St. Sebastian’s Angels: A Network of Gay Catholic Priests

As a writer, it takes a lot to shock me.

As I began to research about gay priests and cover-ups, along with Pope Francis being urged to resign – I stumbled upon a website that was shocking; I thought for sure that this could be fake news.

When I began the original search, I heard in my spirit (not audibly of course) the word “networking.”  At first I thought that this was just in my own  mind- something that I had thought about.  But after I used that word in my search of gay priests, I knew that this had to be from the Holy Spirit.

St. Sebastian’s Angels came up immediately.  What I was reading was so disgusting and depraved, I immediately thought that this might not be true. But as I vetted the information and dug into the internet, I realized that I had stumbled on something so big and so evil; I almost backed away from it.

St. Sebastian’s Angels

Before I show the reader parts of this evil and disgusting website, I want to show you an article from “The American Conservative.”  This will give you some background about this demonic group of depraved individuals.


The Only Way Through Purgatory

The first time I ever heard the truth about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, D.C., finally exposed as a sexual predator years into his retirement, I thought I was listening to a paranoiac rant.

It was the early 2000s, I was attending some earnest panel on religion, and I was accosted by a type who haunts such events — gaunt, intense, with a litany of esoteric grievances. He was a traditionalist Catholic, a figure from the church’s fringes, and he had a lot to say, as I tried to disentangle from him, about corruption in the Catholic clergy. The scandals in Boston had broken, so some of what he said was familiar, but he kept going, into a rant about Cardinal McCarrick: Did you know he makes seminarians sleep with him? Invites them to his beach house, gets in bed with them …

At this I gave him the brush off that you give the monomaniacal and slipped out.

That was before I realized that if you wanted the truth about corruption in the Catholic Church, you had to listen to the extreme-seeming types, traditionalists and radicals, because they were the only ones sufficiently alienated from the institution to actually dig into its rot. (This lesson has application well beyond Catholicism.)

What a great point that is. The truth is, if you wanted to get a clearer picture of what was actually happening inside the Catholic Church regarding the scandal, you’d have been better off reading trad sources. A long time ago — back at the beginning of the scandal — a tiny outfit called Roman Catholic Faithful exposed the “St. Sebastian’s Angels,” (NSFW) a group of gay priests who shared nude photos and engaged in pornographic banter. Here’s what Catholic World Report had to say about RCF’s work:

By autumn of 1999 the St. Sebastian’s Angels site had attracted the participation of 55 active members. At that point the site was brought to the attention of Steve Brady, the founder of a group known as Roman Catholic Faithful, based in Springfield, Illinois. Brady copied material from the Angels site–including six web pages and thousands of email messages–onto his own computer files. On January 14, 2000–after his series of appeals to the American hierarchy had failed to produce any response–Brady brought all that material from the Angels site into public view, by copying it onto his own Roman Catholic Faithful site.

As the news about the homosexual priests’ web site quickly spread through the American Catholic Church, the reaction was decidedly mixed, with opinions breaking down along predictable liberal/conservative lines. A few US bishops, presented with clear evidence about the nature of the site, took prompt corrective action.

I corresponded and spoke with Steve Brady in 2002, and met him at the national bishops’ conference in Dallas that year. He was just an ordinary Catholic who was sick and tired of the sexual corruption in his church, and the lies from the hierarchy. One of the members of the St. Sebastian’s group was a South African bishop:

By virtue of his rank, Bishop Reginald Cawcutt is the most visible of the 55 regular members of the Angels site. In part because of his rank, and in part because of his adamant defense of the site and criticism of Steve Brady, the bishop has been the main focus of media attention. In an email response to this reporter’s January request for an interview, Bishop Cawcutt said that his involvement in the Angels site was an outgrowth of his work as chairman of the South African bishops’ committee on AIDS. He explained:

Naturally enough this got me involved with ministry also to gay people. Both of these ministries are totally known and quite public–to my fellow bishops as well as to the general public. Somehow the group of gay priests heard about me and invited me to discuss gay related matters with them–hence I joined the “newsgroup”–quite openly letting the members know I was a bishop. I did not try to hide anything.

Bishop Cawcutt declined to interviewed, however, because he claimed that Roman Catholic Faithful had been guilty of “quite an illegal action of someone breaking into this confidential group’s support of each other.” He charged that Brady had “picked out only the spicy bits” from the material on the Angels site. The bishop lamented that the public exposure of the site would probably lead to “gay-bashing,” and refused to be “an accomplice” to that campaign.

“I have consistently promoted celibacy in the group,” Bishop Cawcutt claimed in his email message to this reporter. But that claim is difficult to reconcile with the tone and content of some of his email postings on the site. In October 1999, for example, the bishop wrote: I suppose the issue really is celibacy and not gay sex. I am off the belief that we have all been screwed up by holy mother church. I do not think that sex is the ultimate in sin anyhow–and not always a matter for confession either–even for celibates–come on–the good old book also says dirty thoughts are grievous stuff and always matter for confession–come come now!!!

If you look at the site, which is archived, be prepared to be revolted. You will see that Cawcutt was lying in his public response, and trusting that people would assume the best about him and his intentions, and wouldn’t think the worst about a bishop.  But Steve Brady had proof.

Notice too that Bishop Cawcutt was worried that people learning what he and his fellow gay priests in the group were actually doing would lead to “gay-bashing” — and that Brady, by telling the truth in public, would be aiding and abetting gay bashing. If Uncle Ted’s #MeToo moment starts producing other stories about closeted gay bishops using their power to sexually abuse or harass other priests and seminarians, you will start seeing liberal commenters, in both the Catholic and secular media, telling us that the real problem here is gay bashing.

If they report on it at all, that is.

Catholic World Report‘s account of the St. Sebastian’s affair highlighted the official Catholic media’s attempt to cover Cawcutt’s shame:

In a March 19 column entitled “Bigotry is an affront to our faith,” Gunther Simmermacher, the managing editor of the Cape Town archdiocesan newspaper, The Southern Cross, wrote:

A South African bishop seems to have an outfit of right-wing US Catholics running scared. How else would one account for the deviousness of the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF) which disseminated what amounts to slanderous innuendo about Bishop Reginald Cawcutt, auxiliary in Cape Town, and in doing so employed illegal means. To accomplish this, they hacked into an internet forum on homosexuality in which Bishop Cawcutt, at the request of an Australian priest, participated as part of his ministry.

The CWR piece has a long section about how the American Catholic media spun the story too. And look at this:

Brady said his decision to publicize the Angels site was made two months after the papal nuncio in the United States declined to look into the matter, and after five cardinals rebuffed his efforts.

“The papal nuncio is the first official I contacted, in November 1999,” Brady said.

I talked to a priest in the nuncio’s office and I explained exactly what we had, and that were looking for assistance and guidance. He said he’d pass it on to the nuncio and reminded me that what they (the Angels) were doing was legal. I never heard from him again. He said he’d get back to me if the nuncio was interested. They weren’t interested.

Brady then contacted Cardinals John O’Connor of New York, Bernard Law of Boston, James Hickey of Washington DC, Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, and Francis George of Chicago. He reports the results:

Cardinal George is the only one who responded. He faxed to me a response and then I had a phone conversation with him and told him how to access the site. He said he thought that it might be an occasion of sin if he looked at. That really bothered me. How can our moral leaders deal with stuff like this without looking at it?


Brady and his colleagues at Roman Catholic Faithful say that the 1998 pedophilia case involving Father Rudy Kos in Dallas–and the response of the diocese to that case–played a role in convincing them that the American hierarchy would not be willing to deal directly with actively homosexual priests. “The Rudy Kos case said it all,” Brady says. The Dallas diocese gave clerical faculties to a sexual predator, he recalls, and then sought to divert attention from reports of his transgressions. “And the victims were treated as enemies of the Church.”

“You would think some bishop somewhere would have stood up and said the cover-ups have to stop,” says Brady. “Everyone knows the cover-ups are going on, continually. You’ve got to laugh or cry.”

There you have it: Everybody knows. Stephen Brady said those words in a September 17, 2001, article in Catholic World Report. This was about four months before the scandal broke big out of Boston. And here we are, 17 years later, with Cardinal Ted McCarrick exposed at last, and people saying yeah, everybody knew.

To a lot of people, Steve Brady was a crank. He was definitely on the edge. He closed RCF in 2010, and not long before he did, he urged his fellow Catholics to start attending Society of St. Pius X chapels. But Steve Brady, whatever he lacked in theological sophistication or smooth prose, was right about the things he saw, and he was onto this story for the reason Ross Douthat points out today: because he was alienated enough from the institution to actually dig into its rot.

Douthat explains why it will be harder for more #MeToo stories about bishops, officials in monastic orders, seminary heads, and other power-holders in the Catholic institution to come out.

But that makes it incumbent on everyone else in the “everyone knows” orbit — meaning not just journalists covering Catholicism, but bishops and priests and church officials who are tired of being tacitly compromised themselves, as so many people around McCarrick must have been — to make it as easy as possible for these stories to be told. And without worrying, either, about whether the stories make either side of Catholicism’s civil war look good (McCarrick was a famous liberal, but the next case might be a conservative), or what the revelations mean for debates about gay men in the priesthood or priestly celibacy or anything else.

Surprised, not because I think Father Martin would in any way approve of what McCarrick and others have done, but because if these stories start being told publicly, truthfully, and completely, it is going to be devastating for church liberals who want the Catholic Church to affirm homosexuality. You can’t properly tell the story of abusers like McCarrick without telling the story of how networks of sexually active gay priests — who haven’t been coerced into sex — work together within the institutional Catholic church. – source

From    from July 19, 2002

The fallen angels of “St. Sebastian’s”

The continuing saga of a depraved Web site

On July 17th, the Vatican Information Service reported that Rome had accepted South African Bishop Reginald Cawcutt’s resignation. This announcement marked the first major consequence to result from the audacious behavior of dozens of priests on an Internet site and chat-room known as St. Sebastian’s Angels.

When Steven Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF) first exposed this site several years ago, it seemed too outrageous to be true. Featured on St. Sebastian’s Angels were names, photos and email addresses of openly homosexual priests, a disturbing selection of pornographic images, and a forum for participants to discuss anything from their open rejection of Church teaching to their perverse activities and fantasies.

Like Bella Dodd’s accounts of the communist infiltration of the Church,1 the exposure of St. Sebastian’s Angels was one of those events nearly too shocking to accept, but impossible to ignore. What was once held in the arena of conjecture and speculation was now on display for the world. Stories once susceptible to being dismissed as “conspiracy theories” had become a part of history.

How could things have gotten this bad? Could the Catholic Church really have fallen so far from the days of banning from ordination those with perverse inclinations? Not only were these individuals no longer screened or removed, they had become so secure in their position and sure of their invulnerability as to announce and celebrate their depravity to the world.

2002 has seen the shocking become commonplace in the Catholic Church. St. Sebastian’s Angels gave us all a startling glimpse into the “gay” subculture not hiding, but thriving among the clerical ranks. We were also given an early warning as to what extent the network of bishops were willing to support such a spectacle. Although few of us expected to come across a figure such as Paul Shanley or witness hundreds of bishops cling to their dissent on homosexuality in the midst of a male sexual abuse scandal, we can no longer claim to be “shocked.”

Fallout in Dallas

Ironically enough, the only priest besides Cawcutt to receive significant media attention for his involvement in St. Sebastian’s Angels was from Dallas, serving under the USCCB’s spokesman on sexual abuse, Bishop Joseph Galante.

On June 23rd, after it was revealed that Fr. Cliff Garner had expressed on the site his sexual attraction towards Hispanic men, he took the opportunity to apologize to his congregation during Sunday Mass:

“I apologize to anyone I may have scandalized, confused, or angered. There was no excuse for the inappropriate remarks.”2

The vague apology left most of the parishioners confused as to what he was referring. At a special congregation meeting later that day, some parishioners pressed him on whether he was gay. He refused to answer. One week later, after receiving several threats, Fr. Garner resigned from his parish. Later that week, in keeping with the American bishops’ de facto policy of reacting more to media pressure than moral justice or public safety, Dallas Bishop Joseph Galante announced that Fr. Garner had been “sent to an undisclosed location for rehabilitation and barred indefinitely from functioning as a priest.” 3

Bishop Galante was faulted in the press for his “protection” of both Fr. Garner and a second priest (Fr. Art Mallinson) after he learned of their involvement with St. Sebastian’s Angels.4 Galante told The Dallas Morning News that when he learned of the Fr. Garner’s participation, he told him to stop using the site and recommended he undergo counseling.5

But according to Stephen Brady, Fr. Garner changed his email address and remained a member of the site even after this admonition, posting messages which attacked Church teaching on homosexuality and asked for advice on convincing his parishioners that the Bible did not condemn sodomy.6 Although this information was presented to Bishop Galante, no further action was taken until Fr. Garner’s activities were publicized. Speaking on the prospect of heterodox preaching in his diocese, Galante gave the assurance that, “if I had known he was giving unauthorized teachings, he would not have been allowed to preach.” 7

The unrepentant bishop

Far from distancing himself from the Web site and its participants, Bishop Cawcutt defended his involvement as a normal part of his “ministry”:

“Naturally enough [AIDS ministry] got me involved with ministry also to gay people. Both of these ministries are totally known and quite public — to my fellow bishops as well as to the general public. Somehow the group of gay priests heard about me and invited me to discuss gay related matters with them — hence I joined the ‘newsgroup’ — quite openly letting the members know I was a bishop. I did not try to hide anything.”8

Presumably, his open challenges to Church teaching and death wishes for Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II were also “naturally” part of this “ministry.” Cawcutt would later say his comments made on the site, which ranged from sexual attraction towards a curial official in Rome to hoping to see “attractive boys” at the upcoming Confirmations, were “taken out of context.” 9 In what was perhaps an attempt to obscure the connection between sodomy and AIDS, he would later change his claim that his participation was an extension of his AIDS “ministry”:

“Neither did my work with people with AIDS lead me to St Sebastian’s Angels. It was my ministry among gay people that led me to join when I was invited to do so by an Australian priest.”10

Details concerning the consequences of Cawcutt’s actions are a bit convoluted. It was initially reported that he had been summoned to Rome in the later half of 2000 for a meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger. When Cawcutt arrived, the meeting had been cancelled and he returned to South Africa, claiming himself “victorious” in the matter. It was later claimed that the issue of discipline had been delegated to the South African Bishops’ Conference. Last month, Cawcutt revealed a different account of that trip:

“I was disciplined by the Vatican for my involvement in St Sebastian’s Angels. I was instructed by the papal nuncio (Vatican ambassador) in Pretoria to go to Rome to see Cardinal Ratzinger. When I turned up he was not there but his second-in-command did see me and I was disciplined.”11

Unfortunately, for almost two years after his full and active participation on the site was first revealed, he still retained his position and there has been no observable change in his activities or “ministries.” In fact, he would become the spokesman for the South African Bishops’ Conference, a position he held last Spring when its “guidelines for dealing with clergy involved in sexual abuse” was released. Cawcutt asserted, the guidelines “must be issued to every candidate priest and religious in Southern Africa from the very outset and should form a key aspect of candidates’ training.” 12 Two months later, he would recommend that all Africans, “gay or straight, or whatever … learn to use condoms correctly.” 13 In all likelihood, his involvement in the site started a “dialogue” with the Vatican which concluded in his resignation rather than repentance.

Few details surrounding the resignation were given either in the Vatican release or Bishop Cawcutt’s own farewell statement. It was announced that Pope John Paul II had accepted Bishop Cawcutt’s resignation “in accordance with Canons 401, para. 2, and 411 of the Code of Canon Law.” 14Canon 401, para. 2 reads:

“A diocesan bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfillment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation.”

while Canon 411 applies the same policy towards auxiliary bishops. Given the circumstances, his resignation is certainly the result of disciplinary measures rather than illness.

In his official statement, Cawcutt acknowledged his shortcomings but apologized only for offending others and continued to defend his work as “Christ-like”:

“I know that my ministry has not been without controversy. I know that I have made mistakes. I know that I have offended and angered some — and for that I humbly apologise and beg your forgiveness and understanding. … That has always been my image of the Lord — the one who is the same as the “Good Shepherd” kind of Lord — and so I beg no forgiveness for trying to be the same — a priest reaching out in love and compassion to those to whom Jesus reaches out.15

    (emphasis mine here and throughout)

Although a scandalously long time coming and done in manner too quiet to set an effective example, the official acceptance of the most openly immoral and unrepentant bishop in recent memory has come to an end.

Had the site been named “St. Sebastian’s Angel” and consisted only of the ramblings of a single bishop, this unfortunate chapter would be nearing its close. Unfortunately, the important lessons to be learned are not limited to the internal disorders of one or even fifty isolated individuals, but an ecclesial illness marked by acute dementia.

Defending the indefensible

As Catholics around the globe have been made increasingly aware in the first half of this year, homosexuals in the clerical ranks enjoy a network of support and protection within the hierarchy of the Church. This support remains intact even when teenage boys end up molested and seems only susceptible to the heat of the secular media spotlight. Even then, as we have witnessed, American bishops will go to great lengths to protect their theory that homosexuality of the non-raping variety can be “healthy” and “life-affirming.” Such a position is very easy to maintain when one’s inquisitors are the same secular media outlets that would have us believe that a class of deviants rampant with disease and boasting a life-expectancy half that of the rest of society is somehow a “healthy alternate lifestyle” or an inconsequential “sexual preference.”

Rather than the recent chain of events shaking this bizarre philosophy to its core, bishops have gone about their business of avoiding the homosexual connection while drawing up a policy focused on how to get their priests to rape fewer children.

The difficulties one faces in dealing with such a network were apparent to Roman Catholic Faithful from the very beginning. Before they ever went public with information on St. Sebastian’s Angels, the typical channels and means were exhausted:

“We were given the address of the site, with the photos of the priests and the bishop, by a concerned Catholic. I was able to go directly to that site; you did not have to be a member or have a password to do so…. We contacted a prominent Catholic priest who gave us some direction and some other clergy who gave us exact direction. We then contacted the papal nuncio but he wasn’t interested. We also faxed Cardinals George, Bevilacqua, Hickey, O’Connor, and Law. All we got back was a fax in response from Cardinal George (of Chicago) saying he didn’t want to access the site. … We didn’t have anywhere else to turn; no one seemed interested.”16

When news of the site first came out, the anger and vile of the Church hierarchy was directed, not towards the participants of the site, but to those at RCF who publicized its existence.

Charges of “sexual McCarthyism,” “prurience,” “invasion of privacy,” and other things were immediately hurled at the messengers, often with only the most perfunctory expressions of regret, if that, about the website itself.17

Bishop Cawcutt accused them of “illegal, unchristian, irresponsible, and immoral scandal-mongering” and that “hacking into a private newsgroup violated the law and rights of its members to confidentiality.” 18

Although Brady’s efforts led to the public exposure and eventual downfall of the site, the clerical participants (which included at least one vocations director) were given little or no punishment from their superiors.

Two priests of the diocese of Portland (Me.) were among the organizers of the site, and it was announced that they were being put on leave of absence and that the site was being closed. However, the principal organizer was soon assigned to what was described as a very desirable pastoral assignment, and some months later the site was still operating.19

Before Bishop Cawcutt’s resignation was announced, only three of the fifty-three priests known to have participated in the site had received any sort of discipline.20 Even with Cawcutt’s compulsory resignation, the widespread lack of response is simply scandalous. As James Hitchcock observed in his article for Catholic Dossier:

“The fact that Church authorities have been unwilling to deal adequately with the revelations made on the website in turn reveals the degree to which homosexual activity by clergy is now in effect a protected area in the Catholic Church. If, for example, the priests on St. Sebastian’s Web were heterosexuals, their remarks would be denounced immediately as adolescent, sexually obsessed and demeaning of women.”21

Supporting this claim, he notes:

“The St. Sebastian’s Web priests believed they were invulnerable and that they had friends in high places, specifically mentioning by name a prominent curial cardinal … They gave direct empirical evidence that, as has long been suspected, there exists a network of homosexual clergy who protect, support, and even promote one another. The priests on the web made references to their contacts around the country, including chancery officials and others in important positions, and confirmed the suspicion that in some religious orders vocation directors vigorously, even exclusively, recruit homosexuals. There are many theories as to why Church authorities do not act boldly to root out this pathology, the existence of the clerical homosexual network being itself the most likely explanation.”22

A current and serious problem

The escapades surrounding the participants of the Web site known as St. Sebastian’s Angels serve to demonstrate two truths which many inside the Church are still unwilling to admit: a homosexual clerical network is a current reality and the Church leaders are unable or unwilling to deal with it.

With a number of abuse cases coming to light as having taken place in the 1970’s and 1980’s, some have deluded themselves into thinking that such behavior is a relic of an undisciplined former generation. The accounts of the horrendous behavior exhibited on the St. Sebastian’s Angelssite, as well as recent publications exposing the homosexual culture present among seminarians and religious orders (e.g. Michael Rose’s Goodbye, Good Men) demonstrate the issue is far from a thing of the past. Not only has it not gone away, but the advocates are becoming even more bold. Only in an environment where there is no fear of discipline could priests be so audacious as to announce their perversions on a public Web site.

Not surprisingly, this view has been vindicated by the complete lack of disciplinary measures to have resulted. This presumption of invincibility has also been reinforced by the response of the bishops to sexual abuse. Although it was hinted at in the American Cardinals’ Final Communiqué from Rome, only two bishops have even stated that homosexual priests may not be desirable. On the other hand, upon his return from the Vatican, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick went on national television to proclaim that homosexual priests are a non-issue, so long as they are celibate and don’t rape children.

Nor is this problem limited to the American episcopacy, as can be seen with the quiet and delayed punishment of Bishop Cawcutt. If those responsible for discipline of bishops are unable or unwilling to take decisive action against an openly homosexual dissident with perverse fantasies, what action can be expected from bishops much more discreet? Worse yet, combining this unlikely prospect of ecclesial discipline with the “openness” of American seminaries to homosexuals for at least the past thirty-five years and the unofficial estimate of a 30%-50% “gay” clergy, how many of the 300+ bishops or thousands of individuals in positions of Church authority are homosexual themselves? Recall that the past four years have seen seven American Bishops resign over various homosexual controversies.

We are not faced with a few bad priests who need to be reigned in with a little “zero tolerance,” but with a significant portion of the hierarchy that has tolerated far too much for far too long. The recent string of abuse allegations and the candid statements of priests on the St. Sebastian’s Angels Web site demonstrate the depth of the problem. The fact that bishops have continuously protected and counseled their depraved clerics rather than admonished and expelled them shows just how dismal any hope for internal reform truly is.

As long as the Church leaders show no intention of taking action until their errant behavior is widely publicized, it is up to the laity to bring the truth to light and hold them accountable. Until Catholics in pews are sufficiently outraged at what is happening around them and have abandoned the respect and deference so inappropriate in times such as these, the present crisis will continue to worsen at an appalling rate. – source

I want to make some things very clear to the reader.  I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ. I am in no way affiliated with the Catholic Church, which I consider to be a cult.  I am a Jewish believer in Christ.  The Catholic (cult) is works-based and therefore can have nothing in common with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In His Gospel we are saved by Grace through faith. 

When I began researching homosexuality among priests in the Catholic Church, I NEVER thought that I would land on the most vile and corrupt information regarding the depth of sexual sin among many priests in Catholicism.

I approached the Lord several times while writing this piece; asking Him how much of this I should actually post in the article.  I feel that the Lord spoke to my heart and advised me to simply place a “link” with a very large WARNING to the reader. You will see this warning further down in this article.

The foul language of these men in their chatroom, and the nudity shown is so completely disgusting. I would recommend that if you do not want to see this, then don’t click the link!

I want the reader to understand where Pope Benedict XVI stood on homosexuality and specifically in regards to the priesthood.  I have furnished two separate links – one for Cardinal Ratzinger before he was Pope Benedict; and another link to clearly show that when he became Pope Benedict, his views did not change.

This excerpt from the Gay Priest’s chatroom gives the reader a glimpse at how these men loathed Cardinal Ratzinger (he wasn’t pope at this time) but his views were well known, especially by the gay priests. Also, notice how this man speaks of gay priests, cardinals, bishops and even popes, and how he will make trouble for the Vatican:

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:00 +0200
From: “Reg C” <>
Subject: Ratzinger and other minor problems….

“Hi guys

kill him ? pray for him? why not just f** him??? any volunteers – ugh!!! [DELETED] you told us ages ago about the possibility of a letter from him – can YOU give us any update? Certainly bishops of the world have not yet received anything like this – certainly not anything to do with gay students or whatever. I do not see how he can possibly do this – but… If he does, lemme repeat my statement earlier – that I will cause lotsa sh*t for him and the Vatican. And that is a promise MY intention would be simply to ask the question what he intends doing with those priests, bishops (possibly “like me”) and cardinals (and I might as well put in popes) who are gay. That should cause shit enough. be assured dear reverend gentleman I shall let you know the day any such outrageous letter reaches the desks of the ordinaries of the world.

Hey thanks guys for all the confidence in proposing me to be the guy with the tiara -wonder if they would allow one in pink? Talking about pink – I see the new favoured marble colour of the newly cleaned up St Peter’s is pink! We have just restored our cathedral here in Cape Town to its original – and guess what the original colour is/was – pink – and that’s what it is now – so stuff you uncle Ratz!!! I drove my 91 year old mother past it today – and her comment on the colour: “why did you have to paint it pink???” Oh well – not everything sons do pleases their mothers.”

Brethren, I am trying to connect the dots here and I am wondering if Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign because of the ever growing presence of gay priests, bishops and cardinals.

And think about this – who does the conclave vote in as their new Pope? None other than Francis – the first Jesuit EVER to be pope, and a Leftist/Socialist who tells gays: “Who am I to judge?  You were made that way.”

Just food for thought, brethren.

Click to read:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger  on the Priesthood and Homosexuality  

Click here to read:

Pope Benedict XVI on the Priesthood and Homosexuality    


What follows will offend, disgust, and disturb you. Why would we want to do that? Because love demands it! We are called as followers of Christ to “speak the truth in love”, but truth and love may not be separated. All our philosophies and theologies aside, we must never forget that we as a church exist for the salvation of souls. ALL SOULS! Human weakness is reality and provides a opportunity for grace to manifest itself, but when weakness is lauded, protected, and promoted, it is then unrepentant and virile and becomes the most destructive form of evil! Pope Paul VI once said the smoke of Satan had entered the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is the domain of the priest and the bishop. We make no accusations concerning any individual, but simply bring this darkness into the light so that the light may deal with it. Jesus spoke to Pontius Pilate and said “The reason I was born, the reason I came into the world is to testify to the truth. He who seeks the truth hears my voice!” We pray that this truth, painful as it is, will help us hear that voice.

Fr. G. (One of the clergy guiding RCF)

The following message was sent to “Angel” members by a priest who is guiding RCF in these matters. 


Re St. Sebastian’s Angels

“Roman Catholic Faithful” is an organization made up of Catholic Priests, Sisters and Laity who are trying to protect, preserve, and promote the Faith in “this present evil age”.

We have been monitoring a web site, which presents itself as a “chat room” for homosexual priests and bishops. We have a rather large amount of material and your E-mail address was found there.

We accept fully the teaching of the Church that the state of being homosexual is not a sin. However we also accept the teaching that the physical expression of homosexual desires is a seriously sinful action and an unacceptable expression of what the Church has called “an objective moral disorder”.

We are not accusing you personally of any crime or sin, however the chat room is a scandal and we have learned that the only response to such darkness is to draw it into the light. The existence of the Chartroom with recorded pictures and messages will be made available to the Church and to others. We do not do this for the sake of bringing scandal but because the Church itself has not shown itself to be capable of dealing with these issues. Given time, we poor weak human beings can come to accept almost anything, but the darkness still hates the light!

We sincerely pray for you and encourage you, if the need is there, to seek God’s mercy in the sacrament of Confession and counseling and the assistance of those in authority. You are a priest forever and like all priests, on the day of your ordination or religious profession you freely assumed the cross and the joy of celibacy. We pray that you and all priests may be faithful to that commitment.


Fr. G.


One of the priests who received the letter responded.
Here is his response:


You talk about bringing things into the light. I suggest YOU step out of the “darkness” of your anonymity and into the “light” of recognition.

PLEASE do that … and I will show you a brand of “darkness” you will not soon forget! You a__holes are SO TOUGH when you can hide in the shadows.

Step forward and show yourself, tough man, PLEASE step forth and show yourself.

With heartfelt regard,

(Father) John [last name deleted by RCF]


Exhibit One

Gay Religious Brothers and Clergy
of the Roman Catholic Church


A Private List


An excerpt from the site opening page follows:
(Current as of 12/21/99)

53 members
Age Level:
Adults only

This is a support group for Gay Religious Brothers and Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. It seeks to be an area where men in orders and/or vows can share their lives and talk about their problems, concerns, joys and sorrows. It also seeks to be that place of spiritual as well as relational friendships. It understands that the Roman Catholic Church is struggling with the issue of homosexuality and the teachings of Christ as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. This list does not engage in this topic unless it is a personal issue for one of the members of the list. It does encourage the Roman Catholic Church to seek the “sensum fidelium” in an ongoing and open discussion and a prayerful consideration of all Roman Catholics in this necessary and important topic. Before I will approve membership, you must send an E-mail to me at the address listed. If you know someone already on the list, that will be helpful too.


At several areas throughout this section, you may be linked to pages or photographs that may contain EXPLICIT nudity and language. We apologize for any distress this may cause the viewer., but after prayerful consideration, we have found that it is absolutely necessary to illustrate the very serious nature of offenses, many of which are being committed by active Catholic priests (or former priests).


The above warning is why I have chosen to offer links for those who wish to see for themselves the filthiness of the priests in this group; instead of posting this filth directly on my page.  Their language to one another in their “chatroom” makes one wonder why these men ever wanted to become priests:

Click here ONLY if you have read the WARNING above:

Saint Sebastian’s Angels Photos and contact info of some members

Saint Sebastian’s Angels emails and chatroom

Brethren, the Catholic Church has never represented the true followers of Christ.  There are many who have come out of the Catholic church and never looked back.  It’s the institution that is loathsome – not the people.

Now, the pressure is on Pope Francis to resign.  After reading this article, I believe that we will watch the news unfolding with a new understanding of the EVIL that lurks within the Vatican.

Shalom b’Yeshua

How Can I Be Saved?













The SATANIC Teaching of Replacement Theology: Does Your Church Teach This?

Most of us have heard of the false teaching called Replacement Theology. This article is for those who either have never heard of it, or have had this preached to them Sunday after Sunday and just figured that it was biblical.

I’m here to tell you – It’s a lie from the pit of hell.  This teaching has caused more Anti Semitism than any other false teaching regarding the Word of God!

Replacement Theology (RT), has been around for centuries. The term used by theologians is supersessionism. The church supersedes Israel. Theologians have cited the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as proof that God was finished with the Jewish people.

It has always amazed me that churches who teach RT completely ignore some critically important words by the apostle Paul in Romans 11. I would HIGHLY recommend that you read all of Romans 11 (9 and 10 as well) but Romans 11 truly expresses why the Jews did not receive their Savior, and clearly shows that God is not done with His Chosen people.

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.  For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.  For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,  even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.  For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all”  (Romans 11: 25-32 NKJV).

How could this be any clearer? God ordained that a blindness in part would happen to Israel, until all of the Gentiles who were to be saved would come into His Kingdom. It also states the gifts of and the calling of God are irrevocable.

God’s plan from the beginning was to offer salvation to the entire world. He used the Jewish people to bring His law to show His Holiness, and then through their lineage He would ultimately bring His Son to pay for all sin. What a merciful and loving God we serve!

There are two main schools of thought regarding RT:

Israel’s role as God’s Chosen was completed once Jesus came to earth (economic supersessionism).

Because of her disobedience, Israel forfeited her role as Chosen of God because of her rejection of Jesus as Messiah (punitive supersessionism).

Punitive supersessionism was clearly articulated by Martin Luther in his sermon: “On the Jews and Their Lies.”

“For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that they [i.e., the Jewish people] assuredly have erred and gone astray. Even a child can comprehend this. For one dare not regard God as so cruel that he would punish his own people so long, so terrible, so unmercifully … Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God. (“On the Jews and Their Lies,” Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther’s Works [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971], p. 265).

How could a man used of God as was Martin Luther come to such a conclusion about the Jews? It is written that later in his life, Luther was convinced that he was called of God to save the Jews. When his efforts failed, he became enraged. In one night, in response to his anti-Semitic sermon, synagogues were burned to the ground and over 2000 Jews were slaughtered. Martin Luther was used by God in a mighty way in the Great Reformation, but alas he was merely a man. His teachings about Jews had a dramatic impact on the church in Germany for many years to come. Hitler was a great fan of Luther. He carried the sermon: “On the Jews and Their Lies” to every SS meeting.

RT is closely related to Reformed or Covenant Theology, which is associated with John Calvin. If you’ve noticed that your pastor does not speak or teach on eschatology (the study of End Times) it’s most likely that the leadership of your church adhere to amillennialism. A view of eschatology which views End Times prophecy as “spiritual” instead of literal. It’s a convenient way of avoiding the promises made to Israel in the Word. Since the proponents of RT believe that the church inherited the promises made to Israel, there is no need to teach that End Times prophecy is literal. The prophecies are viewed more as allegorical.

Satan is determined to lie and deceive mankind. He uses just a little bit of truth (Scripture) and then twists it for his purposes. He knows the Word better than any one of us. His motivation for memorizing God’s Word is to seek and destroy God’s people. He started in the Garden of Eden with Eve. He tried it against Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus always fought him (and shut him down) with pure Scripture.

God made a Covenant with Israel. I’ve read articles by Bible teachers who claim that Israel relinquished the promises made by God because of their rebellion. God cannot lie. He made the promises. It has nothing to do with how good or bad Israel is. It has everything to do with God and His faithfulness.

As a student in the synagogue I attended when I was a child, the history of my people saddened me. I learned of the persecution by the Catholic Church. I learned that no matter where we went, ultimately we were placed in ghettos with locked gates. We were HATED. I would ponder in my mind why—what did we do to warrant such hatred and oppression? It wasn’t until I was born- again that I realized why. It was Satan all along. He placed hatred in the hearts of men and women for the Jews.

But I never thought that it would be this extreme. I’m shocked as I read the news and see the world flying the swastika flag all across the globe. It literally makes me sick. But I know that all things must happen according to His plan. It took the extermination of 6 million of my people to bring about the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel in 1948 – a prophecy that many proponents of RT did not expect.

Israel is Israel. The church is the church. In the Old Testament, Israel was under the Law. Jesus brought us the Covenant of Grace. We are FREE in Him.

“For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17).

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.  For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.  Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:8-11).

Jesus was sent to earth for one reason—to die. It was His precious blood which cleansed the repentant sinner, and made him/her righteous in the eyes of the Father. Every Jew needs to come to the Father through Jesus Christ. There is no special arrangement between the Jewish people and God.

So, if you are in a church that believes that God has cast away His people—the Jews, please understand that what is being taught is not truth. Have you noticed that most of the RT denominations are vehemently anti-Israel? Are you starting to see that Satan’s plan to destroy God’s children has worked in most of the mainline churches? Here is a list of churches who believe the RT lie:

The Roman Catholic Church     (Actually is a Cult)

Southern Baptist Convention – (depends on leadership)

The United Methodist Church

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

National Baptist Convention of America, Inc

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod

African Methodist Episcopal Church

The Episcopal Church

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church

United Church of Christ

Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, Joplin, Mo

Many non-denominational mega-churches

Please understand that in each of these denominations, it is possible to have a pastor who is a true shepherd under the Great Shepherd Jesus. But these denominations are known to adhere to the RT lie.

These churches have declared their hatred for Israel and are supporting Hamas. This is exactly what the devil wants to happen. But our Lord, being omniscient, is using all of this to fulfill His prophetic Word concerning Israel.

“And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it” (Zechariah 12:3).

From Arutz Sheva from Israel:

“These very liberal churches include Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and the United Church of Christ. They presently number about 16 million. Their membership and influence in the United States continue to decline. These churches’ rhetoric is usually outdone by an even harsher one of a small group of so-called ‘peace churches,’ including the Mennonites and Quakers.”

“Mainline churches claim many members from Congress. They represent America’s heartland and have adopted a range of resolutions hostile to Israel. They include calls for boycotts plus divestment and sanctions (BDS). Some are aimed at Israel, others focus on the ‘settlements.’ Several churches supported the hateful Kairos Palestine Document published in 2009 by some Palestinian Christians. There is also tourism to Israel under Palestinian auspices.

“BDS started with the passage of a resolution in 2004 at the Presbyterian Church (USA) calling for selective divestment of shares of American companies doing business in Israel. Long before that, the World Council of Churches (WCC) founded in 1948, aligned itself with ‘third world’ countries and thinking. This is an international umbrella group of mainline churches which claims denominational membership of 590 million people. It has frequently condemned Israel, yet never protested attempts by Israel’s neighbors and by terrorists to erase it from the map.

“Several of these churches also publish extremely anti-Israel educational materials. These are often the only ones members will view. The Methodists produced a study guide a few years ago authored by an apostate Jewish pastor. He admitted to hating Judaism. It featured illustrations of Israeli soldiers reminiscent of Nazi guards at a concentration camp.

“Theology is playing an increasing role in mainline churches’ anti-Israel activity. It began with the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center and its head, Dr. Naim Ateek. Many liberal churches have partnered with Sabeel. Ateek used crucifixion imagery in his Easter message of 2001: ‘It seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him.’

” This reintroduces the ancient murderous Christian charge of deicide against the Jews. Ateek and others deny that the Bible speaks of any covenant of land with the Jews. This is a renewal of the replacement theology and supersessionism, and is extremely dangerous for Jews around the world, especially at a time of rising anti-Semitism.

“Palestinian influences in anti-Israel hate mongering is huge. They have sent teams of Palestinian Christians around the U.S for a decade, tugging at Christian heartstrings with emotional tales of woe. They are more effective than Palestinian Muslims, who don’t come as ‘brothers.’

“Still, there are surprises. In 2012, several denominations substituted positive investment resolutions in place of divestment. In some cases, votes that looked like they were heading in the anti-Israel direction were saved by impassioned speeches by pastors who spoke about the impact such a resolution would have on Jewish-Christian friendships and partnerships in their churches.

“The actions of these mainline churches have poisoned the well of Christian-Jewish dialogue. Jews entered the dialogue, which has been fruitful at times, on the basis of assurances that Christian partners left contempt for Jews and Judaism behind, and had made serious attempts to understand what was important to Jews. The way in which these churches treat Israel shows that neither is true.”  – source

I ask you this: Even if you have been in one church for years, if they are teaching a lie, would it not be the right thing to do to leave and attempt to find a gathering of brothers and sisters in Christ who believe the whole Word of God?

 “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you  And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing” (Genesis 12:3).

And a word to those seeking a place to worship:

ASK QUESTIONS. You have a right to know how leadership feels about very important issues – whether they believe the whole Word of God or choose to add or take away from God’s Holy Word.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua



%d bloggers like this: