Fred's
Fantasies
A commentary on Frederic Martel's “In the Closet of
the Vatican”.
Nicolas J Bellord
A
bombshell?
This book was supposed to be a 'bombshell' but in
reality it will have no more effect than a damp squib. Everyone
knows there are homosexuals and homosexual networks or lobbies in the
Vatican; all that this book does is to give an exaggerated view of
the problem dictated by an LGBT agenda. That agenda is that the
Vatican is 80% homosexual and that therefore the Catholic Church
should drop its supposed hypocritical stance on the evil of sodomy
and say there is nothing wrong with it.
Martel tells us that he does not like the use of the
titles that are common in the Vatican e.g. Your Eminence etc.
Further he does not like the use of capital letters so 'Holy See'
becomes 'holy see', Pope becomes 'pope' etc. He is not consistent in
this as 'France' still gets a capital letter. So to concur with his
hatred of formality and respect lets refer to him as Fred but keep
the capital letter.
Probably the most important areas in the book are the
interviews with named Cardinals as opposed to many more interviews
with unnamed Cardinal of doubtful credibility.
Cardinal
Burke
His first victim is Cardinal Burke (chapter 2) who
fortunately escapes being interviewed as he never turns up being
detained by Pope Francis for longer than expected. However Fred does
go to the abortive meeting and tells us why the Cardinal must be a
homosexual by observing what he sees in the Cardinal's apartment. He
asks the Cardinal's assistant whether he can use the bathroom so that
he can inspect that. He then enumerates various pointers which are
supposed to indicate the Cardinal's hidden sexuality:
His apartment is luxurious and spartan.
His dining table is not a genuine antique but repro.
On
a chest of drawers is a Bible open on a lectern.
This surely indicates a rigid Promethean Neo-Pelagianism in Fred's
eyes.
On
the table, an arrangement of dried pine cones, braided and glued
together – the ornamental art of elderly dandies. Dandy
must be a code word for queer.
In
the bathroom: luxury soaps, with their subtle perfumes,
are arranged in the Japanese style
the
little towels folded on medium-sized ones, which are in turn
arranged on large ones, and the large ones on very large.
The
toilet paper is new, and set in a protective cover that guarantees
its immaculate purity.
For
Fred all these items point to homosexuality. But Fred really goes to
town on the Cardinal's wardrobe which contains a red hat amongst
other regalia. That is the sum total of the case against Cardinal
Burke.
Fred
did manage to get interviews with two other Cardinals – Mueller and
Kasper – amongst other Cardinals but these two are of supreme
importance. Since publication both Mueller and Kasper have said that
the interviews were obtained on false pretences.
Archbishop
Vigano
But
before we get to those interviews Fred brings up the allegations made
by Archbishop Vigano. In particular it has been said that Fred
confirms that the Archbishop told Pope Francis about McCarrick's
sleeping with seminarians under his tutelage. In fact he only
implies this when he writes “When the pope dismissed the
allegations, his entourage indicated to me that Francis ‘was
initially informed by Viganò that Cardinal McCarrick had had
homosexual relations with over-age seminarians, which was not enough
in his eyes to condemn him’.” Throughout this book this kind
of assertion is made on no quoted evidence – no name is given, no
source is cited etc. However what he is doing is to accuse Pope
Francis of saying that an Archbishop inviting over-age seminarians
under his tutelage to sleep with him is not something he would
condemn. Of course this reflects the LGBT agenda i.e. sodomy between
consenting adults is acceptable; although of course to what extent
the seminarians were giving proper consent is questionable. Fred
only condemns the abuse of minors. The view of Pope Francis is not
the same; unfortunately he has said that sins below the belt are of
no great consequence so he may well believe that McCarrick was not to
be condemned when minors were not involved.
Of
course Fred makes much of the “Who am I judge” remark by Pope
Francis and by ignoring the context of that remark reinforces his
view that the Pope views sodomy very lightly.
Pope
Francis in Buenos Aires
Fred
moves on to Pope Francis in chapter 4 and his time in Buenos Aires.
He talks about Liberation Theology but not with any insight. He is
more interested in accusing clerics of closet homosexual activity and
Bergoglio's attitude to this. He says Bergoglio was soft on civil
unions but very much against same-sex marriage but only as a result
of pressure from Rome.
The
Synod on the Family
Cardinal
Baldisseri is the hero and the claim is made that he was promoting an
attack on the Church's doctrine on sexuality at the behest of the
Pope, first through allowing communion for the divorced and remarried
but eventually in the hope of permitting sodomy, all inspired by the
theology of Cardinal Walter Kasper. We are told that 80% of the
clergy in the Vatican are homosexuals. Fred also admits that over 80%
of the abuse cases involving young people are homosexual in nature.
He seems to miss the irony of referring to 80% in each case.
Fred
claims that the Pope's programme is:
“ The
Church needed to distinguish, in a new and fundamental way, between
the crimes of paedophilia – abuse and aggression directed at minors
under the age of 15; acts without consent or within the context of a
situation of authority (catechism, confession, seminaries etc.) –
and legal homosexual practices between consenting adults.”
I
wonder what he thinks of the Pope's proposal to raise the age of
consent from 15 to 16 whilst many in the LGBT movement would like to
see it reduced.
Fred
thinks that the Pope's programme was defeated at the first session of
the Synod but the 'Sly and cunning' Pope fights back. Fast
forward to the dubia and the four Cardinals – Burke, Caffara,
Bradmuller and Meisner who must be homosexual because they are so
opposed to sodomy. For Fred the dubia are not the questions raised
by the four Cardinals but the Cardinals themselves and their
entourage: “The ‘dubia’ have a style of their own: apparent
humility and extravagant vanity; obsequious explosions of laughter
from their handsome young companions and book burnings; sacristy
hangers-on, liturgy queens, well-combed choirboys with their straight
partings from the Jesuit schools and the Inquisition; a tortuous and,
indeed, torturous language and medieval positions on sexual morality.
And on top of that, what a lack of enthusiasm for the fair sex! Such
misogyny! Such divine gaiety, such virile rigidity – or vice versa.
‘The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.’ Fully informed about
the ‘homophilia’ of some of these ‘dubia’ and the paradoxes
of his opponents’ lives – these paragons of moral intransigence
and rigidity – the pope is deeply revolted by such a level of
duplicity.”
Does
Fred believe that such language will be taken seriously?
Cardinals
Mueller and Kasper
Fred
turns to Cardinal Mueller writing about the Cardinal's apartment:
“The apartment is classical, and ugly in a rather un-Catholic
way. That’s a trait shared by dozens of cardinals’ apartments I
have visited: this demi-mondain semi-luxury, this mixture of genres
that don’t match, the ersatz, and the superficial rather than
depth. It is, in a word, what I will call ‘middlebrow’! That’s
the term they use in the United States for things that are neither
elitist nor working-class: it’s the culture of the middle, the
culture of between-the-two; the culture that is bang in the centre. A
large, opulent, fake art-deco clock that has stopped working; an
over-styled baroque chest of drawers; a fireman table all mixed up
together. It’s the culture of moleskin notebooks, spuriously
modelled on those of Bruce Chatwin and Hemingway, apocryphal legends.
That style without style, ‘bland’ and dull, is common to Müller,
Burke, Stafford, Farina, Etchegaray, Herranz, Martino, Ruini,
Dziwisz, Re, Sandoval and many cardinals in search of
‘self-aggrandizement’ that I have visited.”
One
supposes that Fred's own apartment must be in such perfect good taste
that it rivals that of Huysmans's des
Esseintes or Proust's Baron de Charlus both partly modelled on the
real apartment of Count Robert
de Montesquiou
as described by Mallarme.
Visiting
Cardinal Mueller at 9a.m. he finds him in a tee-shirt, trousers and
slippers although he calls them flip-flops further on. Without any
justification he repeatedly claims that this is Mueller's nightwear
or his underwear presumably with the aim of belittling the Cardinal.
All he gets from Mueller is a statement of his loyalty to the Pope.
The
Chapter concludes with an interview with Cardinal Kasper who of
course is a hero for Fred so the tone is quite different. They spend
their time going through the people in the Vatican to discuss whether
they are homosexuals or not. Really? Word must have got about that
Fred was somebody to be wary of. Cardinal Kasper has since commented
that the interview was obtained by false pretences.
Pope
Paul VI and The Maritain Code.
The
next part of the book is about Pope Paul VI and we have a chapter
entitled 'The Maritain Code' which has as much
credibility as 'The Da Vinci Code'. The theory is that
Jacques Maritain was against sodomy and tried to persuade Andre Gide
not to indulge in it. He was therefore extremely homophobic and
therefore a repressed homosexual or what Fred calls a homophile which
for Fred is a homosexual who has not yet succumbed to sodomy. Anyone
who either knew Maritain or read and admired what he wrote must be a
homophile. As a very influential theologian Maritain was known to
Pope Paul VI and many others and this is how we get to 80% of the
clergy in the Vatican.
Fred
explains:
“In
order to understand the very particular sociology of Catholicism, and
particularly that of the Vatican on my subject, we must therefore
rely on what I choose here to call the ‘Maritain code’.
Sublimated, if not repressed, homosexuality is often translated into
the choice of celibacy and chastity, and, even more often, into an
internalized homophobia. And yet most popes, cardinals and bishops
who are over the age of 60 today grew up in the atmosphere and the
way of thinking of the ‘Maritain code’.”
Why
stop at 80%? Why not 100%? The whole of the next chapter is
designed to show that a chaste Loving Friendship is a phoney concept
and is nothing but repressed homosexuality.
Fred
mentions Jean Cocteau who came out as a homosexual and wrote a book
called his White Book describing his homosexuality. Fred hands out
copies of this book to many of the people he interviews.
Pope
John Paul II and Marcial Maciel
Part
III is about John Paul II. The friends and disciples of Jacques
Maritain were homophiliac under Paul VI. They now become homosexual.
The idea that John Paul II was homosexual is so ludicrous that Fred
thinks that it is best to pretend that he was just surrounded by a
ring of lust.
There
is a diversion about Cardinal Sodano and particularly his activities
in Chile. How reliable Fred's account is is questionable and really
not much reliance can be put on it. Moving on to The Legion of
Christ Fred describes Marcial Maciel as 'diabolical' – the
majority of his behaviour was homosexual.
The
language Fred uses about homosexuality is often curious mentioning
for example 'moral
abyss'.
He deplores the homosexual abuse by Maciel. But then how does he
see homosexuality? Is sodomy only wrong when there is also hypocrisy
i.e. not coming out and covering it up? If the Church were to stop
condemning sodomy would all practising homosexuals in the Church come
out and lead happy fulfilled lives in faithful same-sex unions
blessed by the Church? Does he believe that all sexual abuse is
really about power; power or in the case of the clergy 'clericalism'
is what is wrong not sodomy itself? He attributes a quote to Oscar
Wilde on this which most commentators say Wilde never uttered:
“Everything
in human life is really about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.”
Unfortunately this seems to be a view shared by Pope Francis.
Fred
sees certain behaviour as truly evil; discussing Maciel he writes
“the
predator's wicked actions”.
But he wants the ban on sodomy to be lifted; what limits would he
impose on their behaviour? What would he still see as 'wicked'?
In chapter 11 he approves of prostitution as it is legal.
Fred
concludes this chapter on Maciel and the Legion of Christ with a
passage that has some element of truth although the answers to his
questions are fairly obvious.
“Once
one starts equating paedophilia with homosexuality – as many
cardinals have given the impression of doing, the differences blur.
If everything is mixed up together, sexual abuse and sin,
paedophilia, homosexuality, prostitution, and the crime differs only
in its extent, not in its nature, who is to be punished? Here is
where the priests get lost: What is up, what is down? Where are Good,
Evil, Nature and Culture? What rules apply to me, and which to
others? Can Marcial Maciel be excommunicated for his sexual crimes
if, a bit like him, one is also stuck in a sexual lie, and oneself
‘intrinsically disordered’? To denounce abuse is to expose
oneself to no good end and, who knows, perhaps run the risk of being
denounced likewise. Here we are at the heart of the secret of the
Maciel case and all the paedophile crimes that have been uncovered,
and that continue to be exposed, in the Vatican and among the
Catholic clergy: an army of supporters, countless excuses and endless
silences.”
There
follow chapters on “The Swiss Guard” and “The Crusade against
Gays” all entirely predictable. However in Chapter 14 -
“The Pope's Diplomacy”. Fred meets a wary Monsignor Ricca of
“Who
am I to judge”
fame who arranges for him to stay at the hotel for Vatican diplomats:
Domus Internationalis Paulus VI. There follows a long complaint
about how spartan it is! He gives Ricca a copy of Cocteau's White
Book and we discover that there are parts of the Domus which are less
spartan! From here on Fred descends into schoolboy silliness with
all sorts of innuendos as he fantasizes about more homosexual
scandal. Naturally Vatican diplomats are just sex tourists. The
Pantheon is an example of Italian Catholic 'cultural appropriation'!
Some
have suggested that Fred was encouraged to write this book by close
members of Pope Francis's entourage and the involvement of Mgr Ricca
suggests there may be something in that idea although if it is true
then it is difficult to see what they expected to achieve.
There
is a long attack on Cardinal Robert Sarah accusing him of
exaggerating the sales of his books. He is of course surrounded by
homosexuals even if he is unaware of them. Such is the innuendo.
The attack is really nasty – how Fred really hates the Church and
any orthodox member thereof is amazing. In respect of Cardinal
Sarah, one of whose characteristics is to say very little, the venom
shown by Fred is diabolic.
Several
chapters follow ending up with the Italian Bishops' Conference (CEI).
The reputations of several Cardinals are attacked. Finally Pope
Francis gets praise for clearing many out of the CEI and restraining
its anti-gay programme but: “For
want of heterosexual candidates, he has been forced to surround
himself with cardinals that he knows to be gay. He no longer has the
illusion that he can change the existing state of affairs.”
A
predictable chapter on Seminarians has no mention of McCarrick!
All
of that part III of the book consisting of ten chapters is supposed
to have been about Pope John Paul II. In the event there is very
little about him other than he followed an orthodox line. His only
defect according to Fred was being surrounded by homosexuals – the
Ring of Lust.
Pope
Benedict XVI
Pope
Benedict XVI is described as naïve and fragile because he is a fan
of Saint-Exupery's “The
Little Prince”.
Further “Benedict
XVI often lies”
- not a shred of evidence or a single example is given for that
extraordinary statement. Later Fred refers to him as 'our
Queenie'.
Need one say more about the nastiness of this book?
When
attacking Cardinal Bertone, who has read Maritain, Fred writes: “This
kind of gossip was typical of homosexual life before ‘gay
liberation’.”
So in Fred's brave new world there will be no gossip! What irony!
Under
another chapter heading “The Dissidents”, we meet Timothy
Radcliffe O.P: ‘It
doesn’t matter if you’re gay or heterosexual: the essential thing
is to love,’
Strangely Fred does not mention Radcliffe's question “We
must ask what it [sodomy] means, and how far it is Eucharistic”.
There
follows a passage on James Allison and how
liberation theology morphed into 'gay theology' and eventually became
'queer theology'.
After
“Vatileaks” (a conspiracy by homosexuals!) we come to “The
Abdication”. Cuba comes under the spotlight: “Roberto
Veiga warns me.
‘Black
masses on Sundays, orgies, cases of paedophilia and prostitution: the
Cuban Church is very compromised.’”
What I find curious is that Fred puts all this down to the presence
of homosexuals. He then claims that it was the sight of all this
corruption when Benedict XVI visited Cuba that led to his abdication.
Lastly
we have the “Epilogue” in which Fred says he is going to redefine
love. A good deal of drivel follows and we are none the wiser. At
the end Fred writes:
“Finally,
this book relies on a very large number of written sources, footnotes
and a wide-ranging bibliography containing over a thousand references
references to books and articles. Since the format of this book does
not allow us to cite them here, interested researchers and readers
will find, free online, in a document of 300 pages, all of these
sources as well as three unpublished chapters (my journey to the real
Sodom in Israel-Palestine-Jordan; a part about Brazil; and a text on
the art and culture of the Vatican). All quotations are also given
here with their references as well as 23 fragments from Rimbaud, ‘the
Poet’ in this book. To go further: see the site www.sodoma.fr ;”
I
have visited that site but could find none of this.
The
problem with this tedious and silly book is that it is over 500
pages. Few will read it. The world at large will not read but
accept the notion that there are many homosexuals in the Vatican.
But we knew that already that so my view is that the book will have
little effect except for convincing those who hate the Church that it
is utterly corrupt.
