Liber Gomorrhianus, XXI Century Edition

“There is a huge problem in the Church. Active homosexual activity by priests and the secrecy of this sin must be revealed, and the holy priesthood must be restored to what Jesus said it ought to be,” Vasek said.

“The dark, secret cover-up of homosexual behavior has been under the radar for many years. Now the darkness is coming to light,” he added.

These are the words of the whistleblower in the sordid story of Bishop Hoeppner, who was just removed from his job.

The long, detailed article is quite interesting.

I do not know whether Bishop Hoeppner was a “conservative”, as V II bishops go. It seems to me that he has all the marks of the leftie. Still, I do not think he is justifiable in any way.

The information we have up to now shows that, whilst Hoeppner does not seem to have that horrible affliction himself, he wasn’t shy in covering those who had; actually, several of them. What also grates me a lot is the admission, from the Bishop, that he knew he was breaking the rules. Quote:

Bishop Hoeppner admitted in the deposition he understood himself to be violating Church norms, but said he did so to maintain confidentiality.

Well, Frankie blathers so much about clericalism, now he has found a real example of it. That the Bishop also pressured the whistleblower to recant his accusation might or might not be true; that he though he could go out of his way to defend several homosexual priests and put him in a position to offend again really shows the arrogance of these people.

You might say that some of the episode had happened many years before. I ask you who, of you, believes that a homosexual priest with a past of abuse (and be that in 1815) can be “reformed” and stay at his place, happily cured after a pretend session with some counsellor.

My humble take: he may or may not be reformed, and I am being extremely generous here. Still, the priestly office will have to go.

The only way to free the Church from the scourge of homosexual priest is to get rids of all priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. It does not matter whether the episode was 3 or 300 years ago. “Homo” must mean “you go”.

A priest who is afflicted by such a terrible deviancy should not have been a priest one day in his life. Therefore, to say that the priest has been spotless for 29 years (if you believe that, I have a bridge on sale) is still admitting that the guy has been a priest 29 years too many. Still, we have here a Bishop (possibly, one who calls himself a conservative one; I await more info) not only not incensed that this tainted priesthoods happened, but (with variation) going out of his way to allow this to happen for longer.

This is why we have this tragedy within the Church. Not even Bishops are horrified. Best case, they are incurably naive, unforgivably arrogant and utterly unfit for the job. In the worst case… well, you know what the worst case is.

I am awaiting to see the further developments of this story. But I still wonder: for one who gets caught, how many have behaved exactly in the same way? How many are behaving like this today? How many people, every Sunday, go to mass and receive communion from a priest of whom his very Bishop knows he is homosexual and, as such, simply unfit for the priesthood?

There must be no understanding for Bishops who cover homosexual priests, with or without allegations of abuse.

Homosexuality makes a priest unfit for office. That’s all there is to it.

This swamp needs to be drained, and I don’t care how many (in case) “conservative” bishops need to go down for this.

Posted on April 13, 2021, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Patrick O'Brien

    Mundabor, you will never be offered a position as a Church official.

  2. Thank you. Ii couldn’t have said it better.

  3. ‘I’ couldn’t have said it better…’

  4. catholictradition2

    There are several disorders, none of which a predisposition to deviancy is inherent, that make a priestly candidate ineligible. Homosexuality, which does, seems to be the only exception. This means there is an agenda behind its promotion.

    • This point is so important! I need to make it sink into my thought processes when debating the issue. Thank you.

  5. I wouldn’t add the “deep seated” bit to the homo qualification. If a man has thought about other men in THAT way and not been repulsed by his thoughts…then he should be blocked from the priesthood. The enemy will always try and introduce such heinous thoughts to us…it’s what we do and how we react to them that shows us the state of our souls.
    EVERY priest who thinks male sodomy is ok, regardless of attraction to other males, should be booted. Their minds are warped and unfit for office. God bless~

  1. Pingback: Canon212 Update: News Snippets From The Reigning King of Nasty – The Stumbling Block

Leave a reply. Please be concise and to the point.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: