Francis:

“I Will Not Say a Single Word”
 

Why … why did Francis refuse to reply to the shocking accusations brought about by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganň with these infamous words?
 

This question has mystified countless Catholics, journalists and reporters concerning the widespread Abuse Scandal of Predatory Homosexual Priests. There is an answer — an answer that is at once conspicuously cogent, compelling, and credible. In fact, it may be the answer to the most salient question surrounding the worst scandal that has ever plagued the Roman Catholic Church in the 2000 years of Her history:

“How was this possible?”

Dr. Taylor Marshall, Philosopher and director of the New Saint Thomas Institute, has provided us with a uniquely insightful answer which, when fully explicated, answers not only this vexing question concerning Francis, but the vicious mechanism by which homosexual predation within the clergy flourished and continues to be perpetuated.

The Answer in Short: MANIPULATING THE SEAL OF THE CONFESSIONAL

In order to understand this answer, it is imperative that you understand the following:

• A priest may NEVER — under any circumstance — break the “Seal of the Confessional” even if it costs him his life. If he does break that seal, he is automatically excommunicated from the Church (read on) and can no longer exercise any priestly function or faculty, celebrate any Mass, or receive Holy Communion. He is outside the Church. THIS IS THE VITAL POINT TO KEEP IN MIND.
   

• Let us assume that a homosexual priest has sexually violated (raped) a young man.
   

• To protect himself from the possibility of the exposure of his sin and crime, he enters the Confessional. Upon his confession, HE IMMEDIATELY BINDS THE PRIEST TO WHOM HE CONFESSES — both by the Seal of the Confessional and by Canon Law — TO NEVER REVEAL IT TO ANYONE, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, WHATSOEVER, no matter how many times he has done it or continues to do it.
   

• THIS IS A VERY FORCEFUL EXPLANATION OF WHY FRANCIS REMAINS SILENT.
   

• What is more, Francis may have had two possible reasons: not to break the Seal of the Confessional himself and incurring excommunication latae sententiae (the punishment  is concurrent with the action) — but also to BIND any priest to whom he himself may have confessed his complicity in perpetuating the same sin, from ever disclosing it.

We believe that this explanation exceeds mere conjecture, but  there is no way that we can ever know it for certain for the very reasons we have already articulated: such a priest can say absolutely NOTHING relative to it, either exculpatory or inculpatory, not even by so much as the slightest gesture for in doing so, he would be automatically excommunicating himself.

Demonic Perspicacity

It is nothing less than a demonically clever artifice, for it uses a Sacrament, something holy and inviolable, which in itself (in se) cannot ever be evil — to enable a person to manipulate the sacrament in order to continue to commit or perpetuate evil without disclosure or penalty — and to bind any priest who knows of his unspeakable sin through Holy Confession. It has been, and is, instigated by the devil and the demons. It is the work of darkness.

In a word, Francis could not respond to the question because, by Canon Law, if any priest — including the pope — breaks the “Seal of the Confessional” by word, gesture or deed; if he in any way whatever — violates the Seal of the Confessional and reveals the sins of the Penitent to anyone* — even to save his own life — and even if the Penitent is no longer living —  the priest is automatically excommunicated latae sententiae  (the instant he breaks the Seal) from the Church.

Of course Francis could never “say a single word” — not if he were to remain “pope” rather than excommunicating himself from the Church.

And this, very likely, is also HOW homosexuality became so pervasive within the priesthood and the episcopacy! Each was covering for the other by binding the other to silence through the sacred Seal of the Confessional — even if the Confessor was not homosexual himself!

This self-perpetuating problem can be understood in a broader context:  homosexual seminarians become homosexual priests  —  who become homosexual bishops  —  who become homosexual cardinals — who then vote for a pope who himself may be homosexual or at least sympathetic to homosexuality.

The longer the ordination of homosexuals, the more pervasive homosexuality will become in the Church until, in an ultimate effrontery to God, a “synod” or “council” or “pope” declares to its self-serving purposes that homosexuality is no longer a sin  —  despite every word about it in Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church for 2000 years.

Consider once again, the following scenario: a homosexual seminarian has sinful and perverse sexual relations with another seminarian.

He goes to confession.

Once he reveals his sin to the Confessor, that priest is bound not to let what he has heard from this seminarian influence him in any way. It is as though a confession never occurred as far as the world outside the Confessional is concerned  —  and the priest effectively becomes a sacred amnesiac. The priest cannot act upon what was confessed to him in any way. Even if the offender routinely has sex with other men, the Confessor cannot in any way influence the candidate's soon-to-be vocation as a priest. It is nothing less than diabolically conceived, implemented, and perpetuated  —  it has the “Mark of the Beast” upon it, from conception to conclusion.

“NOT A WORD CAN BE SAID”

It cannot be sufficiently impressed upon us that the moment the seminarian kneels in the Confessional (or, more commonly in the Novus Ordo Church, sits in a lounge chair and comfortably encounters the priest face-face in what resembles a clinical session —  an environment that lends itself  to “other pertinent” and more frightful possibilities inside the “Room of Reconciliation”  —  “NOT A WORD CAN BE SAID” to anyone outside the Confessional  —  ever.

One very troubling question remains: which side of the Confessional was Bergoglio in? The Confessor’s or the Penitent’s ... or both? He cannot reveal this. And this may well account for his malicious reference to the Confessional as “a torture chamber”.

Before the Sacrament of Penance itself is mindlessly vilified, it is equally vital to understand that the Sacrament of Penance is inviolably sacred and indefeasibly holy, for only through this Sacrament is sin absolved, the penitent cleansed, and upon enacting his penance, exempted from all temporal punishment, and reconciled to God and the Church.  Mortal Sin is removed and with it — eternal punishment in a very real place called Hell.

To use this sacred Sacrament, by which sins are absolved —  to sustain, and even implement sin itself — is a sin so grave, so sacrilegious, so profane, indeed, so blasphemous, that an even graver category of sin than even Mortal Sin itself seems necessary. May we suggest “Demonic Sin”? Why? Because complicity in this category of sin is so heinous, so blasphemous, that it is a participation in a sin that can only be predicated of the demons  — and the “Father Lies” himself.
_________________________

* Who may not be genuinely penitent at all, in which case the absolution granted by Christ through the priest is invalid and the “penitent” is further guilty of the greater sin of Sacrilege

¹ The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 decreed, “Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it without, however, in any way indicating the person. For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance.” See also: Canon 983.1 of the current Code of Canon Law, which declares that “…It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason” (#2490 CCC).  

Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com 
Boston Catholic Journal
March 3, 2019