Cardinal George Pell returns to Rome for first time since acquittal

Several Italian news outlets have reported that Cecilia Marogna was held by Italian financial authorities on Tuesday evening in Milan on an international warrant issued by the Vatican through Interpol.

CNA has not independently corroborated reports that Vatican investigators issued the arrest warrant.

Earlier this month, it was reported that Marogna had received more than 500,000 euros from the Holy See’s Secretariat of State under the direction of its former sostituto Cardinal Angelo Becciu.

Becciu has been accused of using Marogna to build “off-books” intelligence networks.

After reports emerged, Marogna told reporters that she worked as a security consultant for the Secretariat of State, and that her work for Becciu and the Secretariat of State involved building “high-level networks” in at-risk countries and areas such as the Middle East and Africa.

The allegations were first presented on Oct. 5 on the Italian TV program Le Iene, which claimed to have documents showing that the Secretariat of State had given half a million euros to Marogna’s Slovenian company and that she had “a relationship of trust” with Becciu.

May truth prevail sooner than later. :pray:

I think a Vatican III is needed to reform the Curia and strip cardinals of their splendour and self-importance. I mean c’mon, a 5000 sq ft apartment for a man supposedly living alone??? (Canadian Cardinal Ouellet).

Cardinals like the late O’Brien and ex-Cardinal McCarrick imposing strict conservative and homophobic sexual doctrines on the little people while engaging in homosexual abuse themselves? A certain 39 ft cappa magna hauled by a train of handsome young men?

Who are the trying to kid?

I have to admit increasing disillusionment with the hierarchical Church, especially certain hypocrites in high places.

The Church needs to become a place of healing, not one of doctrinal condemnation by Cardinals unable to live themselves by gospel values.

I only hope Francis lives long enough to finish cleaning the stables, or is succeeded by a man determined to finish the job.

A Vatican III where the laity have a real voice and where the abscess of the sexual scandals can at last be punctured.

1 Like

The media coverage is biased towards telling us the bad news. The good Cardinals and Bishops, one never hears about because there is no news value in being a good person.

Also, what do Cardinals’ personal lives have to do with God’s teachings? If the Cardinal is sinful, I would think that would call us to be even more holy. We’ve had sinful Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and priests since the beginning of the Church. They weren’t just invented in the 20th century. I don’t get all upset because some Cardinal had an affair with a woman but I’m not allowed to have premarital sex.

If you’re waiting for a totally non-sinful Church hierarchy, I don’t think it’s going to happen during humans’ time on earth because people will always fall.


Out of likes so I’ll send a heart :heart:

Dead on point.

1 Like

Non-sinful? Of course I don’t expect a non-sinful hierarchy.

Is it too much, however, to ask for a non-hypocritical one? To stop imposing doctrine that they can’t live by themselves? The word pharisee comes to mind.

It’s God’s doctrine, not theirs. And it is a sin to say we cannot follow it.

1 Like

No, they’re not going to stop, because

  1. We are all sinners.
  2. Some people will be big sinners.
  3. That includes some in the Church hierarchy.
  4. They can’t stop teaching and imposing God’s teachings just because they, or any other humans, fail to live up to them.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not in a good position to point fingers at hierarchy. It’s true I have never had gay sex, or sex with minors, or sexually harassed anyone, or done anything that’s a criminal offense under the laws of my country except for parking/ minor traffic violations, but I still managed to commit plenty of grave-possibly-mortal sexual sins in my time, and led some other people into committing such sins. I never thought I was the kind of person who would do such stuff, but it’s a case of one thing leads to another and before you know it you’re in the soup. It doesn’t excuse them and it doesn’t excuse me, it simply makes me aware that I should pray that I myself don’t fall into such sin while I’m praying that they all clean up their act.

As for homophobia, we all know that the biggest homophobes are very often the ones who are most tempted in that direction themselves. It’s practically a cliche. And yes it is hypocritical and pharisaical but it’s also unfortunately human. We pray for these people and try to encourage healthy attitudes in the Church that are not going to be promoting sin while likewise not being so harsh as to drive people away.


No, it’s their interpretation of God’s doctrine. The Sixth Commandment for instance, says nothing about masturbation yet the Church has conflated masturbation with adultery.

@Tis_Bearself, I understand what you are saying… i haven’t exactly led a holy life either. And yes I agree with you that the more intense the homophobia, the more intense the inclination in that direction. I have seen it altogether too often even in laity.

However is it too much to expect of our clergy to keep in mind the damage their homophobia creates? I have three children. The youngest is trans. The second recently came out as gender non-conforming. I know of other gays wrestling with the Church. The homophobic clergy are in fact driving the LGBQT away from God. Or at least, from the Catholic Church. I hope they will have to answer for it some day, to the Highest Judge. The LGBQT need to be loved like everyone else, they need to know they are loved by God, and they need a path towards healing, not condemnation.

There is more than just sinning at the top levels of the Church. There’s institutionalized corruption. That absolutely needs to be cleaned up. Cardinal Becciu is the tip of the iceberg.

And that’s all I will say on the topic.

No, it isn’t.

1 Corinthians “ 6:9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:

6:10 Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.”

5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,

5:20 Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,

5:21 Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Masturbation was one of the “effeminate” things.

Question: What doctrine does the Church impose that, unequivocally, every single Catholic adheres to, every single time?

The answer, of course, is ‘none’. Every single dogma or doctrine which the Church , not the ‘men who make it’ but rather the ones who keep proclaiming it, is going to be ‘gone against’ by some Catholics, at some time. We are all sinners.

Does that mean that we reject the doctrines because some, many, or all Catholics “Cannot adhere to them’ at a point, even have difficulties continuously?” No indeed. If anything, they need to be proclaimed more and more. Instead of praying for God’s grace to be able to adhere to the truth, though, because it is hard for a given group (some would say LGBT etc, but one can give ANY group, men, women, old, young, those struggling with addictions, those struggling with doubt, struggling with faith, etc. Etc), it seems the push lately is for us to condemn the TEACHINGS as ‘too hard’ and to demand that out of “LOVE” we change the teachings, reinterpret the teachings, cherrypick them, choose the ones we want, etc.

So in that way what we have come to, for many, is the idea that the Church is some bigoted entity whose ‘man-made teachings’ need to get woke and whose ‘demands’, since they aren’t even ‘met by the priests’ (ignoring the fact that millions of priests through the years met those demands just fine) are themselves hateful and impossible.

The moral authority of the Faith has been conflated to blaming those of the Faith who fail with a given teaching, ignoring the fact that the Faith isn’t based on how many adhere, but on proclaiming the Truth and for our responsibility to pray for God’s grace to live it out.


I don’t have any issue whatsoever with the Church’s interpretation of the Sixth Commandment as covering a multitude of sexual sins. Speaking as someone who masturbated for years, though not in an obsessive or addicted way, more in a bored and jaded way, I can also totally see why it’s a grave sin. It’s the gateway to a lot of bad stuff, and goes against the self-control that we should foster in order to focus on God and be holy. It was not a spiritually healthy practice at all, and it’s totally unnecessary. I am quite sure the prohibition on it is what God intended and his Church is propagating that.

I am sorry that you and your children are struggling with those crosses. As much as people criticize Fr. Martin, I appreciate what he is trying to do with respect to people like your children. Fr. Martin is also not the only clergy to take a kinder, gentler approach. I myself also favor a kinder, gentler approach. This forum is a bad place to talk about it because all that happens is a bunch of hellfire-and-brimstone arguments , so I don’t talk about it here. (There are lots and lots of things I don’t talk about here. )

I will pray for you and your family. I would urge you however to hold onto your own relationship with God. It is not only the right thing for you to do, but may in some way benefit your children, even if it’s only that they can remember at some point that they knew at least one practicing Catholic who loved them as a loving father.

God bless.

I agree with you here. I take some comfort on the fact that what happens “sur le plancher des vaches” (on the floor of the cows… i.e. at ground level), at least in my part of the world, is a gulf away from what cardinals like Burke say about homosexuality in Rome. But that gulf also means that there’s a fundamental gap in approach and incongruence in the Church. It’s not healthy. I’ve also defended Fr. Martin on this forum, and got royally blasted for it by the usual suspects. I don’t think, however, I should stay silent. Some things need to be said, one of which is being LGBQT is not some kind of special class of sin to be singled out from other sins, and God loves us all in spite of the fact we are sinners.

Though rattled my relationship with God survives, mostly through the Divine Office. It’s my relationship with the Church that is badly damaged. The pandemic hasn’t helped as I have been cut off from my abbey of oblation since March. It was my primary source of spiritual fulfilment. I consider myself Benedictine before I call myself Catholic. The abbey is one of those places that welcomes all sinners, including sexual sinners, and practices Christian hospitality, love, and charity. In contrast with Cardinal Burke (you can guess I’m not a fan…) who said:

In an interview in October 2014, Burke referred to gay relationships as “profoundly disordered and harmful”, stating that parents should not “expose [their] children to that.” He suggested that parents should not allow their children to have contact with sexually active gay people and should discourage them from attending family gatherings such as celebrations at Christmas.

I have told all my children, that I love them unconditionally and that I will never exclude them from my life.

And he is absolutely right. If your kid is not gay, don’t expose them to that lifestyle. It corrupts the youth. And is a danger to society.
That isn’t even something the cardinals made up. It is in Sacred Scripture.

Again, these are the doctrines of God, not man.

Gay people deserve love, but they don’t deserve “pride”, “freedom to marry”, “freedom to flaunt their sins”, or freedom to teach children it is ok to be gay.

It is a cross to carry, not a lifestyle to endorse.

Your abbey still doesn’t allow visitors?

No. Average age is over 70 and we are in the second wave.

I disagree totally with Cardinal Burke. You either are gay or aren’t. I would absolutely never exclude a gay family member from family events.

Moreover all of the gays I know are otherwise perfectly normal people and don’t talk about their “lifestyle” or their sex lives at the dinner table in mixed company. They talk about the same things non-gay people talk about. Life, politics, the weather, their hobbies, family gossip, etc. To exclude them is simply uncharitable and homophobic.


I do not believe Cardinal Burke was referring specifically to family. Many of us are in situations where we have no gay family or friends (that we are aware of) but do live in places where there is a large and vocal crowd who are very much in favour of being ‘out’; the places with lots of rainbow flags, schools with large clubs, many positive comments, etc. Regarding the lifestyle, many NEGATIVE comments regarding anything but wholehearted acceptance and accolades as being rigid, bigoted, and hateful, etc.

In such an atmosphere it would not be a good idea to just release a person’s young children. And depending on the age and the individual, even a teen might not be developmentally ‘aware’ enough to be able to view things dispassionately. There is a large component of emotionalism and ‘appeals to love and tolerance -again, of the ‘accept or we’ll cancel you’ type, that it would be psychologically damaging to the teen.

Again, people are different. Parents usually do know their child ‘best’ and should be allowed to guide their child AS THEY SEE FIT. Nobody is saying that gay persons should be vilified.

I would, personally, be just as willing to ‘protect’ my children from the drug-ridden and heterosexually promiscuous people and culture as well. This is not directed at one particular group. However, since the LGBT group is much more recently ‘out there’ it is an issue which needs to be addressed now as much as the ‘sexual revolution’ was addressed in the 60s and 70s, and the drug issue in the 80s and beyond, etc.

1 Like

In your situation I don’t think its called homophobia.

I think another Council is too much but there could be an Apostolic Constitution limiting the Cardinal’s private ownership, that would help.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit