Decoding what it means to say the Vatican has a ‘gay lobby’

[sps49]

What is Cardinal Rodriguez’s different view? My impression is that everyone is saying more or less the same thing - that there is a network of gay men within the Vatican that work for and look out for one another, and that this group is commonly referred to as the “gay lobby.” Is someone saying something different than that?

Allen’s summary:

“So, in sum: The Vatican’s supposed “gay lobby” is not a lobby, and it’s not exclusively about being gay. No wonder it’s a head-scratcher for people who don’t follow the place … and sometimes, even for those who do.”

Allen aims to divorce “Gay” from lobby (special interest group; those who look out for their special interests), thus denying their existence as an entity, and then attempts to direct attention away from the existence of such a group by the use of nuance to isolate “lobby” from special interest groups. It is an extremely narrow definition that conveniently fits only one circumstance.

Cardinal Rodriguez keeps the association of “Gay” with lobby or special interest group as a distinct entity, and does not attempt to make an isolating distinction, to in effect, throw away the word lobby, in either the specific or general sense.

 

[graciew]

What is Cardinal Rodriguez’s different view? My impression is that everyone is saying more or less the same thing - that there is a network of gay men within the Vatican that work for and look out for one another, and that this group is commonly referred to as the “gay lobby.” Is someone saying something different than that?

Not really. It is a pressure group and troublesome but not a " Da Vinci Code" sort of logia. This is what I umderstand is being argued about. I cannot grasp beyond this difference.
Nor it makes much sense arguing each other about …I step down.

Thanks SPS49 for your answer.

 

[sps49]

Not really. It is a pressure group and troublesome but not a " Da Vinci Code" sort of logia. This is what I umderstand is being argued about. I cannot grasp beyond this difference.
Nor it makes much sense arguing each other about …I step down.

Thanks SPS49 for your answer.

I think that characterizing the discussion as a " Da Vinci Code" sort of logia" vs “an informal association of various people” is somewhat of a distortion. By “logia” you mean some type of document of conspiratorial origins? Or loggia as in the “conspiratorial whispers in the halls?” I propose no such machinations. However, there is ample historical president for groups to exercise behind the scenes influence to protect interests, within the framework of the organization. The Vatican is a supremely political entity, and I would be more surprised if there were no politics than if there were.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I think that characterizing the discussion as a " Da Vinci Code" sort of logia" vs “an informal association of various people” is somewhat of a distortion. By “logia” you mean some type of document of conspiratorial origins? Or loggia as in the “conspiratorial whispers in the halls?” I propose no such machinations. However, there is ample historical president for groups to exercise behind the scenes influence to protect interests, within the framework of the organization. The Vatican is a supremely political entity, and I would be more surprised if there were no politics than if there were.

I definitely agree!

 

[graciew]

I think that characterizing the discussion as a " Da Vinci Code" sort of logia" vs “an informal association of various people” is somewhat of a distortion. By “logia” you mean some type of document of conspiratorial origins? Or loggia as in the “conspiratorial whispers in the halls?” I propose no such machinations. However, there is ample historical president for groups to exercise behind the scenes influence to protect interests, within the framework of the organization. The Vatican is a supremely political entity, and I would be more surprised if there were no politics than if there were.

I am stepping down because it does not make sense to keep arguing about the " formality" or " level of organization " a group has.
This is what I grasped Guilliam meant by " cabal"
The group and interests are there.
It is getting wrapped up in words for me.

 

[LongingSoul]

I am stepping down because it does not make sense to keep arguing about the " formality" or " level of organization " a group has.
This is what I grasped Guilliam meant by " cabal"
The group and interests are there.
It is getting wrapped up in words for me.

gracie, I think it comes down to the same old dichotomy it always does. One side wants this ‘gay lobby’ to be defined by a distinct liberal agenda like trying to force the Church to approve gay marriage (which will never happen and they know it).

The other side conceive of ‘gay lobby’ as the working title for an agenda more associated with impeding all progress and keeping the doors and windows shut. That’s been more of a problem with the Curia traditionalists some of whom may be gay.

 

[oneofmany]

Wow, didn’t think it could sound worse but this does. It’s not only gay cover up but all kinds of cover ups.

The Church is in big trouble. Pray unceasingly.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Keeping ordinary Catholics in line (especially as political activists), public adherence to current orthodoxy as a stratagem more than a conviction, people-pleasing - these are on the same continuum. Shades of “lavender” and “gay” are only one dimension. Back scratching goes on in all these other ways as well.

With specific reference to “gay” Allen hits the nail on the head (he only ever does it in passing, doesn’t tend to dwell on it) with the phrase “sexually active” to which I would add the kind of sentimentality that interferes with true friendship and puts people in a neurotic bind over seeming to “owe” each other something.

If they kept it at home and didn’t implicate the spiritual goods of the faithful on what they “owed each other”, that would be a lot better. But exactly the same goes for the “non-gays” as well.

Freudian superficiality incidentally traps and side-tracks Italians and outsiders alike into seeing insincere Christianity as a matter of “orientation”, hence an opportunity for the section of church that favours superficial orthodoxy. It doesn’t matter what cloaks the manipulating! Something “JP II would approve of” goes down with ordinary Catholics all the better!

Periodic outbreaks of overt unorthodoxy on Danneels or Charamsa lines are merely a variation on the same theme.

 

[NeedImprovement]

sps49’s post makes good sense to me.

Not only Cardinal Rodriguez seems to have a different opinion than John Allen jr. Perhaps it’s time to consider the opinion of Cardinal Pell.

First off , Cardinal Pell is well acquainted with the homosexual lobby’s sophistry - in fact, he chooses not to even use the word “gay” - his reasoning:

Pell says same-sex marriage - he doesn’t use the word “gay”, because he says it’s a word that has been colonised by one group and that “homosexuals are as miserable as the rest of us” . . .

dailytelegraph.com.au/the-man-who-draws-lines-in-the-sand/story-fn6bmfwf-1225979520272

In this thread’s context it’s helpful to recall that Satan would prefer to have us not believe in or to deny his existence - allows him to work more covertly , as one saint has said (may have been St. Theresa of Avila) concerning denial of the devil’s existence : " What better camouflage could an enemy ask for than the very denial of his existence ?"

Is there a parallel to be drawn here - not necessarily a character parallel, but surely a strategic one? Because if one checks around homosexual-agenda-promoting websites such as huff(gag )post, one discovers the only people who seem to be vociferously denying there is a group of homosexuals - (read “homosexual sexual activity”) at the Vatican and that it needs to be “purified”, (while John Allen jr. goes on a thesaural spacewalk), are the homosexual activists themselves . . . Of course they would deny it - they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting the lobby exists.

I’m saddened to see some of my brothers and sisters on this thread coming very close to gobbling it all up it by the shovel-full. John Allen and CRUX have published questionable material well before this article. His present article is at best, aimlessly confusing (if one squints intensely enough while reading it).

I can’t help but wonder whether John Allen Jr. may have created a little too much room in his article which could serve to accommodate either an overactive imagination and/or an affinity for the homosexual agenda. As far as Mr. Allen insinuating that there is nothing “sexually active” within the lobby/special interest group at the Vatican and as far as his efforts to disassociate “homosexuality” from the “lobby”, or as sps49 () put it,

sps49:

Allen aims to divorce “Gay” from lobby (special interest group; those who look out for their special interests), thus denying their existence as an entity, and then attempts to direct attention away from the existence of such a group by the use of nuance to isolate “lobby” from special interest groups. It is an extremely narrow definition that conveniently fits only one circumstance.

• I don’t believe he has hit any nails on the head at all. I believe he is hitting Catholics on the head. And I would just like to take this opportunity to say, Ouch ! :blackeye:

It’s* all* there guys : the* “homosexual network of priests”, the"blackmail",* the “corruption” , and the “homosexual sex”. Don’t let John Allen jr’s article fool you. Either he is writing with an affinity for the homosexual agenda, or maybe it’s just a bout of temporary amnesia.

Cardinal Pell again – from a little less than 3 years ago

Cardinal George Pell has called on the Vatican press office to respond “in some constructive way” to reports of an internal investigation by three senior cardinals that told Pope Benedict XVI about an insidious web of blackmail, corruption and homosexual sex inside the Vatican, reports The Australian.
Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper linked Benedict’s resignation with a top secret 300-page dossier . . .

Vatican Should Act on Corruption and Sex Claims, Says Cardinal Pell (Feb 25,2013)

DECIPHERING ‘GAY’ WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION,Scott D. Lively, 2002

 

[kozlosap]

sps49’s post makes good sense to me.

Not only Cardinal Rodriguez seems to have a different opinion than John Allen jr. Perhaps it’s time to consider the opinion of Cardinal Pell.

First off , Cardinal Pell is well acquainted with the homosexual lobby’s sophistry - in fact, he chooses not to even use the word “gay” - his reasoning:

In this thread’s context it’s helpful to recall that Satan would prefer to have us not believe in or to deny his existence - allows him to work more covertly , as one saint has said (may have been St. Theresa of Avila) concerning denial of the devil’s existence : " What better camouflage could an enemy ask for than the very denial of his existence ?"

Is there a parallel to be drawn here - not necessarily a character parallel, but surely a strategic one? Because if one checks around homosexual-agenda-promoting websites such as huff(gag )post, one discovers the only people who seem to be vociferously denying there is a group of homosexuals - (read “homosexual sexual activity”) at the Vatican and that it needs to be “purified”, (while John Allen jr. goes on a thesaural spacewalk), are the homosexual activists themselves . . . Of course they would deny it - they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting the lobby exists.

I’m saddened to see some of my brothers and sisters on this thread coming very close to gobbling it all up it by the shovel-full. John Allen and CRUX have published questionable material well before this article. His present article is at best, aimlessly confusing (if one squints intensely enough while reading it).

I can’t help but wonder whether John Allen Jr. may have created a little too much room in his article which could serve to accommodate either an overactive imagination and/or an affinity for the homosexual agenda. As far as Mr. Allen insinuating that there is nothing “sexually active” within the lobby/special interest group at the Vatican and as far as his efforts to disassociate “homosexuality” from the “lobby”, or as sps49 () put it,

• I don’t believe he has hit any nails on the head at all. I believe he is hitting Catholics on the head. And I would just like to take this opportunity to say, Ouch ! :blackeye:

It’s* all* there guys : the* “homosexual network of priests”, the"blackmail",* the “corruption” , and the “homosexual sex”. Don’t let John Allen jr’s article fool you. Either he is writing with an affinity for the homosexual agenda, or maybe it’s just a bout of temporary amnesia.

Cardinal Pell again – from a little less than 3 years ago

DECIPHERING ‘GAY’ WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION,Scott D. Lively, 2002

Some individuals make the conscious decision to live in another century which is their prerogative, however; it helps no one. Papa Francis uses the word gay and the world has not ended.

 

[TMC]

sps49’s post makes good sense to me.

Not only Cardinal Rodriguez seems to have a different opinion than John Allen jr. Perhaps it’s time to consider the opinion of Cardinal Pell.

First off , Cardinal Pell is well acquainted with the homosexual lobby’s sophistry - in fact, he chooses not to even use the word “gay” - his reasoning:

In this thread’s context it’s helpful to recall that Satan would prefer to have us not believe in or to deny his existence - allows him to work more covertly , as one saint has said (may have been St. Theresa of Avila) concerning denial of the devil’s existence : " What better camouflage could an enemy ask for than the very denial of his existence ?"

Is there a parallel to be drawn here - not necessarily a character parallel, but surely a strategic one? Because if one checks around homosexual-agenda-promoting websites such as huff(gag )post, one discovers the only people who seem to be vociferously denying there is a group of homosexuals - (read “homosexual sexual activity”) at the Vatican and that it needs to be “purified”, (while John Allen jr. goes on a thesaural spacewalk), are the homosexual activists themselves . . . Of course they would deny it - they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting the lobby exists.

I’m saddened to see some of my brothers and sisters on this thread coming very close to gobbling it all up it by the shovel-full. John Allen and CRUX have published questionable material well before this article. His present article is at best, aimlessly confusing (if one squints intensely enough while reading it).

I can’t help but wonder whether John Allen Jr. may have created a little too much room in his article which could serve to accommodate either an overactive imagination and/or an affinity for the homosexual agenda. As far as Mr. Allen insinuating that there is nothing “sexually active” within the lobby/special interest group at the Vatican and as far as his efforts to disassociate “homosexuality” from the “lobby”, or as sps49 () put it,

• I don’t believe he has hit any nails on the head at all. I believe he is hitting Catholics on the head. And I would just like to take this opportunity to say, Ouch ! :blackeye:

It’s* all* there guys : the* “homosexual network of priests”, the"blackmail",* the “corruption” , and the “homosexual sex”. Don’t let John Allen jr’s article fool you. Either he is writing with an affinity for the homosexual agenda, or maybe it’s just a bout of temporary amnesia.

Cardinal Pell again – from a little less than 3 years ago

DECIPHERING ‘GAY’ WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION,Scott D. Lively, 2002

I am not sure I am getting your point. Maybe it would help if you could explain your view of the homosexual lobby within the Church, and how your view differs from Allen’s view?

 

[NeedImprovement]

I am not sure I am getting your point. Maybe it would help if you could explain your view of the homosexual lobby within the Church, and how your view differs from Allen’s view?

I apologize if it doesn’t seem clear. I’ve been looking at the sophistry end of it for so long now that I often recognize certain things without having to go through all the logical steps.

The perspective I’m posting from could also be applied in part to the “homosexual lobby” in general - not only the arm of it which has reached within or infiltrated the Church.

According to Fr. John Hardon S.J.,when a moral assessment needs to be made , three levels of homosexuality are to be distinguished:

MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

HOMOSEXUALITY.

In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

So the first and second instances are not necessarily critical, but the third - active homosexuality is morally indefensible.So we are always required to make this distinction where a moral assessment is called for. Thus the necessity of using the word “homosexual” - because it pertains to conduct ; to what a person does or does not do -in the three instances, whereas the word “gay” tends to leave the notition,most of the time, relegated to a degree of ambiguity where it can remain impaired from any concrete application to situational ethics. It is about judging the gravity of a situation.

It is to differentiate between an inclination to a particular type of sexual conduct and actually engaging in that conduct.

Unless I misunderstood him, John Allen Jr. says in his article the focus or

“emphasis is not on sex but secrecy”,

• which creates an impasse any time we are to try and determine a moral assessment of the nature laid out above . . . in terms relative to John Allen Jr’s quote, the focus would be not on the “act” but rather in “not talking about the act.”

Specifically “within the Church” I believe it even more imperative to be able to make the moral assessment. In the article, John Allen jr. writes

That’s not to say that the perception of a widespread presence of gays in the clergy isn’t a strong part of the picture, especially in light of the furor last fall over Polish Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa, the former Vatican official who outed himself on the brink of a controversial Synod of Bishops on the family

Here again is the problem with that word. What are “gays in the clergy?” Are they sexually active homosexuals ? Is it only a homosexual attraction or perhaps tendencies ?

Mr. Allen links to another CRUX article about Monsignor Charamsa- I took the following source from USA today instead

In several interviews, Charamsa said he was happy and proud to be a gay priest, and was in love with a man whom he identified as his boyfriend, according to the Associated Press. He said he wanted to challenge the church’s “backwards” attitude to homosexuality, the BBC reported.
“It’s time the church opened its eyes and realized that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman,” he said, according to the network.

And here is the point in my limited opinion. We may assume that Monsignor Charamsa has broken his vow of priestly celibacy- because we assume he is actively homosexual. Not only that, he has declared war on priestly celibacy by his words – it’s just cloaked under one of those ambiguous “gay” arguments. In his eyes, it’s okay to be a priest and homosexually active – with no vow of priestly celibacy necessary.

My focus isn’t actually on active homosexuality in the priesthood as much as it is on revealing the attack on priestly celibacy. But in this case it is necessary to know the one before proceeding to reveal the other.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I am not sure I am getting your point. Maybe it would help if you could explain your view of the homosexual lobby within the Church, and how your view differs from Allen’s view?

I apologize if it doesn’t seem clear. I’ve been looking at the sophistry end of it for so long now (probably too long) that I often recognize certain things without having to go through all the logical steps.

The perspective I’m posting from could also be applied in part to the “homosexual lobby” in general - not only the arm of it which has reached within or infiltrated the Church.

According to Fr. John Hardon S.J.,when a moral assessment needs to be made , three levels of homosexuality are to be distinguished:

MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

HOMOSEXUALITY.

In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

So the first and second instances are not necessarily critical, but the third - active homosexuality is morally indefensible. We are always required to make this distinction where a moral assessment is called for. Thus the necessity of using the word “homosexual” - because it pertains to conduct ; to what a person does or does not do -in the three instances, whereas the word “gay” tends to leave the notion,most of the time, relegated to a degree of ambiguity where it can remain impaired from any concrete application to situational ethics. It is about judging the gravity of a situation.

It is to differentiate between an inclination to a particular type of sexual conduct and actually engaging in that conduct.

Unless I misunderstood him, John Allen Jr. says in his article the focus or

“emphasis is not on sex but secrecy”,

• which creates an impasse any time we are to try and determine a moral assessment of the nature laid out above . . . in terms relative to John Allen Jr’s quote, the focus would not include the “act” but rather center more exclusively on “not talking about or disclosing the act.” It makes for a rather deficient form of analysis.

Specifically “within the Church” I believe it even more imperative to be able to make the moral assessment. In the article, John Allen jr. writes

That’s not to say that the perception of a widespread presence of gays in the clergy isn’t a strong part of the picture, especially in light of the furor last fall over Polish Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa, the former Vatican official who outed himself on the brink of a controversial Synod of Bishops on the family

Here again a problem is presented by use of the word “gay” : What are “gays in the clergy?” Are they sexually active homosexuals ? Is it only a homosexual attraction or perhaps tendencies ?

Mr. Allen links to another CRUX article about Monsignor Charamsa- I took the following source from USA Today instead

In several interviews, Charamsa said he was happy and proud to be a gay priest, and was in love with a man whom he identified as his boyfriend, according to the Associated Press. He said he wanted to challenge the church’s “backwards” attitude to homosexuality, the BBC reported.
“It’s time the church opened its eyes and realized that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman,” he said, according to the network.

And here is the point in my limited opinion. We may assume that Monsignor Charamsa has broken his vow of priestly celibacy- because we assume he is actively homosexual. Not only that, he has declared war on priestly celibacy by his words – it’s just cloaked under one of those ambiguous “gay” arguments. In his eyes, it’s okay to be a priest and homosexually active – with no vow of priestly celibacy necessary.

If you can follow this line of thinking all the way through, you’ll find my focus isn’t actually on active homosexuality in the priesthood as much as it is on revealing the attack on priestly celibacy. But in this case it is necessary to establish the latter before proceeding to reveal the former.

Priestly celibacy is one of the pillars of the Church and for this reason it is under so much attack.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/celibacy.htm

We can be sure the devil hates priestly celibacy.

 

[billsannie]

I may be wrong but I think some on this thread may be misconstruing the article just a teeny bit. What I got from it is that although the cardinals involved in the “Gay Lobby” may or may not be gay, being gay is not the group’s unifying force. Rather it is the fact that each has an embarrassing secret and is willing to conspire with others to make sure it stays hidden. And some of the things they do to keep their secrets are at least as immoral as the secrets themselves. Not only are their methods, and general lack of morality highly unbecoming to Princes of the Church but they will be very difficult to stop and likely dangerous as well. This situation needs a lot of prayer.

 

[oneofmany]

For sure gay priests should never hear confessions. A young boy with those tendencies going to such a priest won’t be getting unbiased advise.

Gay priests and priest who only care for their career should think about just staying in a monastery and live like Jesus would have them live.

 

[TMC]

For sure gay priests should never hear confessions. A young boy with those tendencies going to such a priest won’t be getting unbiased advise.

Gay priests and priest who only care for their career should think about just staying in a monastery and live like Jesus would have them live.

Why would a gay priest be unable to minister to gay people? Should straight priests avoid hearing the confessions of straight people? Besides, as a practical matter, if we forbid gay priests from administering sacraments we are going to suddenly have a very serious priest shortage crisis.