Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
February 23, 2013


Victim of His Own Obliviousness

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the outgoing "pope" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism whose resignation becomes effective at 8:00 p.m., Rome time, on Thursday, February 28, 2013, is a victim of his own obliviousness to the nature of dogmatic truth and of the horror of personal sin.

Ratzinger/Benedict is oblivious to how his public words and actions in violation of the First and Second Commandments have offended the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity. This is because the deity in which he believes is a project of his own warped Modernist imagination. Ratzinger/Benedict has projected onto God his own conception of Him, which is exactly what the pagans of Greek and Roman antiquity did.

One who is oblivious to the horror of sins he has committed against the First, Second and Third Commandments will be pretty oblivious to the horror of the sins committed against the Fourth through Tenth Commandments.

This is why Ratzinger/Benedict has never realized the gravity of the sins of unnatural vice in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and why he did not recognize the clear signs of effeminacy and homosexuality that existed right within his own supposedly "Papal" Household. He does not think anything is wrong with signs of effeminacy or homosexuality in any man, including clerics. Sin, to him, is just not that important.

How can the horror of sin be important to a man who does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church?

Consider the passivity that characterized the then conciliar "archbishop" of Munich and Freising's silence at a meeting over which he presided on January 15, 1980 when a known clerical abuser, "Father" Peter Hullermann, from the Diocese of Essen, was assigned for parish work in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising:


MUNICH — The future Pope Benedict XVI was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church’s hierarchy.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.

What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear. But the personnel chief who handled the matter from the beginning, the Rev. Friedrich Fahr, “always remained personally, exceptionally connected” to Cardinal Ratzinger, the church said.

The case of the German priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann, has acquired fresh relevance because it unfolded at a time when Cardinal Ratzinger, who was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican, was in a position to refer the priest for prosecution, or at least to stop him from coming into contact with children. The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself.

Church officials defend Benedict by saying the memo was routine and was “unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk,” according to the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese. But Father Wolf said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.

According to Father Wolf, who spoke with Father Gruber this week at the request of The New York Times, Father Gruber, the former vicar general, said that he could not remember a detailed conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger about Father Hullermann, but that Father Gruber refused to rule out that “the name had come up.”

Benedict is well known for handling priestly abuse cases in the Vatican before he became pope. While some have criticized his role in adjudicating such cases over the past two decades, he has also won praise from victims’ advocates for taking the issue more seriously, apologizing to American victims in 2008.

The future pope’s time in Munich, in the broader sweep of his life story, has until now been viewed mostly as a steppingstone on the road to the Vatican. But this period in his career has recently come under scrutiny — particularly six decisive weeks from December 1979 to February 1980.

In that short span, a review of letters, meeting minutes and documents from personnel files shows, Father Hullermann went from disgrace and suspension from his duties in Essen to working without restrictions as a priest in Munich, despite the fact that he was described in the letter requesting his transfer as a potential “danger.”

In September 1979, the chaplain was removed from his congregation after three sets of parents told his superior, the Rev. Norbert Essink, that he had molested their sons, charges he did not deny, according to notes taken by the superior and still in Father Hullermann’s personnel file in Essen.

On Dec. 20, 1979, Munich’s personnel chief, Father Fahr, received a phone call from his counterpart in the Essen Diocese, Klaus Malangré.

There is no official record of their conversation, but in a letter to Father Fahr dated that Jan. 3, Father Malangré referred to it as part of a formal request for Father Hullermann’s transfer to Munich to see a psychiatrist there.

Sexual abuse of boys is not explicitly mentioned in the letter, but the subtext is clear. “Reports from the congregation in which he was last active made us aware that Chaplain Hullermann presented a danger that caused us to immediately withdraw him from pastoral duties,” the letter said. By pointing out that “no proceedings against Chaplain Hullermann are pending,” Father Malangré also communicated that the danger in question was serious enough that it could have merited legal consequences.

He dropped another clear hint by suggesting that Father Hullermann could teach religion “at a girls’ school.”

On Jan. 9, Father Fahr prepared a summary of the situation for top officials at the diocese, before their weekly meeting, saying that a young chaplain needed “medical-psychotherapeutic treatment in Munich” and a place to live with “an understanding colleague.” Beyond that, it presented the priest from Essen in almost glowing terms, as a “very talented man, who could be used in a variety of ways.”

Father Fahr’s role in the case has thus far received little attention, in contrast to Father Gruber’s mea culpa.

Father Wolf, who is acting as the internal legal adviser on the Hullermann case, said in an interview this week that Father Fahr was “the filter” of all information concerning Father Hullermann. He was also, according to his obituary on the archdiocese Web site, a close friend of Cardinal Ratzinger.

A key moment came on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 1980. Cardinal Ratzinger presided that morning over the meeting of the diocesan council. His auxiliary bishops and department heads gathered in a conference room on the top floor of the bishop’s administrative offices, housed in a former monastery on a narrow lane in downtown Munich.

It was a busy day, with the deaths of five priests, the acquisition of a piece of art and pastoral care in Vietnamese for recent immigrants among the issues sharing the agenda with item 5d, the delicate matter of Father Hullermann’s future.

The minutes of the meeting include no references to the actual discussion that day, simply stating that a priest from Essen in need of psychiatric treatment required room and board in a Munich congregation. “The request is granted,” read the minutes, stipulating that Father Hullermann would live at St. John the Baptist Church in the northern part of the city.

Church officials have their own special name for the language in meeting minutes, which are internal but circulate among secretaries and other diocese staff members, said Father Wolf, who has a digitized archive of meeting minutes, including those for the Jan. 15 meeting. “It’s protocol-speak,” he said. “Those who know what it’s about understand, and those who don’t, don’t.”

Five days later, on Jan. 20, Cardinal Ratzinger’s office received a copy of the memo from his vicar general, Father Gruber, returning Father Hullermann to full duties, a spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed.

Father Hullermann resumed parish work practically on arrival in Munich, on Feb. 1, 1980. He was convicted in 1986 of molesting boys at another Bavarian parish.

This week, new accusations of sexual abuse emerged, both from his first assignment in a parish near Essen, in northern Germany, and from 1998 in the southern German town of Garching an der Alz.

Father Fahr died two years ago. A spokesman for the diocese in Essen said that Father Malangré was not available for an interview. Father Malangré, now 88, recently had an accident and was confused and unreliable as a witness when questioned in an internal inquiry into the handling of Father Hullermann’s case, said the spokesman, Ulrich Lota.

Father Gruber, who took responsibility for the decision to put Father Hullermann back into a parish, was not present at the Jan. 15 meeting, according to Father Wolf, and has not answered repeated interview requests. (Pope Was Told Pedophile Priest Would Get Post; the conciliar Vatican is in full spin-control mode now, insisting that Ratzinger/Benedict knew nothing of Father Hullermann's reassignment even though he presided at the January 15, 1980, in which the reassignment was approved. See Vatican Denies Pope Knew of Pedophile Priest’s Transfer.)

As noted on this site at the time this became news in March of 2010, Ratzinger/Benedict's obliviousness to the horror of the sins committed by the serial clerical abuser named Peter Hullermann has proved over the course of time to be his Waterloo. Yes, it was this same obliviousness to signs of effeminacy and homosexuality and the gravity thereof that caused him to ignore the nest of moral corruption in and around the Apostolic Palace, a place that has since October 28, 1958, housed all manner of men, including putative "popes," who have countenanced it (and in the case of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, practiced it--see "Blessed" Paul The Sick and In Death As In Life: The Antithesis Of Christ The King) with just as much ease of conscience as they have exhibited while promoting one condemned dogmatic proposition after another.

Far, far, from the mind of such pathetic men as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI who have no regard at all for the horror of personal sin are the insights and work of the great Saint Peter Damian, whose feast we celebrate today, which is also Ember Saturday in Lent and the Vigil of the Feast of Saint Mathias, which falls on Monday, February 25, 2013:

According to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because:

"Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things ... This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God... She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. Shall I say more?"

No, dearest St. Peter Damian, I think not.

Like every saint before him, and every saint that will ever come after him, St. Peter Damian exhorts the cleric caught in the vice of sodomy to repent and reform his life and in the words of the Blessed Apostle Paul, "Wake up from your sleep and rise from the dead, and Christ will revive (enlighten) you." (Eph 5:14) In a remarkable affirmation of the Gospel message, he warns against the ultimate sin of despairing of God's mercy and the necessity of fasting and prayer to subdue the passions:

"... beware of drowning in the depths of despondency. Your heart should beat with confidence in God's love and not grow hard and impenitent, in the face of your great crime. It is not sinners, but the wicked who should despair; it is not the magnitude of one's crime, but contempt of God that dashes one's hopes."

Then, in one of the most beautiful elocutions on the grandeur of priestly celibacy and chastity ever written, Damian reminds the wayward cleric or monk of the special place reserved in Heaven for those faithful priests and monks who have willingly forsaken all and made themselves eunuchs for Christ's sake. Their names shall be remembered forever because they have given up all for the love of God, he says.

One of the very interesting historical sidebars to Damian's treatise is that he made no preference to the popular practice of distinguishing "notorious" from "non-notorious" cases of clerical immorality--a policy which can be traced back to the 9th century and the canonical reforms on ecclesiastical and clerical discipline by the great German Benedictine scholar and Archbishop of Mainz, Blessed Maurus Magnentius Rabanus (776?-856). Under this policy, the removal of clerics found guilty of criminal acts including sodomy, depended on whether or not his offense was publicly known, or was 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. But 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. Given the aggressive and predatory nature of the vice of sodomy, it is highly likely that such a policy contributed to, rather than inhibited, sodomical practices among clerics and religious between the mid-800s and the early 1000s. In any case, it was unlikely that Damian, who openly expressed his condemnation of too lenient canonical regulations related to the punishment of clerical sodomites and was so judicious in preserving the integrity of the priesthood and religious life, would have approved such a policy.

Saints are realists, which is no doubt why St. Peter Damian anticipated that his "small book" which exposes and denounces homosexual practices in all ranks of the clergy including the hierarchy, would cause a great commotion in the Church. And it did.

In anticipation of harsh criticism, the holy monk puts forth his own defense as a 'whistle-blower'. He states that his would-be critics will accuse him of "being an informer and a delator of my brother's crimes," but, he says, he has no fear of either "the hatred of evil men or the tongues of detractors."

Hear, dear reader, the words of St. Peter Damian that come thundering down to us through the centuries at a time in the Church when many shepherds are silent while clerical wolves, some disguised in miters and brocade robes, devour its lambs and commit sacrilege against their own spiritual sons:

"... I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed his father of his brothers' foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God's fury, like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2:4) ... Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another's soul by daring to repress my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God's judgement? ... How, indeed, am I to love my neighbor as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of which I am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart? ... "So let no man condemn me as I argue against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonor, but rather to promote the advantage of my brother's well-being. "Take care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecute him who sets him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses' words, 'Whoever is for the Lord, let him stand with me.' (Ezek 32:26)"

As he draws his case against the vice of clerical sodomy to a close, St. Peter Damian pleads with another future saint, Pope Leo IX, urging the Vicar of Christ to use his office to reform and strengthen the decrees of the sacred canons with regard to the disposition of clerical sodomites including religious superiors and bishops who sexually violate their spiritual sons.

Damian asks the Holy Father to "diligently" investigate the four forms of the vice of sodomy cited at the beginning of his treatise and then provides him (Damian) with definitive answers to the following questions by which the "darkness of uncertainty" might be dispelled and an "indecisive conscience" freed from error:

1) Is one who is guilty of these crimes to be expelled irrevocably from holy orders?

2) Whether at a prelate's discretion, moreover, one might mercifully be allowed to function in office?

3) To what extent, both in respect to the methods mentioned above and to the number of lapses, is it permissible to retain a man in the dignity of ecclesiastical office?

4) Also, if one is guilty, what degree and what frequency of guilt should compel him under the circumstances to retire?

Damian closes his famous letter by asking Almighty God to use Pope Leo IX's pontificate "to utterly destroy this monstrous vice" that a prostrate Church may everywhere rise to vigorous stature." (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 53-55)


Has Ratzinger/Benedict sought to destroy this monstrous vice?


Conciliar "bishop" after "bishop" has endorsed "ministries" to those identifying themselves by an inclination to and/or a persistence in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Some have even called for the civil state to provide "legal protection" for "couples" engaged in such unspeakably perverse sins under the aegis of "civil unions."

Has Ratzinger/Benedict cared?

Not at all.

By contrast, consider how Pope Leo IX responded to the report presented to him by Saint Peter Damian:


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.

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 "verily and most assuredly will have no share in his inheritance, from which by their voluptuous pleasures they have withdrawn. " 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.

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".

"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.

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".

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."

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."

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."

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. 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.

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. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 57-58)


What have the conciliar "popes" done when faced the same sort of evidence?

Well, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II ignored the evidence. He promoted the conciliar bishops and cardinals who protected the perverts. He ignored the incontrovertible evidence presented to him about the corruption and perversion of conciliar bishops such as Daniel Leo Ryan, who presided over the spiritual devastation of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, until lawsuits filed by victims forced resignations that John Paul II never demanded. The enabler of perverts in the Diocese of Phoenix, conciliar Bishop Thomas O'Brien, did not resign until he hit a man, Thomas Reed, crossing a street in Phoenix with his car and drove on without reporting the incident (Mr. Reed was hit by a second car and died from his injuries). Bernard Cardinal Law, the prince of "nuance" who enabled Father Paul Shanley, a co-founder of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and scores of other priests, was appointed by John Paul II to be the Archpriest of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, from which he still exercises great influence in the appointment of conciliar bishops in the United States of America. (Law also enjoys the "favor and protection" of Opus Dei.) (See "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts and Nearly A Decade After Law Was Broken.)

Benedict XVI has done much in his own turn to enable the perverts. He appointed William Levada to be his own successor of the conciliar Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith despite Levada's letting the Homosexual Collective have its way repeatedly during his sorry tenure as the conciliar archbishop of San Francisco from December 27, 1995, to May13, 2005. Levada helped to water down an already weak "instruction" on the admission of men inclined to perversity to study for the priesthood and played a key role in helping his longtime friend, the pervert-friendly George Niederauer, who praised the propaganda piece in behalf of perversion entitled Brokeback Mountain, to succeed himself as the conciliar archbishop of San Francisco. Levada has also given permission for a Novus Ordo "Mass" to offered in a Catholic church in London to cater to the "needs" of practicing homosexuals and lesbians.

Not to be outdone in his "sensitivity" to those steeped unrepentantly in one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, Benedict/Ratzinger's good friend, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, the conciliar archbishop of Vienna, permitted a "blessing" to to be offered on February 14, 2007, which is the feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius in the Novus Ordo liturgical calendar (Saint Valentine can be "commemorated" secondarily if the "celebrant" chooses to do so), to be administered to perverts:

The Vienna homosexual-supporting Cardinal permits his Cathedral Dean to bless homosexuals.

In the Cathedral of St Stephen in Vienna, homosexual couples are treated as lovers and are blessed as a couple. And this with the blessings of the Cardinal.

A Commentary

On Valentine’s Day, homo-couples will be blessed in St Stephens by the responsible authorities who are anything but responsible.

The event is being officially promoted as a “Blessing Mass for Lovers”. The Dean, Father Faber has expressly invited homosexuals. It remains the Dean’s secret what homo-couples share with lovers.

Father Faber or Toni, as he is known by those who wish to be overfamiliar

Father Faber stated last year that due to Church regulations, homosexuals could only be blessed individually and he maintains this, this year as well.

It is therefore appears that homosexuals are being blessed instead of being asked to repent and go to the confessional.

Dean Faber does not believe that God excludes homosexual couples or homosexually inclined people and they are therefore “not excluded”.

It is evident the Dean is engaging in a two-faced game with respect to his blessing of individual homosexuals.

This method underlies a system.

With this procedure, the Church has been managing for years to implement immoral and anti-Catholic practices.

One decides on a morally dubious act and one reassures with the assistance of verbal ambiguities that what one sees is not what one sees.

This has been done with the full knowledge and silent agreement of the competent bishops.

These practices are in contradiction to Church documents and become words for their own sake without any imperative. When nobody accuses, there is no judge.

Ambiguities are simply glossed over with the usual justifications.

The so-called shepherds look on but do not act. Anti-Catholic actions becomes habitual, then they become quasi-rules, and then the fixed norm.

Rituals for homosexual blessings. The Dean publically stated last year that he would like to have a special blessing rite for homosexual couples. This he implemented for the first time in February 2006 at the St Valentine’s Day blessing in the Cathedral.

The ceremony at which the Dean officiated and the Cardinal looked on has become a actual homosexual demonstration.

A homosexual ideologist in Church circles and who knows the Dean personally was publicly blessed together with his partner in St Stephen’s Cathedral.

“The priest puts his hands on both our shoulders and asks for God’s blessing for our relationship in good as well as in bad days.”

Dean Faber has beforehand solemnly promised not to do anything which the Holy Father would not agree with.

“We do not bless a relationship for life, we do not bless a homosexual marriage but we bless each and everyone in his longing for love”

The tactics are say one thing and do another.

The responsibility of the Cardinal

The Dean is not acting without authority. He explained to the media that this celebration has been naturally agreed to by the Vienna Cardinal.

Could he have lied?

It appears not. If he had, the Cardinal would have objected to the statement and would have spoken through his press officer to deny it.

It is also not known that the Cardinal has taken up any measures in his Cathedral, right under his nose, homosexual couples were being blessed.

On the contrary, the same spectacle will repeat itself this year. This can only be interpreted that the Vienna Cardinal supports the blessings of his Dean.

There are some Catholics who do not wish to criticize and do not wish to condone, come up with the usual excuses.

“The Cardinal did not know anything about it. He did not really want it. He didn’t actually participate. He has an enormous number of anti-Catholics in important positions to consider. What can he do on his own? He is alone.”

Does this mean that the Cardinal is not master of his own Cathedral parish?

There can only be one conclusion. The Cardinal should become the Dean and the Dean should become Cardinal.

The Cardinal will have to decide whether he wishes to exercise his office which he has received from the Pope.

He has until Wednesday to think about it. After Wednesday we will know.

Wednesday has been and gone.

As predicted, the Archdiocese of Vienna is full of surprises. Blessings also took place in other Churches including the Church of the Knights of Malta and Church of Mary, Our Help (Cardinal permits St Valentine Day Blessings of homosexual couples.)


Countless other examples, of course, could be given, many of them from contemporaneous headlines. The best and most comprehensive encylopedia of the moral corruption in the conciliar structures is, of course, Mrs. Randy Engel's The Rite of Sodomy.

Father Enrique Rueda's The Homosexual Network, Private Lives and Public Policy, published in 1982, demonstrated how the homosexual collective infiltrated the conciliar structures. My former colleague John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, provided a very cogent summary in Invincible or Inculpable, which was published several years before Mrs. Engel's book, a decades-long project in its own right, appeared, of Father Rueda's findings:


Father Enrique Rueda, in his 1982 landmark work The Homosexual Network, Private Lives & Public Policy, documented extensively that homosexuals successfully targeted religious organizations for infiltration, especially the Roman Catholic Church.

The reason is obvious. “There is no question”, writes Father Rueda, “that the main stumbling block in the theoretical and practical acceptance of homosexuality by American society has been traditional religion. This has been perfectly understood by the leadership of the homosexual movement.”24 And “the importance of gaining support of the churches or at least neutralizing them is widely acknowledged by homosexual leaders.”25

Father Rueda gives as an example the New York Times story, “From Quiet Seminarian to Homosexual Spokesperson.” William R. Johnson, “ordained” in the United Church of Christ, gave an interview in which he indicated several factors which are important for the advancement of homosexuality in the “church”, be it Protestant or Catholic.

Johnson’s principles, Father Rueda explains, constitute a model program for the conversion of a “church” into an agent of the homosexual movement. The factors considered important to Johnson are:

    • The desensitization of the church of sexual ethics;

    • Promotion of pro-homosexual legislation by religious bodies;

    • Establishment of homosexual organizations within the churches (Such as, within the Catholic Church, Dignity, New Ways Ministries, or AGLO, set up by Cardinal Bernadine);

    • The ordination of homosexuals to the ministry, preferably “liberated” homosexuals who are identified with the movement’s ideology;

    • Willingness of homosexual clergymen to accept dual roles as leaders in the religious bodies and the homosexual movement — in fact, as agents of the movement within the churches. 26

Johnson’s priorities, comments Father Rueda, not only indicate how important religious institutions are to homosexuals, but provide a checklist for ascertaining the degree to which a specific religious institution has been infiltrated by the homosexual movement.27

Father Rueda documents a vast homosexual network among various de-nominations including the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, Vatican II’s encouragement of “inter-religious dialogue” is what made possible the pan-religious cooperation among homosexual groups.28

Father Rueda then chronicled five primary means by which homosexuals infiltrated seminaries, chanceries, and Catholic institutions.

1) Patterns of Collaboration, citing many instances of cooperation between Roman Catholic institutions and leaders of the Homosexual Movement.

2) Intellectual Infiltration: This is done by Catholic theologians and “experts” who publicly challenge the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality, and suffer no ecclesiastical penalty for doing so. A few examples follow:

    • A 1977 editorial in the influential Jesuit magazine America made the false claim, “the application of Scriptural texts that condemn homosexuality is dubious at best”.29

    • Dominican Father Donald Georgen authored a widely-distributed, pro-homosexual book entitled The Sexual Celibate. Far from suffering penalties from the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious, Georgen was elected Provincial of the Chicago Dominican Province after the book was published.30

    • The February 1981 issue of Notre Dame Magazine, contained an article by Father Robert Griffen who spoke of a young homosexual man (unnamed) who confessed that he had been “unfaithful” to his homosexual partner. Father Griffen writes that he absolved the young man’s “sin of unfaithfulness” and sent him home to his boyfriend.31 There is no record that Father Griffen was ever disciplined by the bishops or the Vatican.

3) Networking: These are pro-homosexual groups such as the Catholic Coalition for Gay Civil Rights, “Call to Action” and numerous other organizations. Hundreds of Catholic “priests and religious in good standing” belong to these openly pro-homosexual groups.32

4) Homosexual Clergy: Father Rueda quotes a number of pro-homosexual clergymen, most notably, Christian Brother Gabriel Moran. While speaking to the 1977 Conference of Christian Brothers, Brother Moran intimated that “religious communities were the ideal setting for homosexual relations”.

Father Rueda also explained the tactic of the homosexual movement to present “homosexuality and heterosexuality” as “two varieties of the same question”.

Then there’s the following quote taken from Communications, a newsletter for homosexual Catholic clergy: “I am finishing up my theological studies at the Jesuit School of Theology in Chicago. I was ordained last June. I work part-time as assistant pastor of an inner-city parish in the Black community. I am gay. I have been out with my superiors since I was a novice, and aware of my gayness, they have approved me for vows and now for ordination.”33

5) Homosexual Orders: These are not formally approved orders in the Church, but groups that have organized while the local bishop looks the other way.34

The two most successful of these “orders” are the influential New Ways Ministry,35 an organization, complained Father Rueda, whose very existence is “more than passively tolerated” by the US bishops. The other is Dignity Inter-national, whose purpose is “to unite all gay Catholics, to develop leadership, and to be an instrument though which the gay Catholics may be heard by the Church and society.” Dignity makes no secret that its goal is to “promote the cause of the gay Community ... We move towards the time when a gay Catholic lifestyle is accepted.”36

Father Rueda lamented that the United States bishops have taken no effective action against these organizations. New Ways Ministry and Dignity, he writes, are “more than passively tolerated” by the hierarchy. He further complained that in the case of these groups, “lack of action” from the US Hierarchy “can be legitimately construed to be ‘passive encouragement’.”37

Keep in mind, Father Rueda’s book was published in 1982. That’s over twenty years ago. This has been a raging scandal for decades. (Invincible or Inculpable. "New Ways Ministry" was officially condemned by the Occupy Vatican Movement on May 23, 1999. Notification regarding Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, It continues to operate within the conciliar structures, however, especially with the sanction of some communities of religious women in the United States of America. See Apostates Reprimanding Apostates.)

The conciliar "popes," including Ratzinger/Benedict, helped to create the lavender climate that a commission of "cardinals" uncovered when investigating the Vatileaks scandal inside of the Occupy Vatican Movement. They have no one else to blame but themselves for these scandals.

We must remember that at the heart of the scandals now rocking the counterfeit church of conciliarism on an almost worldwide basis has been the systematic recruitment, retention, promotion and protection of those inclined to commit perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments into the conciliar presbyterate and hierarchy.

Compounding this phenomenon, which only those who are wilfully blind and/or intellectually dishonest can ignore, has been the old-fashioned clericalism that infected some true bishops in the past and has caused their doctrinally, morally and liturgically corrupt successors in the conciliar church to seek to discredit those who have become "problematic" to their precious reputations and careers and undeserved good names by assassinating the character of anyone who brings to light their true lack of concern for the eternal welfare of the sheep (see Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club).

Protecting the "institution" at all costs has cost the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism quite a lot of money. Dioceses have gone into bankruptcy. Some have been forced to sell off church properties, including church buildings that were built by the blood, sweat, toil and treasure of Catholic immigrants to this country in the late-Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries. All the while, however, the "bishops" who have enabled the abusers have gone, at least for the most, unpunished. Conciliar officials in the Vatican, including the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, knew all about the protection that conciliar 'bishops" in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world were affording clerical abusers in the 1980s and 1990s.

I once knew a fairly high-ranking official in one of the dicasteries in the Vatican back in the 1990s who was so upset with all that he had learned about the way in which the bad behavior of the corrupt "bishops" was being enabled in the Vatican itself that he resigned his position to return to his native country.  The man, who was a true priest, expressed his dissatisfaction with certain parts of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying, "There is one true Church, the Catholic Church. None other." A few believers in the conciliar structures, therefore, got more than a little fed up with the lies that they saw being told, with the deals that were being cut, with the money that was being sent to the Vatican by 'bishops" in the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular, to purchase Vatican silence and inaction about all types of abuses (doctrinal, liturgical, pastoral). Careerists in the Vatican just remained silent.

This is only too natural when one considers the fact that Ratzinger/Benedict's blatant disregard for the horror of personal sin, whether of a doctrinal or moral nature, including his dismissive attitude about those Catholics who "never enter a church during the year," as he said in an interview Avvenire magazine in 2001:

I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas midnight Mass, or go on the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light. Therefore, there must be different forms of involvement and participation. (CARDINAL RATZINGER ON THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY).


This is all very reflective of the spirit of conciliarism that is reflected in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service itself, which de-emphasizes the horror of personal sin and thus our need as sinners for Holy Mother Church to impose upon us external penances to discipline our frequently disordered and unruly bodies and souls:


The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)

Who says that forms of "outward penance" belong to "another age in the history of the Church? Revolutionaries, that's who. Revolutionaries whose hatred for the need to do personal penance for one's sins is indicative of their lack of appreciation for the horror of personal sin (see Having No Regard for the Horror of Sin and Just A Matter of Forgiveness?). Revolutionaries who, although they would be loath to see the analogy, are just as much in league with the adversary, who hates the Holy Cross and the fact that believing Catholics, despite their own sins and failings, embrace It and love It as they attempt to lift It high with joy and gratitude in their own daily lives, as the social revolutionaries who make no pretense at all of their open hatred for Christ the King and the very instrument upon which He redeemed sinful human beings.

Ratzinger/Benedict has been similarly passive as conciliar "bishops" in his homeland have now formally approved the use of the "Plan B emergency" abortifacient for women who have been the victims of assault (see German Apostates give qualified approval of morning after pill and Top Vatican official calls German bishops’ approval of morning after pill ‘exemplary’; refer also to Crushed By The Weight Of Error, part two).

The only sort of "error" that Ratzinger/Benedict seems to be concerned about is that which he said that Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X committed four years ago when proffering his views on the nature and extent of the crimes of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. That and that alone was a "horse of a different color." Ratzinger/Benedict is totally without horror when it comes to deviations from the Faith, which is somewhat understandable given the fact that he deviates from the Faith in many ways (see Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism and Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now). And the farce that has been and will always be the absorption of the Society of Saint Pius X into "full communion" in the conciliar structures will continue under the next conciliar "pontificate" (Federico Lombardi Spins Ratzinger's Final Days As They Pass Through the Hour Glass of Conciliarism).

There is no need to catalog yet again the many errors that persist in the mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Hundreds upon hundreds of articles on this site have done so. Others have critiqued these errors much more ably than has been done on this website. The errors are there for all who have the grace to see them and to accept the fact that it is the conciliar officials who are outside of the Catholic Church, not any of us who reject their nonexistent legitimacy.

Foreign to the Modernist mind and heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is the hatred of sin and heresy that should be near and dear to the heart of a true Catholic, that is near and dear to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

The love of God brings many new instincts into the heart. Heavenly and noble as they are, they bear no resemblance to what men would call the finer and more heroic developments of character. A spiritual discernment is necessary to their right appreciation. They are so unlike the growth of earth, that they must expect to meet on earth with only suspicion, misunderstanding, and dislike. It is not easy to defend them from a controversial point of view; for our controversy is obliged to begin by begging the question, or else it would be unable so much as to state its case. The axioms of the world pass current in the world, the axioms of the gospel do not. Hence the world has its own way. It talks us down. It tries us before tribunals where our condemnation is secured beforehand. It appeals to principles which are fundamental with most men but are heresies with us. Hence its audience takes part with it against us. We are foreigners, and must pay the penalty of being so. If we are misunderstood, we had no right to reckon on any thing else, being as we are, out of our own country. We are made to be laughed at. We shall be understood in heaven. Woe to those easy-going Christians whom the world can understand, and will tolerate because it sees they have a mind to compromise!

The love of souls is one of these instincts which the love of Jesus brings into our hearts. To the world it is proselytism, there mere wish to add to a faction, one of the selfish developments of party spirit. One while the stain of lax morality is affixed to it, another while the reproach of pharisaic strictness! For what the world seems to suspect least of all in religion is consistency. But the love of souls, however apostolic, is always subordinate to love of Jesus. We love souls because of Jesus, not Jesus because of souls. Thus there are times and places when we pass from the instinct of divine love to another, from the love of souls to the hatred of heresy. This last is particularly offensive to the world. So especially opposed is it to the spirit of the world, that, even in good, believing hearts, every remnant of worldliness rises in arms against this hatred of heresy, embittering the very gentlest of characters and spoiling many a glorious work of grace. Many a convert, in whose soul God would have done grand things, goes to his grave a spiritual failure, because he would not hate heresy. The heart which feels the slightest suspicion against the hatred of heresy is not yet converted. God is far from reigning over it yet with an undivided sovereignty. The paths of higher sanctity are absolutely barred against it. In the judgment of the world, and of worldly Christians, this hatred of heresy is exaggerated, bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore, better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and unpopular. The mild self-opinionatedness of the gentle, undiscerning good will also take the world's view and condemn us; for there is a meek-loving positiveness about timid goodness which is far from God, and the instincts of whose charity is more toward those who are less for God, while its timidity is searing enough for harsh judgment. There are conversions where three-quarters of the heart stop outside the Church and only a quarter enters, and heresy can only be hated by an undivided heart. But if it is hard, it has to be borne. A man can hardly have the full use of his senses who is bent on proving to the world, God's enemy, that a thorough-going Catholic hatred of heresy is a right frame of mind. We might as well force a blind man to judge a question of color. Divine love inspheres in us a different circle of life, motive, and principle, which is not only not that of the world, but in direct enmity with it. From a worldly point of view, the craters in the moon are more explicable things than we Christians with our supernatural instincts. From the hatred of heresy we get to another of these instincts, the horror of sacrilege. The distress caused by profane words seems to the world but an exaggerated sentimentality. The penitential spirit of reparation which pervades the whole Church is, on its view, either a superstition or an unreality. The perfect misery which an unhallowed  touch of the Blessed Sacrament causes to the servants of God provokes either the world's anger or its derision. Men consider it either altogether absurd in itself, or at any rate out of all proportion; and, if otherwise they have proofs of our common sense, they are inclined to put down our unhappiness to sheer hypocrisy. The very fact that they do not believe as we believe removes us still further beyond the reach even of their charitable comprehension. If they do not believe in the very existence our sacred things, how they shall they judge the excesses of a soul to which these sacred things are far dearer than itself? (Father Frederick William Faber, The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 294.)


Those who do not hate heresy do not love God. Those who do not love God will not understand the horror of personal sin and will not be prompted to take remedial measures when the bodies and souls of their brothers and sisters in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are suffering from abuse from others. "Boys will be boys," after all, correct?

No, not correct.

We are called to quit our sins and to repent of them, not to have them institutionally protected and explained away and covered up as malefactors are rewarded until such time as a scandal erupts and the Faith of many innocent souls is shaken, if not lost altogether. Saint John Bosco, for example, dealt with difficult, wayward boys. Although he used methods of charity and patience, he did so to correct their bad behavior, not to excuse such behavior or to reaffirm them in it with a casual, dismissive attitude that conveys as little sense of the horror of personal sin as that possessed by the the soon to be "Bishop of Rome, Emeritus."

We are indeed living in a period of profound chastisement where the devil is using the lack of faith and the bad example of Catholics all across and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide to scandalize and divide Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

We cannot be blind to the truth about the horror of our own sins, each of which wounded Our Blessed Lord and Saviour once in time and wounds the Church Militant on earth today. We must be brutally honest about our sins and the harm that they have done to our souls and to the Mystical Body of Christ, earnestly seeking to live more and more penitentially, especially in these middle days of Lent, seeking to offer up all of our prayers and penances and physical sufferings and fastings and humiliations that come our way in a spirit of reparation to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We are very much responsible for the malodorous state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large.

To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernism once and for all.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Mathias, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.