Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Voris exposes the depth of the homosexual network in the Church

34 comments:

Ana Milan said...

As this homosexual network in the priesthood of the CC has been in existence for decades, what does it say about the Popes since Vatican II who let it go on unabated? It can only be stopped if the root cause of it is exposed which IMO is Vatican II itself. While I certainly applaud Michael Voris for his in-depth investigation into this matter, unfortunately he doesn't allude to this as being the problem. I think he should. While seminaries were being rigged into taking mainly homosexuals while turning away heterosexual men from the priesthood, the sheep were effectively being deprived of straight, upright Catholic young men anxious to answer the call to the priestly life and the devastation we presently have in the Church of Christ on earth is the outcome.

Mark Thomas said...

Michael Voris does well when he sticks to facts. Unfortunately, in the video in question, he also resorted to vicious, unsubstantiated claims that defamed, for example, Francis Cardinal Spellman.

In having done so, Michael Voris violated the 8th Commandment. In that regard, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2479, reads that "detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."

In the video, Michael Voris, in discussing the horrific problem of sodomites in the ordained priesthood and religious life, displayed a photograph of Francis Cardinal Spellman (requiescat in pace) and attempted to link Cardinal Spellman to the "homosexual network".

Michael Voris declared that Cardinal Spellman "is believed by many to have been a homosexual and raising up protégés of his own — the development of the homosexual network". Michael Voris failed to offer one shred of proof in regard to his comment about Cardinal Spellman and the Cardinal's supposed link to the homosexual network.

In the video, Michael Voris trafficked in both truth and vicious, unsubstantiated rumors/claims. Michael Voris stood on solid ground when he reported the factual story of the many priests in Pennsylvania who engaged in sexual perversion. The same applied when he noted Monsignor Carl Marucci's sodomite union. However, he marred his report when he defamed Cardinal Spellman.

To play Michael Voris' game, we must drag Pope Venerable Pius XII into the picture. Then-Cardinal Pacelli (Pope Venerable Pius XII) was then-Bishop Spellman's friend. When elected Pope, Venerable Pius XII elevated Bishop Spellman to the rank of Archbishop. In 1946 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII elevated Archbishop Spellman to the rank of Cardinal.

Was Pope Venerable Pius XII part of the homosexual network? After all, he was Cardinal Spellman's close friend. Why had Pope Venerable Pius XII taken great interest in Cardinal Spellman?

Fortunately, as Catholics, we don't play Michael's game in question. We shouldn't smear Pope Venerable Pius XII. We shouldn't smear Cardinal Spellman. We shouldn't do that to anybody.

We are forbidden as Catholics to act contrary to CCC #2479, which teaches us that honor "is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect."

Again, Michael Voris stands on solid Catholic ground when he reports facts related to the horrific problem of sodomite priests who have infiltrated the Church. He does important work in that regard. However, he stands on shaky ground when he traffics in unsubstantiated claims that smear the names and reputations of Churchmen.

Michael Voris should report substantiated information. He should distance himself unsubstantiated information. That is true particularly when unsubstantiated information serves only to smear and dishonor a person's name and reputation.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dorota said...

@ Mark Thomas

You are right, Voris didn't substantiate his assumption.

As to the Catechism (and the Word of God), what does it say about wilful blindness to evil?

Which mistake is greater:
1. To insinuate something and not provide any proof (only a popular opinion);
2. To see something evil clearly and be in the habit of denying what is clearly seen?

You are right, in this segment Michael Voris is guilty of the first. I am right when I say that you are guilty of the second, repeatedly.

Why don't you ever say something about Bergoglio's rants against faithful Catholics? He dumps us all into a caricatured category and smears us all right in front of a godless world. Doesn’t it do serious damage to us and to the entire Church? Double standards, cognitive dissonance, corrupted soul, a diabolical disorientation.

Mark Thomas said...

Dorota, I am not the focus of this thread. Michael Voris is the focus of this thread. Specifically, his video in question is the important issue at hand.

Michael Voris has fierce critics among liberal and Traditional Catholics. The integrity of his reports has been questioned by liberals and Traditionalists. Traditional Catholics are enraged particularly at Voris' endless attacks against the SSPX, which clearly have been at odds with the Church's stance on the Society.

In regard to the sodomite infiltration of the ordained priesthood and religious life, Michael Voris and his news media operation could be of tremendous importance to the movement to confront and correct the horrific problem in question.

Unfortunately, as you acknowledged, Mr. Voris failed to offer one shred of proof to support his comment(s). Specifically, from out of nowhere, he brought Cardinal Spellman, who had fallen asleep in the Lord in 1967 A.D., into the current discussion about a Homosexual Network of priests and religious.

Unfortunately, Michael Voris' practice of having presented unsubstantiated claims has led many people to dismiss him as a crackpot. That certainly has been the case among numerous Traditional Catholics who have denounced Michael Voris for the obsessive and false claims that he has launched repeatedly against the SSPX.

Dorota, please don't turn this thread into my direction. I am unimportant and not of consequence to people. Conversely, Michael Voris is of importance and consequence to many people.

If we wish to confront and correct (correct as much as possible) the sodomite invasion of the Church, then we need a big-time player such as Michael Voris and his media operation to focus attention upon that issue. Most of all, we need him to traffic in unassailable facts, rather then present unsubstantiated, sensationalistic claims. Unfortunately, it's debatable as to whether Michael Voris is able to serve as the big-time player that we need.

Dorota, that is the important issue at hand. Not my supposed "habit of denying what is clearly seen". Or my not having ever said anything about Pope Francis' "rants against faithful Catholics". I am an unimportant nobody.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

susan said...

WELL said Dorota!!!

Eirene said...

@Dorota - you are - in my view - absolutely on the button! But just wait for the endless dissertation response that your comment will inevitably provoke so that we may all be thoroughly enlightened and gently chastised simultaneously! Pax.

Dorota said...

Thank you, everyone, for your kind responses.

@ Mark Thomas

You exhibit double standards and for this reason I find it hard to take your words seriously. I semi-quote your own words:

I am unimportant and not of consequence to people. Conversely, Pope Francis is of importance and consequence to many people.

Pope Francis has fierce critics among liberal and Traditional Catholics. The integrity of his stances has been questioned by liberals and Traditionalists. Traditional Catholics are enraged particularly at the Pope's endless attacks against faithful Catholics, which clearly have been at odds with the Church's stance on the Truth.
Unfortunately, Pope Francis failed to offer one shred of proof to support his comment(s). Specifically, from out of nowhere, he brought faithful Catholics including saints and martyrs, many of whom have fallen asleep since the Church was founded, into the current discussion about a faithful remnant of priests and religious.

Dorota said...

@ Mark Thomas

I have been banned from CM due to my pope criticism. I understand your Michael Voris criticism.

Regarding your comments - even when you make a very valid point, it is difficult for me to take it seriously, and this is due to your double standards.

If you were available for discussion, when Bergoglio is clearly harming, destroying and humiliating the Church, I would gladly discuss my own and Michael Voris' obvious faults with you. Never too late, always beneficial to learn something good and spiritually useful, to shed off some of one's delusion about oneself.

Yet you are set on highlighting Voris's mistakes while fighting not to see, obscure, excuse Bergoglio's. By doing this. you too are committing a serious mistake. You deem yourself ineffective to many.

Vox Cantoris said...

Play nice!

Mark Thomas said...

Dorota, you are free not to take my words seriously. I appreciate that Vox permits me the opportunity here to express my opinions. I don't ask anybody to agree with my comments.

Yes, His Holiness Pope Francis has fierce critics. But then, that applies to one Pope after another. Pope Venerable Pius XII has fierce critics. For example, more than few Traditionalists continue to denounce the many radical reforms, in particular, radical liturgical reforms, that Pope Venerable Pius XII enacted. There are Traditional priests and communities who reject his Holy Week reforms.

Popes Saint John XXIII, Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI had/have fierce critics. Dorota, I don't know how old you are, but I recall well Pope John Paul I's brief Pontificate. Despite his brief Pontificate, Pope John Paul I had critics. Okay...so Pope Francis has fierce critics. Conversely, there are many Catholics who support Pope Francis fiercely.

Dorota, Deo volente, I, and many others, will pray tomorrow the following prayer from the Traditional Latin Mass (Mass of the Presanctifed), which reflects my view of His Holiness Pope Francis:

"Let us pray for our most holy Father Pope Francis, that our Lord and God, Who chose
him to the order of the Episcopate, may keep him in health and safety for His holy
Church to govern the holy people of God.

"Almighty and everlasting God, by Whose judgement all things are established, mercifully regard our prayers, and in Thy goodness preserve the Bishop chosen for us: that the Christian people who are ruled by Thine authority, may under so great a Pontiff, be increased in the merits of faith."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Randy Engel has published a multivolume well-researched detailed tome called the The Rite of Sodomy - Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church. If you are worried about spreading scandal with unsubstantiated rumors, I suggest you read "The Rite of Sodomy." Here is a review which mentions the Spellman years

http://www.newengelpublishing.com/pages/Christian-News-Book-Review-by-Rev-Herman-Otten.html

Dorota said...

@ Vox

I don't car for nice. I care for true, and for a rational debate, Of course, I am unable to see myself objectively. As stated previously, I am acutely aware of how by speaking I reveal myself in all my sinfulness.

Virtue signalling is not my cup of tea, only a desire to be it. It is hard, as all can see, but I do not desire to excuse any wrongdoing, only to correct it.

Now I am reading about the washing of the feet, and wondering. How can anyone say: "under so great a Pontiff"? It is mind-boggling. Is it virtuous, or maybe nice?

Jesus our Lord walked by a fisherman and said to him: Follow me. The man followed. Eleven others did, too. They spent three years together, through thick and thin. They were friends like no others. One was God and the rest (except for one) - His faithful followers. Often on the road, in heat and dust, covered in sweat and dirt, they were men of that time and that place. Before they sat down to evening meals, they customarily washed the dirt off their feet. (There were no showers back then.) In the end our Lord showed them His great love and hinted at the soon coming sacrifice by washing their feet, which they may have performed many times before as a favour to their Teacher. Jesus showed them: I have served you, too. When I am no longer walking with you in flesh, remember to serve one another.

Today the so called Vicar of Christ humiliates the Church by kneeling before even those who reject our Lord (not His faithful servants). His time would be better spent by telling them about salvation through Jesus Christ rather than through much advertised deceptive works of false humility, which will have one result only - a farther deconstruction of Christ's Church and denial of Her mission.

A follower of Christ believes in Him and teaches His doctrines - and no others. A follower of Christ doesn't make a tasteless spectacle of himself - supposedly in memory of our Lord.

I can live without expressing myself here, dear Voris. I would much rather be told to go than stay and "play nice" with a man who calls Jorge Bergoglio a most holy Father Pope Francis.

He is not holy. He is very unholy. I do not need more evidence than his revelation that atheists (Scalfari is an atheist who heard about and denied Christ) can go to heaven, as long as they do good. Much worse has happened since.

Brian said...

Cardinal Spellman's homosexuality, real or imagined, is actually very old news. He was a favourite of the hard core political "right" in the U.S.A. Spellman had good connections with the church in Vietnam. The C.I.A made good use of him. His stance against the communist thugs fit well with Pius XII's position. Quite a contrast to the disastrous Vatican II ostpolitik. Didn't Bishop Sheen have "falling out" with Spellman? I think there was some disagreement over the "Society for the Propagation of the Faith". But maybe there was something else, as well?

I agree with Mark Thomas, though. Voris should, in another Vortex, back up his charge.

Mark Thomas said...

I just returned from the Randy Engel web site. Hmmm...so we have to consider the possibility that Pope Benedict XVI aided and abetted supposedly the Homosexual Network? Really?

We have to suspect Pope Benedict XVI as we read that "Pope Benedict XVI has appointed ‘gay friendly’ Archbishop William Levada, former Archbishop of San Francisco to head the Scared Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and has awarded him the red hat. Levada in turn, with the help of ‘gay friendly’ Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, has secured his former archdiocese for his boyhood buddy ‘gay friendly’ Archbishop George ‘Brokeback’ Niederauer. Levada and Nieberauer were classmates at St. John’s Seminary and pederasty training camp in Camarillo, Calif., and they co-own a retirement condo in Long Beach. Niederauer insists there is no link between pederasty and homosexuality and is a proponent of ordaining ‘gays’ as long as they are ‘celibate’."

Then we read that Pope Benedict XVI had "acquired expensive taste in designer shoes and accessories, a reputation for ‘slightly eccentric behavior and ‘a penchant for disguise.’ "

We also have the following "evidence" to consider about Pope Benedict XVI: "During Christmas 2005, the pope was photographed showing off a red medieval fur-lined hat – a picture that can only be described as overtly camp."

I believe that the "overtly camp" hat that Pope Benedict XVI had worn was the camauro. I didn't know that the camauro was...ummm...a homosexual thing. I also recall that when Pope Benedict XVI donned the camauro, Traditional Catholics roared their approval.

Okay. Pope Benedict XVI is a key suspect in the sodomite infiltration of the ordained priesthood. Now, we are supposed to believe that? Really.

On the web site, New Engel Publishing, is Thomas A. Droleskey's review of Randy Engel's book in question. Here is an excerpt from that review:

"Mrs. Engel rounds "third base," so to speak, when writing of the "Twentieth Century Harbingers" in Chapter 18. She pulls no punches as she assesses quite accurately the revolutionary nature of some of the changes that began to take hold--and the key players in the Revolution who were put in power--during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and quickened during the reign of Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini:

"Both advocates and critics of the Revolution of he Second Vatican Council agree that the role of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Cardinal Pacelli, who ascended the Chair of Peter on March 12, 1939, as Pope Pius XII, was instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on the papacy.

"As [Mary Ball] Martinez solidly documents, and as inveterate collaborators of NewChurch like Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M., reaffirm, Pius XII opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically.

"Under his 19-year pontificate, the foundation and stepping-stones for the futuristic NewChurch were laid. (pp. 1094-1095)

"Mrs. Engel then documents the destruction of the liturgy that took place under the direction of the then Father Bugnini and his Franciscan partner in liturgical crime, Ferdinando Antonelli, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, also citing the creation of "secular institutes" such as Opus Dei and the "internationalization of the Curia" among other moves that broke with Tradition (pp. 1096-1097)."

I agree that, despite the spin that many Traditionalists have placed upon his Pontificate, it is undeniable that Pope Venerable Pius XII was very liberal in many ways. But to include him in a book about the Homosexual Network is beyond belief to me.

Sorry, I don't find any substance in various claims that Randy Engel has advanced.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

A quick google search on Spellman reveals the following links:

http://www.nypress.com/cardinal-spellmans-dark-legacy/
http://queerhistory.blogspot.ca/2011/09/cardinal-francis-joseph-spellman.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bishops#Roman_Catholic_Church

Voris is a competent journalist who is knowledgeable on this subject, and he can probably be relied upon in this case.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas is right on all counts. This all comes down to people having temper tantrums because Mark Thomas and Voris won't wallow in the mud-slinging with them. Misery loves company.

Good for Mark and Voris for keeping to the high road, that is what all the saints would have done. Hey, I'm not saying we aren't free to criticize the pope, I will gladly join in. I confess that openly.

However, my respect and admiration goes to these 2 fellows who have chosen to refrain from what sometimes veers into ugliness and pettiness. Nothing is gained by that type of "analysis" of the pope, except we all get to vent and keep bloggers busy.

That's up to each person, so for Pete's sake let's not force others to come down to our level. At least admit we nobodies on a blog are not doing one thing to advance Christ's kingdom or save the Church by ranting about what a goof the pope is.

Voris is off sometimes and too carried away with bits of data but his "hands off" attitude toward the pope, while annoying, surely cannot be criticized by any true Catholic!

Both he and Mark Thomas deserve our respect for their Christian example of charity, courtesy and restraint.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Randy Engel, I've known her for years. She is a wacko, obsessed with homosexuality. She could paint Voris himself to look like a flaming fag, she is so extreme. That is how she projects, twists and deforms the truth.

Her books are anything but well-researched, as evidenced by her excessive footnoting, among other things. They are badly done, nothing but histrionics. I can hardly stand to read them. Of course I have a background in real research so I see her endless deficiencies in logic. No one educated takes her seriously, nor should they. She has no creds, no accomplishments and her book speaks for itself as a pack of lies.

No one respects her in the field of child abuse, psychology or forensics. Randy self-publishes because no publisher would touch those tomes of speculation and innuendo.

She has built volumes out of some queer walking into a bar in the 1950's and thinking maybe he saw Paul VI. Wow, what substantive evidence!

She said all the same stuff about Benedict she now hints about Francis. She actually called Benedict a "queen" and "swish." When some people were upset about her implications on Benedict, Randy had to back off.

Randy Engel sees sex, perversion and corruption in everything. She is that nutty. She is not a crusader exposing evil in the Church, she is a desperate woman with a pathological disorder. She is dangerous.

Please, don't prove yourselves to be as ignorant as trads are often accused. Please do not be so gullilble as to read anything by Randy Engel.

Vox Cantoris said...

Thank you Anon and Mark for your reason and rational discourse. I appreciate it very much.

Let us all now retreat into the Passion, there will be new things soon, no doubt.

God love you all.

Dorota said...

I accept your verdict (in the court of "Christian [..] charity, courtesy and restraint") as an irrational one.
One engages in a rational exchange by addressing another's arguments. Yesterday Jorge Bergoglio was talking about how God hates double standards, and he did it just prior to washing and kissing some more feet (Muslim and Hindu among them). It is as though the Decalogue did not exist at all. Am I to understand that it is no longer only Muslims who worship the same God as Christians? God who gave us His commandments and the Gospel is approving of this one world religion?

My pointing out of double standards or non-adherence to basic precepts of the Catholic faith (including the Decalogue) not just by any Catholic, but by the pope himself, was simply ignored, so that an irrational defence of this very dishonest man could continue in the alleged spirit of charity, courtesy and restraint. The pope likes the words "unity" and "peace", not unlike Mark Thomas. But these are false peace and unity, false charity and mercy. While an internet journalist is targeted as an important personality with great influence on the souls of others, Bergoglio is defended (not very consistently, as we have been witnessing here). The low level of discourse some are sensing and unfortunately adopting is imposed on us by the pope.

The 'holier then thou attitude" is nauseating to me, and has nothing to do with righteous anger that I am convinced Jesus or His disciples would exhibit at this point in the fast progressing diabolical disorientation.

If this is not clear to you, Vox (I am embarrassed for calling you Voris earlier) - that you are very disoriented and undecided, oscillating between extremes, let me say it to you. You should decide.

I prefer a rational conversation to double standards and irrationality. May God guide you and protect you from this "progress".

Dorota said...

Oh, I meant to go as:

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas, Calgary

Dorota said...

One last thing:

You have just allowed for the smearing of the good name of Randy Engel. I have not known her before, but upon reading from her work, am her admirer. She certainly puts a yes for yes, and a no for a no - unlike the pope and some commenters here.

The following opinion is an unsubstantiated smear:

"Randy Engel sees sex, perversion and corruption in everything. She is that nutty. She is not a crusader exposing evil in the Church, she is a desperate woman with a pathological disorder. She is dangerous."

Here is a link to an opinion about the release of Cuban prisoners prior to the pope's visit (one of many, but certainly worth consideration):

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article34964196.html

OK, now I go.

Anonymous said...

Mark you seem to like Cardinal Spellman. I would presume that Michael Voris fact check the allegations against Cardinal Spellman. So please don't be so hasty in using a Catholic Catechism in persecuting Michael Voris in some detraction. The detraction is Bishops Ordaining Homosexual Priest and forming the Homosexual Networks and this being allowed to the point of Catholic Boys being raped but you are more concerned about a Cardinal that has been accused of being a Homosexual and the facts show this network goes as far back as Cardinal Spellman.

Anonymous said...

You have become the focus of this thread implying and using the Catholic Catechism for your attack on Michael Voris. There are allegations against Cardinal Spellman that is a fact and to try to use the Catechism of the Catholic Church to give false witness is pure evil. You have become the focus of this thread because of your grievous error.

Anonymous said...

You say you are unimportant and again you present yourself as important. Why as important is it that you would back up a Cardinal Spellman who was a known Homosexual. Why would you want to defend such a monster. Perhaps you do not have a problem with Homosexual Cardinals in the Catholic Church. Michael Voris is right on target with his reports and more like Michael Voris should expose these offspring of Satan that has been trying to destroy the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Mark Thomas should become unimportant in his own world and read Randy Engel's great book. He might learn something about the immense depth these Homosexual networks are and who is responsible and one of the suspects are Cardinal Spellman.

Eirene said...

@ Dorota and @ Vox
I have a devout Roman Catholic friend (male about 74) who has met Randy Engel and greatly admires her. Differences of opinion. I agree with you , Dorota, that Vox should decide about riding two horses all the time.

As for retreating into the Passion, I tried to do this yesterday on the Holy Good Friday. A young and devout (again) RC friend of mine and I decided to attend a Veneration of the Cross Liturgy. We had, the previous year, attended one in the Latin Rite which was hugely reverend (although neither of us are particularly au fait with Latin - we were given booklets with the English on the rt. hand side!)and extremely moving - to tears. Looking forward to a repeat of such an occasion we walked into the church to find everyone there chatting and laughing happily - the choir perched up on the front two pews with the choir master - back to the Altar (they have a High Altar at the Church) - all mic'd up and loudly practising the hymns with the Choir some 20 mins before 3 p.m. - the traditional time of the cry "It is finished" - people scurrying to and fro in the remaining front pews waving bits of paper marked with hi-liter - a semi-circle of chairs in the front of the Altar space and a little reading stand to one side. We knew immediately and instinctively that this was going to be a PRODUCTION and not a VENERATION. All the usual suspects were going to PRODUCE the Passion (instead of allowing us to hear the beautiful words of St. John's Gospel read by a consecrated priest) and it felt like an extra dose of "Special Eucharistic Ministers" was about to happen. By the bye, no-one was dressed in black - on the contrary, light summer frocks, shorts, thongs, casual wear was the order of the afternoon. The Final Straw was when I asked a friendly chap next to me whether the Lord Jesus was on the Cross we were supposedly there to venerate! Oh no, he replied. "But they aren't going to do what they did last year with the Cross when they PASSED It around the whole seated Congregation - person to person - to venerate". - "And was Jesus on THAT Cross?" I asked. "Oh no!". We left. Before the band struck up! But at least we tried. The Church of the people won over the Church of the Crucified Christ this time! So we just worshipped in the car and at home, as best we could. Kyrie Eleison.

Anonymous said...

@anon 12:40, March 26
Well you know what they say about presuming: when you presume you make a pres out of u and me. Oh no wait, the word is assume, but you get my meaning. But seriously, just assuming that Mr. Voris must be right because he must have checked the facts is like reading a Wikipedia page and assuming the person who wrote it must have known what he was talking about. As Boethius says, argument from authority is the weakest kind.

Anonymous said...

Just as you are assuming that Voris is wrong but you don't get your own meaning which is tragic for your own arguments. Just as you have assumed he used Wikipedia talk about detraction.

Anonymous said...

The Problem is the Homosexual Networks and it's Mark Thomas denial of the scandal that is really off the hook.

Anonymous said...

Randy Engel is very excellent in her thorough investigations and research in her books. The only people that would reject her books are those that condone the Homosexual Priests, their networks and their raping of boys in the Holy Catholic Church. The deniability is amazing and they are the root of the Crisis in the Church.

Anonymous said...

Randy Engel is a great Catholic and is doing a great service for God and His Holy Catholic Church. Its to bad that those who can accept the hard truths have to smear this great woman. It just shows their hypocrisy and how they use the Catholic Catechism as a weapon against Randy Engel and Michael Voris.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."The Problem is the Homosexual Networks and it's Mark Thomas denial of the scandal that is really off the hook."

I have never denied the existence of a Homosexual Network within the Church. Of course such a network exists within the Church. My point is that we need not traffic in sensationalism, as does Randy Engle, when we discuss the network.

That is, Randy Engel delves into such nonsense as having portrayed Pope Benedict XVI as having been, shall we say, "soft", on the Homosexual Network. She even attacked him as having dressed in "camp" fashion.

Does anybody really believe that Pope Benedict XVI aided and abetted the Homosexual Network? In my opinion, Randy Engel discredited herself in major fashion via the nonsense that she spewed at Pope Benedict XVI. However, if people wish to believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the kind of man as portrayed by Randy Engel, well...then that's that.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in sensationalism. I am not interested in tabloid-like nonsense about Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Spellman...even such nonsense as Pope Venerable Pius XII's supposed role in having aided and abetted the "revolutionaries".

There isn't any question that we have a major problem in regard to sodomy and the ordained priesthood and religious life. The endless daily factual reports about the Church having to deal with priests and/or religious who trafficked in sodomy speak for themselves. However, we undermine ourselves when we traffic in sensationalism. Let us simply stick to the facts. That way, we will win the day for our cause.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

I have read The Rite of Sodomy by Engel. Her claims against Cardinal Spellman are pure hearsay by a homosexual with an activist agenda. Her book is heavily footnoted but poorly researched.

Anonymous said...

@anon 4:02, March 26
I did not assume that Voris is wrong, I merely did not assume that he was right. Those are two very different things. And I did not assume that he used Wikipedia, my mentioning of Wikipedia was used as an example of how blind faith in an authority can go horribly wrong. For other examples, see the letter that Rudolf Höß wrote to his family before his execution.