Randy Engel's book Rite of sodomy
#31
(12-30-2009, 01:37 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-27-2009, 06:17 AM)artificial person Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:29 PM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: What a frustrating radio interview.  She couldn't answer a single question it seemed without being interrupted for the commercials.  The part about Paul VI never got explored, the part about the media blackout of the book was cut off at the end.

I wonder if she re-released it in four volumes would people be more interested and less daunted to tackle such a huge and pricey book? 

There's a much better interview with few/no interruptions via TCR with Stephen Hand. Check it out, it was back in Sept. I don't have time to look for it right now, it seems everything Stephen Hand has ever done is being removed from the web. I'm not joking-- both blogs, all radio content, etc. Go figure. It's out there somewhere, I'll get to it late unless you beat me to it.

Great interview BTW, they get into the Montini stuff, very interesting.

Tried finding it, no luck.  looks like all stephen Hand's stuff is down, he does have an e-mail address though.
I remember at the end of the Makow interview Engel commented about Ratzingers effeminate poses and the young effiminate male secretary that travelled around with him and that there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual.

"there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual". That's really not a good principle to work from.
I was just paraphrasing so its prolly not exactly what she said. I haven't read the book, its 1400 pages, I'm sure she has more to go on.
It would explain why there has never been any serious attempt by the vatican to clean out the homosexuals.
Would also explain why priests who got in trouble were just transferred. But hey, I don't know. I do know my highschool priest died of aids and he was also the wrestling coach. A lot of people knew he was gay and never said anything, guess they would have thought it a sin. Us kids all thought he was great. Glad I wasn't on the wrestling team.
Reply
#32
According to Mr Bellegrandi who was a member of the pontifical guard, there was a "homosexual colonization" in the Vatican under Paul VI. Old employees were fired and replaced by "Montini's favored brethren afflicted with the same vice".
Bellegrandi also says that Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the Italian Freemasons. In particular the ban on cremation after death was lifted under this pressure. One may wonder if probably more important issues were handled in that same way too.
Mrs Engel also claims he was blackmailed by the KGB.
The more high you are ranked, the more you may be subject to blackmail under the slightest dark side of your personnality.
A Polynesian proverb says: " If you want to climb up to the top of the mast check carefully beforehand that your ass is clean".
Reply
#33
(12-31-2009, 03:26 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: Let's say he was bad news, gay, responsible for the worst 'refoms' of VII-- why the unwavering stance on birth control? ???

All Humanum Vitae did was alienate him from 'reformers,' lib theologians, and even rank and file (then) young priests and seminarians.

I guess the Holy Spirit has His limits.  To me this is a strong proof that the SVs are wrong.  It the Popes were not Popes there appears to be absolutely no reason to take the line they do on birth control.  Asked privately in the 1970s and 1980s the vast majority of parish priests would tell you to use contraceptives if your conscience was clear.  I am sure many senior ranking churchmen would say the same "off the record" today.  It's truly miraculous that a church staffed by heretics and apostates has kept to the strong line on contraceptives.
Reply
#34
Did the use of contraception go up or down during his pontificate? That's what we need to ask. An encyclical denouncing contraception would alleviate suspicion, keep conservatives in the fold, and allow the secular press to call him conservative. So we do have alterior motives for why he would have put it out.

That being said, the homosexual priest we had at out high school was militantly anti abortion. Again it could have been to alleviate suspicion but I was in his class and he did seem to be sincere. I mean even Paul VI was a usurper its quite possible that Catholic values may have rubbed off on him.

Lastly, the plot against the church relies on incramentalism. If they move too fast folks will get wise.
Someone said that it was small seemingly insignificant things that were changed in the mass over time. If they had been done all at once nobody would have accepted it.
I think allowing contraception was too big a step at the time.
Reply
#35
(01-02-2010, 12:29 AM)artificial person Wrote: The homosexual priest we had at out high school was militantly anti abortion.
You suspect that this priest was homosexual.  How do you know?  If you can be sure he was homosexual, was that just his orientation or do you know that he engaged in sexual acts with other men?  I see you have another thread on "Lay Inquisitors" at http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...684.0.html.  I find your preoccupation strange.  Once again, may I ask:  do you accept the Church's distinction between a homosexual orientation, which is innocent, and homosexual acts which are sinful?
Reply
#36
(01-04-2010, 04:30 PM)Michael_G Wrote:
(01-02-2010, 12:29 AM)artificial person Wrote: The homosexual priest we had at out high school was militantly anti abortion.
You suspect that this priest was homosexual.  How do you know?  If you can be sure he was homosexual, was that just his orientation or do you know that he engaged in sexual acts with other men?  I see you have another thread on "Lay Inquisitors" at http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...684.0.html.  I find your preoccupation strange.  Once again, may I ask:  do you accept the Church's distinction between a homosexual orientation, which is innocent, and homosexual acts which are sinful?

For my part, I reckon that the current distinction made by the Church between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts is extremely suspicious and risky and I don't accept it.
It is suspicious and risky because it tends to teach and make us believe that an homosexual orientation is normal and comparable to an heterosexual one while it is not: The priests afflicted with such an orientation are prone to attract, favour and surround themselves with similarly oriented people among them some may be (even unknowingly) active homosexuals who may lead them into temptation. And I absolutely reject the commonly spreaded idea that the paedophilia in no way can be linked to homosexuality. If not why such an ovewhelming number of boys among the abused kids?

Once a man has fallen in the trap of this vice everybody knows how difficult it is to escape from it.
There was a time when the Church handled the issue much more prudently than today. There were instructions to detect and reject homosexually oriented men from the seminaries.
See the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] decree: ""Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery (chap. 4, X, V, 31). “So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity, taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, We determine that they should be handed over to the secular authority, which enforces civil law. Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which We have decreed since the beginning of Our Pontificate, We establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be executed as mandated by law, according to the appropriate punishment for laymen plunged in this abyss.”

Reply
#37
(01-04-2010, 04:30 PM)Michael_G Wrote:
(01-02-2010, 12:29 AM)artificial person Wrote: The homosexual priest we had at out high school was militantly anti abortion.
You suspect that this priest was homosexual.  How do you know?  If you can be sure he was homosexual, was that just his orientation or do you know that he engaged in sexual acts with other men?  I see you have another thread on "Lay Inquisitors" at http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...684.0.html.  I find your preoccupation strange.  Once again, may I ask:  do you accept the Church's distinction between a homosexual orientation, which is innocent, and homosexual acts which are sinful?
He died of Aids. He was gay, no doubt about it.

I do not have a preoccupation. I started this thread to see what others knew about Randy Engel and her book which seems to confirm that the hierarchy is riddled with homosexuals including popes. This being confirmed, the next obvious question is , what do we do about it.
Reply
#38
(01-04-2010, 07:50 PM)artificial person Wrote: I do not have a preoccupation. I started this thread to see what others knew about Randy Engel and her book which seems to confirm that the hierarchy is riddled with homosexuals including popes. This being confirmed, the next obvious question is , what do we do about it.
You still have not explained why we have to do something "about it".  Why is a pope, bishop, priest or layman with a homosexual disposition, and the will and grace to be chaste, a problem?
Reply
#39
(01-04-2010, 10:14 PM)Michael_G Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 07:50 PM)artificial person Wrote: I do not have a preoccupation. I started this thread to see what others knew about Randy Engel and her book which seems to confirm that the hierarchy is riddled with homosexuals including popes. This being confirmed, the next obvious question is , what do we do about it.
You still have not explained why we have to do something "about it".  Why is a pope, bishop, priest or layman with a homosexual disposition, and the will and grace to be chaste, a problem?

OBVIOUSLY, I'm not talking about people who may suffer from same sex attraction and have never acted out on it.
Reply
#40
(01-04-2010, 10:14 PM)Michael_G Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 07:50 PM)artificial person Wrote: I do not have a preoccupation. I started this thread to see what others knew about Randy Engel and her book which seems to confirm that the hierarchy is riddled with homosexuals including popes. This being confirmed, the next obvious question is , what do we do about it.
You still have not explained why we have to do something "about it".  Why is a pope, bishop, priest or layman with a homosexual disposition, and the will and grace to be chaste, a problem?

A Traditionalist priest I know put it this way in one of his articles:

" Theologically, a priesthood that would permit  the admission of homosexuals would distort the spousal relationship between the priest and the Church. The priest, as an alter Christus, is configured to the Bride of Christ in the same manner as our Lord. Homosexual men, who have no inclination to the Sacrament of Marriage, can have no analogous relationship within the Sacrament of Holy Orders to the Church. Having no proclivity  toward a wife and a fecund relationship within marriage, they will have little or no affinity with the Church as  mother-nor themselves as "Father."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)