Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Prelates and Pederasts
Sixteen years ago, reporters at The Boston Globe conducted an extensive investigation of the sexual abuse of minors by priests in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. Not long thereafter, reporters elsewhere detailed similar abuse in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and the like. The word used in the press to describe what had been going on was pedophilia, which is a misnomer deliberately employed to cover up what journalists then considered and still consider now an inconvenient aspect of the truth.
As a report commissioned by the National Review Board of the American Catholic bishops and issued in 2004 revealed, something like 81 percent of the victims were boys, and very few of them were, in the strictest sense, children. They were nearly all what we euphemistically call young adults. They were male adolescents on the younger side – at the age when boys as they mature can briefly be downright pretty.
What was involved was what its advocates call man-boy love: a sexual relationship between a grown man who serves as a mentor and a boy who is under his care or simply admires or stand in awe of him. The ancient Greeks, who practiced this systematically in the classical period, called this phenomenon pederasty, and I wrote extensively about it 26 years ago in the first part of my hardback book Republics Ancient and Modern (the pertinent chapter can be found in the first volume of the paperback edition).
In the course of these investigations, a number of other things came to light. First, a priest named Gerald Fitzgerald – who had in 1947 in New Mexico founded a small religious order named Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete to counsel priests who had difficulty with alcoholism, substance abuse, celibacy, and the like – had for decades been trying to alert the American bishops and officials in the Vatican (including Pope Paul VI) to the fact that priestly pederasty (which, he said, was unheard of before World War II) was within the American Catholic Church a growing problem. And he had persistently tried to persuade the hierarchy to forbid the perpetrators’ supervision of boys and to laicize them – all to no avail.
It also turned out that in 1984, when a scandal of this sort broke out in the diocese of Lafayette, LA, a Dominican priest named Thomas P. O’Doyle — who was a canon lawyer working for the Papal Nuncio in Washington and had seen numerous reports of a similar kind cross his desk – had joined with a Louisiana lawyer named F. Ray Mouton, Jr., and another priest, a psychiatrist named Michael Peterson, who directed a hospital for troubled priests and knew a great deal, to conduct an extensive investigation of clerical misconduct along these lines throughout the United States. The report that these three men produced was sent to every bishop in the country in May 1985, and then it was ignored – and bishop after bishop continued the long-standing practice of covering up the scandals that arose, of paying off the victims and eliciting from them a non-disclosure agreement, and of transferring the perpetrators from one parish to another and even from one diocese to another.
Not long after the scandal first broke and the National Review Board issued its 2004 report, I was a guest at a dinner hosted by a Catholic friend, as was a highly intelligent, young local priest who, everyone knew, would someday become a bishop. By then it was evident to anyone who bothered to read the report that pederasty, not pedophilia, was the problem, and I had long known that there were seminaries in the United States that were essentially cathouses in which all of the cats were male.
When talk turned to the clerical scandal, I suggested that the fatal decision made by the American bishops in 1985 to continue the practice of covering everything up must have come from Rome. If, I argued, every diocese followed the same procedures, the bishops must have received guidance from the center. Could it then be the case, I asked, that this is not a peculiarly American problem; that this is going on elsewhere, all over the world; that Rome is the epicenter; and that the Papal nuncio in Washington or his superiors at the Vatican are complicit? Could it be the case that the colleges in Rome, established for the education of especially promising seminarians from all over the world, were in effect gay bordellos and that promotion into the hierarchy for many a young priest came at a price?
My host knew what I was talking about. He had once been a Jesuit novice, and he had been expelled from the Jesuits by the provincial for complaining about the sexual misconduct going on in the novitiate all around him. What I remember most vividly, however, was the silence of the young priest at the dinner table. He had been talkative. Now he said not a word. He was even then a handsome young man, and he had studied at the North American College at a time when he was no doubt even more striking. As we left, I remember saying to my wife, “He knows more than he is willing to divulge.”
I do not mean to say that he was complicit. I doubt that very much. I do mean to suggest that he had received unwanted attention and that he knew that, if he talked about it, it would put a stop to his clerical career.
Later, of course, it became evident that my suspicions with regard to Rome were justified. In the intervening years, there have been scandals identical to the American scandal in Canada, Australia, Belgium, Bavaria, Ireland, Honduras, Chile, and elsewhere. And, a few years ago, we learned that a host of high-level figures in the Curia were being blackmailed by their male lovers. I am told that Pope Benedict, who had already by that time contracted Parkinson’s Disease, resigned his office in this connection because he knew that there needed to be a purge and he feared that he did not have the physical stamina to carry it out himself. In his memoirs, Pope Benedict touches on the “gay lobby” and confesses to a lack of resoluteness on his own part. As everyone understood at the time, the task of cleaning house was to be left to his successor.
In the interim between Pope Benedict’s papacy and that of his successor, we received another indication of the depth of the problem. In the newspapers of Scotland, we learned that Keith Michael Patrick O’Brien, a cardinal and archbishop who was the Primate of Scotland, had been buggering seminarians and young priests for years and that nothing had been done in response to the complaints that they had submitted to the Papal Nuncio. It was only when they went public in 2013 that the Vatican acted.
Unfortunately, however, Benedict’s successor was Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina – the man who calls himself Pope Francis. As a Belgian cardinal named Gottfried Daneels – who had been removed as an archbishop because he had covered up pederasty on the part of another Belgian cardinal and had come out in support of contraception, divorce, gay marriage, euthanasia, and abortion – revealed in his memoirs, Bergoglio’s candidacy was promoted by the St. Gallen Group, a part of what Catholics call “the Lavender Mafia.” This disgraced figure stood on the balcony with Bergoglio after he was elected Pope; he was chosen to say the prayer at the new Pope’s inauguration; and there was joy in the ranks of those inclined to break the vow of celibacy.
If you want to get a sense of what such people thought, I suggest that you read “The Vatican’s Secret Life,” an article that appeared in Vanity Fair in December 2013. It is an eye-opener. Its author, Michael Joseph Gross, is not scandalized by what he found. He celebrates it; and, tellingly, he never once mentions, even under the guise of pedophilia, the propensity of prominent priests to indulge in pederasty. As Gross observes,
At the Vatican, a significant number of gay prelates and other gay clerics are in positions of great authority. They may not act as a collective but are aware of one another’s existence. And they inhabit a secretive netherworld, because homosexuality is officially condemned. Though the number of gay priests in general, and specifically among the Curia in Rome, is unknown, the proportion is much higher than in the general population. Between 20 and 60 percent of all Catholic priests are gay, according to one estimate cited by Donald B. Cozzens in his well-regarded The Changing Face of the Priesthood. For gay clerics at the Vatican, one fundamental condition of their power, and of their priesthood, is silence, at least in public, about who they really are.
Clerics inhabit this silence in a variety of ways. A few keep their sexuality entirely private and adhere to the vow of celibacy. Many others quietly let themselves be known as gay to a limited degree, to some colleagues, or to some laypeople, or both; sometimes they remain celibate and sometimes they do not. A third way, perhaps the least common but certainly the most visible, involves living a double life. Occasionally such clerics are unmasked, usually by stories in the Italian press. In 2010, for the better part of a month, one straight journalist pretended to be the boyfriend of a gay man who acted as a “honeypot” and entrapped actual gay priests in various sexual situations. (The cardinal vicar of Rome was given the task of investigating. The priests’ fates are unknown.)
There are at least a few gay cardinals, including one whose long-term partner is a well-known minister in a Protestant denomination. There is the notorious monsignor nicknamed “Jessica,” who likes to visit a pontifical university and pass out his business card to 25-year-old novices. (Among the monsignor’s pickup lines: “Do you want to see the bed of John XXIII?”) There’s the supposedly straight man who has a secret life as a gay prostitute in Rome and posts photographs online of the innermost corridors of the Vatican. Whether he received this privileged access from some friend or family member, or from a client, is impossible to say; to see a known rent boy in black leather on a private Vatican balcony does raise an eyebrow.
I recommend that you read the whole article. The author interviewed a great many clerics in Rome, and he makes it clear that they were delighted with the choice of Bergoglio and with his selection of advisers.
They had reason to be delighted. Since his election, Pope Francis has done everything within his power to soften and subvert the Church’s teaching concerning human sexuality. He put the Lavender Mafia in charge of the two Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015. They tried to push through their agenda; and, when the assembled bishops balked, they got a tongue-lashing from the Pope, and he inserted in the final report without comment two paragraphs that had not received the requisite two-thirds vote. All of this – including the machinations of the St. Gallen Group and the role played by Cardinal Daneels – is laid out in detail by an English Catholic, who was in Rome during the early year of this papacy, and who writes under the pseudonym Marcantonio Colonna. The title is The Dictator Pope: The Inside Story of the Francis Papacy.
In the last few weeks, we have received further evidence of the power of the prelate-pederasts. A grand jury convened in Pennsylvania has revealed that Donald Wuerl, while bishop of Pittsburgh, covered up a priest-run child-porn ring and a host of other abuses cases involving something on the order of 100 priests, using the age-old trick of pay-offs and non-disclosure agreements. But this did not stop him from being named Archbishop of Washington DC and of being made a Cardinal – which is to say, a Prince of the Church. He was not even high on the list of possible nominees submitted by the Papal Nuncio. Someone powerful in the Vatican wanted him promoted, and Pope Francis responded to the news of his guilt not by ordering an investigation into Wuerl’s promotion, but with a dodge – by attributing collective guilty to us all.
This past weekend, the chickens finally came home to roost. We had already learned of the predatory conduct of Theodore McCarrick, Wuerl’s predecessor as Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington. The evidence showed that he had buggered altar boys and seminarians while auxiliary bishop in New York, bishop of Metuchen in New Jersey, and Archbishop of Newark. Formal complaints had been lodged against him as the 1990s and continued to be lodged in later years, but they were ignored, and he was nonetheless promoted. On Saturday night, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who was the Papal Nuncio in Washington from 2011 to 2016, released an eleven-page testament, revealing that Pope Benedict had learned of McCarrick’s conduct, that he had acted against the man in 2009 or 2010 by silencing him, prohibiting him from travel, and forbidding him to say mass in public; that in 2013 he had himself personally warned Pope Francis against McCarrick, spelling out in detail the man’s misdeeds; that Francis had reversed the restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Benedict; that he had taken him as his chief American advisor; and that Francis had ignored the advice of the Papal Nuncio and accepted that of McCarrick in choosing archbishops and bishops for the United States – including Blaise Cupich, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, and Joseph Tobin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Newark. Viganò also did something on Saturday night that, as far as I know, no high-ranking prelate has done in more than six hundred years. He called on the Pope to resign.
In the meantime, Monsignor Jean-Francois Lantheaume, former first counsellor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington, DC has emerged to confirm that Viganò‘s predecessor had been instructed to confine McCarrick by Pope Benedict, that he had himself witnessed the confrontation with McCarrick, and that everything else that Viganò himself had said was true. To this, we must add that Viganò named names in the Vatican, specifying which high officials had obstructed the investigation into McCarrick’s conduct.
As all of this suggests, we are now at a turning point. The Lavender Mafia controls the Papacy and the Vatican overall, and Pope Francis is packing the College of Cardinals, who will elect the next Pope, with sympathizers. Pope Francis and his minions have now been exposed, named, and shamed; and there will be a civil war within the Roman Catholic Church. Either Francis leaves and his supporters and clients are purged. Or the Church is conceded to those who for decades have sheltered and promoted the pederasts and those who regard their abuse of minors as a matter indifferent. It is time that those bishops, archbishops, and cardinals who are innocent of such conduct stand up and force a house-cleaning. In the meantime, the laity should speak up loud and clear.
Published in General
Why do people marry and then have serial affairs? Why not just stay single? Because there are discrete benefits marriage.
Question. Isn’t it Catholic belief that the Pope is God ordained? If so, how is talk of his forced removal countenanced?
The photo caption says he is illuminated by a shaft of light. So he’s probably OK.
No. We Catholic’s do not believe the Pope is God. The Pope is a man, who is elected by the college of Cardinals, whom are, hopefully, lead by the Holy Spirit to elect the right person to become the head of the church. That Pope is then in the line of the apostolic succession that can trace it’s lineage back to St Peter, whom Jesus entrusted his church to. The Pope’s infallibility only comes into play in terms of doctrines of the faith, like when the Pope was talking about Climate change it had nothing to do with doctrines of the faith and had no bearing on what Catholics were to believe. That was the Pope’s opinion on climate change which is worth the same as your or mine would be on that subject.
Catholics are to revere the office of Pope, who we pray for, that they are a person who is worthy of the position. Obviously there have been times when there were Pope’s who weren’t.
So is there anything wrong with my logic here: If you believe the pope must be removed today, then you are admitting the Cardinals got it wrong when he was elected in the first place?
No you said that Catholics believe the Pope is God on Earth. We don’t. Also, that is why I said, hopefully, the cardinals would be lead by the holy spirit. This situation is rather diabolical, and it seems that the Cardinals may have been lead by another kind of spirit. We are in unprecedented territory here, and Pope Benedict is still with us. A Pope resigning their position was unprecedented as well. I don’t know what is going to happen. God save us.
If this was college football, they would get the death penalty. IMO, that is the simple way to think about this.
I wonder what their public relations bills look like.
When I said God ordained, I meant that God worked through the Cardinals to ordain His choice. Not that the Pope was God,
And if it was pro football it wouldn’t elicit a suspension…
Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry, I misunderstood. Obviously God is allowing this to happen. Perhaps, to wake up the world that has descended into debauchery . Christendom is in crisis all over the world. In the Old Testament, God allowed the temples to be destroyed, several times, because the people abandoned their faith. Perhaps, this is that. I don’t know.
If you mean does the Holy Spirit “choose” the Pope, the answer is no.
Conclaves that choose the Pope are not “inspired” – that is a term reserved for Scripture.
Pope Benedict XVI sums it up best in my opinion:
As for ordination, it is a sacrament of the Church. And God acts through the sacraments. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1563 “Because it is joined with the episcopal order the office of priests shares in the authority by which Christ himself builds up and sanctifies and rules his Body. Hence the priesthood of priests, while presupposing the sacraments of initiation, is nevertheless conferred by its own particular sacrament. Through that sacrament priests by the anointing of the Holy Spirit are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the head.”45
1581 This sacrament (Holy Orders) configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ’s instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.
1585 The grace of the Holy Spirit proper to this sacrament (Holy Orders) is configuration to Christ as Priest, Teacher, and Pastor, of whom the ordained is made a minister.
The sycophants are out protecting the Pope.
Cardinal Cupich outdoes himself. In a recent interview he shouts Racist:
Absolutely disgusting. The man is a fraud. Do any of the Pope’s sycophants have supernatural faith?
Fr. Z is livid.
Different denomination and context, but same underlying problem.
But in the Pittsburgh situation, it took years and years to clean up one guy.
What? That doesn’t even make sense. His father was born in Italy. His mother was of Italian heritage. Before JPII, all the Roman Popes for 500 years were Italians. And as Mama always said, “Just because a cat has kittens in an oven, doesn’t mean you call them cookies.”
Of course it doesn’t make sense, Cupich said it.
If the Pope is a man, and the Pope was selected from the College of Cardinals, then by extension, the Cardinals are men, and therefore they are fallible. They all need to pray for guidance, and they all need our prayers so that they may receive and follow the Love and Grace of God. Yeah, the Cardinals might have gotten it wrong. What is the point of asking? This is always a possible result when you choose a Pope. At some point you will have slim pickings.
The “vocation crisis” explained in one article.
Thank you Paul Rahe for a truly important article.
I pray that the laity led by honest bishops will take the church back from this corrupt cabal.
I’ll add to this: We Catholics believe the Cardinals are guided by the Holy Spirit when they select the Pope. But, as the cliché goes, the Spirit moves in mysterious ways. The Holy Spirit may allow the Cardinals to select the “wrong” guy for Pope. We must remember that Jesus Himself selected Judas as one of his Apostles, and the mercurial Peter as the rock on which he would build His Church. God shows his glory by not working through the best men, but often mediocre and even bad men. For some of us, the fact that the Church hierarchy has so often included the mediocre is a reason to suspect its divine origin: Were it merely human, it should have imploded and disappeared a long time ago.
I’m afraid many folks have yet to read John of St. Thomas, the definitive Thomist commentator, on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit:
The Catholic Church already has been split up. Which came to mean there was an Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, versus The Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Now I find it is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has bishops, and also the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope. While the Eastern Orthodox Church does not.
Other distinctions as well:
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23214/what-is-the-difference-between-the-roman-catholic-and-greek-orthodox-churches
I also find it interesting that on the side of Catholicism in which the priests are allowed to marry, there is no corresponding scandal of perversion against teens, pre-teens and younger children.
Beyond polling, there are the huge numbers of those in recovery from the Church and what they experienced while being a member. Some forty two million Catholics have left the Church in the last few decades.
Moderator Note:
May I suggest correcting CarolJoy's misinformation instead of making snarky comments.Well gosh, @caroljoy, thanks for this.
Your ignorance shines through – you were able to get just about everything absolutely wrong in this comment.This is a true shame and scandal.
While the Cardinals and Bishops have committed theological and moral murder, any Catholic who leaves the Church, knowing She is the One, True Church, commits theological and moral suicide.
Why this claim, Scott? None of the many Bible verses dealing with apostasy mention the Roman Catholic church. The Catholic conceit of being the “One True Church” wears very thin. One could make the same claim, with greater authority, of the Eastern Orthodox church. A Catholic who was to come, say, to the Baptist church where I worship, would find a Bible-believing congregation where the pastor does not commit crimes against his parishioners. How might that be suicidal?
I agree, but I’d say the same for your bible believing Baptist congregation very probably. The whole “submit to our beliefs or you’ll burn in hell” threat, from whatever religious congregation, has the distinct odor of being a bit more designed to serve human ends than divine ones.
@doctorrobert That is their belief and teaching. It’s not even worth going there any more than it would be worth it to me to try to talk you from being a Baptist to my denomination. And challenging their belief solves no problems.
I’m not going to get into a big argument about it but I see being saved by grace having the same issue frequently.
I really dislike studying theology, but I think I’ve gotten enough decent guidance to keep my sanity or whatever.
Can we be the judges of that? 😜
What it comes down to is, I really dislike the concept of uncaused causes and I had the luck of being born with personality disorders on both sides of my family tree. I like the fact that I think I have sorted this out somewhat.