in the Twilight
The Demonic Perversion
Homosexuality in the Priesthood
“Archbishop Carlo Viganò
claimed that Pope Francis “continued to cover” for
McCarrick, and not only did he repeal the sanctions
imposed by Benedict, but also made McCarrick “his
trusted counselor.” He claimed that McCarrick,
the former archbishop of Washington, advised the
pope to appoint a number of bishops in the United States
, including Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago, Cardinal
Joseph Tobin of Newark, and Bishop Robert McElroy of
San Diego.” [all homosexual advocates — ed.]
“I Will Not Say a Single Word”
“Pope Francis said [Aboard
the papal plane, Aug 26, 2018 / 15:30 pm] that he will
not comment on claims by a former Vatican ambassador to
the U.S. that the pope knew about allegations against Archbishop
Theodore McCarrick and reinstated him in ministry. The
pope said people should make up their own minds about the
claims. Asked whether it was true that Archbishop Carlo
Viganò, the statement’s author, had informed him in 2013
about McCarrick’s alleged sexual misconduct with priests
and seminarians, and if it was true Benedict XVI had previously
imposed sanctions on the former cardinal, the pope said
he was distracted by the previous question and would have
preferred to talk about the trip. ... “I read the statement
this morning, and I must tell you sincerely
that, I must say this, to you ... I will
not say a single word on this.” *
— why —
refuse to reply
to the shocking accusations brought about by Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò with these infamous words? Twice he claims
that he “must” say nothing about the accusations. “Must”.
He does not say “I choose not to ...”, or “I
would prefer not to ...” — but that he “MUST not”.
Francis chose his words very carefully. Why?
This question has baffled countless Catholics, journalists, and reporters
concerning the widespread Abuse Scandal of Predatory Homosexual
Priests. There is an answer — an answer that is at once conspicuously
cogent, compelling, and credible. In fact, it may be the answer to the
most salient question surrounding the worst scandal that has ever plagued
the Roman Catholic Church in the 2000 years of Her history:
How was this possible?
Dr. Taylor Marshall, philosopher and
director of the New Saint Thomas Institute, has provided us with
a uniquely insightful answer which, when fully explicated, answers not
only this vexing question concerning Francis, but the vicious mechanism
by which homosexual predation within the clergy flourished and continues
to be perpetuated.
is Breathtaking! The Sacrament of Penance
— the Confessional — the very means established by Christ to
renounce and repudiate sin and re-establish the soul to a state
of grace consonant with God — has been perverted to become both the
means and the end of perpetuating sin! Imagine,
the devil has spuriously co-opted a Sacrament! The object is to perpetuate
homosexuality in the the priesthood — and to destroy it — and with it,
Christ’s Holy Catholic Church! How was this possible?
Seal of the Confessional!
In order to understand
this answer, it is imperative that you understand the following:
may NEVER “under any circumstance break the “Seal of the Confessional”
even if it costs him his life. If he does break that seal,
he is automatically excommunicated from the Church (read on) and
can no longer exercise any priestly function or faculty, celebrate
any Mass, or receive Holy Communion. He is outside the Church.
THIS IS THE VITAL POINT TO KEEP IN MIND.
assume that a homosexual priest has sodomized or sexually violated
(raped) a young man.
himself from the possibility of the exposure of his sin and crime,
he enters the Confessional. However, upon his confession, HE
IMMEDIATELY BINDS THE PRIEST TO WHOM HE CONFESSES — both by
the Seal of the Confessional and by Canon Law —
TO NEVER REVEAL IT TO ANYONE, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, WHATSOEVER,
no matter how many times he has done it or continues to do it.
a VERY forceful and cogent explanation of why Francis
remains silent. This — and this alone — is why Francis
“Will not say a single word about it [the accusation].”
to say that Francis had two possible and compelling reasons for
his refusal to say “a single word”:
By breaking the Seal of the Confessional
himself, he would immediately be incurring excommunication
latae sententiae (the punishment is concurrent with
the action) upon himself.
And to BIND any priest to whom he himself
may have confessed his complicity in perpetuating
the same sin, from ever disclosing it.
that this explanation exceeds mere conjecture, but there is no way that
we can ever know it for certain for the very reasons we have already
articulated: a priest can say absolutely NOTHING
relative to what is disclosed in the Confessional — either exculpatory
or inculpatory — not even by so much as the slightest gesture
... for in doing so, he would be automatically excommunicating himself.
It is nothing
less than a demonically clever artifice, for it uses a Sacrament,
something holy and inviolable, which in itself (in se) cannot
ever be evil — to enable a person to manipulate the sacrament
in order to continue to commit or perpetuate evil without disclosure
or penalty — and to bind any priest to
silence who knows of his unspeakable sin through Holy Confession. It
has been, and is, instigated by the devil and the demons. It is the
work of darkness.
In a word, Francis could not respond to the question because, by Canon
Law, if any priest — including the pope — breaks the “Seal of the Confessional”
by word, gesture or deed; if he in any way whatever — violates the Seal
of the Confessional and reveals the sins of the Penitent to anyone*
— even to save his own life — and even if the Penitent is no longer
living — the priest is automatically excommunicated latae sententiae
(the instant he breaks the Seal) from the Church.
Of course Francis could never “say a single
word” — not if he were to remain “pope” rather than excommunicating
himself from the Church.
And this, very likely, is also HOW homosexuality became so pervasive
within the priesthood and the episcopacy!
Each was covering for the other
by binding the other to silence through the sacred Seal of the Confessional
— even if the Confessor was not homosexual himself!
problem can be understood in a broader context:
become homosexual bishops
then vote for a pope who himself may be
homosexual or at least sympathetic to advocating
The longer the
ordination of homosexuals, the more pervasive homosexuality will
become in the Church —until, in an ultimate
effrontery to God, a “synod” or “council” or “pope” declares, to its
that homosexual acts are no longer sinful —
despite every word condemning it in Holy Scripture and the teaching
of the Church for 2000 years.
Consider once again, the following scenario: a homosexual
seminarian has viciously sinful and perverse sexual relations with another
seminarian — or a homosexual priest has raped an Altar boy or preyed
upon a youngster (one shudders to think of such horrendous scenarios
— and thousands occur!) Guilt torments him, afflicts him, for he recognizes
that what he has done is so monstrous, such an offense against
God and man, that he cannot tolerate it himself. What does he do?
He goes to confession
This is where the vicious cycle begins. Once he reveals
his sin to the Confessor, that priest is bound not to let what he has
heard from this seminarian influence him in any way. It is as though
a confession never occurred as far as the world outside the Confessional
is concerned — and the priest effectively becomes a sacred amnesiac.
The priest cannot act upon what was confessed to him in any way. Even
if the offender routinely has sex with other men, the Confessor cannot
in any way influence the candidate’s soon-to-be vocation as a priest.
It is nothing less than diabolically conceived, implemented, and
perpetuated — it has the “Mark of the Beast” upon it, from conception
to conclusion. What is worse — if possible — in confessing the vile
sin of homosexual predation, he stirs the lingering lust in the Confessor
— who himself is a homosexual predator — who then marks his target
for further grooming to satisfy his own perversion!. He has just found
another ... like unto himself!
In a diabolical
mockery of the Sacrament of Confession, the two, if both are
priests, resume their predatory perversion and
and absolve each other! And — to use Francis’s flimsy deflection
— not “a single word” can be said to anyone!
“NOT A WORD CAN BE SAID”
It cannot be sufficiently impressed upon us that
the moment the seminarian kneels in the Confessional (or, more commonly
in the Novus Ordo Church, sits in a lounge chair and comfortably
encounters the priest face-face in what resembles a clinical session
— an environment that lends itself to “other pertinent” and more frightful
possibilities inside the “Room of Reconciliation” — “NOT A WORD CAN
BE SAID” to anyone outside the Confessional — ever.
IS HOW HOMOSEXUALITY IS PERPETUATED IN THE PRIESTHOOD!
One very troubling question remains: which side
of the Confessional was Bergoglio in? The Confessor’s or the Penitent’s
... or both? He cannot reveal this. And this may well account for
his malicious reference to the Confessional as “a torture chamber”.
Before the Sacrament of Penance itself is mindlessly vilified, it is
equally vital to understand that the Sacrament of Penance is inviolably
sacred and indefeasibly holy, for only through this Sacrament is sin
absolved, the penitent cleansed, and upon enacting his penance, exempted
from all temporal punishment, and reconciled to God and the Church.
Mortal Sin is removed and with it — eternal punishment in a very real
place called Hell.
use this sacred Sacrament, by which sins are absolved — to
SUSTAIN, and even IMPLEMENT sin itself — is a sin so grave,
so sacrilegious, so blasphemous, that a category even
greater than that of “Mortal Sin” itself seems necessary.
Something, perhaps, akin to “Demonic
Sin”? Why? Because complicity in this category of sin is so heinous,
so blasphemous, that it is a participation in a sin that can only be
predicated of the demons — and the “Father Lies” himself.
** Who may not be genuinely penitent at all, in which case the absolution
granted by Christ through the priest is invalid and the “penitent” is
further guilty of the greater sin of Sacrilege
1 The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 decreed, “Let the confessor take
absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any
other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it
without, however, in any way indicating the person. For we decree that
he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in
the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly
office, but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual
penance.” See also: Canon 983.1 of the current Code of Canon Law, which
declares that “It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a
penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason.” (#2490 CCC).
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
Totally Faithful to the Sacred
Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.”
Copyright © 2004 - 2022 Boston Catholic
Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated, permission
is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal for the copying
and distribution of the articles and audio files under the
following conditions: No additions, deletions, or
changes are to be made to the text or audio files in any
way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit. In the
reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic, text,
or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic