Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, secretary to Francesco Cardinal Coccopalmerio (seen above), was arrested by the Vatican police when caught in the midst of a drug-fueled homosexual orgy (Source). The orgy allegedly took place in the Palace of the Holy Office, which is the seat of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or what is traditionally known as the Universal Inquisition (Source). Specifically, the apartment in question belongs to the “the branch [of the Congregation] that reviews appeals from clergy found guilty of sexual abuse of minors” (Source). This has come as quite the shock to most considering that Cardinal Coccopalmerio is President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and a top adviser to Pope Francis, and, reportedly, he has personally pushed for Capozzi for promotion to bishop (Source). The arrest of Capozzi has cast his relationship with the Cardinal in a new light since Coccopalmerio has said that there can be “positive elements” to the gay lifestyle and that clergy should choose to highlight “positive realities” rather than focusing on the inherently and undeniably illicit nature of homosexual relationships (Source).
More unnerving is the fact that this is only the latest homosexual scandal within the Vatican. For example, Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Grand Chancellor of the St. John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, commissioned a homosexual artist to paint a mural in a cathedral, which has “Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions” (Source). Yet another example is James Martin, a Jesuit known for his TV appearances, who Pope Francis has named to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications (Source). This is despite the fact that Martin has worked with New Ways Ministry (Source), “a dissident, pro-gay-identity, pro-gay-sex, pro-gay-‘marriage’ group whose work was long ago condemned by both the Roman Curia and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” (Source). Of course, Martin himself has said Francis “is appointing [bishops] in the United States [that] are much more LGBT friendly” (Source), so it is safe to say that something is rotten in the state of the Vatican.
There can be no doubt that Latin Christendom is in a sad state of affairs these days with many, if not most, Protestant denominations having already embraced heresies such as female ordination and homosexuality, or being well on their way to that same destination. Generally, things have seemed better amongst Holy Mother Church, but Pope Francis has shown that the modernity of Vatican II must also inevitably follow the same heretical path. After all, it was just last year that he told a group of Lutherans visiting the Vatican that it is illicit to attempt to convert others to the faith because “proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path” (Source). That echoed previous comments made that same month wherein Francis said, “There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism.” (Source). In 2013, he again said, “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense” (Source). Francis has also acknowledged the “female primate” of the Church of Sweden (Source) and even traveled to that country to celebrate the Protestant Reformation wherein he praised Martin Luther (Source). He has also welcomed televangelists such as Joel Osteen to the Vatican (Source), allowed Muslim prayers to be heard in the Holy See (Source), and has bowed to kiss the hands of the Pharisaic occupiers of the Holy Land (Source). The list of such grave errors is nigh endless.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Pope Francis and his modernist ilk is that the masses believe that they and their liberal views are Holy Mother Church. Indeed, in the aftermath of Vatican II, a sort of “modernist orthodoxy” has developed that is similar to the so-called “neoconservatism” seen in American politics. In essence, people who abhor tradition and conserve nothing of value nonetheless see themselves as “conservative” because they fully embrace and defend institutions as they exist in the moment. They are progressives in every sense of the word, and their principles can change in an instant while pretending no change has occurred. If Francis and the modernists suddenly said that female ordination was acceptable, the neoconservative would defend it as though it was a self-evident truth and that it had always been the Church’s position. Whether they truly believe in such infallibility or are simply looking for the spiritual to justify their political beliefs is irrelevant. The fact remains that traditionalists have about as much in common with neoconservatives as they do with Evangelical Protestants, which is to say very little. Even a priest being caught in the very heart of the Universal Inquisition having a cocaine-fueled homosexual orgy will not be enough to make most start to ponder the validity of the modernist hierarchy and its myriad heresies.
The problem for traditionalists is that Christendom is currently dominated by neoconservatives and avowed progressives, and that means there is little hope of spontaneous reversals of what has been done in the Lord’s name in the last few decades or centuries. Those Protestant denominations that have ordained women and homosexuals will not suddenly reverse course, and neither Francis nor any other modernist in the current Church hierarchy will stop promoting every religion but Catholicism in the name of “ecumenism.” Some have decided that this situation is either the inevitable outcome of Christianity or that it is irreversible. In either case, the supposed “answer” is typically to abandon the faith for atheism, paganism, or what have you. Others have determined that this is a problem with Latin Christendom specifically, so they posit that Orthodox Christianity should simply come to replace Latin Christianity and all offshoots.
For rather obvious reasons, neither godlessness nor heathenry would save Western Christendom, but it must also be said that adopting Orthodox Christianity would be almost as silly. After all, Western civilization is built on a Catholic foundation with so much of it coming after the Great Schism of 1054. Thus, Orthodoxy is only related to Western Christendom and its associated civilization and culture, but it most assuredly is not in the DNA of the same. Latin Christians could wear Orthodoxy as a costume, but that is all it would ever be since none of the history or heritage of Western Europeans is at all derived from Orthodox Christendom. For example, consider how much pride that many Western Christians take in the Crusades. The historical Church is seen as largely being defined by those holy wars, but Byzantine Christians were often at odds with the West in those times including events such as the “Massacre of the Latins” in Constantinople in 1182, which saw thousands of Catholics murdered by Orthodox Christians (Source). Should Latin Christians simply recast such events with their ancestors now playing the role of the villains? How would that result in anything but so-called “live-action role-playing,” or LARPing? One can certainly argue that many of the national Orthodox churches have fewer issues with liberalization today, but that does not somehow give a Latin Christian meaningful ties to Eastern Christianity. Why wear a costume rather than fix one’s own problems?
The question then is how Western Christians can set about sorting out their house. Some have posited a sort of localism that revolves around targeting individual congregations for infiltration and eventual conversion. The thinking being that traditionalists can take over one church and then another, creating a snowball effect that would see Latin Christendom restored to its prior glory. Naturally, this would not work against Catholic churches wherein all administrative decisions are controlled by the diocese and not individual congregations themselves. Traditionalists in the pews would have virtually no influence on whether or not the parish priest shared their beliefs regarding tradition or anything else, and they would have even less say over the bishop overseeing the diocese. That is certainly true when Francis and his ilk are seeking clerics such as Luigi Capozzi who would be “LGBT friendly bishops,” as well as actively waging war on traditionalists (Source).
On the surface, it may seem that Protestants would have a better opportunity considering their locally controlled congregations. Indeed, members of the “Neo-Confederate” League of the South attempted to take over various congregations within the Presbyterian Church of America (Source), and, while their efforts ultimately failed, they did achieve a certain amount of success for a time (Source). To further demonstrate the point, consider that it would take hundreds of member churches to potentially take over the Southern Baptist Convention (Source), and the issue is only going to get worse as nearly 60% of their new congregations are non-white (Source). Already, the 2017 Convention voted almost unanimously to “decry every form of racism … as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and to “repudiate white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as a scheme of the devil intended to bring suffering and division to our society” (Source). In other words, virtually none of the current Southern Baptist churches that bother to send representatives care one bit about preserving Western Christendom, its peoples, or its cultures. They are rather the enemy.
While Orthodoxy is not the answer for Latin Christendom, temporary schism may well be. The reality is that Catholics need to become angry enough to finally take a stand against the heretics, to finally realize that they cannot sit around waiting for the heretics to remove themselves from the Church hierarchy. Traditionalists need to become angry enough to begin following the path of the Orthodox, Old Catholics, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, &c. Traditionalist clergy and laity alike must join together to build their own orders, institutions, and, yes, churches. The objective must be reconciling with Rome, but only after the Vatican can be reclaimed from the heretics. Catholics must become angry enough to save Holy Mother Church. If priests having cocaine-fueled homosexual orgies in Vatican offices is not enough to generate such anger, what will? Is Catholicism doomed to perish because Catholics could not be bothered to save it?