Beware These 3 Lavender Mafias Outside the Church

We need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist — at Harvard, in Hollywood, and especially in the Church

Article main image

Yes, you read that correctly. Lavender Mafias—the plural. The coercive network of homosexualization that has gained so much power within the Catholic Church hierarchy is just one of a number. To understand more fully the current crisis in the Church, we need to be aware of them all, since they all work together toward a homosexualization of the culture.

That there is such a thing as a Lavender Mafia in the Church used to be a rumor, but with the seedy revelations of the rise of Theodore McCarrick to the cardinalate, it’s now an established fact. Only the existence of a widespread network of protection and coercion in the highest reaches of the Church hierarchy could explain McCarrick’s ongoing power and prestige despite the fact that his homosexual proclivities were widely known among his fellow bishops and cardinals. Only such a network could make sense of McCarrick’s curial Teflon coating under Pope Francis’ watch that kept sanctions from sticking to him but not honors and advancements.

But if any doubt remains about the existence of a Lavender Mafia within the Church, the deeper investigation into the McCarrick affair called for by an increasing number of bishops and a flood of the laity, will reveal exactly how deep and wide such a network really is. One suspects that’s why there is so much stalling among the bishops, the cardinals and the Vatican.

 

Psychology

There’s also a Lavender Mafia that’s taken over the professional discipline of psychology, and this takeover has been a great support for the effort to homosexualize the Church. (An excellent summary of what happened to psychology can be found in Robert Reilly’s Making Gay Okay.) The basic story is as follows.

Prior to 1973 the American Psychological Association’s authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) defined homosexuality as a “sexual deviation,” that is, a sexual disorder (putting it more or less in line with the Catholic Church’s definition). As with their account of other sexual disorders, the APA’s assessment was built upon actual clinical experience and psychological studies.

But in the early 1970s homosexual activists decided that the APA’s negative classification of homosexuality had to go (the pro-gay psychiatrists working from within the APA, calling themselves the GayPA). Homosexual activists disrupted the 1970 national meeting of the APA in San Francisco, and the 1971 national meeting in Washington, D.C. The gay advocates did not present any new scientific evidence to support their desires; they simply thugged up the meeting by shouting out their demands. The goal: to bully-shame the APA into officially affirming homosexuality as natural.

The president-elect of the APA for 1973, Dr. John Spiegel, was a gay sexagenarian who had a penchant for very young male paramours (although not openly, until his wife died). Small wonder that at the 1973 APA national meeting in Hawaii, gay advocates got together with those in charge of the DSM’s nomenclature and wrote up a new definition of homosexuality, declaring that it was (suddenly) not a sexual disorder, but perfectly natural.

That’s how the discipline of psychology threw its considerable weight behind the gay cause. Again, this enormous change was not the result of scientific research, but political bullying. Now psychiatrists and psychologists cannot even raise any questions about homosexuality. They are forbidden to treat anyone who requests help in overcoming homosexual desires and activity. The APA Lavender Mafia’s hold is complete. It has declared as a settled fact that homosexuality is just as natural and healthy as heterosexuality, even though the “fact” was not settled by any science.

It’s not difficult to see how this transformation in psychology aided the homosexualization of the Catholic Church hierarchy. If it is a “fact” that homosexual desire is natural then the Catholic Church’s moral classification of it as a disorder is scientifically wrong. Further, if homosexual desire is morally equivalent to heterosexual desire, then admitting homosexuals to the priesthood should not result in clerical disorder.

But it did—enormous disorder. The current scandals are the sad result of this experiment in redefining sexuality by fiat. The sexual disorder we have only begun to uncover in the priesthood is the best body of evidence proving the Church’s original position that homosexuality is a disorder of natural heterosexuality.

 

Academia

Are there other important Lavender Mafias? Yes, but space does not permit me to do much beyond note their existence.

A very powerful one exists in academia. I first ran up against it when I was in graduate school at Vanderbilt University in the mid-1980s. By then, the pro-gay (or, more accurately, pro-lesbian) contingent was so firmly entrenched in the academic hierarchy that—as with many other graduate schools—one was forbidden to say anything other than the party line. Gays and lesbians were actively recruited as both students and faculty, thereby ensuring that the academic Mafia only became more powerful over time.

This pattern exists among almost all of the top universities (and the bottom and middle as well), and contributes powerful intellectual support to the gay agenda in the Church (especially given that so many Catholic universities are indistinguishable from secular universities). Imagine my “surprise” to find out that Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew, chair of New Testament Studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, got his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt. Liew claims that Jesus was a gender-fluid drag queen, and that washing his disciples’ feet was a homoerotic experience. Blasphemy with tenure.

 

Hollywood

An equally powerful Lavender Mafia exists in the entertainment industry (along with an equally disordered heterosexual culture, as the #metoo movement has revealed). In parallel to the Church, the result has been the regular preying of homosexual men upon vulnerable boys, the systematic covering up of this widespread evil, and the threatening of anyone who dares to bring it to light.

To get a disgusting taste of the evil ways of this network and what it does to those who threaten it, just google “Elijah Wood Hollywood Pedophilia” and read the first 10 or so articles. Wood (who played Frodo in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) spoke up publicly about the powerful pedophilia ring in Hollywood one day, and the next, retracted his statements. All it took was a threatening phone call to make poor Frodo cringe before the ring. So far, unlike the Church’s scandal, Hollywood has been able to keep the lid from being blown off its pedophilia problem.

The Hollywood connection is important because it has so publicly advocated for the homosexualization of culture by producing a significant number of very popular pro-gay comedy shows (such as Will & Grace and Modern Family) that drilled in the message that homosexuality was as good, clean, witty, fun and moral as heterosexuality. In short, “no disorder here, folks.”

Although these popular shows postdate the subversion of the Church by the Lavender Mafia, they helped to reinforce the assumptions that led to the scandals. After all, if two gay men on the screen could fulfill the moral requirements of heterosexual marriage (life-long, exclusive monogamy aimed at childrearing), then single gay men in the Church could fulfill the requirements of clerical celibacy. Right?

The problem with this idyllic presentation by Hollywood is that actual gay sexual culture doesn’t look like that. It looks like what’s now being uncovered in the scandals at all levels in the Catholic Church. That’s one of the reasons that Hollywood (and the Left in general) are not very keen to dig into the Church’s current moiling sexual mess: it reveals the reality of gay sexual culture that they’ve so carefully hidden from sight.

And that is one very good reason why we need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist, but most especially in the Church.