Editor’s note: Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., is a Catholic and veteran of psychotherapeutic practice since 1962 who holds a master’s degree in psychology from the university of Leiden, Holland, and a Ph.D. in social sciences from the University of Amsterdam, where he specialized in homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia as sexual neuroses. Dr. Aardweg has researched and written extensively on homosexuality, with three of his books translated into English: Homosexuality and Hope (1985); On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality (1986); and The Battle for Normality (1997).
(LifeSiteNews) — What motivates the Pope to impose universal recognition of homosexual relationships on the Catholic Church?
This question is in the back of the mind of many confused and perplexed people, Catholics and non-Catholics. It must be discussed openly, for people have a right to know who their leaders are and what they can expect from them. The answer is also of importance in view of the next conclave as it may be of influence to the choice of the successor of this pope.
The view discussed in this article is that the most probable answer to the above question in the title, the best explanation of the main motive of the Pope’s policy and overall behavior in relation to the issue of homosexuality, is (1) that he has a significant personal stake in it, that is, that he himself is afflicted by one or another form of same-sex attractions, and (2) that he has come to identify himself unrestrictedly with the ideology of the homosexual movement and made it his mission to introduce “normalization and justification” of homosexual relationships in the Catholic Church.
The first point is a psychological diagnosis, not an accusation. Same-sex tendencies are mental and emotional disorders, personality disorders, serious handicaps (not physical diseases). The second point, on the normalization and justification of homosexual relationships as the goal of the “gay” ideology, is of a different order; it is a matter of morality and here we have the big problem. In connection with the pressure exerted by the EU Parliament to recognize homosexual unions, Pope John Paul II offered a theological diagnosis of such a normalization: it is “a grave form of violation of the law of God,” the operation of an insidious “new ideology of evil.”[i]
Many well-documented observations of the Pope’s behavior strongly suggest the answer to our question above can be organized into three categories: first of all, those relating to the unabated fervor with which he promotes the recognition of homosexual relationships. He protects sexually criminal homosexuals; he elevates the dubious claims of a small minority of the population[ii] to a – perhaps the – central preoccupation of his pontificate while he grossly neglects and harms the real needs of the threatened family and normal marriage. Secondly, there are the observations about the way he pursues his pro-homosexuality policy; and there are the observations of salient traits of his personality. It is not conceivable that a normally heterosexual man would be able to identify himself in all these aspects so completely with the “gay” cause; even when an opportunistic heterosexual politician promotes it, he does not suppress his common sense and moral sense so radically as those for whom it is a personal need. This article intends to elucidate these points.
Clarifying terms
Homosexual and homosexuality. Some clarifications for a better understanding must precede our analysis. “Homosexual,” “lesbian,” are just loose designations of people who self-identify as sexually different or live homosexually and those who have same-sex inclinations or temptations.
Technically, the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” should indicate men and women who are more or less chronically attracted to members of their own sex after late adolescence/young adulthood, and whose heterosexual feelings are very rudimentary or weak and immature. They should never be used in the sense that these people belong to a sexually “different” kind of human beings. There is no evidence at all that their inborn biological or psychical nature would be abnormal. Despite a century of research, in large part by self-declared and militant homosexuals keen on proving biological causation or at least some predisposition, nothing has been found.
The central, very effective slogan of the “gay” ideology, that one is “born that way,” has no scientific foundation whatsoever.[iii] On the other hand, there is a solid body of evidence from psychological research that chronic homosexual inclinations are manifestations of a sexual neurosis and that two childhood/youth factors often predispose individuals to them, namely, specific patterns of parent-child relationships and underdeveloped masculinity (femininity) and maladaptation to the same-sex community of their social environment.[iv]
Same-sex attracted people suffer from a “complex” of gender-inferiority, originating in pre-adolescence or adolescence. They felt inferior in masculinity (femininity), not belonging to the world of manhood (womanhood), longed for male (female) friendships, and sexualized affection. They are stuck with teenage feelings, habits, views, and relationships that were connected with their traumatic experiences of not-belonging to the world of same-sex peers and often same-sex parents.
Restricting ourselves here to the male sex: same-sex attracted boys develop a fascination – and admiration and adoration – for what they see as boyishness or manliness in other boys and young men in reaction to what they feel wanting in themselves, and crave for their friendship and affection. This craving, part of a gender-inferiority complex, is neurotic, that is, obsessive, addictive, and if acted out in solitary fantasies or contacts, insatiable. Puberty romances and infatuations soon end up in sheer sex addiction, like drinking salt water.
Seeking same-sex friendship is chasing an impossible illusion. This fixation to the hurt and craving “teenager-of-the-past” personality with all his habits and relations with parents, same-sex peers, and the opposite sex, and with his immature self-seeking and selfishness, inhibits psycho-sexual maturation and the capacity for the genuine loving of others. Homosexual “love”-seeking is an addiction to pubertal self-love; it implies a self-view and habit of self-pity and self-victimization, the habits of complaining, anger, and discontent that are typical of inferiority complexes in general.
Parental relationships
Parent-son relations and peer isolation. A combination of rather specific mother-son and father-son relationships results in underdeveloped or suppressed boyishness and masculinity which, in turn, predisposes such a boy to isolation among his peers.
Examples of these relationships includes a mother who has a strong de-masculinizing impact, or a father with too little a masculinizing impact (sometimes from other significant females or males). Over-attachment of the boy to his mother and vice versa can also have this effect in the absence of the good father-son bond that makes a boy feel a sense of belonging to the world of manhood and valued as a man. A domineering mother may have been overprotective, demanding, imperious, cool, interfering, restrictive; or overly tender, over-anxious, adoring, over-indulgent, spoiling.
There are often character weaknesses or emotional problems that cause a mother to bind a boy to herself. Her love may have been too self-centered. Often there was marital discord, a divorce, or a mother abandoned by her husband or friend. Many homosexual men have been too much the center of a mother’s attention and treated as “special,” which effected in them a self-view of superiority, with habits such as arrogance, tyrannical behavior, exactingness, narcissism; sharing a mother’s feminine interests or being treated as a girl led to effeminate traits; being the nice mother’s boy made him dependent on her and un-boyishly docile and well-behaving. He imitated her ideas and manners, not his father’s, as his father did not counterbalance her imprinting influence. Not sufficiently brought up to develop manly firmness, he was soft on himself.[v] Many fathers of homosexual men were distant to them, little involved in their life, a minority of them were over-critical, even rejecting their sons, and friendly fathers frequently make weak masculine models.
Not only may parent-child factors have undermined the boy developing his masculine nature. Other important factors include his relationship with siblings, self-comparison with a more masculine brother, teasing and bullying, social isolation, and a negative body image in regard to masculinity, thinking of himself as weak, infirm, unmuscular, small, ugly, beardless, and the like.
The main characteristic of the lack of masculine firmness of the average pre-homosexual boy was a lack of boyish combativeness and physical daring.[vi]
Self-normalization, self-justification, and the Pope
The power of the dramatic crave to seek male affection, its attraction, is overwhelming, becoming “the meaning of my life” to the sufferer of same-sex attraction and, rather than giving it up, the addicted person would give up everything else. This can happen all the more when such a person has experienced physical contact, telling himself that “this is my nature.” No, it is enslavement, stronger than reason and weak will-power. There is certainly a demonic element to it.[vii]
The gay ideology propagates justifications for the “my nature” fallacy with its direct and indirect slogans of being “born that way” while decrying the unnaturalness of “homophobia” – uneasy feelings about homosexual inclinations and behavior come from discriminating cultural and religious prejudices. In truth, such unease proceeds from inborn common sense and moral sense.
By normalizing same-sex feelings and morally justifying same-sex behavior one starts role-playing, adopting a false “self.” It is lying to oneself, repressing one’s moral sense and conscience that are always aware, perhaps deep down, of the distinction between sexual purity and impurity. This repression produces a need to relativize or deny the normality of heterosexuality, normal marriage, and the normal family, hence the wish to convert the whole world to accept the equality of same-sex “sexuality.”[viii]
This is the ideology the Pope has embraced from his start in Rome, as can be clear now, and with a zeal second to that of no gay advocate. What he already wrote or ordered to write in 2014 in the Interim Report of the Bishops’ Synod intended for the family was quite the language of gay propaganda: “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community”; “Are our communities capable of… accepting and valuing their sexual orientation?”; “serious reflection [is necessary] on how to devise… approaches to affective growth [of ‘homosexuals’] and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect.”[ix] [Emphases added]
And on “homosexual unions”: “Without denying the moral problems associated with [them], there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.” This is not about Christians who try to live chastely, but about self-normalizing practicing “homosexuals.” Care is taken never to hint at that fundamental distinction. Homo-unions may thrive on mutual sacrificing love, and the blame of the scandal of not “welcoming” them in the Church is on the merciless faithful.
The report repeats the two main falsehoods of the normalization ideology: people simply “have” this orientation and it is morally okay; and they are victims of discrimination (repudiated, not “welcome”). The report’s language is typically gay in that it is cunning, not straightforward, giving a misleading depiction of homo-relationships and urging compassion to the victims of injustice. It is, however, the Pope who preaches here the gay-ideological sermon, and too impeccably. The sermon also throws a side-light on his habitual condemnations of the “rigidity” of the defenders of Christian sexual morality.
Pope Franics’ counsel for the same-sex attracted
To a young man, Juan Carlos Cruz, the Pope is reliably reported to have said:
That you are gay does not matter. God made you that way and that is the way He wants you to be and I don’t care… You have to be happy with who you are.[x]
It is about the “gayest” advice an old man in a top position of moral authority might give an apparently insecure young friend – and the most irresponsible. “You are,” “God made you,” suggests biological causation, which is scientific nonsense; “God wants you gay” is (blasphemous) nonsense for serious Christians and non-Christians alike. This papal counsel shows a lot more devotion to the falsehoods of the gay ideology about the gay way of life than belief in the Christian God. He adapts his religion to his feelings like many self-normalizing Christian homosexuals.
Hearing his words to this Juan Carlos, one can understand what the Pope meant when he said that in his decisions he trusts in his “instinct, and the Holy Spirit” and does not rely on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.[xi]
“You must be happy with who you are.” This exhortation comes from ideological blindness to the lamentable reality of gay ways of life, not from genuine interest in the wellbeing of a young man. Instead of a fatherly, “Don’t let yourself be fooled, resist these inclinations, I shall help you,” the papal advice comes down to, “Continue your way downwards, ruin your life, and be happy.”[xii] Rather, he should uphold to young people experiencing same-sex attraction the knowledge shared by this experienced middle-aged gay man: “Looking back, I can’t imagine why I thought gay life was so damned glamorous. It’s a rough world, and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.”[xiii]
And what about “gay marriages” and “Catholic unions” with “mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice,” upheld as the dignified ideal of the Pope? The expert conclusion of Ronald Lee is: “The Christian gay movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest.” Its “success depends on camouflaging the truth, which is hidden in plain view all the time.”[xiv]
Moral sense
Denial of inborn moral sense with respect to homosexuality is part of the gay-ideological denial of reality which the Pope shows he has absorbed by disdainful statements such as stating that opponents of his controversial blessings of gay unions “belong to small ideological groups” and that the Church of Africa is “a special case,” since “for them, homosexuality is something ‘ugly’ from a cultural point of view; they do not tolerate it.”[xv]
The “small ideological groups,” however, comprise the vast majority of mankind, past and present. By employing the term “ideological,” the speaker projects his own mindset onto the vast majority that cannot share his extreme identification with the gay ideology, which is the reason that he cannot understand their feelings of resistance and feel like them. This is the attitude of one who suppresses his moral sense, becoming hostile to the natural moral law that he does not wish to recognize and respect in Catholic Africa.
They would live under “culturally determined” homophobic prejudices that impede them to see the beauty of “homosexuality.” For a man with normal feelings for the opposite sex it would be too much to require from him to use this curious argument in advocating recognition of homo-relationships.[xvi] Homosexual “sex,” which is inevitable in them, is in all cultures perceived as abnormal and morally wrong or at least dubious.[xvii]
The preservation by Africans of spontaneous moral sense about human sexuality puts Western decadence to shame. On the sexual morality of sub-Saharan tribes, Monsignor Cormac Burke wrote:
Traditional African sexual morality derived from the sense of the sacredness of the procreative function. Sex was a taboo matter; hence to ‘play’ with it was held to merit a curse… Virginity was held in high esteem. Of course, sexual sins have been as common in traditional Africa as in other societies. But it is also true that the African retained and retains a keen sense of sin, especially in an area considered as sacred as sex.[xviii]
Imposing the gay ideology
The papal methods of imposing homosexuality recognition are akin to those of the homosexual movement in the secular world, including: appointing gay – or at least pro-gay – people in all key positions of the administration of cities, nations, international organizations, political parties, universities, media, etc.; suppressing publicity on unwelcome research facts and avoiding honest public discussions; promulgating misleading and unceasing indoctrination with lies and “education”; intimidation and abuse of power; at last elevating the gay ideology to the level of a secular state religion with punishment for the dissidents.[xix]
The Pope did not organize a thorough study of the subject, no open and honest discussions; he did not honestly announce what he was up to. His documents on the issue of homosexuality are of low intellectual level, his slogans cheap demagogy. He refuses to answer the critical questions of the dubia cardinals, men of erudition and high integrity. The point is, he has no answer. He appoints gay and pro-gay men in key positions, tolerates no critique, and fires dissidents.
The selective compassion he preaches is closely related to the “gay” item of self-victimization, and goes together with indignation and anger with the defenders of true morality. Compassion with the homosexual and a few other underdogs in the Church is on the top of the list of the suffering while the tremendous needs in the field of marriage and the family get little more than an occasional footnote: the emotional and spiritual needs of married people, healthy sexual education, the fallout of still increasing divorce rates, the children of divorce, the heinous modern child abuse of gay parenting and adoption, the needs of the 40-50 percent of children born out of wedlock; the plague of abortion and assisted suicide.
This recalls the fact that for many active homosexuals, there is no subject as interesting and important as “homosexuality.” And the homo-movement is very much anti-marriage, anti-family, and pro-abortion.[xx]
Personality traits
A Pope who advocates acceptance of homo-unions is deceiving people who want to trust him, naïvely or not, if he, in the spirit of McNeill, conceals his personal stake in the matter. His salient personality traits do not help much to dispel that suspicion.
There is consensus on the predominance of his hunger for power and tyrannical habits. This trait signifies self-seeking, that is, inordinate self-love and pride, and the consequential inhibition of the person’s capacity of mature loving and serving (others, including God). Moreover, it implies the self-view of superiority mentioned earlier which makes him rely on his “instinct” and “the Holy Spirit” and dispense with Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium; but which isolates him from others, friends, and peers.
Rooted in adolescence, in reaction to emotional frustration and imbalance,[xxi] nourishing this self-reliance keeps up pubertal self-centeredness and selfishness, and lack of interest in and feeling for others. In front of his equals and the world he shows the peculiar rebellious aloofness of the superior-feeling “teenager-of-the-past.”
A Mexican former director of a Catholic Spanish-language media portal, who worked with the Pope various times during the first decade of the century, illustrated this trait in an Open Letter To The Pope at the beginning of his pontificate:[xxii]
When I met you for the first time, when you still were Cardinal Bergoglio, I was struck and astonished that you never did as the other cardinals and bishops. Some examples:… when all bishops appeared in their cassocks and clerical vestment because the rules of the meeting required it, you yourself appeared in clergymen and priest collar. When everyone of you took a seat on the chairs reserved for the bishops and cardinals, you left the chair of Cardinal Bergoglio empty and took a seat at the back, remarking ‘I am okay here, here I feel more at ease.’ When the others arrived in a car in accordance with their dignity, you came in, later than all the other ones, hurriedly and annoyed, loudly talking about your encounters in the public transport with which you had preferred coming to the meeting. When I saw these things – I am ashamed to tell it – I said to myself: ‘Bah, look how he wants to attract the attention! If you really want to be humble and modest, can’t you rather behave like the other bishops and not arouse the attention to yourself?’[xxiii]
His show of being “different” – ”special” – insults his equals, his “peers,” from whom he provocatively keeps aloof.[xxiv] The same unfeelingness he evinces, for instance, in his hurtful, respectless remarks to good-intentioned visitors, calling unmarried women “old spinsters,” a courageous woman who despite difficult Caesarian sections gave birth to many children “a rabbit,” selfless pro-life activists “fanatic and obsessive,” etc. And no shame and excuses.
By now his second salient trait, unreliability, has become conspicuous. Numerous people have been deceived by his orthodox words and gestures but actual betrayal of faith and morals. Lying and duplicity are chronic with him. It is telling that he was able to betray in Argentina two of his priests to please the military authorities while abandoning a good doctor who saved a mother and her child from abortion; that he protected a pornography-divulging priest and punished the priest who had warned him.[xxv]
In the profile of active and self-normalizing homosexuals, unreliability and lying are common traits. Many lie to themselves and others in words and behavior all the time; gay “love” and the gay world (subculture) are permeated with lying and cheating, for it thrives not on love but on addiction to self-love, and lying is a manifestation thereof.
Here the Pope’s development from orthodox piety to where he stands now is not at issue. Only two notes: his power-hunger suggests that addiction to immature self-seeking was already developed long before he openly began twisting his religion; and his insincerity and lying signal a lack of the manly courage that does not avoid direct confrontation. In all, judging by his reported behavior, the picture of his personality is consistent with that of self-normalizing “gay” political activists, as also with the profile of self-normalizing and self-justifying homosexual priests.[xxvi]
The above explanation of the Pope’s zeal to legalize homosexual partnerships is supported by a series of observations of the category of circumstantial evidence. Taken together they lead to the conclusion that the existence of evidence that is more direct is fairly probable.
Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., is a Catholic and veteran of psychotherapeutic practice since 1962 who holds a master’s degree in psychology from the university of Leiden, Holland, and a Ph.D. in social sciences from the University of Amsterdam, where he specialized in homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia as sexual neuroses. Dr. Aardweg has researched and written extensively on homosexuality, with three of his books translated into English: Homosexuality and Hope (1985); On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality (1986); and The Battle for Normality (1997).
ENDNOTES
[i] Pope John Paul II, 2005, 26.
[ii] According to the most dependable studies, about 2 percent of the adult population. Much higher claims are not dependable.
[iii] Reviews: van den Aardweg, 1986; 2005; 2015. The interesting story here is: all the time, some new theory is launched, widely published as if it were almost proven, but the refutations by repeated research are kept secret. That way, the illusion of a homosexual “nature” is kept alive.
[iv] van den Aardweg, 1986; 1997, 2011. The term “neurosis” is used here in its traditional significance. Neurotic behavior, thoughts, and feelings are disproportionate, inadequate; compulsive, obsessive, imbalanced and immature. Statistical research has established “neuroticism” or “emotional instability” versus “emotional stability” as the second-important basic personality factor, next to “intelligence”. Central common characteristics of neurotic thinking and feeling are self-directedness and self-centeredness, complaining habits and victim feelings.
[v] The bond with their mother was, in spite of its rewarding aspects, a straitjacket for many of these boys which they never succeeded to shake off in their adult life. They could not unfold their boyishness.
[vi] Effeminacy is a high degree of underdeveloped/suppressed masculinity. It has no physical cause.
[vii] The psychology of deviant sexuality and sexual enslavement is incomplete without factoring in the working on the psyche of the demon(s). St. Augustine, great analytic psychologist, said what all great Christian spiritual guides before and after him have known: “Demons, impure spirits … have always used every opportunity to sneak into the thinking of man and deceive them.” (De Civitate Dei, Bk VI, #8.) His analysis of his own, heterosexual, addiction in the Confessions is well applicable to all types of sexual enslavement. The demon seduces into sexual habits, free will regularly yields to him, so that he can forge a chain of addiction and can keep it strong. After some time, free will of itself has become too weak to resist him and the only way to liberation is undivided surrender of the will to God, Who is waiting for the moment He may cure the soul. Proportional to his seeking of the truth, which is the action of his “better Me”, the enslaved person can arrive sooner or later at that moment, as Augustine documents by his own inner story. At some point he also notices point that not seeking the truth and yielding to all seductions of the sexual habit would have dragged him down to behavior of horrible “filth”. The qualification “demonized sex” must often be taken literally, not only symbolically.
[viii] For an excellent analysis of the gay zealotry to convert the world: Reilly, 2014.
[ix] Interim Report, nr. 51. Emphasis added.
[x] Interview El Pais, 2018, May 19. A curious aspect of the pope’s implicit assurance to the young man that his biological design was “homosexual” is that the latter had been the victim of molestation by a priest. What may have been the role of this factor in the victim’s “being” gay? Noel Mosen, a completely cured militant homosexual, wrote about the contribution of seduction in his childhood: “As an adoptive child, I was very lonely, always I had the impression that my adoptive father treated me differently than his ‘real’ children. I sighed for his attention and recognition, but never had the feeling that I really belonged to him. Then a man from the neighborhood, a [Protestant] pastor, took care of me. Many an afternoon I passed with him and I enjoyed it being accepted and loved so much by an older man. … But then, one day, he raped me, I was seven and a half. Although I was shocked and hurt and the rape was very painful, I didn’t want to miss the feeling that this man wanted me and loved me. Becoming older I developed sexual relations with a group of boys, and already as a teenager I was sexually promiscuous.” (Mosen, 1997; emphasis added).
[xi] Tosatti, 2022. The “Holy Spirit” he believes he can distinguish from his “instinct”: the conceited thinking of man who follows his emotional impulses (and of the average sect-leader).
[xii] Ample research shows what is linked up with “being” gay in real life: self-degrading, depersonalized sex and extreme promiscuity, loneliness, mental and emotional disorders, depression, phobias, psychosomatic ailments, suicide, STDs and HIV infections, alcoholism and substance abuse, domestic violence in partnerships, inclinations and deeds of sexual seduction and molestation, a many years shortened lifespan, and enhanced risks of certain cancers (van den Aardweg, 2015). The incidence of these factors with sexually active men and women is much higher than with heterosexuals. Importantly, the minority of homosexual men in “unions” is not better off, rather worse.
[xiii] “… My own life is the counterpart of thousands of homosexuals. … Over the years I lived with a succession of roommates, some of whom I professed to love. They swore they loved me. But homosexual ties begin and end with sex. There is so little else to go on. After that first passionate fling, sex becomes less and less frequent. The partners become nervous. They want new thrills … They begin to cheat each other—secretly at first, then more obviously. All those brave promises of eternal love made a few months ago are tossed out of the window. There are jealous rages and fights. Eventually you split and begin hustling around for a new lover.” (Hanson, 1965, 41; emphasis added).
[xiv] Lee, 2008 (All emphasis below added). His quest for the truth deserves more extensive quoting. As a Catholic young men in the early 1980s, he willingly started his gay contacts on the authority of a popular book by Jesuit Fr. McNeill who stated that “same-sex unions were consistent with the Church’s teaching”, from which he concluded that “I had a reasonable expectation of finding such a relationship myself. … McNeill’s aside led me to believe that there existed a contingent of gay men who were committed to live in monogamy. Otherwise, Fr. McNeill was implicitly defending promiscuity. And the very idea of a priest defending promiscuity was inconceivable to me Yes, that naïve” [I was].
McNeill’s later autobiography put him wise, he was “a promiscuous, sexually active, homosexual priest. … there was a reason in the earlier book for his writing so little about the real lives of real homosexuals such as himself. He knew that if he wrote the truth, his cause would be dead in the water.” Yet naïve Lee remained hopeful, “subscribed to the Dignity Yahoo group on the Internet. There were several hundred subscribers. At one point, a troubled young man posted a question to the group: Did any of the subscribers attach any value to monogamy? I immediately wrote back that I did. [He] wrote back to me. He had received dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and all but one – mine – telling him to go out and be laid because that was what being gay was all about.” … For twenty years, I thought there was something wrong with me. Dozens of well-meaning people assured me that there was a whole, different world of homosexual men out there, a world that for some reason I could never find, a world of God-fearing, straight-acting, monogamy-believing, and fidelity-practicing homosexuals. They assured me that they themselves knew personally that such men existed. And I believed it, although it got harder and harder… I wrote a profile [on the Internet} describing myself as a conservative Catholic, I said I wanted very much to meet like-minded homosexuals for the purpose of friendship and romance, I was not interested in one night stands.” No success at all. “But what about all those images of loving same-sex couples dying to get hitched with which the media are awash?… despite my best efforts, I was never able to meet the sorts of couples who show up regularly on Oprah… I met Wyatt, online. For five years he was in a disastrous same-sex relationship… When Vermont legalized same-sex ‘marriage’, [they] flew to Vermont to get ‘married’. [In the local newspaper] Wyatt and his partner were depicted as loving couple who finally had a chance to celebrate their commitment publicly. Nothing about the drugs and alcoholism or the infidelity. The marriage ended in flames a few months later. And the newspaper did not do a follow-up. The leading daily in one of America’s largest cities printed a misleading story about a bad relationship that probably persuaded more than one young man that some day he could be just as happy as Wyatt and his ‘partner’. The unhappiness so common among homosexuals is swept under the carpet, while fanciful and unrealistic ‘role models ’are offered for public consumption.” Finally, there was an English ex Dominican priest of the type of McNeill, author of books, “passionately defending the right of homosexuals to a place in the Church.” [The “welcoming” policy of the future pope.] In response to Lee’s question, “he admitted that his experience was not unlike mine. All he could suggest was that I keep trying, and eventually everything would work out. In other words, this brilliant man, whose books has meant so much to me, had nothing to suggest except that I keep doing the same th8ng while expecting a different result.” Lee’s lesson: “Homo-genital sex is not about love, but about obsession, addiction, and compensation for a compromised masculinity. Tear down the respectable façade and expose the ‘pornographic’ beneath.” And an interesting confession: “I am not proud of the life I have lived. I am profoundly ashamed of it. But if reading this prevents one naïve, gullible man from making the same mistakes…” He shows that yielding to homosexual activities and justifying them intrinsically means repressing one’s moral sense and conscience.
The Pope acts that much as a replication of McNeill and the English ex-Dominican that the supposition that it is out of the same motive is not far-fetched.
[xvi] Seeing the “beauty” of homosexual love is almost diagnostic proof of same-sex tendencies. It is a manifestation of feeling “special” in one’s sexuality. Homosexual affection, in truth puppy love, is idealized as something of a higher quality than vulgar heterosexuality. The love of an elite. We must note that homosexual pedophiles may cherish the same illusion (or delusion).
[xvii] The renowned historian Karlen wrote: “No society has accepted preferential homosexuality. Nowhere is homosexuality or bisexuality a desired end in itself. Nowhere do parents say ‘It is all the same to me if my child is heterosexual or homosexual.’’’ (in: Socarides, 1976).
[xviii] Burke, 1987. Msgr. Burke worked in the family apostolate of these regions before being appointed a member of the Roman Rota. In his article he remarked: “Abortion and infanticide were universally regarded as great crimes and were extremely rare. Most Africans cannot even understand the idea of contraception. It makes no sense to them.” As to the moral sense on homosexuality of “primitive” peoples, this is a telling example: In 2015, a group of leading aboriginals presented the Uluru Bark Petition to the Australian Parliament in protest against the intended same-sex “marriage” law. It states (originally written in their own language): “Our continuing cultures and traditions are thousands of years old and are recognized as such as the oldest on Earth. … Our Fathers and Mothers are also honored and form the foundation of our families, clans and systems, and pass down our teachings, our culture, our traditions, from generation to generation. It is therefore an affront to the Aboriginal People of Australia to suggest another definition of marriage.”
[xix] Don’t show your colors too soon. Homosexually obsessed Alfred Kinsey posed as American family father, likewise Mr. Obama, who knew that being honest on himself would have cost him the Presidency. Initially he said he was against gay “marriage”; he wrote a false autobiography of his young years to erase the facts that would damage his public image (Flood, 2023; Rutz & Flood, 2023; Mainwaring, 2023).
[xx] Pro-lifers should not be so “fanatic and obsessed”, said the pope.
[xxi] Predominant power-seeking and irrational self-views of eminence may arise in reaction to inferiority feelings and not-belonging, but also to child-spoiling, by habituating him to be the center of attention. In the case of homosexual men, a superiority complex was not seldom imprinted on the boy by a doting mother (or other females) or a mother who thought too much of herself out of vanity.
[xxii] Lucrecia Rego de Planas, 2013.
[xxiii] “… When I saw you at the balcony [after the ‘Habemus papam’] without mitre, without robe, breaking through the protocol, that way trying to distinguish yourself from the rest of the popes in history, I smiled disconcertedly and said to myself: ‘Yes, no doubt, this is Cardinal Bergoglio.’ In the days after your election you gave me several occasions to convince myself that you are the same person I had known from close by and who always tried to be different: you asked for other shoes, a different ring, a different cross, a different chair and even the room and the residence were other than those of the other popes who had always been content with the things that were available, without any need for ‘special’ things for themselves. … [And] to my astonishment and dismay my new general began his term of office instead of taking up the weapons immediately, by calling up in papal time his hair dresser, his dentist, his landlord and kiosk holder and so attracted the attention to his own person and not to the important issues of his papacy.”
[xxiv] The explanation sometimes given of the pope’s surrounding himself with gay and “pro-gay” (sometimes crypto-gay) priests, namely, that he selects men who are servile and dependent on him, is not complete. It will be difficult to find examples of non-homosexual leaders who acted so systematically in this way as he does. Related to this: reports of his more personal encounters and contacts not seldom concern homosexual priests and young men; it were especially young priests, not his contemporaries or older ones whom he sought to influence and build his position on, in Argentina (Tosatti, 2022).
[xxv] Tosatti, 2022.
[xxvi] A couple of Brazilian priests with more ample experience in this respect gave these behavior descriptions of priests and bishops known as homosexuals: “Ecclesiastical careerists, very influential, networking; prepossess people in their favor, flatter superiors and powerful persons, feign, simulate being different from how they are, pharisaism; authoritarian; cause divisions; superficial contacts with colleagues and aggressive on them; more impulsive than rational, ignore reality, switch from euphoria to depression, play the victim, alcohol problems; covetous, get the richest parishes.” (Nasini, 2001, 115). Observations in Holland and Germany confirm this pattern of behavior, which is apparently not much different in various cultures.
LITERATURE
Burke, C.P. – Marriage and the family in Africa. Catholic Position Papers, A-146 (Dublin), 1987.
Flood, B. – Obama biographer says ex-president ‘as insecure as Trump’, would be ‘terrible’ on Scotus in stunning interview.
Foxnews.com/media/ 8.4.2023.
Hanson, D. – Homosexuality: The international disease. New York: L.S. Publications, 1965.
Lee, R.G. – The truth about the homosexual rights movement. New Oxford Review, 7.6.2008.
Mainwaring, D. – New Obama allegations raise the question if he had a personal stake in the LGBT revolution. LifeSiteNews.com/blog/news – 9.8.2023.
Mosen, N. – Homosexualität, Gesellschaft und Politik: Bericht eines Insiders (Homosexuality, society and politics. An insider’s report). Medizin und Ideologie, (Germany), 1997, 19, 1, 18-30.
Nasini, G. – Um espinho na carne: Má conduto e abuso sexual por parte de clérigos da Igreja Católica do Brasil. (A thorn in the flesh. Bad conduct and sexual abuse by priests of the Catholic Church of Brazil). Aparecida SP: Editora Santuário, 2001.
Pope John Paul II – Erinnerung und Identität. (Remembrance and identity). Augsburg (Germany): Weltbild Buchverlag, 2005.
Rego de Planas, L. – Brief aan paus Franciscus (Letter to pope Francis}, 9.23.2023. Echtkatholiek blogspot.nl 12.28.2014.
Reilly, R.R. – Making gay okay: How rationalizing homosexual behavior is changing everything. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014.
Rutz, D. & Flood, B. – Obama biographer on letters to 44’s ex he hopes the public never sees, how Michelle changed since Chicago days. Fox News, Media, 8.11.2023.
Socarides, Ch. – Beyond sexual freedom. Clinical fallout. American Journal of psychotherapy, 1976, 30, 3, 385-397.
Tosatti, M. – Quarracino: chi è Davvero o Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Intervista a Gloria Tv. (Quarracino: Who is the real Jorge Mario Bergoglio? Interview at Gloria tv). marcotosatti.com/author/wp 1.9.2022.
van den Aardweg, G.J.M. – Homosexuality and biological factors: Real evidence—none; misleading interpretations: plenty. The NARTH Bulletin, 13, 3, 19-28.
Van den Aardweg, G.J.M. – On the origins and treatment of homosexuality. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986.
Van den Aardweg, G.J.M. – The battle for normality. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997.
Van den Aardweg, G.J.M. – On the psychogenesis of homosexuality. The Linacre Quarterly, 2011, 78, 3, 330-354.
Van den Aardweg, G.J.M. – Science says No: The gay “marriage” deception. Castlemitchell South, Athy, Kildare (Eire). 2015.
Wailzer, A. – LifeSiteNews, 1.29.2024.