Rorate Caeli

Unsettling events in Rome

The Italian newsweekly Panorama reports [caution: graphic picture] in this week's issue: C.B., the high-ranking Monsignor employed at the Secretariat of State and caught by the police in a region known in Rome for its problematic male and transexual prostitutuion (first post here) has been fired and confined to a Benedictine abbey until further notice.

Panorama also reports late developments of two other embarrassing cases of homosexual behavior of clerics in Rome: that of Marco Agostini, now elected to the provincial government of his order, and the following case:

The Vatican webmasters have succeeded in expelling from the service of the Holy See, two weeks before Easter, three priests who spent their time surfing through gay [sic] pornographic websites.

One of them, who practiced his favorite activity from a PC in the department of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, after the involuntary "outing", lives happily with a Roman restorer [ristoratore, male]. And he says to everyone that he fell in disgrace only due to the jealosy of those for whom he had shown no interest.
_________________________
[P.S. We do not enjoy reporting such news; but, since it was published in an Italian news outlet usually considered reliable, to remain silent and to pretend that the problem does not exist did not seem to be the best option.]

18 comments:

Screwtape said...

Well, when in Rome, do what the Romans do!

Monk of Emmaus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Monk of Emmaus said...

The Church has a problem with discipline and right living, not homosexuality. The inclination and the practice of homosexuality have always been present in the Church, but when we remove religious discipline and the right ordering of life (as has happened in the secular priesthood and religious life since Vatican II in order to allow us to "return to the sources"), the vacuum that is left for those who no longer spend long hours in regular prayer is filled too easily with activity not in keeping with the christian vocation.

History, and the Spirit, teach us, that reform of religious life follows lax following of religious rules. The big difference in our time was that the laxness was introduced by the Church leaders in offical ways, and now it is encumbant on them to lead the reform.

Simon-Peter said...

Monk:

This (below) is taken from a letter I JUST received from a friend of mine. He was NOT talking about this, er, "incident" but was being more general.

"[This] in sum, is what we lay people have to contend with and I fault the confusion for all this on the bishops of the past 40 years for corrupting the monasteries and convents and seminaries and all fountains of good philosophy and therefore theology. Also, by corrupting the monastic life they killed the one life line all bishops had to the Faith -- the prayers of these contemplatives. Thus, they were left without protection against the Modernist attacks and most succumbed.

Have you ever read Fr. Bryan Houghton's books?...[spectacular] commentaries on the pre-post conciliar Church. He states that ours is firstly a crisis of prayer, not theology. He points out that all Council Fathers were men of solid theology, or at least had learned in the great seminaries of the pre-conciliar Church. So how come these are the ones who made all the bad decisions? Lack of prayer. They had lost that Benedictine, Trappist or Carthusian ability to contemplate, to see Christ as the actor and not themselves."

AmemusAthanasium said...

This is indeed a very sad message, but homosexuality is a scourge of those who do not follow the narrow path of the orthodox and Roman Catholic Faith in perfect continuity ánd unity with Tradition.

How come I only see a handful of scandals of traditionalist priests as to this issue?

How come virtually all criminal acts of pedophilia by clergymen are of homosexual nature and commmitted to puberal boys and adolescent boys? How come there has been such an enormous increase in pedophilia scandals after 1967 and especially in the 1970s and 1980s (afterwards the churches would empty and thus the possible preys and predators were in less contact)? How come? It secularism, sexual liberation of the May 1968 generation in the Church, false psychology, false theology, and the homosexual infiltration of the clergy.

How come the SSPX has no such scandals of pedophilia and homosexuality? Yes. They filter their seminarians. They screen them. They condemn homosexuality in practice, observe tendencies revealing such aberrant sexual behaviour in social contacts.

Indeed, the sanctifying influence of the true Sacraments is gone. How come we have only so little Eastern rite Catholic clergymen drowning in sexual scandals?

Yes. It is clear: St. Paul writes, that God delivers men to sexual acts contrary to nature because they stray from the straight path and come to adhere to errors. Be they moral or doctrinal errors. They are errors and they go hand in hand.

However, we should note, that homosexuality is, though rampant among Latin rite clergymen, a general disease in Western society, sometimes a genetical defect, sometimes a psychological complex. It's not homosexual tendencies themselves which are sinful of course, and those struggling with those tendencies need our appreciation and encouragement.

But having Vatican clergymen living together and living in public sin to such an extent, is just another indication of the severe crisis. And yes, it is worse than the secret maîtresse of Alexander VI. She was a woman at least, and he hid her. Now it's contrary to nature and out in the open. So unfortunately for them "Cardinal" Martini did not become the Roman Pontiff, but an ethically orthodox clergyman from Bavaria, the land of the Patrona Bavaria Our Lady of Altötting.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Sorry: the SSPX had a recent scandal in early 2005 too. A Bordeaux stationed, but now expelled and laicized SSPX Priest was accused, with the help of the SSPX superiors themselves after they were convinced of the truth of the complaints, of having sexually harrassed a woman in her 20s, to whom he felt attracted.

He was expelled. Well, the SSPX knows how to deal with such cases at least. And these sollicitations and sexual movements at least were directed towards a woman, however sinful they might have been.

I do not want to talk about the Fr. Urrigoity case, which is scandalous and which the SSPX tried to prevent, as they informed Bishop Timlin of Scranton of the homosexual and puberal sexualism of that "SSJ".

Monk of Emmaus said...

AmemusAthanasium, you have said "Indeed, the sanctifying influence of the true Sacraments is gone."

This is not acceptable language for a Catholic: Jesus is truly present - body, blood, soul and divinity - in the Holy Eucharist at every Catholic Mass. Jesus is forever sanctifying His Church. Let us genuflect before Him.

Sometimes when we look superficially we see too much of Satan in the Church and miss the real presence of Jesus the Lord. It is true there is much immoral activity amongst those who are called to govern the Church - the priesthood - but it happens because there is not enough prayer in their lives.

If the life of a priest is regulated by prayer, study and service, there is no time for immoral activity: the Lord keeps the priest on the narrow path. But when the priestly life is reduced to a daily mass, if that, and the church remains closed to all other devotional activities, how does a priest fill his time? It needs to be regulated.

Another thought I put forward; it is my firm belief that occasions of sin (and therefore of abuse) are minimised if a priest is wearing his cassock or habit. Quite frankly it is not the sort of attire you can wear in a gay bar or a crusing park; and it can keep one from buying those adult magazines in the newspaper stands. It encourages a form of outward behaviour appropriate to one's public profession.

The issue is priestly and religious discipline.

In my experience, the traditional orders attract as many (if indeed not more) men with homosexual inclinations, but they lead ordered lives of prayer, study and service, and this makes them different from many or the older conformed orders, where a laissez-faire approach to the religious and priestly life has been adopted.

Homosexual orientation, although not part of God's order, is His firm and clear call on one's life to live as a eunuch for and in the Kingdom. Perhaps if we are to use different language, we might persuade people of our love for gay people and our belief that God has a plan for their lives.

Let us demand of our priests litugical and sacramental ministry to the extent that they govern and serve their people so fully they do not have the time for double lives!

Simon-Peter said...

"Another thought I put forward; it is my firm belief that occasions of sin (and therefore of abuse) are minimised if a priest is wearing his cassock or habit. Quite frankly it is not the sort of attire you can wear in a gay bar or a crusing park; and it can keep one from buying those adult magazines in the newspaper stands. It encourages a form of outward behaviour appropriate to one's public profession."

Absolutely agree. This was one of those things that utterly scandalized me when I converted. Lets call it like it is, shall we, many are ASHAMED per se, and others prefer to go all blacked up 'cos they're up to no good in the heat of the night.

It is not all for their good either (to wear their soldiers uniform when they are on duty, which is ALL THE TIME).

Think of all the convicting of sin that might be going on, all the folks brought up short, all the opportunities for someone to approach a priest or religious on an impulse that might othwerise be lost in the satanic interdict shuffle.

However they dress it up (and we all know the rationalizations) it amounts to this: bloody cowardice and attraction to unseemly (not even sinful) behavior that they wish to enage in in public without being seen: they clearly think God is blind too.

Just like married men who slip it off and rub the (visible)indentation away (if they can) as they slide into the bar seat ordering a whisky sour and casting sidelong glances at all the other unhappy people.

NO TV for priests, not one minute. What is a priest doing watching TV anyway?

Screwtape said...

My first sarcastic entry I thought might preclude any discussion.

Others have indicated it, but I'll say it outright: the Monk is off the road, never mind precisely to where.

The problem IS homosexuality; which, again, I'll maintain is a misnomer inasmuch as all men are male and sexual beings, hence . . . homosexual. The better term is homosodomite.

I've been employed in a number of professions where homosodomites proliferate and if anyone thinks it can in any way be considered "right living" (which Monk intimates by his false distinction) they are so wrong it hurts.

The proclivity has always been present? Well, the proclivity has also, until now, been weeded out (not all can be discovered in time).

All by its ownsome, the inclination and/or practice in question is a moral and psychological tragedy.

Most of these wretches went into the seminary BECAUSE they had access to other males - just as many go into the armed services for the same reason (I've been there, too.)

If you want to set the wagon straight on the road again (no pun intended), it's wise to put the horse back in front of the cart and keep it there.

Simon-Peter said...

SAM:

Actually, I was thinking when in Rome do what the Greeks do.

Just got back from the pet store and there they were, two flamers with their dachsunds: all neat and tidy they were (the flamers and the dogs), one too fat for his clothes, one with prematurely grey hair, and all of them thar clothes all around both boys were nice 'n' a bit too tight tight. A few days before in the grocery store with the chillun up comes a flamer looking like a cross between something from the Blue Oyster Bar (cf Police Academy I) and Brokeback Mountain: I wanted to vomit.

Were these men priests?

Could you imagine if thieves advertized their "issue" in like manner? Can I next expect to see gaggles of men strutting around in hooped shirts and masks with swinging bags emblazoned with "swag"?

I am confused by the complete lack of tolerance shown to thieves. Is this not genetic? Theft, not the lack of tolerance I mean.

Did someone steal something from them when they were younger? Were they lured into stealng by someone older with promises of fulfillment and personal autonomy? Was it really the excitement of the forbidden and not the objects stolen that caused and continues to cause their fall? Did they begin with penny chews, move onto Grandma Johnsons apple pie cooling on the windowsill only to end up hot-wiring old big block Mustangs for fun on a Saturday night?

Where is the compassion for the thief? I know, apples and, er grapefruit? Right?

Is it a special cross for them to become honest injuns for the Kingdom of God when all their being screams "stick it in the till and pull out a handful of cash"???? I think it must be, and one of their own making: we all have our particular issues, n'est pas?

I have mine, some I am sent, some I have made and now must bear up until relieved. Most men have some sort of thorn in the flesh. I would never ask anyone to call my sins virtues. I accept what the Church (God) says about me and I accept it gratefully as the loving, the charitable truth. There is nothing so lame as seeing people flip through a medical dictionary trying self-diagnosis. It is even lamer when it comes to the sickness that afflicts the soul. For the former may only kill the body, the latter will almost certainly destroy the soul and is to be feared.

Are thieves objectively disordered? Are they psychologically impaired in some way? Is a sodomite the equivalent of kleptomanic thief, or some sort of burglar?

Are thieves mentally ill, or just some of them? Does their attraction to other peoples property still demonstrate a true appreciation -- albeit a weak one -- of property rights?

I suppose I draw the line at turning sodomy into the sin du jour, as it were. No, I accuse no one HERE of doing that, not at all.

Would our action / reaction be different if the issue was rampant theft and simony in the priesthood? I don't know, would it?

Anyway, because I am unsure of my sexuality I am off to 1. Kiss the wife, 2. drink a real good 6.7% India Pale Ale with ridiculous hops and 3. eat some meat and potatoes and onions (with some scotch bonnet peppers on the side).

michigancatholic said...

monk,

We have a problem with BOTH lack of discipline AND homosexuality. Homosexual acts are soundly condemned in Scripture. Clergy should not be engaging in them--EVER.

You, if you are a monk, should surely know that if I a lowly layperson like me does. Get off it.

michigancatholic said...

ABSOLUTELY, homosexuals should NOT be ordained. They cannot be fathers. They cannot be spouses of the Church.

This homosexualization of the clergy is where these scandals come from. What a mess.

michigancatholic said...

ABSOLUTELY, homosexuals should NOT be ordained. They cannot be fathers. They cannot be spouses of the Church.

This homosexualization of the clergy is where these scandals come from. What a mess.

Screwtape said...

S-P and MC:

I am grateful for the confirmation, and that I'm not alone in this apparently futile fight.

There is at least something to be said for thieves: there is said to be honor among them. I can't say the same for sodomites - when I was the ripe old age of nine years, a sailor tried to seduce me on a Greyhound bus. Thank God my mother was waiting at the station.

Actually, in all my experience with sodomites (don't take that too literally) I have known some (don't take that literally) who are very nice and decent when it comes to social relations (don't take that too literally) with we heteroes. But they are the exception.

Yes, the Greeks were probably first, but then there were types like Caligula - I think we should start a movement for endorsing those who rape and then disembowel their sisters. Fairness is fairness.

I lived for ten years in San Francisco and saw all the versions S-P describes and then some. After the opera, one Halloween night, my wife and I ended up dining at Pam Pam East on Geary Street because it was the only place open. You'd thunk the seminary had just let out. The bags were flying for me and my pal.

All of the homosodomites I've come across in my peregrinations through various areas of employment have been Christ haters. I am absolutely convinced that those "in" the Church are anti-Christ as well.

Apropos of thievery, I recommend a very early movie starring a young Paul Muni. It is about an innocent man who was driven by circumstances to a sinful occupation. The last scene is stunning: when the main character's wife looks at him and asks how he gets by, Muni looks directly into the camera and says "I steal." I Was A Fugitive From A Chain Gang.

I could satirically paraphrase for homosodomites, but this is a family audience.

Jeff said...

It's nice to see Rome FIRING people who surf homosexual websites. In my diocese, we suspend the priests who report it.

Monk of Emmaus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

"It's nice to see Rome FIRING people who surf homosexual websites."

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

Two items:

1) If they fired them all, who would run Rome?

2) Yours sounds like a diocese just begging for everybody to leave. Why don't you try it?

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

I would really counsel everyone in the forum to observe a greater decorum in discussing these matters; some of these posts I think should be censored.

But an important point is missed: a habit does not make the monk a man.

Nor will any exernal discipline be a proper or sufficient remedy for an itnernal disorder.

Nor is homosexuality NOT a moral disorder. For every vice is a moral disorder, and thus even if, hypothetically speaking if this were possible, one were repented of all such sins, internally and internally, but not repentant of the vice, such a person would be in mortal sin.

Such men ought not be admitted to any sacrament nor to religious life. They are not in the state o grace, and even if they do not realize it, they are in a morally offensive state of soul. Theirs is at the very least the grave sin of neglecting to conform their internal sensual appetite to right reason and the natural law, and of permitting themselves to associate the movement of veneral pleasure with some experience or sensation related to members of the same sex.

This association is false, to concede to it a mortal sin, to have the habit of it a grave vice: all of which must be entirely uprooted and repented of. Anyone with such a condition, who is even repentant, but who is not mortifying himself or herself, is not fit for the sacraements; and all sacraments confected by such priests are sacriligeous and his confecting them in such a state a mortal sin, and the even tacit allowance of this by superiors a mortal sin of complicity in sacrilge!