Another horrific story of the coverup of satanic ritual and sexual abuse of a woman and covered up by the Church in America. But what of right here in Toronto?

As a result of the lawsuit by a priest against Thomas J. Rosica for an alleged "sexual assault" of asking him to "cuddle" whilst he was wearing boxers and a T-shirt lying on a bed, I decided to write something I have been sitting on for several years. I had had enough of the cover-up and what I know that has failed to ever be addressed or acknowledged. 

A story was told in The Desolate City; a book published in 1986 by Anne Roche Muggeridge of a memorandum issued by the long-ago rector of St. Augustine's Seminary in Toronto. There was no internet, no email to forward news. It was an occurrence buried in the book about a scandal at the seminary which occurred in 1980 or 1981. Further research on my part uncovered an old Globe and Mail article from the later Rector, the "James Martin" of his era (1976) calling for "understanding" of gay priests and seminarians and others referring to the "fems" and the "machos," -- the nicknames of the seminarians at St. Augustine's Seminary at the time. We know what the "fems" were and, are! The big find was the actual memorandum by the Rector. I discovered an old microfiche-type story of it from a long-defunct Toronto "gay" magazine called The Body Politic. I spent much spare time transcribing it and with the continued coverup of the Rosica matters, now public including the alleged spotting going in and coming out of a "gay" bathhouse in Toronto, I had enough and I published it. There has been blowback for the disclosure. I wrote it for a few reasons the primary being the belief that Catholics of the Archdiocese of Toronto had and have a right to know what I know and what coverups have continued to occur here. (By the way, I was told by a priest that you have no right to know what I know.) The second reason was as a service to our new Archbishop, Francis Cardinal Leo. When this saga first started (with an article in the Globe and Mail by a priest who would go on to become Rector and then after being removed by Emmet Cardinal Carter due to the scandal and later returned under Cardinal Ambrozic to serve as Judicial Vicor until his retirement under Thomas Cardinal "No Mass for You" Collins) Francis Cardinal Leo was a boy of six years old in Montreal. That is how long ago this was and many of those involved then are still active. Unless he asked or some chancery minion told him of the sordid perverted "gay" history of the Archdiocese of Toronto, he would know nothing of the history or the details of some of the men still in active ministry or around him in 2024 courting his favour and seeking their influence. That post, which can be read at the link below, caused a quiet outrage. As if it were possible, I have been ostracised even more. Priests, whom I thought were friends, whom I worked with for years, supported and advised -- who ate my food, drank my wine and Oban, and relaxed in the "safe space" of the home of my wife and me, have betrayed me and revealed themselves for the cowards they are. Those whom I considered friends have abandoned me as I recall the Office of Tenebrae--"Omnes amíci mei dereliquérunt me." As a good friend said just a few days ago when I was kvetching about the matter, "David, there is a price to pay for being a whistleblower." 

Those who cover up and those who say that you do not have a right to know not only betray you, they betray Our Lord Jesus Christ because they sit by and allow the corruption to perpetuate to another generation and another and another.  

Vox Cantoris: A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"

When I continue to speak and hear the stories of victims right here in Toronto when I see for myself the results of abuse, the health problems--physical,  psychological and even spiritual and the difficulties of PTSD on daily functioning, when I still deal with the anger due to the actions of those Toronto Basilian priests to a 13-year-old boy in 1969; when I read public letters such as this one by Lisa Roers of Elgin Nebraska or the post below by Rachel Maria Mastrogiacomo below this post, I know that my decision was the correct one and that the ostracisation and betrayals against me are a small price to pay for the truth and the ongoing shaming of abuse victims by evil churchmen and their chanceryrats.  

These maggots have no place in the Church. These vile and despicable cretins deserve the Hell to which they are headed. If they repent, I trust the LORD to assign them the lowest rung of purgatory until the Second Coming and then the most distant circle of heaven. But they won't repent, they won't acknowledge what they did and continue to do. The very depths of Hell are where they are headed and what they deserve, whether they believe it exists or not.

(Caution: the letter below contains explicit language as to the abuse)

Clerical corruption abounds

A week ago I watched a series of posts by Joseph Sciambra regarding the mocking of him by just one other Catholic grifter, Matt Fradd. Joseph Sciambra was sexually assaulted by Catholic priests and told as far as being "gay"; "God made you that way." A demonic lie, of course. Fradd took the liberty to mock Sciambra and his suffering. A disgraceful and repugnant action made worse by Fradd's continuing social media commentary.

Rachel Maria Mastrogiacomo is a woman who was raped and assaulted by priests engaging in ritual sexual abuse. 

NEWS – RACHEL MARIA MASTROGIACOMO

Robert McElroy covered up the crimes against Rachel and Francis rewarded him as the new Archbishop of Washington. McCarrick. Wuerl. Gregory. Now McElroy. My sympathies to the actual Catholics of the Archdiocese of Washington that you are subjected to this insanity. You are being ruled by a miscreant who has covered up abuse and violence. You are being mocked by Rome. Wear it with a badge of honour.

To my readers here in Toronto: Do you think for one moment this filth, this demonic action, these lies and cover-ups of the sodomites in the Church here and abuse did not happen? They all covered up and they continue to do it. To those of us who dare to confront it, they sanction, threaten and undertake gossip, calumny, character assassination and threats. They think they have won. They have not. They will not. They have already lost. 

Do you not think that they knew all along about Tom Rosica?

How many others?

A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"

 

This post has been coming for quite a while. I have mulled over it, slowly editing, transcribing, and cleaning up what I have found for publication from an old microfiche file. The events blogged about earlier this week (the sexual assault lawsuit against Thomas Rosica and the victim's gall, through his solicitor, to seek this writer as a witness) have caused me to consider it again. Therefore, I have made the decision to publish what follows. 

The purpose of this publication is to document an occurrence forty years ago and provide a historical record of certain activities at St. Augustine's Seminary in the Archdiocese of Toronto and the corruption of the times, the power and influence from the 1980s which are still being felt today. One of the priests featured below is retired, yet, as recently as a few months ago, remained on the Archdiocesan Priests Council. This is not an accusation of anything untoward on the part of the new Archbishop, now Cardinal Francis Leo, Indeed, this history may likely be news even to him and if this provides any service to him, to know the history and the rot and expose those who have worked against the faith, then that alone is worth its publication. The Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto have a right to be aware of things that happened forty years ago that have long been forgotten or covered up and still affect the Church today. Many think that we have had no crisis of sexual perversion or abuse. This is not true. What we have is enough money to buy off the victims and force them into signing non-disclosure agreements.

Let me raise some points of fact, about the hushed up scandals that happened here in the Archdiocese of Toronto:

• A certain highly placed cleric, a Monsignor, in the chancery, fathered at least two children whilst in his high clerical office of Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs and Vicar General. What became of the mother? He went on to become a successful financial executive and passed away in 2022.
• A priest professor at St. Augustine's Seminary raped and sodomized a young seminarian so badly that he was taken away by ambulance to repair the anal rupture. Years before, the Cardinal at the time, Aloysius Ambrozic, was told to get rid of him, to which he responded. "I have nobody else to teach liturgy." That injured seminarian was later ordained in the United States where he remains in a religious order. He was ordained by a Toronto Auxiliary Bishop in Washington. Odd, no? Police were not called. Charges were not laid. The crime was never reported. It was covered up. The perpetrator is now dead and judged.
• That same priest professor in a former post as a religious order prior was a pastor in a Mississauga (west of Toronto) parish and could very well be responsible for at least two other priests he may have "groomed." One of these is an openly homosexual man who left the priesthood, played the piano as a lounge singer, married a woman, divorced her and now lives in a same-sex relationship with another man. The other, whose theology and priestly formation skills were warped by the 1960s and the radical and false "spirit of Vatican II",  was, in 1976, Toronto's own James Martin of his day. He rose to rank as Rector of St. Augustine's and later Judicial Vicar. You will read about him below. Both of these men were formed as youth or young priests under that same Friar in Mississauga.
• A certain "hunk" of a Monsignor with the same Irish surname as a then Toronto Police Chief was frequently brought home to the Rosedale mansion of Cardinal Carter, "daddy," drunk and in drag from the gay district on Church Street.
• Another priest professor at the seminary was known to fondle young men and worse and was found coming out of the St. Charles Tavern on Toronto's Yonge Street and bragging about it in secular media.
• Several deaths of priests and professors from AIDS.

In the photo of a book page above, the late Anne Roche Muggeridge refers to a document called, "A Dialogue of Trust." It was written by the then Rector referred to above, who was fired for it, sent away to the Catholic University of America in Washington to study and then returned to the Archdiocese of Toronto and served at a senior level in the chancery structure as the Judicial Vicar. All true. He kept the keys to the vault on matters such as lawsuits, assaults and abuse. As referred to earlier, as of a few months ago, he still remained on the priests' council. As a point of personal reference, I actually attended his first Mass at St. Domenic's in Mississauga. My father was the family barber. 

These crimes and abuses happened in the age before the internet and search engines. The money of the Archdiocese silenced who it had to and forced non-disclosure agreements upon them. Stories abound about car accidents and bicycle accident deaths, one in particular of a prominent priest, but none can be proven. All of the information above has been given to me by priests of the Archdiocese of Toronto. They know. Some know more than others. All has been covered up and all the names are known. As for the letter referred to by Anne Roche Muggeridge, nobody had a copy of "A Dialogue of Trust."  It disappeared into history, it was never written, it didn't exist, nobody had it, and it was not published and could not be found. Until now.

The Body Politic was a "gay" newspaper published monthly and founded in 1971 until it ceased publication in 1987. It was located on Yonge Street not far from that same St. Charles Tavern where the academic priest abuser hung out. After intensive searching, "A Dialogue of Trust" was found. It had been published in The Body Politic as part of a larger article on the attempt by Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter to "hide his gay purge" of St. Augustine's Seminary. It makes one ask, if not for the intrepid reporters at The Globe and Mail back then, certainly not on the side of the Church or Seminary, what would have happened? Would we have ever known? If all of those events above occurred under the administration of Cardinals Carter and Ambrozic how much worse would it have been without the reporting. It seems that after Cardinal Carter's "purge," only two seminarians left. What of the others? How many went on after 1983 to be ordained and were men who had or may have continued to act out their same-sex desires and attractions ordained and what has it meant for the Church in Toronto? How many of their mentors are still around to influence the Church in Toronto. Again, I repeat, part of the purpose of this post is as a public service to Archbishop Leo. 

What follows was transcribed from a microfiche copy by the writer. Bear in mind, that it was written for an audience sympathetic to the cause.

TORONTO'S ARCHBISHOP TRIES TO HIDE HIS  GAY PURGE, BUT THE STORY GETS OUT

Cardinal slams the closet door

Tensions over the apparent presence of gay students in a seminary in Metropolitan Toronto have escalated, with the help of Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, into an anti-homosexual witch-hunt which has led to the dismissal of three faculty members and the expulsion of two students. 

Some details of the purge at St Augustine's Seminary in Scarborough, the preeminent school for the training of Roman Catholic priests in English-speaking Canada, were made public in two reports published by The Globe and Mail on September 7 and 8. The stories said that the Rev Brian Clough, St Augustine's rector, and the Rev Thomas Dailey, dean of studies, had been dismissed the first week of June and that the Rev John Tulk, a professor of church history, had been fired early in September. 

Globe reporters Stanley Oziewicz and Peter Moon uncovered the following facts: 

• Carter, the archbishop of Toronto, ordered the dismissals after an investigation of the seminary conducted at his request by the Most Rev Marcel Gervais, auxiliary bishop of London, Ontario; 

• Carter asked Gervais to investigate after coming into possession of a document about "tensions" between gay and straight seminarians that was distributed to St Augustine's sisters, students and faculty by Clough; 

• The tensions had arisen from allegations of homosexual behaviour at a party held in Tulk's rooms at the seminary. 

Beyond these few facts, little has been revealed about the origins of the dispute. Although he had reported the June dismissals when they occurred, Oziewicz first learned some of the details several weeks later from an anonymous letter. In their September stories, Oziewicz and Moon wrote: "Sources, including members of the faculty and student body at the seminary, members of religious orders and laymen, agreed to talk for this article provided they were not identified. Many feared for their future careers if their names were used...." TBP's own investigation has encountered similar fears. Most of those interviewed said they feared retaliation by Cardinal Carter. A priest told TBP: "The diocese is actively trying to find out who gave that information to The Globe and Mail." A member of a religious order commented: "He (Carter) doesn't show any sensitivity toward people, so they're afraid to speak out." When told TOP had been able to learn much of the story and would publish it, the member added, "It will do a lot of good because it shows how they really operate." 

In addition to those quoted, TBP's account of the tensions leading to the dismissals and expulsions has been gathered from a well-placed source who wishes to remain anonymous, and from documents which have come into our possession. Brian Clough could not be reached for comment. A copy of this article was sent to Margaret Long, Assistant to the Director of Communications of the Archdiocese of Toronto, for comment, but she did not return any of TBP's calls.

Cardinal Carter: a secret operation against creeping Protestantism and homosexuality

The presence of suspected gay students in the seminary apparently first became an issue during the 1982/83 seminary year when some first-year students complained about the campy behaviour of some other students. The issue was taken up by an informal group of about a dozen conservative seminarians who were united by their dissatisfaction with the faculty's generally liberal interpretation of Catholic theology. They came to be known as "the machos." Defenders of those accused were dubbed "the effeminates," the group to which the two students who were expelled belonged. Most students belonged to neither. (According to Oziewicz and Moon, Gervais found that between six and 12 of the approximately 50 students were "homosexually oriented." Our source suggests that even Gervais's upper figure may be much too low.) 

Gossip and paranoia flourished. Dennis Hayes, a seminarian who says he belonged to neither group, explained: "When you group a number of people you have a fishbowl type of effect; when people start talking, these things spread.. an innocent comment can turn into a vicious attack." 

In March 1983 several students were criticized in their written year-end evaluation by faculty for their "feminine mannerisms." 

A month later, the authors of an annual letter from students to faculty complained that the faculty was tolerating a "vigilante group" that was harassing suspected gay students. The letter also said that criticism of some students for their mannerisms had exacerbated the situation.

By September it appeared that the letter had had some effect: at the week-long retreat which starts the school year, most of the faculty who spoke of the matter called for tolerance of differences in the seminary. 

But the complaints continued. Charles Lewis, a former RCMP employee said to be in the "macho group" — an allegation which he did not deny — told TBP he himself had lodged a complaint about sexual activity in the seminary: "guys doing things they shouldn't be doing." But he admitted he hadn't witnessed such activity himself. On the other side, rumours flew that "the machos" were searching

Toronto's gay bars for seminarians.

TBP has found no evidence to support this allegation. 

Tensions between the two factions became so acute that, in the late fall, Clough held separate meetings with members of the two groups and with unaligned students in an attempt to cool the dispute.

But after a party held in Tulk's rooms following a joint religious service with Anglican seminarians on January 26 of this year, events started to spiral out of control. Although Gervais later was to find that nothing amiss had occurred at the party, rumours circulated of drunkenness and homosexual activity. 

In a speech delivered to St Augustine's seminarians at a special house meeting six days later, Clough criticized "the rumour mill" and appealed for an end to gossip about the party. On February 8 he met again with members of the factions and other students, this time in a joint meeting. 

Then, on March 19, a three-page letter, "A Dialogue in Trust," apparently written by someone who had been at the February meeting, was distributed on Clough's authority to the seminary's students, faculty and sisters. 

Compassion and the Cardinal 

The Archbishop of Toronto knows how to pick friends, and if you're not one of them. . . . 

"CARDINAL CARTER AIDS DAVIS: No Solidarnosc for T.T.C. Workers" — that was the heading on a leaflet twitting Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, archbishop of Toronto, for backing strikes in Poland while opposing a threatened transit strike at home that would have cut into attendance at, and profits from, the recent papal tour. 

Carter, a close friend of John Paul II, was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council, which reformed the Catholic Church. Yet, his critics say, Carter is more zealous for the letter of the reforms than for their spirit. Last year, when the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops issued an economic report that blamed the profit motive for widespread poverty and unemployment, Carter disavowed the document, siding with the outraged bankers and industrialists. And early this year he authored a pastoral letter which condemned attempts to elaborate a Catholic theology that would allow birth control, abortion and the ordination of women.

Carter's record on gay issues is not completely black. He once wrote a report on police/minority relations which devoted a few lines of criticism to homophobic verbal abuse. But he has also barred the local chapter of Dignity, the gay Catholic organization, from the use of a church for their meetings and has told homophobic jokes to an audience of police officers. The fear and silence surrounding the purge at St Augustine's Seminary point not just to the man's power, but to the way he exercises it. "Insensitive" is the word which most often comes to the lips of his critics. But Carter may have inadvertently illuminated the issue when he dismissed Thomas Dailey. According to the press reports, he told the priest, "You are much too compassionate." Perhaps it is not others, who are too compassionate, but the Cardinal who is not compassionate enough. Although unsigned, the names of Clough and three students appeared at the bottom of the letter. A notable feature of this letter is its twice-stated concern that news of the tensions within the seminary might get beyond its walls. The fearful reference to "having 'outsiders' resolve those issues for us" appears to have been an allusion to Cardinal Carter.

"A Dialogue in Trust" proved to be the means of betrayal: within a few days, a copy had been conveyed to Carter. And by the second week of April, Gervais had begun his investigation into theological and sexual deviation at St Augustine's.

In the purge of St Augustine's, a harmonious constellation of authoritarianism, sectarianism and homophobia can be seen at work. Since the Second Vatican Council, part of the Catholic clergy and laity have been moving away from both the church's traditional insistence on authority as the source of truth and the concomitant paranoia about Protestant theologies. The council suggested that truth is not absolute, that a changing world can pose new questions and demand new answers.

St Augustine's Seminary has been influenced by this new current in Catholicism and has exposed its students to the interaction of social activism and feminism with traditional teachings. As one of the eight theological colleges that jointly make up the Toronto School of Theology, an ecumenical project, the seminary has encouraged an open-minded comparison of Protestant and Catholic beliefs.

But as the new Catholicism has developed, so has the conviction among some Catholics that the revolt against authority and the flirtation with Protestantism — often the same thing to their eyes — have gone too far. It is common knowledge in the Diocese of Toronto that Cardinal Carter and other conservatives are less than fond of St Augustine's, where the now thin trickle of future priests — the seminary's approximately 50 students rattle about in a building that could hold 200 — are thought to be in danger of contamination by rebellion and creeping Protestantism. Once Carter had indisputable evidence that the place of homosexuals in the priesthood was, however informally and tentatively, being explored at the seminary, he struck.

The purge was carried out in a secrecy induced by fear: everyone who knew, even the victims, was too intimidated to speak out. To this day, Carter refuses to say why the firings occurred. Gervais's report remains a secret.

According to the Globe, although Clough, Tulk and the tenured Dailey were instructors at the Toronto School of Theology, the Cardinal ordered them to resign without any explanation to the school. Carter told TST officials that any protest from them over his neglect of due process could result in the withdrawal of St Augustine's from the joint project.

Some of the homophobia was blatant. Gervais is reported to have asked students about homosexual activity, but not about heterosexual activity. And he told faculty they should not admit gay students to the seminary. When the teachers protested that there is nothing in the rules about the sexual orientation of priests, he backed off slightly but still insisted that a gay seminarian would have to have been chaste for five years before admission. Apparently, he made no such stipulation for heterosexual applicants.

But to speak of discrimination is merely to scratch the surface; the homophobia here is deeper and subtler than that.

A trust betrayed The confidential dialogue that didn’t stay confidential

What follows is the complete, unedited text of ' 'A Dialogue in Trust, ' ' the letter circulated by St . Augustine's Seminary Rector Brian Clough to students and faculty on March 19, of this year. (1983)

The following are reflections on discussions that occurred during the past year in regard to issues and tensions that were present in the house. These discussions were alluded to in Fr. Clough's address to the house in February. Initially, Fr. Clough met with three distinct groups composed of second, third, and fourth-year students. These groups represented different viewpoints on tensions that were growing within the first few months of the seminary year. The three distinct meetings allowed students to articulate their perceptions of what was occurring within and between emerging factions. These meetings were completed by the end of the first term. A collective meeting of the three groups took place a week after Fr. Clough's February address.

The purpose of the collective meeting was to provide a forum for dialogue and for the definition of issues that each group perceived. A second issue was to receive feedback on Fr. Cough's February intervention in regard to the house social with Trinity College. It was hoped that the meeting would be an initial step toward resolution of various problems. The meeting began with an attempt to identify what the problems were. The general consensus was that there was misunderstanding of viewpoints, attitudes, and behaviors. This was characteristic of all, not of a certain few. It was recognised that many of us did not know each other well enough and were unsure about positions held, which generated unease and, perhaps, a little suspicion. Within an institution there will be a broad range of personalities and attitudes. Such a situation can all too easily lead to conflict, which itself produces intolerance and insensitivity. It was felt that we were categorizing each other as to lifestyle and orientation. It should be noted that in Fr. Clough's February address there was mention made of a general nosiness of other's business and a consequent breakdown in trust. The problem, then, was one of misunderstanding and unfamiliarity that led to insensitivity and intolerance. Discussion ensued with each group expressing its feelings on the problem. It was felt that each group was given a free and equal opportunity to express their views. As the discussion progressed, it became evident that group boundaries were breaking down and that each was expressing his views as an individual, rather than as a representative of a group.

It became clear that the issue would be lost if the discussion were limited to the surface problem: that is, a tension between those perceived to be "macho" and those perceived to be "effeminate". It was agreed that such exclusive terms are damaging and denigrating. It is all too easy to categorize someone because he acts differently. The issue was then not how to limit those who act differently, but how to come to know the other with greater appreciation and understanding of his uniqueness.

 Five main points were made during the discussion:

 1: to equate homosexuality with effeminate behavior is false. A person's sexual orientation should not become a preoccupation for others. The issue is not one of homosexuality or heterosexuality within or outside the seminary, but one of sensitivity to others who may be different than ourselves.

 2: it is important to be sensitive to the effect that our behavior has on others and the possible effects or perceptions that can result from the cumulative effect of group behavior in a particular situation.

3: it should be recognized that feelings of being threatened by another's uniqueness have their source within ourselves and must be resolved within ourselves. The problem should not be 'how can I change the other', but 'how can I come to terms with myself so that I can appreciate the other more'.

4: out of an ignorance of another's pain can come a desire to avoid that individual because he is different. Thus the challenge must be recognized: to confront someone with a problem is harder than not dealing with him. 

5: the seminary community has a right to resolve its own issues without having them communicated outside the house or having "outsiders" resolve those issues for us. 

The immediate results of the meeting were generally positive. It was felt that dialogue which occurred within the context of the meeting could be transferred to a less formal setting. Much misunderstanding was identified and corrected. It may be correct to say that tolerance was learned and that out of that learning came a greater appreciation and comfort with others who were different than ourselves: that is, a tolerance that was embedded in charity and mutual respect. With the reduction of tension through the expression of difficulties came a more relaxed atmosphere in the house. An important result was that the "silent majority" spoke-up and took an active part in the discussions. It was agreed that the meeting was an initial step to the resolution of the issue. Though the issue was not totally resolved, the meeting provided an opportunity to dialogue in trust. 

The less immediate results were just as important. The meetings that occurred this year served as a first step to dialogue that can and will hopefully occur in years to come. It was recognized that there will always be problems in institutional living and that these problems should be addressed. Thus, the path was opened to future dialogue. It was suggested that the services of professionals, such as Sister Dickson, be employed in addressing issues such as sexuality, spirituality, tolerance, etc. It has been suggested that an opportunity be provided for year groups to reflect on the year with their representatives to the extended faculty meetings. It was also suggested that new students precede returning students at the start of the year by a day or two in order to better prepare them for seminary life and to ease the process of assimilation. In all, these discussions came out of an experience of grace; an experience that was felt by the whole seminary community. The meeting of the collective closed with the hope and the positive anticipation of greater interpersonal communication and friendship 

19 MARCH 1984 

M. CENERINI

FR. B. CLOUGH 

J. MURPHY

D. REILANDER 

This document has been distributed to the sisters, faculty, and students of St. Augustine's Seminary. Its purpose is specifically for the members of the house, i.e. the document is confidential to members of the house. This is why the document has not been posted on the bulletin board.

END OF A "DIALOGUE OF TRUST"

Single-sex institutions in the world. 

Homosexual activity is inevitable; that a certain fraction of its members will be gay is inevitable. Yet it remains a great unspoken concern. Mary Malone, a St Augustine's faculty member, says: "The presence of gay students among seminarians is not new. Until recently, we pretended it wasn't there." 

The St Augustine's purge was directed not so much against gay seminarians as against those, gay or straight, students or faculty, who dared to break the silence — to push or pull open the closet doors just a crack. The purge would be a warning to those still in the closet to stay there. That's perhaps why only two students were asked to leave the seminary, although Gervais estimated that there were as many as 12 "homosexually inclined" students there. That could be the meaning of Carter's explanation to reporters of Clough's dismissal: "To talk about it is one thing, but to put it in print (in "A Dialogue of Trust") is a problem." 

Malone describes Clough and Tulk as "honest, compassionate men." "Their integrity," she says, "helped something come into the open that others would have preferred to keep secret." Clough, Dailey and Tulk are gone from St Augustine's, but those responsible failed in their goal. The secret is now out in the open.

+ + + 

The Rector referred to above, Father Brian Clough, after being fired for the scandal went on to become the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto. This article is from the Globe and Mail on May 8, 1976. As of a few months ago, Clough was still on the Priest's Council.

Former Toronto SSPX priest sentenced to prison

Look at that punchable face. I remember it. Rostand was a priest at Transfiguration of Our Lord SSPX chapel in Toronto sometime before 2010. I attended there for a few months assisting in the choir between appointments. He was a creep. Aloof. Arrogant. Immature. I had no idea he was a pervert but it all fits. 

One year is hardly enough for this filthy degenerate. The scandal on the children and youths, the Society, the Church and the priesthood is scarcely satisfied.

Europe's courts are no better than our own.

Enjoy the millstone you stinking cesspool!

Former US SSPX district superior sentenced to 1-year in prison for molesting multiple underage boys - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

"The former U.S. district superior for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was sentenced to one year in a French jail after admitting in April to having molested seven underage boys between 2002 and 2018 in France, Spain and Switzerland.

 French outlets reported that a criminal court in Gap sentenced Father Arnaud Rostand, 58, to 12 months in prison with deferred incarceration. He is also required to undergo four years of “socio-juridical” monitoring and psychiatric treatment, as well as provide compensation for his victims."

The Timothy Dolan Whore Mass. But the traditioal Latin Mass is the problem?

I have some words for all of you bishops and effete priests. I can't use them here. 

RORATE CÆLI: The “Whore Funeral” in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral: The Inevitable End Game of Vatican II and the Ideological Novus Ordo Rite (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com)

And Ann.

Luciferian faggot, Timothy Dolan, Cardinal Archbishop of New York, allowed an overtly satanic rite to be performed in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC by transvestite prostitutes. | Barnhardt

Bergoglio and his Tucho "Cardinal" Fernández Orgasmic Theology

Oh my. How would he know?

Stinking pervert.

Francis and Fernández Can't Get Enough Orgasms – Gloria.tv

Francis and Fernández Can't Get Enough Orgasms

The more Francis' chief ideologue Tucho Fernández lies, the more he gets entangled in his web of lies. When the scandal over his 1995 book “Sáname con tu boca. El arte de besar” (Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing) broke, Tucho dismissed the book as a one-off sin of youth.

But then his 1998 orgasm book “La pasión mística” was discovered. Tucho again presented it as a singular mistake of his youth. But he was 36 years old.

Now, LaNuovaBq.it has discovered that at least three publications which Tucho produced after 1998 also indulge in fantasies about orgasms and fetishes, proving that Francis' right-hand man is a sexual exhibitionist.

In his 2004 book “Para liberarte de la ansiedad y de la impaciencia”, Tucho writes:

"When our whole being is unified in one direction, then we come to true encounter, fusion, perfect union, even if only for a few minutes. It is not necessarily a matter of physical stillness, because this experience can also occur in the midst of the excitement of a very intense activity. This happens, for example, in the orgasm between two people who love each other.”

In the 2004 essay “Teología espiritual encarnada : profundidad espiritual en acción”, Tucho writes that “the moments of life and joy - including sexual ones - are experienced as a participation in the full life of the Resurrection” and then continues:

“These moments of shared pleasure, with all their potential for communication, offering, and loving expression, can be prepared and then lived in gratitude in moments of shared prayer. They cannot be separated from the relationship with God, as if they were simply a permitted sin. The mystery of the Incarnation, which makes marriage a sacrament, an efficacious sign of the grace accomplished in genital union, shows how God, by becoming [celibate] man, also entered into human flesh, transforming corporeality into the mediation of grace. Therefore, if the union of the bodies was a true expression of love, it must be celebrated in prayer.”

Tucho then invited his readers to “relax the body” by giving “full attention” to the various organs: “It is more a question of ‘feeling’ them, of perceiving them with sensitivity. It is a matter of experiencing the sensations of each organ calmly, without judging whether these sensations are good or bad, but trying to make that organ relax.” Among the organs, he mentions are “the pelvis, the buttocks, the genitals”.

His conclusion: “At every point on the body we should feel some sensation (of heat, burning, pleasure). No part of the skin is insensitive, even if the sensations are very subtle. Finally, it is important to try to grasp the totality of the organism, to become aware of the whole body and to feel it for a while.”

One wonders, who Tucho is writing this for. Perhaps for himself?

In his 2002 book “Por qué no termino de sanarme?” he philosophises about clothing that “awakens sensuality by highlighting interesting shapes of the body.” His examples: “The naked neck is made more sensual by wearing a necklace on it.”

And: “If we add to this a certain amount of imagination on the part of the viewer, and in a moment of dissatisfaction, when he needs to be moved or to enjoy something, then a body can appear as something impressive, wonderful, indispensable.”

Tucho even explains to the bored reader his personal preferences for body features: “At some moments in my life I am attracted to certain types of charm, but at another moment other details begin to attract me: sometimes the sensitivity of the moment attracts me to fine, white hands; at other times I am more attracted to fleshy, warm hands, and these fine hands are no longer enough for me.”

He agrees that the solution to this problem is not to use others and leave them when I no longer need them, but to use the imagination, which “can make what is limited, like all the creatures on this earth, appear as something divine”.

Tucho says that Bergoglio knew of his perversion. Does that include the 16 year old girl? Is Pope Francis an accomplice to sexual abuse?

Cardinal Tucho "Pervert" Fernández states that Pope Francis knew about his book. Well surprise, surprise, surprise. Of course he did. He was his archbishop! It's no doubt to this writer that it is one of the reasons he was appointed to the DDF and as a cardinal, it is the agenda of Bergoglio and another attempt by him to mock the faith and the faithful. There are no coincidences.

Pervert Fernández interviewed a sixteen year old girl in the book. That, in any country, is a crime. Aside from being a crime for a man it is totally repugnant, sinful and unacceptable for it to have been a priest. He even goes so far as to compare himself with Pope John Paul II and St. Hildegard of Bingen! 

If I, or any priest, were to have written anything like this, we would likely be removed from ministry and sent away for evaluation, and rightly so,” Msgr. Charles Pope, pastor at Holy Comforter-St. Cyprian parish in Washington, D.C., told the Register Jan. 8. “For priests or religious to discuss such matters violates proper discretion and boundaries; it is wholly inappropriate and understandably shocks the faithful.” 

EWTN commentator Father Gerald Murray told the Register it was the work of “a troubled priest” who has an “unseemly fascination with the specific details of sexual relations” and who promotes a “false and degraded spirituality that is sickening.”

Worse, it implicates Jorge Mario Bergoglio in a sexual crime. Bergoglio needs to answer for this. What did he know and when did he know about the sexual conversation with a sixteen year old girl?

https://www.ncregister.com/news/cardinal-fernandez-says-pope-francis-and-the-vatican-were-aware-of-his-erotic-mystical-passion-book

BREAKING: FRANCIS BERGOGLIO'S "GAY BLESSING" CARDINAL "TUCHO'' FERNANDEZ AUTHORED PORNOGRAPHIC BOOK EQUATING AN ORGASM WITH SAINTLY EXCTASY AND THAT "GOD IS IN THE COUPLE'S ORGASM!"

The Lepanto Institute, hinting overnight, has released information on a book written by Bergoglio's Cardinal, Victor Manuel Fernandez equating saintly ecstasy with orgasm and that "God is in the couple's orgasm." The blasphemous and scandalous book is by the same clown who authored a book on kissing entitled, "Heal Me With Your Mouth." The same Cardinal that is forcing blessings on sodomite and lesbian, so-called, "couples" with the approval and encouragement of the so-called, "Holy Father" himself.

More evidence of the seizure of the Bride of Christ by Satanists, perverts, atheists, and globalist Marxist scum. Their end is near and they are now exposed where only the most strident popesplainer can see it.

Nota bene: You may not wish to proceed further. As distasteful has this material is, it is necessary to post it to create a historical record and to document exactly the kind of people that are in charge of the holy Catholic Church, and how they need to be exposed, and disgraced and outed for their vulgarity, their wickedness and their deceit.

This wasn't bad enough from the book on kissing:

Gutting the Catholic Church with Deep Tongue Kisses | Frontpage Mag

“The penetrating kiss is when you suck and slurp with the lips. The penetrating kiss is when you stick in your tongue. Watch out for the teeth,” Tucho writes.

“My boyfriend gets a hard mouth when he kisses me. He hasn’t yet learned how to loosen his lips. Lovely!” 

“What I like the most is the kiss of peace at Mass. That was the first kiss with the hottie I have now.” 

“I love kissing his fingertips. It gets more affectionate than anything else.” 

“I once went crazy with the pleasure I was given from being kissed on the eyes. But I didn’t say this because it’s going to leave me blind.”

The fish rots from the head first. 

UPDATE COURTESY OF RORATE CAELI:

CAUTION 

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/01/mysticism-and-sex-rediscovered-1998.html

From Victor Manuel Fernández's "Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality" (1998).

CHAPTER 7

Male and Female Orgasm

At this point, we ask ourselves, if this mystical experience, in which the entire being is taken by God, if this kind of “mystical orgasm”, is experienced by each person according to his or her sexuality. That is, if the man experiences it as a man and the woman in a feminine way. For that, let us first see how men and women experience orgasm, and what the difference is between a male orgasm and a female orgasm.

Normally, a woman considers sex without love very unsatisfying, and she needs adequate conditions to feel sexually aroused (this is less common among men). She is less attracted than a man to watching photos containing violent sexual scenes, orgies images, etc.

This does not mean that she feels less aroused by hardcore pornography, but rather that she enjoys and values this less; and, in some cases, it causes her to fear.

She enjoys caresses and kisses more, and she needs the man to play a little before penetrating her. But he, in short, is more interested in the vagina than the clitoris.

At the time of orgasm, he usually makes aggressive grunts; she, instead, makes childish babblings or sighs.

Let’s not forget that women have a rich venous plexus around the vagina, which maintains a good blood flow after orgasm. That’s why she is usually insatiable. She needs to release the pelvic congestion, and when this does not happen, after orgasm she may want more. The woman requires more time, more dedication. She needs the man to give her something extra after he has achieved his own satisfaction. But he normally releases himself well in the ejaculation and remains satisfied and exhausted. He finishes, and moves on to something else, as if he were left empty inside. After ejaculation he wants to rest or seeks repose elsewhere. She, on the other hand, remains fixed, in a mixture of rest and joy needing the attentive company of the loved one. When the man reaches climax, his interest in her falls sharply, he is exhausted, while she needs him more than ever. Before ejaculation he makes a great effort, and in the process towards orgasm he is more and more the master of the situation, until there comes a point where she yields completely, stops being master of herself and loses consciousness of her freedom. That is why the woman, deep down, is afraid of total possession and does not always easily accept that self-giving. She has a dark respect for male power and is disturbed by violent pornography.

The man, who permanently produces sperm, is more capable of enjoying a variety of women, while the woman, who produces few eggs and only in a certain period, values safe intimacy more. She puts everything into each child gestated in her body, while he can fertilize hundreds of more wombs.

But let’s not forget that on a hormonal and psychological level there is no pure male or pure female.

Let us now ask ourselves if these particularities of men and women in orgasm also occur in some way in the mystical relationship with God.

We could say that the woman, because she is more receptive, is also more willing to let herself be taken by God. She is more open to religious experience. That may be why women predominate in churches.

But said in this way, we would be affirming that the mystical experience is characteristically feminine, and that it would be forbidden to markedly masculine characters. And this precise question forces us to rethink what it is that we call masculine, and whether we should really identify the masculine with the active tendency that seeks to possess women. Do we not know situations in which a highly feminine woman is capable of completely possessing and dominating a man? Pope John Paul II, in his document on the dignity of women, notes a kind of “superiority” of women due to their ability to contain and sustain men:

The moral and spiritual strength of a woman is joined to her awareness that God entrusts the human being to her in a special way… The moral force of women draws strength from this awareness and this entrusting… This awareness and this fundamental vocation speak to women of the dignity which they receive from God himself, and this makes them “strong” and strengthens their vocation… (the “perfect woman”) becomes an irreplaceable support and source of spiritual strength for other people, who perceive the great energies of her spirit. (Mulieris Dignitatem, 30, d.f).

Jean Boudrillard maintained that man created his institutions and his power to counteract the superior original powers of the woman, particularly her fertility, her strength of intuition and seduction, and her perseverance. So, it does not seem well-founded to affirm that the man is the one who dominates, the one who holds the reins.

But let’s say that God has infinite power and supernatural creativity, so that he can adapt himself to the psychology of each particular human being and can give any person a loving experience, an encounter with him that takes the person completely, in body and soul, without violating the inclinations of her feminine or his masculine psychology. But an attitude of receptivity will always be required. In fact, in all true human love (relationship), it is required that both, each in his or her own way, be receptive. If the man is not receptive and only wants to be active and dominant, he cannot fully experience the richness of love. So, God uses that receptive aspect, which is not lacking in men, to give him the experience of his love. In fact, every man has experienced what it is like to be receptive and dependent on another person, when he remained serene in the arms of his mother. On the other hand, it may also happen that the woman, out of fear, denies her receptive attitude and resists divine love. Thus, let us say once again that everyone who wishes to have a completely happy experience of divine love, should ask God for the grace to allow himself to be loved. In fact, Carlo Carretto, a man with markedly masculine characteristics, tells us that in his most wonderful encounter with God, he felt like a confident little girl, which he did not find bothering or contrary to his deepest inclinations, but rather sweet and marvelous:

At twenty-three years old, when God burst into me with his Spirit, my relationship with him completely changed my life... God intervened as a lover. At first, it seemed like something so beautiful and so warm that I looked at it as a sentimental presumption... I feared I was falling prey to cheap romanticism... But it wasn’t like that. The intimacy that he gave me was so true, so strong, that it left traces, and he left them where doubt was not possible... I will never forget the irruption of his Spirit in me. It was really the emergence of a crazy lover, who asked me to respond to him with all my madness... Then I understood by experience that each one of us, even if he is a male, God calls as if he were a female. When I am at home with him, I snuggle next to him like a little girl who expects everything from him and without pretending to know everything... The entire spirituality of the biblical man is femininity: receptivity, availability, waiting, desire for smallness, service, adoration... For some reason women are most willing to what is religious (He buscado y he encontrado, Bs. As., 1985, 59-61.70).

But let us say, more precisely, that in the mystical experience God touches the most intimate center of love and pleasure, a center where it does not matter much whether we are male or female. And in that center, we are all receptive and live an experience in which we are not fully masters of ourselves. For this reason, scientists usually say that the differences between men and women are experienced in the stage prior to orgasm, but not so much in the orgasm itself, where the differences between the feminine and the masculine are no longer so clear and seem to disappear.

Thus, we can say that in the mystical experience what God touches is a loving center on which the human being can only depend. Because the human being is not an omnipotent god, but a creature, and this is why the most intimate part of his reality is dependence, it is “receiving” being, it is living from God even if he ignores him, it is drinking from his spring of life. And for this very reason, in the mystical experience the eminently active one is God. The creature, whether male or female, delights in depending completely on the loving God, in “letting himself be loved” by him confidently. This is precisely the great spiritual step.

Obviously, there may be certain secondary characteristics showing that the male experiences it in a different way than the female, but that does not change the essence of the experience, where both the man and the woman are fundamentally receptive. And only because they accept to receive from him, to depend on his loving impulse, can they also feel active, can they feel that they participate personally and creatively in that experience of love. At the same time, they experience that divine touch without feeling forced, because God’s grace has the divine power to make us accept his initiative of love with total freedom.

CHAPTER 8

The Road to Orgasm

Everything we have seen shows us that God is not the enemy of our happiness, that he does not mutilate our capacity to love, because he is love, passionate love, love that does good, that liberates, that heals.

But we can ask ourselves if we are all called to a passionate experience of God, like those had by the mystics we have mentioned before.

First, we have to say that everything depends on what God wants to give to each person. We can never demand that God give himself to us in one way or another, because, if we cannot demand from anyone that he adapt to all our desires, and we cannot force anyone to love us in a special way, much less God. On the other hand, we can see that God has always given his love in very different ways. Some saints began to have inebriating experiences of God shortly after their conversion, or at the same conversion; others, like Saint Teresa of Ávila, achieved these experiences after many years of spiritual dryness. Saint Therese of Lisieux, although she felt tenderly loved by God, never had very “sensual” experiences of his love, and it seems that she only achieved an overflowing and passionate joy at the moment of her death, when her face was transfigured and she said her last words: “I love you, oh my God, I love you!”

However, we also have to say that, if that loving and passionate experience of the presence of God is something fulfilling, something that wonderfully harmonizes and calms our affectivity and our sensuality, then we all have at least the right to desire it. If this passionate experience of God frees our psychology from so many feelings of dissatisfaction, from so many wounds that we have received due to lack of love, then we have the right to desire that God grant us that liberating experience. If we know that our wounded and unsatisfied affectivity often leads us to cause harm to others, to not give ourselves with joy in the service of others, then it is licit for us to be attracted by that experience of God that would allow us to be more available, more serene, more generous, less concerned with ourselves.

That said, not everything has been said. Because we believe that God takes into account the path we try to make, and wants us to be personally involved in our path of liberation. The initiative is always from his grace; but once he has given it to us, he takes us so seriously that he allows us to contribute something of ourselves so that that grace reaches every corner of our being. For example, if someone is sick because he holds a grudge in his heart, a lack of forgiveness towards his father, then it seems that the mere fact of asking God for forgiveness and receiving his grace is not enough to free him from those wounds that condition him. It requires what is called “cooperation” with the received grace, an “adequate” prayer.

An adequate prayer is more than praying an Our Father asking God to free me from my illness. It is a prayer where I try to heal, with the grace of God, the root of my illness, that lack of forgiveness that I have towards my father, for example.

So, every day I ask God for the grace to be able to understand and forgive my father. And if I notice that I really don’t even want to forgive him, then for a while I ask God for the grace to “want” to forgive him. And in that mysterious combination of the initiative of his grace and my poor attempts, the moment will come when the sincere desire for forgiveness spontaneously arises in me, and then a strong impulse to give that forgiveness, to say at least inside of me: “Dad, I forgive you and I thank you because you gave me life.”

Once that forgiveness is given, it is very possible that many things will begin to be resolved, that the illness will become more bearable and perhaps will be cured. We see then that there is a more adequate “way” of saying a prayer, which facilitates the work of grace in some dimension of my being where it has not yet arrived.

The same can happen in my experience of God’s love. It may be that my experience of God is true, although I experience it in the midst of emotional aridity. It may be that God purifies me through this self-giving without feelings or passion, and that my faith be very deep. But, if at the same time my emotions are not healthy, that means that this experience is not enough. For example, if it is not enough for me to be faithful to my wife, or to be happy in my marriage, or to live my celibacy with joy, or to work with enthusiasm, or to treat others well, it means that the way I am finding God is still very poor.

I can, therefore, ask myself if I am not fleeing, for different reasons, from the love of God; if there is not something inside me that leads me to resist the love of God, to distrust him, etc.

Then, I can begin to ask him every day that he give me his grace to offer him that fear, to throw myself into his arms, to let Him enter where I do not allow him to do so.

Someone might think that it would be really better now to enjoy this short life and, in any case, leave that experience of divine love for after death, since we will have all eternity for that. But that is absurd if we think that every creature, every beautiful thing in this world, no matter how precious it may be, is only a pale reflection of the infinite beauty of God. He alone is beautiful, and other things are beautiful only to the extent that they receive some beauty from that infinite source that is God. Therefore, all the attractions of this world should elevate us, from now on, to the encounter with the divine source, to drink from that inexhaustible wellspring of good and beauty. To do otherwise would be like spending eighty years smelling the aroma of delicious food rather than sitting down at a table and happily enjoying it. But, furthermore, waiting for death to have the experience of God goes against the logic of love. No person truly in love would be capable of spending eighty years trying other pleasures and leaving the wonderful embrace of the beloved for later. Such a person simply would not stand the waiting, those years would seem eternal, and all the other beauties would never leave him satisfied, they would only awaken more and more his thirst to embrace her. The same happens with those who have tasted divine love, such as Saint Augustine, Saint Francis of Assisi, etc.

That does not mean that God will soon give me the experience of Angela of Foligno or the wounds of Saint Francis of Assisi. He will give me what my heart is needing and what he freely wants to give me. There are also temperaments that are naturally better predisposed to this type of experiences and others that are less predisposed. But it is very possible that, by following an adequate path, we can all have a fuller experience of the love of God, an experience that heals our sick affectivity, our injured emotionality, that makes us more joyful in our daily dedication, that makes us freer and happier.

But this does not necessarily mean that this joyful experience of divine love, if I achieve it, will free me from all my psychological weaknesses. It does not mean, for example, that a homosexual will necessarily stop being homosexual. Let us remember that God’s grace can coexist with weaknesses and even with sins, when there is a very strong conditioning. In those cases, the person can do things that are objectively sinful, without being guilty, and without losing the grace of God or the experience of his love. Let’s see how the Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors (CCC 1735).

There may be a religious sister who has to make great sacrifices to be faithful to her virginity, because her psychology has some strong conditioning in that order, and yet, at the same time, she has a beautiful, very authentic experience of the love of God, which makes her happy.

Let us finally say that, in order to achieve a joyful and passionate experience of divine love, there is an extremely important cooperation: the acts of love for our brothers. Every generous act, every loving service we provide to others, assures us that our experience of God is on the right track. This is what the Bible says:

He who loves his brother walks in the light and does not stumble. But he who does not love his brother is in darkness, he walks in darkness, he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has left him blind (1 Jn 2,10-11).

Furthermore, every sincere act of love for our brother opens our heart, softens it and liberates it from selfishness. And thus, the heart is better disposed to let itself be loved by God.

This is why Saint Bonaventure said that works of mercy facilitate divine contemplation and prepare us to fully love God:

There is a certain action that, together with contemplation, does not prevent it, but rather makes it easier, such as works of mercy and piety (IV Sent., 37,1, 3, ad 6).

Whoever wants to be a perfect lover of God must train himself above all in love for his neighbor (III Sent., 27, 2, 4).

In that sense, it is good to note that, when the Bible speaks of God as a husband, it does not refer to the Lord as husband of the heart of each human being, but as husband of his People, or husband of the Church (Hos 2 ,21-25; Eph 5,25; Rev 21,2-3). That means that I can only make an authentic and passionate experience of God’s love if I feel part of his People, if I join his Church, if I do not isolate myself or separate myself from others.

CHAPTER 9

God in the Couple’s Orgasm

So far, we have talked about the possibility of reaching a kind of fulfilling orgasm in our relationship with God, which does not imply so much physical alterations, but simply that God manages to touch the soul-corporeal center of pleasure, so that a satisfaction that encompasses the entire person is experienced. This leads us to another important consequence: it invites us to discover that, if God can be present at that level of our existence, he can also be present when two human beings love each other and reach orgasm; and that orgasm, experienced in the presence of God, can also be a sublime act of worship to God.

This is indubitable if we start from a basic assumption: God loves man’s happiness, therefore, it is also an act of worship to God to experience a moment of happiness.

Some texts from the Bible confirm this truth:

There is no greater happiness for a man than to eat and drink and enjoy himself in the midst of his fatigues. I see that this also comes from the hand of God, because whoever eats and drinks has this from God (Ecc 2:24-25).

Let every man eat and drink and enjoy himself in the midst of his worries. That is a gift from God (Ecc 11:8).

Son, treat yourself well with what you have... Do not deprive yourself of having a good day, do not fail to satisfy any legitimate desire (Sir 14,11.14).

We thus see that pleasure is also something religious, because “it is a gift from God.” Therefore, he who is able to enjoy the presence of God, can more easily be aware of God’s love, and thus open himself to loving others. He who is not able to enjoy the pleasures of life, because he does not love or accept himself, will hardly be able to generously love others. This is why the Bible says:

He who is bad to himself cannot be good to anyone. He does not find contentment in the midst of treasures. No one is worse than he who tortures himself (Sir 14:5-6).

We can, therefore, say that we are pleasing God and worshiping him when we are able to enjoy the small and legitimate pleasures of life. So, we don’t have to flee or hide from God when we enjoy, because it is he who “created all things for us to enjoy” (1 Tim 6:17). Let’s read, for example, the Bible’s praise of wine:

Wine is like life for man, if you drink it with measure. What is life for he who does not have wine, which has been created for the joy of men? It is joy of the heart and contentment of the soul... (Sir 31:27-28).

All this can also be said of sexual pleasure, which has been created by God for the happiness of man. For this reason, in the Bible itself we find praise for the woman’s body, such as the following:

How beautiful you are, how charming, oh love, oh daughter of delights! Your waist is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like clusters. Therefore, I have already said, I will climb the palm tree and take those clusters (Song 7:79).

Furthermore, sexual pleasure has a particular nobility above the other pleasures of the body, because sexual pleasure is experienced by two, it is shared, and it can be a wonderful expression of love. But precisely for this reason, sexual pleasure can lose all its beauty when it is only a search for personal satisfaction and the other person is not taken into account, when the other is used only for each one’s personal benefit.

The thing is that a human being is not a plate of food or a glass of wine. He or she is sacred, and cannot be used, but must be an object of love.

When sexual pleasure is achieved in an act of love, when those who make love are two people who love each other, who accompany each other, who help each other, who have decided before God to share everything forever and despite everything, then sexual pleasure is also an act of worship to God, who loves the happiness of those who love each other. In that encounter of love, each person does not seek his or her own pleasure at all costs but treats the other with a delicacy and tenderness that reflects divine love, seeking that the other also enjoys as much as possible and be immensely happy. Thus, the pleasure of orgasm becomes a preview of the wonderful festival of love that is heaven. Because there is nothing that anticipates heaven better than an act of charity.

We must say, therefore, that God does not like the attitude of certain falsely spiritual people who permanently deny sexual relations to their spouse, with the excuse that they seek a more “perfect” love. Because it is precisely the sexual union, as an expression of love, that best manifests the love of the spouses, that which best protects it and that which makes it grow the most. The Second Vatican Council already said this:

Such love, merging the human with the divine, leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves, a gift providing itself by gentle affection and by deed, such love pervades the whole of their lives… This love is uniquely expressed and perfected through the appropriate enterprise of matrimony. (Gaudium et Spes, 49).

Sexual pleasure does not hinder spirituality or contemplation, because if the sexual union is an act of love, it does nothing more than open the heart, and thus facilitate the contemplation of God. Saint Bonaventure already said that “no one reaches contemplation if he does not train himself in love for others” (III S., 27, 2, 4; IV S, 37, 1, 3, ad 6), and according to Saint Thomas Aquinas “human affection expands with pleasure” (Summa Th., I-IIae, 31, 3).

It was the Greek mentality that negatively influenced Christianity, transmitting a certain contempt for the body. The Greeks did not have an understanding of man as unitary as that of the Bible; rather, they understood man as consisting of two “parts,” the soul and the body. For this reason, they easily went from exalting the body to showing total contempt for it. If they were dedicated to the body, the body was everything; if they dedicated themselves to spiritual things, they despised everything that had to do with the body. When this Greek mentality influenced Christianity, it produced the idea that to be more “spiritual” it was necessary to despise the body. However, we know that the worst sins, such as pride or hatred, are not exactly sins that have to do with the body; they are rather “spiritual”; and we also know that the body also intervenes in the greatest works of love and dedication.

Obviously, we do not want to say that everything that has to do with the body is holy, because a couple can take away from sex its most precious purpose, and lovers can become just two egomaniacs who masturbate each other. Furthermore, sex should only be a part of the couple’s life, a pleasant way to express love and make each other happy; sex for sex’s sake is a way of remaining in adolescence and a lack of maturity. Sex just for sex’s sake is in fact the most common form of sexuality for the adolescent person who masturbates, because in masturbation he achieves pleasure and escapes from commitment to the other, he protects himself from others and does not give anything of himself. In this way, he remains linked to his parents and does not break away from the family shell. The same thing happens to those who constantly change partners and thus escape emotional commitment. And that is, ultimately, what publicity proposes: adorning one’s own body and surrounding it with impressive things in order to obtain objects of pleasure; this is how the body is stripped of its dignity as an instrument and expression of love.

For sex not to be just a way of using and consuming each other, it is essential that the couple have other concerns and, above all, that mutual love opens up to seek together the happiness of others. Fighting together for something, getting out of the suffocating confinement of both, prevents pleasure from getting sick or dying, because this way the heart keeps itself open. In fact, in the Christian image of God, the love between God the Father and his Son is necessarily opened to a third person, the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all authentic love of a couple, source of the best pleasures, is open to others. The pleasure that not only produces a momentary release, but also plans and gives happiness, is the one that is united with love, and love is true holiness.

So united is pleasure with holiness that, according to Saint Thomas, if man were free from sin there would be much more pleasure in sexual intercourse (Summa Th., 1, 98, 2).

Therefore, according to Saint Thomas, sexual intercourse in marriage is no longer a “permissible sin”, as some Church Fathers used to say, but it can also be a meritorious act, which makes the perfection of a human being grow in the eyes of God. It is interesting to discover how in other religions there is also a deep appreciation of sexual pleasure. Danielou, based on an analysis of Shaivism, makes the following reflection:

Joy is a reflection of the state of perfection, of the divine state. For an instant man forgets his interests, his problems, his duties, and participates in the feeling of happiness that is his true nature, his immortal nature... We reach inner perfection a thousand times more easily — says this very ancient religion—by the experience of the joy of the bodies than through austerities. From erotic union to mystical union there is only one step easy to make (La sculpture érotique, Paris 1973,15).

And a venerable Egyptian theologian of the 15th century gave the following praise to God: Praise be to Allah, who establishes penises as hard and straight as spears to wage war on vaginas (Al Sonuouti).

Let us not forget that human sexuality is part of God’s most perfect work, that of the last day, when God, upon contemplating what he did, “saw that it was very good” (Gen 1:31).

To separate God from pleasure is to give up living a liberating experience of divine love. Wanting to hide from God when we experience pleasure, like that woman who used to hide the crucifix when she had intercourse with her husband, is believing in a false God who, instead of helping us to live, becomes a persecutor who hates our joy.

Just as an artist can offer to God, with immense tenderness, a wonderful work of art that he has managed to create, so too a couple can give to God a beautiful act of love in which they are able to overflow with pleasure and gratitude, making each other happy. God also enjoys with us; he is the most wonderful of poets, because their inspiration is also a reflection of the sublime poetry of God.

For some reason, when poets can no longer find words to talk about the excess of their love, they use words with a high religious content. For example, the word “grace” is one of the most sacred terms in Christian theology, because it expresses the completely gratuitous love of God, which cannot be deserved or bought with anything, which can only be received as a divine gift. When Pablo Neruda wanted to talk about what the body of his beloved woman meant to him, he had to use that word:

Body of my woman,
I will persist in your grace.
My thirst, my unlimited desire... (Poem 1)