Cardinal Timothy Dolan argues that he is not capitulating to an "aggressive 'Gay' agenda." Actually he is.

Writing for his column in New York Catholic, Cardinal Timothy Dolan complains that he is receiving much criticism for deciding to serve as Grand Marshall in next year's St. Patrick's Day parade which will feature homosexuals marching under their own banner.  The Cardinal writes, I haven’t been in this much hot water since I made the comment, right after I arrived as your archbishop five-and-a-half years ago, that Stan Musial—my boyhood hero of my hometown St. Louis Cardinals—was a much better ballplayer than Joe DiMaggio!

 Now I’m getting as much fiery mail and public criticism over my decision to accept the honor of Grand Marshal of this year’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade. According to the critics, I should have refused, due to the Parade Committee’s decision to allow a group of self-identified Gays of Irish ancestry to march in the parade with their own banner.

As with Stan Musial, I’ll stand by my decision. However, enough of you have courteously expressed some confusion and dismay, that, as your pastor, I owe you an explanation. Let me try.
For one, the decision to change the parade protocol was not mine. The archbishops of New York have never been “in charge” of the parade. Although my predecessors and I have always enjoyed friendly cooperation with the Parade Committee—and still do—and deeply appreciate the identity of the Parade as a celebration purely of Irish heritage, intimately linked to the Catholic Faith, we’ve never had a say in Parade policy or the choice of the Grand Marshal. Nor did we expect or want one!

 So, in the current 'brawl,' (they have been hardly rare in the Parade’s grand 253-year history!), I did not make the decision! You will recall that I in the past often expressed support for the former policy—that the only banners and identification to be carried was that the group was Irish—and that I found it logical and fair. To those who charged that the policy was “anti-Gay,” I often observed that no one person, Gay or not, was excluded from the parade. This was simply a reasonable policy about banners and public identification, not about the sexual inclinations of participants.

I did not oppose the former policy; nor did I push, condone, or oppose the new one. While the Parade committee was considerate in advising me of the change, they did not ask my approval, nor did they need to.

However, I admit that, for most folks, this is not the reason they are upset with me, and this brings us to point two. Many of you, while acknowledging that the decision to change policy was not mine, feel strongly that I should protest it, publicly condemn it, no longer support the Parade, and refuse the invitation to serve as Grand Marshal.

While a handful have been less than charitable in their reactions, I must admit that many of you have rather thoughtful reasons for criticizing the committee’s decision: you observe that the former policy was fair; you worry that this is but another example of a capitulation to an 'aggressive Gay agenda,' which still will not appease their demands; and you wonder if this could make people think the Church no longer has a clear teaching on the nature of human sexuality. Thank you for letting me know of such concerns. I share some of them.

However, the most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the Parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it. From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals. Homosexual actions are—as are any sexual relations outside of the lifelong, faithful, loving, lifegiving bond of a man and woman in marriage—a moral teaching grounded in the Bible, reflected in nature, and faithfully taught by the Church.So, while actions are immoral, identity is not! In fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, people with same-sex attraction are God’s children, deserving dignity and respect, never to be treated with discrimination or injustice."

Full article here.

The Cardinal argues that he is not capitulating to an aggressive homosexual agenda.  But his use of the word "gay" betrays the very opposite.  The Roman Catholic apostolate Courage, which assists those with a homosexual inclination to live authentically Catholic lives, embracing chastity, explains why it will not use the terms "gay" and "lesbian":

Q. Why doesn’t Courage use the terms “gay” and “lesbian”?

A. Courage discourages persons with same-sex attractions from labeling themselves “gay” and “lesbian” for the following reasons:

1) The secular world usually uses those terms to refer to someone who is either actively homosexual or intends to be. When a person decides to “come out” and say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian”, the person usually means “this is who I am – I was born this way and I intend to live this way. I have a right to find a same-sex partner with whom to have a romantic sexual relationship.” To “come out” as being “gay” or “lesbian” doesn’t usually mean “I have homosexual attractions and I have a deep commitment to living a chaste life”.

The Cardinal hasn't thought out his policy has he?

Courage continues:

2) By labeling someone [as the Cardinal does by referring to people with a homosexual inclination as "gay"], we discourage those who may wish to try and move beyond homosexual attractions. Some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid. If we labeled them “gay” and “lesbian”, they might think there’s no possibility of moving beyond these attractions.

3) There is more to a person than one’s sexual attractions. Even if one experienced same-sex attractions for most of one’s life, he or she is first and foremost a child of God created in His image. To refer to that person as “gay” or “lesbian” is a reductionist way of speaking about someone. We are even trying now to avoid using the term homosexual as a noun, or as an adjective directly describing the person (i.e. homosexual person). Although it takes more words, we prefer to speak of “persons with same-sex attractions”. Fr. Harvey has said that, if he could, he would rename his first book “The Homosexual Person” to something else like “The Person With Homosexual Attractions”.

There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered."

The Cardinal errs as well when he suggests that only homosexual acts are sinful.  In its document entitled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which was published on October 1, 1986, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recalled the distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual practices: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Many interpret the Church's teaching as meaning that a homosexual person only sins if he or she actually engages in homosexual acts.  I have received comments at this Blog suggesting that only homosexual acts are sinful.  But this is not the Church's teaching.  Although the homosexual inclination itself is not a sin, still, the homosexual person sins if he or she makes a concession to this tendency in his or her mind.
It is Catholic doctrine that any disorderly tendency, and most especially toward a vice which is contrary to nature, cannot have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts.  Recall the teaching of Our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5: 27, 28: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'  But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This is why in the Confiteor [Latin: I confess], which is part of the Penitential Rite, one asks for forgiveness for thoughts, words and deeds.

We know as well that homosexual persons also sin when their external behavior expresses a homosexual tendency.  Which is why we read in Isaiah 3:9 that, "Their very look bears witness against them; their sin like Sodom they vaunt, They hide it not.  Woe to them!  they deal out evil to themselves."  And in Deuteronomy 22:5 we read, "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God."

While Cardinal Dolan tries to convince you that he is not capitulating to the Culture of Softness, examine the photo of the late (Great) John Cardinal O'Connor and ask yourself: Who is the real Shepherd of souls?

You know the answer....unless you too have succumbed to homosexual agitprop.  For more on the blind leading the blind, go here.

The Worcester Diocese, through its newspaper The "Catholic" Free Press, perpetuates a destructive myth

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Abbie Goldberg: Objective scientist or homosexual propagandist?

Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, is asserting that her research shows homosexual parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents."  Goldberg says that, "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement." 

According to this Huffington Post article, "research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.."

Homosexual parents are motivated and committed?  That's just wonderful.  But then, a serial killer is also motivated and committed to his cause.  Does this justify his end?

Is Ms. Goldberg an objective scientist/researcher interested in drawing honest conclusions or is she merely another homosexual propagandist who could care less if the hand that rocks the cradle is warped in personality?  Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association, says that, "...adoption agencies have disregarded the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders than the general public."

In an interview with ZENIT, which may be found here, O'Leary says that the CMA has found in its research that, "..the social workers in the adoption field are disproportionately homosexual themselves or are extremely sympathetic to homosexual adoptions and are directing children to same-sex couples, when there are married heterosexual couples available. She is extremely concerned about this trend.


I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption.

This, of course, is only anecdotal evidence, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders.

A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.

And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.

Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child. When dealing with married heterosexual couples, agencies have been extremely strict in ruling out couples with risk factors, yet seem to be ignoring real risk when evaluating same-sex couples who want to adopt."

But Goldberg, who is less interested in science and objective reality than she is with engaging in radical homosexual agitprop, insists that same-sex couples with adopted children living in states with "anti-gay" adoption laws and attitudes had more mental health issues in their first year of parenthood than couples with adopted children living in more accepting states."  You see what Ms. Goldberg is doing here?  She is assigning blame for the mental-health issues of homosexual parents on the communities in which they live.  She insists that, "..anti-gay attitudes [which obviously have their root in Christian moral opposition toward homosexuality] reflected in anti-gay adoption policies are likely to 'trickle down into community attitudes' and that her data suggests this can have a negative effect on the mental health of gay and lesbian parents." (See here).

The mental health of gay and lesbian parents?  Is Ms. Goldberg serious?  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).


The term neurotic describes the homosexual relationship well.  And neurosis is not the foundation of healthy parenting.

Abbie Goldberg: scientist or propagandist?

Boston Archdiocese permits the Holy Mass to be politicized for the purpose of homosexual agitprop

Joe Sacerdo over at Bryan Hehir Exposed is reporting that, "Once again, in the diocese where 'relativism' is a household word, we’ve got a Boston Catholic parish hosting a Mass to celebrate 'Gay Pride' with the full knowledge of the archdiocesan hierarchy. The same parish’s 'Rainbow Ministry' is also sponsoring a trip to see the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus and on the same page with those notices, they ask parishioners to support the retirement, medical and financial needs of the priests of the Archdiocese who have have given their lives to faithfully serve Christ.



The parish is St. Cecilia in Boston. Here’s their latest bulletin, and the troubling notices:


'Liturgy to commemorate Boston Pride 2011


The Rainbow Ministry of Saint Cecilia Parish invites all friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in celebration of Boston’s Pride Month. The liturgy will take place on Sunday evening, June 19, at six o’clock, with a reception following. The theme of the liturgy, “All Are Welcome,” honors Christ’s message of hope and salvation to all people. We will also celebrate the diverse community that finds its home at Saint Cecilia and acknowledge, in a special way, the generous and warm welcome extended to the members of the Jesuit Urban Center in 2007. The Mass will be celebrated by Father John Unni and concelebrated by several of the priests who faithfully ministered at the Jesuit Urban Center for many years. Please plan to attend this special liturgy and support the diversity that makes Saint Cecilia such a special place.'

Joe writes, "A year ago almost to the day we posted about the problem of false compassion to homosexuals. Here’s a little bit of what Cardinal Sean O’Malley said in a letter on Homosexuality in 2005, (before Fr. Bryan Hehir started handling everything related to faith and morals in the Archdiocese of Boston):


The extreme individualism of our age is undermining the common good and fractionalizing the community. We do not want Catholics who have a homosexual orientation to feel unwelcomed in the Catholic Church. We remind them that they are bound to us by their baptism and are called to live a life of holiness.

At the same time the Church must minister to all people by challenging them to obey God’s commands, the roadmap for a meaningful human life that allows us to draw near to God and to one another. If we tell people that sex outside of marriage is not a sin, we are deceiving people. If they believe this untruth, a life of virtue becomes all but impossible. Jesus teaches that discipleship implies taking up the cross each day and following Him with love and courage.

It is never easy to deliver a message that calls people to make sacrifices or to do difficult things. Sometimes people want to punish the messenger. For this reason we priests at times find it difficult to articulate the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. It is important to express the moral teachings of the Church with clarity and fidelity. The Church must be Church. We must teach the truths of the Gospel in season and out of season. These recent times seem to us like it is “out of season”, but for that very reason it is even more urgent to teach the hard words of the Gospel today.

Calling people to embrace the cross of discipleship, to live the commandments and at the same time assuring them that we love them as brothers and sisters can be difficult. Sometimes we are told: “If you do not accept my behavior, you do not love me.” In reality we must communicate the exact opposite: “Because we love you, we cannot accept your behavior.”

Celebrating a 'Gay Pride' Mass isn’t expressing the moral teachings of the Church with clarity and fidelity or telling people their behavior is unacceptable–it’s telling them their behavior is just fine. Take Action today by calling Cardinal O’Malley at 617-782-2544. Ask him to cancel the Gay Pride Mass at St. Cecilia along with their “Rainbow Ministry” and put the pastors of both parishes who promoted this event on leave."  Full post here.

There is another reason why this is so troubling.  The "Gay Pride" Mass is an attempt to politicize the Holy Mass for the purpose of homosexual agitprop. In the words of His Excellency, The Most Rev. Thomas Doran: "We do not politicize the Mass...The Mass is an act of worship.  It is not the place for political or ideological statements."  (See here).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document signed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI and entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, said that marriage, "is not just any relationship between human beings.  It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose" and that this truth is so evident that "no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman." (No. 2).

Considerations insists that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved.'" (No. 4).

But Considerations says more.  It teaches clearly (unless you're an official from the Boston Archdiocese apparently) that Catholics have a duty to offer "clear and emphatic opposition" even where homosexual unions have been legalized saying that, "the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil." (No. 5).

What is a "Gay Pride Mass" but the toleration of evil?  Can the Archdiocese of Boston honestly claim to be offering "clear and emphatic opposition" to the homosexual agenda when it tolerates the politicization of the Holy Mass to advance homosexual agitprop?  Is this respect for the teaching authority of the Church?  Is this respect for the Holy Eucharist?

Or is it something else entirely?

What do you think?


Related reading here.

The Sentinel & Enterprise publishes homosexual agitprop from Bonnie J. Toomey

It's Easter Sunday.  Catholics and other Christians are celebrating the Resurrection of their Savior.  And on this sacred day, when Christ's disciples remember the historic event of His reuniting His human body and soul which had been separated by His death on the Cross, the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise has decided to publish homosexual agitprop in the form of an article written by Bonnie J. Toomey and entitled "Why should pink have us seeing red?"

Responding to the controversy which erupted when the president of Abercrombie & Fitch, Jenna Lyons, painted her five year old son's toenails pink, Ms. Toomey writes, "...pink is a beautiful color, and I think it looks great on a guy.  It doesn't mean anything.  But why do we get so uncomfortable when it comes to boys and pink?  Traditions, religions and a patriarchal society have put pink where they want it, not necessarily where it rightfully belongs.  My sons wore their sister's costumes and dresses many times..But did it change their gender?...And what if it did?  Nature is not nurture, and no matter how hard you try, you can't hold back nature..."

But this is to suggest that homosexuality is genetic, dominant and irreversible.  If this were true, then no one would be responsible for deviant sexual acts.  The fact remains, however, that psychological therapy has proven to be very successful in diminishing, and in many cases even eliminating, same-sex attraction.  Personal testimonies from former homosexuals who were healed from the psychopathology may be found here and here.

Ms. Toomey insists though that, "homosexuality is determined by innate characteristics that contribute to sexual orientation and that cannot be changed through medical or psychiatric treatment."  That would indeed come as news to those who have recovered from the psychopathology.  But Ms. Toomey wouldn't be interested in their testimonies.  For these would produce a crack in her wall of conviction.  And Ms. Toomey is not interested in truth.  The fact remains, homosexuality is not innate. In fact, Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works on the cutting edge of DNA, has said that, "Homosexuality is not hardwired..." and "..there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits.  For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."  See here. 

It is unfortunate that homosexual propagandists like Bonnie Toomey continue to ignore the hard science about homosexuality.  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality (unlike Ms. Toomey who has no expertise in this area), says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. See here. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active homosexual and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don't know it.  See here.  The health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle are well documented (see here), but propagandists for the lifestyle - like Ms. Toomey - do not seem to be very concerned about these health risks.  For their goal is to convert others to the homosexal ideology through a planned psychological attack in the form of homosexual propaganda.

In her zeal to promote the sodomite cause, Ms. Toomey engages in one falsehood after another.  She writes, "It's time we accept the fact that as much as 10 percent of the population..is homosexual." But the ten percent myth, which has been based upon research done by the now totally discredited Alfred Kinsey, has been refuted time and again.

For Ms. Toomey, propagandist for the sodomite culture, "Homosexuality..is not wrong."  And she is entitled to her beliefs.  As idiotic as they are.  I'm sure she actually believes the lifestyle is healthy as well.  But those of us who are Christian, Jew and Muslim are entitled to our beliefs as well.  Those of us who are authentically Catholic, as opposed to being Catholic in name only, accept the teaching of the Church's Magisterium, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'  They are contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved." (2357).

And we do not appreciate a second-rate columnist with absolutely no background in theology or the science of DNA telling us that we are backward simply because we do not buy into her radical homosexual agitprop which insists that homosexuality is innate or hardwired.

That the Sentinel & Enterprise would publish such nonsense on Easter Sunday is shameful.  The publication has embarassed itself once again. 

The Spirit of Rebellion in the Diocese of Worcester

Archbishop Raymond Burke is saying what devout Catholics have been saying for some time now: namely that a spirit of rebellion entered seminaries in the 1960s.  See here.  This spirit of rebellion has produced a harvest of bitter fruit within the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts.  As noted here, "Most of the Catholic priests accused of abusing youth in Worcester County over the past 53 years were not pedophiles, but priests who abused post-pubescent teenage boys."  In other words, most of the abuse has been homosexual in nature.  45 priests have been credibly accused of sexually abusing minors resulting in a financial cost to the Worcester Diocese of $2,280,833.  Needless to say, the greater cost - the damage done to young people who are created in the Imago Dei, the Image and Likeness of God, is immeasurable.  As is the loss of credibility for a diocese which seems to have lost its way.

The diocese lost an incredibly holy and gifted priest, Father Anthony Kazarnowicz, because he couldn't bear to remain in this local Church which has been crippled spiritually and emotionally by dissent and homosexual ideology.

And while homosexual men have been ordained to the priesthood, when I wrote the Bishop of Worcester and told him of my desire to discern a vocation to the priesthood, I received no response whatsoever.  As I mentioned in a previous post, I wrote the following letter to Bishop Robert McManus:


December 5, 2009



The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop of Worcester
49 Elm Street
Worcester, Ma 01609




Re: Rev. ..............................



Your Excellency,


The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches quite clearly that, “Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young” (2353). No. 1852 of the Catechism, citing Galatians 5: 19-21, states, “The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: ‘Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.’”

It would appear that Fr. ....... ......., pastor of two parishes – ........................................... and ....................., does not accept this authoritative teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. This past week....I spoke with two individuals who approached Fr. ............. about living together and engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage. This couple was troubled about their living situation and sought moral guidance from Fr. ............. They explained..that Fr. ............. told them not to have any concerns since they are too old to have children. Additionally, they were told that if anybody should approach them to warn them about about the sinfulness [objectively speaking] of engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage, such people could “go to Hell.” These two seniors were told by Fr. ........... that such people are themselves sinning and should go to confession.

Needless to say, such an attitude [if indeed true, and I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the couple who spoke of these matters] is gravely disturbing and needs to be addressed immediately. According to Catholic faith, every sin can be forgiven during life because of God’s surpassing love (DS 349). However, the Scriptures speak of sins that cannot be forgiven in the sense that they constitute a terrible offense against the truth and the light, against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12: 31-32; 1 Jn 5:16). In speaking of sin this way, the Scriptures refer to a sin more radical than most mortal sins, for it is a sin whose nature blocks forgiveness. Since the time of Saint Augustine, theologians have provided us with a list of sins against the Holy Spirit, proceeding from initial impenitence through obduracy, presumption, despair, rejection of known truth, envy of the grace given to others, to final impenitence. Final impenitence leads to Hell, the eternal separation from God begun in this life through our free self-determining choices to turn from God and His law of love and to cling inordinately to some created good that, in effect, one puts in God’s place.

Any priest who convinces those entrusted to his care to rationalize sin is no lover of souls but is instead an enemy of souls. When a person is encouraged to rationalize what is known to be wicked in the sight of the Lord, that person opens a chasm between themselves and God which continues to grow wider and wider until they can no longer hear His call and discern the word of truth that He has spoken.

It is my hope that Your Excellency will address this situation with the seriousness it deserves. One can only wonder how many others have received similar advice and counseling from Fr. ........ How many of the faithful have been confused or led astray by Fr. ............?

It is nothing short of amazing that when I approached the Diocese about pursuing a vocation to the priesthood, I received absolutely no response whatsoever. This even though I embrace, promote and defend the Church’s authentic teaching as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican II and previous Church Councils and papal encyclicals and documents. One can easily understand why my good friend, Fr. Anthony Kazarnowicz, did not feel at home in this our troubled diocese. Perhaps he was never made pastor because of his fidelity to Church teaching? Perhaps this is why I cannot even volunteer – at any level – at my parish? Perhaps my orthodoxy is the reason I am treated with such contempt? Perhaps because I do accept the Church’s teaching on matters pertaining to human sexuality [and indeed everything Holy Mother Church teaches], I am deemed “too rigid” and therefore “unacceptable”?


Asking Your Excellency’s Blessing,

I am, Yours Respectfully


Paul A. Melanson


No, I am not welcome in this diocese.  But this professor is.

What does this tell us about the Worcester Diocese?


Related reading here , here and here.

Governor John Lynch and same-sex "marriage."

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons," has this to say in nos. 2-4:

"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

And in an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10). And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).

Governor John Lynch, a Roman Catholic, crossed into active promotion of homosexuality when he signed a same-sex "marriage" bill into law on June 3, 2009. In a statement issued that same day, Governor Lynch said, "Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities - and respect - under New Hampshire law....It is my hope, and my belief, that New Hampshire will...come together to embrace tolerance and respect, and to stand against discrimination." See here for the Governor's complete statement.

Marriage is a natural institution not a human convention. As Aristotle said, "Between man and wife friendship seems to exist by nature; for man is naturally inclined to form couples - even more than to form cities, inasmuch as the household is earlier and more necessary than the city, and reproduction is more common to man with the animals. With the other animals the union extends only to this point, but human beings live together not only for the sake of reproduction but also for the various purposes of life; from the start the functions are divided, and those of man and woman are different; so they help each other by throwing their peculiar gifts into the common stock. It is for these reasons that both utility and pleasure seem to be found in this kind of friendship. But this friendship may be based also on virtue, if the parties are good; for each has its own virtue and they will delight in the fact. And children seem to be a bond of union (which is the reason why childless people part more easily); for children are a common good to both and what is common holds them together." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, bk. VIII, ch. 12, 1162a 16-28).

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, builds on this passage while casting the idea into a more formal type of argument:

"That is said to be natural to which nature inclines, although it comes to pass through the intervention of the free will; thus acts of virtue and the virtues themselves are called natural; and in this way matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines thereto in two ways. First, in relation to the principal end of matrimony, namely the good of the offspring. For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue. Hence, according to the Philosopher we derive three things from our parents, namely existence, nourishment, and education. Now a child cannot be brought up and instructed unless it have certain and definite parents, and this would not be the case unless there were a tie between the man and a definite woman, and it is in this way that matrimony exists. Secondly, in relation to the secondary end of matrimony, which is the mutual services which married persons render one another in household matters. For just as natural reason dictates that men should live together, since one is not self-sufficient in all things concerning life, for which reason man is described as being naturally inclined to political society, so too among those works that are necessary for human life some are becoming to men, others to women. Wherefore nature inculcated that society of man and woman which consists in matrimony." (Summa Theologica, III, Supplement, q. 41, a.1).

The sexes are complementary. This is a common sense truth. But one which Governor Lynch has decided to jettison as he caters to the radical homosexual agenda. Homosexual sex is unnatural. And there are many health risks associated with the "lifestyle." See here. Apparently the Governor isn't concerned about these health risks either.

Karen Testerman is a Christian who respects both human life and the Natural Law. She is running for Governor of the State of New Hampshire. Her website may be found here.

Related reading here and here.