In one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."
Because I oppose that preaching which leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death, I am once again receiving death threats. Recently I wrote about the fact that Archbishop Vincent Nichols is continuing to tolerate a radical homosexual activist while demonstrating a blatant disregard for the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113). See here. This resulted in death threats and a comment from an individual calling himself Matt Westwood which, he said, is "a warning that you are making a lot of potentially very powerful people very, very angry."
I will not be deterred. My patron Saint, St. Paul, exhorts us: "...to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God." (2 Timothy 1: 6-8).
We are reminded in Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council that, the Church, in its twofold ministry toward its own members and toward those outside her pale, shares in Jesus’ threefold office of Priest, Prophet and King, that is, it participates in Jesus’ ministry to sanctify, to teach and to govern. While bishops, priests and deacons exercise, within the Church, the ministries of sanctifying, teaching and governing through the power and authority bestowed upon them at their sacramental ordination, all Catholic lay men and women also share in this threefold ministry of Christ. Catholic lay men and women, by their baptismal and confirmational character, are empowered, in Christ through the Holy Spirit, to be priests, prophets and kings and so come to share in the Church’s ministry of sanctification, teaching and governing. Lumen Gentium tells us that, in collaboration with their bishops and clergy, "the faithful who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ, are placed in the People of God, and in their own way share the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world." (No. 31).
The homosexual movement has become totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda with brute force of necessary. I have been warning of this for years. Only recently Dr. Jeff Mirus warned that, "No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. The insistence on ignoring vice is the hallmark of a debased culture, but the insistence that a lie be publicly affirmed as true is the hallmark of ideological totalitarianism." (See here).
4 comments:
I am getting the impression that the Soho Masses Pastoral Council is merely a front for promoting sodomy. When Matt Westwood warns that you are making some powerful people angry does he mean members of the Church's hierarchy or members of the SMPC?
At the website for the Diocese of Westminster, Archbishop Nichols is quoted as having said that "The teaching of the Church is that we are to recognise the dignity of all people and not define or label them in terms of their sexual orientation. To do so is to risk losing sight of the fundamental identity of every person as a creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life."
If we are not to define or label people in terms of their sexual orientation, why does the Archbishop tolerate dissenters like Terence Weldon who refer to "Gay Catholics," "Lesbian Catholics," "Transgender Catholics," "Bisexual Catholics"?
And if His Excellency is really serious about Catholic moral teaching (as he claims), why does he not address Terence Weldon's open and unambiguous dissent?
By refusing to deal with Weldon, the Archbishop is signalling that dissent on the subject of homosexuality is welcome in his diocese.
Terry Weldon is referring to you as a "deranged Catholic blogger" for upholding Catholic teaching that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered."
And the Archbishop of Westminster doesn't have a problem with this?
What does this suggest about him? By calling you "deranged" for defending this teaching Weldon is also calling the Bishops deranged. He is calling Christ deranged.
It is the Church's clear teaching that the homosexual inclination is disordered. Weldon is fighting the Church. And this while serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist.
Does the Archbishop still have confidence in the Soho Masses? If so, I have no confidence in him or the Diocese of Westminster.
Dr. Antonio Pardo has explained that in animals, "..the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."
This upsets radical homosexual activists who believe that homosexual behavior is observable in animals and that since homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature it must also be in accordance with human nature since man is also animal. This is their reasoning.
But there is another reason their premise fails (one which apparently hasn't occurred to Terence Weldon). And it is this: The strong desire animals, including the human animal, feel for sex gratification is nature's means of alluring them to breed. To seek the satisfaction while at the same time defrauding nature is what is meant by perversion. Other animals, having no free will and guided only by instinct, cannot abuse their faculties and there are no unnatural vices found among them. Man alone is able to act unnaturally, but is bound not to do so by the natural moral law.
Terence Weldon would reduce man to the purely animal, denying his free will while abolishing the natural moral law.
Mr. Weldon is not only fighting against the teaching of the Church. He is arguing against the natural moral law.
Post a Comment