By: Randy Engel
An Interview with Mr. Juan Cuatrecasas on The Gaztelueta Sex Abuse Case
[Note: The following interview with Mr. Juan Cuatrecasas Asua is a follow-up to the detailed investigative report of the Gaztelueta sex abuse case by this writer that originally appeared as a two-part series, “The Gaztelueta Sex Abuse Case – Opus Dei On Trial,” on AKA Catholic HERE and HERE. The reader may want to refer to that report before reading this interview with Mr. Cuatrecasas, the victim’s father. The Gaztelueta case is expected to go to trial on October 4 to October 11, 2018, at the Audiencia provincial de Vizcaya (Bizcaia) in Basque, Spain. – R.E.]
Randy Engel: Thank you, Mr. Cuatrecasas, for agreeing to this interview. I am grateful that you write and speak English so well. Is this your first American interview on the Gaztelueta case?
Mr. Juan Cuatrecasas: Yes, it is. You are very kind to interview me and allow me to talk about this terrible case, which is important not only for Spain but also for the whole world. The sexual abuse of anyone, especially a child, is, in my opinion, a way to denigrate the human being. It is a grave matter, as are the coverups and intrigues that accompany the crime and add to the misery of the victim.
R.E.:You have been seeking justice for your son and your family for many years, and finally that time has come. You must be experiencing both a sense of relief and anticipation with the criminal trial coming up in October.
J.C.: That the possibility of a criminal trial exists is itself a triumph not only for my son, but also for all victims of sexual abuse who have not been able to denounce their assailant(s) and who have been silenced by the hammer of false shepherds in the Catholic Church, and subsequently re-victimized by those very same false shepherds.
RE.:With your permission, let’sbegin with the latest news on your son. I believe that the Spanish press has used the pseudonym, Asier. Howold is Asier now?
J.C.: My son is now 22 years old.
RE.: I understand that in sexual abuse cases involving minors, especially adolescent males, recovery does not always follow a straight-forward path. Would you describe your son’s personality before and after the sexual and psychological assault on his person?
J.C.: As far as the change in personality of my son, I think this is more of a matter for the psychiatrist. What is clear is that my son never had problems in his young life until JMMS crossed his path at theGaztelueta school. From then on, his life and ours became hell.
[NOTE: “JMMS” refers to Mr. José María Martínez Sanz – Opus Dei numerary and alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse who taught religion, morality and languages at Gaztelueta, an Opus Dei school. – ED.]
RE.: Does he remain under medical and psychological treatment?
J.C.: Yes, he does.
RE.: In addition to the physical and psychological problems your son has suffered from his abuser, can you shed some light on what the spiritual repercussions have been for him and for your family? From previous interviews, I have received the impression that you and your family have become stronger in your Catholic Faith as a result of your many trials and tribulations. I hope this is true because other victims of sexual abuse and their families need to hear this.
J.C.:Of course, I can only answer this question for myself. I still think there is a God and that He is good and just. But to be honest, given the Catholic Church’s poor track record with regard to helping victims of sexual abuse and its failure to bring the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to justice, I simply no longer see the Church with the same eyes I once did. I do not think there is any room for cowardice, infamy, and lies in the Church that Christ Himself established. Maybe Pope Francis is the beginning of a better future for the victims of sexual abuse. I don’t know. But I do know there is a lot of work to be done, and it is taking much too long to accomplish that work.
RE.: I have some questions regarding the Gaztelueta School, where the assaults on Asier occurred. Can you tell me what you knew about Opus Dei and why you selected an Opus Dei school for your son?
J.C.:Well, as conscientiousparents we looked into all our options for schooling our son, and we picked the Gaztelueta school operated by Opus Dei. I had studied with the Jesuits, to whom I will always be grateful for the fine education I received, but I have never been a believer or member of Opus Dei. My wife initially favored the idea, but she, like me, was never a member.
It grieves me to say that we were wrong in our decision.
We have been humiliated, mistreated and harassed by Opus Dei officials and have suffered from their inhuman treatment of my son and our family. Unlike the traditional wooden Catholic crucifix, Opus Dei reminds me of a pure crystal cross without a corpus. It is hard and brittle. It has no heart. It shows no mercy.
RE.: The name of the alleged perpetrator in the Gaztelueta case is Mr. José María Martínez Sanz [JMMS]. I should explain that he is an Opus Dei numerary, not an Opus Dei priest. I understand he comes from a very prominent Spanish family? Is he expected to testify at the trial?
J.C.: Yes, JMMS is the nephew of a prominent conservative politician. I do not know whether he will testify or not at the upcoming trial. All I can say at this time is that his attitude toward my son and my family has been regrettable.
R.E.: Initially, I understand that the Director of the Gaztelueta school appeared to be sympathetic to your son and family, but that this changed as the facts of the case emerged and the consequences of JMMS’s actions became clearer. Is this true?
J.C.: Yes, it’s true. Imanol Goyarrola, the Opus Dei headmaster at Gaztelueta, is a sad and harmful character. His lies and his negligence in not protecting my son, but rather protecting the perpetrator of the crime against my son, will never be forgotten by me.
RE.: In my own investigation of the Gaztelueta case, I was very interested in thespecial role of the “preceptor” in the educational system of Opus Dei. Were you aware that Asier was assigned a mentor who was an Opus Dei unmarried man (numerary), who acted not only as a teacher but also as a personal guide and spiritual director and who had private and intimate access to your son on a regular basis?
J.C.: The preceptor of Opus Dei is a rather tricky figure. I don’t think that the concept of the preceptor is necessarily a bad one, but in the case of Opus Dei, the position is often used to proselytize and recruit young boys to Opus Dei. In my son’s case, JMMS violated his position both as preceptor and religion teacher when he sexually abused my son.
RE.: JMMS was a visitor to your home at one time, was he not?
J.C.: Yes, he took meals with our family on occasion, as this was the usual practice for Opus Dei preceptors.
RE.: I believe you commented in another interview that JMMS was interested in recruiting your son to Opus Dei while he was still a minor. How old was your son at the time? How did you and your wife react to this solicitation?
J.C.: Unfortunately, we did not learn of this matteruntil after the abuse had occurred. I do not know the exact age of my son when he was being recruited to Opus Dei, but I suppose he would have been about 12 or 13 years old.
RE.: As I indicated at the start of my interview, you and your family have been seeking justice for your son for many, many years. During this time what kind of support has your son and family received from other parents at the Gaztelueta school? From the Spanish hierarchy? From Bishop Mario Iceta Gavicagogeascoa of the Diocese of Bilboa where the Gaztelueta school is located ?
J.C.: To tell the hard truth,the only interest and support we have received has come from the Jesuits, from Monsignor Juan José Omella, now Archbishop of Barcelona, and from Rev. Angel Unzuet, Vicar of the Diocese of Vizcaya, whose support our family solicited. The rest of the Spanish hierarchy has been silent. As for Bishop Iceta, he has repeatedly lied about the Gaztelueta case.
RE.: At Christmas time in 2014, you received a letter of very welcome support from Pope Francis. How did the pope come to know about the abuse of your son at the Gaztelueta school?
J.C.: I sent a letterto Pope Francis with a personal messenger, and the Holy Father responded by sending my letter and the accompanying documents on the Gaztelueta case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which proved to be a dark hole from which no light emerged.
RE.: So, you turned over to the pope acomplete dossier of evidence supporting your charges against JMMS and the Gaztelueta school?
J.C.: I did.
RE.: And Pope Francis, in turn, gave that file over to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect?
RE.: Please tell our readers about the mysterious role that Father Silverio Nieto played in the Congregation’s investigation of the Gaztelueta case, which, in fact, never took place.
J.C.: Silverio Nieto, who came to my home and interrogated my son, allegedly as a compassionate and caring representative of the pope, is a sinister character in the Gaztelueta tale. He moves and walks in the shadows – cheating and lying. He was an authentic Richelieu – a concealer of truths and creator of lies.
I believe that Nieto acted as the premeditated and treacherous instrument of Opus Dei, which has been determined to silence our truth and our complaint against their numerary, JMMS, and the Gaztelueta school, which is an Opus Dei corporate apostolate. And I also know that Bishop Iceta and Archbishop Renzo Fratini, the Apostolic Nuncio to Spain, were complicit in the calumnies leveled against my son and my family.
RE.: Am I correct in stating that neither your lawyers nor you knew that the alleged inquiry of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was taking place at the Vatican, much less that it had been completed and had come down in favor of JMMS and Gaztelueta school officials?
J.C.:What you state is true. Neither my lawyers nor I was ever informed of the so-called Vatican “investigation” into the Gaztelueta affair. It simply did not exist. We were never given the opportunity to state our case. Everything that came to us was transmitted orally. We possess nothing in terms of official and concrete Vatican documents related to our case. All we received was a short phone call from Father Angel Unzeta who announced, “I have been told to tell you that they [the Vatican] have filed [closed] the case.” Period.
The whole non-existent “investigation” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was pure Theater of the Absurd!
RE.: At what point in time did your son decide to file a criminal case in Spain’s secular courts rather than go through the Church’s ecclesiastic juridical system?
J.C.: My son decided to start criminal proceedings against JMMS when he was 18 years old, that is, approximately four years ago. He made that decision on his own, and my wife and I naturally have supported him.
RE.:As we draw our interview to a close, what lessons do you think the Gaztelueta case could teach us?
J.C.: While Americans have been forced to deal with the issue of the sexual abuse of children by clerics and other persons associated with the Catholic Church for decades now, I think the reader has to appreciate the fact that, here in Spain, the issues concerning child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are relatively new.
I view pedophilia,which is the sexual abuse of young children, and pederasty, which involves homosexual attacks upon adolescent boys, as forms of terrorism. These young victims need social recognition and moral compensation and justice, and not just a cold and indifferent request for forgiveness unattached to any meaningful and concrete acts of reform both by Church and State.
In our country, many things have to be changed in both civil and criminal legal jurisdictions and in the canon laws of the Church. I have in mind the important matter of dispensing with the statute of limitations that often prevents victims of childhood sexual abuse from seeking legal redress because the State’s or Church’s time limit for taking action has run out. Also, when a psychiatrist, after a thorough study of the victim, has confirmed the damage to the child and validates the circumstances of the child’s abuse, it should not be necessary that the young victim be forced to repeat over and over again the details of his assault to the point of exhaustion before any legal assembly.
RE.: What are your hopes for the upcoming trial on the Gaztelueta case, not only for your son personally, but also for other victims of sexual abuse, especially children and adolescents?
J.C.: First, let me say that God is with the victims and their families. Those who cover-up for the perpetrators of these heinous crimes and treat the matter with abominable lightness, as is the case with Opus Dei, are not of God.
I am aware that there are many young victims of sexual abuse out there who, with their families, suffer in silence. Both the State and the Church need to legislate new laws and legal processes that will make it possible for them to come forward and plead their case regardless of their social or economic status.
As for the upcoming trial which begins on October 4, 2018, I expect a just sentence, that is, a sentence favorable to my son and against JMMS. I believe that the eyes of the world will be on Spain during this historic trial as the whole truth of the Gaztelueta sexual abuse case is revealed, layer by layer. And all of the lies and deceits of Opus Dei concerning the sexual abuse of my son will be exposed for all the world to see.
RE.: That is certainly my prayer for your son and your family, Mr. Cuatrecasas.
As we bring this interview to a close, do you have any concluding remarks?
J.C.: Yes, I would like to make one last personal comment concerning the earlier media coverage of the Gaztelueta case by CRUX Vatican correspondent Inés San Martín on October 13, 2015, titled “Vatican Closes Abuse Probe Promised by Pope Francis at Spanish School,” in which San Martín falsely claims that the Vatican had established the innocence of JMMS.
My wife and I had not seen or heard of the CRUX story until we read about it in the two-part series you, Randy, wrote for AKA Catholic on April 4 and April 6, 2018.
I think that journalist San Martín is one of the information media manipulators who have become part of Opus Dei’s vast media empire. The long shadow of her past attendance at Opus Dei’s University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, and the fact that most of the details she published on the Gaztelueta case do not correspond to reality, provide sufficient proof to discredit her and CRUX news service.
This is my first opportunity to challenge San Martín to back- up with evidence all her arguments and statements found in her article of October 13, 2015, concerning the Gaztelueta case.
I believe that she will not, that she cannot, take up my challenge, because to do so is impossible.
At this point I would like to recall the words of the North American writer and psychologist William James: “There is no greater lie than truth misunderstood.”
Opus Dei and its members and backers, journalists included, are specialists at doing just that.
Thank you, Randy, for this interview.
RE.: My thanks to you, Mr. Cuatrecasas, for granting me this important interview. The prayers of many Catholics and numerous people of goodwill from around the world go with you and your family in what I believe will be called “the Trial of the Century.”
As has been widely reported, Bergoglian Rome is soon to enter into an agreement with Beijing that would grant the Chinese Communist government a say over who is, and who is not, appointed to serve as a bishop in that nation’s dioceses.
Among the outlets reporting on the situation is the Wall Street Journal, which states:
The controversial deal would include the first official recognition by Beijing that the pope is the head of the Catholic Church in China. In return, Pope Francis would formally recognize seven excommunicated Chinese bishops who were appointed by the Communist government without Vatican approval.
So, in return for allowing the avowed enemies of Christ to pick and choose bishops based on their allegiance to the Communist cause, Beijing will “officially recognize” that the pope is the visible head of the Church on earth.
Wow! Some diplomatic breakthrough, no? This is like a father conceding authority to an unruly teenaged kid just so he will admit that he isn’t the head of the household after all. The very idea is preposterous, but then again, who ever said that the post-conciliar popes were accustomed to acting like true fathers anyway?
WSJ went on to quote Francesco Sisci, an Italian who teaches at Renmin University in Beijing, and who conducted an hour-long interview with Francis – his first ever on the matter of relations with China – in 2016 for Asia Times:
It [the agreement] doesn’t go as far as recognizing what we in the West call religious freedom but it is a degree of religious autonomy.
Sisci’s comment is almost, but not quite, spot on.
At the very heart of the matter lies the conciliar concept of “religious freedom,” whereby Christ the King was effectively dethroned and made to sit before the State shoulder-to-shoulder with all manner of false gods and idols, as if the voice of Our Lord is just one opinion among many; His Church but another constituency.
Addressing leaders of State (and that includes even the Communists that John XXIII agreed not to criticize), the Council stated in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae:
…the exercise of this right [to religious freedom] is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (DH 2)
Now, ask yourself (especially those of you who are loathe to criticize the Council):
Under this arrangement, who has the authority to decide what constitutes just public order as it concerns matters of religion? (HINT: It isn’t Christ the King and the Holy Catholic Church that He commissioned to teach all nations everything whatsoever that He commanded.)
It is the State! In the present case, the godless Communist Chinese government has decided that just public order – as they so define it – is best observed when the Catholic Church is impeded; e.g., as it concerns the matter of appointing bishops.
So, you see, Bergoglio’s agreement with Beijing doesn’t just come close to “recognizing what we in the West call religious freedom,” as WSJ’s expert stated; rather, it is a concrete manifestation of religious freedom precisely as set forth at Vatican II.
The WSJ article went on to state:
The reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Beijing and the Vatican remains a distant goal.
Indeed! As every honest observer must admit, the conciliar church’s mission has never really been evangelization, properly speaking, but rather is its mission nicely summed up as an exercise in “diplomatic relations.” This is why the once prominent Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (currently known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) has taken a back seat in the post-conciliar Curial pecking order to the Secretariat of State.
In other words, the “distant goal” of the conciliar church’s “dialogue” with the world – be it with leaders of State or practitioners of false religion – certainly isn’t the salvation of souls, or more immediately, conversion to the one true Church of Christ (aka the dreaded proselytism). Rather, the conciliar mission strives for nothing more than an earthbound sense of “public order” in service, not to God, but to “human dignity” (dignitatis humanae).
Faced with this reality, the “hermeneutic of continuity” types will no doubt scour the text of Dignitatis Humanae for evidence that the Almighty Council isn’t to blame. For example, they may be compelled to cite:
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers… (cf DH 4)
I get it. I too used to be among those poor fools who believed the post-conciliar popes when they assured us that the Council was a gift of the Holy Spirit that simply must be held blameless.
In any case, while the above citation seems to fly directly in the face of Bergoglio’s concessions to Beijing, the undeniable reality is that the Council has essentially declared before the State:
You may not hinder religious communities. You may, however, impede them in an effort to see to it that just public order – as you define it – is observed.
This isn’t complicated, folks. It is evidence of the “little leaven” principle that is repeated in Sacred Scripture – a thousand nuggets of truth can be rendered null and void by just one egregious error.
That said, the above-mentioned citation from the Declaration on Religious Freedom (art. 4) contains poison all its own. Think about it: Here, the Council is telling the civil authorities that they must not hinder the growth of even the false religions.
So, if the Muslims wish to establish mosques and madrassas all over a given nation’s landscape, in order to train and prepare future generations of believers for the “religious” work of jihad in service to their false god, even these, according to the Council, have the right not to be hindered by the State.
Isn’t this precisely the scenario that is playing out in places all over the world right now? As goes the Church, so goes the world…
WSJ concluded its article by quoting the outspoken Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen, who when asked about a possible Rome-Beijing agreement back in March said:
I would make a cartoon showing the pope kneeling and offering the keys of the kingdom of heaven and saying, ‘Now, please recognize me as pope.’ The advisers of the pope are giving him advice to renounce his authority.
No, Eminence, Bergoglio’s advisers are not to be blamed, and neither, in a sense, is Bergoglio himself.
The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven were relinquished at Vatican Council II, and with them, the authority of the pope – the Vicar of Christ the King – as so aptly demonstrated by Pope Paul the Pathetic (Bergoglio’s “bright light” and future recipient of the Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award for Service to the Revolution) when he pawned the Papal Triregnum in return for worldly acclaim.
In his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia on 24 December 1940, Pope Pius XII said:
More than once the Church has had to preach to the deaf: the harsh reality preaches now in its turn…
Today, the harsh reality of an institution that is crumbling under the weight of its own hubris is crying out, loudly and clearly, to every self-identified Catholic of good will who has thus far turned a deaf ear to the cause of tradition:
The time has come to admit that the Second Vatican Council is nothing less than a masterwork of the Devil; one that, in a matter of mere decades, has effectively managed to drive Holy Mother the Church into exile, turn Her “ordinary form” of worship into an homage to humanity, and reduce the voice of Christ the King in the world to a mere whimper.
In other words, it’s high time to give tradition a fair reading.
To subscribe, purchase a gift subscription, or donate, click the banner below
There is a crisis rocking the Church in our day, and it is unprecedented in both its nature and scope. About this, Catholics of pretty much every stripe – from the wildest-eyed liberals to the staunchest of traditionalists – agree.
With this in mind, many may immediately think of the McCarrick scandal; the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report; the Viganò testimony; the report out of Germany detailing the sexual abuse of thousands of minors, etc.
On some level, this makes sense, but these things are but symptoms of a crisis that, first and foremost, is doctrinal in character; the moral rot best being understood as a consequence thereof.
As has been mentioned in this space many times, the real crisis concerns the fact that the institution that Archbishop Lefebvre called as the “conciliar church” – and many others recognize as a religion all its own – has not the faith of the Holy Catholic Church, even though it presents itself to the world by that name.
And while its leaders are pleased to invoke the name of Our Lord when such is convenient, theirs is not the Church of Christ, but rather is it the church-of-man; the ultimate object of its worship being not the Divine Majesty, but rather “inalienable human dignity.”
I would argue that the current homo-clerical moral crisis never would have reached such depths had the doctrinal crisis inaugurated at Vatican Council II not happened first. The mere suggestion is beyond consideration in the minds of most neo-conservatives, who, among other things, have been anesthetized into complacency by a combination of the “hermeneutic of continuity” deception and a form of ultramontanism that effectively places the pope beyond any meaningful doctrinal reproach – most notably as it concerns John Paul II.
As such, when they look at the sad state of present-day ecclesial affairs (e.g., as described in the Viganò testimony and elsewhere), they can only manage to see what amounts to an especially nasty moral crisis; one that has claimed perhaps tens of thousands of victims of sexual abuse.
And yet, those willing able to look directly to the heart of the matter cannot but see the bigger picture – the doctrinal crisis that preceded it – the same that has claimed literally billions of victims of spiritual abuse; generations of human beings whose very salvation has been placed in jeopardy thanks to the Council’s departure from immutable Truth.
At this, one may be compelled to ask: Were clerical homo-deviants and their protectors present and active in the Catholic Church before Vatican II gave birth to the conciliar church?
Yes, to an extent they were, but they were a sub-culture at best. Today, by contrast, they are – for all practical purposes – the prevailing culture; occupying positions of power and influence at all levels of the institution. Their ability to promote and protect their own, whilst keeping all concerned in check via blackmail, is entirely unprecedented.
In the words of Archbishop Viganò:
These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.
Recently, the Italian news outlet, Il Fatto Quotidiano, revealed that it has gained access to the infamous 300-page dossier, which, according to writer Francesca Fagnani, confirms Archbishop Viganò’s description of a gay stranglehold:
The report contains a detailed and disturbing picture of the moral and material corruption of the clergy, with names, surnames and circumstances … It is a list of prelates and laymen who belong to the so-called gay lobby, which through blackmail and secrets could affect, or have conditioned, positions and careers (theirs, like those of others).
Today, thanks to the homo-clerical scandal, it seems that many of our conservative friends and family members, who have long been aware that a catechetical (doctrinal) crisis does in fact exist in the Church, may very well be in the early stages of waking up to reality.
Our challenge is figuring out how we might help them connect the dots between the moral and the doctrinal; demonstrating that of these two calamities, the latter came first, and this without directly attacking the Almighty Council that they have been conditioned to embrace with the ascent of faith.
Perhaps the best place to start would be Sacred Scripture.
The law is not made for the just man but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine… (cf 1 Tim 1:9-10)
Based on these words of St. Paul, it is clear that sound doctrine is to morally just behavior as unsound doctrine is to moral degradation. Of course, this sword can cut both ways, but one need only look at the Protestant sects for evidence that as religious communities slide ever more deeply into doctrinal deviation, it inevitably gives rise to increased tolerance for, if not official approval of, blatant immorality.
Even the Orthodox Churches that embrace unsound doctrine on a limited number of points have, over time, likewise come to embrace grave offenses against the moral law; e.g., performing “Orders of Second Marriage” for the civilly divorced, and condoning abortion in limited cases.
We might also turn to the Roman Catechism, or Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was written specifically for the purpose of aiding priests in pastoring their flock:
The more detached the faithful are from the allurements of the world and the pleasures of sense, the more disposed they are to accept heavenly doctrines.
Once again, the converse is equally as true; namely, right doctrine serves as an aid toward fostering detachment from the pleasures of sense and thus acts that are morally corrupt.
Yes, but can we go even further so as to say that the teaching and acceptance of heavenly doctrines is in some sense is a necessary first step toward promoting the moral life within a given society, and what’s more, that the converse is true; namely, that doctrinal error necessarily leads to the opposite – the propagation of immoral behavior?
The words of Our Lord on the matter of marriage indicate that doctrine fully revealed and faithfully taught plays a necessary part in informing the will as to what it means to live according to immutable moral precepts:
They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. (Mt. 19:7-9)
NB: When objective error is either taught or tolerated (as in the case of Moses and the People Israel regarding the permanence of marriage), objectively immoral behavior (divorce, which “from the beginning” is objectively evil) follows.
Lastly, let us consider the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor:
For every movement of the will must be preceded by apprehension, whereas every apprehension is not preceded by an act of the will; but the principle of counselling and understanding is an intellectual principle higher than our intellect —namely, God… (cf Summa Theologiae I, Q. 82, Art. 4)
Just as Our Lord revealed to His listeners the law concerning marriage and divorce, that they may apprehend the mind of God and so act accordingly, so too must the voice of the Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach in His name proclaim without fail the heavenly doctrines that move the will to act in accordance with Divine Law.
While those who embrace the Novus Ordo Missae, the Second Vatican Council, and all of the papal teaching that followed as if it were manna from Heaven may not be prepared to abandon their sacred cows just yet, at the very least, maybe we can convince them to at least ask the question:
Two ecclesial calamities – one moral the other doctrinal – which came first?
By: Randy Engel
The Strange Case of Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt:
Part III —A Rebuttal to Carlo Viganò on the Nienstedt Case
On August 26, 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Papal Nuncio to the United States from 2011 to 2016, issued a “Statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis,” on his (non)role in the notorious Nienstedt Case – a case which I have documented in Part I and Part II of this series, and which first appeared in The Catholic Inquisitor (July and August 2018).
For the record, Parts I and II of this series were researched in the early spring of 2018 and sent for publication in June of 2018, that is, before the Viganò controversy exploded in the Catholic press in late August. The timing for my Nienstedt exposé appears to have been fortuitous for me but not for Viganò.
I say this because Part II concludes with a segment on Mr. Tim Busch, founder of the Opus Dei-friendly Napa Institute which gave the disgraced Archbishop Nienstedt succor and a job after his forced resignation from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis on June 15, 2015.
On September 5, 2018, the Napa Institute issued a statement titled, “Letter from Tim Busch Regarding Archbishop Viganò Testimony,” in which Busch states that he has known Viganò for eight years, but that, contrary to “erroneous media speculation,” he played no role in the drafting of Viganò’s original testimony. Busch’s statement continues:
I was in touch with Archbishop Viganò several weeks ago to inquire about his involvement in the 2014 Saint Paul -Minneapolis investigation [the code phrase for the Nienstedt scandal] referenced in the shorter statement he (Viganò) released on August 27 , 2018, a couple days after his 11-page testimony. Our discussion did not involve the contents of the 11-page testimony that he released on August 25, 2018.
A brief deciphering of Busch’s explanation is that in mid-summer of 2018, after “The Strange Case of Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt,” appeared in The Catholic Inquisitor, Busch had dis-invitedNienstedt off the Napa Institute campus and sent out a Napa Institute media release to that effect.
Was his call to Viganò made before or after Busch had canceled Nienstedt’s job at the Napa Institute? We don’t know from Busch’s statement.
What we do know is that Viganò was sufficiently upset by TheCatholic Inquisitor’sseries on Nienstedt to issue his own version of his (non)role in the Nienstedt affair one day after he published his lengthy testimony on the McCarrick scandal.
This third installment of my series on the Nienstedt scandal specifically addresses and challenges the former nuncio’s two-page August 26th statement on the extent and nature of his involvement in the Nienstedt Case.
Please note that I have not yet completed my research on the content of Vigano’s 11-page Testimony of August 25th which ends with a call for Pope Francis’ resignation and the circumstances which brought about the publication of Viganò’s testimony. I will be tackling that subject in Part IV of this series. And please, do not attempt to use my articles on the Nienstedt case to in any way defend the words and deeds of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter for which there is no defense.
Now, let’s turn our attention to Vigano’s commentary on the Nienstedt affair.
Viganò Opening Salvo Against Father Daniel Griffith
It is interesting to note that the title for the document in question, “Statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis,” does not mention Nienstedt’s name, even though the main subject of the text is the alleged role he (Viganò) played in the termination of an internal (secret) investigation initiated and funded by the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis into accusations of homosexual solicitation and seduction of seminarians and others by Archbishop Nienstedt.
Viganò’s statement appears to be hastily and sloppily put together. Certain sections are incoherent.
If the reader was not already acquainted with the details of the Nienstedt investigation(s) which started in the fall of 2013 and ended in the winter of 2015, while Viganò was the Papal nuncio to the United States, his opening paragraph would not make much sense:
Accusations against my person appeared in the media – in July 2016, when I had already left my mission in Washington, D.C. – following the publication of a memorandum written by Father Dan Griffith, the then delegate for the protection of minors in the Archdiocese. (¶ 1)
What was Fr. Griffith’s special role in the investigation of Nienstedt? What specific memorandum written by Father Griffith is Viganò referring to? When and why was the memorandum written? Who made the memorandum public? He doesn’t say, but readers can access the 11-page smoking gun memo on the Ramsey County website.
Viganò then cuts to the chase:
These accusations – alleging that I ordered the two Auxiliary Bishops of Minneapolis [Bishop Lee Piché, ordained by Nienstedt who headed the internal investigation, and Bishop Andrew Cozzens, also ordained by Nienstedt, who was second in command] to close the investigation into the life of Archbishop John C. Nienstedt – are false. (¶ 2)
Father Griffith was not present during my meeting at the Nunciature with the Archbishop [no one ever said he was] and the two Auxiliaries on April 12, 2014, during which several affidavits containing accusations against Archbishop Nienstedt were handed to me. (¶ 3)
So, Father Daniel Griffith is one of the main villains in the Viganò/Nienstedt scenario. For the record, Griffith was also appointed by Archbishop Nienstedt as Archdiocesan Delegate for Safe Environment (DSE) for the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis in August 2013. He holds an J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law; a M.A. in Theology and a M. Div., from the University of St. Thomas, and he served as the liaison between the law firm engaged to investigate the accusations against Nienstedt and the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis in 2014.
Viganò Slams the Greene Espel Law Firm
The second major villain is the statement is the prestigious St. Paul law firm of Greene Espel, and its two lead lawyers in the first Nienstedt investigation – Matthew Forsgren and David Wallace-Jackson.
According to Viganò:
These affidavits were collected by the firm, Greene Espel, who was retained by Father Griffith on behalf of the Archdiocese to investigate Archbishop Nienstedt. This firm belongs to the group “Lawyers for All Families,” who fought against Archbishop Nienstedt over the approval of same-sex marriage in the State of Minnesota. (¶ 4)
This single paragraph is grossly inaccurate.
Let’s start with the selection of the law firm of Greene Espel which was retained, that is hired and paid for, by the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis [not Griffith] to investigate the accusations against Nienstedt.
In January 2014, there were a series of meetings held by Chancery officials (including Piché, Cozzens, and Griffith) that centered upon the selection of a law firm to carry out the Nienstedt investigation in a “thorough and discreet” manner.
Joseph F. Kueppers, the Archdiocesan Chancellor for Civil Affairs and Fr. Griffith submitted an initial list of law firms and legal candidates to Nienstedt’s criminal defense attorney, Jon M. Hopeman, but Hopeman rejected most of them. Hopeman, in turn, sent an e-mail to Kueppers listing his three choices, one of which was Matthew Forsgren of Greene Espel.
Griffith asked Brian Wenger, an outside attorney for the Archdiocese, who had worked with Forsgren at the law firm of Briggs and Morgan, if Forsgren was a good choice and Wenger affirmed that he was. Shortly after this conversation took place, Griffith found out that Forsgren was a supporter of Lawyers United for all Families, a pro-homosexual group favoring same-sex “marriage” (which Archbishop Nienstedt had vigorously publicly opposed in 2012). Griffith made another call to Wenger who said he still believed that Forsgren could still carry out an impartial internal investigation. Later, that same January, Griffith called Forsgren himself. The latter explained that he had clients on both sides of the issue, and he believed that he could conduct a fair investigation. Forsgren then wrote to Nienstedt’s attorney, Mr. Hopeman, and explained that he believed he could carry out the task in question without prejudice.
One month later, in February 2014, Forsgren, and another Greene Espel attorney, Wallace-Jackson, were approved and hired by the Archdiocese to determine if the allegations against Nienstedt were true or false. Neither the Archbishop nor his attorney Hopeman, who initially proposed Forsgren as a suitable candidate, objected to the selection at the time of the hiring.
So why is Viganò complaining now?
In one of these affidavits, it was claimed that Archbishop Nienstedt had had an affair with a Swiss Guard during his service in the Vatican some twenty years prior . (¶ 5)
Private investigators from the Greene Espelfirm had conducted an inquiry in an unbalanced and prosecutorial style, and now wanted immediately to extend their investigation to the Pontifical Swiss Guard, without first hearing Archbishop Nienstedt. (¶ 6)
The former nuncio appears to have his timetable confused.
Nienstedt served as a minor official, Second Grade, at the Vatican Secretariat of State from 1980 to 1985. Viganò should have known the dates by heart, as that is where the future nuncio met the upward- bound Nienstedt, and the two men became fast friends.
By 1998, Nienstedt had already been serving as an auxiliary bishop of Detroit for two years.
As for Viganò’s charge that the Greene Espel attorneys conducted their internal investigation in an “unbalanced and prosecutorial style,” there were at least a half-dozen Chancery officials, men and women, including several lawyers, who were privy to the internal workings of the Nienstedt inquiry, and none ever voiced an opinion that Forsgren and or Wallace-Jackson ever acted in an unprofessional manner. Although Nienstedt’s attorney, Hopeman, was said to have insulted and cursed the Greene Espel team on at least one occasion.
Further, following standard investigative protocols for internal inquiries of this nature, the attorneys for Greene Espel were scheduled to interview Archbishop Nienstedt and his witnesses, and they did, in fact, interview Nienstedt twice before they were dismissed from the case. So, this was by no means a kangaroo court proceeding.
I’ll be returning to the Swiss Guard accusations shortly.
At this point, Viganò gets to the crux of his statement – his denial that he ordered the termination of the Greene Espel investigation.
I suggested to the bishops who came to the Nunciature on April 12, 2014, that they tell the Greene Espellawyers that it appeared to me appropriate that Archbishop Nienstedt be heard before taking this step – audiatur et altera pars– which they had not yet done. The bishops accepted my suggestion. (¶ 7)
But the following day, I received a letter signed by the two auxiliaries, falsely asserting that I had suggested the investigation be stopped. (¶ 8)
I never told anyone that Greene Espelshould stop the inquiry, and I never ordered any document to be destroyed. Any statement to the contrary is false. (¶ 9)
However, I did instruct one of the auxiliary bishops, Lee A. Piché, to remove from the computer and the archdiocesan archives the letter falsely asserting that I had suggested the investigation be halted. I insisted on this not only to protect my name, but also that of the Nunciature and the Holy Father who would be unnecessarily harmed by having a false statement used against the Church. (¶ 10)
Please note that Vigano’s plea to Piché to “let the other side be heard” in the Nienstedt case was without cause as the lead lawyers for Greene Espel had already planned to interview Nienstedt and his witnesses as part of their in-depth investigation, and in fact, did interview the Archbishop twice before their services were terminated by the Archdiocese on July 2, 2014.
Furthermore, Viganò verified that he received the Piché and Cozzens’ letter “falsely asserting that I [he] had suggested the investigation be stopped” on April 13, 2014. He claims to have responded by making it clear that he “never told anyone that Greene Espel should stop the inquiry.” If this is true, why did Bishop Piché terminate the legal firm’s services in July 2014; something he was clearly against doing?
Meeting with Nuncio was a Mistake
In retrospect, the decision by a consensus of Chancery officials less than mid-way into the Nienstedt investigation that BishopPiché, the Chair, and Bishop Cozzens, the Co-Chair of the inquiry, and the accused, Archbishop Nienstedt, visit Viganò at the Papal Nunciature in Washington, D.C., was a disastrous decision for all parties involved.
Not every Chancery official was in favor of such a meeting, however. One official who is an Associate Judge and Canonist vocally opposed the move stating that the nuncio would bury the inquiry, which, for all practical purposes, Viganò eventually did. She wanted the final Greene Espel report sent directly to the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops.
As stated above, on April 12, 2018, Piché and Cozzens met with Viganò first, and presented the nuncio with ten affidavits that the Greene Espel lawyers had taken from ten “credible” witnesses whose testimony, taken under oath, affirmed Nienstedt’s homosexual history. It is unknown if this meeting was taped.
After the meeting ended, Piché placed a call to Griffith and told him that he believed a “pastoral” solution was on the horizon.
Nienstedt then met with Viganò. Again, we don’t know if their conversation was taped or if the nuncio gave the Archbishop a copy of the affidavits he received. Nienstedt was already aware of the charges against him prior to leaving the Chancery, although he may not yet have known all the names of his accusers.
As far as this writer can piece together the next sequence of events following the return of Nienstedt and his auxiliaries to the Archdiocese involves at least two private phone calls between Viganò andPiché, and follow-up calls between Viganò and Nienstedt, and the explosive computer-generated letter from Piché and Cozzens to the nuncio.
In the first phone call, it is alleged that Viganò told Piché, in so many words, that he wanted to see the ongoing Nienstedt investigation brought to a quick end and the matter terminated. Period.
Did Viganò make this decision on his own or did his orders come from above?
The first scenario, that Viganò acted on his own is suspect, as any formal investigation into an alleged homosexual affair between Nienstedt and a Pontifical Swiss guard would by its nature implicate the Vatican in yet another scandal. Still, it is possible that he did act on his own. Perhaps Viganòcan enlighten us on this important question.
In any case, the very next day after they returned from Washington, D.C., the two auxiliaries responded with a computer-generated letter to the nuncio explaining that they both opposed his directive to terminate the Greene Espel query since this action could be (and would be) construed as a cover-up.
One can only imagine the reaction of Viganò to the challenge of his authority by underlings like Piché and Cozzens. But times have changed. Today, priests and religious are more aware of the potential liabilities associated with attempts to cover-up or white wash clerical sexual abuse cases not only of minors but of vulnerable adults including seminarians.
In a follow-up communication to the auxiliaries that followed their e-mail correspondence, the nuncio denied that he ever issued an order to close the investigation. And somewhere along the line he is alleged to have also told Piché to destroy their letter which he said “falsely” accused him of issuing such an order.
Piché and Cozzens, of course, were both aware that the doctoring of evidence as well as the destruction of evidence could be a felony and they acted accordingly.
In his August 26, 2018 statement, Viganò frankly admits that he instructed Piché “to remove from the computer and the archdiocesan archives the letter falsely asserting that I (he) had suggested the investigation be halted,” which, in pretty much any language, suggests the communication was to disappear, aka, be destroyed.
Obviously, some kind of “compromise” or “clarification” of Viganò’s orders was reached between Piché and Cozzens and the nuncio, and alternative plans were discussed.
Ultimately, Viganò achieved his goal. He successfully engineered the demise of the Greene Espel investigation and opened the door to the Wold investigation. Here is a timetable of significant events related to these duel misadventures:
- Easter Sunday, April 20, 2014 –Piché and Griffith meet with Wallace-Jackson of Greene Espel to explain that the law firm’s original mandate has been truncated and the investigation is now to be strictly limited to evidence that Nienstedt was guilty of “a grave delict.” Piché explains that Viganò wants the investigation wrapped up quickly and the nuncio is opposed to the law firm following up any further leads, which would include the charge that Nienstedt had a homosexual relationship with a Swiss Guard while working in Rome. Wallace-Jackson is adamant that his law firm will not be part of any “cover-up.”
- July 2, 2014 –Piché issues official letter terminating the legal services of Greene Espel. He asks lawyers to prepare a final report on their findings. Griffith, who was outside the Piché information loop, gives permission for the law firm to interview a key witness – Canonist Jennifer Haselberger.
- July 7, 2014 – Griffith, a lawyer in his own right, issues his “Smoking Gun” internal memorandum to Piché with cc. to Cozzens. Later that month he resigns as Delegate for Safe Environment.
- July 29, 1014 –Greene Espel provides Piché with a truncated final report on Nienstedt.
Neither Griffith nor Greene Espel is aware that secret plans are in motion for the Archdiocese to hire a new law firm more favorable to Nienstedt. The news that the Archdiocese had hired the high-powdered criminal defense attorney Peter Wold by mid-October 2014 to continue the Nienstedt investigation, is kept secret until December 2014.
- October 31, 2014 – Bishops Piché and Cozzens are received by the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouelet, to discuss the wrap up of the Nienstedt case which Piché miscalculates will end in early December 2014.
During the previous week, both bishops had cordially met with Viganò in Baltimore at the plenary assembly of the USCCB. They bring the nuncio up to date on the matter and give him confidential documents related to the Wold investigation.
The Archdiocese, however, refuses to turn over copies of the Greene Espel and Wold reports to the Ramsey County Attorney Office (RCAO) citing attorney-client privilege.
- January 16, 2015 – Archbishop Nienstedt, Corporate Sole, files for Chapter 11 in Bankruptcy Court in St. Paul.
In early 2015, Viganò receives copies of both the Wold and Greene Espel reports and is asked for advice on whether the Nienstedt matter should be referred to Rome for some kind of canonical review or other determination.
- June 5, 2015 – RCAO files criminal charges and a civil petition against Archdiocese for mishandling of the Father Curtis Wehmeyer Case, and its subsequent failure to protect three young brothers from Wehmeyer, who was a close friend of Nienstedt.
- June 15, 2015 – Archbishop John Nienstedt and Bishop Lee Piché resign. The Vatican accepts their resignations.
Coadjutor of Newark, Bernard Hebda is appointed Apostolic Administrator for Archdiocese. He is installed as Archbishop on March 24, 2016.
- December 2015 –RCAO settles civil suit.
- April 12, 2016 – Nuncio Viganò is retired from office.
- July 20, 2016 – RCAO drops criminal charges in exchange for a litany of security provisions agreed to by the Archdiocese.
Viganò’s Costly Miscalculations
Viganò’s first grave error was his belief that Piché and Cozzens would blindly obey his alleged directive to terminate the Greene Espel investigation into Nienstedt’s long history of homosexual activity.
His second gross miscalculation was his belief that that his attempt to terminate the Greene Espel investigation and remove the offending Piché and Cozzens electronic communication from Archdiocesan computer files would never be revealed given the secret nature of the Nienstedt internal investigation.
I think it is important for the reader to understand that it was not the Archdiocesan/Greene Espel investigation we are discussing that forced Nienstedt’s resignation and brought the cover-up charges down upon Viganò’s head, but rather the decision of the Ramsey County Attorney Office (RCAO) to rescind its criminal charges against the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis on July 20, 2016, and the subsequent decision by Attorney and Chief Prosecutor John J. Choi to release numerous public documents pertaining to Nienstedt’s homosexual proclivities, including Griffith’s smoking gun memo of July 7, 2014, which made reference to Viganò’s alleged role in the sordid affair.
Also, included among the documents released by Choi, was data supporting the charge that Nienstedt had lied twice under oath (a grave delict/felony) when he gave his deposition to RCAO on his knowledge of the Father Kenneth LaVan sex abuse case and again in the Father Gilbert Gustafson case.
In his concluding remarks to his August 26, 2018 statement, Viganò explains what happened when RCAO released the Griffith 11-page confidential memorandum to the public:
The very day the news appeared in the New York Times, on July 21, 2016, the Holy Father asked Cardinal Parolin to phone the Nuncio in Washington, D.C. (Archbishop Christophe Pierre), ordering that an investigation into my conduct be opened immediately, so that I could be reported to the tribunal in charge of judging abuse cover-up by bishops. (¶ 11)
I informed the Vatican Press Office in the persons of Father Lombardi and Mr. Greg Burke. With the authorization of the Substitute of the Secretary of State, then-Archbishop Becciu, Mr. Jeffrey Lena – an American lawyer working for the Holy See – went to the Congregation for Bishops where he found documents proving that my conduct had been absolutely correct. (¶ 12)
Mr. Lena handed a written report exonerating me to the Holy Father. In spite of this, the Vatican Press Office did not deem it necessary to release a statement refuting the New York Times article. (¶ 13)
The Nunciature also responded to Cardinal Parolin with a detailed report, which restored the truth and demonstrated that my conduct had been absolutely correct. (¶ 14)
This report is found in the Vatican Secretariat of State and at the Nunciature in Washington, D.C. (¶ 15)
On January 28, 2017, I wrote to both Archbishop Pierre and Archbishop Hebda (who had succeeded Nienstedt), asking them to publicly correct the Griffith memorandum. In spite of repeated emails and phone calls, I never heard back from them. (¶ 16)
Time to Clear the Air
Diplomatic obscurations aside, to what specific “conduct” is Viganò referring to when he twice asserts that there are official documents at the Holy See that prove his conduct in the Nienstedt affair had been “absolutely correct?”
What Viganò needs to do first is to clarify if he was acting under orders from the Vatican to bring the Archdiocesan/Greene Espel investigation to a halt in which case he can claim he was simply following orders. Or if he issued the directive to terminate the investigation based upon his belief that his friend, Archbishop Nienstedt, was innocent of the charges assigned to him or was being “unfairly” persecuted by Greene Espel lawyers “egged on” by Fr. Griffith.
Also, surely, at least one of the three point-men in this controversy have saved copies of the infamous Piché and Cozzens letter sent to the nuncio on April 13, 2014. Let’s see it!
And I believe that, if pressed hard enough, Nunciature officials can provide recordings of any subsequent phone conversations Viganò had with Piché as well as Nienstedt concerning the Greene Espel investigation and its demise. Let’s hear them!
And, isn’t it about time the long suffering sheeple of the Archdiocese Saint Paul and Minneapolis demand Archbishop Hebda release both the Greene Espel and Wold reports? After all, they paid over one-half million dollars in “offerings” for the pair of investigations. Let’s read them!
In conclusion, papal nuncios have long played a decisive role in the handling or mishandling, aka “cover-up” of clerical sex abuse cases around the world. So, the role I believe Viganò played in the Nienstedt case is not an exception but the rule.
The ball is now in Viganò’s court.
Contact for Randy Engel is email@example.com.
On August 30, National Catholic Register published a truly bizarre article on the present homo-clerical crisis written by Benjamin Wiker, whose bio reads:
Benjamin Wiker is Professor of Political Science, Director of Human Life Studies, and Senior Fellow of the Veritas Center at Franciscan University. His newest book is In Defense of Nature: the Catholic Unity of Environmental, Economic, and Moral Ecology.
Our expert’s credentials out of the way, let’s dive in. According to Wiker, “Greater clarity about the nature of this crisis can be had by looking at the larger moral-historical perspective.”
This may perhaps be true, but upon reading further it will immediately become clear that Wiker should have limited his commentary to the historical, if that:
There is only one reason why pedophilia is even a moral issue today: historically, the Catholic Church made it one.
At this, one may wonder: Is the esteemed Franciscan University professor just a poor communicator struggling to make a valid point, or is he genuinely unaware of the Natural Law of which Dr. Peter Chojnowski wrote:
St. Thomas understands the precepts of the Natural Law to be immediately evident to any rational mind which possesses the normal faculties of man.This system of law,“written into the hearts of men” as St. Paul would have it, is both universal and immediately evident. (Chojnowski, “The Natural Law: God’s Embedded Plan for Man,” The Catholic Inquisitor, Aug. 2018)
To be clear, pedophilia (just as homosexual activity) has always been a moral issue; more specifically, an intrinsic evil. What’s more, this objective truth has always been evident to rational men of every age; even before the coming of Christ and the establishment of the Catholic Church.
Turning his attention to the commonly accepted homo-deviant behavior of ancient Greek and Roman culture, Wiker informs us:
There were no artificial distinctions between homosexuality, pedophilia, ephebophilia (sex with someone between 12-14) and hebephilia (sex with someone 15-18). There was simply the culturally commonplace desire of men to have sex with boys from ages 12-18.
So, with the stated purpose of lending “greater clarity” to the Church’s presently raging homo-clerical crisis, Wiker insists that the profound difference between the sexual assault of a toddler and the homosexual exploitation of a teenager is an “artificial distinction.”
This is precisely the kind of garbage that the enemies of the Church have been trying to sell for the past several decades; purposely mislabeling the crisis as a “pedophilia crisis” when in fact it’s a homo-deviancy problem.
If what has been highlighted thus far isn’t disturbing enough, Wiker continued:
Moreover, pedophilia with boys was not confined to a few perverted individuals with exclusively homosexual orientation. The great majority of men engaged in it as an accepted part of Greco-Roman culture, whether they were (as we would designate them) homosexual or heterosexual.
At this, one may recall the USCCB-funded (that is, the we-the-faithful-funded) John Jay study, wherein the “experts” labored so mightily to convince us that the clergy sex abuse crisis involved heterosexual men who molested teenaged boys for a whole host of reasons (e.g., loneliness, stress, limited access to females); all in an attempt to obscure the obvious (HINT: they were homo-deviants, if you’ll pardon the redundancy).
In truth, the only men that ever got their rocks off with other post-pubescent men of any age, regardless of whatever period of time or culture they happened to live in, were most certainly “perverted individuals.” As for “homosexual orientation,” there is no such thing; there is simply deviant behavior of the homosexual variety.
Wiker did eventually get around to making a good point:
… homosexuality and pedophilia can spread to the majority through a deformed culture … As we become even more secularized (i.e., repaganized), pedophilia will soon be accepted, just as homosexuality, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia have already been embraced.
Yes, of course, homo-deviant perversion can spread, and by all appearances it is spreading thanks to the tireless efforts of LGBT activists and liberal social engineers; some of them sporting Roman collars and mitres. As for pedophilia becoming an accepted “orientation” and practice, indeed the push is already well under way.
In spite of making a couple of valid (and let’s be honest, obvious) points, Wiker’s article is nothing short of poisonous. It’s also an indication of just how dangerous neo-conservatism truly is: It is like a contagion that slowly eats away at one’s soul and mind, and unless one manages to break free of its clutches before death, the inescapable result is a loss of both faith and reason.
In closing, consider once more Benjamin Wiker’s bio. Among faculty members, he’s a big man on the Franciscan University campus. This is a school that the Cardinal Newman Society (another neo-con apostolate) lists as one of its “Recommended Colleges,” stating:
Few institutions share Franciscan University’s reputation for strong Catholic identity…
Some Catholic identity, eh?
Consider as well that Wiker’s decidedly un-Catholic article was published by National Catholic Register – an outlet that, along with Catholic News Agency, is part of the EWTN family.
I do realize that in posting this article at akaCatholic I am largely preaching to the choir, but let’s not let it end there. Many readers have sincere (albeit disoriented) neo-conservative friends and family members; some of whom send their children to Franciscan University because they honestly believe that in doing so they are helping their offspring retain the Faith.
Send a link to this post to them, along with a heartfelt prayer asking the Lord to open their eyes to the fact – plainly observable in the article under review here – that neo-conservatism is a destroyer of both faith and reason.