Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Pope's Statement on Msgr. Ricca: Magister Vindicated

Edit: the following is from the English version of Sandro Magister's page. His analysis explores the Pope's interesting comments about lobbies within the Vatican, and their destructive ability and how the Pope has essentially vindicated him. We should not assume that because the Holy Father is willing to be magnanimous toward Msgr. Ricca, that he continues to have trust in him, nor that he is no still concerned and about to do something regarding the "homosexual lobbies" in the Church.


Another set of answers concerned the “gay bobbies” at the Vatican and the case of Monsignor Battista Ricca, appointed by the pope prelate of the IOR before his scandalous past came to light.

No prejudice against homosexuals, but the lobbies no, they're not okay. This is the gist of what Francis said to the journalists.

In general, about the gays and the lobbies pope expressed himself as follows:

"So much is written about the gay lobby. So far I have not found anyone at the Vatican who has written 'gay' on his identity card. A distinction must be made between being gay, having this tendency, and being in a lobby. The lobbies, all lobbies, are not good. If a person is gay and is seeking the Lord with good will, who am I to judge him? The catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that gay persons must not be discriminated against, but must be welcomed. The problem is not having this tendency, the problem is being in a lobby, and this applies here just as it does to business lobbies, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies.”

While on the specific case of Ricca he said:

"In the case of monsignor Ricca I have done what canon law says to do: an initial investigation. There has been found nothing of that of which he has been accused. We have not found anything. Many times in the Church the sins of youth are sought out and then publicized. We are not talking about offenses, about crimes, like the abuse of minors which is a completely different thing, but about sins. But if a layperson or a priest or a sister has committed a sin and has converted and confessed, the Lord forgives, he forgets. And we do not have the right not to forget, because otherwise we risk that the Lord may not forget our sins. So many times I think of Saint Peter who committed the gravest sin, he denied Christ. And yet they made him pope. But I repeat, about Monsignor Ricca we have not found anything.”

Francis did not add anything else. He did not say that the facts alleged against Monsignor Ricca are false. He simply said that about these facts “nothing has been found” in the documentation submitted to him at the Vatican.

But since - as the pope now well knows - everything about these events is found in the documentation of the pontifical nunciature in Montevideo and at the time the documentation was sent to Rome as well, the deduction is obvious: at the Vatican a lobby worked to cover the tracks.

The pope also did not confirm his trust in Monsignor Ricca and declare the matter closed. Anything but. The “sins of youth” can be forgiven, he said. But only to those who sincerely confess and repent of them, as did Saint Peter. Not to those who have done and are doing all they can to conceal them, disguise them, get rid of them, with the help of a powerful lobby that is still not admitting defeat. One of those lobbies, the adjective does not matter, which Pope Francis has once again said he wants to uproot from the Vatican curia.

In the latest issue of L'Espresso, the magazine that broke the case, nothing other than this was written:

“Against homosexuals who live in chastity, including priests, bishops, cardinals, there is no preconceived hostility whatsoever in the Church, so much so that, in tranquility, a number of them have occupied and still occupy important positions. What the Church does not accept is that consecrated persons, who have made a public commitment of celibacy and chastity 'for the Kingdom of Heaven,' should betray their promise. When the betrayal is public, it becomes scandal. And to heal it the Church requires a penitential journey that begins with repentance, not with falsification, concealment, deception, worse still if carried out with the complicity of others, in a 'lobby' of intersecting interests, licit and illicit”.


Anonymous said...

The words of this Pope:

"In the case of monsignor Ricca I have done what canon law says to do: an initial investigation. There has been found nothing of that of which he has been accused. We have not found anything. "

That's because the "gay lobby" is protecting one of their own....his folio has been whitewashed spotlessly clean. There's not a blemish on his reputation. He's never done anything.

Does anyone with a brain believe that?

Tancred said...

I don't know what to think, and I've already suggested that Ricca may have useful information about the situation.

Anonymous said...

On a minor note, I find the use of the word "lobby" a bit odd. It implies advocates from the outside trying to influence government decisions:

from Wikipedia- ( )
In a report carried by the BBC, an OED lexicographer has shown that "lobbying" finds its roots in the gathering of Members of Parliament and peers in the hallways ("lobbies") of the UK Houses of Parliament before and after parliamentary debates.

Dictionary definitions:
-'Lobbying' (also 'lobby') is a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by the government by individuals or more usually by lobby groups; it includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups.
-A 'lobbyist' is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby.


In the case of the "gay lobby" at the Vatican I think this use of the word is incorrect. They're not "lobbying" when they're are so many of them inside of the organization. In comparison, I don't think you wouldn't call a homosexual congressman a "lobbyist" for homosexual causes. You would just acknowledge that his/her condition would probably play a role in their decisions. The term "lavender mafia" is more accurate.

Aged parent said...

One of my concerns in this whole debacle is the Pope's apparent acceptance of the rather ridiculous notion that one can be a "homosexual Catholic" (I refuse to use the word "gay" to describe this perversion). What does that mean? If he means one can be a Catholic and still be capable of committing heinous mortal sins then well and good. We are all capable of committing evil. If on the other hand he is somehow implying that one is "born" in this unnatural state then I must take issue with the Holy Father's words.

Rome talks much about the horrors of homosexual abuse of adolescent boys (without, of course, ever mentioning the homosexual word) but it is amazingly tolerant of homosexuality itself. Unless I am living in the Twilight Zone that does seem to be a gigantic contradiction.

I will await further events to see if the Pope will ultimately get serious with this particular mortal sin which is capable of destroying civilization.

Anonymous said...

He is a typical Vatican II Jesuit.

Lynda said...

There is a lot of dishonesty in relation to sexual sins that do not involve physical acts - particularly sins of a homosexual nature. It is anomalous to say the least.

Anonymous said...

Gradualism is going on in relation to homosex in society obviously and in the Church less obviously. I think it remains to be seen as to the Pope's thinking concerning this. The Pope did not say things in this exchange with the press that he was reported to have said or implied. The homosex lobby and the lavender mafia are responsible for this particular gradualism in the Church. And really the Modernist Catholic lay who are more guided by secular society than by the Church. Masonic influence, Jewish influence are at an all time high in Western Society and in the Church. And who can forget Satan.

Anonymous said...

Reply to myself and anyone else. It is true that the Bishop of Rome is always saying things that cause confusion. If he is capable of being clearer he needs to do so. His actions on the other hand do not cause confusion as most Catholics aren't aware that these actions are 'problematic'. So it seems.