I think he has good points worth thinking about with a grain of salt, but I've talked to him and suspect him overstates his many of his points including thinking Cardinal Burke is homosexual: HISTORICAL IMPACT OF HOMOSEXUAL POPES Questions worth answering Gene Thomas Gomulka "hard time convincing Catholics that John Paul II would have promulgated a document like Fiducia Supplicans that allows for the blessing of same-sex couples"

THE HISTORICAL IMPACT OF HOMOSEXUAL POPES

Questions worth answering

Gene Thomas Gomulka Jul 26   READ IN APP   It should be obvious that the Catholic Church under Saint John Paul II was very different from the Church under Pope Francis and Pope Leo. Might the difference have to do in part with the fact that John Paul II lived as a diocesan priest before his papal election, whereas Francis and Leo were members of religious orders (i.e., Jesuits, Augustinians) that traditionally have been populated with higher numbers of homosexuals? Anyone who might question the perceived homosexual orientation of Pope Francis and Pope Leo would have a hard time convincing Catholics that John Paul II would have promulgated a document like Fiducia Supplicans that allows for the blessing of same-sex couples. Consider also that JP II appointed the future Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that Pope Francis not only fired Cardinal Gerhard Müller from that same important position, but he later filled it with Cardinal Víctor “Heal Me with Your Mouth” Fernández. The fact that Leo retained Fernández, who was outed by Argentine celebrity nun Sister María Lucía Caram Padilla, supports the belief that Leo is homosexual based in part on his associations, Episcopal appointments, and failure to discipline over 160 (mainly homosexual) bishops credibly accused of sexual abuse. Thanks for reading Gene Thomas Gomulka of John 18:37! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribed It was always believed that the percentage of homosexuals is higher among order priests than diocesan clergy. This is logical when one recognizes that all-male communities can attract men who suffer from same-sex attraction. When St. Peter Damien wrote the Book of Gomorrah in 1051, condemning sodomy, he was mainly addressing priests, brothers, and novices in religious orders, as opposed to diocesan priests, the majority of whom were married at that time. Less than a century following the publication of the Book of Gomorrah, it was Pope Julius II, who was ordained an order priest, and not a diocesan priest, who not only required diocesan priests to promise celibacy, but who also required that they leave their wives and children if they wished to remain priests. In my opinion, no sane, moral, heterosexual pope would tell his priests to abandon their families. It was not only closeted homosexual popes who were envious of straight married clergy. Consider how Minneapolis Archbishop John Ireland treated Ukrainian Catholic Father Alexis Toth during an office visit on December 19, 1890. Following the advice of his Ordinary, Bishop John Valyj of the Greek Catholic Diocese of Presov, Father Toth presented himself to Archbishop Ireland, who was the head of the Latin Rite diocese in which his Greek Catholic parish was located. After Archbishop Ireland reviewed his letters of accreditation, he noticed Father Toth’s wedding ring and asked him in Latin if he had a wife. Father Toth responded that he was a widower. When the Archbishop heard this, he threw Father Toth’s documents on the table and shouted, “I have already sent a protest to Rome not to send such priests here.” When Father Toth argued that he was a validly ordained Greek Catholic Priest, the Archbishop retorted that he did not consider Father Toth nor his bishop to be Catholic. Following this encounter, Toth decided to return to the Orthodox Church believing that Ireland’s actions violated the 1595-1596 Union of Brest and the 1646 Union of Uzhorod, which guaranteed, among other provisions, the right of Uniates to ordain married clergy. Toth brought with him approximately 20,000 Eastern Catholics from 65 independent communities to Eastern Orthodoxy. Ireland and an early form of American Lavender Mafia prelates were able to get the Vatican to promulgate a papal decree, Ea Semper, dated June 14, 1907, that was intended to prevent married Eastern Rite clergy from ministering in the U.S. Although it was not enforced in many dioceses, especially those headed by heterosexual bishops, it was responsible for causing a schism between Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite Catholics. It is estimated that Ireland and other prelates moved 100,000 Uniate clergy and laity in the U.S. to return to the Orthodox Church. After the loss of so many Eastern Rite Catholics, the Eastern Rite Bishop Stephen Ortynsky and many Roman Catholic bishops were reluctant to enforce Ea Semper. Unfortunately, Bishop Ortynsky was replaced by Bishop Basil Takach who felt far more loyalty to the Oriental Congregation in Rome than he did to the clergy and laity of his relatively new American eparchy. In 1929, pressured again by heterophobic U.S. bishops, the Vatican issued another papal decree entited, Cum Data Fuerit. According to this decree, “Priests who wish to go to the United States of North America and stay there must be celibates.” While this provision was simply a restatement of one found in the 1907 Ea Semper decree, the difference was now found in its enforcement. Whereas Bishop Ortynsky refused to implement Ea Semper, Bishop Takach now felt obligated to those in Rome that appointed him to enforce Cum Data Fuerit. When married men like Joseph Mihaly arrived in the U.S. expecting to be ordained after completing their theological training abroad, they were given the option of returning with their wives to their native lands, or getting jobs in factories and coal mines. Most of these men chose a third path by returning to the Orthodox Church which was growing in the U.S. It is estimated that well over 150,000 Carpatho-Russians left the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. to become Orthodox as a result of efforts at Latinization that included mandatory celibacy for clergy. The imposition of mandatory celibacy upon Eastern Rite clergy in the U.S. resulted in the ordination of inordinate numbers of homosexual clergy as was occurring in Roman Catholic dioceses and religious orders. This development is verified by the number of Eastern Rite “celibate” priests who were accused of sexually abusing mainly teenage boys after the passage of Ea Semper and Cum Data Fuerit. In an effort to reduce sexual abuse by homosexual clergy, Eastern Rite bishops were able to get Pope Francis in 2014 to permit married Eastern Rite clergy to minister outside of their native lands. Because most Roman Catholic Bishops are homosexuals who cover up for their abusive homosexual priests, they have not petitioned the Pope to allow Roman Catholic priests to be married. As a result, while abuse rates are decreasing in Eastern Rite Eparchies in the U.S. who are ordaining more and more married men, abuse rates remain high among so-called “celibate” Roman Catholic priests. It is ironic that Pope Julius II, who was raised as a member of the Franciscan Order, who never lived one day alone like most diocesan priests, and who imposed celibate chastity on diocesan clergy, was followed centuries later by Pope Julius III who did not lead a very chaste life by sharing his bed with 15-year-old Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte whom he made a cardinal at the age of 17. It seems to me that nothing much has changed since the 12th century when a pope from a religious order forbade heterosexual diocesan priests from being married, and the 16th century when a homosexual pope cohabited with a young man he made a cardinal. In closing, here are a few questions for readers to consider: What might Francis have said and Leo say to a heterosexual young man who would like to be a married Roman Catholic priest like married Easter Rite priests? How can some Catholics justify mandatory celibacy for heterosexual young men knowing that Francis lived in the Vatican with his friend, known homosexual Monsignor Battista Ricca, and that Leo is cohabitating with Father Edgard Iván Rimaycuna Inga whom he befriended when Rimaycuna was a 19-year-old seminarian? If Catholics argue that these popes and priests were not and are not sexually involved, then how should a bishop treat a heterosexual priest who is reported for cohabitating with a young, beautiful woman? Because “celibacy” is defined as “the state of not being married,” are gay priests and bishops justified in arguing that they are not violating their promise of celibacy by engaging in homosexual acts because they are not marrying their male sexual partners? If heterophobic prelates were responsible for the schism between Eastern Rite and Roman Catholics in the U.S., are homosexual prelates responsible for the recent schism of the SSPX whose clergy and laity are known not to support Fiducia Supplicans and other pro-LGBTQ papal initiatives? While my Substack articles are free, if you find them informative and would like to support my research and writing, please make a donation by clicking HERE. Gene Thomas Gomulka is a sexual abuse victims’ advocate, investigative reporter, and screenwriter. A former Navy (O6) Captain/Chaplain, seminary instructor, and diocesan respect life director, Gomulka was ordained a priest for the Altoona-Johnstown diocese and later made a Prelate of Honor (Monsignor) by St. John Paul II. Email him at msgr.investigations@gmail.com. Thanks for reading Gene Thomas Gomulka of John 18:37! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribed   Share     Like Comment Restack   © 2026 Gene Thomas Gomulka 660 Toftrees Ave Apt 209, State College, PA 16803 Unsubscribe