St. Peter Damian’s
Book of Gomorrah
A Moral Blueprint
for Our Times
by Randy Engel
Editor’s Note: CFN has asked Randy Engel to
help clarify the basic issues surrounding clerical pederasty and homosexuality
in the Church today. She has studied and researched the homosexual network in
the Catholic priesthood and religious life for more than thirteen years and we
believe that her commentary based on the works of the 11th Century Italian monk
St. Peter Damian will help put the current crisis into a proper perspective for
our readers. A December 2003 date has been set for her latest book The Rite
of Sodomy — Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church. JV
Part I
The Life of St. Peter Damian (1007-1072)
It appears that whenever Holy Mother Church has had a
great need for a special kind of saint for a particular age, God, in His
infinite mercy, has never failed to fill that need. And so, in the year 1007
A.D., a boy child was born to a noble but poor family in the ancient Roman city
of Ravenna, who would become a Doctor of the Church, a precursor of the
Hildebrandine reform in the Church and a key figure in the moral and spiritual
reformation of the lax and incontinent clergy of his time.
Tradition
tells us that St. Peter Damian’s entrance into this world was initially an
unwelcome event that overtaxed and somewhat embittered his already large
family. He was orphaned at a young age, and his biographer John of Lodi tells
us that were it not for the solicitude of his older brother Damian, an
archpriest at Ravenna, the youth might have lived out his life in obscurity as
a swineherd. But God deemed otherwise. Peter’s innate intellectual talents and
remarkable piety in the light of great adversity were recognized by the
archpriest, who plucked his younger brother from the fields and provided him
with an excellent education first at Ravenna, then Faenza and finally at the
University of Parma. In return, Peter acknowledged his brother’s loving care by
adopting Damian as his surname.
Although
he excelled in his studies and quickly rose in academic ranks, Peter felt drawn
to the religious rather than university life. His spirituality would be formed
by his love for the Rule of St. Benedict and his attraction to the
rigorous penance and individualistic practices of St. Romuald.
In
his late twenties he was welcomed into the Benedictine hermitage of the Reform
of St. Romuald at Fonte-Avellena where he eventually became Prior — a position
he retained until his death on February 21, 1072 while also serving as
Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, an honor bestowed upon Peter by Pope Stephen IX in
1057. The life of the well-traveled holy monk was distinguished by his great
learning and a marvelous knowledge of Holy Scripture, and by great penitential
acts, which served both as a rebuke and as an inspiration to his fellow monks and
the secular clergy at a time in the Church when moral turpitude was endemic in
clerical ranks. His wise counsel and diplomatic skills were employed by a
lengthy succession of Popes, most importantly, Pope Leo IX, another forerunner
of the Gregorian Reform. Peter Damian died in the odor of sanctity on February
22, 1072 in his sixty-sixth year.1
The Book of Gomorrah — A Lesson for Yesterday,
Today and Tomorrow
Among
St. Peter Damian’s most famous writings is his lengthy treatise, Letter 31, the
Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gornorrhianus), containing the most
extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty
and homosexual practices.2 His manly discourse on the vice of sodomy in general
and clerical homosexuality and pederasty in particular, is written in a plain
and forthright style that makes it quite readable and easy to understand.
In
keeping with traditional Church teachings handed down from the time of the
Apostles, he holds that all homosexual acts are crimes against Nature and
therefore crimes against God who is the author of Nature.
It is
also refreshing to find an ecclesiastic whose first and primary concern in the
matter of clerical sexual immorality is for God’s interests, not man’s,
especially with regard to homosexuality in clerical ranks. Also, his special
condemnation of pederastic crimes by clergy against young boys and men
(including those preparing for holy orders) made over nine hundred years ago,
certainly tends to undermine the excuse of many American bishops and Cardinals
who claim that they initially lacked specific knowledge and psychological
insights by which to assess the seriousness of clerical pederastic crimes.
Upon
a first reading of the Book of Gomorrah I think the average
Catholic would find himself in a state of shock at the severity of Damian’s
condemnation of clerical sodomical practices as well as the severe penalties
that he asks Pope Leo IX to attach to such practices.
Part
of this reaction, as J. Wilhelm asserts with regard to modern Catholics’
adverse reaction to the severity of medieval penalties (including capital
punishment for heresy), can be attributed to the fact that we live in an age
that has “less regard for the purity of the faith”.3 Many Catholics have simply lost a sense of sin. It
does not seem to matter if an overt effete homosexual cleric “camps” it out on
the altar while administering heretical rites for an Ash Wednesday service.
Like those watching Hilaire Belloc’s new barbarians at the gate, parishioners
smile. They are titillated. They find him ‘amusing’.4
Also,
many Catholics today have little, if any, knowledge of how the early Church Fathers
dealt with the issue of homosexuality, including pederasty, in clerical ranks.
Take,
for example, the spiritual and physical penalties declared by the 4th Century
architect of Eastern monasticism, St. Basil of Cesarea
(322-379AD), for the cleric or monk caught making sexual
advances (kissing) or sexually molesting young boys or men. The
convicted offender was to be whipped in public, deprived of his tonsure (head
shaven), bound in chains and imprisoned for six months, after which he was to
be contained
in a separate cell and ordered to undergo severe penances and prayer vigils to
expedite his sins under the watchful eye of an elder spiritual brother. His
diet was that of water and barley bread — the
fodder of
animals. Outside his cell, while engaged in manual labor and moving
about the monastery, the pederast monk was to be always monitored by two fellow
monks to insure that he never again had any contact with young men or boys.5
One
wonders how many homosexuals and pederasts would be lining up at Bernard
Cardinal Law’s or any other American prelates, seminary door if they knew that
such a harsh fate awaited them if they were found guilty of even attempting much
less carrying out the sexual seduction and molestation of minor boys and young
men?
And
speaking of seminaries, I might mention the papal ruling of St. Siricius, a
contemporary of St. Basil, who ordered that “vessels of vice,” that is known
sodomists, including those who had fulfilled their penance, were forbidden from
seeking entrance to the clerical state.6
Considering
that the Book of Gomorrah was written in 1049 A.D. it borders on the
miraculous to note how many of Damian’s insights can be applied to the current
pederast and homosexual debacle here in the United States and abroad, including
the Vatican. His treatise certainly stands as a masterful refutation of
contemporary homosexual apologists who claim that the early Fathers of the
Church did not understand the nature or dynamics of homosexuality. Rather, as
Damian’s work demonstrates, the degradation of human nature as exemplified by
sodomical acts is a universal phenomenon that transcends time, place and
culture.
One
of the main points of the Book of Gomorrah, is the author’s insistence
on the responsibility of the bishop or superior of a religious order to curb
and eradicate the vice from their ranks.7 He minces no words in his condemnation of those
prelates who refuse or fail to take a strong hand in dealing with clerical
sodomical practices either because of moral indifferentism or the inability to
face up to a distasteful and potentially scandalous situation.8
Other
issues tackled by St. Peter Damian which have a particular relevance today are:
• The problems of homosexual bishops or
heads of religious orders who engage their “spiritual sons” in acts of sodomy.
• The sacrilegious use of the
sacraments by homosexual clerics and religious.
• The special problems for the Church related to the seduction of youths by
clerical pederasts, and
• The problem of overtly lax canons and
penances for clerical and religious offenders that make a mockery of the
seriously sinful nature of homosexual acts.
The Motivation for a Treatise on Sodomy
When
the humble monk and future saint, Peter Damian, presented his Letter 31, the Book
of Gomorrah, to Pope Leo IX in 1049, he made it clear that his first and
overriding concern was for the salvation of souls. While the work is addressed
specifically to the Holy Father, its distribution was intended for the
universal Church, most especially the bishops of secular clergy and superiors
of religious orders.
In
his introduction, the holy writer makes clear that the Divine calling of the
Apostolic See makes its primary consideration “the welfare of souls”.
Therefore, he pleads with the Holy Father to take action against “a certain
abominable and most shameful vice,” which he identifies forthrightly as “the
befouling cancer of sodomy,” that is ravaging both the souls of the clergy and
the flock of Christ in his region, before God unleashes His just wrath on the
people.9 Recognizing how nauseating the very mention of the
word sodomy must be to the Pope, he nevertheless asks with blunt frankness:
“...
if a physician is appalled by the contagion of the plague, who is likely to
wield the cautery? If he grows squeamish when he is about to apply the cure,
who will restore health to stricken hearts?”10
Leaving
nothing to misinterpretation, Damian distinguishes between the various forms of
sodomy and the stages of sodomical corruption beginning with solitary and
mutual masturbation and ending with interfemoral (between the thighs)
stimulation and anal coitus.11 He notes that there is a tendency among prelates to
treat the first three degrees of the vice with an “improper leniency,”
preferring to reserve dismissal from the clerical state for only those men
proven to be involved in anal penetration. The result, Damian states, is that a
man, guilty of the “lesser” degrees of the vice, accepts his milder penances,
but remains free to pollute others without the least fear of losing his rank.
The predictable result of his superior’s leniency, says Damian, is that the
vice spreads, the culprit grows more daring in his illicit acts knowing he will
not suffer any critical loss of his clerical status, he loses all fear of God
and his last state is worse than his first.12
Damian
decries the audacity of men who are “habituated to the filth of
this festering disease,” and yet dare to present themselves
for holy orders, or if already ordained, remain in office.13 Was it not for such crimes that Almighty God
destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and slew Onan for deliberately spilling his seed
on the ground? he asks.14 Quoting St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph 5:5) he
continues, “... if an unclean man has no inheritance at all in Heaven, how can
he be so arrogant as to presume a position of honor in the Church, which is
surely the kingdom of God?”15
The
holy monk likens sodomites seeking holy orders, to those citizens of Sodom who
threatened “to use violence against the upright Lot” and were about to break
down the door when they were smitten with blindness by the two angels and could
not find the doorway. Such men, he says, are stricken with a similar blindness,
and “by the just decree of God they fall into interior darkness”.16
If
they were humble they would be able to find the door that is Christ, but they
are blinded by their “arrogance and conceit,” and “lose Christ because of their
addiction to sin,” never finding “the gate that leads to the heavenly dwelling
of the saints,” Damian laments.17
Not
sparing those ecclesiastics who knowingly permit sodomites to enter holy orders
or remain in clerical ranks while continuing to pollute their office, the holy
monk lashes out at “do-nothing superiors of clerics and priests,” reminding
them that they should be trembling for themselves because they have become
“partners in the guilt of others,” by permitting “the destructive plague” of sodomy
to continue in their ranks.18
Homosexual
Bishops Who Prey on their Spiritual Sons
Then
comes the bitterest blast of all reserved for those bishops who “commit these
absolutely damnable acts with their spiritual sons”.19 “Who can expect the flock to prosper when its
shepherd has sunk so deep into the bowels of the devil ... Who will make a
mistress of a cleric, or a woman of a man? ... Who, by his lust, will consign a
son whom he spiritually begotten for God to slavery under the iron law of
Satanic tyranny,” Damian thunders.20 Drawing an analogy between the sentence inflicted on
the father who engages in familial incest with his daughter or the priest who
commits “sacrilegious intercourse” with a nun, with the defilement of a cleric
by his superior, he asks if the latter should escape condemnation and retain
his holy office?21 Actually, the latter case
deserves an even worse punishment says Damian, because whereas the prior two
cases involved natural intercourse, a religious superior guilty of sodomy has
not only committed a sacrilege with his spiritual son, but has also violated
the law of nature. Such a superior damns not only his own soul but takes
another with him, Damian states.22
The Continuing Scandal of Bishop Daniel Ryan
I do
not know who or what comes to one’s mind after reading such an excoriating censure
of homosexual bishops and Cardinals whose unnatural lusts drive them to prey on
rather than pray for the spiritual sons that Holy Mother Church has entrusted
to their care. Mine went directly to the person of Bishop Daniel Leo Ryan.
Ryan
was consecrated an auxiliary bishop of the Joliet diocese on September 30, 1981
by Joseph L. Imesch, Bishop of Joliet, and assisted by Daniel W. Kucera, Bishop
of Salina and the future Archbishop of Dubuque and prime architect of the
infamous New Creation sex
‘catechism’ which bears his imprimatur.23 Two years later, on November 19, 1983, Pope John Paul
II appointed Ryan Bishop of Springfield, IL. He was installed on January 18,
1984.24
In
1999, Ryan took an unexpected early retirement for “health reasons” amid
well-documented charges by Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), based in Springfield,
that he (Ryan) is an active homosexual who has engaged in gross homosexual
misconduct with area under-age male prostitutes, and clergy.25 The Holy See and the American papal nuncio were said
to have been aware of Ryan’s predatory homosexual propensities.26
Among
the witnesses who came forward to support RCF’s indictment against Ryan’s
sexual exploits was Frank Robert Bergen, a former runaway turned male
prostitute who contacted RCF and informed President Steve Brady that he had had
sodomical relations as a minor with Ryan and other priests. Bergen said that
the bishop had heard his confession and absolved him of his sins each and every
time he had a sexual encounter with him."27
When
Bishop Ryan “retired,” his episcopal office was filled by Bishop George Lucas, former
chancellor of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and a close associate of Archbishop
Justin Rigali. Lucas’ installation reception was held at the Ansar Shrine
Masonic Temple in Springfield, IL.28 His influential mentor, Archbishop Rigali was
consecrated for service to the Holy See in the mid-1980s by Pope John Paul II
and served as papal chamberlain and Secretary of the College of Cardinals until
his return to the United States as Archbishop of St. Louis in 1994.29
Under
Lucas’s bishopric, RCF reports that Bishop Ryan has continued to say Mass
publicly and has administered the Sacrament of Confirmation in both the
Springfield and Joliet dioceses. He (Ryan) was in attendance at Lucas’s
installation. In February of this year, the Springfield diocese announced that
Bishop Ryan would be the presenter of “A Lenten Day of Reflection & Prayer
for Priests,” at Sts. Mary and Joseph Church in Carlinville, IL.30
Seen
Through the Eyes of St. Peter Damian
Let
us now recall the warnings of the monk-author of the Book of Gomorrah presented
hereto.
By
any standard, the Holy See’s lack of public censure in the Ryan case must be
considered incredibly lenient. No public chastisement, no shaved head, no
chains, no solitary confinement in an isolated monastery under strict guard, no
bread and water diet, as proposed by St. Basil. No! Quite the opposite!
Bishop
Ryan continues to remain a retired bishop in “good standing”.
Neither his pederast activities with minor males nor the sexual harassment of
his “spiritual sons” have been publicly denounced by either the Vatican or his
fellow bishops including Bishops Lucas and Imesch. As predicted by Damian, Ryan
has not been humbled by his personal shame or the shame he has brought on Holy
Mother Church. Indeed the whole experience appears to have stimulated his
audacity to even greater heights. He collects his pension, has unlimited
mobility, easy contact with youth and where, by his very presence, he continues
to pollute, figuratively if not literally, the faithful priests and religious
of his and other dioceses who have to suffer daily the remembrances of his
homosexual affairs. Not to mention the public scandal caused by his public
appearances at public sacramental rites of the Church.
So I
find it necessary to ask, has the Holy See fallen into such a state of
dissolution that it can no longer profess, much less protect, God’s interests
in this matter and defend the sanctity of Holy Orders from the pollution of the
sodomites? Do not the horrific acts of predatory homosexual clerics and bishops
like Ryan, and Symonds and Ziemann, to name but a few, strike the fear of God
into the heart of our Holy Father and the members of the Roman Curia?31
Clerical Homosexual Abuse of the Sacrament of
Confession
Leaving
the matter of active homosexual members of the hierarchy and religious orders
for the moment, let us move on to what Damian denounces as one of “the devil’s
clever devices” concocted in “his ancient laboratory of evil,” by which
confirmed clerical sodomites, experiencing a pricking conscience, “confess to
one another lest their guilt come to the attention of others”.32
As
Damian observes however, though such men have become “penitents involved in
great crimes,” they appear to look none the worse for their penances. “...
their lips are not pale from fasting nor are their bodies wasted by
self-denial,” nor are their eyes red from weeping for their sins, he observes.33
The
holy monk questions the validity of such confessions asking, “By what right or
by what law can one bind or loose the other when he is constrained by the bonds
of evil deeds common to them both?”34
Quoting
Holy Scripture concerning “the blind leading the blind,” (Matt 8:4; Luke
5:4) Damian continues, “... it becomes perfectly clear that he who is
oppressed by the same guilty darkness tries in vain to invite another to return
to the light of repentance. While he has no fear of extending himself to
outstrip the other in erring, he ends up accompanying his follower into the
yawning pit of ruin.”35
Since
this practice remains a common one today within the homosexual underworld of
diocesan priests, bishops and religious and between pederast priests and their
young victims, it may be well to recall that under the revised 1983 Code
of Canon Law, the absolution of a partner (clerical or layperson) in a sin
against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of
death (Can. 977) and a priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977
incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, the lifting of which is
reserved to the Apostolic See. (Can. 1378 §1) Unless the offending priest has
his excommunication lifted by the Sacred Penitentiary or the Holy Father, he
has not been validly absolved. Should he attempt to offer the Holy Sacrifice of
the Mass in a state of mortal sin he compounds his offenses with the grave sin
of sacrilege.
Sodomite Priests and the Sacred Mysteries
In a
lengthy and scathing attack on faulty and “spurious” canons and codices related
to penalties for various sodomical acts that were in use by the Church in the
mid-1000s, Damian compares them to the harsh and long penances assigned to
laymen guilty of unnatural acts with men and beasts by the Church Fathers at
the Council of Ancyra (314 A.D.), and finds them wanting.36
If,
under earlier Church laws, a layman guilty of sodomy can be deprived of
the Holy Eucharist for up to twenty-five years or even till the end of his
life, how is it possible that a similarly offending cleric or monk is
let off with minor penances and is judged worthy to not only receive the Holy
Eucharist but consecrate the Sacred Mysteries?, he asks.37 If the holy Fathers ordained that sodomites should
“pray in the company of demoniacs,” how can such a cleric hope to rightly
exercise his priestly office as a “mediator” between God and His people? Damian
continues.38
Later,
Damian returns to this same theme and exclaims “For God’s sake, why do you
damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery
ambition?”39 He warns these clerics, who persist in their unnatural lusts, against
inflaming the wrath of God, “lest by your prayers you more sharply provoke Him
whom your wicked life so obviously offends”.40 At the conclusion of this section, Damian reminds
clerics and prelates alike that, “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands
of the living God.”41 (Heb 10..31)
Remarkable Insights into the Nature of Homosexuality
In
his description of the unnatural passions that rule over the sodomite, Damian
reveals an extraordinary degree of perception regarding the narcissistic,
promiscuous and compulsive psychosexual aspects of homosexual behavior.
“Tell
us, you unmanly and effeminate man, what do you seek in another male that you
do not find in yourself?” he asks. “What difference in sex, what varied
features of the body?” he continues.
Then
he explains the law of life. “For it is the function of the natural appetite
that each should seek outside himself what he cannot find in his own capacity.
Therefore, if the touch of masculine flesh delights you, lay your hands upon
yourself and be assured that whatever you do not find in yourself, you seek in
vain in the body of another,” he concludes.42
The
Particular Malice of the Vice of Sodomy
A
wise Dominican once told this writer, that once the vice of sodomy has
contaminated a seminary, Church authorities have only two options — close the
place down and send everyone home or do nothing and simply wait for the moral
rot to spread until the foundation collapses on its own. Why is this particular
vice so deadly to the religious life?
According
to Damian, the vice of sodomy “surpasses the enormity of all others,” because:
“Without
fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the
flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the
temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of
lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It
opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that
violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters
virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things
...
“This
vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the
soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom
renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to
God... She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be
pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the
church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him
in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like
fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his
memory fails, and the mind’s vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also
forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the
vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice,
demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence.
(emphasis added)
“Shall
I say more?”43
No,
dearest St. Peter Damian, I think not.
Repent and Reform Your Lives
Like
every saint before him, and every saint that will ever come after him, St.
Peter Damian exhorts the cleric caught in the vice of sodomy to repent and
reform his life and in the words of the Blessed Apostle Paul, “Wake up from
your sleep and rise from the dead, and Christ will revive (enlighten) you.”44 (Eph 5:14) In a remarkable affirmation of the
Gospel message, he warns against the ultimate sin of despairing of God’s mercy
and the necessity of fasting and prayer to subdue the passions:
“... beware
of drowning in the depths of despondency. Your heart should beat with
confidence in God’s love and not grow hard and impenitent, in the face of your great
crime. It is not sinners, but the wicked who should despair; it is not the
magnitude of one’s crime, but contempt of God that dashes one’s hopes.”45
Then,
in one of the most beautiful elocutions on the grandeur of priestly celibacy
and chastity ever written, Damian reminds the wayward cleric or monk of the
special place reserved in Heaven for those faithful priests and monks who have
willingly forsaken all and made themselves eunuchs for Christ’s sake. Their
names shall be remembered forever because they have given up all for the love
of God, he says.46
Fraternal
Correction is an Act of Mercy
Saints
are realists, which is no doubt why St. Peter Damian anticipated that his
“small book” which exposes and denounces homosexual practices in all ranks of
the clergy including the hierarchy, would cause a great commotion in the
Church. And it did.
In
anticipation of harsh criticism, the holy monk puts forth his own defense as a
‘whistle-blower’. He states that his would-be critics will accuse him of “being
an informer and a delator of my brother’s crimes,” but, he says, he has no fear
of either “the hatred of evil men or the tongues of detractors”.47
Hear,
dear reader, the words of St. Peter Damian that come thundering down to us
through the centuries at a time in the Church when many shepherds are silent
while clerical wolves, some disguised in miters and brocade robes, devour its
lambs and commit sacrilege against their own spiritual sons;
“...
I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed his
father of his brothers’ foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God’s fury,
like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2:4)
... Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the
priesthood to become the murderer of another’s soul by daring to repress my
criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God’s judgement? ... How, indeed,
am I to love my neighbor as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of which I
am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart? … 48
“So
let no man condemn me as I argue
against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonor, but rather to promote
the advantage of my brother’s well-being.
“Take
care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecute him who sets
him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses’ words, ‘Whoever is for the
Lord, let him stand with me.’ (Ezek 32:26)”49
True Church Reform Begins with the Vicar of Christ
As he
draws his case against the vice of clerical sodomy to a close, St. Peter Damian
pleads with another future saint, Pope Leo IX, urging the Vicar of Christ to
use his office to reform and strengthen the decrees of the sacred canons with
regard to the disposition of clerical sodomites including religious superiors
and bishops who sexually violate their spiritual sons.
Damian
asks the Holy Father to “diligently” investigate the four forms of the vice of
sodomy cited at the beginning of his treatise and then provide him (Damian)
with definitive answers to the following questions by which the “darkness of
uncertainty” might be dispelled and an “indecisive conscience” freed from
error:
Is
one who is guilty of these crimes to be expelled irrevocably from holy orders?
Whether
at a prelate’s discretion, moreover, one might mercifully be allowed to
function in office?
To
what extent, both in respect to the methods mentioned above and to the number
of lapses, is it permissible to retain a man in the dignity of ecclesiastical
office?
Also,
if one is guilty, what degree and what frequency of guilt should compel him
under the circumstances to retire?50
Damian
closes his famous letter by asking Almighty God to use Pope Leo IX’s
pontificate “to utterly destroy this monstrous vice” that a prostrate Church
may everywhere rise to vigorous stature”.51
Part II
[Editor’s
Note:
Randy Engel examines the life and role of St. Leo IX in implementing many of
the clerical moral reforms inspired by the holy monk and their implications for
Catholic Church today. JV ]
Pope Leo IX —The Precursor of Gregorian Reform
Before
describing the reception that St. Peter Damian’s treatise on sodomy received at
the papal court of Leo IX, I think it helpful to briefly examine the early life
of this extraordinary Pope, the precursor to the great Hildebrand reform in the
Catholic Church.
Unlike
Peter Damian, Bruno entered the world under much more favorable emotional and
material circumstances than those of the holy monk. He was born at Egisheim,
near the border of Alsace on June 21, 1002. At the age of five, his
influential, loving and pious parents committed him to the care of the
energetic Berthold, Bishop of Toul, who had a school for the sons of the
nobility. The future Pope’s principal biographer and intimate friend, Wilbert,
records that the youth was handsome, intelligent, virtuous and kindly in
disposition, a description which later manifested itself in the distinguishing
title given him when he served as chaplain at the imperial court — “the good
Bruno.”52
In
1027, Bruno became Bishop of Toul, the frontier town of his youth, that was now
plagued both by war and famine, and remained at this rather obscure See for
more than twenty years until his ascendancy to the Chair of Peter on February
12, 1049.
When
the saintly Bruno, after his election at Worms, entered Rome dressed humbly in
a friar’s robe and barefooted, he was greeted by a cheering populace who
acclaimed with one voice that they would have no other but Bruno as their new
Pope. Little wonder as under the on-again off-again reign of the dissolute Benedict
IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048) the papacy had fallen into serious disrepute.
Bruno’s predecessor, Damasus II, the Bishop of Brixen, had died of malaria
after only twenty days in office.53
Like any
pontiff set on reforming abuses within the Church, Pope Leo IX immediately
surrounded himself with like-minded virtuous and able clerics including the
remarkable Benedictine, Hildebrand of Tuscany, the future Pope Gregory VII, one
of the greatest Popes of the Church.54 In 1049, the Pope appointed Hildebrand administrator
of the Patrimony of St. Peter’s (Vatican finances) and made him promisor of the
monastery of St. Paul extra Mucros which had fallen into moral and physical ruin.
“Monastic discipline was so impaired that the monks were attended in their
refectory by women; and the sacred edifices were so neglected that the sheep
and cattle freely roamed in and out through the broken doors.”55 Deplorable conditions indeed.
Only
four months after coming into the Chair of Peter, the new Pope held a synod to
condemn the two notorious evils of the day — simony, the buying, selling or
exchange of ecclesiastical favors, offices, annulments and other spiritual
considerations and clerical sexual incontinence, including concubinage
(permanent or long- standing cohabitation) and sodomy. Immediately following
the April synod, Leo IX began his journeys through Europe to carry out his
message of reform. In May 1049, he held a council of reform in Pavia, which was
followed by visits and councils in Cologne, Reims (many decrees of reform were
issued here) and Mainz before returning to Rome in January, 1050.56 It was during this period that Damian brought his
treatise on sodomy to the attention of the Holy Father.
Pope Leo IX Gives His Ruling on Clerical Sodomy
The
approximate date that Damian delivered the Book of Gomorrah to Pope Leo
IX is generally held to be the second half of the first year of the pontiff’s
reign, i.e., mid-1049, although some writers put the date as late as 1051. We
do know, absolutely, that the Pope did respond to Damian’s concerns, as that
response in the form of a lengthy letter (JL 4311; ItPont 4.94f., no.2)
is generally attached to manuscripts of the work.57
Pope
Leo IX opens his letter to “his beloved son in Christ, Peter the hermit,” with
warm salutations and a recognition of Damian’s pure, upright and zealous
character. He agrees with Damian that clerics, caught up in the “execrable
vice” of sodomy “… verily and most assuredly will have no share in his
inheritance, from which by their voluptuous pleasures they have withdrawn. …
Such clerics, indeed profess, if not in words, at least by the evidence of
their actions, that they are not what they are thought to be,” he declares.58
Reiterating
the category of the four forms of sodomy which Damian lists,59 the Holy Father declares that it is proper that by
“our apostolic authority” we intervene in the matter so that “all anxiety and
doubt be removed from the minds of your readers”.60
“So
let it be certain and evident to all that we are in agreement with everything
your book contains, opposed as it is like water to the fire of the devil,” the
Pope continues. “Therefore, lest the wantonness of this foul impurity be
allowed to spread unpunished, it must be repelled by proper repressive action
of apostolic severity, and yet some moderation must be placed on its
harshness,” he states.61
Next,
Pope Leo IX gives a detailed explanation of the Holy See’s authoritative ruling
on the matter.
In
light of divine mercy, the Holy Father commands, without contradiction, that
those who, of their own free will, have practiced solitary or mutual
masturbation or defiled themselves by interfemoral coitus, but who have not
done so for any length of time, nor with many others, shall retain their status,
after having “curbed their desires” and “atoned for their infamous deeds with
proper repentance”.62
However,
the Holy See removes all hope for retaining their clerical status from those
who alone or with others for a long time, or even a short period with many,
“have defiled themselves by either of the two kinds of filthiness which you
have described, or, which is horrible to hear or speak of, have sunk to the
level of anal intercourse.”63
He
warns potential critics, that those who dare to criticize or attack the
apostolic ruling stand in danger of losing their rank. And so as to make it
clear to whom this warning is directed, the Pope immediately adds, “For he who
does not attack vice, but deals with it lightly, is rightly judged to be guilty
of his death, along with the one who dies in sin.”64
Pope
Leo IX praises Damian for teaching by example and not mere words, and concludes
his letter with the beautiful hope that when, with God’s help, the monk reaches
his heavenly abode, he may reap his rewards and be crowned, “… in a sense, with
all those who were snatched by you from the snares of the devil.”65
Differences on the Matter of Discipline
Clearly,
on the objective immorality of sodomical acts, both Damian and Pope Leo IX were
in perfect accord with one another. However, in terms of Church discipline, the
Pope appears to have taken exception with Damian’s appeal for the wholesale
deposition of all clerics who commit sodomical acts. I say, appears, because I
believe that even in the matter of punishing known clerical offenders, both men
were more in agreement than not.
Certainly,
Damian, who was renown for his exemplary spiritual direction of the novitiates
and monks entrusted to his care, was not unaware of certain mitigating
circumstances that would diminish if not totally remove the culpability of
individuals charged with the crime of sodomy. For example, as with certain
clerical sex abuse cases that have come to light today involving the Society of
St. John and the Legionaries of Christ, which the Holy See has yet to
investigate, some novices or monks may have been forced or pressured by their
superiors to commit such acts. No doubt, it is circumstances such as these that
prompted Pope Leo IX to use the term, “who of his own free will” in describing
a cleric guilty of sodomy.66 Also among the four varieties of sodomy Damian discusses in his
treatise, he states that interfemoral and anal coitus are to be judged more
serious than solitary or mutual masturbation.67
All
in all, what this writer found to be most remarkable about the Pope’s letter to
Damian, was the absolutist position Pope Leo IX took concerning the
ultimate responsibility of the offending cleric’s bishop or religious superior.
If the latter criticized or attacked this apostolic decree, he risked losing HIS
rank! Prelates who fail to “attack vice, but deal lightly with it,” share the
guilt and sentence of the one who dies in sin, the Pope declared.68
Damian’s
Contemporaries React to the Treatise
Considering
the utterly deplorable state of the secular clergy and monastic life during the
10th and 11th Centuries, I think we can say, without contradiction, that the
publication of the Book of Gomorrah must have sent shock waves
throughout the Church.
Leslie
Toke, whose biography of St. Peter Damian appears in New Advent,
confirms that his work “caused a great stir and aroused not a little enmity
against its author”. Toke conjectures that “Even the Pope, who had at first
praised the work, was persuaded that it was exaggerated and his coldness drew
from Damian a vigorous letter of protest.”69 I do not agree with this latter assessment.
That
Damian’s treatise proved to be controversial and unwelcome especially among
superiors and members of the hierarchy who were sodomizing their “spiritual
sons” or those with bad consciences resulting from an inability or an
unwillingness to exercise their authority in severely disciplining offending
clerics or monks, is not surprising.
But
as to the charge that the holy monk was guilty of exaggerating the seriousness
and extent of sodomy among the secular clergy and monks not only in his region
but also in the Church at large, I believe that charge to be false.
We
know, for example, that among the first actions taken by Pope Leo IX at the
Council of Reims in 1049 was the passage of a Canon against sodomy (de
sodomitico vitio).70
Also,
the probability that Damian was, in fact, speaking the full truth concerning the
extent of this plague in the Church can be discerned from the fact, that in
June, 1055, during the pontificate of Victor II (1055-1057), Damian was in
attendance at a synod held at Florence, where simony and clerical incontinence
were once more condemned.71
Certainly,
Damian’s reputation and credibility was not diminished in the minds of the
great and holy men of his day by either the writing or the publication of his
treatise on sodomy. Pope Leo IX and future Popes continued to seek out his
services and advice including Pope Nicholas II (1059-1061) and Pope Gregory VII
(1073-1085). Also, Pope Stephen X (1057-1058) made Damian a Cardinal in 1057
and consecrated him Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and appointed him administrator of
the Diocese of Gubbio.
Toke
noted that although no formal canonization ever took place, Damian was revered
as a saint at the time of his death on February 22, 1072. Toke states that his cultus
has existed since then at the monastery of Faenza, at the desert hermitage of
Fonte-Avellana, at the great abbey of Monte Cassino, and at Hildebrand’s
Benedictine monastery at Cluny. In 1823, Pope Leo XII extended his feast
(February 23) to the whole Church and pronounced St. Peter Damian a Doctor of
the Church. The saint is usually depicted as a Cardinal bearing a discipline (a
pentitential exercise) in his hand or as a pilgrim holding a papal Bull, to
signify his many papal missions.72
Homosexuality in Religious Life Today:
The Dominican Model
By
way of comparing the views of St. Peter Damian on the vice of sodomy in
clerical and monastic ranks with the modern post-Vatican II view on
homosexuality, I have selected a Lenten Letter titled, “The Promise of Life,”
by Father Timothy Radcliffe.73 Radcliffe, the Master of the Dominican Order, issued
his message on February 25, Ash Wednesday 1998. The English-born aristocrate
was elected in 1992 to serve a nine-year term and was residing at the Santa
Sabina priory at Rome, when the letter was issued and subsequently posted on
the Vatican’s web site, which is where I first read it.
In
light of the major homosexual scandals that have plagued the priesthood and
religious life worldwide, I was interested to see if Father Radcliffe would
discuss the issue of homosexuality in Dominican ranks. He did — both directly
and indirectly.
The
first indirect reference to homosexuality was Radcliffe’s quoting of American
Dominican and writer Donald Goergen, OP on the subject of celibacy. The quote
reads: “Celibacy does not witness to anything. But celibates do. We witness to
the Kingdom if we are seen to be people whose chastity liberates us for life.”74
My
first thought when I read the Goergen quote was, why, of all the Dominicans he
could have chosen to quote on celibacy, did Radcliffe choose a man whose
personal and private life has been distinguished by an open and long-term
advocacy and financial support of clerical homosexuality.
Father
Goergen, who is currently living with the “Friends of God,” a Hindu-styled
Dominican Ashram in Kenosha, Wisconsin, began his early claim to infamy with
the publication of his book The Sexual Celibate in 1974.75
Based
on notes from lectures given to Dominican seminarians, Goergen’s homosexual
apologia speaks of “healthy homosexuality,” promotes the homosexual “continuum”
theories of the predatory homosexual and bisexual Alfred Kinsey, decries the
“disease” of “homophobia,” defines homosexuality according to the Gay
Manifesto as “the capacity to love someone of the same sex,” holds the door
open for homosexual ‘unions’ by stating that, “genital activity should be the
expression of a permanent relationship which involves fidelity,” states that
“so-called traditional Christian attitudes towards homosexuality are beginning
to change,” claims that “homosexuality can exist in healthy, Christian and
graced forms,” defends masturbation as being a genital activity that is “not
bad, not unhealthy, not harmful, not immoral, even for a celibate,” and then
gives the sodomical coup de grace by attacking the perpetual virginity
of Our Lady.76
Goergen’s
connections to the homosexual network in the Church go back many years. In Rev.
Enrique T. Rueda’s 1982 classic expose, The Homosexual Network, Goergen
gets three dishonorable mentions for his advocacy of homosexuality.77 He was also an early financial supporter of
Communication Ministry, Inc., “an underground ‘ministry’ for lesbian nuns and
gay clergy and religious.”78
Soon
after his election in 1985 as Provincial Superior to the St. Albert the Great
Central Province, Goergen, a devotee of Teilhard de Chardin, began his search
and destroy operation against many of the faithful and nationally outstanding
Dominicans in St. Albert the Great Province including Father Charles Fiore,
Father John O’Connor and the traditionalist Dominicans teaching at Fenwick High
School. The River Forest Priory was transformed into a homosexual ‘safe house’
for other clerical perverts.79
This
action is in stark contrast to the protection the young turk Goergen offered to
the notorious Father Matthew “Creation Spirituality” Fox, champion of “lust,”
“sexual mysticism,” and homosexuality as “the first gift of the Cosmic Christ”.80 In 1988, when the Holy See finally insisted that Fox
be removed and silenced in order to finally halt the spread of his errors, Fox
received an all expense one-year sabbatical during which he continued his
heretical tirades.81 Even after Fox left the Dominican Order and the Church to become an
Episcopal ‘priest’ in California, Goergen continued to defend Fox’s heterodox
views on faith and morals.
So
again I ask, why would Radcliffe quote Goergen on any subject, most especially
clerical celibacy?
The
answer I believe lies in the second of Goergen’s quotes, cited by Radcliffe in
“The Promise of Life” in which Goergen espouses the familiar litany of the
Left, almost identical to that espoused by Fox:
“If I
partake of consumer society, defend capitalism, tolerate machismo, believe that
Western society is superior to others, and am sexually abstinent, I am simply
witnessing to that for which we stand: capitalism, sexism, Western arrogance,
and sexual abstinence. The latter is hardly deeply meaningful and
understandably questioned.”82
For
many bishops and religious superiors like Radcliffe, a seminarian’s or priest’s
homosexual activities and advocacy can be overlooked as long as the offending
priest adheres to the gospel of Liberalism. It is not until a diocese or
religious order is hit with catastrophic lawsuits related to the criminal sex
abuse of underage young boys and young men, including seminarians and religious
novices, by homosexual clerics, that the former have a second thought about the
policy of accepting and ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood and religious
life.
Radcliffe on Homosexual Clerics and the Homosexual
“Sub-Culture”
However,
in the case of Radcliffe, it appears that the pressure of pederast lawsuits
against offending Dominicans worldwide had not yet reached critical mass in
1998. Indeed, in the paragraph titled “Communities of Hope,” just preceding his
statement on the acceptance of homosexual candidates into the Order, the Master
General insists that, “Our communities must be places in which there is no
accusation, ‘... the accuser of our brethren is cast forth ...’ ”(Apoc.
12.10)83 Positioned at it is, just before his support for homosexual candidates
and homosexual members of the Order, one might easily interpret his comment as a
warning against in-house ‘whistle- blowers’ who reveal clerical sexual
misconduct and criminal acts by their fellow Dominicans to their superiors or
to public authorities and law enforcement officers.
Getting
to the specific issue of “Community and Sexual Orientation,” the Master General
begins with the statement that various cultures react differently to “the
admission of people of homosexual orientation to religious life,” with some
holding it to be “virtually unthinkable,” while others accept it “without
question.”84
Frankly,
outside of ancient cultures that practice certain pagan rites or followed
certain gnostic doctrines, I have not run across any peoples that accept
“without question” men who unnaturally lust after other men — whatever their
role in the community. But even if such a culture existed in modern times, its
beliefs should not matter a hill of beans to the universal head of the
Dominican Order whose sole concern, one would think, would be what Christ, His
Saints (including St. Dominic) and His Church teaches on the matter of
homosexuality. And that teaching is clear — from the time of the Apostles — for
a man to lust after and desire another man is perverse and acting on that
unnatural desire and lust is an abomination in the eyes of God.
In
any case, Radcliffe tells his fellow Dominicans not to worry about the matter
of sexual orientation. “It is not for us to tell God whom He may or may not
call to religious life,” he states. And besides, he adds, the General Chapter
of Caleruega, after much debate, affirmed that “the same demands of chastity
apply to all brethren of whatever sexual orientation, and so no one can be
excluded on this ground”.85
The actual
text from the Acts of the General Chapter of Diffinitors of the Order of Friars
Preachers meeting from July 17-August 8, 1995 at Caleruega, Spain (the
birthplace of St. Dominic) reads:
“… as
a radical demand, the vow of chastity is equally binding on homosexuals and
heterosexuals. Hence, no sexual orientation is a priori incompatible with
the call to chastity and the fraternal life.” (emphasis added)86
[Note:
The above reference to “no sexual orientation” is an extremely sophisticated
turn-of- words that leaves the door open for lesbianism, transvestitism,
transsexualism, pederasty, pedophilia, sado/masochism and other sexual
perversions. The fact that the worldwide Dominican leadership permitted such a
statement to be incorporated into an official pronouncement of the Order
demonstrates in a concrete manner the degree to which the Dominicans are now
controlled by the homosexualists and their minions.]
Radcliffe
concludes his segment on “sexual orientation” with words of compassion for his
Dominican homosexual brethren, but he warns the emergence “of any subgroups
within a community, based on sexual orientation, would be highly divisive,” and
“threaten the unity of the community,” and “make it harder for the brethren to
practice the chastity that he has vowed”.87
Dioceses also Accept ‘Gays’ as Candidates for the
Priesthood
I
think it is quite obvious that the above official directive of the Dominican
Order, as promulgated at the 1995 Caleruega meeting, represents a radical
departure from traditional Church teachings on the necessity of scrupulous
screening of, and vetting out of men and women with perverse sexual
inclinations as candidates for the priesthood or religious life.
The
Dominicans, however, along with other religious orders such as the
Salvatorians, Paulists, Jesuits, and Christian Brothers to name but a few, are
not alone in adopting pro-homosexual screening and ordination policies.
Virtually all dioceses have a similar policy.
For
example, as recently as April 28, 2002, the Baltimore Sun ran a story
titled “Future priests vow to make a difference,” in which Rev. Gerard C.
Francik, the Baltimore Archdiocesan director of vocations told staff reporter
John Rivera that the fact a man is ‘gay’ does not, in itself, disqualify him
from entering the seminary as the Church condemns homosexual acts not
homosexual orientation. Francik says he asks candidates for the priesthood if
they are ‘gay’ but is more interested in knowing: “Are they celibate and how
long have they been celibate, to see if they can live this kind of lifestyle
(vocation?) and be happy.”88
Along
similar lines, Bishop Joseph Adamec of the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese in
Pennsylvania, rife with active homosexual clergy, told reporters on May 6, 2002
that although some Roman Catholic dioceses screen out would-be priests because
of ‘gay’ sexual orientation, his diocese did not, since a seminarian was
expected to keep his vow of celibacy after he was ordained.89
U.S.
Bishops Violate 1961 Vatican Directive
In
March of this year, Catholic News Service (CNS) revealed what
must be one of the all time best kept secrets of the American Church.
In a
wire-service release titled, “Vatican to Enforce 1961 Document Banning
Homosexual Priests and Religious,” CNS revealed that in 1961, under the
pontificate of Pope John XXIII, a directive was issued by the then-Sacred
Congregation for Religious reiterating the Church’s opposition to the
ordination of homosexual priests and religious.90 The document which was sent to all Ordinaries in the
United States reads in part: “Those affected by the perverse inclination to
homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and
ordination.”91 Readers will note the words “perverse” and “inclination”
(not just acts) and the significant pairing of homosexuality with pederasty.
The Holy Office under the indefatigable Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani was
certainly on the right track.
Unfortunately,
while the 1961 document notes that “the community life and priestly ministry
would constitute a ‘grave danger’ or temptation for these people (i.e.,
homosexuals and pederasts) it does not appear to recognize the ‘grave danger’
that such individuals pose to the priesthood, the religious life and the
Catholic faithful including the young, the mentally retarded, and seminary
students and other clerical homosexual targets”.92
Since
this writer has been unable to obtain a copy of the 1961 document from what is
now called the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of
Apostolic Life in Rome, it has been necessary to depend on the above CNS report
for details on its content. It appears however that the document contained no
specific oversight regulations to insure its enforcement and was not well
publicized in the Catholic press. Rather, CNS explains, the
implementation of the directive was left to the “prudence” of local bishops and
heads of religious orders — a combination that has proved to be a prescription
for disaster in the modern Church.93
Vatican Formulating New Directives
According
to the same CNS report, while the Holy See is currently scrambling to
get a handle on the immediate issue of sex crimes and maleficence involving
clerical pederasts, it is also preparing to issue a reformulated version of the
principles enunciated in the 1961 document so that, in the words of CNS,
“the message gets through more clearly to local churches”.94 Unfortunately, it appears that the only one who can’t
seem to ‘get the message,’ given the fact of forty years of non-compliance by
the American hierarchy, is the Vatican.
In
any case, CNS did quote some anonymous Church officials as saying that
the new regulations will only pertain to future priests, not those already
ordained, and that care will be taken not to offend the ‘delicate
sensibilities’ of homosexual candidates to the priesthood by attempting “to
impose an arbitrary norm” against them.95 Translation — the Holy See has no realistic and
concrete plans to systematically dismantle the hierarchical, diocesan and
religious order homosexual network already in place throughout Catholic
dioceses in the United States and around the world.
Timetable
for the Paradigm Shift Favoring Homosexual Clergy
Since
the Vatican directive was issued in 1961, and given the generous time lapse
that normally exists between the time the Vatican learns of a serious problem
and decides to act against it, I think that we can safely assume that the
traditional Church prohibition against the acceptance and ordination of known
homosexuals, was being violated well before the start of the Second Vatican
Council. Evidence provided in court transcripts and records of more than 1500
hundred civil and criminal charges of clerical pederasty and illicit adult
homosexual activity (i.e. solicitation of male prostitutes) by bishops, priests
and religious to date, confirms that evaluation. My own research traces the
start of the American Church’s pro-homosexual paradigm shift to the early
1900s, with the breakdown of this specific Church discipline beginning first in
religious orders and then filtering down to the secular clergy.
The
number of known homosexuals accepted into the seminary and subsequently
ordained, as well as the rise of prominent homosexual bishops to the
cardinalate, was known to rise significantly under the pontificate of Paul VI
and has continued under the reign of Pope John Paul II.96
Homosexual Situation Graver than Damian’s Time
In
Part I of this article, I indicated some common threads that link the clerical homosexual
practices of St. Peter Damian’s day with our own times. Human nature being what
it is, I think we can assume that the clerical catemites of homosexual bishops
of 11th Century Rome probably enjoyed the same familiar astronomical rise in
power and position as those today. And no doubt, Damian was witness to the
petty intrigues, spites and jealous rages that are characteristic of sodomical
relationships. He may have also been aware of the always-present element of
blackmail or potential blackmail attached to any illicit sexual affair,
especially one involving sodomy. And as I have already noted, Damian did
condemn the practice of homosexual clerics confessing and giving absolution to
one another or to their lay partners — a practice widely used today in clerical
homosexual circles.
However,
homosexuality, as a vice, has not always played itself out in exactly the same
manner in different periods of history. There are significant differences
between the practice of homosexuality in clerical life in the mid-1000s and
today.
For
example, while Damian mentions that one active sodomite at a monastery can
continue to practice the vice with “eight or even ten equally foul companions,”
the monk does not reveal the existence of any large network of sodomites at the
monastery or what might be called a homosexual ‘subculture’ in the region or
city-states of Italy or other areas of Europe.97
That
such a vast ‘gay’ network and subculture (actually an anti-culture) exists today
among homosexuals in general and clerical homosexuals and pederasts in
particular has made the problems associated with a homosexual clergy in the
seminary, priesthood and religious life considerably more dangerous and complex
than that which confronted Damian and Pope Leo IX in 1049.
The Homosexual Underworld and Overworld in the
Catholic Church
The
active and flourishing homosexual network in the Church, with tentacles that
cross national boundaries and reach into the Vatican itself, can be divided
into an active and flourishing homosexual underworld and an ever-expanding
overworld that protects and succors the underworld.
Within
the Church structure itself, homosexual clerics or religious who prefer young
men or even older partners have tended to move into positions in dioceses or
religious orders that offer opportunities for acquiring financial resources,
power and upward mobility. Many have become rectors at large seminaries or
moved into key positions of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United
States Catholic Conference (NCCB/ USCC) now known as the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) which has always been a major force in
the Church’s homosexual network. Clerical homosexuals with a creative bent and
penchant for novelty are often attracted to programs of ‘liturgical renewal’ or
Church ‘wreckovation’. Homosexuals with pederast inclinations, on the other
hand, tend to go ‘where the boys are,’ that is, parish schools and youth
centers and institutions such as orphanages and camps run by religious orders.
Oddly
enough, the great advances made in electronic communications which have made
the worldwide clerical homosexual underworld and overworld possible, has turned
out to be a two-edged sword for them.
A
common practice in the Church that dates back to the 800s and was probably
known but disapproved of by St. Peter Damian, is that of removing clerics found
guilty of criminal acts, including sodomy, on the basis of whether or not their
offenses were publicly known, or carried out and confessed in secret.
In
cases that had become “notorious,” the offending cleric was defrocked and/or
handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. If his crime was known
only to a few persons such as his confessor or religious superior, the
offending cleric was privately reprimanded, served a penance, and then was
permitted to continue at his post, or transferred to a similar post in a
different diocese.98 This practice has been somewhat modified today by using so-called
“treatment centers” or homosexual/pederast-friendly dioceses to squirrel away
offending clergy until the heat is off. However, as Bernard Cardinal Law and
many of his fellow bishops have discovered to their everlasting regret, today’s
instant mass communication, electronic tracking systems and access to public
and private records of all kinds, is making it much more difficult to hide
offending clergy or conceal criminal sexual abuse committed either by hierarchy
or by priests and religious under their jurisdiction.
The Shanley Case — A Joint Operation of the Homosexual
Underworld and Overworld
The
recent widely-publicized case of accused pedophile/pederast/homosexual priest
Rev. Paul Shanley of the Boston Archdiocese clearly illustrates not only the
existence of an extensive clerical homosexual underworld and overworld in the
American Church today, but affords the reader an unusually penetrating glimpse
into its joint-operations. The case also reveals many of the darker and more
secretive elements of the homosexual underworld including drugs, prostitution,
pornography, criminal conspiracy, and blackmail and how these elements
eventually filter upwards to the homosexual overworld of Cardinals and bishops.
The
first time I saw Shanley’s name in print was in 1982 in Father Rueda’s book, The
Homosexual Network, referenced earlier in this article. Rueda
provided details of the first conference of the invitation- only North American
Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) held at Boston’s Community Church on December
2, 1978.99 On its speakers’ list was Father Paul Shanley, Humberto Cardinal
Medeiros’ representative for “sexual minorities” to the United States Catholic
Conference (USCC) Youth Ministry board.100 What “sexual minorities” in general, and pedophiles
and pederasts in particular, have to do with Catholic youth ministry is, I
believe, an important question, but it is unlikely that Medeiros ever gave it a
second thought. Bishops tend not to try and second- guess their own
bureaucracy.
Later,
in researching The Rite of Sodomy, I discovered other references to
Shanley’s multi-faceted sexual proclivities in Daniel Tsang’s The Age Taboo
- Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, an apologia for child-youth
sex with adults.101 Tsang, a gay popular left-wing journalist, reported that in Shanley’s
talk at the 1978 NAMBLA organizational meeting, the priest told a story of a
boy rejected by family and society, but helped by a boy-lover. According to
Shanley, the boy was shattered when the “lover” was arrested, convicted and
sent to prison. “The ‘cure’ does much more damage,” he theorized.102
It is
interesting to note that Shanley never had any difficulty in bridging that
mythical gulf that is supposed to exist between pederasty and adult homosexual
relations. All pederasts and most homosexuals acknowledge the connection, while
most American bishops appear to still be in denial.
For
example, in 1998, NAMBLA representative David Thorstad eagerly proclaimed to a
standing room only “gay” and lesbian group gathered in Mexico City that:
“Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout
Western civilization …”103
In an
April 5, 2002 interview with The Beacon Journal, Neil Conway, a former
priest who admits to molesting young boys while in the Church states that he
does not consider himself a pedophile. He said he differentiates between people
who abuse young children and those who abuse teenagers. He compared this to a
preference for “different brands”.104
Human
sexuality has proven to be somewhat fluid and a sex abuser’s range of victims
may vary greatly at different times and under different circumstances in his
predatory career. Shanley appears to have the capacity to shift effortlessly
between his boy victims, older teens, and adult sex partners.
Shanley Practiced What He Preached
Unfortunately,
while NAMBLA membership has always been long on men and short on boys, Father
Paul Shanley, throughout his clerical life, has never lacked for vulnerable
boys and young men to prey on.
Sometime
early in his predatory career, perhaps during his residency at St. John’s
Seminary in Boston or shortly after his ordination to the priesthood in 1960,
Shanley must have discovered the ecclesiastical goose that laid the golden egg,
because for more than thirty years he has been permitted by his superiors to
act out with immunity the NAMBLA philosophy he openly preached.
The
handsome, charismatic and free-spirited Shanley was initially assigned to St.
Patrick’s Church in Stoneham where he teamed up with Father John J. White
another gay Boston priest. Together they forged a mutual protection society
that would span more than four decades.
Between
1966 and 1967, rumors of Shanley’s predatory appetite for young boys began to
make their way to the Chancery office and Richard Cardinal Cushing. A priest
from La Salette Shrine reported that Mr. Charm was bringing young boys to his
summer cabin in the Blue Hills Reservation in Milton for illicit and criminally
prosecutable sex. Shanley was moved to another parish.
In
1970, during the transition period from Cushing to the Portuguese prelate
Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, Shanley received permission to launch his own
Roxbury Street ministry based at St. Philip’s Church for wayward youth
including runaways, drifters and young ‘gays.’ Scattered notations from the
young priest’s diaries, found among the 1600 plus pages of court-subpoenaed
records from the Boston Archdiocese, indicate that he taught some of his
charges how to “shoot up” correctly which meant that Shanley, like many
homosexuals, had a working knowledge of illegal drugs. The same source
indicated that during this time period he was treated for various venereal
diseases that confirmed his sexually active status. In 1971 Shanley was
photographed by the Boston Globe riding a tractor in Weston, Vermont
where the newspaper reported he had established a “retreat house” for youth
workers on a 95-acre farm.105
Cardinal
Medeiros was advised that Shanley was “a troubled priest,” a euphanism for a
ticking bomb; that Shanley had been charged with sex abuse of minors in 1974;
and that the priest was becoming more outspoken in his defense of homosexuality
and ‘man/ boy love’. Shanley was said to use any opportunity including
counseling sessions and the confessional to solicit sex from youth. The Vatican
was informed of Shanley’s record of sex abuse and relations with boys and young
men. Nevertheless, Shanley continued to serve as the Archdiocese’s “sexual
minorities” advocate until the December 1978 NAMBLA fiasco.
Medeiros
then transferred the priest to St. Jean’s Parish where Shanley’s sex abuse
pattern is alleged to have continued. Later, Shanley was moved to St. John the
Evangelist parish where he served as assistant pastor.
Following
Cardinal Medeiros’ death in 1983, Bernard Cardinal Law took on the reins of
power and Shanley was promoted to the office of pastor of St. John’s.
Apparently, Shanley was also working as a chaplain at a mental institution
because the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter claims a patient accused
Shanley in 1988 of “ ‘coming on to him’ by talking graphically about
sado-masochism.”106
Finally,
in 1989, Shanley was getting too hot to handle in Boston and had to be shipped
out-of-state.
Cardinal
Law sent him off to the Diocese of San Bernardino, California as a priest “in
good standing”. Officially, Shanley was on “sick leave for allergies.” The Rev.
White followed Shanley out to California and the enterprising duo set up a type
of bed and breakfast house in Palm Beach that catered to a ‘gay’ clientele. As
was the case with young boys, lack of money never seemed to be a problem for
Shanley.
In
October of 1993, the Diocese of San Bernardino got wind of, to use Cardinal
Law’s exact words, Shanley’s “impressive record” and quickly yanked him from
his post at St. Anne’s Parish. Shanley headed back East and did what any
red-blooded active pedophile/ pederast/homosexual cleric would do under the
circumstances — he entered a “treatment center,” — the Institute of Living in
Hartford, CT — for an all- expense R&R compliments of the Archdiocese of
Boston.
Sometime
during this time period, Shanley had the uncanny good fortune to link up with
his old friend and fellow pederast, Dr. Frank Pilecki, who had resigned from
Westfield State College in Barre, Massachusetts, after he was indicted (but not
convicted) of homosexual misconduct with students.107 Pilecki had been hired in 1987 by the Archdiocese of
New York to work at the Leo House, a Catholic outreach center and travel hostel
always teeming with young students, operated for the Archdiocese by Catholic
Charities. Pilecki’s job connection to Leo House was reported to have been
another member of the Catholic pederast network, Father Bruce Ritter of
Covenant House.
Pilecki
convinced Shanley to take a job as a minister at Leo House where the aging
“street priest” took up a residency with an openly gay roommate.
Unfortunately
for Shanley and his new protector, Cardinal Law, one of the priest’s former
victims had traced him to the Leo House and began a series of calls to the nuns
in charge of the lodging. Finally in 1995, one of the Leo House nuns contacted
John Cardinal O’Connor and asked if the accusations against Shanley were true.
She never got a formal reply from O’Connor, but Fr. Brian Flatly, an assistant
to Cardinal Law, contacted the nun to allay her fears.
Now
the Archdiocese of Boston finally leapt into action ... no NOT against Shanley!
Rather it attempted to contact the ‘snitch’ and see if they could reach a
financial settlement. In the meantime, the Archdiocese continued to pay
Shanley’s mounting medical bills and in 1996 on the occasion of Shanley’s 65th
birthday, Law awarded him a “senior priest” status that meant an increase in
pay and benefits.
In
1997, Law, upon learning that the position of Executive Director for Leo House
was vacant, informed O’Connor that he would not stand in the way of Father
Shanley taking the job, but the New York Cardinal is reported to have turned
down Law’s proposition.
Eventually
Shanley found his way back to California where he remained until May 2, 2002
when his luck ran out. California law enforcement officers in San Diego
arrested him. He was extradited to Massachusetts where he was arraigned at the
Newton District Court in Cambridge, and is currently awaiting trial. It has
been reported that Shanley will plead innocent to charges of repeated sodomical
rape of a young boy and that his defense lawyers may argue that Shanley was a
homosexual with no history of sexual activity with pre-pubescent children.
The Overworld that Protects Shanley
As
the Shanley case demonstrates so well, the Archdiocese of Boston, like every
large diocese in the nation, has a flourishing Catholic pederast/homosexual
underworld — Shanley knew Pilecki who knew Ritter who knew …. and so it goes.
But,
more importantly, the Shanley case has an active clerical and lay overworld
consisting of Cardinals, bishops, priests, lay bureaucrats and attorneys and an
infinite number of other Catholics who protect the underworld either by their
silence or by their overt approval.
Shanley
went through three Cardinals —
• Richard Cardinal Cushing (1944-1970)
• Humberto Cardinal Medeiros
(1970-1983)
• Bernard Cardinal Law (1983 -?)
All three
protected Shanley. Why? When all is said and done, the answer probably boils
down to blackmail. Shanley knew too much about too many — and like many
clerical homosexuals was clever enough to have kept good records as a form of
“insurance” against the day he would run into trouble with either the Church or
secular law enforcement agencies. Shanley has accused Cushing of abusing him
when he was a seminarian at Boston’s St. John Seminary. Medeiros played a major
cover-up role in the case of Father James Porter. And, as the record clearly
shows, Law has not been out of Shanley’s grip since they took over the Boston
Archdiocese — for reasons yet to be revealed.108
Shanley
also went through a host of Boston auxiliary bishops. Those now living include:
• Bishop John B. McCormack, now bishop
of Manchester, NH
• Bishop Robert J. Banks, now bishop of
Green Bay, WI
• Thomas V. Daily, former bishop of
Palm Beach, now bishop of Brooklyn, NY
• Bishop Alfred C. Hughes, now bishop
of New Orleans
• Bishop William F. Murphy, now bishop
of Rockville Centre, Long Island, NY
Banks,
consecrated by Law in 1985, served as his vicar for administration, and helped
stash Shanley safely away in the diocese of San Bernardino. According to San
Bernardino Church officials Banks wrote them a letter in 1990 in which he
“assured our diocese that Father Shanley had no problems that would be of
concern” to the diocese.109
McCormack,
the former Chairman (and still member) of the USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee on
Sexual Abuse is reported to have been working with Shanley to develop a “safe
house” system for clerical pederasts on the lamb. As Law’s secretary of
ministerial personnel for the Boston Archdiocese from 1984 to 1994 he was charged
with handling numerous sexual abuse complaints against Archdiocesan priests.
McCormack has been named in a recent clergy abuse lawsuit involving the late
Rev. Joseph E. Birmingham of Boston. Defendants charge that McCormack, a
seminary classmate of Birmingham who served in a parish with him in Salem, saw
the priest take boys to his room in the 1960s and did nothing to stop it.110
Daily,
consecrated by Medeiros in 1975, is reported to have played an important role
in the cover-up involving convicted pederast Father John J. Geoghan of Boston
and as chancellor and vicar general under Medeiros would have been an insider
in the Shanley Case. In an excellent New York Times article titled
“Cardinal’s ex-aides touched by scandal,” reporters Pam Belluck, Fox
Butterfield and Sara Rimer stated that in 1982, Daily permitted Geoghan to go
on a planned two-month sabbatical to Italy after he had promised the
family of seven, yes, that is seven abused sons that he (Daily) would “act
responsibly”.111
In
1984, Daily was made the first bishop of the unfortunate diocese of Palm Beach,
FL. After Daily left for Brooklyn, his office was filled by Bishop Joseph K.
Symons, who resigned in disgrace in 1999 following charges of homosexual
misconduct involving altar boys.
Bishop
Anthony J. O’Connell, who was consecrated by Pio Laghi, Apostolic Delegate to
the United States in 1988, followed Symons. O’Connell resigned on March 8, 2002
when it was revealed that he had a long-standing homosexual relationship with a
14-year-old seminarian at St. Thomas Aquinas in Hannibal, MO where O’Connell
served as rector for almost 25 years. That relationship was said to continue
into the young man’s adulthood. Two other men have recently filed similar
charges against O’Connell.112 The diocese is currently under the charge of a Vatican-appointed
Apostolic Administrator.
The
roles played in the Shanley case by Hughes, who was consecrated by Medeiros in 1981
and Murphy, a Law man, are yet to be determined and recorded in up-coming court
depositions.
[Note:
The only Boston auxiliary to have voiced an objection to Geoghan’s “history of
homosexual activity with young boys,” with Cardinal Law in 1984 was Bishop John
M. D’Arcy of the diocese of Fort Wayne/ South Bend, IN.]
Finally,
Shanley went through hundreds if not thousands of Church bureaucrats, pastors,
news reporters, law officers, social service personnel and other lay people in
his forty-year plus sexual career which includes at least a half-dozen
different Catholic parishes and dioceses.
Altogether,
it is an amazing story, all the more so, when one considers that the Rev. Paul
Shanley represents only one priest in Am-Church’s vast homosexual underworld-overworld
network.
Many Questions to be Asked, Many Issues to be
Addressed
While
the American hierarchy continues to blithely tip-toe over the dead bodies of
hundreds of homosexual priests who have died of AIDS or priests who have
committed suicide rather than face sex abuse charges, and while reports of
criminal assaults by pederast/ homosexual priests and religious continue to
mount — one more bizarre than the other — there are many questions to be asked
and clarifications to be made concerning the current crisis in the American
Church. Since I suspect that most of these issues will not have been discussed
much less resolved at the bishops’ June semi-annual meeting in Dallas, permit
me to highlight two that I consider to be of extreme importance.
Sex Abuse of Minors Only?
Readers
who have followed Am-Church’s attempts at “managing” its clerical sex abuse
crisis over the years including its presentation at the Rome meeting with the
Holy Father on April 24-25, 2002 will immediately recognize the phrase,
“clerical sex abuse of children,” or “the sex abuse of minors”?
But
what about cases of clerical sexual abuse that involve other vulnerable groups
such as the mentally or physically handicapped and dependent adult? What about
clerical abuse cases involving seminarians or novices? Should not these cases
be promptly reported to both Church and law enforcement officers? Should not
these clerics, be they Cardinals, bishops or priests or religious, be brought
to justice and if found guilty, deposed and handed over to the civil courts for
punishment? The question is not merely an academic one.
On
March 24, 2002, LA Times reporter Glenn F. Bunting filed a story titled
“Cloak of Silence Covered Abuse at Jesuit Retreat,” based on a
little-publicized sex abuse case involving two mentally retarded men, known as
“John Doe” and “James Doe” employed as dishwashers at the Los Gatos Jesuit
Center (Sacred Heart).113
“John,”
a polio victim and foster care child came to the Jesuit retreat house in 1969
at the age of twenty- four. “James,” an orphan adopted by parents who later
divorced, was only nineteen when he came to the center. Both men were mentally
retarded. Both were considered to be “charity” cases. According to Bunting,
reports show that their starting salary of $150.00 a month gradually rose to
$1000 a month from which the Jesuits extracted money for room and board — their
rooms located away from the Jesuit residence on the second floor of a storage
facility.
Like
the infamous case of the Christian Brothers at Mount Cashel in Newfoundland,
the whistleblowers in this case turned out to be two extraordinarily ordinary
and decent women.114 It was May of 1995 when John’s financial advisor overheard rumors from
the kitchen staff that he was being sexually molested by Brother “Charlie”
Leonard Connor. She knew that the Jesuit had taken John on trips and spent a
great deal of time alone with him. After John confirmed that the rumors were
true, she reported Connor to Father Greg Aherne, the Jesuit superior at Sacred
Heart.
Although
he initially denied the charge, Connor later told his superior that he may have
“inappropriately” touched John while giving him a “massage” to ease his back
pains — a practice, he said, that went back ten years, to 1985. Aherne warned
Connor to halt all contact with John and James and filed a report with Father
John Privett, the California provincial who was residing at the retreat center.115
Father
Privett, readers may recall, was the same layback provincial who ignored
complaints of continuous homosexual harassment and solicitation by a dozen
priests at the Order’s Berkeley seminary by John Bollard, who later filed a
lawsuit against the California Province.116
Need
I say that neither Aherne nor Privett ever reported the sex abuse of the two
dependent males to the local law enforcement officers? The abuse continued.
Two
years later, in October 1997 another woman, this time a friend of James
contacted the Sheriff’s office and reported that James told her that Connor was
fondling him. This report unfortunately came to nothing, as both James and
John, who had been repeatedly warned by Connor not to talk about the abuse to
anyone, denied the charges in the presence of two uniformed deputies and the
case was dropped.
By
the spring of 2002 however, the Sheriff’s office had obtained sufficient
evidence against Connor and once again returned to Sacred Heart to discuss
the allegations with still another Jesuit superior — Father Richard Cobb. Cobb
then discussed the fate of “Charlie” with other Jesuit superiors and decided to
send the wayward Jesuit off to the Order’s Bellarmine Preparatory High, an
all-boys school in San Jose. Cobb ‘forgot’ to mention the reason for the
transfer to school officials. But the police had not forgotten “Charlie”.
Using
evidence obtained after a search warrant of Sacred Heart, Connor was eventually
arrested on January 17, 2001, pleaded no contest to one count felony of
committing a lewd act on a dependent adult, underwent a six-month monitoring
term, was ordered to register as a lifetime offender and forbidden from having
any contact with mentally disabled adults or minors. Time served in jail? 0.
That
same evidence also proved that Connor was not the only sex abuser living at the
retreat house. Father Edward Thomas Burke, the librarian at Sacred Heart also
had been sexually molesting James. As with Connor, Cobb had known of the sexual
contact but had failed to report it to the authorities. Instead Cobb drove
Burke to the Jesuit community at Santa Clara University where, according to
Bunting, he remains today. Time served in jail? 0.
On
June 19, 2001, attorneys representing John Doe and James Doe filed a $10
million civil suit (a criminal complaint against Burke is on hold) on behalf of
the two men, charging four Jesuits, including Connor and Burke, of subjecting
James and John to repeated acts of sodomy, molestation and false
imprisonment beginning within a year after their arrival at Sacred Heart, that
is, 1970-71.117
How
many registered sex offenders can one retreat house hold? Well, in addition to
Connor, the San Jose lawyers representing James and John discovered there were
at least three others staying on and off at Sacred Heart — Brother John
Rodrigues Moniz, Father Angel Mariano, and Father James Thomas Monaghan — all
convicted of felony sex crimes with minors.118
However
the real “kicker” to this case is the statement made by the attorney for the
California Province as to why no incidence of sex abuse was ever reported to
the proper authorities. According to Paul E. Gaspari, the Jesuits’ attorney,
the Order had no obligation under California law to disclose the information. “We
are not mandated reporters because these two individuals are not minors.” (emphasis
added)119
The
issue of sex abuse of the mentally or physically handicapped and other adult
dependents along with the sexual exploitation and criminal assault of
seminarians (generally young adults) is a canonical loophole that the Vatican
needs to close with more exact language and stiffer penalties, and an issue the
American bishops need to hammer out, hopefully sooner than later.
From Whom Do the Bishops Get Their Advice?
I ask
this question because from the very moment the issue of sex abuse by Roman
Catholic priests and religious was secretly raised in the mid-1960s with the
James Porter Case in Boston, and later publicly raised in the mid-1980s with
the infamous Gauthe case in Lafayette, Louisiana, the American bishops appear
to have been ill, if not criminally, advised on the matter.120
As a
collective, the bishops have followed a systematic pattern of elaborate
cover-ups that has included the ‘transfer’ of offending clerics to other
parishes, dioceses, countries or ‘treatment’ centers; the obstruction of
justice, the intimidation of victims and their families and the ‘disappearance’
of incriminating files and documents.
Since
1966, one of the major sources of this morally indefensible legal advice and
disastrous public relations strategies has been the bishops’ own national
bureaucracy — the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States
Catholic Conference (NCCB/ USCC), recently reorganized and renamed the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Earlier
I stated that the NCCB/USCC, now the USCCB, has been a major player in
pro-homosexual politics. If there is any bishop who wishes to take exception to
this statement, I advise him first to read an article posted on the USCCB’s
website titled “Priest Pedophiles,” written by Melvin C. Blanchette, S.S. and
Gerald D. Coleman, SS. The article also reflects the type of pro-homosexual
propaganda found in our seminaries today as Blanchette is the director of the
Vatican II Institute at St. Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, CA and Coleman is
the president/rector of the seminary — a hotbed of homosexuality.121
The
article states that there are five basic sexual orientations — heterosexuality,
homosexuality, bisexuality, and “fixated” pedophilia (preference for children
from 1-13) and “fixated” ephebophilia (preference for children 14-17). To state
that the biological norm of heterosexuality is merely an “orientation” is
skewed enough but to give equal weight to sexual perversions including
homosexuality is even worse.
According
to Blanchette and Coleman, “… the pedophile and ephebophile have no capacity
for authentic heterosexual or homosexual relationships.” (emphasis
added) Again we see the favorable pairing of heterosexuality with
homosexuality. And what pray tell is an “authentic homosexual relationship?”
They talk about the “recurrent, intense” sexual urges of the pedophile and
ephebophiles but not about the “recurrent, intense” unnatural passions of the
homosexual for another adult male.
The
authors are in favor of seminaries screening out actual or potential “fixated”
pedophiles and ephebophile but make no reference to the vetting out of
homosexuals as candidates to the priesthood. They also favor, not surprisingly,
more sexual formation programs for seminarians.
The
Blanchette-Coleman article serves to re-inforce the charge that the bishops’
Washington, D.C. bureaucracy has played a major role in fostering the clerical
homosexual underworld and overworld.
After
all, it was the NCCB/USCC legal apparatus and media — public relations
department that, early in the game, identified “the problem” as “pedophilia”
rather than homosexuality in all its forms, as the root cause of clerical sex
abuse.
And
for seventeen plus years, the hapless American hierarchy has followed the NCCB/USCC
party line. Only recently has the hierarchy been forced to admit that good
old-fashioned pederasty, the oldest and most pervasive form of homosexuality
known to man, has been “the problem” all along.
In their
Final Communiqué from Rome on April 24, 2002, the American Cardinals confessed:
“3)
Even if the cases of true pedophilia on the part of priests and religious are
few, all the participants recognize the gravity of the problem. In the meeting,
the quantitative terms of the problem were discussed, since the statistics are
not very clear in this regard. Attention was drawn to the fact that
almost all cases involved adolescents and therefore, were not cases of true
pedophilia.” (emphasis added)122
Final Thoughts on the Extraordinary Rome Meeting
Although
I was not in Rome to cover the April 23- 24, 2002 meeting, CFN editor
John Vennari was good enough to send me a tape of the final press conference
which served to summarize the conclusions reached by the American Cardinals
with Pope John Paul II and Curia members on the subject of clerical sex abuse.
I
listened to the tape once but could not bear a second hearing. It was simply
too painful.
Once
again, the most appalling aspect of the press conference was the total lack of
genuine outrage that God’s law had been grievously offended and abominable acts
perpetrated on youth by men, who as priests and religious act in the persona
of Christ.
As I
listened to the drone of Cardinal McCarrick’s and Cardinal Stafford’s voices,
and the former’s attempt at some sick humor at the expense of the Pope, I
thought back to my first reading of Michael Harris’s Unholy Orders — Tragedy
at Mount Cashel, more than ten years ago. There was one particularly
horrific incident that has never left my mind. It involved a young boy named
Malcolm, who within a week of having arrived at the orphanage in October 1975
was taken for a “ride” by the sadistic pederast, Brother Edward English.
According to Harris, when English got into his car at the church parking lot
where he had picked up sacred hosts, the Christian Brother gave Malcolm a piece
of the “holy bread” and then began to masturbate the frightened boy and finally
tried to force Malcolm to fellate him.123 When I read this I literally convulsed with tears and
could not control myself. I did not sleep for several nights. That incident
will forever be imprinted on my memory and not a day goes by without my praying
for Malcolm and the many victims of Mt. Cashel.
Yet
as I listened to the Cardinals speak, I could not sense anything that resembled
genuine tears of compunction or the necessity of sack cloth and ashes as means
of atonement for the harm done to God, to His Church and to the victims of
clerical abuse and their families.
As
for the claim that the American bishops would never do anything to harm
children, I think upon the millions of Catholic children in the United States
who have been subject to more than thirty years of premature sexual seduction
and spiritual and mental rape in the Catholic classroom via so-called “sex
education”. By casting children as “sexual beings” the bishops have primed
Catholic youth for NAMBLA’s “sexual tutors”. It is no coincidence that the rise
in clerical sexual abuse has paralleled the removal of traditional doctrinal
catechetics from Catholic parishes and schools, and the substitution of
absolutely demonic “sexual catechetics”.
In
the end, what specifically was accomplished at the Rome meeting?
Other
than offering the media a change of scenery, very little. Unfortunately, it
could not have been otherwise.
First,
because the present American hierarchy as a whole is totally incapable of
initiating any type of authentic reform in or of itself whether it be at the
moral level or in matters of faith and doctrine. The corruption just goes too
deep. Besides as St. Peter Damian clearly enunciates in the Book of Gomorrah,
true reform in the Church begins at the top — with a strong and independent
papacy. Unfortunately, the papacy today is neither strong nor independent and
it too shares in the corruption.
Secondly,
because the institutionalization of national episcopal conferences such as the
USCCB, mitigates against authentic Church reform of any kind. These
self-perpetuating, ever expanding Church bureaucracies interfere with the
divinely mandated role of the true Catholic bishop in the transmission of
authentic Church teachings in matters of faith and morals to his flock. The
Holy See needs to canonically remove these subversive barnacles that have
attached themselves to the Bark of Peter.
I
believe that the Rome meeting would have been more instructive and profitable
had the Holy Father ordered the text of St. Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah to
be read, word for word, to the American Cardinals and USCCB officers, with
copies for distribution to the world press. After all, the American bishops are
said to be moving toward a “zero tolerance” policy and who was more
zero-tolerant in cases of clerical sexual misconduct than the holy monk?
I
know that I might not live to see these moral reforms in the priesthood and
religious life come to pass. But I remain as confident as St. Peter Damian was
in his time, that God will bring about the conditions necessary for these and
all other reforms we need and provide a succession of Popes to carry them out
in the great Counter-Reformation that lies ahead for the Church. Until that
time comes, may our Lord Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, and all His saints,
most especially St. Peter Damian, bless us and keep us strong in the Faith.
.
Footnotes:
1. For an
excellent summary of the life and list of complete writings of St. Peter Damian
see the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Peter Damian,” by Leslie
A. St. L. Toke (transcribed by Joseph C. Meyer) at: www.new
advent.org/cathen/l1764a.htm and Catholic Online Saints, “St. Peter Damian,”
at: http://saints.catholic.org/saints/peter damian.html. Also, see Owen J.
Blum, O.F.M., St. Peter Damian: His Teaching on the Spiritual Life - A
Dissertation, Catholic University Press of America, Washington, D. C.,
1947.
2. This writer has used two
translations of Peter Damian’s the Book of Gomorrah. The most accurate
is by Owen J. Blum, O.F.M., Peter Damian, Letters 31-60, part of the
Fathers of the Church - Medieval Continuation series issued by the Catholic
University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1990. An earlier translation, Book
of Gomorrah -An Eleventh-Century Treatise Against Clerical Homosexual
Practices, by Pierre J. Payer, published by Wilfrid Laurier, University
Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1982, includes some additional interesting
notes and commentary on the work.
3. See “Heresy” by J. Wilhelm,
transcribed by Mary Ann Grelinger on New Advent, Online Catholic Encyclopedia
at: www.newadvent.org/ cathen/07256b.htm#REF_IV.
4. Eyewitness account of an Ash
Wednesday service by the author in the Diocese of Greensburg, PA.
5. Both Atila Sinke Guimaraes in In
the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Volume I, MAETA Press, Meteirie, Louisiana,
1997, pp. 360-361and Father Blum, pp. 28-29 quote from Peter Damian’s the Book
of Gomorrah. Other Church Fathers favored defrocking the offending cleric
and then turning him over to the State for punishment.
6. Blum, pp. 29-30.
7. Ibid., p. 15.
8. See Payer for a discussion of
ecclesiastic responsibility in cases of clerical sexual misbehavior, pp. 29-30.
9. Blum, pp. 5-6.
10. Ibid., p. 6.
11. Ibid., pp. 6-7. Throughout the history
of the Church the definition of “sodomy” has varied somewhat especially with
regard to the issues of self-abuse, mutual masturbation by use of hands and
bestiality. However, it has always included anal penetration, usually of
another male, although in some cases of a female. St. Peter Damian makes no
reference to fellatio either as a form of masturbation or as a homosexual
practice.
12. Ibid., p. 8.
13. Ibid., p. 8.
14. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
15. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
16. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
17. Ibid., pp. 12-14.
18. Ibid., p. 15.
19. Ibid., p. 15.
20. Ibid., p. 15.
21. Ibid., p. 16.
22. Ibid., p. 16.
23. Randy Engel, Sex Education
the Final Plague, second printing, Tan Publishers, Rockford, IL, 1993, p.
158.
24. Ordinations of U.S.
Catholic Bishops 1790-1989, Charles N. Bransom, Jr., NCCB/USCG
publishers, Washington, D.C., 1990, p. 185.
25. Thomas A. Droleskey, “More
Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case,” The Wanderer, February 5, 1998.
Author used the non-paged electronic version of the article.
26. “An Open Letter to the Catholic
Bishops,” Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, published by Roman Catholic Faithful,
Springfield, IL, Winter 2001/2002, p. 19.
27. Droleskey.
28. RCF Newsletter, Winter
2001/ 2002, p. 19. 29. Bransom, Jr., p. 205.
30. RCF Newsletter, p. 19.
31. Bishop J. Keith Symons of Palm
Beach resigned in June of 1998 after accusations of pederasty were made public.
Like Ryan, Symons has been making clerical retreats for clergy around the
United States. Bishop Patrick Ziemann was sexually involved with a priest whom
the bishop allegedly blackmailed for sexual favors that included sodomy.
Ziemann, consecrated by Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles,
resigned as the Bishop of Santa Rosa, CA, in July of 1999. According to
RCF, he too has been giving retreats, his at the Holy Trinity Monastery where
he resides as well as a parish in Sierra Vista. See RCF Newsletter,
Winter 2001/2002, pp. 12-14. Please note that I did not include on my list the
late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago or Bishop Joseph Ferrario of Hawaii.
These cases require extensive treatment which I will give them in my upcoming
book The Rite of Sodomy.
32. Blum, p. 16.
33. Ibid., p. 17.
34. Ibid., p. 17.
35. Ibid., pp. 17-18.
36. Ibid., pp. 20-27.
37. Ibid., p. 27.
38. Ibid., p. 28.
39. Ibid., p. 38.
40. Ibid., p. 38.
41. Ibid., p. 42.
42. Ibid., p. 35.
43. Ibid., pp. 30-32. Here the term
“vice” (Lat. Vitium) is used in its traditional sense as a habit
inclining one to sin. This vicious habit or vice, which according to St. Thomas
Aquinas, stands between power and act, is the product of repeated sinful acts
of a given kind and when formed is in some sense also their cause. While St.
Thomas Aquinas holds that, absolutely speaking, the sin surpasses the vice in
wickedness, he also states while the sin may be removed by God the vice or
vicious habit may remain. One conquers vice by the continuous practice of all
virtues, but particularly that virtue to which it is opposed. In the case of
the vice of sodomy that particular virtue is chastity. See www.newadvent.org/
cathen/15403c.htm
44. Ibid., p. 44.
45. Ibid., pp. 44-45.
46. Ibid., pp. 47-49.
47. Ibid., p. 49.
48. Ibid., p. 50.
49. Ibid., p. 52.
50. Ibid., p. 53.
51. Ibid., p. 53
52. For an excellent and extensive
biography of St. Leo IX from which this short profile was taken see the New
Advent electronic Catholic encyclopedia at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09160c.htm. The biography was written by Horace
K. Mann, and transcribed by W. G. Kofron.
53. For a biography of Damasus II
see http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/04614a.htm and for Benedict IX see
http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/02429a.htm. According to the New Advent
biography by Horace K. Mann (transcribed by Kryspin J. Turczynski), Abbot Luke
of the Abbey of Grottaferrata reports that St. Bartholomew convinced Benedict
to definitely resign the pontificate. Benedict died in penitence at
Grottaferrata.
54. For an excellent biography of
Pope Gregory VII see Thomas Oestreich (transcribed by Janet van Heyst) at
http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/06791c.htm.
55. Mann, p. 1.
56. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
57. Owen P. Blum, O.F.M., Peter
Damian, Letters 31-60, part of the Fathers of the Church - Mediaeval
Continuation series issued by the Catholic University of America Press,
Washington, D.C., 1990, p. 3.
58. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
59. I.E. solitary masturbation,
mutual masturbation, and interfemoral (between the thighs) and anal coitus.
60. Owen P. Blum, O.F.M., Peter
Damian, Letters 31-60, part of the Fathers of the Church - Mediaeval
Continuation series issued by the Catholic University of America Press,
Washington, D.C., 1990, p. 4.
61. Ibid., p. 4.
62. Ibid., p. 5.
63. Ibid., p. 5.
64. Ibid., p. 5.
65. Ibid., p. 5.
66. Ibid., p. 4.
67. Ibid., p. 7.
68. Ibid., p. 5.
69. See the New Advent Catholic
Encyclopedia, “St. Peter Damian,” by Leslie A. St. L.Toke (transcribed by
Joseph C. Meyer) pp. 1-2. at http://www. newadvent.org/cathen/11764a.htm.
70. Pierre J. Payer, Book of
Gomorrah — An Eleventh-Century Treatise Against Clerical Homosexual Practices,
Wilfrid Laurier, University Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1982, p. 21.
71. Toke, p. 1.
72. Toke, p. 2.
73. See http://freespace.virgin.net/
crc.english/promise.htm for the full text of the Radcliffe letter. Also,
http://www.Op.org/Curia/MG/englet.html The new Dominican Master general is the
Very Rev. Carlos Azpiroz, OP, from Buenos Aires (Argentina).
74. Radcliffe, p. 6.
75. Donald Goergen, The Sexual
Celibate, Seabury Press, (Crossroad), NY, 1974.
76. Ibid., pp. 81. 82-83, 85, 101,
127, 195, 203.
77. Enrigue Rueda, The Homosexual
Network, Devin Adair Co., Old Greenwich, CT, 1982, pp. 334, 346, 556.
78. Letter from Communication to
Rev. Donald J. Goergen, OP and Dominican fathers and brothers at River Forest,
dated March 25, 1988.
79. Author’s interviews and notes
with Dominican fathers, 1987-1989.
80. See Donna Steichen, Ungodly
Rage - The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
1992, pp. 219-241. Also Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ - The
Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance, Harper and
Row, NY, 1988, pp. 177-180.
81. Steichen, p. 238. Note: After
his dismissal from the Dominican Order, Fox was received as an Episcopal priest
by Bishop William Swing of the Diocese of California.
82. Radcliffe, p. 8. Also compare
Goergen’s statement with Father Fox’s almost identical listing in The Coming
of the Cosmic Christ, pp. 44-47. For a favorable book review of Radcliffe’s
book, Sing a New Song, see
http://www.faithalivebooks.com/books/tp_sing_song.html.
83. Ibid., p. 11.
84. Ibid., p. 12.
85. Ibid., p. 12.
86. Electronic version of the Acts of
the General Chapter of Diffinitors of the Order of Friars Preachers, July
17-August 8, 1995 at Caleruega, p. 42.
87. Radcliffe, p. 12.
88. John Rivera, “Future priests vow
to make a difference,” The Sun, April 28, 2002, pp. 1A, 5A.
89. Mike Joseph, “Local bishop
outlines sexual-abuse policy,” Centre Daily Times, posted May 7, 2002 at
wysiwyg://101/http://www. centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/3213399.htm
90. Catholic News Service, “Vatican
to Enforce 1961 Document Banning Homosexual Priests and Religious —
Implementation Previously Left to Local Bishops,” March 28, 2002, pp.1-2.
91. Ibid., p. 2.
92. Ibid., p.1.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid.
96. See Garry Wills, Papal Sin —
Structures of Deceit, Simon & Schuster, NY, 2000 in which Wills is
quoted as saying that, “many observers suspect that John Paul’s real legacy to
his Church is a gay priesthood.” From “Challenging The Church,” a Washington
Post book review by Tad Szulc, June 4, 2000, Book World section, p. X01.
97. Blum, pp. 7-8.
98. See Payer, p. 17.
99. Rueda, pp. 296. Note: Cardinal
Medeiros removed Shanley from his “job” soon after the NAMBLA conference, but
did not take steps to depose the priest. Rueda also listed Shanley as a
scheduled speaker at Dignity’s 1981 convention on the topic “Ecumenism on the
Gay Community.” Dignity promotes itself as a “Catholic” pro-homosexual
organization.
100. Paul Likoudis, “Sex Abuse
Scandal … Shifts to Larger Issues of Homosexual Clergy,” The Wanderer,
May 2, 2002, pp., 1, 8.
101. Daniel Tsang, The Age Taboo
- Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, Alyson Pub., Boston, Ga
Men’s press, London, 1981.
102. Ibid., p. 38-39.
103. See
http://www.nambla.org/pedersty.htm, 8/13/99, David Thorstad, “Pederasty and
Homosexuality,” speech to an audience of over 600 at the Sema Cultural
Lesbica-Gay in Mexico City on June 26, 1998.
104. Stephanie Warsmith, “Former
priest explains past,” The Beacon Journal, posted online April 5, 2002.
See http://www.boston.com/globe/ spotlight
/abuse/print/040902_shanley_letters.htm
105. “DEFIANT LETTERS A humbling
exit from spotlight,” by Michael Rezendes and Sacha Pfeiffer, Boston Globe Staff,
4/9/2002.
106. Paul Srubas, “Bishop: ‘We’ve
got an ulcer,’” Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter online, posted April 12,
2002
107. Kris Hundley, “The Question
Nobody Wants to Answer Why was $15,794 withdrawn from the Pilecki Scholarship
Fund on June 30, 1985?” originally published on June 30, 1986 in the Valley
Advocate.
108. Likoudis, pp. 1, 8. Note: To
date there have been two charges of sexual misconduct against Medeiros but
these charges have not been well substantiated and may be simply false.
109. “Letter cleared Shanley
transfer,” Boston Associated Press release, April 8, 2002.
110. Matt Carroll, “Law is new defendant
in clergy abuse suit,” Boston Globe online, April 5, 2002.
111. Pam Belluck, Fox Butterfield
and Sara Rimer, “Cardinal’s ex-aides touched by scandal,” New York Times,
appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 18, 2002, p. A-11.
112. Stephen Kurkjian, “Worker’s
warning on priest led to her firing,” Boston Globe online, April 5,
2002.
113. Glenn F. Bunting, “Cloak of
Silence Covered Abuse at Jesuit Retreat” LA Times, March 24, 2002.
Online edition at http://www.latimes. com/news/ local/la-032402molest.story
114. See Michael Harris, Unholy
Orders - Tragedy at Mount Cashel, Viking Press, Ontario, 1990.
115. Bunting
116. See Bollard v California
Province of the Society of Jesus, Ninth Circuit, 5/5/00; 211 F3d 1331.
117. Bunting
118. Ibid.
119. Ibid.
120. Jack Sullivan, “Records:
Vatican knew of scandal cover-up in 1973,” Boston Herald.com, May 16, 2002.
121. Melvin C. Blanchette and Gerald
D. Coleman, “Priest Pedophiles,” reprinted from America, April 25, 2002.
122. Final Communiqué of the
Extraordinary Meeting Between Cardinals of the United States and the Leadership
of the United States, Vatican, April 23-24, 2002.
123. Harris, p. 317.