The Seminaries of the Vatican II sect are unspeakable cesspools of homosexuality and heresy

Pope Pius XI, Ad catholici sacerdotii (# 66), Dec. 20, 1935: “Give the best of your clergy to your seminaries; do not fear to take them from other positions.  These [other] positions may seem of greater moment, but in reality their importance is not to be compared with that of the seminaries, which is capital and indispensable.  Seek also from elsewhere, wherever you can find them, men really fitted for this noble task.  Let them be such as teach priestly virtues, rather by example than by words, men who are capable of imparting, together with learning, a solid, manly and apostolic spirit.”[1]

In 2002, the book Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose was published.  This book documented the almost unbelievable perversion and debauchery of the seminaries of the Vatican II/Novus Ordo “Church.”  The corrupt seminaries produced the “priests” who, in turn, produced the notorious sexual scandal.  The author (Rose) is a defender of the Vatican II sect, so his exposé (coming from one who is inclined to defend the Vatican II clergy) reveals how horrible the situation really is.

Some of the anecdotes about life at the seminary are so horrifying that only one conclusion follows from them: the “Church” which presents these places as “seminaries for the formation of Catholic priests” could only be the apocalyptic Whore of Babylon which Scripture predicts will arise in the last days to deceive Catholics.  A few excerpts from Goodbye, Good Men are necessary to establish the point:

Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men, pp. 56-57: “According to former seminarians and recently ordained priests, this ‘gay subculture’ is so prominent at certain seminaries that these institutions have earned nicknames such as Notre Flame (for Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans) and Theological Closet (for Theological College at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.).  St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore has earned the nickname the ‘Pink Palace.’”[2]

The antipopes and “bishops” of the Vatican II sect do nothing about these seminaries or the massive homosexual problem, of course!  But when someone under their authority opposes the New Religion they act with lightning-fast speed.  For instance: when the head of the Fraternity of St. Peter Seminary, Fr. Bisig, showed that he was not inclined to accept in his fraternity men who wanted to say the New Mass, the Vatican promptly removed him and appointed Father Arnaud Devillers in his place.  How quickly the Vatican acts when the New Religion is opposed!  Also remember that, in 1988, a bishop was excommunicated immediately after acting to spread the Traditional Latin Mass.  Yet the post-Vatican II Vatican does nothing about perverted seminaries all over the world.  This is because it is the Counter Church of the Devil.

Prior to Vatican II, it was the policy that those with the perverse tendency to homosexuality (which is a result of demonic takeover as a result of some form of idolatry, as is taught in Romans 1) were forbidden to become priests. 

“Father Andrew Walter, ordained for the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in 2000, spent several semesters at the Baltimore school as a seminarian for the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey.  The [homosexual] problem was so bad when he was there, he explained, that ‘some of the students and faculty used to get dressed up in leather to go to ‘the block,’ Baltimore’s equivalent to 42^nd Street in Manhattan.’”[3]

Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men, p. 57: “Father John Trigilio of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, diocese remembers visiting St. Mary’s in Baltimore when he was a seminarian in Pennsylvania.  ‘There was no discretion at all,’ he said of the gay subculture there.  ‘The few times I was there, some of the seminarians would literally dress like gays from the Village.  They would even go so far as to wear pink silk; it was like going to see La Cage aux Folles.’ 

     ‘In my day at St. Mary’s,’ said Father John Despard, now a religious order priest from the Southeast, ‘down the hall there would be two guys together in the shower and everybody knew it.’

     “Ada Mason, a philosophy professor at a prominent Catholic university, once served on the board of a seminary in the upper Midwest.  In that position she was shocked to discover a gay subculture extremely active there.  ‘Open homosexual behavior was more than tolerated,’ she admitted.  ‘I was even told by one of the seminary faculty that every Friday a van took priesthood students to a nearby city to cruise the gay bars.’”[4]

As awful as it sounds, this is actually just the tip of the iceberg of the perversion and rampant homosexuality of the Vatican II sect.  Goodbye, Good Men also documents that the seminaries of the Novus Ordo sect endorse and accept a rejection of the most basic teachings of the Catholic Faith. 

“’Many seminarians lost their faith there [at the seminary],’ he lamented.  ‘One guy I remember in particular,’ he recounted.  ‘He lost his faith because of a Christology course we were all required to take.’  In that course, Perrone explained, the seminarians were taught the German Protestant biblical exegesis popularized by German Lutheran Rudolph Bultmann, and the first book they read was Albert Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus, which Perrone called ‘a very damaging book’ that dismissed all of the Church’s teachings as unreliable myths.  ‘And we had similar books in the same vein.’”[5]

The first book they read at the seminary attacked Our Lord’s historicity and dismissed all the Church’s teachings as myths.  Again, this is just a tiny sampling of what goes on and is taught at the “seminaries” of the Vatican II sect.  Rose’s book also documents that men who are opposed to the ordination of women are discouraged from pursuing a vocation.  It documents how the Papal Primacy, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc. are commonly denied at these seminaries.  It documents how a witch attended one seminary (p. 108), and how candidates for the seminary were interviewed and screened by a Mason:

“The next step in the admissions process [to the seminary] was the psychological evaluation.  Carrigee was sent to an independent psychological clinic, where he spent two days taking tests and ‘being interviewed by a stone-faced stoic who wore a Masonic ring.’”[6]

Things are so bad at these “seminaries” that one prominent “priest” of the Vatican II sect, “Fr.” John Trigilio, had this to say about his seminary days:

“Trigilio lamented, hinting at the campy subculture that permeated the seminary atmosphere.  ‘We used to say, if you wore a cassock you were a reactionary ‘daughter of Trent.’   If you wore women’s underwear, they’d make you seminarian of the year.  We had a few guys who sometimes wore women’s clothing, lingerie, makeup, etc., and some who were as effeminate as could be… The campy ones at MIS [Mary Immaculate Seminary, Northampton, P.A.] would call each other by female names…’”[7]

“’I can say this,’ he explained, ‘but it’s not an absolute: If a guy through his seminary career at MIS had never had any opposition from the faculty, there was something wrong with him.  If you were anything near orthodox, you had to fight tooth and nail to keep your sanity and your faith… The formation team would tell my bishop that ‘He’s having trouble adjusting to contemporary theology; he remains very rigid.’  But for those who were openly homosexual, their bishops were not informed.’”[8]

These are the words of a Novus Ordo “priest” who is currently featured on EWTN.  This “priest” is a promoter of false ecumenism, salvation outside the Church, and many other post-Vatican II heresies.  The point is that he’s by no means a traditional Catholic.  He’s very far away from the traditional Catholic Faith, yet he was considered a reactionary at his seminary simply because he wasn’t open to things such as homosexuality and women’s ordination.  This shows us how wicked the Vatican II sect is, and how far it is from Catholic.

AN INCREDIBLE ACCOUNT OF THE STATE OF THE SEMINARIES FROM ONE WHO SPENT TIME AT A PROMINENT NOVUS ORDO SEMINARY

In the 1995 issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review (which was subsequently published on the internet), an article appeared by an individual who had attended one of the nation’s most prominent Novus Ordo seminaries.  He was appalled by what he saw.  Some of the things he said include:

“After spending four years in a Neo-Modernist Roman Catholic seminary, I have come to the firm belief that the source of the current crisis in the Church in the United States can be traced directly to the seminaries.  The seminary is literally the seedbed of the faith… A man would inevitably find trouble [at the seminary], however, if he used language like "the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."   He would have two strikes against him if he in turn stood in opposition to the concept of "priestesses" in the Roman Catholic Church.

“The Rosary was looked upon as being suitable for those without the capacity to approach God intellectually, and it was beneath one of theological sophistication…

To begin with, we were instructed upon entry to the seminary that we could not kneel at the consecration during Mass, nor could we kneel after receiving communion.  This would ‘break community.’…

“At Mass, the priest was often simply referred to as the "presider."  He was the one leading us in prayer, "animating" the community.  Many "presiders" improvised upon the Mass, adding their own touch to the eucharistic prayers.  Making sure the readings were inclusivized was the responsibility of the reader for the day...

“We, as Roman Catholic seminarians, were not allowed to wear clerical clothing.  This was because the collar was a sign of "clericalism."  Though the rector had been known to tell bishops he did not want to ‘confuse ministry with the wearing of the collar,’ the reality behind abolishing the collar in our seminary was that it was a cause of great anxiety for the feminists…

“We were told from the beginning that seminarians were not to refer to any of the faculty as "Father" or "Sister."  We were not to be caught up with "titles," as this was another form of clericalism.  These things would also offend against the "ecumenical" mission that the seminary was committed to.  In terms of a "confusion of ministries," one might question the very practice inculcated in the seminary…

“During a class conference, the question that was raised was the unchecked effeminate, scandalous behavior of some seminarians, the negative reputation of the seminary gained by this recurring image, and the kinds of role models the seminary was tacitly approving in recommending these men for orders.  The Vice Rector replied by saying the seminary admitted men of both orientations, but the policy was that all had to be celibate…

“For our entire first academic year, we had to study Richard P. McBrien's Catholicism. This book set the most fertile foundations for doubt and intellectual departure from the true Catholic Faith.  It was through subtle and clever deception by veiled, ambiguous language, that McBrien's book was so effective.  It became the basis for the reasonableness and goodness of dissent.  Some of his more exemplary ideas, implied and cleverly suggested throughout the book, are that we don't have to believe in the virginity of the Blessed Mother; that we don't have to believe or assent to follow Church teaching unless it explicitly states it has dogmatic status; and that we must admit to Jesus having been ignorant and in error.  McBrien expertly employed his language so that he remained within a "legal" framework, and made outrageous suggestions which to some appear compelling.  I recall seeing the firsthand results of this book's use in a discussion I had with another seminarian - he was firmly convinced that ‘It's totally naive to think that Mary didn't have sex.’

“We often studied Protestant theologies right alongside Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Kung, Boff (even on occasion Matthew Fox) and so forth.  Since there was no reliance upon the Magisterium for guidance or point of reference in most theological discussions, we seminarians would be adrift in a sea of opinion and interpretations, both Protestant and Catholic.

“In the area of spirituality, we had workshops on "women's spirituality," or something about "collaborative ministry" and "social justice," because this was perceived as "where the Spirit was" in today's world.  Devotion to Mary as "Blessed Mother" was allowed, but generally not encouraged… The Rosary, prayed in the main chapel by a group of seminarians, was tolerated for a time.  But eventually the tension created in the seminary over this group brought it to an end.  However, to please bishops, and as a kind of token gesture to the conservative element in the seminary, the Rosary was suddenly allowed again - with official seminary approval - but then only in a small hall chapel where there was no Blessed Sacrament, one day a week, between breakfast and classes.  The reason behind not allowing the Rosary in the main chapel was that ‘the chapel is for liturgical celebrations - not devotions.’  And yet the chapel was used for a number of functions outside Catholic worship, including on occasion the rehearsals of a local symphony orchestra.

“The greatest of spiritual tests came in my fourth year, in a course of so-called "Pastoral Counseling."  A laywoman with a very vocal agenda taught the course.  Not only did she proudly inform us one day that she'd be taking off a class to attend the Call to Action seminars in Chicago (where everyone joined in the Eucharistic prayers as a woman in stole "presided" - and with a Catholic Bishop in the congregation), but she openly canvassed for gay and lesbian rights, radical feminism, and even abortion.  Because I openly questioned this woman's arguments, I was penalized…

“Through a discouraging dilemma, I knew that what was being taught directly contradicted what the Church taught, and I knew that the bishop in my home diocese supported me… After four years in the seminary of standing up for what was right, I was finally punished with dismissal.  I was asked to leave at the end of the academic year and to not return.  Even though I was pointing out direct cases where the seminary stood contrary to Catholicism in its spiritual climate, members of the faculty protected themselves and the institution by making it appear I was the one who opposed the Church, her authority, and seminary formation… Because of the ramifications of the rector's rage, and to my surprise, the bishop in turn also "released" me, as the matter had become quite political for him.

“I wondered if, in seminaries like the one I attended, men are in a sense still being placed before the images of various gods and told to make a choice.”[9]

Notice that this conservative-minded seminarian thought that his Novus Ordo “bishop” would support him.  After his dismissal, he discovered that the “bishop” stood with the apostates at the seminary and against him.