"Remarkable Insights into the Nature of Homosexuality
In his description of the unnatural passions that rule over the sodomite, Saint Peter 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]"

Regarding this vice among clerics
"For God's sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition?" . . . . "lest by your prayers you more sharply provoke Him Whom your wicked life so obviously offends."

FEBRUARY 21, 2011
DAILY PRAYER WITH REGNUM CHRISTI
[HELP MY UNBELIEF!
February 21, 2011
Monday of the Seventh Week in Ordinary Time
Father Edward Hopkins, LC
Mark 9:14-29
As Jesus came down the mountain with Peter, James, and John and
approaching the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them
and scribes arguing with them. Immediately on seeing him, the whole
crowd was utterly amazed. They ran up to him and greeted him. He
asked them, "What are you arguing about with them?" Someone from the
crowd answered him, "Teacher, I have brought to you my son possessed
by a mute spirit. Wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he
foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked your
disciples to drive it out, but they were unable to do so." He said to
them in reply, "O faithless generation, how long will I be with you?
How long will I endure you? Bring him to me." They brought the boy to
him. And when he saw him, the spirit immediately threw the boy into
convulsions. As he fell to the ground, he began to roll around and
foam at the mouth. Then he questioned his father, "How long has this
been happening to him?" He replied, "Since childhood. It has often
thrown him into fire and into water to kill him. But if you can do
anything, have compassion on us and help us." Jesus said to him,
"‘If you can!' Everything is possible to one who has faith."
Then the boy's father cried out, "I do believe, help my unbelief!"
Jesus, on seeing a crowd rapidly gathering, rebuked the unclean
spirit and said to it, "Mute and deaf spirit, I command you: come out
of him and never enter him again!" Shouting and throwing the boy
into convulsions, it came out. He became like a corpse, which caused
many to say, "He is dead!" But Jesus took him by the hand, raised
him, and he stood up. When he entered the house, his disciples asked
him in private, "Why could we not drive it out?" He said to them,
"This kind can only come out through prayer."
Introductory Prayer: Lord Jesus, I believe in your presence in my
life, family and work. I believe that you ask nothing of me that you
do not give me the strength to do. I trust in the power of your
grace and the care of your love. I love you, Lord, and I wish to love
you with this prayer so that I may work according to your will and
in your love.
Petition: I believe you can change me, Lord.
1. Working Without Faith The artist Raphael depicts the poor
apostles who, awaiting Our Lord's return from Mount Tabor and the
Transfiguration, are waving their arms in frustration and excusing
themselves before the desperate father and his family. How often we
try to do what clearly seems to be our work, but without including
God in any real way. Our work seems "dead" until we let Jesus work
with us to "raise it up." Often we fail even to ask whether what we
do is God's will or not. When we exclude God from our work or family
life, we lack faith. He is there—but we just don't allow him
room to work. The apostles exercise little faith, thinking this cure
beyond their ability. The father and his family may as well have
lacked faith in what these "apostles" could do. To them, and to us,
Christ says, "O faithless generation!" When do I show a lack of faith
in my work or family life?
2. Jesus' Ultimate Intention: Instill Faith When Jesus is out of
sight, the people could only argue. Yet when he comes into view, the
people are "utterly amazed." Jesus immediately sees their lack of
faith, so he uses every circumstance to inspire faith. What he did
for the chosen three apostles through the Transfiguration, he does
now for the nine at the foot of the mountain. He allows them to fail
so as to teach them faith. He tests the poor father, too: "If you
can!" And he instructs all the apostles on the need for prayer. What
is Christ doing in my life to invite me to greater faith? Do I
respond with that faith or do I simply argue, since Jesus does not
appear present?
3. Our Struggle to Believe The father's heartfelt cry is all Jesus
needs to drive out the unclean spirit. The man reaffirms his faith
while admitting his weakness. How often do we assume that our faith
is sufficient, all the while blaming God for what happens in our
life? Believing is not easy. It requires a constant recognition of
our limitations, our inability to understand the "why's" of so many
occurrences, the "how's" of so many challenges. Jesus does not rebuke
the struggle to believe but rather the lack of effort when we stop
believing. What the apostles failed to do was done by the father with
one intense but short prayer: "Help my unbelief!" This humble
confession always comes to rest on the greatness of God's power and
the comprehensiveness of his love. Do I believe that everything is
possible if I only believe?
Conversation with Christ: Lord, grant me an increase of faith! Help
me to see you present and active in my everyday life. May I never
undertake any work or responsibility without first determining your
will and counting on your assistance. I believe that you can do all
things in me, according to your own will. I believe your will is
committed to what is best for me. Teach me to pray and work with
great faith and trust in you.
Resolution: I will reject all worries that I can do nothing about,
confidently acting upon those concerns of mine which I can change.
meditation.regnumchristi.org

Pt. II St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah: A Moral Blueprint for Our Times -www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian2.htm
Part II Note: This article was originally published in the July 2002 issue of Catholic Family News. 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. This article is part II of II - click here for part I. 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 "Ö verily and most assuredly will have no share in his inheritance, from which by their voluptuous pleasures they have withdrawn. Ö 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 that 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, "Ö 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 aristocrat 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 [OLW note: Chardin was condemned by the Church], 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: "Ö 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 [OLW note: said document is available here] 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. [OLW note: with the depth of the problem shown in the recent USA scandals, such plans will take great effort and some time to come to fruition. This era is similar to that of the Arian heresy in which the majority of the Bishops went against the Faith. This heresy took about 50 years to quell. When the majority of Bishops do not follow Church teachings, then the repair time is long indeed, no matter how holy and good the Pope.] 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 Ö" [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 Ö. 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 …