|
The Demonic
Perversion of the Confessional
|
|
“Archbishop Carlo Viganò claimed that Pope Francis “continued to cover” for for disgraced and now defrocked 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.” |
Francis’ Response?
“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
... why ... did
Francis 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.
The Answer 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?
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 sodomized or sexually violated (raped) a young man.
-
To protect 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 whatever, no matter how many times he has done it or continues to do it.
-
This is 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].”
That is 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.
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: 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.
Demonic Perspicacity
This 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!
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 sympathetic to advocating 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 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?
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 reciprocally confess 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.
This ...
this 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.
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 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.
_________________________
*
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/39231/pope-i-will-not-say-a-single-word-on-viganos-allegations-of-cover-up
** 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
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Totally Faithful to the Sacred
Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome
|
|
The Face
and the |
