UPDATE 15 Jan:
In the combox, below, someone brought up a piece by John Allen at Crux about this. HERE I don’t look at Crux much anymore, so I was happy for the heads up. In his piece Allen tries to parse what “gay lobby” might mean in its Italian context. The words might mean something different to an American and to an Italian.
I already wrote about this very thing in 2013. HERE
Back then… with some emphases and comments:
One of the words flung around in the blogosphere and opinion items is the word “lobby” as in “gay lobby”. Because this story is driven by Italian sources we need to be clear about what this “lobby” means.
In Italian, “lobby” has a different connotation than it does in English. To get a good description of the different impact, I asked my old friend the great Roman Fabrizio, whose facility in English is amazing. Here is what he sent:
Although increasingly used in a more Anglo-Saxon political sense, the term “lobby” has a decidedly more negative and at times conspiratorial flavor to it in Italian. We otherwise use “gruppi di pressione” [pressure groups] o “gruppi di interesse” [interest groups] when referred to organized and official entities. Another negative term would be “poteri forti” [like “powerful forces”]. In short, it means sinister people who maneuver in the dark and who have leverage enough to make things happen or to prevent them from happening.
In other words, there is nothing benign about “lobby” in this context. When you see it in this context, know that this is nasty business with lots of passive-aggression, villainous-smiling, lying-in-wait, and backstabbing.
I may not write much on this blog about the whole “Vatican gay lobby” thing. It makes me pretty mad. [During my years in Rome I saw its ugliness and had a nasty brush with it a few times.] But it is time for me to say this:
For decades our society has been slowly but surely and purposely shifted by those in control of the mainstream media and entertainment industry. At first, because of the rise of AIDS, active homosexuals were constantly portrayed as innocent, though perhaps quirky, victims. Once the notion of homosexuality was shifted from its moorings and a new status was created in the minds of the public, another shift took place in the media. Now, TV shows and movies are saturated with homosexuals who are far more sophisticated, with it, intelligent, good looking than their more dysfunctional heterosexual counterparts. Victim time is over. It is cool to be “gay”.
For years an artificial sub-culture was carefully crafted and now it is busting out into a “new normal”. [How much more so now after a couple more years of infiltration?]
But – contrary to popular opinion – human nature and God’s revealed truths have not changed. Homosexuality is not normal. Christ’s priesthood and homosexuality converging is like pushing misaligned magnets together. It can be done, but it requires force. [Brute force.] It is no wonder that some of these misaligned clerics do gawdawful things, especially to other clerics. They are out of sorts with themselves at their deepest core. How they must suffer! That suffering will sometimes come out sideways. Homosexual violent crime is often the most brutal and bloody that the police see. [Ask them.] Homosexual clerics usually won’t be physically violent. Their conflicts manifest in other ways.
There is an old macaronic-Latin phrase in clerical circles in Rome: homo homini lupus… sacerdos sacerdoti lupissimus.
That’s what I wrote in 2013.
Allen pretty much gets it. However, I think he tries to separate homosexuality from “gay” too much and loses the thread in the maze.
___ ORIGINAL Published on: Jan 13, 2016 ___
Some on the catholic Left, such as Michael Sean Winters of the Fishwrap, give virtual submission of mind and will to the insights of His Eminence Oscar Card. Rodriguez Maradiaga, the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa and a member of Pope Francis Gang of 9 Cardinals.
From the National Catholic Register by Ed Pentin:
Cardinal Rodriguez: Homosexual Lobby Exists in the Vatican
Honduran cardinal also rules out the Pope ever supporting same-sex ‘marriage’, saying the “natural law cannot be reformed”.Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has confirmed the presence of a homosexual “lobby” in the Vatican and revealed that Pope Francis is trying “little by little to purify it.”
The Honduran Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, who coordinates the Council of Nine cardinals advising the Pope on reform of the Roman Curia and Church governance, was responding to a question from a Honduran newspaper reporter who asked him whether there had been “an attempt to infiltrate the gay community in the Vatican, or a moment when that had actually happened?”
Cardinal Rodriguez replied: “Not only that, also the Pope has said there is even a ‘lobby’ in this sense. Little by little the Pope is trying to purify it.” [That means it is undesirable.] He added: “One can understand them [members of the lobby] and there is pastoral legislation to attend to them, but what is wrong cannot be truth.” [It’s wrong to promote what they promote.]
The Pope acknowledged the presence of a homosexual network of priests at the Vatican during a private conversation with leaders of a Latin American confederation of religious in June 2013. In the context of saying he found reform of the Roman Curia difficult, the Pope said: “The ‘gay lobby’ is mentioned, and it is true, it is there … We need to see what we can do.”
He alluded to it again a month later, telling reporters on the plane back from Rio de Janeiro that “you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good.” [The Fishwrap promotes homsexuality.]
A homosexual lobby was also suspected to have been influential on both Synods on the Family when controversial passages relating to homosexuals made their way into the interim report during the 2014 meeting despite being hardly discussed, and external lobby groups sought to pressure the participants.
There was also a common perception that the Communion for remarried divorcees issue, which dominated both synods, was a “Trojan horse” to allow Church recognition of same-sex relationships and other extra-marital unions.
During last year’s synod, statements on homosexuality “seemed to come out of nowhere” at press briefings when the issue was hardly raised by synod fathers during the three week meeting.
The comments from the Pope and now Cardinal Rodriguez contradict those made by Father Krzysztof Charamsa, a homosexual Polish priest who was dismissed as an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after publicly announcing his homosexuality just ahead of the Synod on the Family last October. He told Italian television he had “never met a gay lobby in the Vatican”.
Also in the interview with Heraldo de Honduras, Cardinal Rodriguez was asked whether the Pope would ever support same-sex “marriage.”
“No,” he replied. “We must understand that there are things that can be reformed and others cannot. The natural law cannot be reformed. We can see how God has designed the human body, the body of the man and the body of a woman to complement each other and transmit life. The contrary is not the plan of creation. There are things that cannot be changed.”
The cardinal also tried to reassure readers there would be “no major” changes to doctrine as part of the Pope’s reforms. “We should not expect there will be major reforms in the doctrine of the Church. The reform is the organization of the curia.”
He also said there has not been much resistance to curial reform. “There is resistance of course, there are people who, precisely because they do not know the life of the Church, resist any changes.
“These, of course, are wrong attitudes,” he continued. “As I’ve said, to be able to understand the Church, we must see that it is not merely a human institution, it is humane-divine, it is natural and supernatural and, by consequence, there are things that do not really depend on what is human.”
I am sure that this will cause some consternation in some quarters. But, Card. Rodriguez has said it.
Moderation queue is ON.
Loading ...
The homosexual lobby came out in full splendor at the English language pressers of the Synod on the Family.
“revealed that Pope Francis is trying “little by little to purify it.”” — I doubt this because Pope names Fr. Timothy Radcliff consultor for Council for Justice, Peace last May 2015. (http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-names-fr-timothy-radcliff-consultor-for-counc). Fr Radcliffe is gay-friendly (http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/gay-friendly-priest-major-speaker-at-51st-eucharistic-congress)
Minor quibble with the translation, which is otherwise very good. Better than what one usually sees (even with the translation of papal speeches). Rodriguez doesn’t just say that there will not be any “major reforms” in the doctrine of the Church. He goes further: he says there will be no reforms to the doctrine. The full exchange is: “Q. What different things will be in that constitution [reforming the curia]? A. Not major things, let us not expect in the doctrine of the church, there are no reforms, the reform is to the organization of the curia.”
Here is the link to the interview for your Spanish readers.
http://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/918942-466/hay-personas-que-se-resisten-a-los-cambios-en-la-iglesia-cat%C3%B3lica
Well I think I will wait for positive evidence that there is a move against the gay lobby rather than just talk. As for Fr Charasma’s denial as to the existence of a gay lobby in the Vatican one is reminded of Mandy Rice Davies’s classic comment when asked in court about someone else’s denial of fornication: “Well he would say that wouldn’t he?”
I have questions about this report. It complains that statements on homosexuality were included in the Synod’s final report. Isn’t that report vetted by the Pope to include what he wants included and to eliminate what he wants eliminated? Didn’t he appoint Abp. Forte to a prominent position in the leadership of the Synod. Wasn’t Forte the author of the pro-homosexual report? Didn’t the Pope appoint Weurl to replace Cardinal Burke in the Congregation of Bishops and Cupich to the Chair in Chicago? Those facts don’t support his alleged desire to ‘purify’ the Curia homosexual lobby. Edward Pentin is beyond reproach in these matters so I wonder why the obvious contradictory elements of the story. Did Pentin merely report what Cardinal Rodriguez said without comment?
Let the Pope speak for himself. We always hear such promising messages via his subordinates.
That is as refreshing as it gets from the cardinal. Correct and non-wishy-washy (on this matter at least).
Re the lobby, which most readers here have known of or suspected for years, who are they exactly? Priests from various dioceses around the world presumably who serve in the various dicasteries, etc.? Is the Vatican bureaucracy a dumping ground for conservative bishops wishing to get rid of homosexual priests, or a place where homosexual-enabling liberal bishops send them to undermine the Vatican? Or both?
Surely the simple solution is to have relatively short fixed terms of service and not appoint priests whose bishops are serial dumpers.
Who’s going around impersonating Cardinal Maradiaga?
Fr. Z: So, it has been confirmed that there exist a homosexual lobby in the Church, particularly in the Vatican. [Confirmation of the obvious.] Yet, since its acknowledgement at least two or three years ago, it appears little has been done to eradicate it. [It is hard to know that.] I am confused by this. First, let me say that it is to the Church’s detriment in many ways to have such a lobby in Christ’s Church. Having worked in industry for 33 years, much of it in positions of authority and in one position, reporting directly to the president of the company, I cannot except that this issue can or will be solved by incremental advances. In the corporation in which I worked there were approximately 50,000 employees. Organizational problems [This isn’t just an “organizational problem”.] within this company were usually dealt with immediately after sufficient information was obtained and analyzed, which would be less than six months. For example, I have experienced a complete overhaul of the organizational structure of this company in far less than that time. [During which you eradicated homosexuals from your company?] Therefore, I cannot understand why it is taking years to excise this wound of the Church. I am ready to acknowledge some differences between the Church’s organization structure and that of a secular organization including, but not limited to, the power structures. My question then is what is preventing the swift action necessary to rid the Church of this festering boil? [So…. how would one do this? You can’t just check a blood type, or apply physiognomy. What would it look like? I have a few ideas about what I would do, as Pope, but I don’t have any illusions that it would be easy. An easy one, however, would be this: if someone put into a document issues about homosexuality that weren’t actually part of the Synod’s discussion, that person wouldn’t be allowed to do more than sell ice creams in the Vatican gardens ever again.]
@Defender,
The Church seems to prefer, under this and previous pontiffs, to move slowly when acting against persons. They are after all sinners to be encouraged to constantly reform just like ourselves. And while this issue is what led to the delay in making big moves in the clerical abuse crisis, there is not the sense of urgency here when children are not involved. We might think there is in the deleterious effects this lobby has on the Church, including at least semi-public scandal, but again there is not the feeling of urgency to place the issue over all other ones.
And as Father Z said in his comments to yours, there is not an easy litmus test. And personally I suspect that being located in the decadent city of Rome has had a very bad effect on many priests whose inclinations would not otherwise have been acted upon, and which then spurred them to justify their sin rather than repent of it.
A lot of this also goes back to the seminaries and the instructors they have. The gay lobby in the Vatican is part of a much larger would-wide network of local lobbies. Many bishops pander to them whether out of misguided compassion that ignores the effect they have on the Church, or because they are just not courageous enough to tackle the issue, the same as with other issues. It takes courageous bishops to deal with such problems, and we need more of them!
The problem is not so much the “gay lobby” as the modernist/satanic/masonic lobby to which the gay lobby is subordinate.
Little by little the Pope is trying to purify it.” [That means it is undesirable.]
That means that the stomach, or the moral fortitude necessary to eradicate that influence just isn’t there. They fear. They fear. You don’t negotiate with evil. You command it to leave, with all the authority of Heaven to back you up. Unless…
I’d like to reiterate for those who missed it that when Pope Francis made the infamous “Who am I to judge?” comment, it was directed at those trying to follow Christ in explicit contrast to this lobby. This was the context. Don’t take my word for it, go read the whole in-air interview and see.
i have heard from a devout priest friend of mine that masons are well represented albeit covertly in the church and that homosexuality is part of their code.
@Boanerges:
Do you imagine that this is a problem merely of human beings operating within a human institution? Of a few sashaying prelates who can be swept aside by apostolic fiat? If so, I urge you to consider Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Pope Francis–and indeed all of the Holy Church–is besieged by those in the service of the fallen archangel. Christ promised us that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but we should not be under any illusions about the true nature of our Enemy or the existential nature of our struggle. So yes, they fear. As well they should.
This is a contest of spirit against spirit. It will not be won in the realm of church politics. Frankly, I think we should all take some comfort in that fact. For if it cannot be won by political means, neither can it be lost.
Dear Defender of Truth,
on a purely natural point… you know, Rome is in Italy.
On another, given that Italian culture is shaped by Catholicism, maybe that slowness is there for a reason.
Fr Z, what do you make of John Allen’s piece on Crux about this?
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/01/15/decoding-what-it-means-to-say-the-vatican-has-a-gay-lobby/
[Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I might add something to the top entry.]
Re John Allen’s piece, despite being clearly in the liberal camp, his comments are always worth reading due to his years of covering the Vatican beat very well. However, even after accepting his analysis, one is still left with the following being true by his own said analysis: there is an “old boy network” of careerist/corrupt priests, who while not being exclusively homosexual (priests who embezzle and/or violate their vows with women need protection and cover-up too!), does in fact have a large homosexual component. The solution is the same, shorter terms of Vatican service followed by a return to their dioceses (or laicization).
BTW, for those like Father Z who wish to read John Allen without wading through the rest of the Crux muck, simply bookmark his twitter account and one will find links to his articles: https://twitter.com/JohnLAllenJr