THIS is why …)
did Francis refuse to reply to
the shocking accusations brought about by Archbishop Carlo Maria
Viganò with these infamous words?
This question has mystified 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.
The Answer in Short: MANIPULATING THE SEAL OF THE CONFESSIONAL
In order to understand this answer, it
is imperative that you understand the following:
A priest 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.
Let us assume that a homosexual priest has sexually
violated (raped) a young man.
To protect himself from the possibility of the exposure
of his sin and crime, he enters the Confessional. 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.
THIS IS A VERY FORCEFUL EXPLANATION OF WHY FRANCIS
What is more, Francis may have had two possible
reasons: not to break the Seal of the Confessional himself
and incurring excommunication latae sententiae (the
punishment is concurrent with the action) — but also to
BIND any priest to whom he himself may have confessed his complicity
in perpetuating the same sin, from ever disclosing it.
We believe 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: such a priest can say absolutely
NOTHING relative to it, 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 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!
This self-perpetuating problem can be understood in
a broader context: homosexual seminarians become homosexual priests
— who become homosexual bishops — who become homosexual
cardinals — who then vote for a pope who himself may be homosexual or
at least sympathetic to homosexuality.
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 self-serving purposes
that homosexuality is no longer a sin — despite every word
about it in Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church for 2000 years.
Consider once again, the following scenario: a homosexual
seminarian has sinful and perverse sexual relations with another seminarian.
He goes to confession.
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.
“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.
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.
To use this sacred Sacrament, by which sins are absolved
— to sustain, and even implement sin itself — is a sin so grave,
so sacrilegious, so profane, indeed, so blasphemous, that an even graver
category of sin than even Mortal Sin itself seems necessary. May we
suggest “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
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
Comments? Write us: