On Monday March 4, the daily newspaper “La Verità” published an interview Professor Roberto de Mattei gave to Ignazio Mangrano. It carried as its headline “Dear Church, quit being ‘gay-friendly’ and become sovereign.” Below we report the full text of the interview.
Dear Church, quit being ‘gay-friendly’ and become sovereign.
Professor Roberto de Mattei, President of the Fondazione Lepanto and director of the journal Radici Cristiane, is one of the promoters of the Acies ordinate demonstration that lined up a hundred Catholics from all over the world in Piazza San Silvestro on February 19th, for a silent protest against the Vatican summit on sexual abuse.
Professor, was the Vatican summit a success or a failure?
I believe it was a failure. The major media outlets exposed it as such, by reporting that the message was weak and by underlining the dissatisfaction of the victims. I, however, believe the failure was due to something else.
It focused on the symptoms, not the causes of the evil.
The central point, which was already revealed in the Viganò testimony was neglected: the diffusion of homosexuality in the Church as an organized phenomenon.
Is there a “gay lobby” in the Church?
Yes, there is. It seems to me quite evident.
Most of the abuses by the clergy concerned adolescent males, not children. So, if homosexuality wasn’t mentioned at the summit, the only explanation is that there is extremely strong pressure to ensure that the subject be avoided.
Pressure outside or inside the Church?
Both outside and inside. The mass-media want to stop the Church from reaffirming Her traditional doctrine on homosexuality.
Because pedophilia is a crime acknowledged by all the modern secular States. But these same States that condemn pedophilia, promote homosexuality.
They promote it?
Yes, they do. So much so that they want to introduce homophobia as a crime – thus outlawing any criticism of homosexuality.
So has the Church succumbed to the LGBT propaganda?
The Church ought to assume a prophetic position in challenging the world, by condemning not only what the world condemns, that is, the sexual abuses, but also what the world doesn’t condemn, that is, homosexuality.
What about the internal pressures?
In the clergy today, there is an atmosphere of omertà and complicity in being ‘gay friendly’ as the saying goes. It seems that the word homosexuality cannot even be mentioned.
Monsignor Charles Scicluna said that it isn’t legitimate to condemn homosexuality, since this word indicates a generic category and a “category” of people cannot be generalized.
And can it be then?
But isn’t pedophilia also a category? Or is pedophilia a sin as such, whereas homosexuality is no longer?
Father Federico Lombardi spoke of “concrete measures” taken at the end of the summit. Is he mistaken?
The presumed concrete measures are appeals to the indications of the World Health Organization, which promotes contraception, abortion and sexual education. I was taken aback by how the summit fell into line with the agenda of an international organization which has long been against the teachings of the Magisterium.
What should the Pope have done?
You know, there is nothing more concrete than referring to the moral law of the Church, which is not an abstract rule, but the natural law engraved in the heart and conscience of every man. It is this, most of all, that was missing at the Vatican summit: a supernatural vision of today’s problems which allows space for words like: grace, sin, moral law and natural law.
And instead those words are absent in the final document. This is why the summit was a failure. Which the exploding of the Pell case is a symptom of.
Regarding the matter of Cardinal George Pell - what do you make of it?
I think that when there are accusations involving churchmen, since the Church has its own Canon Law, its own tribunals, and is capable of carrying out investigations, it cannot simply say: “Let’s wait for the results of the investigation” carried out by the secular tribunals.
Should we not rely on the “secular” courts?
I find such manifestation of trust in the secular tribunals troubling.
In the Vatican they are in shock over the Pell affair, as they know he is innocent. And they are embarrassed because the Pope had appointed him Prefect to the Secretariat for the Economy. But if a decision has been made to rely on the secular tribunals, you have to bear the consequences…
Should it be up to the Church then to investigate abusive priests?
The Church which has its own penal law and tribunals needs to have the courage to challenge the judgment of the world’s tribunals, convinced that it is not the world that judges the Church, but the Church that judges the world. The Church should reclaim Her sovereignty.
Does the Church then also have to become sovereign?
Yes indeed. I find it extremely serious that the Church has renounced Her sovereignty. The Church is a sovereign society, like the State, even if Her purpose, unlike the State, is supernatural.
If the Church is a sovereign society, it has all the instruments to achieve its own ends of justice. It is not only a purely ethical organism, which strips itself of its judicial dimension, allowing the State to decide everything. The renunciation of sovereignty is a dangerous development.
A dangerous development?
The secular tribunals can even get to Pope Francis…
What has the Pope got to do with it?
Let me explain. When the Church renounces sovereignty, it becomes a kind of “moral enterprise” [Translator’s note - as in a business company]. And this making the Church [like] a business company, risks rendering the entire Church, starting from the top, responsible for the acts of its subordinates. Something which will not happen if it is considered a sovereign society.
Meaning - if it acts like a State?
Precisely. If an Italian citizen commits a crime, the Prime Minster is not held responsible. If this continues, instead, there will be a persecution of the Church.
I’m afraid so. By renouncing sovereignty, the Church loses its freedom and is forced to submit to the State or be persecuted. Today we are under a regime of submission. If at one time the State was the secular arm of the Church, now the Church is becoming the secular arm of the powers that be, the politicians and the media.
In what sense?
In the sense that the Church is obeying the indications coming from national and international organizations which hold an antithetical vision to the Christian one.
And what has persecution got to do with this?
If the Church decided to evade this mechanism, there would be a clash with the political powers. Now the Church doesn’t dare do this. But if forced to, it will find itself in great difficulty, as it has renounced its main line of defense i.e. the exercise of its freedom and judicial independence.
Let’s go back to Pell for a second. Somebody observed that the accusations of sexual abuses came after the Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy had discovered a million Euros deposited in secret accounts…
It’s possible that the two things are connected. Furthermore, it is rumored that the source of the accusations that put him in the dock was not in Australia, but in the Vatican…
When you said that the Church lacks reference to the supernatural, what did you mean?
The Church is renouncing its mission - which has as its end the salvation of souls - by changing into a ‘company’ for the material well-being of people. The Church’s very nature is being perverted…
Its nature is being perverted?
It’s abdicating the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ, the Founder. Thus, it will become a revolutionary organism…
When the vertical relationship with God fades, the Church becomes a political society. This is the principal characteristic of the present Papacy, which is a political Papacy, as opposed to a religious Papacy.
So is Francis’ Papacy a political one?
Yes, it is. And his leitmotif is immigration. On February 14, when meeting representatives of indigenous populations at the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Pope called for a “cultural miscegenation” among the “so-called civilized populations”. Which signifies the elimination of the Christian roots which John Paul II and Benedict XVI had [both] insisted upon.
And what is “miscegenation” for him?
Miscegenation for Francis is not only cultural, but ethnic. It seems his project is that of an ethnic replacement of the European population - in stark demographic decline - with the new waves of African migrants…
But why all this?
Francis has an ideological vision that originates from his cultural formation.
And what would that be?
That of a man who has absorbed progressive theology through the mediation of Liberation Theology. It is the utopia of the “brave new world”. Except that he is reintroducing it 30-40 years after its failure.
How then would you define Pope Francis ?
Calculated ambiguity is the sum of his personality. And this is also the cause of his problems. At this point though, let me ask a question.§
Benedict XVI, who was also opposed in his homeland, made three trips to Germany. John Paul II made nine visits to Poland. How come, in the six years of his Papacy, Francis has been everywhere, even in the United Arab Emirates, but never to his own Argentina?
Ha! Why then?
The question itself is already an answer…
Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana