Italian, English, Español

 

THAT CANCER THAT NO SURGEON HAS REMOVED AND THE METASTASES OF HOMOSEXUALISM WITHIN THE CLERGY

Avoiding the topic of clerical homosexualism, deluding themselves into thinking that they can speak and write in a serious and credible way about the crisis of the clergy and the training of priests, it's like talking about "priests on Mars".

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

 

.

Around the social network There is an increasing number of characters who speak casually about the crisis of the clergy, to then enter straight into a sphere of such delicacy that - as reiterated several times in these columns - would make bishops and priests with several decades of experience in the spiritual care of the clergy tremble, in particular those who find themselves in situations of despair, suffering from frailty or actual depressive syndromes. What few people talk about - and here comes the element of that fear of priests towards other priests which sometimes turns into terror - is the problem of homosexuality which is increasingly widespread among the clergy and, what is worse, of a true homosexualist culture that is taking hold through what - again in these columns - has been repeatedly referred to as the rainbow Trojan horse. This culture, which the members of a large "brotherhood" have been trying to impose within the Church for years, it is the tumor mass that unfortunately, until today, no surgeon was able to remove it. Therefore, talk about the crisis of the clergy and its training without addressing the metastasis of this cancer, like those characters do, it's pure rhetoric, sometimes even aimed at diverting attention from a problem that is anything but marginal: the symptoms are described in detail - the fear of judgement, betrayed confidences, the brother perceived as an adversary — without ever mentioning the illness, that is, a clergy that appears increasingly homosexualized.

What is the object of this analysis? Not homosexuals, over whose free life choices no one has the right to question, but the aspirants to the priesthood or homosexual priests about whom it is entirely legitimate to question, sometimes even necessary, because - as explained several times in several of my themed articles - they cannot freely be themselves. And a priest must always be able to be himself, openly and freely, certainly not living a life of pretense and duplicity, within which the sexual disorder, if present, it is destined to multiply at maximum power, in a climate of concealment and repression.

I. From transgression to suspension of conscience

Sins against the VI commandment they do not constitute anything new in the history of the Church: have spanned the centuries, as ancient and authoritative texts crudely attest, including the Free Gomorrhianus that Saint Pier Damiani directed around the 1049 to the Supreme Pontiff Leo IX. That text remains an unequivocal testimony not only to the vice, but also of the network of complicity that already protected him then: clerics who confessed to each other to absolve each other without anything leaking out, superiors inclined to cover up and minimize, culprits kept in holy orders. The future Doctor of the Church asked that they be deposed and no longer admitted to the ministry. The presence of sin, also serious and widespread, or even an organized complicity to hide it, it therefore does not represent the distinctive element of the current crisis, nor does it allow speaking, by itself, of an unprecedented decline.

The clerics denounced by Pier Damiani they hid because they knew they were in sin: their complicity was the defense of a guilt recognized as such. Which makes the contemporary situation radically different, in many respects unprecedented in ecclesial history, it is the crossing of a threshold of no return, beyond which the very ability to recognize good and evil and perceive danger is lost. In previous times, even in times of greatest corruption, sin was experienced as such, that is, as a fall, as weakness, as conscious infidelity. Conscience, although wounded, remained operational; the subject knew he was wrong, sometimes he justified himself, sometimes he hid, but he could not completely erase the internal judgment that characterized the act as disorderly. In the current situation, instead, we are witnessing a much more serious qualitative change: the suspension e, In many cases, the annihilation of moral conscience, accompanied by a culture that does not simply hide disorder, but it claims to legitimize it and impose it as a good. The behavior is no longer perceived as a transgression of a recognized good, but as a normal and undisputed way of acting. Moral judgment is not removed due to conflict or weakness, but because it is no longer considered relevant. The action takes place, to take the title of a work by Friedrich Nietzsche which has become dramatically current, beyond Good and Evil, not as a tragic and conscious choice, but as an ordinary condition of existence.

This anthropological mutation it has profound consequences on the ecclesial level. Where sin is experienced as a fall, the possibility of conversion remains open; where it is experienced as normality without judgement, conversion is not simply rejected, but it becomes unthinkable. There is no internal conflict, there is no repentance, there is no question of truth. The conscience is not silenced: he doesn't speak at all anymore. It is in this context that we understand how a morally disordered condition can transform from personal fragility into a functional factor for clerical power. Subjects without moral friction, not crossed by the drama of limits, incapable of recognizing an objective good that judges the action, they are particularly suitable for inserting themselves into government mechanisms based on silence, on complicity and mutual exposure. Lack of conscience is no longer an obstacle, but an advantage.

The clerical homosexualist lobby it fits precisely into this fracture. It does not arise primarily from weakness or occasional inconsistency, nor from that human fall that, once recognized and crossed, it can even make man more aware and better than he was before. It is instead formed through the normalization of sin and lies as a condition of belonging, transforming what should be recognized and healed into an identity presupposition and system constraint. Where sin is no longer perceived as such, but experienced as acquired and shared data, it ceases to be a moral problem and becomes a constraint: what is hidden and common guarantees fidelity, what is unsaid and exchangeable ensures protection, what compromises everyone makes everyone controllable.

It is the distinction that the Holy Father Francis posed in unambiguous terms, responding to journalists on the flight home from Rio de Janeiro on 28 July 2013:

«The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers […]. The problem is lobbying this trend […]. This is the most serious problem for me" (cf.. who).

Not the fragility of the individual, so, but the organization, let lobby. In this scenario it is not the amoral clerics who are problematic for the system, but those who, despite living faithfully, maintain a vigilant conscience and refuse to enter that circuit of complicity, of silence and exchange on which clerical homosexualism is based and transformed into an organized structure of power. Consciousness frees, non-negotiable and non-blackmailable, thus becomes the destabilizing element, not for its polemical strength, but for its simple existence.

The current crisis it does not therefore consist in a resurgence of sin, but in its transformation into a criterion of governability, until reaching an even more serious drift: selection criterion for access to the priesthood e, subsequently, for the identification of candidates deemed suitable for the episcopate. When the selection process is affected at this level, the consequences do not remain limited, but they inevitably reflect on the entire ecclesial body. Yet the rule exists and is clear. The Instruction of the Congregation for Catholic Education approved by the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI and published on 4 November 2005 establishes that the Church, «while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit those who practice homosexuality to the Seminary and Holy Orders, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture" (cf.. who). The same provision was reiterated in 2016 from the Fundamental System of Priestly Institution (cf.. who). The problem is therefore not the absence of criteria, but their lack of application precisely where future priests and bishops are trained and chosen.

This is the passage that marks a decadence without historical precedent: not the fall of man, always possible since the dawn of time, starting from the irruption of original sin in history, but the construction of systems in which the fall is no longer recognized as such and consciousness, emptied of its judging function, it ceases to be a place of truth to become a neutral space, functional to power.

(II). Clerical homosexualism as a system founded on the normalization of lies

Every system of power that intends to preserve itself avoids, as much as possible, direct exposure. He doesn't act personally, he does not openly compromise himself, does not publicly take responsibility for its most controversial decisions. He prefers to operate through third parties, using subjects that act as a screen, by performers, from expendable tools. It's about the straw men and gods useful idiots: figures who don't really govern, but they act in place of power, carrying out what others decide, after having been neutralized by the illusion of belonging to power and gaining indirect recognition from it.

In the ecclesiastical context, these subjects are often clericalized lay people, permanently inserted in the Curia environments and in the administrative circuits, financial and media, or in any case in the places of greatest ecclesial influence. Even without formal institutional responsibility, they enjoy an operational freedom that the clergy cannot afford. They are the ones who intervene where clerical power does not intend to expose itself directly: intimidation, they delegitimize, they defame, they report, they accuse, they give rise to proceedings without any real basis. They act convinced that they count and have weight within the power structure, while in reality they are used precisely because they are replaceable, exposed and expendable, reduced to mere executive tools intended to absorb the impact of the dirtiest actions with which the clericals do not want to dirty their hands.

It is not uncommon for a lay person to become clerical, devoid of any formal mandate, suddenly becomes the promoter of "reports" motivated by an alleged zeal for the good of the Church. No explicit accusation, no concrete evidence: just allusions, suspicious, sentences dropped with apparent discretion. That's enough, however, that these voices reach the right environments that were already waiting for them in silent availability, for an assignment to be revoked, a broken collaboration, an isolated person. The layman exposed himself, did the dirty work; power remains in the background and conserves, as it were, clean hands.

This mode of action is not episodic, but structural. The clerical power thus maintains a safe distance and always maintains a plausible deniability. It is the same mechanism that is found in every organization that intends to exercise control without openly assuming the moral and legal weight. Responsibility remains invisible; the action, instead, it is very concrete, often devastating.

Alongside this first category, a second one emerges, even more aggressive and dangerous: that of ideologically clericalized lay homosexuals, characterized by bitter militancy, vindictive and sometimes openly violent on a moral and relational level. They don't just serve as passive tools of the system, but they become active actors, moved by the objective of clearing and legitimizing homosexualism within the Church, transforming it from a tolerated disorder into a criterion of recognition and belonging. These second subjects often act as the vanguard of the system: they say and write, also through blogs and social media, what certain poisonous clerics cannot afford to state publicly; they attack whom these clerics cannot attack directly; they exert constant pressure through accusations, insinuations, reports to ecclesiastical authorities and delegitimization campaigns. Their strength lies in the almost total absence of constraints. They do not respond to formal ecclesiastical authority, they do not risk canonical sanctions, they do not pay any institutional price and, in practice, they operate in an area of ​​substantial impunity, which renders any attempt at a proportionate legal reaction ineffective. For this reason they are extremely useful to certain clerical fringes who use them while maintaining an apparently neutral position: they are the ones who expose themselves, to talk, to write, to report, while the device remains in the background, pronto, if necessary, to declare himself extraneous to the facts. In this way they can strike, intimidate and delegitimize without suffering serious consequences.

None of these entities could operate effectively if the truth were recognized and assumed as a common operational criterion, that is, as a concrete parameter to evaluate behaviors, make decisions, attribute responsibility and intervene when abuse or lies emerge. They thrive in a context in which silence is rewarded, discretion is elevated to a virtue, loyalty is not measured by righteousness, but on the ability not to undermine the system. Lying is no longer perceived as a deviation, but as a necessary condition to remain within the circuit.

It is in this environment that clerical homosexualism it ceases to be a sum of individual behaviors and takes the form of a system. Not because everyone participates, but because those who are part of it accept unwritten rules, but very rigid: don't see, don't talk, do not name. Private life becomes an instrument of control; the shared secret becomes a guarantee of reliability; mutual compromise becomes the basis of protection. Whoever accepts these conditions is integrated; who rejects them, even without reporting anything, is perceived as a dangerous destabilizing element, therefore as problematic. The lie, thus normalized, it is no longer a side effect of the system, but its operational foundation. It is the old technique of the Devil, capable of telling nine truths for later, finally reached the tenth, tell a colossal lie that completely distorts what was previously said. At that point the truth becomes distorted, by diabolical paradox, functional support for lying, which may also be an omission: not just not telling it like it is, but deny how things are.

To govern this system are not, ultimately, those who speak or act visibly, but those ecclesiastics who never intervene directly, who observe, they listen, they let it happen. They do not give explicit orders, they do not sign measures, they do not make formalized decisions, but nothing happens without their tacit consent. When the damage is done, they can always claim not to know, that they were not informed, that you have not authorized anything, sacrificing if anything, if necessary, the useful idiots sent to the office they used. The power, so practiced, it remains intact precisely because it is not exposed: governs by delegation, strikes vicariously, preserves one's position while others absorb the conflict and responsibility. It is within this degraded environment, degrading and opaque that the clerical homosexualist lobby finds the ideal conditions to consolidate and reproduce with incalculable damage.

It is on this basis that clerical homosexualism becomes a stable organism, capable of defending itself and influencing the structure of ecclesiastical government, at the same time preparing the ground for further forms of exchange and blackmail, in which sexual compromise becomes the currency of government. Avoiding the topic of clerical homosexualism, deluding themselves into thinking that they can speak and write in a serious and credible way about the crisis of the clergy and the training of priests, it's like talking about "priests on Mars".

From the island of Patmos, 22 October 2026

.

THE CANCER NO SURGEON HAS REMOVED AND THE METASTASES OF HOMOSEXUALISM WITHIN THE CLERGY

To evade the issue of clerical homosexualism, under the illusion of being able to speak and write seriously and credibly about the crisis of the clergy and the formation of priests, is like talking about «priests on Mars».

— Contemporary ecclesial affairs —

.

All over the social networks there is a growing number of characters who speak glibly about the crisis of the clergy, only to go in feet first into a sphere so delicate that — as we have stated more than once in these columns — bishops and priests would tremble before it, even those with several decades of experience in the spiritual care of the clergy, particularly of priests in states of despondency, beset by frailty or by genuine depressive syndromes. What few people speak of — and here we come to that fear priests have of other priests, which at times turns into terror — is the problem of an ever more widespread homosexuality among the clergy and, what is worse, of a genuine homosexualist culture that is gaining ground through what — again in these columns — has repeatedly been called the rainbow Trojan horse. This culture, which the members of a large «confraternity» have for years been trying to impose within the Church, is the tumorous mass which, sadly, no surgeon has so far managed to remove. Therefore, to speak of the crisis of the clergy and of its formation without addressing the metastases of this cancer, as those characters do, is mere rhetoric, at times even aimed at diverting attention from a problem that is anything but marginal: they describe its symptoms in abundant detail — the fear of judgement, betrayed confidences, the brother priest perceived as an adversary — without ever naming the disease, namely a clergy that appears ever more homosexualised.

What is the object of this analysis? Not homosexuals, whose free life choices no one has any right to sit in judgement on, but candidates for the priesthood or homosexual priests, whom it is entirely legitimate, at times even a duty, to scrutinise, because — as I have explained more than once in several of my articles on the subject — they cannot freely be themselves. A priest must always be able to be himself, openly and freely, not live a life of pretence and duplicity, in which sexual disorder, where present, is bound to multiply to the highest power, in a climate of concealment and repression.

I. From Transgression to the Suspension of Conscience

Sins against the Sixth Commandment are no novelty in the history of the Church: they have run through the centuries, as ancient and authoritative texts starkly attest, among them the Free Gomorrhianus which Saint Peter Damian addressed around 1049 to the Supreme Pontiff Leo IX. That text remains an unequivocal testimony not only to the vice, but also to the network of complicity that already protected it: clerics who confessed to one another so as to absolve each other without anything leaking out, superiors inclined to cover up and play down, culprits kept in sacred orders. The future Doctor of the Church demanded that they be deposed and no longer admitted to the ministry. The presence of sin, even grave and widespread, or indeed of an organised complicity to conceal it, is therefore not the distinguishing feature of the present crisis, nor does it, in itself, allow us to speak of an unprecedented decadence.

The clerics denounced by Peter Damian hid because they knew they were in sin: their complicity was the defence of a guilt recognised as such. What makes the contemporary situation radically different, in many respects unprecedented in ecclesial history, is the crossing of a point of no return, beyond which the very capacity to recognise good and evil and to perceive danger fails. In earlier ages, even in moments of the greatest corruption, sin was experienced as such, that is to say as a fall, as weakness, as conscious infidelity. Conscience, though wounded, remained operative; the subject knew he was doing wrong, sometimes justified himself, sometimes hid, but could not entirely erase the inner judgement that qualified the act as disordered. In the present situation, by contrast, we witness a far graver qualitative shift: the suspension and, in many cases, the annihilation of moral conscience, accompanied by a culture that does not merely conceal the disorder, but claims to legitimise it and impose it as a good. Behaviour is no longer perceived as the transgression of a recognised good, but as a normal and unquestioned way of acting. Moral judgement is not set aside through conflict or weakness, but because it is no longer considered relevant. Action is situated, to borrow the title of a work by Friedrich Nietzsche that has become dramatically topical, beyond good and evil, not as a tragic and conscious choice, but as the ordinary condition of existence.

This anthropological mutation has profound consequences on the ecclesial plane. Where sin is experienced as a fall, the possibility of conversion remains open; where it is experienced as normality devoid of judgement, conversion is not simply refused, but becomes unthinkable. There is no inner conflict, no repentance, no demand for truth. Conscience is not silenced: it simply no longer speaks. It is in this context that one understands how a morally disordered condition can turn from personal frailty into a factor serving clerical power. Individuals devoid of moral friction, untouched by the drama of limitation, incapable of recognising an objective good that judges action, prove particularly suited to fitting into mechanisms of government founded on silence, complicity and mutual exposure. The lack of conscience is no longer an obstacle, but an advantage.

The clerical homosexualist lobby takes root precisely in this fracture. It does not arise primarily from weakness or occasional inconsistency, nor from that human fall which, once acknowledged and worked through, can even make a man more aware and better than he was before. It is formed instead through the normalisation of sin and of lies as a condition of belonging, turning what ought to be acknowledged and healed into a premise of identity and a systemic bond. Where sin is no longer perceived as such, but lived as something acquired and shared, it ceases to be a moral problem and becomes a bond: what is hidden and held in common guarantees loyalty, what is kept silent and exchangeable ensures protection, what compromises everyone makes everyone controllable.

It is the distinction that the Holy Father Francis drew in unequivocal terms, answering journalists on the return flight from Rio de Janeiro on 28 July 2013:

«The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another […]. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency […]. For me, this is the greater problem» (cf. here).

Not the frailty of the individual, then, but the organisation, the lobby. In such a scenario it is not amoral clerics who prove problematic for the system, but those who, while living in fidelity, preserve a vigilant conscience and refuse to enter that circuit of complicity, silence and exchange on which clerical homosexualism rests and turns itself into an organised structure of power. A free conscience, non-negotiable and not open to blackmail, thus becomes the destabilising element, not because of its polemical force, but by its mere existence.

The present crisis therefore does not consist in a resurgence of sin, but in its transformation into a criterion of governability, to the point of an even graver drift: a criterion of selection for access to the priesthood and, subsequently, for identifying the candidates deemed suitable for the episcopate. When the selection process is compromised at this level, the consequences do not remain circumscribed, but inevitably affect the entire ecclesial body. And yet the norm exists and is clear. The Instruction of the Congregation for Catholic Education approved by the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI and published on 4 November 2005 establishes that the Church, «while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”» (cf. here). The same provision was reaffirmed in 2016 by the Fundamental System of Priestly Institution (cf. here). The problem, then, is not the absence of criteria, but their non-application precisely where future priests and bishops are formed and chosen.

This is the step that marks a decadence without historical precedent: not the fall of man, always possible since the dawn of time, from the irruption of original sin into history, but the construction of systems in which the fall is no longer recognised as such and conscience, emptied of its judging function, ceases to be a place of truth and becomes a neutral space serving power.

(II). Clerical Homosexualism as a System Founded on the Normalisation of Lies

Every system of power that intends to preserve itself avoids, as far as possible, direct exposure. It does not act in the first person, does not compromise itself openly, does not publicly take responsibility for its most controversial decisions. It prefers to operate through intermediaries, making use of individuals who serve as screens, as executors, as expendable instruments. These are the men of straw and the useful idiots: figures who do not really govern, but act in place of power, carrying out what others decide, after having been neutralised by the illusion of belonging to power and of drawing an indirect recognition from it.

In the ecclesiastical context, these individuals are often clericalised laymen, permanently embedded in Curial circles and in administrative, financial and media networks, or in any case in the places of greatest ecclesial influence. Though lacking any formal institutional responsibility, they enjoy a freedom of action that the clergy cannot afford. It is they who step in where clerical power does not wish to expose itself directly: they intimidate, delegitimization, defame, report, accuse, set in motion proceedings devoid of any real foundation. They act convinced that they count and carry weight within the power structure, while in reality they are used precisely because they are replaceable, exposed and expendable, reduced to mere executive tools destined to absorb the impact of the filthiest actions with which the clericalists do not wish to dirty their hands.

It is not uncommon for a clericalised layman, devoid of any formal mandate, suddenly to become the promoter of «reports» motivated by a supposed zeal for the good of the Church. No explicit accusation, no concrete evidence: only allusions, suspicions, phrases dropped with apparent discretion. It is enough, however, for such rumours to reach the right circles, which were already awaiting them in silent readiness, for an appointment to be revoked, a collaboration ended, a person isolated. The layman has exposed himself, he has done the dirty work; power remains in the background and keeps, so to speak, its hands clean.

This mode of action is not episodic, but structural. Clerical power thus keeps a safe distance and always maintains plausible deniability. It is the same mechanism found in any organisation that intends to exercise control without openly assuming its moral and legal burden. Responsibility remains invisible; the action, however, is very concrete, often devastating.

Alongside this first category there emerges a second, even more aggressive and dangerous: that of ideologically clericalised homosexual laymen, marked by a harsh, vindictive and at times openly violent militancy on the moral and relational plane. They do not merely serve as passive instruments of the system, but become its active players, driven by the aim of mainstreaming and legitimising homosexualism within the Church, turning it from a tolerated disorder into a criterion of recognition and belonging. These second individuals often act as the vanguard of the system: they say and write, also through blogs and social media, what certain venomous clerics cannot afford to state publicly; they attack those whom these clerics cannot strike directly; they exert constant pressure through accusations, insinuations, reports to the ecclesiastical authorities and campaigns of delegitimisation. Their strength lies in the almost total absence of constraints. They answer to no formal ecclesiastical authority, they risk no canonical sanctions, they pay no institutional price and, in practice, they act in a zone of substantial impunity that renders ineffective every attempt at a proportionate legal response. This is why they prove extremely useful to certain clerical factions that make use of them while maintaining an apparently neutral position: it is they who expose themselves, who speak, write and report, while the apparatus remains in the background, ready, if need be, to disclaim any involvement. In this way they can strike, intimidate and delegitimise without suffering serious consequences.

None of these individuals could operate effectively if truth were acknowledged and adopted as a common operative criterion, that is, as a concrete standard for assessing conduct, making decisions, assigning responsibility and intervening when abuses or lies come to light. They thrive in a context in which silence is rewarded, discretion is raised to a virtue, loyalty is measured not by rectitude, but by the ability not to put the system in crisis. Lying is no longer perceived as a deviation, but as a necessary condition for remaining inside the circuit.

It is in this environment that clerical homosexualism ceases to be a sum of individual behaviours and takes shape as a system. Not because everyone takes part in it, but because those who belong to it accept unwritten yet very rigid rules: see nothing, say nothing, name nothing. Private life becomes an instrument of control; the shared secret becomes a guarantee of reliability; being mutually compromised becomes the foundation of protection. Those who accept these conditions are integrated; those who refuse them, even without denouncing anything, are perceived as a dangerous destabilising element and therefore as a troublemaker. The lie, thus normalised, is no longer a side effect of the system, but its operational foundation. It is the Devil’s old technique: he is capable of telling nine truths and then, having finally reached the tenth, telling a colossal lie that utterly distorts whatever truth had been told before. At that point the distorted truth becomes, by diabolical paradox, a functional support for the lie, which may also be an omission: not merely failing to tell things as they are, but denying how things are.

Those who govern this system are not, in the final analysis, the ones who speak or act visibly, but those churchmen who never intervene directly, who observe, listen, let things happen. They issue no explicit orders, sign no measures, take no formal decisions, yet nothing happens without their tacit consent. When the damage is done, they can always declare that they did not know, that they had not been informed, that they had authorised nothing, sacrificing instead, when necessary, the useful idiots they had sent to the charge and made use of. Power exercised in this way remains intact precisely because it does not expose itself: it governs by delegation, strikes through intermediaries, preserves its own position while others absorb the conflict and the responsibility. It is within this degraded, degrading and opaque environment that the clerical homosexualist lobby finds the ideal conditions to consolidate and reproduce itself, causing incalculable damage.

It is on this basis that clerical homosexualism becomes a stable organism, capable of defending itself and of shaping the structure of ecclesiastical government, while at the same time preparing the ground for further forms of exchange and blackmail, in which being sexually compromised becomes the currency of government. To evade the issue of clerical homosexualism, under the illusion of being able to speak and write seriously and credibly about the crisis of the clergy and the formation of priests, is like talking about «priests on Mars».

From The Island of Patmos, 22 October 2026

.

THE CANCER THAT NO SURGEON HAS REMOVED AND THE METASTASES OF HOMOSEXUALISM WITHIN THE CLERGY

Avoiding the issue of clerical homosexuality, with the hope of being able to speak and write in a serious and credible way about the crisis of the clergy and the formation of priests, It's like talking about "cures on Mars".

- Ecclesial news -

.

On social networks characters are multiplying who speak with ease about the crisis of the clergy, and then rush into a sphere of such delicacy that — as we have reiterated more than once in these columns — would make bishops and priests with several decades of experience in the spiritual care of the clergy tremble., particularly those who find themselves in situations of despondency, subject to frailties or true depressive syndromes. What few talk about - and here comes the element of that fear of priests towards other priests that sometimes turns into terror - is the problem of homosexuality that is increasingly widespread in the clergy and, what's worse, of a true homosexual culture that is gaining ground through what — also in these columns — has been repeatedly pointed out as the rainbow Trojan horse. This culture, that the members of a large "brotherhood" have been trying to impose for years within the Church, is the tumor mass that, unfortunately, To date, no surgeon has managed to remove. So, talk about the crisis of the clergy and their formation without facing the metastases of this cancer, How do those characters do?, It's pure rhetoric, sometimes even aimed at diverting attention from a problem that is far from being marginal: its symptoms are described at length — fear of judgment, confidences betrayed, the brother priest perceived as an adversary — without ever naming the illness, that is to say, a clergy that seems increasingly homosexualized.

What is the purpose of this analysis? Not homosexuals, about whose free life choices no one has the right to speak out, but aspirants to the priesthood or homosexual priests, about which, instead, It is completely legal, and sometimes even a duty, pronounce, because — as I have explained several times in different articles of mine on the subject — they cannot freely be themselves. And a priest must always be able to be himself, openly and freely: can't live a life of fiction and duplicity, within which sexual disorder, if present, is intended to multiply at maximum power, in a climate of concealment and repression.

1. From transgression to suspension of consciousness

Sins against the sixth commandment They do not constitute anything new in the history of the Church: have passed through the centuries, as ancient and authoritative texts crudely attest, among them the Free Gomorrhianus that Saint Peter Damian directed towards the year 1049 to His Highness Pontiff Leo IX. That text continues to be an unequivocal testimony not only of the vice, but also from the network of complicities that even then protected him: clerics who confessed to each other to absolve each other without anything transcending, superiors inclined to conceal and minimize, guilty kept in holy orders. The future Doctor of the Church asked that they be deposed and no longer admitted to the ministry.. The presence of sin, serious and widespread, or even organized complicity to hide it, does not therefore constitute the distinctive element of the current crisis, not even allowed to speak, alone, of unprecedented decline.

The clerics denounced by Pedro Damián They hid because they knew they were in sin: his complicity was the defense of a guilt recognized as such. What makes the contemporary situation radically different, in many ways unprecedented in ecclesial history, is the exceeding of a threshold of no return, beyond which the very ability to recognize good and evil and to perceive danger disappears. In previous times, even in times of greatest corruption, sin was lived as such, that is to say, like fall, as weakness, as conscious infidelity. The conscience, although wounded, was still operating; the subject knew that he was doing wrong, sometimes it was justified, sometimes he hid, but he could not completely erase the inner judgment that described the act as disordered.. In the current situation, instead, we are witnessing a much more serious qualitative step: suspension and, in many cases, the annihilation of moral conscience, accompanied by a culture that does not limit itself to hiding disorder, but rather seeks to legitimize it and impose it as a good. The behavior is no longer perceived as a transgression of a recognized good, but as a normal and undisputed way of acting. Moral judgment is not eliminated by conflict or weakness, but because it is no longer considered relevant. The action is located, for taking up the title of a work by Friedrich Nietzsche that has become dramatically current, beyond good and evil, not as a tragic and conscious choice, but as an ordinary condition of existence.

This anthropological mutation It has profound consequences at the ecclesiastical level.. Where sin is experienced as a fall, the possibility of conversion remains open; where it is lived as normality lacking judgment, the conversion is not simply rejected, but it becomes unthinkable. There is no internal conflict, there is no regret, there is no search for the truth. Conscience is not silenced: he just doesn't talk anymore. It is in this context where it is understood how a morally disordered condition can go from personal fragility to a functional factor for clerical power.. Subjects lacking moral friction, not crossed by the drama of the limit, unable to recognize an objective good that judges the action, They are particularly suitable for inserting themselves into government mechanisms based on silence., complicity and reciprocal exposure. Lack of awareness is no longer an obstacle, but an advantage.

The clerical homosexualist lobby is grafted precisely on this fracture. It is not born primarily of weakness or occasional incoherence, nor of that human fall that, once recognized and crossed, can even make man more conscious and better than he was before. It is formed, instead, through the normalization of sin and lies as a condition of belonging, transforming what should be recognized and healed into an identity budget and system link. Where sin is no longer perceived as such, but rather it is lived as data acquired and shared, It stops being a moral problem and becomes a bond: what is hidden and common guarantees fidelity, what is kept silent and exchanged ensures protection, what compromises everyone makes everyone controllable.

It is the distinction that the Holy Father Francis established in unequivocal terms, responding to journalists on the flight back from Rio de Janeiro on 28 July of 2013:

«The problem is not having this tendency; no, we must be brothers […]. The problem is lobbying for this trend […]. This is the most serious problem for me." (cf. here).

Not the fragility of the individual, sino the organization, the lobby. In this scenario it is not the amoral clerics who are problematic for the system, but who, living in faithfulness, They maintain a vigilant conscience and refuse to enter that circuit of complicity, of silence and exchange on which clerical homosexuality is sustained and transformed into an organized structure of power. The free conscience, non-negotiable and non-blackmailable, thus becomes the destabilizing element, not because of its controversial force, but for its simple existence.

The current crisis does not consist, therefore, in a worsening of sin, but in its transformation into a criterion of governance, until reaching an even more serious drift: selection criteria for access to the priesthood and, later, for the identification of candidates considered suitable for the episcopacy. When the selection process is damaged at this level, the consequences do not remain circumscribed, but they inevitably have repercussions on the entire ecclesial body. And yet, the standard exists and is clear. The Instruction of the Congregation for Catholic Education approved by the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI and published on 4 November 2005 establishes that the Church, "deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit those who practice homosexuality to the Seminary and Holy Orders, "They present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture." (cf. here). The same provision was reaffirmed in 2016 for the Fundamental System of Priestly Institution (cf. here). The problem is not, therefore, the absence of criteria, but its lack of application precisely where future priests and bishops are formed and elected.

This is the step that marks a decadence without historical precedents: not the fall of man, always possible since the dawn of time, from the emergence of original sin in history, but the construction of systems in which the fall is no longer recognized as such and consciousness, emptied of its judgment function, It stops being a place of truth and becomes a neutral space, functional to power.

1. Clerical homosexuality as a system based on the normalization of lies

Any system of power that seeks to preserve itself avoids, as far as possible, direct exposure. Does not act in first person, does not openly commit, does not publicly assume responsibility for its most controversial decisions. Prefers to operate through an intermediary, using subjects who act as screens, of executors, of sacrificial instruments. It is about the straw men and of the useful fools: figures that do not really govern, but they act in place of power, executing what others decide, after having been neutralized by the illusion of belonging to power and obtaining indirect recognition from it.

In the ecclesiastical context, These subjects are often clericalized laymen, Stably inserted in the Curia environments and in the administrative circuits, financial and media, or in any case in the places of greatest ecclesial influence. Although they lack formal institutional responsibility, They enjoy an operational freedom that the clergy cannot afford. They are the ones who intervene where the clerical power does not want to expose itself directly.: intimidate, delegitimize, defame, betray, accuse, They launch procedures that lack any real basis. They act convinced that they count and have weight within the power structure., while in reality they are used precisely because they are replaceable, exposed and sacrificial, reduced to mere executive instruments intended to absorb the impact of the dirtiest actions with which the clericals do not want to dirty their hands.

It is not unusual for a clericalized layman, lacking any formal mandate, suddenly becomes a promoter of "complaints" motivated by an alleged zeal for the good of the Church. No explicit accusation, no concrete proof: just allusions, suspicions, phrases dropped with apparent discretion. That's enough, however, with those rumors reaching the right environments, who were already waiting for them with silent disposition, to have a charge revoked, a collaboration is interrupted, a person is isolated. The layman has exposed himself, has done the dirty work; power remains in the background and preserves, so to speak, clean hands.

This way of acting is not episodic, but structural. The clerical power thus maintains a safe distance and always maintains a plausible deniability.. It is the same mechanism that is found in any organization that seeks to exercise control without openly assuming its moral and legal weight.. Responsibility remains invisible; the action, instead, It is very specific, often devastating.

Along with this first category, a second arises, even more aggressive and dangerous: that of ideologically clericalized homosexual laymen, characterized by harsh militancy, vengeful and sometimes openly violent on a moral and relational level. They are not limited to acting as passive instruments of the system, but they become its active actors, motivated by the objective of giving a letter of citizenship and legitimizing homosexuality within the Church, transforming it from tolerated disorder into a criterion of recognition and belonging. These second subjects often act as the vanguard of the system: they say and write, also through blogs and social networks, what certain poisonous clerics cannot afford to state publicly; They attack who those clerics cannot hit directly; They exert constant pressure through accusations, advances, complaints to the ecclesiastical authorities and delegitimization campaigns. Its strength lies in the almost total absence of ties. They are not answerable to any formal ecclesiastical authority, they do not risk canonical sanctions, They do not pay any institutional price and, in practice, They act in an area of ​​substantial impunity that makes any attempt at a proportionate legal reaction ineffective.. That is why they are extremely useful to certain clerical factions that use them while maintaining an apparently neutral position.: they are the ones who expose themselves, they talk, they write and report, while the device remains in the background, willing, if necessary, to declare himself unaware of the facts. In this way they can hit, intimidate and delegitimize without suffering serious consequences.

None of these subjects could operate effectively if the truth were recognized and assumed as a common operational criterion, that is to say, as a specific parameter to assess behaviors, make decisions, assign responsibility and intervene when abuse or lies arise. They thrive in a context where silence is rewarded, discretion is elevated to virtue, loyalty is not measured by righteousness, but for the ability to not put the system in crisis. Lying is no longer perceived as deviation, but as a necessary condition to remain within the circuit.

It is in this environment that clerical homosexualism It stops being a sum of individual behaviors and is configured as a system. Not because everyone participates in it, but because whoever is part of it accepts unwritten rules, but very rigid: not see, not speak, do not name. Private life becomes an instrument of control; the shared secret, in guarantee of reliability; mutual exposure to blackmail, on the basis of protection. Whoever accepts these conditions is integrated; who rejects them, even without reporting anything, is perceived as a dangerous destabilizing element and, therefore, like someone problematic. The lie, so normalized, It is no longer a side effect of the system, but its operational foundation. It's the old technique of the Devil, able to tell nine truths and then, finally reached the tenth, tell a colossal lie that completely distorts everything that was true that had been said before. At that point the denatured truth becomes, by diabolical paradox, in functional support of lying, which may also be an omission: not just not telling things like they are, but to deny how things are.

Who governs this system? they are not, in last analysis, those who speak or act visibly, but those ecclesiastics who never intervene directly, what they observe, they listen, let them do. They do not give explicit orders, they do not sign provisions, they do not make formal decisions, but nothing happens without your tacit consent. When the damage is done, They can always declare that they did not know, that they had not been informed, that they had not authorized anything, sacrificing in any case, the time has come, to the useful fools that they had launched into the charge and of which they had made use. The power, exercised like this, remains intact precisely because it is not exposed: govern by delegation, hits by intervening person, preserves its position while others absorb the conflict and responsibility. It is within this degraded environment, degrading and opaque where the clerical homosexualist lobby finds the ideal conditions to consolidate and reproduce with incalculable damage.

It is on this basis that clerical homosexualism becomes a stable organism, capable of defending itself and influencing the structure of ecclesiastical government, at the same time preparing the ground for further forms of exchange and blackmail, in which what is sexually compromising becomes the currency of government. Avoiding the issue of clerical homosexuality, with the hope of being able to speak and write in a serious and credible way about the crisis of the clergy and the formation of priests, It's like talking about "cures on Mars".

From the Island of Patmos, 22 October 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Anyone who wishes to support our apostolic work, by making a donation even for a small amount, you can send us your contribution conveniently and securely PayPal by clicking below:

 

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos