Is Cardinal Schoenborn Homosexual?
PLEASE ALSO FOLLOW THE EDITS HERE AND AT THE END.
First an appeal to the SSPX, if they were ever to read this: can you please stop referring to homosexuals, lesbians, & Co. as “gay”? If even the SSPX starts using this sloppy language, where will it end?
On the matter: once again, Cardinal Schoenborn (a man recently considered as papabile, which tells you something about the present state of things within the Church) shows himself a rather extreme aider and abettor of homosexual perversion.
The SSPX goes in detail on this, also giving a rather comprehensive account of a small part of the antics of this satanic Cardinal in the last years.
In this specific instance, the Cardinal is on record with the following:
There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life.
(EDIT: The Cardinal’s Secretary denies these were the words or the intention of the Cardinal: see below).
The Cardinal thinks that sexual perversion: 1) needs respect, and 2) needs civil law protection. Spoken like a true sodomite.
If a Cardinal would publicly declare that bestiality needs respect and civil law protection, but just please don’t call it marriage, wouldn’t you think he has that very perversion? Well, then..
Therefore, the suspicion is more than justified that the Cardinal is a homosexual himself, because such a level of defiance of God’s laws – in every priest, but particularly in a Cardinal – is probably rooted in an inner disobedience born of one’s own perversion. In these cases, some might still have the gut to do their job even if they themselves do not comply with the required standard – Cardinal O’Brien comes to mind – but it is fair to say it is far more likely that perverted clergymen will rather try to subvert the standard instead. In doing so, they will use the usual code words employed by homosexual priests during the past decades: the need to be pastoral, the “charitee”, and such like; proving that most perverts have no idea of what being pastoral, or being charitable, means in the first place.
You can put it in another way: it is difficult to think a normal person can arrive to such level of complicity with perverts, unless he is a pervert himself. Life is a very simple thing, and what would have caused alarm bells to toll in every sensible person only two generations ago is now more difficult to detect, because the aggressive (actually: passive-aggressive) clericalism engendered by Vatican II makes it far more difficult for sound thinking people to pose the obvious question, “is the Cardinal a poof?”, without being accusing of being “uncharitable”.
Also please think this: there has been a widespread talk about the homosexual infiltration within the Church, up to the highest echelons. The effeminacy of the V II Church is more than evident to anyone who can compare the pre-V II and post-V II attitude. The takeover of entire seminaries through perverted priests, in turn co-opting perverted seminarians, is well documented (Maynooth was rather extreme; St. Poelten was even worse), and it is simply not possible that this is turn did not create a net of homosexual bishops, helping each other to positions of power.
This is universally known, and the problem of homosexual infiltration is widely acknowledged. Still, it would seem these homosexual prelates exist only in an abstract sphere, or are acknowledged only a posteriori, when they get officially exposed (“Miami Vice” is a prime example; see also here for more information on what happened over there). In daily life, it seems most people think these homosexual prelates are just non-existent.
It’s just like Fascists in Italy in May 1945: everyone knew they were there, only no one was supposed to be a Fascist…
You know what? It just can’t be. The net of homosexual bishops is working for Satan as we speak. They further the infiltration of the church through both homosexual clergy and homosexual ideas; they pollute Catholicism every day with their sugary talk about “pastoral care”; they want their sheep to forget the very bases of Christianity; they are creating a new religion in which their own perversion is fully accepted through the simple trick of not calling it “marriage”; they pervert the mind of their sheep by inoculating in them concepts of “love” and “commitment” that can only exist in the mind of perverts. They exploit their position of authority to smuggle ideas that would never be accepted by simple – and gullible – Catholics if they did not come from bishops or Cardinals. They are a cancer that is going into metastasis, working hand in hand with the civil authorities of many Western Countries.
Do you think these people exist only in theory? No, they exist in practice. We see them at work. Look at Cardinal Schoenborn, and you’ll see a prime example.
Aristotle famously said that if an animal looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Cardinal Schoenborn thinks like a poof, acts like a poof and quacks like a poof.
These people must be stopped, and I do not think giving First Holy Communion to children in Roman parishes is what is going to stop them.
EDIT: Cardinal Schoenborn’s secretary has written to the Tablet stating the Tablet has “grossly misinterpreted” the Cardinal’s words. Strangely, though, what he does is simply rephrase the words, which in the original text were clearly attributable to him.
My comment: the Cardinal wanted his words to be “non attributable” ( a common trick when one wants to throw the stone and hide the hand). The Tablet was too weak with their expression “leading Cardinal”, which clearly referred to Schoenborn, instead of using the usual expressions like “highly placed officials have expressed to the Tablet the opinion that…”. As it was, everyone, starting from the SSPX and the Vatican, understood who is the culprit. At this point Schoenborn had to backpedal with another common excuse (“gross misunderstanding”), which to me is code for “I said “non attributable”, morons”.
I gladly link to the letter from Mr Prueller, but I do think the excuse does not wash. In my eyes, Schoenborn still quacks like the duck above. As to Schoenborn’s record in matters of homosexuality, it is clear enough without any need for unwanted attributions, and doesn’t change anything substantial in the matter, apart from showing one of these days Schoenborn will, if he does not pay attention, put himself in huge trouble. Please also note the SSPX article, which reports several scandalous episodes concerning the Cardinal’s attitude towards homos, is still online as I write, if without the Tablet quote.
I suspect Schoenborn got some unexpected flak from the Vatican, and decided to discover orthodoxy – for the time being – through his secretary.
As far as I am concerned the post, the duck, and the suspicions stay.