Here we go again. JM Bergoglio, the Petrine Squatter is reported to have delivered some “off-color” remarks to a group of Spanish seminarians back in December.
Know what this reminds me of? If you guessed my own time in McCarrick’s seminary, then you’d be right and I will award you one gold star.
I saw this on Canon212 earlier (and please hit Frank’s donate button). If what is being reported is true (and please check out the story), then JMB is at best a dirty old man, at worst, well, it doesn’t get much worse than being an antipope and , as Barnhardt calls him, the “probable false prophet forerunner of the antichrist”.
But let’s stick with the dirty old man motif for a second. Is it important that men being trained for priesthood have a basic awareness of the kinds of situations they might face especially in the confessional? Yes. Is it necessary that these men be sexually harassed in the process? You don’t think that’s what this is? In any workplace situation where the CEO comes in to address the most Junior of trainees and starts using that kind of language and indulging himself with sex banter in blunt terms, those trainees could sue. And rightly so. No one wants to be forced to listen to an octogenarian talk about sex at all, let alone in anything other than the most sanitized and clinical terms and only if absolutely necessary.
Let’s not even dig deeper into the question of his supposedly telling these young men to absolve everything even in the absence of a sign of repentance on the part of the sinner. If that’s true then we simply have more evidence that two “churches” exist side by side. Apparently Our Lord’s instruction that some sins could be refused absolution means nothing to Papa Pervo.
But back to my days studying for the holy priesthood. I will never forget the day when the rector of my college seminary delivered a talk to the 25 or so of us young men sitting in the chapel. It was the weekly rector’s conference. I believe his topic was something along the lines of chastity. Yet somehow, about five minutes in, he began describing in vulgar detail the male ejaculation. Only he used other words. He couched it at first by giving the etymology of the French term “petite mort” – the “little death”. I was so confused wondering where he was going with all of this. And then he just blurted it out. “Men, I’m talking about [Latin conjunction for with]-ing”
I was 19. I had never been with a woman. I was not unwise to the workings of human reproduction. I knew the words he was using. I was still as red-faced as a tomato. In front of the Blessed Sacrament, no less! What was he thinking?
Years later I got a copy of the Catechism of Trent and discovered that the Church used to teach that such matters should be broached with great discretion. Not to our rector. Apparently he thought it was “chill” to be “down with the kids”. Again, I never did figure out how his talk related to chastity or what practical information a seminarian could glean from this garbage. I do remember him describing the marriage act in graphic detail including observations about how couples need to “work together to achieve mutual pleasure”. I’ll spare you those details. You’re welcome.
He went on to become a bishop, the Vicar General for McCarrick, and got his own see not long after. Good old Teddy strikes again.
Coming back to Bergoglio, though, I have no doubt that this story is true. For starters, it appears certain that he abandoned his prepared speech. My guess is he noticed actual theological terms on the first page that he knew he couldn’t pronounce.
Regardless, it would behoove him to remember that just because he’s a twisted fetishist doesn’t mean everyone else is. Also, if you’re still wondering how the older stream of Vatican II wickedness still seems to flow through the Church today, look no further. It’s called grooming and they’ve been doing it for years.
Mary, Mother of Priests, pray for us!