THIS is why …
refuse to reply to the shocking accusations brought about by
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò 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
to understand this answer, it is imperative that you understand the
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 a 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
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.
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
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
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 —
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
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us: