Cardinal Vigano, Pope Francis and the lavender mafia

I wish Matt MacIntyre were still around to comment, not for an I told you so moment, but to get the commentary of someone who has likely followed this more closely.

Vigano's accusation is that Pope Benedict had removed a Bishop from office, essentially stripped him of any duties, and told him to keep to himself and pray about his misdeeds., and that Francis, having been warned about this, returned the Bishop to duty.

I don't see this primarily as an anti-RC issue in that the most perceptive and virulent critiques come from RCs themselves.

«1

Comments

  • I find Vigano's accusation credible. These revelations have been public for over a decade now. A decade and a half? The Vatican's responses in general have been vapid to the point of immaterial, but Francis has been particularly noteworthy in his tone deafness. That he was complicit with and even part of a systematic coverup makes sense.

    I have to wonder if there won't be a major schism soon, or a wholesale defection to the Anglicans.
  • I don't understand the concept of a cover-up *within a church.*  They aren't a civil authority, outside the tiny confines of the Vatican.  Presumably, no one involved in the "cover-up" believes they're hiding any wrongdoing from God, the central authority within all the major and most minor religions.

    The sexual abuse of children shouldn't be reported to church "authorities;" it should be reported to police and prosecutors, to seek extradition of any criminal defendants who have been shuffled around.  This is what people do to public school teachers who abuse children, a more common problem that gets less attention.

    The failure to maintain church teachings about the sinfulness of homosexual activities IS entirely within the jurisdiction of church authorities.  Failures there should lead to the qualified rejection of church authority, and possible a schism, if some portion of Catholicism persists in error.
  • edited August 27
    <blockquote rel="Seabird">I have to wonder if there won't be a major schism soon, or a wholesale defection to the Anglicans.<br></div></blockquote>



    I don't see that happening.  If you are an RC put off by your church hierarchy protecting a cadre of sexual deviants, you aren't going to leave for a church that virtually celebrates deviance.  There is also a cultural divide that can be tough to bridge.

    Benedict moved to crack down on practicing homosexuals in seminaries.  If you were at the 'pool back then, you might recall the outrage.

    I read people suggesting that Francis and cardinals who were aware of McCarrick's activities should resign, but that doesn't solve anything if the next generation of deviants are promoted.
  • Slap said:

    I don't understand the concept of a cover-up *within a church.* 




    I don't understand how more of these guys don't just disappear.
  • I fail to understand how it's a church issue at all. Why hasn't law enforcement investigated these many crimes? Is it because the complaining witnesses failed to report them to the police?

    Many states have statutes that require certain people to report abuses of children to either law enforcement or a relevant state authority. 

    NJ law says you are a "disorderly person" should you fail to report abuse you know about. 

    In Colorado there is a specific list of mandatory reporters, which includes Clergy. Failure to report is a $750 fine, class 3 misdemeanor, up to 6 months imprisonment, and liability for "damages approximately caused."

  • LOL at “lavender mafia” and the casual, sloppy assumption that pedophilia shares a link with homosexuality.
  • Tool - I agree with you on that sloppy assumption. I don't believe there are sufficient credible studies to establish any such link.

    The Vatican secretary of state has denied there is a link between celibacy and pedophilia, so that must of course be true.
  • edited August 27
    Sex urges have to be expressed somehow. The poor kids are targets of opportunity, I think, and victims of an institutional policy that won’t acknowledge that.

    Slap was right that this should be strictly a police matter.

    Educated Catholic women of my acquaintance have largely withdrawn from the church over this. They do enough to keep the family elders minimally happy, and that’s it.
  • vwtool said:

    LOL at “lavender mafia” and the casual, sloppy assumption that pedophilia shares a link with homosexuality.


    Its not a sloppy assumption when a clergyman is accused of raping an alterboy, or when a Penn State coach rapes a boy in a shower.

    There is zero reason for a church to tolerate homosexuals in its clergy, if it wants to present its clergy as moral authorities.  That *a portion* of homosexuals are also pedophiles, only emphasizes, rather than diminishes the strength of the prior statement.
  • nbody said:

    Slap said:

    I don't understand the concept of a cover-up *within a church.* 




    I don't understand how more of these guys don't just disappear.
    Was this sort of thing *ever* a problem under Pinochet?
  • vwtool said:

    LOL at “lavender mafia” and the casual, sloppy assumption that pedophilia shares a link with homosexuality.

    "Lavender mafia" does not reflect the assumption you describe.  The term describes groups of pederasts who protect one another from the consequences of young men under their authority.

    Many reports of homosexual predation by priests don't involve prepubescent children, just younger men on whom they can prey.
  • Well, you spend a thousand years telling young homosexuals that their urges are “A Calling”, you gotta expect some lingering consequences.
  • nbody said:


    I don't see that happening.  If you are an RC put off by your church hierarchy protecting a cadre of sexual deviants, you aren't going to leave for a church that virtually celebrates deviance.  There is also a cultural divide that can be tough to bridge.

    Is the bold a reference to Henry II and Becket? Or the side of the Anglican community that allows women and the openly gay to join the clergy? I'm not sure what you're referring to, specifically?

    At any rate, that's why I said "schism". I don't think that the Catholic community is monolithic (no matter what the Church might claim) and there are many practicing Catholics that find more comfort in the liturgy than in the organization itself. Much like current Anglicans.
  • edited August 28
    Seabird said:

    Is the bold a reference to Henry II and Becket? Or the side of the Anglican community that allows women and the openly gay to join the clergy? I'm not sure what you're referring to, specifically?


    At any rate, that's why I said "schism". I don't think that the Catholic community is monolithic (no matter what the Church might claim) and there are many practicing Catholics that find more comfort in the liturgy than in the organization itself. Much like current Anglicans.



    The bolded is a reference to the current episcopal climate. Homosexual clergy aren't a new phenomenon. Benedict never sought to exclude homosexuals from seminaries, only practicing homosexuals.

    Gene Robinson wasn't notable because he was a homosexual being elevated to a bishop's seat, but because he promised to continue his activity. The church around the corner from me routinely has a banner reading "God loves you, no Exceptions"...against the backdrop of a rainbow. Yet, to speak up about the problems invited by priestesses and female bishops invites bitter recrimination, and they can't stop talking about homosexuality, so it isn't an appropriate place for small children.

    I drew the line at their tossing Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer into the garbage, but they kept working at alienating ever more people so that they currently occupy a wavelength shared by diversity trainers and college women's studies departments.

    An ordinary RC who is comforted by taking the sacraments at mass is unlikely to find that atmosphere inviting.

    RCs aren't monolithic, but they are somewhat like jews in that their religion exists in a cultural stew so dense that people who shed the religion still think of themselves as RCs or jews. I don't think episcopalians, methodists, presbyterians or baptists (the denominations that traditionally occupied most of american culture) have that in the same way.

    Individual RCs have left the RCC for the american Episco church following a divorce or something else that alienated them from the RCC, but that was before anglicans began to turn out the kind of schismatic alterations that would alienate them from conventional christians.
  • I thought that there was an element of the Episco church that still adhered to traditional beliefs. Has it all been subsumed by the socially progressive sort? I don't disagree about Catholicism being as much a culture as a religion.
  • I wouldn't say "subsumed" so much as excommunicated or evicted.

    There have been american episco congregations in which the families who built those churches fought to retain them.  Many found help from foreign bishops who brought those congregations within their diocese.

    The problem for all of them is that the episcopal church is an episcopal church (even though it has a protestant self governing culture in many matters).  Your ancestors may have left an endowment that keeps your church standing, but the diocese owns it.  That means a bishop can install a priestess whether the people who go to church think her ordination is valid or not.  It means that signals of contempt and anger conventional christianity aren't cause for removal of clergy if that's what the bishop likes.

    Those groups who didn't like the initial changes have nearly all been dispossessed.  Moreover, they aren't like SSPX RCs who sort of cohere and understand they all have a common adversary in modernity.  Some break away groups are fine with priestesses, but retain the old text.  Others use the new texts, but prefer a more conventional social morality.  The last time I looked, back when Laura was wound up about these matters, there were 14 anglican splinter churches.  Episcos in the 20th century were never more than about 2% of the total population; splitting that up 15 ways isn't viable.
  • Heh... Sounds like being Catholic or Episco today is a bit like being a Republican. :/
  • edited August 30
    Slap said:

    vwtool said:

    LOL at “lavender mafia” and the casual, sloppy assumption that pedophilia shares a link with homosexuality.


    Its not a sloppy assumption when a clergyman is accused of raping an alterboy, or when a Penn State coach rapes a boy in a shower....



    Do the specific instances of such acts occur with greater frequency among homosexuals than they do heterosexuals? With any evidence to back up the claim, how can it be anything BUT a casual, sloppy assumption? 
  • Slap said:

    ...There is zero reason for a church to tolerate homosexuals in its clergy, if it wants to present its clergy as moral authorities...




    Are we talking about a Christian faith? If so, can you present any scripture from the New Testament to support this claim?
  • edited August 30
    vwtool said:


    Do the specific instances of such acts occur with greater frequency among homosexuals than they do heterosexuals? With any evidence to back up the claim, how can it be anything BUT a casual, sloppy assumption? 

    I should not have to explain the difference between an accusation and an assumption to you.  Think about your question for a moment, as you should have before posting it.
  • vwtool said:

    LOL at “lavender mafia” and the casual, sloppy assumption that pedophilia shares a link with homosexuality.

    vwtool said:


    Slap said:

    vwtool said:

    LOL at “lavender mafia” and the casual, sloppy assumption that pedophilia shares a link with homosexuality.


    Its not a sloppy assumption when a clergyman is accused of raping an alterboy, or when a Penn State coach rapes a boy in a shower....



    Do the specific instances of such acts occur with greater frequency among homosexuals than they do heterosexuals? With any evidence to back up the claim, how can it be anything BUT a casual, sloppy assumption? 


    Your question lacks insight.  Whether other paraphilias occur with greater frequency amongst homosexuals or heterosexuals isn't pertinent where the lodged complaint is about rampant homosexual misconduct.

    A report of rape of an alterboy doesn't posit a link between homosexuality and pedophilia, so it can't be a sloppy assumotion, or an assumption of any kind in the term you noted..
    vwtool said:

    Slap said:

    ...There is zero reason for a church to tolerate homosexuals in its clergy, if it wants to present its clergy as moral authorities...




    Are we talking about a Christian faith? If so, can you present any scripture from the New Testament to support this claim?
    Why are you requesting a scriptural citation for the position?  Are you suggesting that scriptural text would dispositive?
  • Slap said:

    ... Think about your question for a moment, as you should have before posting it.





    You're the one who assumed a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Do you believe that to be true?
  • edited August 30
    Slap said:

    vwtool said:


    Do the specific instances of such acts occur with greater frequency among homosexuals than they do heterosexuals? With any evidence to back up the claim, how can it be anything BUT a casual, sloppy assumption? 

    I should not have to explain the difference between an accusation and an assumption to you.  Think about your question for a moment, as you should have before posting it.
    vwtool said:

    Slap said:

    ... Think about your question for a moment, as you should have before posting it.





    You're the one who assumed a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.



    It's as if you are immune to reflection,...and reading,...and comprehension.

    Vigano is clear that in excess of 80% of the known abuse claims are against males.
  • edited August 30
    vwtool said:

    You're the one who assumed a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.


    Where did I do that?
  • Since no one else will say it, guess I'll have to return from my walkabout to do so:

    "the casual, sloppy assumption that homosexuality shares a link with pedophilia".

    In 6000 years of recorded human history, heterosexuals never even came close to producing anything like a straight version of NAMBLA.

    Once homosexuality began to be normalized, It took homosexuals about 15 minutes to create it.
  • edited August 31
    As for Francis: IMO, what we are seeing is the culmination of Lenin's explicit plot to destroy the Church from within. Using the exact same techniques the Left has used to infiltrate every other institution (mainly by incessantly practicing what they previously demonized as 'McCarthyism'), they actively encouraged homosexuals and pedophiles to join the Church actively encouraging them to treat it as a sexual perversion playground, and also planted infiltrators whose job it was to provide cover for the first group. To make it even worse for the RCC than what was faced by other institutions, the Left took advantage of the Seal of the Confessional, where the pedophile priests would gleefully confess their acts to the normal priests, barring them from being able to tell anyone about it.

    Francis clearly belongs to the faction doing the infiltrating. I would like to see him forced to resign, and seriously, there needs to be a massive purge to get rid of the infiltrators ('lavender mafia' is as good a term as any, though 'communist bastards' also serves). My greatest hope is that such a purge happens and becomes a model for the rest of the institutions of Western Civilization that have been similarly infiltrated and corrupted by the Left (Hollywood, academia, mainstream media, etc. etc.)
  • For the record, the heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA is “Appalachia,” which in truth is more a state of mind than a physical location.

  • The rest of your paranoid ranting deserves no response other than to point out it peels away the flimsy veneer of respectability others here work so diligently to apply.
  • Eeesh..
    vwtool said:

    For the record, the heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA is “Appalachia,” which in truth is more a state of mind than a physical location.




    1. I'm guessing you had to Google that.
    2. It isn't really equivalent is it.
  • edited September 3
    No, not really equivalent. The damage done by garden variety, heterosexual child molestatation and incest is so widespread that it requires no googling. Inflating the influence of a tiny, fringe group like NAMBLA, and imagining that it represents “the left” on the whole is either paranoia, or something more malevolent. Kinda like equating Democrats with Communists, but we all know how common that is here.
Sign In or Register to comment.