Daily Archives: March 4, 2013

The Cardinal, The Nuncio And The Priest.

Poor chap might as well wear a cassock...

Poor chap might as well wear a cassock…

In the matter of Cardinal O’Brien, Father Ray Blake does me the great honour of a mention, and actually of an entire blog post in answer to questions I had posed in a previous blog post of mine.  His answers are, I must say, very interesting, and I will therefore report them here together with some short – as far as I can ever do “short” – observations of mine. 


I had posed the question: “Is it probable that no one had noticed?” , to which he answers, inter alia, as follows:

 “The great problem of the clergy, is that we tend to be naive about both scandal and sex.”

“We tend to be guarded about calumny, even calumnious thought. Especially today when we clergy live solitary lives, it is more than likely we are completely in the dark about what a priest is doing in the parish next door and even more so what our bishop is up to…”

I found the answer consoling. I had already stated  that “innocence is slow in discovering filth”, and it seems to me Father Blake beautifully repeats the concept. This also tells us, though, that the homosexual wolves will have an easy game in not being discovered, or exposed, by the innocent and honest people they have around them. If I reason correctly, this means the homosexual predator will be able to carefully study his own environment and decide when and whom to attack, in the reasonable certainty that even if things were to go massively wrong (seen from his perspective) the probability of getting away with it will be high.


to the question “Is it possible no one ever sent notes and warnings to his superiors?” the following consideration (again, inter alia) are added:  

“There is no mechanism for reporting suspicions to superiors, and certainly not if one’s suspicion is about a bishop”. [..] 

“Until the appointment of Archbishop Memini there was always the feeling that his predecessors were both unlikely to forward ones concerns to Rome and were more than likely to copy any letter to the Bishop concerned”.

This I found rather disquieting. In my innocence, I always thought a carefully worded anonymous letter would awaken the interest of some vigilant chap at the Congregation for the Clergy, whose role is – I have always thought – exactly to react to situations which would require an anonymous letter. Of course, no one expects the Spanish inquisition, but that Rome does not have a structure able and willing to cope with friendly advice is very sad indeed. It means, among other things, that a bishop only needs the friendship or gratitude of the nuncio to be fairly sure of impunity. This, in turn, will allow him to fish in his own pond for the homosexual fishes undisturbed. One starts to understand how situations like “Miami Vice” can happen. 

3. To the question : “Is it possible that such warnings were sent and given, and were ignored by the competent authorities without much thinking, or because of the wrong thinking” the following reflection is added:  

As far as complaints made to bishops or other superiors they are unlikely to act on mere suspicion or rumour. Sexual crimes especially always tend to happen in private, and there tends to be little evidence, and generally it is one persons word against another and without evidence their must be a presumption of innocence.

Again, an alarming picture emerges. There is, in modern parlance, an awful lack of proper governance mechanisms, and non-existence of proper codes of conduct like they exist everywhere else (say: to whom one may complain or denounce a criminal offence; who examines the complaint/denunciation; how the whistleblowers are protected, and the like).

It seems to me that a system is in place in which many do not even see the evil (good for them, I add); those who get in touch with the evil are basically left alone, as they do not have any serious interlocutor (the nuncio can’t be trusted; the bishop is obviously extremely dangerous) and Rome is far away and, in substance, uninterested or too busy. The reticence, which I find excessive, to act on rumours (not with condemnations, of course; but with carefully conducted investigations) might well do the rest. 

This situation also is in stark contrast with what happens to the poor priest, who can be suspended from his functions and/or stipend at the first totally unproved allegation made by some boy or mother; suspension leading, as we all know, to a substantial reputational damage even when the poor priest is, in the end, acquitted (last time I looked, 90% of the cases?). Granted, in this case the accusers have a name; but the difference is striking.

In modern organisations, the importance of whistleblowing as a way to encourage and enforce proper behaviour has been long – and rightly so – acknowledged. Many blogs exist who are dedicated to whistleblowing, and whose existence is one of the main  reasons anonymous blogging is not only allowed, but positively protected in all Western democracies.   Anonymity  isn’t bad per se, and well-trained people are very good at recognising  what is probably private revenge from what is probably useful denunciation of authentic criminal behaviour. 

I am told the Latin Inquisition had post boxes (in Rome and, I suppose, elsewhere) where everyone could put anonymous letters about heretics and the like. Every lead was followed. I am sure most leads… led to nothing, but the system seems to me more accurate, more protective of the sheep and the priests, and in general fairer than what happens today. 

I hope the next Pope will dedicate great time and energy to these issues. Without proper rules of governance, the danger of further “Miami Vice” will always be present; particularly so, as we are afflicted by the disgraceful generation of guitars and tambourines priests, now elevated to purple and red. 


Cardinal Sandri Candidates Himself, Slams Door To Turkson, And Offends All Catholics.

Cardinal Sandri couldn’t resist the desire for a little posturing, and he now clearly presents his candidature through the pressand recurring to the appeal to the worst popular feelings. As he is there, he also slams the door right into Cardinal Turkson’s nose and offends the entire Catholic world. Not bad for a day of work.

It would be very good if Cardinals decided that no one of them will give interviews until after the Conclave. But again, if you think yourself a rockstar, or are desperate to be pushed by the press, this might be difficult.

Sandri is now openly pandering to the progressives, hoping his knowledge of the Curia – decades in Rome already, if memory serves – will propel him towards the coveted words, “non sum dignus”.

We are now informed the Cardinal is “calling for a greater role for women in the life of the Church”. You see, the Church is so dominated by… men! Who would have thought that!

So, how could this greater role look like? The Cardinal has a couple genial ideas.

1) offices in the Curia. Meet the new Prefectess of the Congregation For Women’s Equality. Among the vital changes for the life of the Church could be counted “aromatherapy for Catholics”, a new way to feel one’s Catholicism in a non-threatening, inclusive way; the liturgy might also be modified where sensible (“joy, love and peace be with you”) and in general, the Church might extend her pastoral activity to the great problem of the drowning of kittens in the Third World. A clear refusal of all wars and its substitution with afternoon tea discussion groups is also not improbable.

2) The Cardinal (who might, or might not, be homosexual; considering the way he thinks I wouldn’t bet my pint he isn’t) suggests women should get a “greater role” in priestly formation.
So, according to the Cardinal the average V II priest isn’t effeminate enough, and we do not have enough faggots among them as it is. No, we must make sure that they are screened, or at the very least formed, according to the preferences of a bunch of pious females. It beggars belief, but it is on “Catholic Culture” and I am not kidding you.

If a priest would dare to spit to my face stupid drivel like this, I would ask him to his face whether he is homosexual. In this case, I can’t avoid thinking that Sandri might have the same affliction as the very recently disgraced Cardinal O’Brien (yours truly has reported). At the very least, Sandri’s thinking is suspiciously effeminate without the shadow of a doubt.

Singularly, the very same O’Brien gave an extremely stupid interview of “progressive” tenor just a couple of days before being disgraced; possibly because he was being blackmailed, or else in an extremely naive last-minute attempt to obtain the protection of the Press. with this in mind, you never know what is behind Cardinal Sandri’s sudden enthusiasm for the colour pink…

Talking about colours, pink leads us nicely to… black (or rather, Black), where the good pink Cardinal accepts “diversity” in a loving but, sadly, decidedly mortal embrace. The Church is ready for a Black Pope, he says. Unfortunately, ” the world is not”, so please be kind and forget Turkson, will you?

The Cardinal therefore calls the entire Catholic world “racist”, after he has called it, fittingly from a feminist perspective, sexist. Truly, the bitching potential of a Pope Sandrina I cannot be overlooked.

We shall see how this pans out. A Pope like Sandri would let Paul VI look like Torquemada.

O Lord, please give us a strong Pope.


John Allen Tired And Emotional, Or Simply Disingenuous.

John Allen is generally the only one among the bunch of heretics writing for the National Schismatic Reporter who manages to write pieces of acceptable fairness and quality. I think he is, in fact, the token Catholic of the magazine, useful to avoid immediate and serious trouble with Rome. Not later than a couple of days ago I have linked to an article written by him.

Today, though, Allen shows a terrifying ignorance, a deplorable abuse of intoxicating substances or, most likely, a shocking disingenuousness that should not remain unnoticed or uncommented.

Speaking of the next Pope, Allen writes (and I quote): “No matter what happens, the church almost certainly won’t reverse its ban on abortion, gay marriage or women priests”.


Firstly, Mr Allen should be aware that he is not writing about the small church at the corner, but of the Only Church, which must correctly be written with a capital C lest the uninformed think she isn’t the only one.

More importantly, though, Mr Allen is shamelessly pandering to the heretics reading his rag when he indicates they are allowed to think it might be legitimate, or even thinkable, to imagine the Church might one day change the vary basis of Her infallible teaching.

Such expressions should actually be enough to deprive this infamous rag of its right to call itself “Catholic”. Let’s hope it happens not before long, and not one day too soon.

Mr Allen certainly knows better, and should be ashamed.
But then again people who know what shame is don’t write for that indecent rag.


Cardinal O’Brien: How Many Knew?

It is well-known that innocence is slow in discovering filth. An innocent man can work for a long time near an homosexual without ever even thinking that he might be a pervert; a person more aware of the filth of this world will generally be more alert, and therefore faster in realising what is going on; an homosexual will probably be fastest, as every little signal revealing a perverted mind will be most transparent to him, a perverted mind.

The public admission of Cardinal O’Brien concerning his terrible affliction is now a few hours old, but poses a number of questions think the Church will find difficult to ignore.

It is obvious that the Cardinal did his best to defend Church teaching regardless of his perverted inclinations; but it is just as clear not only he did not manage to overcome his affliction, but yielded to it in some way – the extent will, no doubt, become clear in time – during a rather long period.

How can it then be, wonders yours truly, that the tendencies of the priest, then Bishop, then Cardinal were not noticed by a number of people? Some might have been too innocent to notice; some others – alas, no doubt about that – noticed because they belonged, as the Italian saying goes, “to the same parish”; but a number of perfectly heterosexual people must have noticed that something was wrong, surely?

Let us think this further: is it probable no one had noticed? No.
Is it possible no one ever sent notes and warnings to his superiors? Extremely unlikely.
Is it possible that such warnings were sent and given, and were ignored by the competent authorities without much thinking, or because of the wrong thinking? You can draw your own conclusions, but I think it probable almost to the point of certainty.

Obviously, the Cardinal was no Jimmy Savile and the noticing of his tendencies rather more difficult to spot. But for decades? Seriously?

The gravest matter here is not that he made inappropriate advances to other priests – this is something perverts will do – but that an homosexual was allowed to become priest in the first place and to climb the steps of the ladder up to the very top of his country, even becoming the elector of Popes.

Those dealing with these matters are well advised to carefully look at the past circumstances of the entire church life of the Cardinal, and try to let emerge as much as they can. Whilst many who have covered him might be dead, such an investigation would provide useful information concerning the way these things (do not) work.

It simply cannot be that an homosexual makes it to seminarian, priest, bishop, and cardinal without many control mechanisms having failed miserably.


%d bloggers like this: