It’s now late February 2019, during the “Abuse Synod.” We see that Scicluna is promoting the legitimacy of homosexuality as not being a disorder. Scicluna has been repeating this for years and years. On July 21, 2013, on the soon to be forcibly closed Holy Souls Hermitage blog, I published the following interlinear commentary on an LGBTQ themed interview of the then new Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Malta, the Most Rev. Charles Scicluna, who has spearheaded now for decades the entire Church’s response to the abuse crisis by letting the most far reaching cause of the crisis – homosexual bullying – get a pass.
Scicluna is one of the masterminds of the “Abuse Synod” of February 2019. He insists that God’s love is the origin of homosexually occasioned “love.” Immediately after I published what you’ll read below, I was ecclesiastically silenced, being forced not only to take down the commentary on that interview I now re-publish below, but I was thrown into a dumpster as I had no way to support myself. This was known.
That didn’t surprise me. It was the tradition-al-ism-ists who took me off-guard. I was attacked as a traitor since Scicluna’s take down of Marcial Maciel had given him the same kind of street cred that was enjoyed by, say, [now laicized
Cardinal] McCarrick, who thrived on being “tough on abusers,” gaining street cred for himself in this way. Get it?
For the sycophants of Scicluna, the “tougher” one is, the more of a god one is, the higher on the pedestal one goes. Scicluna instantly became an untouchable hero who could do no wrong. Scicluna’s wild promotion of divinely inspired homosexual “love” was rationalized in the attacks made upon yours truly. Whistleblowers are always attacked by the cowardly, by those who politically correct, those who are entitled to heroes of their choice whether those “heroes” are monsters or not. We see the emergence of the old code of silence, the old omertà, the old cover-up giving one’s heroes a licence to kill, keeping the ever desired cycle of abuse going. This is what the cowardly want.
The YouTube video of this interview has since been taken down. Those attacking me said that it was “highly edited” what with different camera angles and all. Yet, there are long sections of non-interrupted frothing by Scicluna. Moreover – and please note this – the final version of the video was officially sanctioned by both the University LGBT group and the Archdiocese of Malta. That means, for those wanting to silence me in the bottom of a dumpster yet again, that Scicluna absolutely agreed to the presentation of his statements.
These are not just sound bites; there is also lengthy non-interrupted rationale.
Before the video was taken down, I had transcribed every last word of the entire video. The entire text [with my comments] is presented below.
In brief, Scicluna favors legalizing, sanctioning, the relationships of non-heterosexual couples. After all, he insists, homosexual “love” comes from God. How sick.
Pete Farrugia (typed question pictured):
Is my best friend still eternally damned for loving men instead of women as the priests in our old school told him – Matthias & Marthese [This clearly asks about the grave [im]morality of homosexual acts. Note the relativization of God’s judgment to modern opinion of men: “still eternally…”]
I think love is never a sin. God is love. I think that there is a love between males that is the love of friendship, and that is blessed from God. I would distinguish between love between males and sex between males. [Great. But, since he’s answering such a question as this, would it not behoove him to indicate that it is of immediate interest to distinguish between the friendship of two heterosexual males, which is indeed a love of friendship blessed from God, a friendship not sourced through the lens of homosexual attraction, over against a “love” between two homosexuals, a “love” sourced through the lens homosexual attraction, which is not love, but rather inversion? Not making this distinction in the face of such a question misleads one into thinking that homosexually sourced love of friendship (prescinding from sexual acts) has a dignity that comes from God Himself. This is not to say that those who are burdened with same sex attraction cannot be great saints, and truly love God and neighbor of whatever sex most heroically, but one must carry such a cross with a rejection of any “love” that is sourced through homosexual attraction. But he doesn’t say that. Of course, a failure to make distinctions during an interview may be just because he didn’t have any coffee that day. But we’ll see if this lack of distinction comes up again, and what the dire consequences are.] And a question about damnation is not a question I can define, define on, because this is something that is exclusively reserved to God who respects the freedom of an individual. [Chapeau to Bishop Scicluna. What he means here, it is to be guessed, is not that one is free to do what one wants and can get away with it, but that God will, indeed, supply us with the freely chosen consequences of our freely chosen actions, if we do not turn to His mercy. Saint Paul reminds us that the consequences can, in fact, be eternal damnation.] But what the psalm says is that there is mercy of God which is eternal, and my hope for myself and for this friend is that we rely on God’s mercy and His forgiveness. [He’s saying that homosexual acts are objectively sinful, and may very well be subjectively sinful for any given individual, who risks eternal damnation if repentance is not made. Great! And, yes, we have all of us, without exception, me, you, everyone, crucified the Son of the Living God with our sins. With repentance and reliance on God’s mercy and forgiveness, we can indeed have hope. Great! Indeed, I would say this, the Mystical Body of Christ is also supported by those who carry their cross well, including those who are burdened with same sex attraction. But I’m still wondering about that lack of distinction about homosexually sourced “love of friendship.” Let’s continue…]
Pete Farrugia (typed question pictured):
Recently in France there has been protests both in favour and against gay marriage. What is your opinion about the situation in France? – Sophia
Well [He’s laughing here.], my opinion as a Roman Catholic Bishop should be very, very clear, but, I think, and, um, one of the interesting thing that I was noting recently, because we’re talking about something which is very, very recent, and there are people from all walks of life, from all persuasions, who are saying we should be faithful to our definitions. We [By “we” he means all cultures of any nation of any age, and he is, of course, correct on this.] have always defined marriage — even in ancient Greece, where male friendship was also sexual or in pagan Rome, where you had all sorts of behaviors very, very, almost very déjà vu certain things that we see today — but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and it is the important, stable community that is the building block of society, because it gives a stable environment and a loving environment which is heterosexual for the birth and upbringing of children, that may be males or females. [Excellent!] And it is, it is the community that assures the preservation of the species and also the continuation of society. [Here’s he’s stating civil regulation promoting the kind of heterosexual marriage he has described is necessary. Great! But he’s talking about marriage, here, and he’s talking to someone who is interested in his views on non-heterosexual marriage. So, let’s see what he does for non-heterosexual (such as LGBT) couples:] So I think that there is no need to change the definition of marriage to defend the dignity and give legal recognition to relationships between people who are not heterosexual couples [Catastrophically, his very protection of marriage being reserved to heterosexual couples does not at all forbid him, in his perspective, to promote what he calls the dignity of non-heterosexual couples. He guides and directs that such “dignity” be recognized by way of civil legislation legalizing unions of non-heterosexual couples. In context of what he says above, he intends that such couples in such unions not commit sexual acts. One immediately wonders if he also thinks that such homosexually sourced (or LGBT sourced) “love of friendship”, which he says comes from God, can be blessed by appropriate ceremonies in a Catholic church, such as Saint Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, by a Catholic priest, or bishop for that matter. If one thinks that this is shocking, we only have to remember the many Bishops and Archbishops and, indeed, Cardinals, who have stated time and again that they think that as long as a seminarian is “comfortable” with chaste but deeply rooted homosexuality, that they can and ought to be ordained. This bit about non-heterosexual — but in his view — chaste and legalized unions is simply a logical conclusion of the blessing of a homosexualized number of clergy by many other ecclesiastics. And, mind you, there are those who say that it may be that the entire interview was not presented. I would answer that no matter what other editing took place, there is no possible scenario in which the Bishop could have said what he said legitimately. What he said above was not edited at all. And, again, this presentation was sanctioned by the Archdiocese of Malta. So, now look at what happens:].
Do you think that the Church using terms like disorder to refer to homosexual inclination is a stumbling block in furthering dialogue?
It doesn’t really help, doesn’t it? I think that the word we should avoid is evil. Because evil is already going in to the moral, you know, judgment of a single act, really. [This is an excellent way to lift an inclination out of the ambit of the morality of an acting upon that inclination. Good. Inclination and acts are different. Just because one has an inclination does not mean that someone is evil. Right. But let’s see how he does an end run around the word disorder so as to inescapably imply that homosexually sourced “love of friendship” is not at all a disorder, but is instead ordered and “blessed from God”:] Now disorder is different because determining it is also relative [!]. It depends on what you say, what you mean when you say ordered [Get ready for a new definition of what ordered is all about after he speaks to the biological aspect only of what is properly ordered according to Judeo-Catholic revelation and teaching…], and I think that there is a reference to the book of creation here. If we open the book of creation which is the book of Genesis for example in the Bible, but the book of creation is our bodies, looking at our bodies, and the way human beings not only relate but also come together. A man and woman come together to be one body. That is the book of creation. Now I’m going, I’m not going to go into the details of the sexual act, but when we’re talking about order, we’re talking about how the male body and the female body are created, and saying they are created to become one body, whereas where we look at two men, and the book of creation doesn’t tell us that they should be one body. And that is where the disorder comes. The order is to us by the book of creation. [He’s definitely ruling out homosexual acts, and inescapably implies that homosexual acts are disordered and indeed, from what he said further above, at least objectively evil, at least on the level of what he thinks the plumbing should work in his imagination. However, you will notice that he is not answering the question about inclination, and, unlike the teaching of the Catholic Church, limits the discussion to that which is biological. Obviously, active homosexuals will have a different opinion about how the possibility of diversely appreciating of the “book of creation”. Active homosexuals will surely insist that the plumbing is effervescently fabulous for themselves. Holy Mother Church, instead, holds that the inclination is itself disordered. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” That Scicluna is purposely limiting the discussion to that which is biological to the end of recognizing what he calls the dignity of non-heterosexual unions is evident by, in fact, his promotion of legislation promoting the legalizing of unions of non-heterosexual couples, unions which he seems to think will be entirely chaste as a love of friendship blessed by God. But this is already a sin against chastity: holding specifically homosexually sourced “love” to have its origin in God is blasphemous. The Catechism does say that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” However, forbidding the legalization of unions of non-heterosexual couples is not a sign of unjust discrimination.]
And finally, Father, do you have a message for the students from part of the LGBT community at the university?
They are welcome in the Church and there is a place for them in the Church, and I would suggest that whatever they do in life they cherish good friendships, good, safe, chaste friendships. I know it’s a tall order from a short bishop, bishop, but it comes with great respect and also fraternal love. [Non-heterosexual couples who live in legalized or non-legalized unions by that very lifestyle proclaim that their non-heterosexually sourced “love of friendship” is not disordered. They reject a most basic teaching of the Church. This is not blessed by God. This is not chaste, even if there are no sex acts. Those who are in such unions gravely scandalize the faithful. Grave scandal is, objectively, grave sin. Scicluna’s niceness doesn’t make it all better.]
Thank you very much.
[Saying such things as did Bishop Charles J. Scicluna presents a world-view which radically — I would say militantly — promotes the homosexualist agenda. What truly Catholic bishop could possibly promote the legalization of a sealing of a relationship of two deeply rooted homosexuals who think, with his help, that such a disorientation is actually good and wholesome, and who, strongly homosexually attracted to each other, will be living under the same roof? Who could possibly pretend that they will easily remain chaste? It’s absurd. All of it. Still today, in February 2019, Scicluna insists that there is no added weakness for homosexuals, and therefore, no disorder. These are all steps to the normalization of homosexual acts as being completely moral and sanctioned by God. That’s not good. Whether I end up in a dumpster again or not, I cannot remain silent in the face of Scicluna’s homosexualization of the Church.]