Can one hold a four-day summit with all the presidents of all the bishops’ conferences in the world to condemn the abuse of minors, without referencing the cause of this evil, in other words, practices against nature?
Archbishop Charles Scicluna, one of the organizers of the Roman summit, says “yes,” since in his opinion “homosexuality has nothing to do with the sexual abuse of minors,” as he stated at the press conference held on February 18, 2019.
Indeed, in his closing address Pope Francis preferred to blame “clericalism” and “abuse of power”—which drew several indignant reactions.
In favour of Uncompromising Condemnation
In an article called “Homosexuality: the Church must speak the truth,” François Billot de Lochner, president of Liberté Politique, wrote bluntly on March 1:
The pope’s address is an incredible mix of platitudes on pornography, sexual tourism, the weakness of man, and so many other things. Did we need a summit to explain phenomena that everyone is aware of? (…)Homosexuality in the Church is not a novelty: the wonderful Saint Catherine of Siena already lamented it. What is, on the other hand, radically new, is the handling—or non-handling—of the problem by the summit of the hierarchy of the Church, which has lost its way in a totally erroneous approach to the matter. The address from on high supports an obvious confusion, in the teeth of centuries of a consistent teaching in favour of either the carnal union of one man and one woman in marriage, or the continence of the consecrated. The apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, in referencing ‘irregular situations’ in addition to the case of the divorced and remarried, without further precision (AL 305), has opened up the field of possibilities indefinitely: what of heterosexual relations outside of marriage, but what of relations between clerics also, and finally what of homosexual relations in general?
With such a pastoral background, it becomes extremely difficult for some members of the higher clergy to maintain the uncompromising language of condemnation that one might legitimately expect in response to the shameful revelations concerning a nonnegligible number of prelates. Almost fatally, the line of argumentation limits itself to consensual condemnation of abuse of minors, which is not controversial, and carefully avoids addressing the true background of this abuse. This background has a name: homosexuality. Let us have the courage to reaffirm that the moral discourse of the Church of Christ, in all its beauty and its demanding nature, has lost nothing of its relevance!
Let us also renew our great love and admiration for the cohort of cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns who remain profoundly pure in soul, mind, heart and body, and who, in spite of everything, heroically endure the great storm that the dignitaries of the Church refuse to call by name. In the name of the Catholic people who believe that morality cannot be divided, and that the current positions of the leaders of this institution are frequently untenable, may they be infinitely thanked.
Why the Aphasia?
In the Nuova Bussola Quotidiana of February 24, Marco Tosatti commented:
The summit was announced in September to respond, as well as possible, to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s accusations, and initially it was supposed to deal not only with minors but also vulnerable adults. The ‘vulnerable adults’ were the seminarians—in some cases barely past the age of majority—and the young priests targeted by McCarrick, and those of the seminary of Tegucigalpa harassed by Cardinal Maradiaga’s right-hand man, as well as others in the United States (…). Surreptitiously, the ‘vulnerable adult’ victims of homosexual bishops and priests disappeared from the discussion leaving only ‘minors’ in general.Many see in this persistent and deliberate omission a clear sign of the power of the homosexual cabal within the Church, and a will to make acceptable what the Church has always explicitly condemned: homosexual relations. The words of Archbishop Scicluna, adjunct secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and archbishop of Malta, are indicative: heterosexuality and homosexuality ‘are human conditions that we recognize, that exist, but they aren’t something that really predisposes us to sin.’ [sic] Which, unless Catholic doctrine and the Catechism have changed in the meantime, is not correct. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equals, and it must not be forgotten that before LGTB propaganda began, we spoke simply, and in a complementary sense, of men and women, not of ‘homosexuals’ and ‘heterosexuals,’ as categories reduced to one aspect of behaviour.
The intent was to avoid—and this is clearly manifested in the language of the organizers of the summit, Cupich and Scicluna—that during the work sessions of the summit, homosexuality should be spoken of as one of the causes of abuse. This goal was defended in the teeth of reason and the evidence of numbers: 80% of the cases involved males only, and the victims were aged 14 and up. An expert on the CDF told us that 90% of the cases that make it to Rome share these characteristics. The reports of specialists such as the Ruth Institute support this analysis. But it cannot be said, neither at the summit nor in the Church: the pope, ever since the Chilean crisis, has accused everything else of causing abuse: power, human nature, clericalism, but not homosexuality. Why this aphasia? It is indeed cause for perplexity among lay Catholics, who are observing, with ever more care and discernment, what is said and what is not said.
It is on the Lack of Faith that the Church Must Examine Itself
On February 25, Aldo Maria Valli wrote frankly on his blog: “This is not clericalism; it is lust.” But, he added, “during the Vatican summit, this reality was ignored. In the very title (‘The protection of minors in the Church’) it was deformed.” Instead, “an indefinable and imprecise reality was shoved into the dock: clericalism. Clericalism is guilty of the abuse, as Francis confirmed in his final remarks.”
But, as A. M. Valli emphasized,
...the fact of attributing the origin of the abuse to clericalism moves the whole discussion onto the plane of the indeterminate and the ambiguous. It is a bit like what happens when people say that if the world is going astray, it is the fault of society: claiming that if there is abuse in the Church, it is the fault of clericalism, in reality does not explain much. In fact, it does not explain anything.The abuse of power, which, according to the pope, is the most important element for understanding the phenomenon of sexual abuse, can certainly be a contributing factor, just as it is every time a superior takes advantage of his position to exploit, manipulate or insult his inferiors, but alone it does not suffice. (…)
One question remains: why did things happen like this? Who worked to keep the word ‘homosexuality’ out of the discussion? Who wanted the title of the summit to supress the reference to ‘vulnerable adults’ and leave only the ‘protection of minors?’ Who took care that some realities would remain shrouded in fog?
A review of the McCarrick case (to limit ourselves to the most famous) may help to find the answer. In the Catholic Church, there is a homosexual cabal capable of conditioning, deviating and covering up. This is the network that must be delved into courageously. This is the bubble that must be burst.
[As Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò did in bearing witness “to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen,” on August 26, 2018. –Ed.]
The real clericalism, if we really wish to use the term, is that of those who do not want clarity and will not call things by their name. The abuse drama originates in vice and in the sin of lust. And it is on the lack of faith that the Church must examine itself. What is the result of the contrary, this sociological approach that pleases the world so much? Only media operations that translate to general condemnations and sterile commiseration—and substantial camouflage.
Read More: “What are the real causes of the abuse of minors?”