is still a priest and he would suffer the fate of Vigano or Strickland if he went public. Like the 12 seminarians and priests whom Richard Sipe interviewed, their "John Doe" identities were kept private for fear of retaliation. If you break confidence, no one will ever confide in you as a journalist or a priest. I was also given information about one of the groomed Jesuit novices who left the Jesuit Order and is very active in the Buenos Aires LGBTQ community. Like priests who were groomed in the seminary and became active homosexuals, they rarely reveal who introduced them to gay sex in the seminary because that person often became a close friend. I found no reason for the former Jesuit to invent the story about Bergoglio in Cordoba. It was not like Bergoglio did him in and he is inventing allegations to defame him. Consider the fact that I don't know any bishop or priest who would argue that Francis is heterosexually oriented. Straight guys don't surround themselves with known gay guys like Ricca, Fernandez, Martin, etc. Insofar as 73% of gay men have acknowledged having had sex with 11-19-year-old adolescents, it should not be surprising that Francis may be guilty of the allegations that both Vigano and I received. I cannot say exactly how many "John Dow" former novices are known to Vigano. Remember, Francis is only one of a number of popes accused not only of being a homosexual, but also of having preyed on minors and vulnerable adults like Pope Leo X and Julius III who had sex with with 15-year-old Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte whom he made a cardinal at the age of 17. You may not have pictures of two men having sex, but if you see them hanging out in gay bars and affectionately leaving with someone at night, might you be led to believe that they are sexually active gay men even without hard-core photographic evidence? If I'm married and you accuse me of having sex with a woman in the neighborhood, if I'm innocent I'm going to deny it and go after the person who started the false rumor. If I'm guilty, however, and if I know someone may have proof, then I'll be inclined to take the 5th. Francis never denied the allegations and has never returned to Argentina where there is a lot of "dirt" on him, some of which was documented by French filmmaker and investigative journalist, Martin Boudot.
As far as Dziwisz is concerned, I am 100% sure that he covered up abuse that was reported to him personally, some of which took place in the US, and one incident that took place in the Marriott Hotel in Krakow. I met Karol Wojtyla when he was a cardinal, and I only met Dziwisz after Karol was elected pope. JP II was definitely straight and Dziwisz was as gay as John Magee, the personal secretary for Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. Dziwisz's relationship with his Italian boyfriend is no different than Msgr. Battista Ricca's relationship was with Patrick Haari in Uruguay. Catholics need to accept that, at any given moment in time, no more than half of all Roman Catholic clerics lead celibate lives. So, why should people be surprised when a priest or bishop is accused of being sexually involved with someone? And to answer your question, my sources in Poland report that he has not denied the allegations about his homosexual relationship or that he purchased a very expensive apartment for his Italian partner. As I wrote, I'm not surprised that he is involved in a homosexual relationship (which at his age may not involve much sex), but I am upset with the evidence I have that he destroyed the vocation and life of former seminarian Wieslaw Walawender whose life you can read about at www.gomulka.net/Walawender.pdf
I think you are spot on with your observations.
The solution is simple. Stop pretending that celibacy was ever a good idea, and start ordaining married men.
Maybe a great first step would be stop ordaining open and out perverts?
That won't happen as long as the pope and most of the voting members of the Church hierarchy are members of the Lavender Mafia. Because the laity are not "voting" members, their voices are not heard and their objections are ignored as long as they continue to "pay, pray, and obey." You need to STOP putting money into your parish collection baskets with a note, "I will continue supporting the Church only after abusive and sexually promiscuous bishops and priests are laicized or excommunicated."
This suggestion always annoys me for the silliness of the naivete; it's a very American response. People who object to all the shenanigans are normal Mass-going regular folk, but they're not funding all the s's. The fiver you pop into the collection basket isn't paying for McCarrick's flights to China or the Holy office rent-boy-and-cocaine parties. They're paying for the parish to get the plumbing fixed. The diocesan tax doesn't make it to Rome either. The money doesn't come from us. In Rome it comes from real estate holdings the Church has had since Charlemagne. In DC it comes from McCarrick's globalist billionaire friends.
It also come from Catholic Charities whose bishops reap in the cash from the so called resettlement and clinics for illegal immigrants under the title Faith Based money that bush baby put into practice.
It is paying for the continuation of the false veneer of respectability and competence and functionality (right down to stuff like the parish plumbing) that the corrupt bishops and priests enjoy in the eyes of normal Mass-going regular folk. Is that a good thing? Is that an acceptable indirect participation in evil? Or do the normal Mass-going regular folk need to wake up? I'm not sure. I can't see it's just a matter of silly naivete.
I think you summarized it perfectly.
Like marriage is not also a corrupted institution. No. The solution is to demand that Humanae Vitae be preached every week for the fifty years it wasn't. And to annul every oxymoronic homosex priest. Homosex priests are a thumb in the eye of married couples trying to be chaste.
Yeah, that’s why the Episcopal Church is not only scandal-free, but also the fastest growing ecclesial body in the world today…
No, wait…
As a former Episcopalian, I can tell you that the problem is not married clergy, but the fact that the episcopal church, having abandoned any ties to actual Christianity, has been flooded with homosexual men and women who are welcomed into ordained ministry with open arms. My prediction is that their "priests" will be primarily lesbians in 20 years, but there will be no Episcopal Church left by then. A denomination that regards abortion as quasi-sacred has np future. In the days when the Episcopal Church was still Christian, there were very few scandals.
It is perfectly obvious that that is neither a solution, nor (even if it was) would it be simple. You'd be better off saying, "The solution is simple. Stop sinning, and start obeying the commandments." That too would be a stupidly simplistic proposal, but it at least has the virtue of not also being either simply false, or at least violently question-begging.
I've never quite understood this position. If you are a normal guy and are forced to be celibate to be a priest, why would you go behind the back of the Church to rape children? Wouldn't you instead go behind the back of the Church to have consensual sex with adult women?
If you were forced to be celibate for whatever reason, or freely chose it yourself, would you become a pedophile?
Most U.S. born priests today are closeted homosexuals. They are not interested in consensual sex with women. No more than 5% of clerical sex abuse involved pedophilia. Over 80% involves ephebophilia (sex with adolescents between 11 & 19). 73% of gay men admit to having had sex with an adolescent. That’s why the Boy Scouts have a similar problem now that, like the Catholic Church, they allowed gays to be Scoutmasters. Consequently, as long as you allow gays to be priests, you should expect 73% of them to be coming on to teenage boys like Pope Francis did with Jesuit novices in Argentina; like McCarrick did in the US., and like any number of other gay bishops and priests are doing at this very moment. Just remember that most of those gay predator clerics were preyed upon and groomed when they were young. They are abusing young men and boys just like a boy who witnesses his father abusing his mother my then go on to abuse his wife when he gets married. It’s called, “passing the tradition on.”
More to the point: If you are a normal guy and not forced to become either celibate or a priest, and you didn't want to be celibate, why would you become a priest, if that meant you were forced to be celibate? (Then again, it's no more 'normal' to want to become a priest than it is to want to be celibate... so maybe we should go full-Prot and abjure the divine institution of the priesthood?? Or why not just clean the slate and say God doesn't really exist and Jesus was just an interesting historical figure, while we're at it??)
To date, silence, just like Francis who did not respond to allegations that he had sex with Jesuit novices in Argentina. They feel they are above the law and don’t answer to anyone.
This article makes abundantly clear to the world that homosexual clergy are on the rise. The homosexual bishops are the very clergy eho decades ago equated homosexual relations with the relations experienced between s as married man and woman. If homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, then which of the two male homosexual lovers is to imitate the wife by being impregnated
The ecclesiastical bishops have destroyed the faith of millions of Catholics without even one serious expression of shared clerical opposition to this pretense that homosexual and heterosexual love are the same. Really? Ever meet an impregnated man? Interesting question? What would you say? !
Utterly disgusting! No wonder my two children are no longer to be seen inside a church, nor have they ever brought their own children to church! They simply don’t trust any clerics. So sad!
He was long suspected as being the gatekeeper in the Maciel affair. It was only after Dr Wanda Poltawska made an end run around him (being a personal friend of John Paul II) that the truth seeped through to the conned pope). She was much maligned with the standard LC whisper campaign afterwards. Of course, the truth eventually came out…
oh please... We're still playing the "He didn't know" game?
So he did know? Evidence? Proof? (I've never heard either way what the truth of the matter is on this.)
I befriended JP II before he was elected pope when we met in Rome. I have no reason to look for dirt where it doesn't exist. However, I later learned that Philadelphia Cardinal Krol hand carried Father Tom Doyle's Sex Report to him in 1985 and a report sent to him in Polish from a Polish Buffalo Seminarian about abusive Auxuilary Bishop Grosz and other predator Buffalo priests was not acted upon but returned to the predator senior clergy who got rid of the Polish seminarian. Ironically, that seminarian was inspired to become a priest because of JP II.
Not good. I was wondering if Hilary had anything specific on the Maciel case. I guess my understanding there was the old story of he said, she said, and JPII chose to believe that evil/misguided people were trying to slander Maciel -- as I gather often does happen (i.e., slander) too. So perhaps there is no question, he was aware of allegations, but the question is whether he has any excuse for the way that he handled those allegations. (For instance, did he really 'know' they were accurate/credible but ignored them anyway? Or was he somehow a dupe, convinced it couldn't be true?)
While there is a lot of well justified attention on religious authorities, I would be surprised if similar levels of depravity didn't materialize if we gave the same attention to other professions with authority over children (teachers, police, doctors, lawyers, social workers, etc).
These psychopaths aren't drawn to the Church per se, but to power over children. Indeed, as the abuse in the Church has become such a scandal and most churches have enacted (in some cases absurdly overreaching) safe church policies, I have no doubt that the psychopaths would actively choose those other powerful professions, as it makes staying in the shadows easier.
"Safe Church" policies are not just absurdly overreaching, they're complete BS, seems to me. They're about as credible as "Safe Spaces" at universities.
I totally agree
It’s said that culture is downstream from religion. If true, then the culture won’t heal from this demonic homosexual scourge until the Church does.
This is so well written and documented…the scourge of pedophilia is far more systematic than the Church, though the Church has been targeted…
Thank you for this report, which makes the reporting Michael Voris used to do on Church MilkToast pale by comparison. At this point, I have no doubt that the Catholic hierarchy is a systemic mess of corruption, dominated by a Lavender Mafia, who are just playing clerics. God help us when all this is finally exposed and people wake up.
How is this even news? Everyone in Rome has known this for decades. It's like saying you didn't know about McCarrick; everyone knew.
You are "echoing "what I said in the past. In a recent email to the editor of Complicit Clergy who was contacted by someone who questioned the veracity of my article on Cardinal Dziwisz and Wieslaw Walawender, I wrote, "You are probably familiar with Father Darius Oko who teaches at the seminary in Krakow. He has suffered much for exposing clerical homosexual behavior. My sources say that he believes Polish clergy know about Dziwisz, his homosexual orientation, and his relationship with Nardotto, just like many U.S. bishops and priests knew for years about McCarrick's 'thing' for seminarians and young priests. Remember what Bishop Lopes said, 'Everyone knew'."
It wasn't just clergy. Anyone involved in the Catholic media knew as well, both McCarrick and Dziwisz. And please, let's just get ahead of the exhausted "JPII couldn't have known" tropes. Enough of that.
If all this is true, this is disappointing, disturbing, depressing.
How has the Cardinal responded?
In fact, how do we know the ground truth of all these allegations? What if this is a massive character assassination campaign against the Cardinal?
And I disagree with Pope Francis in a number of things, some of which are serious. But this allegation of abuse against him? What are the facts and where can they be found?
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence and I see none here.
Hey, I’m jaded and no longer impressed by our human capacity for evil, even among those who should know better, those we were raised to show great respect.
But as an analyst by trade, I need more facts: who, what, where, when, why, and how. I hope and pray that as a professional yourself you may be able to provided them at your earliest convenience.
Who, what, when, etc. are very important questions which I ask. Also, I don't usually rely upon one source. It's like abuse cases. If you say I abused you when you were my altar boy, and I deny it, then it's your word against my word. However, if Billy and Bobby come forth and say that I abused them too in another parish, then your allegation is going to be taken far more seriously. Vigano came forward with allegations from Jesuit novices who were different from the Jesuit source I have who alleges that Bergoglio sodomized a Jesuit novice positioned on a chair in Cordoba. My source cannot come forward because he is still a priest and he would suffer the fate of Vigano or Strickland if he went public. Like the 12 seminarians and priests whom Richard Sipe interviewed, their "John Doe" identities were kept private for fear of retaliation. If you break confidence, no one will ever confide in you as a journalist or a priest. I was also given information about one of the groomed Jesuit novices who left the Jesuit Order and is very active in the Buenos Aires LGBTQ community. Like priests who were groomed in the seminary and became active homosexuals, they rarely reveal who introduced them to gay sex in the seminary because that person often became a close friend. I found no reason for the former Jesuit to invent the story about Bergoglio in Cordoba. It was not like Bergoglio did him in and he is inventing allegations to defame him. Consider the fact that I don't know any bishop or priest who would argue that Francis is heterosexually oriented. Straight guys don't surround themselves with known gay guys like Ricca, Fernandez, Martin, etc. Insofar as 73% of gay men have acknowledged having had sex with 11-19-year-old adolescents, it should not be surprising that Francis may be guilty of the allegations that both Vigano and I received. I cannot say exactly how many "John Dow" former novices are known to Vigano. Remember, Francis is only one of a number of popes accused not only of being a homosexual, but also of having preyed on minors and vulnerable adults like Pope Leo X and Julius III who had sex with with 15-year-old Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte whom he made a cardinal at the age of 17. You may not have pictures of two men having sex, but if you see them hanging out in gay bars and affectionately leaving with someone at night, might you be led to believe that they are sexually active gay men even without hard-core photographic evidence? If I'm married and you accuse me of having sex with a woman in the neighborhood, if I'm innocent I'm going to deny it and go after the person who started the false rumor. If I'm guilty, however, and if I know someone may have proof, then I'll be inclined to take the 5th. Francis never denied the allegations and has never returned to Argentina where there is a lot of "dirt" on him, some of which was documented by French filmmaker and investigative journalist, Martin Boudot.
As far as Dziwisz is concerned, I am 100% sure that he covered up abuse that was reported to him personally, some of which took place in the US, and one incident that took place in the Marriott Hotel in Krakow. I met Karol Wojtyla when he was a cardinal, and I only met Dziwisz after Karol was elected pope. JP II was definitely straight and Dziwisz was as gay as John Magee, the personal secretary for Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. Dziwisz's relationship with his Italian boyfriend is no different than Msgr. Battista Ricca's relationship was with Patrick Haari in Uruguay. Catholics need to accept that, at any given moment in time, no more than half of all Roman Catholic clerics lead celibate lives. So, why should people be surprised when a priest or bishop is accused of being sexually involved with someone? And to answer your question, my sources in Poland report that he has not denied the allegations about his homosexual relationship or that he purchased a very expensive apartment for his Italian partner. As I wrote, I'm not surprised that he is involved in a homosexual relationship (which at his age may not involve much sex), but I am upset with the evidence I have that he destroyed the vocation and life of former seminarian Wieslaw Walawender whose life you can read about at www.gomulka.net/Walawender.pdf
Got it. Much better. I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
Time to hit the catacombs I guess, because I ain’t leaving the Church.