Rorate Caeli

Has the "Gay Lobby" shrunk?

As we noted last week, Sandro Magister publicly stated L'Espresso has evidence proving their story on Msgr. Ricca, and his involvement in the "Gay Lobby." 

Fr. Federico Lombardi, Holy See spokesman, at the time called the accusation "untrustworthy" (non attendibile). Journalist Matteo Matzuzzi later noted that Lombardi also said "the Pope has had the chance to verify whether the accusations against Msgr. Ricca were consistent or not," and that "Pope Francis is aware of the accusations made against Msgr. Ricca but has decided to keep him in his position."

I.MEDIA is now reporting that Ricca offered his resignation to Pope Francis on Saturday. 

Looks like the ball is back in Lombardi's court. We await word from Rio.

36 comments:

UnamSanctam said...

This will be an example of mercy to which the Bishop of Rome has several times referred.

We must exercise forgiveness, but stupidity is not demanded of us.

The carnival of the Modernist anti-Church continues unabated.

Fun, isn't it?

I for one will switch off now from the Catholic online world for a few days to protect myself from endless reports about sermons full of quasi-Marxist clarion calls, endless references to "preferential options" and being-in-communion-with.

Hayfarmer said...

Just a thought, does a barque have a rudder or does it use any sort of sail? It seems that Peter's needs some oars or some kind of dry dock maintenance because it sure seems to toss around a lot without any true course.

UnamSanctam said...

Patriarch Kyrll said yesterday that sodo-marriage is a harbinger of the approaching Second Coming of our Lord.

I agree with him.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/same-sex-marriage-apocalyptic-patriarch-says/483451.html


Benedict Carter

Muv said...

How do we know there isn't a triple bluff going on here? ...

Pope appoints dodgy cleric, knowing that if there is any dirt to dig up the press will oblige. The Italian press do their stuff. Vatican press office issue denials (well they would, wouldn't they?). Dodgy cleric feel the heat and resigns.

The Pope set the stage for this to happen by letting it be known that The Cabal were a problem. Soon enough its members will be begging not to be promoted for fear of being outed by the press.

Why is it assumed the Pope doesn't know what he is doing?

UnamSanctam said...

Muv:

I take it that you are neither a mother, a father nor have had any responsibility whatever within any organisation at all?

Deacon Augustine said...

I thought comparing him to Rodrigo Borgia was a bit risque, but Muv has taken the biscuit with Macchiavelli!

BroHenry said...

Muv may be on to something.

Did not an anonymous Cardinal, referring to necessary Curia cleaning, make the statement during the Conclave:
"Four years of Bergoglio would be enough.."

yoink! said...

Muv... hope that's the case...

Gerard Brady said...

Muv said

"Why is it assumed the Pope doesn't know what he is doing?"

Well where do I start? From the Pinocchio Mass to washing the feet of women and infidels on Maundy Thursday; from his neglect for canon law to the suggestion that the nuns ignore warnings from the CDF; from the suggestion that atheists go to heaven if they “do good” to the veiled sarcasm against people who pray rosaries for him, he has abundantly shown he either hasn't got a clue or doesn't care that he hasn't got a clue.

pclaudel said...

"Why is it assumed the Pope doesn't know what he is doing?"

Because he's being given the benefit of the doubt, that's why.

Take your choice. Do you prefer to think that Lombardi and any and all other Vatican mouthpieces are lying in their teeth because, well, that's what mouthpieces regularly do (call this the I Believe What I See option) or because he and they are acting under the direct instructions of the Big Enchilada in White to lie in their teeth (your "triple bluff" option)?

Either way, the picture presented for public consumption is anything but edifying. But your option is even less edifying than its alternative,

Attende said...

I agree with Muv. Ricca had no choice but to resign and now will be gone from the bank and the Domus. Very Machiavellian, But of course that would make the Pope like a renaissance prince. Surely not?

mjh said...

Like you, UnamSanctam, I will avoid any news coverage of the next 10 day debacle going on in South America. By the way, did anyone hear if the Pope accepted his resignation? That is the other half of this equation.

Anchorite said...

These days I take this approach to figure out what Francis does next by asking: what would a provincial demagogue would do?
- appoint his buddies to high positions unrelated to the degree of their actual talents.
- organized highly-oversimplified public events ("masses," get-togethers with media present.
- charity and humility events.
- say as much as possible with as little as possible meaning.
- only generalities.
- criticize previous regime by doing the opposite.
- froun at knowledge, beauty, and skills ( they are "trappings")
- chose undoubtedly famous dead and make them your own (canonize).
- you know better than anyone - have an Obama facial expression of serious arrogance and joyful superiority.

BroHenry said...

Anchorite, you neglected one critical item on your list:
-start blogging

Anchorite said...

Right.

Muv said...

Benedict Carter - I am heartily flattered that you think I may have led a life free from responsibilities at home and at work. If only. It is not for nothing that the late Lady Redesdale and I share a nickname.

Gerard Brady - The last sentence of my previous comment is to be read in the context of that comment and no further.

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

@Muv said...
"Pope appoints dodgy cleric, knowing that if there is any dirt to dig up the press will oblige. The Italian press do their stuff. Vatican press office issue denials (well they would, wouldn't they?). Dodgy cleric feel the heat and resigns.
"
Should the Holy Roman Pontiff engage in silly political drama and machinations like these you suggest? I doubt he is doing it .
Its most likely that the Holy Pontiff got a rude shock in his naiveté, he thought by ‘setting himself apart’ from the ordinary routines of earlier pontiff’s he would be immune from the machinations and politics and got the rude shock of appointing someone he thought he knew and was trustworthy.
Hopefully, this is a lesson for him. He needs to clean house big time, especially in the office of episcopal appointments and personally vetted his appointees to these positions very thoroughly.

Frankly matters are so bad that the sooner the Holy Father reaches out of the regular church to the traditionalists for sensitive appointments the better it will be for him. Rome can only be cleaned up by outsiders. I am thinking here FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, @Gasp! . SSPX and other non-powerful and entrenched religious orders such as missionaries of Charities

Most missionary orders have become social justice establishments, working in some sort of ‘peace and justice’ work and long ago left their founding charisms.

Anyways, No surprises. Timid approach to these issues will just set up the Bride of Christ and the Holy Pontiff up for further ridicule. And it’s well deserved.

Muv said...

Bwangi -

I did not say (and carefully phrased my comment so as not to say) that the Pope knowingly appointed a dodgy cleric, thereby setting up the Italian press to out him. What I did say is that by letting the world know (possibly inadvertently) that there is a serious problem with The Cabal, the Pope has in fact turned the attention of the press on the appointments he makes.

UnamSanctam said...

Muv:

Lady Redesdale? Who she?

My point, somewhat tongue in cheek, is that why on earth would someone with a plenitude of power involve himself in single bluffs, let alone double or treble bluffs.

He could have just sacked him (with laicisation to follow). No need at all for any bluffs or Italianate games.

JB said...



He carries his own briefcase! wow. all those lazy popes before him having aides move papers around. i feel like the Church may just have begun with this man. he gets it.

JFM said...

"How do we know there isn't a triple bluff going on here? .."

Ah yes: here we go again. Faithful Catholics, determined to see the Vatican thru rose-colored glasses, are sure JPII had grand schemes. Yes, and so did Benedict XVI with the Latin Mass and the SSPX... All the bad things in an authoritarian CHurch were things they simply had no power over... Which makes no sense.

When they all were very matter-of-factly simple Vatican II men thru and thru. They wore their hearts on their sleeves, and hence the curia was never cleaned up, and we have the mess we have... Why would cardinals appointed by these guys reverse the status quo they enshrined? The go to quote was "The CDF may slap your wrists, but, hey, move on!"

Francis is the same ole same ole, in a Latino proletariat costume. The kids in Brazil will eat it up, and the kids in Rome will get away with as much as they can. I will be very happy if any real reform happens, but I don't hold my breath.

Edward More said...

@UnamSanctam,

I do believe that sodomite marriage is a sign of very troubling times ahead of us, but I don't necessarily think it means that the second coming of the Lord is upon us. Remember, that the period of peace and the consecration of Russia as promised by Our Lady (plus the conversion of Jews etc) is still very much ahead of us... The sins that cry out to heaven that we see all around us are a sign of a coming supreme struggle between the forces of Satan and on the other side the forces of Our Lady, vanquisher of all heresies. The beautiful for Catholics is that we already know who the ultimate victor will be. After that comes a long era of peace as per the Fatima message and the book of the Apocalypse (20:1-3), which will come before the last judgment:

"And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years."

Martin said...

Is fidelity in Marriage, and upholding its sanctity with every fibre of your being, and lifelong participation, by those baptised as in Communion with Rome, in the celebration of Mass as important as protesting about the failings of the Bishop of Rome or others?


I believe it is attested in Scripture that some of the appointments made directly by Jesus Christ seemed unsound, in the court of public opinion, and that Peter has a few doubtful actions recorded on his c.v..

Edward More said...

@Martin,

You believe Christ DIRECTLY appoints ALL successors to Peter, rather than merely ALLOWING certain popes to stay in office due to their bad/evil actions, much like God allows evil, in order to obtain a greater good out of it?

You believe that Pope Francis KNOWINGLY appointing a sodomite priest to head the "reform" of the Vatican bank constitutes a mere "doubtful action"? You would put the actions of the prince of the Apostles side by side with those of the current pontiff??

Martin said...

@edward more

The Bishop of Rome is the direct successor of St Peter, with all the authority that flows from that, regardless of how he is chosen.

Jesus Christ, God and Man, Saviour of the World chose Judas, and Peter, as members of The Apostolic College.

Judas, betrayed The Bread of Life, and, contrary to accepted teaching committed suicide and thus denied God the author of life.

The Bishop of Rome, and many others, doubt we should have a Vatican Bank, or, probably, run a B and B - no matter how highly esteemed the guests.

Do You think betraying Jesus, and ultimately the Gospel, Ian's killing oneself, are of the same order as sexual misconduct of of any description, and is a Bank, and a B and B, of greater import that the life of the Son of God, and his message, and human life itself?

Jesus directly appointed Peter, and Judas, a group elected the Bishop of Rome, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bishop of Rome appointed one man after taking advice.

Jesus asked of sinners, who have been forgiven, who would love more? The Reply was the one who has been forgiven more.

Just may be, Jesus and the Church use a different yardstick to those actively hounding the Successor to St Peter.

S. Armaticus said...

I wonder how long until we see a billboard with an image of Benedict XVI and a slogan along the lines of: "Miss me yet?".

I am sure that the College of Cardinals do already.



Edward More said...

@ Martin:

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

The fruits have been bitter and difficult to swallow these last 50 years, and in some cases, even poisonous.

It is traditional catholic thought, following the sayings of the saints, that we commonly get the superiors that we deserve (be they in the spiritual or temporal order). From the way the vast majority of Catholics behave can we say that we currently deserve to have a saintly pontiff who would straighten out the Bride of Christ? I think the answer is pretty self evident.

Martin said...

@edward more

I think Tradition, including the Council of Trent, teaches that we cannot judge our own soul/ holiness. It would be very poor of a person to question the holiness of anyone including a Bishop of Rome because they are leading the Church, as they believe Christ wills, and not as people of a particular faction desire.

By their fruits we say indeed know them, but God is the ultimate judge, and God works on a different timescale. It is true on a daily basis I meet people enquiring about the faith because of the work of the current Bishop Of Rome.

There have been errors in the last fifty years, but then The Borgias and The Inquisition pre-date that period too.

We believe it is the Church Christ founded, and Peter hold the keys, or we believe in a self made Church where the desires, and dictates, and piety of individuals rule. It is true that by their fruits we will know them.

Follow Peter, or the dictates of your own heart I would say. The Church is not suffering because of Francis, but because of the factionalism prompted by a particular piety.

Edward More said...

@Marting

You state, "It would be very poor of a person to question the holiness of anyone..." and yet interestingly enough you seem to do exactly the same a few lines later, "There have been errors in the last fifty years, but then The Borgias and The Inquisition pre-date that period too."

So, you "judge" the Borgias and the Inquisition as something sinister and undesired. If you want to keep your argument coherent you shouldn't be judging Alexander VI or the Holy Office/Inquisition.

Martin said...

Didn't Blessed, soon to be Saint, John Paul , and a previous Bishop of Rome, apologise for certain historical acts. My knowledge of The Borgias is, to say the least, scant, but I believe there is common agreement that some bad things took place during the period they were around.

Thus, a former Bishop of Rome has apologised for some things, and history, including Catholic Historians, judge some acts bad. I was not making a personal point.

I was pointing out bad things happened, and were done by the Church, before the last great Council. You seem to suggest it didn't before the Blessed Pope John, soon to be Saint, convened the Council.

I think Pope Benedict said repeatedly we must implement, and live out, the teaching of that Council, and the Year of Faith, JUST TO MARLK IT'S BEGINNING!, was promulgated by the Servant of that Council, the former Bishop of Rome, Benedict.

Follow Peter, all of them!

@edward more

Just another mad Catholic said...

Edward Moore

How can you save such things, the vast majority of Catholics in the pews have been taught error by those who were meant to defend them against such things.

How are we supposed to have holy laity without Holy Clergy?

Fifty Years ago the Faith was vibrant in the UK and the US, according to your logic what did we do to deserve the likes of Weakland et al?

Edward More said...

@Just another mad catholic:

I'm afraid the average Catholic in the pews might not be as innocent as you imagine. The greatest sign of displeasure that the Lord can show his faithful is allowing bad ministers to shepherd his flock. I'm not making this up, this is standard traditional Catholic thought. When we have holy laity - families that bring their children in the holy fear of the Lord, then we will have holy clergy. In other words, the renewal of holy mother church will occur from the bottom upwards, not the other way around.

This is what holy scripture has to say about the type of Catholics that preceded Vatican II, about those Catholics from which led to the present state of diabolical disorientation in the Church:

"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:16)

Martin said...

@edward more

If you believe The Lord gives us bad leaders to show his displeasure you are in cloud cuckoo land. Are you really suggesting, and logically, it follows, that, for example, heretical thinkers are sent by The Lord?

All bad choices are down to the actions of humanity not listening to God.

However, God make humanity in his likeness. No where is it written in Holy Scripture that the Bishop of Rome, and his co-workers, should be in your likeness or follow your unholy writ.

May I suggest you read Scripture on Personal humility, and note, for example, that the advice Cardinal Hume gave to Anglicans thinking of entering into Full Communion, applies to all Catholics: you cannot pick and choose Church teaching, as you might a meal in a Restaurant.

Follow Peter, the Rock, and seek to build your own Church likeness.

Martin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edward More said...

@Martin,

"If you believe The Lord gives us bad leaders to show his displeasure you are in cloud cuckoo land."

You have a most refined way of answering your critics. Would you care to provide with quotes the passages from scriptures and from the saints to show how I am wrong?

Martin said...

Just look at the things said when Israel demanded a King. God was clear, they will eventually kill/suffocate you. I will love. You, as your Father God said. And so it was. There are passages galore on this matter.

The view of Saints, is not necessarily the view of God. Or are you attributing infallibility to Saints?

If God has given us all free will, and God loves is, and calls all to love and perfection, and forgiveness sinners, then surely God cannot/ would not wield such a sword.

Wrong and evil are the actions of a fallen humanity. love and forgiveness are the strengths of God.

Free will and redemption are core to our understanding of humanity and the response of God.

There is, of course, the famous passage where David is given a choice of punishment, and he rightly says, and God assents, it is better to be punished by God , rather than humans or nature because God is a just God.


In a democracy we get the leadership we deserve, but in general, surely, the leadership will be an expression of the individual leaders humanity, and morality, and how they handle free will, and response to God.

All violence, injustice, is a human act. god is, and will be, always just, merciful, and loving with the door to redeeming love always open, and we choose whether to enter.

If I am wrong, you explain such parables as the Darnell and the wheat, the teaching of Jesus on forgiveness, and the fact the whole of humanity is made in the image, and likeness, of God, and there aching of Jesus that all wrongdoing comes from the evil one.