Rorate Caeli

Shame and shamelessness

A head of office (capo ufficio, the highest departmental position in the several departaments inside each Congregation) at the Vatican, a Monsignor, calls a male prostitute, brings him to the Vatican having a true date in his office - giving up only after his guest persists in his questions on the host's opinion regarding the Church's view of homosexual acts as sinful. What Mosignor Tommaso Stenico, Capo Ufficio in the Congregation for the Clergy and Professor at the Pontifical Lateranian University did not expect is that his date was recording everything under cover...

The scandal is now well known around the world. Associated Press reports:

A private Italian television network broadcast a program this month in which some priests were interviewed about their homosexuality. Vatican teaching holds that homosexuality is a sin.

The men, including the monsignor who was suspended, were interviewed with their faces obscured and their voices altered so that they would not be recognized. But Vatican officials recognized the Vatican office in which the monsignor was interviewed, the newspaper La Repubblica reported on Saturday.

During the interview the monsignor said he “didn’t feel he was sinning” by having sex with gay men, La Repubblica reported.

Now, this shameless man has the gall to tell Italian religious news website Petrus that he was actually willing "to write a book, a research [paper] on the problem of homosexuality among priests". Right... That is probaby why Stenico ended his date with the words, "If you wish, call me or send me a [text] message. How good you are. [Quanto sei bono.]".

It is unavoidable to conclude that the Vatican is infested with active homosexuals - who are only suspended from their functions when they are arrested with transsexual male prostitutes (as it happened to Monsignor EDITED(C.B.), a high officer in the Secretariat of State, last year), or found looking at homosexual pornography websites (as it happened to three priests last year, including one who said "to everyone that he fell in disgrace only due to the jealosy of those for whom he had shown no interest"), or shown in national television as they bring their dates to their Vatican offices, as it happened to Monsignor Stenico.

What now?


Anonymous said...

Is it any wonder then that there are problems in the episcopal appointments in the USA, Canada, England, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, etc. etc. etc.?

The Renews of Vatican II lookes more and more than nothing other than an excuse for a coup d'etat of rainbow forces in the Church.

I ask, is there any straight, chaste Cardinal, Bishop or priest, who is in favor of Vatican II? and its "reforms"?

Roger Peters said...

What's the big deal? Human weakness is something we are all struggling with. For some, temptations of the flesh are more difficult to subdue than for others. And for men who have dedicated themselves to a life of celibacy, the psychological effects of switching off their sexual instinct entirely, especially in this modern sex-saturated world, can prove especially troublesome. These men don't need us airing their dirty laundry uncharitably, they need our prayers.

Anonymous said...

I agree with all this. Once while in London someone I knew confided they had been propositioned by a priest working in the Vatican while they visited St Peter's. (Similar stories emmanate from the Church of England). There is a real problem. The Spirit of Vat II is tolerance and positive turning of the a blind eye. I means tailoring everything to the tastes of what Bugnini called "the modern man, there is no other." How can anyone aspire of live a good life if they do not know what it is? If there is no belief in Gospel morals. Look this sort of situation is shocking. I think I read Bernini's brother was banished from the Papal States for doing a lurid thing under the Sacra Scala. It just gives the Churches enemies truths to use against the Church. We are corrupt!!!! It's time for reform as was enacted after Trent and in the counter reformation.

Anonymous said...

One of the first blows Pope St Pius V dealt to vice & corruption in Rome was to banish men & women of light morals from the City.
Courtisans & prostitutes were given as alternative to banishment the opportunity to live in a penitential institute. Some, accepting banishment, were killed by highwaymen. A number voluntarily reformed their lives and returned to the practice of their religion. But so deep-rooted was the evil that Pius V had to counter it throughout his pontificate. Grieved & indignant over the prevalence of adultery & sins against nature, Pius V could hardly be prevented from instituting the death penality for it; but he had culprits publicly punished irrespective of their clerical or secular position. A nobleman was sentenced to life imprisonment, a well-known banker to flogging. The penalty for sodomy was burning.
It has become common knowledge that Masonic & Maffian influences are now prevalent.

Anonymous said...

What a tragedy, both for the Church and for this man. May he confess his sins and awaken to Christ's redemption.

Mark said...

According to AP, Stenico is asserting this was a ruse for the sake of understanding homosexuality. I'm unconvinced, but even if it is true, I still believe there is a deeper issue: we're not taking purity seriously enough. Surely it's still some sort of occasion of sin to pretend to be an active homosexual Priest!?"

Anonymous said...

Dear Janice,

No one would so nieve as to believe there were no homosexuals in the Vatican or in the rest of hierarchy before VCII. The difference was, before everyone, including the perverts, knew it was wrong. Now, the perverts and the relativists, modernists are arguing that it's not, and the Church should change her teachings. The big deal (roger peters) is that these perverts and relativists and modernists tried to hyjack the Church by using certain elements of VCII documents (time bombs, as they've been called aptly), and in many ways succeeded in certain corners. It has been devistating for the Church and for the salvation of souls.



Anonymous said...

I am sure there probably were a handful of homosexual inclined priests in the Vatican before Vatican II....not the legion of them in the Vatican there are now AFTER Vatican II.
The entire collapse of the Church after Vatican II both liturgically, disipliary, traditional, morally etc. can be blamed in large measure on Vatican II, and the abuses, dissent, misinterpretations etc. that came from the lack of disipline on the part of Popes who knew of this corruption and did nothing. I am thinking particularly of John Paul II who it is known had absolutely NO interest in governing either the Church, or the Vatican. He delegated everything to subordinates, who packed the Vatican with these people.
An entire housecleaning of all the offices in in order. Maybe Benedict XVI is just the right Pope to do it. He knows all the offices, and he knows what goes on.
Watch out. Now I would not be at all surprised if there is very big news for the Vatican in afew week.
If you think these corrupt dissidents and liberals were crying over the Motu Proprio, that's nothing compared to what probably will be coming in Vatican shake ups.

Anonymous said...

This is the Congregation for the Clergy. The Prefect, Cardinal Hummes OFM, is a known dissident/liberal. If I remember correctly, He is soft on Church disipline, and on the idea of homosexual clergy and homosexuality in general. It was a huge mistake for Benedict XVI to trust this man, and pluck him from Brazil to the Vatican.
Fortunatly, Hummes is in His 74th year. He'll be out soon.....maybe now since it was in his Department,...sooner than he thinks.

Anonymous said...

When I came to believe in God and start going to Mass in my early forties it was a big surprise to me that I still sinned.

As I learned more I understood more and the wisdom of the Church about avoiding occasions of sin made a lot of sense to me.

Priests as people will struggle like the rest of us but if there is a culture of sinfulness in any part of the Church then it must be broken up.

Anonymous said...

St. Charles Borromeo had a hard time with the Governor of Milan, who wanted him to close down ecclesiastical prisons. It would be great to have them back! Scandalous priests would be put in a cell, given daily bread and wine until their last day on Earth, and disappear forever. At least there would be a chance of pennance and conversion, and scandal would cease. As for their fellows in sin, they would ask "Where is Fr. S.O. Dom?" and get "Dunno, he ain't working here anymore..." as an answer.

Clare said...

What's the big deal? The big deal is that "he didn’t feel he was sinning". Is he actually doing any "struggling" with his weakness?

Pascendi said...

Though Fr. John O' Connor was alarmist about a number of things, there can be no doubt that his 20 year warning on this particular issue of homosexual infiltration was, and remains very accurate.

It only remains to be seen as to what the de facto schismatic modernist sect will do if confronted with an ever increasing Traditiona resistance (given tremendous impetus following the Motu proprio).

Roman Catholic Faithful must also be congratulated and encouraged to continue its courageous defence of Chrsitian morality.

Athanasius said...

And for men who have dedicated themselves to a life of celibacy, the psychological effects of switching off their sexual instinct entirely, especially in this modern sex-saturated world, can prove especially troublesome. These men don't need us airing their dirty laundry uncharitably, they need our prayers.

Sed Contra, these men, apart from their sins which God alone will judge them for, have tendencies and inclinations that influence the decisions they make, particularly the episcopal appointments they make, and how they handle Bishops like Law and Mahony. Can we seriously doubt the Niederauer (sp?) appointment in San Francisco was a result of priests like Monsignor Stenico? There is more here than dirty laundry, there is the running of the Church and serious concerns about administration. Sin does not work in a vacuum. You don't want someone with an addiction to pornography teaching your children in Catholic school do you? Of course not. It is not sinful to object to such a teacher, and as such things like that need to be exposed. All the more when episcopal appointments are involved. What is in darkness will be brought into light. Perhaps some people need that in order to heal and seek correction. It is not the media's fault, rather it is his own for committing sin and then airing it publicly, hoping to hide behind a black face.

Anonymous said...

I just don't understand a man jwho knowing how the Church feels about this issue, decide to continue to live a life of deceit. It just beyond my understand that man who respect himself would decide to live in an organization that officialy deprecates his beliefs.

But this case is not the most notorious. The most notorious are the cases of cardinals who not only are homosexuals, but who have engaged in criminal behavior by having sex with boys.

As long as the culture of laissez faire continues to permate the clergy, we will see an ever increasing cases of hypocrates in the Clergy, and of course a continuing devaluation of the Catholic Church.

This man obviously has a very twisted mind, thanks to years of "catholic" education.

But I am sure that BXVI will see in this another oportunity to write a document or write a book. The Conciliar Church is an endless source for new books and congresses and the sort.


humboldt said...

These people, the capos, are the ones that really govern in the Catholic Church, not the Pope.

Anonymous said...

The scandal here is the hypocresy that permates the clergy. Definetly "not another Christ", as they now like to bragg about.

Why aren't they honest about themselves and start living healthy life, unless they have been made to believe that the Church WILL change her position on homosexuality.

My advice to homosexuals in the Catholic clergy, be honest with yourself!

humboldt said...

The dishonesty in present catholic culture is the one that begets the "monsters", real anti-christs, in the catholic clergy.

Who in their rigth mind will pay attention to what the Church says, with so much dishonesty in her.

LeonG said...

This type of behaviour cannot be taken in isolation. In my own personal experience of priests to this we must also add that sodomy is actually actively promoted by some of them; there are political activists who promote and propagate their so-called rights; they are often addicted to pornography and significant numbers of them are paedophile or have these strong inclinations. Surveys indicate strong correlations. Furthermore, the occult arts are never very far behind. Amongst and apart from these there are many who are alcoholics or have strong drink habits. Such trends as can be demonstrated go all the way to Rome and upwards. The problem is being ignored for the most part. There is an almost alarming acquiescence in the face of it.

While many Catholics do not want to listen or even consider the following it is time to take good note. Until The Vatican drops neomodernist philosophies for authentic Roman Catholic teaching a la Pascendi and Pope St Pius X's other wonderful mechanisms for ousting this all-consuming destructive trend in the modern church, there can be no effective reform. His measures were for the restoration of all things in Christ. Their undoing is the undoing of Christendom.

In ten to fifteen years time, globally, there will be about 50% the number of priests we have now due to the fact the majority at present are elderly or approaching retirement age. The rest are mostly imbued with this modernist-cum-neomodernist spirit. Fortunately, a comparartive few are not. Post-conciliar philosophies have relativised nearly every aspect of true Catholic belief. In the liturgy and in doctrine, customary Roman Catholic norms and values have been deformed. Sin is no longer on the agenda and an egological spirituality has taken over. The anthropological inversion has ousted Almighty God from the sanctuary. Man has become his own object of worship. Sodomy is a significant symbol of such self-worship. To find out its sequel read Sacred Scriptures.voi

Cosmos said...

For all of you who say "lighten up and admit the reality of human weakness," does it not occur to you that your (and many other good people's) opinions on this matter were likely given to you by men like this-ones who occupy positions of authority? To "not judge" in this case means to try to love the man and continue to pray for him,despite his failings, and to welcome him back when he repents. It does not leaving him in power.

I can't see how the presence of a man who does not think that homosexual acts are sinful, who acts on those sinful proclivities, and who wields significant power over the formation and norms for clergy is not a clear and present danger to the Church and its teaching. He should never occupy any such position.
He has not been honest with his sexuality, which might be more pitiful than anything else if his faith and beliefs were in contradiction to his proclivities- if he was internally divided. In that case we might just have a sad weak man who should be quietly removed from those particular duties and into something like an accounting office.
In this case we have the kind of dishonesty that calls his decisions as a policy maker/enforcer for celibates into serious questions. This is bad news pure and simple.

Anonymous said...

The Pope must comment on this case personally, else his preaching will not be taken seriously. In the US, there are diosceses where over 90 percent of active clergy are homosexual. Mine, for instance. Vocation directors are homosexuals.

I do not think internal reviews such as the recent seminary survey are very useful. Many Bishops refused to accept the Pope's directive that they should not accept practicing homosexuals in their seminaries.

The situation calls for forceful intervention but the times do not allow the Pope to act forcefully. God will sort things out in the longrun.

Anonymous said...

This priest is now claiming that He is not gay, that He was actually caught in a trap, and that He was acting out pretending to be gay in order to gather information FOR A BOOK HE IS WRITING!!!!! :)
Come on Monsignor. How stupid do you think everyone is!!! You got caught!! Plain and simple !!!

Anonymous said...

I believe that the homosexual crisis in our Church is also a crisis of faith in the elements of the Gospel. It is the biggest problem we are facing.

humboldt said...

"This priest is now claiming that He is not gay, that He was actually caught in a trap, and that He was acting out pretending to be gay in order to gather information FOR A BOOK HE IS WRITING!!!!! :)
Come on Monsignor. How stupid do you think everyone is!!! You got caught!! Plain and simple !!!"

Watch the video of the report. At the end he grabs and caresses the boy's buttocks.

Not gay¡ Yeah, sure!


humboldt said...

Take a look at this, it is priceless:

"Sex, lies and videotape: turmoil at the Vatican

· Official secretly filmed propositioning young man
· Bureaucrat claims he was investigating satanist plot

John Hooper in Rome
Monday October 15, 2007
The Guardian"

I hope this monsignior (oink, oink, oink), makes it to Saturday Night Live. We should be poised for some very hilarious days ahead of us.

Long Live the Vatican! ROTFL

Anonymous said...

The priests in a local diocese are over 60% homosexual. So are the diocesan vocation and clergy directors and liturgy head. Now we find it to be a surprise that Vatican capos are conspirators of the same ilk? Hardly.

We should be grateful that the light of truth finally comes forward in news reports or we never would have seen the link between homosexual clergy and child sex abuse by priests. Now it is up to those who hold the true power in the Vatican to do the right thing. CLEAN HOUSE! REMOVE ALL FROM POSITIONS OF INFLUENCE WHO WOULD CAUSE SCANDAL AND SHAME! This includes those in hierarchy and it cannot be done in a gradual process.

It needs to happen with an iron fist and quickly. St. Pius V and Bl. Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X pray for us.

Anonymous said...

I went to a wonderful SSPX high mass last Sunday; what a contrast to the NO mass today with twigs and a small fountain with a floating image of Jesus where the tabernacle should be. The priest was a showman, detracting from the Sacrifice, and pontificated TWICE about the wonderful reforms of Vatican II.

I'm not an SSPXer (I was traveling, and sadly feel that I am at least guaranteed a valid mass at an SSPX chapel).

The homily at the SSPX mass was rock-solid, and delivered by a very earnest young priest. If only the Church proper were so lucky.

The "Spirit" of VII, in my opinion, has taken the Church on a trajectory mired in filth and stink.

Michael said...

Something about this episode reminds me that God many be using the secular press to clean house. Pederasty would continue to run rampant without the searchlight. The Church structure is incapable of protecting its integrity. Eventually, the enemies of the Church will be able to publicly uncover the internal financial thievery and corruption that runs rampant. Then we will really find out what we did not want to know.

Anonymous said...

is that a pic of him? if so..he looks "gay"...(in a sk8brd sense of the word)

Fritz said...

I went to a wonderful SSPX high mass last Sunday; what a contrast to the NO mass today...The homily at the SSPX mass was rock-solid, and delivered by a very earnest young priest. If only the Church proper were so lucky.

After graduating from university, I frequented SSPX chapels on a regular basis for several years. I also helped at the local priory, the school, frequented Econe, served at the altar and sang and performed on the organ in the choir loft. This afforded me an excellent opportunity to see the SSPX from the inside.

Initially I too was impressed with the Masses, priests, sermons and so forth. In fact I even entertained the notion of becoming a priest within the Society which is why I became so involved. However, after the initial honeymoon period, I began to see the flaws and eventually orchestrated my escape.

Firstly, the prior was clearly psychologically unwell. It was impossible to have a conversation with him without being subjected to nasty backbiting, sneering, mocking and condescending comments. His sermons were often doctrinally sound but more often than not just a excuse for him to let off steam in his nasty way. Most surprisingly, however, he exhibited mannerisms which left one suspicious of his sexual orientation. I am certain he would not have been permitted into seminary prior to Vatican II.

The other priests at the priory I also found to be men who would not have been permitted into seminary prior to Vatican II - or after for that matter. They were not intellectually gifted. One of them in particularly was not at all bright. Were it not for his priestly aspirations, he most certainly would have been working a much humbler job. He also shared the nasty streak of the prior - he and the prior in unguarded conversation around a coffee table was really something to behold.

The third priest was a nicer man, if a little cold. Like so many SSPX clergy, he never cracked a smile even when greeting you. He clearly suffered from some kind of anxiety disorder. He was extremely uncomfortable preaching, he often stumbled about incoherently in the pulpit joining unconnected trains of thoughts together with a series of embarrassing ums and ahs. In the end, I got the impression he was coerced by his family into becoming a priest. I felt very sorry for him.

Other unpleasant things I encountered were brutality in the school - one priest I know was relocated abroad in order to avoid conflict with local authorities. Several priests I met were obvious sedevacantist, others, while not openly sedevacantist, obviously held views about the mainstream church as something totally separate like Anglicanism. More generally, I was surprised by the distaste among the clergy for solemnity in liturgy. Many of them seemed to hold very Jansenistic views about such things.

Moretben said...

Humbold said:
"The dishonesty in present catholic culture is the one that begets the "monsters", real anti-christs, in the catholic clergy."

I think you're absolutely right. I have never ceased to be astounded at the facility with which Catholics at all levels quite naturally lie their heads off in the interests of some a priori ideological position. The liberals are spectacularly the worst, of course: lying seems to be reflexive and automatic with many of them.

Moretben said...


Frankly, you might have been describing to perfection the Presbytery of my old NO parish (minus the orthodox preaching). Even "Maynooth Jansenism" isn't exclusive to Tradition.

Anonymous said...


Your experiences are interesting. I've certainly known a fair share of nasty NO priests, and we know all too well of the scandals involving many of them. I guess we're all human. The SSPX at least is fighting for tradition. There would be no indults or Summorum Pontificum if they did not exist: the preservation of the traditional latin mass is a direct result of their efforts, prayers, and sacrifices. I'm sure it hasn't been easy for them, being ostracized by the Church they love.

Athanasius said...

I have met SSPX and Independent priests who I frankly felt were saintly, and I have also met some like fritz described. I can't say it is surprising. It may be true that the priests he encountered would not have normally been ordained before Vatican II. But it remains the case that such men were ordained before Vatican II, in the middle ages, in the early Church, and well, a man possessed by the devil was ordained by our Lord Himself as one of the first Bishops of His Church. The situation fritz describes, if true, is indeed sad and a cause for prayer. Yet it is something we find in the Novus Ordo as well, and is more indicative of human weakness than it is of either the SSPX or Tradition. As the last commenter noted, there would be no Traditional Mass were it not for the SSPX, and I would be an atheist doomed to damnation, because I can't take the Novus Ordo seriously.

humboldt said...

Athanasius, I think it is scandal when an ordained man's debauched life is condoned by the hierarchy, particularly when it is criminal.

As the recent notification on homosexuality for admision to seminaries and holy orders states:
"cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture."

No active homosexuals, or who have deep seated homosexual tendencies or support the so called gay culture, can be admited to seminary nor to Holy Orders.

I like the last part where it also bans heterosexual man who support gay culture from entering seminaries and Holy Orders. This is an explicit indication that no support for gay culture or way of life is also not acceptable in the clergy.

Pascendi said...

While these various bishops fiddle while Rome is burning, let us not forget the amoount of money they waste.

For example:

beng said...

People are ready to jump to conclusion by saying that since this wrethced priest says homosexuality is not sinful than that means he must thinks so.

Come on people. when you are high on lust you (being a guy) would even say to your girlfirend that oral sex is not sexual intercourse just to ease her conscience and yourselves (hint, hint).

beng said...

just because he says "homosexuality is not sinful" doesn't mean that he must think so

People high on lust would say such a thing to ease consciences.

Anonymous said...

"People high on lust would say such a thing to ease consciences." Only a liar can say these things.

beng said...

Anonymous above me, don't you remember someone call Clinton?

Anonymous said...


Even though you have a German name, it strikes me that the events you describe happened in the USA.

As a former SSPX seminarian myself, what you say rings true, despite the fact that I know there are some good men in that society. (Similar criticisms could be made of the FSSP, as well. I think it has something to do with seminary formation as such.)

But am I right about the USA??

Anonymous said...

Anonymous above me, don't you remember someone call Clinton?"

You cannot believe that Bill Clinton is a sort of role model? On the contrary, he is an anti-model.

In fact I feel sorry for Mrs. Clinton that did not kick Bill out of the house and instead decided to remain with him. If if weren't for his marraige to Bill Clinton, I would probably vote for Mrs. Clinton as new U.S. President.

Anonymous said...

"I just don't understand a man who knowing how the Church feels about this issue, decide to continue to live a life of deceit. It just beyond my understand that man who respect himself would decide to live in an organization that officialy deprecates his beliefs."

But the vast majority of married Catholics disagree with the Vatican's beliefs on birth control. Should they all leave the Church too???

Anonymous said...

"But the vast majority of married Catholics disagree with the Vatican's beliefs on birth control."

This is a lie. You mean the vast majority of catholic clerics.

Anonymous said...

Holy Writ teaches us that homosexuality and other perversion of sexuality come with heresy and the loss of the orthodox Christian worldview.

If they are rampant in the Curia, that tells something about the state of the universal Roman Catholic Church and the doctrinal state of the Curia.

The Gaudium et Spes lavender maffia is ruling us. And we are simply "obeying".