Thursday, August 12, 2021

Aberrosexual Cliques in the Church - Polish Heresy Hunter Under Fire by Oppressive German Law and Aberrosexual Activist and Fake Conservative

Homoheresy in the Church: How Far Are the Power and Influence of Homosexual Affiliations in the Church?  What role does the Munich parish vicar and gay activist Wolfgang R. Rothe play?

 A bitter struggle is raging behind the scenes in the Catholic Church: aberrosexual clans and aberrophile circles close to them want to overthrow the Church’s teaching on aberrosexuality and enforce an open aberrosexualization of the Church.  The roots of this struggle with increasing intensity go back to the 1960s.  A particularly dazzling figure is the Munich priest and gay activist Wolfgang F. Rothe, who has left a trail of devastation in conservative circles over the past 20 years wherever he set foot.  The most recent example is a criminal complaint against another priest under the notorious "incitement paragraph".  Rothe has acted very differently in the past.

In the course of the past 55 years the initially subversive activities of aberrosexuals in the Church have turned into an open struggle in the course of the sexual revolution, in which aberrosexual  clans increasingly seek support from secular circles, especially the media.

A particularly colorful figure in the struggle for the aberrosexualization of the Church is the Munich parish vicar and sodomo-activist Wolfang F. Rothe.  Rothe is one of the aberro-activist priests who, in open contradiction to Church teaching, carried out or at least supported blessings for degenerate couples last May.  Although a priest, Rothe did not shy away from bringing another priest to a German court, as happened recently against the Polish priest, post-doctoral theologian and university lecturer Dariusz Oko and against the Catholic layman and editor of the magazine Theologisches, Prof. Dr.  Johannes Stöhr.  Rothe obtained a penalty warrant against those named for allegedly homophobic “incitement”.  The proceedings are pending.

 Rothe makes use of the controversial instruments that a misguided, left-dominated legislature introduced into legislation in recent years to promote aberrosexualization and to suppress criticism of it and the aberrosexual lobby.  The introduction of the offense “incitement” stands by definition for the will to restrict freedom of expression, which happens from year to year on more and more topics.  This is exactly the intention of Rothe, who knowingly attacks Church teaching with his complaint.

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, homosexual [sic] acts violate natural moral law (CCC 2357).  They are judged to be morally reprehensible and seriously sinful.  This view, taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, does not contradict freedom of expression.  Thus, in principle, sharp criticism of groups of people using the stylistic devices of polemics is legitimate as long as they propagate an aberrosexual lifestyle.  This is all the more true if these people belong to the Catholic Church or are even Catholic priests themselves.  Those who adopt the doctrine of the Church must come to  judgment: priests who carry out aberrosexual acts, advocate or encourage others in them, do serious damage to the organism of the Church.  This is all the more true when they form informal networks that have the purpose of protecting their double life, filling key positions, covering up criminal machinations or even wanting to undermine and overthrow Church teaching.

 In the Oko article incriminated by Rothe (Theologisches, January / February 2021), priests who live from the Church and sometimes make a career in it, such as the now legendary Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, use metaphors such as "cancerous ulcer", "cancer metastasis"  or "parasites".  That sounds drastic.  Anyone who, as a priest, belies the morality of the Church to which he has voluntarily committed himself through shameful behavior and causes unprecedented damage to the community of believers, however, must reckon with drastic criticism, from the Church's point of view, and this should be for a priest alone be decisive, is not so drastic: After all, according to Catholic teaching, aberrosexuality is one of the "blatant sins", those sins that are so serious that they cry out to heaven, that is, to God, for vengeance.

 Prof. Oko’s criticism of the "homo heresy" in the Church

 Of course, one no longer likes to hear that today, especially not in a worldly context in which everything seems allowed, especially what the Church forbids.  Nobody has to agree with Oko's choice of words, but every Catholic has to agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality, which Oko ably  defends in numerous writings.  Oko was the first to name the activities of subversive gay circles in the Church as "gay heresy".  A pioneering formulation.  Oko’s studies on aberrosexuality in the Church, especially in the clergy, explain the hostility that gay clusters and homophile circles represent, often from ambush, as they often camouflage themselves in order to be able to lead a double life.

 Oko's criticism in theology was not aimed against aberrosexuals, but against blatant abuses in the Church, as the editor of the magazine defended the contribution of the Polish theologian against a penalty notice from the Cologne District Court.  The grievances denounced by Oko include:

 -immoral behavior,

 -lying double standards

 -as well as reprehensible protectionism

- and careerism of Catholic priests.

 The Catholic spokesman for Christians in the AfD-Nord, Adam Golkontt, said:

 "The penalty order against Prof. Dr.  Dr.  Dariusz Oko is an attack on our fundamental rights.  The judgment attacks the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of science, religion and expression.  I call on everyone to show solidarity with Prof. Oko by signing the petition in his defense and reading his draft.  Because a court's attack on fundamental rights affects all German citizens regardless of their ideology. "

 Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller reacted with horror, who said in an interview with the Polish paper Do Rzeczy:

 "As a German, I am ashamed that it is again possible in my home country to convict a Polish scientist of sedition just because he gave the facts."

 A Catholic theologian raised questions about the Rothe case in connection with Oko's conviction:

 “In the end, one will have to ask the question whether the priest and gay activist Wolfgang M. Rothe, who years ago was involved in a sex scandal in the St. Pölten seminary and was reprimanded by Rome as a result, who possibly can’t bear pointed criticism of his double life? 
Why does he persistently spread the slanderous claim that Prof. Oko had disparaged aberrosexual persons as such, when it is easy to see that this was not his intention? "

 Conservative circles abused for self-interest

 The complaint against Father Oko by Father Rothe, of all things according to the "incitement paragraph", which is an instrument for gagging opinions, actually raises questions and seems to support Oko's main thesis in an exemplary manner.  On the basis of his studies, Oko came to the conclusion that there are aberrosexual clusters in the Church that cover each other and create an aberrosexual milieu in which young seminarians and other young men are sexually corrupted and minors are seriously harmed.  This includes the fact that the Church authorities in Munich and Rome have kept secret, that at least 80 percent of the unspeakable sexual abuse scandal by clerics against minors is made up of aberrosexual perpetrators and aberrosexual abuse.

 Speaking of Munich: shortly after Cardinal Reinhard Marx became Archbishop of Munich and Freising, he accepted Rothe in his archdiocese in 2008.  That Rothe, who four years earlier had been at the center of a scandal about the existence of an aberrosexual cabal at the seminary of St. Pölten as Sub Régent.  This scandal was exploited by progressive church circles, which had allied themselves with left-wing liberal secular media, to overthrow one of the outstanding episcopal figures in the German-speaking area, Bishop Kurt Krenn, which also succeeded.

 Rothe, a doctorate in canon law - his doctoral supervisor at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome was the current Archbishop of the Curia and private secretary of Benedict XVI., Msgr. Georg Gänswein, which opens many doors in conservative parts of the Church - stubbornly denied the aberrosexual charges raised against him.  Conservative Church circles, who wanted to protect themselves in front of Bishop Krenn, made themselves - obviously in good faith like Krenn himself, as was now to be seen - also defenders of Rothe, who gladly took advantage of this defense.

 Even more: the lawyer Rothe became an advisor to the conservative network of Catholic priests in the Federal Republic of Germany after a few years of hiding and incardinated in the Archdiocese of Munich-Freising, and it is precisely in this context that further questions arise today.  It seems to be largely due to Rothe’s influence that the Priest Network vehemently opposed the decision of the German Bishops' Conference of June 2011, the well-known criminologist Christian Pfeiffer and his colleagues at the Criminological Research Institute Lower Saxony (retired public prosecutors and judges) to inspect the personal files of the priests of the past  To grant ten years, in some dioceses even until 1945, to search them for evidence of sexual assault.  In January 2013, the bishops surprisingly canceled the commission, citing the reservations of the Network of Priests as reasons.

What was Rothe's interest in the fact that the personnel files should not be viewed?  How strong are the gay cabals in the Church in Germany?  How is Rothe's career since 2008 related to this?

In this case, too, well-known elements were repeated, which seem to be a pattern: Rothe called in unsuspicious conservative circles for his cause.  In plain language the question is: Did Rothe abuse the Network of Priests to protect aberrosexual clergy in the Church?

Rothe’s trail of devastation

Rothe, who initially had little contact with believers as a hospital chaplain in the Archdiocese of Munich, has shifted in the past decade to the rather weird topic of the “spirituality” of whiskey, which earned him the nickname “whiskey vicar”.  In Munich, where he has been working in pastoral care again since 2012, the staunchly conservative Krenn-Adlatus, who resolutely denied any gay entanglement, became an avowed gay activist.  The way from Paul to Saul, whereby Rothe was probably always a Saul, who for a while only disguised himself as Paul.

Wherever Rothe appeared, he left a trail of devastation in conservative circles.  Even in tradition he briefly put out his feelers and was trained by a priest of the Society of Saint Piis X in the celebration of the traditional Rite, but then withdrew again.  Some conservative circles, on the other hand, let themselves be captured by him and gave him a trust that they bitterly had to pay for.

Bishop Kurt Krenn, who promoted Rothe's career, enabled him to pursue a doctoral degree, obtained a lectureship at the Philosophical-Theological University of St. Pölten and appointed him Sub-Rector at the seminary there, as well as being his secretary and legal advisor in the last months of his episcopate, got entangled because of pedophile and aberrosexual scandals at the seminary, in its center among others. Krenn was so under public fire that he was retired from Rome as diocesan bishop.  On September 29, 2004, Msgr. Krenn resigned at the request of Pope John Paul II.

As a result, conservative journalists such as Felizitas Küble and the magazine Der 13th began a dogged defense of Rothe, although this was primarily aimed at Bishop Krenn.  They leaned far out of the window, too far, as Rothe's gay activism now shows.

The conservative Network of Catholic priests trusted Rothe and, incomprehensibly, opposed a consequent reappraisal of the sexual abuse scandal.  The Network of Priests actually no longer exists today.  It was decimated and leaders subjected to repression while Rothe continued his career, now under the protection of Cardinal Marx.

And another explosive question arises in view of the new circumstances around Rothe.  From 2004 to 2012 the controversial and very hostile site was active.  The site went online a few weeks after the resignation of Bishop Krenn, who had put an end to Rothe's career, at least for the time being.  When was discontinued at the end of 2012, Rothe's most recent mutations began as whiskey and gay activist. His observation time in the Archdiocese of Munich ended at that time and opened the way to parish pastoral care for him in Autumn 2012.

The eight turbulent years in which existed did serious damage to faithful conservative Church circles.  As early as autumn 2004, the German and Austrian Bishops' Conferences distanced themselves from the site that seemed to confirm all prejudices that are cherished by poorly sympathetic liberal circles against Church orthodoxy and its representatives.

The radicalism with which it used, especially against homosexuality and homosexuals was polemicized, and was useful to homophile Church circles, as the finger could be pointed at the supposedly homophobic conservatives in the Church, with whose attitude the bishops wanted to have had nothing to do with the published opinion. [ popularized Oko and his work, while exposing the activities of antifa, aberrosexual cults and evil clergy alike. They certainly didn’t deserve to be hounded out of existence and have their careers destroyed or eliminated. ]

Even more serious: Because of the lack of Catholic media, various conservative authors, priests and laypeople gathered around who saw it as a publication platform, but in reality burned themselves and their concerns with it. [Only because the German government turned the secret police on them.] 

The hunt for the makers of, fueled by secular media, became the hunt for outstanding conservative priests throughout the German-speaking area who were also active in journalism.  Although some of these were unrelated to the site, others had only published articles there, they were reprimanded by their bishops and their activities were slowed down. [Hardly surprising when you look at the sorry state of the German-speaking episcopate.] 

 Early on, the suspicion arose that the actual creator himself might be homosexual, as a conceivable psychological interpretation— and that was a false flag operation.  Anyone who still remembers the development and, above all, the fight against, knows what damage the site has inflicted on conservative institutions, personalities and their concerns. [ attacked Rothe before did. Let’s blame the victim, and accuse them of being sods, since they fell under the same unjust law Rothe is making use of here to silence Oko.]

This closes the circle on Rothe and its trail of devastation in conservative circles.  His most recent victims include Prof. Oko, Prof. Stöhr and the magazine Theologisches.

 Text: An anonymous theologian / Giuseppe Nardi

 Image: NBQ

Trans: Tancred



Anonymous said...

Heresy in the Church ?

Eric Sammons makes the common mistake of interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.He confuses what is invisible as being visible and then projects exceptions for the ‘absolutist’ concept of Catholic Salvation. So his Salvation Spectrum would not exist if he did not use the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I), Vatican Council II and the 16th century exclusivist interpretation of EENS.It is only with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II,i.e by confusing what is subejective as being objective, that for him,emerges the theological schools Exclusivist, Inclusivist, Pluralist, and Universalist.In his report The Ongoing Debate on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Crisis Magazine May 25,2021) and book Deadly Indifference he emerges as a politically correct with the Left, liberal on this issue, similar to Ralph Martin, who used the same false premise to remain vague.
With the false premise in the interpretation of LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II he creates practical exceptions for EENS. The present two popes, the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbisbishop of Boston did the same. They created alleged practical exceptions for EENS.So with there being salvation outside the Church, even though no one has seen or met such a case on earth in the present times, there emerges theologically, the universalist position of Bishop Robert Barron and the exclusivist and inclusivist theological position of the SSPX, FSSP and sedevacantists CMRI.
On the other hand we have the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA holding the absolutist position on EENS but contradicting it with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II with the same false premise, Eric Sammons uses.So even though they support EENS they negate it with Vatican Council II, similar to the popes since Paul VI and those whom they call the ‘Vatican Council II sect’.
So on a video on Traditionis Custode, Sammons could only say that the real issue is doctrine and in particular Vatican Council II. He could not elaborate. Since he was limited by the false premise of the LOHO, which is official and accepted by the popes.
Pope Francis is restricting the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass to only those who interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so reject the absolutist interpretation of EENS.The issue is the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Since even if Vatican Council II was accepted and interpreted with the rational premise, it would be unacceptable for the Left. Since there would be a harmony between Vatican Council II and the absolutist position on EENS of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Anonymous said...


For Pope Francis and Pope Benedict the LOHO supersedes the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils, with none of them mentioning any exceptions.This is political.
Eric Sammons also says that ‘the Church has condemned’ the theological position of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who said that the baptism of water was needed for all for salvation ( to avoid Hell).But a Letter from cardinals and bishops in Rome and Boston, approved by Pope Pius XII cannot contradict the dogma EENS supported by the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q,27Q) and that to with a faulty premise.Dogmas do not change.
It is unethical and dishonest when the LOHO is used to reject Magisterial documents which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Since there are no practical exceptions to EENS etc known on earth.But the popes since Pius XII accepted LOHO which is heretical and irrational and has brought in a new theology in the Church, which says outside the Church there is salvation ( with the false premise) and which was accepted at Vatican Council II. LOHO says not every one needs to be a Catholic for salvation and the Athanasius Creed still says all need the Catholic faith for salvation. LOHO says invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincinble ignorance are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so all do not not need to be a formal member of the Church for salvation. The Syllabus of Errors and the old Catechisms say all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
For Eric Sammons, the LOHO is Magisterial, and so he states that ‘the Church’ has ‘condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney’ without mentioning that the excommunication was lifted with the Boston priest only having to recite the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation. He was given a Catholic funeral with a bishop present there.The Boston heresy really referred to only the Archbishop of Boston and the popes and cardinals and Jesuits of that time who projected invisible and unknown cases at that time as being objective exceptions to a de fide teaching of the Church.
So today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise he cannot be magisterial. This is an important point which Sammons cannot discuss. It is when Crisis magazine choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premish, that there can be a Magisterial interpretation of the Council which would not contradict the past Magisterium of the Church.

Constantine said...

"This view, taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, does not contradict freedom of expression." It is not correct. The Teaching of the Church is not only that something is wrong, and not to be done. But also the freedom to express something wrong in public is wrong. This wrong idea came from the "pastoral" declaration in Dignitatis Humanae in Vatican II and gives legitimacy to Error and has to one day be corrected.
So, again, the Left is right in thinking their "Rights" are threatened. The problem is that "1st Amendment" US conservatives, and "ProEnlightenment"EU conservatives, are not conservatives at all, but Liberals and Puritans that believe in equal voice for vice and virtue, leaving it up to the individual's malformed, or misinformed conscience is coming from what God us telling them.

Anonymous said...

let's defend Father Oko and sign this petition: