Rorate Caeli

The "Gay Lobby": confirmations all around
- Bergoglio ends Vatican omertà
- Fr. Oko: "The true challenge of the Pontiff is the heresy of homosexuality"

From today's article of Paolo Rodari for La Repubblica:

The embarrassment of the Roman Curia exists for various reasons. On the one had, for the distance that seems to be always greater between a Pope who decides to live in Santa Marta and not in the pontifical palace in order to be freer in the work of cleaning the Curia itself from those who work against it, and who worked against it during the pontificate of Benedict XVI. On the other hand, for the shock [caused] by the peculiar fashion [of announcing the news, that is through CLAR], that seems to have been almost chosen on purpose by the Pope in order to make known a real concern of his.
Gian Franco Svidercoschi, former vice-director of [Holy See daily] L'Osservatore Romano, knows how to read behind what was left unsaid by the Vatican. He explains: "The embarrassed silence of the Curia shows that the Pope's words are true. This lobby which is talked about evidently has existed for a while, though I believe it to be composed by mid-level characters of the Roman Curia itself. We know for a fact that during the General Congregations that preceded the Conclave, the three Cardinals in charge of the work on Vatileaks reported on it. If, among the persons involved, there had been any cardinals, these would not have been allowed to take part in the Conclave, as it happened with Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien."

Fr. Dariusz Oko speaks to Il Giornale:

But the problem of the homosexual lobby in the sacred palaces could be just the tip of the iceberg: there are those who are convinced that the great challenge of the new Pope is to tackle the problem. One of those is Fr. Dariusz Oko, theology progessor at the Pontifical University John Paul II, in Krakow, who in December had publicly denounced the gay lobby in the Vatican, and who reaffirms it today: "The Holy Father has confirmed that which everyone had known for many years," he explains, "I think that the wall of omertà that has existed for a long time is destroyed. But now, how to demolish that other wall of omertà that exists inside the seminaries? Who is concerned with the revolution of Benedict XVI who forbade the ordination of homosexual priests?" The Polish priest is convinced that on this matter the Pope has a great battle to wage: "The problem of the gay lobby in the Vatican is important, but marginal," he explains. "The true challenge of the Pontiff is the heresy of homosexuality, what I call the 'homoheresy, that is, the rejection of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, whose defenders are in favor of priesthood for gays. The Holy Father must combat this heresy that has spread throughout the Church.". And the root of the problem, Fr. Oko confirms, is to be found in the places of formation: "Who, in Italy, is interested in the current situation of the seminaries?", the theologian asks. "And there is where the future of the Church is decided! The only way forward is to continue the revolution of Ratzinger, who wished to 'free' the seminaries from gay educators and homosexual seminarians." ...


  1. Just the "midlevel" officials? But so far three Cardinals and two archbishops, plus the Vatican spokesman have expressed their support legalization of unions between homosexuals.

  2. I have often wondered, Can a Holy Roman Pontiff be afraid of anyone or anything other than our Lord? Becouse boy this Evil needs to be slain right now without hessitation.

  3. Perhaps its time our Holy Father looked at the Jesuits and certain orders of Franciscans. They are in many ways the bedrock of this heresy.

  4. Clear - excellent! Keep hammering NC!

    We will help with our prayers!

    "The only way forward is to continue the revolution of Ratzinger, who wished to 'free' the seminaries from gay educators and homosexual seminarians." ...

    Yes,yes, Father Oko, brave and honourable priest!

    Only heaven knows what Pope Benedict really went through...

  5. @Barbara Said "who wished to 'free' the seminaries from gay educators and homosexual seminarians."

    Wishing is one thing, acting on wishes is another.

    I hope we can have a Pontiff who when they find out of a sick Seminary they appoint a Hammer of a Priest to go take it over.

  6. If a gay lobby exists in the Vatican, it's not very effective, as Jimmy Akin has recently said. The teaching of the Church on homosexuality, specifically homosexual acts, is still what it ever was.


  7. There is precedent:

  8. Anonymous9:33 PM

    Jack, no offense, but Jimmy Akin's comment is meaningless. There are myriad ways to undermine doctrine without formally changing it. I'm very disappointed Akin said this, it reflects a degree of willful ignorance I thought below him.

    Homosexuality is rampant in the priesthood. Anyone who denies that had better understand the situation. Look at dioceses like Miami. There, probably 2/3 or more of the clergy is actively homosexual, not just holding the inclination. You think they do not attack the doctrine in says subtle and gross? Why do you think a majority of American Catholics now favor state recognition of homosexuals simulating marriage? Because they never hear one denouncement of this sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance from the pulpit.

    Most likely the only reason the Doctrine hasn't changed is because it is protected by the Holy Spirit, so it can't change. But that doesn't mean there haven't been massive assaults against it, anyway.

  9. @Michael Ortiz,
    Thank you for the link

    So why is it they are not shutting more of these sorts of dens down and hunting down and weeding out their graduates from priestly ranks?

  10. As much as evil homo practices are and its impact uppon society, it wouldn't take off the ground, were it not for the complicity of the modern church headed by modern popes. Some say we've got leaders we deserve, but isn't it also true that the governed are only as good as the ones who govern? Can one expect the children to behave themselves when the parents don't?

  11. "If a gay lobby exists in the Vatican,"

    It obviously does.

    "it's not very effective, as Jimmy Akin has recently said. The teaching of the Church on homosexuality, specifically homosexual acts, is still what it ever was."

    Your and Jimmy Akin's logic is horrendously defective. Just because human sinners are incapable of defeating the Holy Spirit, who ensures that the Church will infallibly teach the truth about homosexuality, that doesn't mean human sinners can't do a lot of harm and help to damn many souls to hell.

  12. I don't hate the sinner, only the sin. But what if the sin over meshes what we can do to contain it?

    I only go to the TLM--or sometimes just the FSSPX 70 miles away--and since I don't have a car at present, and my BMW Motorcycle is in the shop, I have to skip mass, and rely on my blessed Scapular.

  13. "Jack said...If a gay lobby exists in the Vatican, it's not very effective, as Jimmy Akin has recently said. The teaching of the Church on homosexuality, specifically homosexual acts, is still what it ever was."

    You presume that the goal of the sodomite lobby is to merely "change Church teaching," rather than infiltrate, weaken, and ultimately destroy the Church. If all of the latter is accomplished than the former is a mute point.

  14. @Jack: The church's teaching on homosexuality will never change. That is not the devil's goal for he knows it's bound to fail. That doesn't stop the lavender liturgists from influencing individuals to simply ignore the teachings of the church and spreading confusion with their Broadway masses. They have been VERY effective at that. The numbers don't lie. But I think it's getting better.

  15. Jack said... "If a gay lobby exists in the Vatican, it's not very effective,"

    Actually it doesn't need to be effective. All it needs is to sew enough confusion that the doctrines of the Church and enforcing those doctrines are hampered. For instance, there are more than a few parishes that have gay masses and they're allowed to exist either due to fear of reprisals or due to outright support from bishops which overrule any priest that wishes to correct the matter (e.g. google "cardinal schonborn parish council" or "catholic lgbt mass"). Little is done to stop this.

    Then there's the ground level support for LGBT "rights" among Catholics. While more and more Catholics are now pro-life, more and more are also pro LGBT and think that it is consistent with Church teaching.

  16. I may be late into the fray here, but I wonder has anyone read "Vatican Diary / Six more votes for "gay" unions"?
    The link is
    I wonder what your thoughts might be on this article.

  17. I must say that after a couple of recent articles: the one by Jimmy Akin referenced by Jack and one from Mark Shea criticizing Live Action for their methods, I must say that I am surprised at their lack of depth considering they write for the NC Register. Isn't that supposed to be a well respected bastion of Catholic journalism? In all charity, I don't understand how the very basic journalistic concept of covering all your bases can be lost on them. The statement that the "gay lobby" hasn't been successful because Benedict XVI made a point to mention that active homosexuals can't be ordained is absolutely ludicrous. Benedict HAD to because it has become an issue!

  18. "What else can one expect from those quarters, though?"


    Funny, though, I don't remember reading that from JA...

    OH WAIT! I'm not in Jimmy's "Secret Information Club"! (The secret decoder ring was too large for my skinny fingers... boohoo.)

    Jack must have gotten that from one of Jimmy's Top Secret emails that get sent out to all his sycophants. (Well, not exactly "top" secret... the NSA has been monitoring them, but they've been monitoring everything lately.)

  19. Editing my comment above:

    Jack... that is a... not very smart comment. The goal is not changing doctrine, that cannot be changed, but promoting friends, creating a web of mutual complicity and blackmail - and then everything that may follow from this, from favors of every kind, personal liaisons and up to financial advantages. And, if on top of this, doctrine is undermined (the growing chorus in favor of the normalization of homosexuality, in favor of "gender identity", and against the old condemnation of counternatural unions is just an example), even if not changed, then wonderful for them. Sad that the person mentioned by you had such a ... not smart... comment. What else can one expect from those quarters, though?

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Is that so, Jonathan Lee Ching? "Many, holy AND orthodox priest who are gays". Haw many, hundreds, thousands? Holy cow!!? In all charity, when you go next time to confession, please examine both your conscience mental state because one must be really of the planet wanting to be mate with Adam, but ignore Eve. Now serious mate: never attempt to rub this nonsense on streight man!!!!!

  22. Jonathan Lee Ching, there may be priests with same sex attraction who are able to remain celibate just as the majority of priests with opposite sex attraction are able to. That is not the issue here though, it is priests (and bishops) that tolerate, advocate, or practice homosexual behavior.

    Yes faith, hope and love are necessary, but love includes fraternal correction of those who violate Church teachings, it is not loving to allow people to sin and lose salvation.

  23. "If a gay lobby exists in the Vatican, it's not very effective, as Jimmy Akin has recently said. The teaching of the Church on homosexuality, specifically homosexual acts, is still what it ever was."

    But actually, not. In his 'Vatican II, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia,' Atila Sinke Guimaraes observed that the documents since the Council written by a priest named Seper, and then two by Cardinal Ratzinger, made two very fundamental changes. One, to accept as a given that homosexuality is inborn (much the way the overpopulation myth has been erroneously accepted, and Darwinism, rather than refuted as both easily can be), and second, to insist that homosexuals be allowed to live in 'dignity.' Then Cardinal Ratzinger actually wrote, and the docs are still live on the Vatican website, that Catholics should sponsor civil legislation that penalizes 'discrimination' against them in matters like housing and employment. It reads very much like a page from the civil rights movement. Of course this was the poison teaching of the Council, that sin has rights, that the role of Catholics in the world is to live their Faith privately and 'form consciences' by example, not by legislating against sin. The core doctrinal teaching that SSPX is fighting, by the way, a new and perverted form of freedom of conscience, meaning that men and women may not only think what they like, which as I understand it is good doctrine, but also act as they like, as a formal 'right.' This new twist platforms abortion and contraception, too. In many ways, this idea is the beating brain of the homosexual movement. I have the links in a post on my blog, but I seem to have closed the tab--google 'Holy Smoking Gun,' if you want the links to the Vatican website where you can read the classic Counciliar double speak in bloom.

  24. Mr. Chang,

    Pedophilia is also a deeply rooted condition for which there is no known certain cure.

    I feel sure that those who labor under such dreadful temptations have a path of renunciation and holiness too. No one is beyond the love of God.

    But to have a deep seated temptation like that is a disorder of the personality. We don't want to ordain pedophiles, even if perhaps there are some men in the priesthood who have that predilection and yet find paths to holiness.

    Homosexuality is a deep sickness of the fiber of the soul which manifests itself in a particular moral perversion of such an horrific character that St Paul sees it as an abandonment by God as punishment for refusing to acknowledge His existence.

    We must recognize its danger and fight it. Always in love. But always with clarity.

  25. @ both Jonathans: men and women are different in many important ways, and the issue is not the ability to endure celibacy. I am reading a book summarizing the most recent research on the genders' differing approaches to competition (Top Dog), which also reviews hormonal and brain function difference so far identified, and they are numerous--neither better nor worse, but different (well, in some cases significant; for example, the author says parenthetically, Listen, if your broker is a woman and she says Sell, you better sell! Women have better records as stock market brokers, who'd have thunk it?). The priest's role is a man's role. Whether a man with feminine tendencies, inborn or cultivated, is celibate or not, he is not a good candidate for the priesthood for that reason. And this firmly shuts the door to a 'feminine priesthood.' That door must be closed. It's not unfair. There are so many ways to serve.

    BTW, I'm not getting the OpenID sign in to work. I'm not Unknown, I'm the same Janet Baker of the White Lily Blog as usual. Frequently irritating. : ) When I fill in the Wordpress option, it takes me to a page that says I must sign into Wordpress, but has no hot button to do so, and in using the back button, one's comment has been dropped from the combox.

  26. I only believe Church Dogma. V II is not Dogma. So, I will not beleive it.


  27. Unknown,

    You're not making sense.

  28. @ Michael Ortiz Which comment? Or, could you gather your thoughts into a question? I am making sense to me, but of course, because of the size of a combox, have compressed lots of ideas into as small a package as possible. The first comment means, no matter how many times the Conciliar church repeats that homosexuality is a sin, it has enabled homosexuality in several important ways, and this is how the double speak of Vatican II works in other issues, too. And then I give the link to the links where you can read Seper and Ratzinger for yourself.

    The second comment tries to make the point that the issue about homosexuals in the priesthood is not about celibacy but about masculinity as a requisite. I know I threw in some bells and whistles, sorry.

  29. Unknown, your statement about masculinity as a prerequisite for the priesthood makes perfect sense.Masculinity is an intrinsic quality in the make up of man.Celibacy is moral and theological issue. I've heard zillions of tons of gay generated sophistry. "I reasned with fool and I lost. Than I reasoned with the wise man and I won." Arab proverb.

  30. @Jonathan Lee Ching: You know many homo priests?! Methinks you are frequenting the wrong circles, my man... or are overstating the numbers. By the rest of your comment, you are also sorely misguided. Benedict banned SSA individuals from the priesthood for a reason.

    @Unknown, Formerly Known as Lily White Blog Chick: Whether or not homosexuality is inborn is a question of science and not a religious matter though it has religious implications and so the Church has no say on said matter. Ergo, Ratzinger can sing till he is blue in the face. Also. Ratzinger is a Cardinal. Not the pope. Once again. Til he's blue in the face. It doesn't change Church teaching. Benedict, on the other hand, is another story. Also, there is disagreement amongst SSPX priests concerning the inborn nature of homosexuality (not sure if you were referring to that specifically as well as their general fight against VII or if you were only referring to their general fight against VII).
    Truth be told, it seems to be possible that it is inborn (as you don't believe) but in many circumstances it is nurture over nature (as you strongly implicate you do believe). Case by case is key.
    Also, just because one has SSA and exhibits it (there are varying levels of exhibition), doesn't mean that they should be discriminated against (I think it depends on the situation). I think Ratzinger was speaking from an emphasis on the inherent dignity of every person even if the particular person isn't living up to that dignity. We do, after all, feed murderers in prison AND provide them with housing.
    I don't necessarily disagree with you that homosexuality isn't inborn (although I lean towards it being a possibility) or that homosexuals can be discriminated against (especially concerning certain jobs (teaching, etc.)), but like Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea... your analysis lacks depth.

  31. P.S. Unknown/Lily White, we can agree that Ratzinger was being overly generous as a mater of naivete and that masculinity should be a requirement for the priesthood, however.

  32. P.S.S. Benedict pre-emeritus status. Post-emeritus, once again - Til he's blue in the face.

  33. Eric, how homosexual stands before God in private capacity, that's between him and God. However, the public Almightys' revelation and actions are manifestly clearcut and condemnation of homosexuality in any shape or form stands till the end of time. No one knows for sure whether this kind of behaviour is acquired or inborn, including the bogus science on this subject. What we do know for sure is the damadge they have been causing to the salvation of their souls and souls of others. Also this vice is linked to occult practice. There's also difference between discrimination and prejudice. We optimize our choices on dayly basis. Even if I were atheist, I still would oppose sodomy for ethical, physical psychological dimension of it.

  34. This:
    Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans
    Ch. 1
    "[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    [31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

  35. @Common Sense: You said nothing I disagree with in a way that suggests that I said something to suggest I disagree with you. Whachu talkin bout, Willis?!


  36. Unknown,

    Well, we all sometimes try to say too much at once.

    My knowledge of Ratzinger on this subject is that he is perfectly orthodox. After reading thousands of cases of immoral priests as head of CDF, he is not naive in the least, for sure.

  37. Eric, your approval rating of my comment is of little consequence to me. Whatever I do in life is for the sake of Our Divine Lord, His holy Church and for fellow human being. This is easy to grasp even by you.

  38. @Common Sense: Ahhh. So you DID misunderstand me. This is because you missed the point of my comment. You thought that my purpose was to argue the science of homosexuality or the level of discrimination appropriate when dealing with homosexuality in society. These weren't my points. My point was to point out that White Lily's comments on the subject of whether or not Church teaching has changed on the matter lacked depth. As did both of your comments. Also, as you engaged in conversation with me, like any normal adult with common sense, I assumed you wished that we understood each other. This is kind of common courtesy and generally considered charitable. Unless your screen name, "Common Sense", is meant to be ironic and you're pulling my leg. You're pulling my leg, aren't you?

  39. Mr. Ching et al,
    What, unless I've not paid close enough attention to the comments, is missing from the equations about gay clerics (etc.) is that you are not likely to hear about the real moral and social effects of the encroaching acceptance of the lifestyle based upon SSA in a homily within a Church that holds that the condition is incompatible and incongruous with witnessing to the gospel. And if you're not likely to hear that on a Sunday, or only hear the one side that is based upon tolerance and love the sinner, not the sin, you're also not likely to hear much about the author of sin. Even outside of this narrow context of sinfulness, the mere mention of personalized evil being alive and well, much less named within the ambo, should motivate us all. One doesn't have to go all Jonathan Edwards in the pulpit, but if we faithful are not told and led to these truths, our shepherds are elsewhere, or lazy in their responsibilities.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!