"..as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions."

In an editorial for Catholic Insight entitled "Those who attack the Catholic Faith cannot be part of Catholic schools," Fr. Alphonse de Valk writes, "I am writing this editorial in the third week of Advent, just after Gaudete Sunday. Gaudate is Latin for rejoice. Yes, we rejoice in the coming (advent) or Our Lord Jesus Christ and nothing can, nor should, take away the joy in the Son of God becoming “man” and thereby preparing the way for mankind’s delivery from sin and the devil. Jesus did break the bond of sin created by Adam and Eve’s fall for disobeying God. He did re-open the road to Eternal Life, which, however, we will not, and cannot, enter unless we obey his invitation to accept His commandments. ”My yoke is easy, my burden is light.” If only we believe it.

The magazine enters its 20th year of publication with this issue. From the beginning, the defence of the dignity of each human life has been our chief concern, first the assault on life itself—abortion—and its forerunner contraception—then the associated evils which were to follow—sterilization, homosexual behaviour, euthanasia (the killing of the elderly and the sick), assisted suicide, pornography.

In our first year, 1993, we exposed the false teaching of the priest/professor André Guindon at St. Paul’s Theological University in Ottawa. From then on, after contraception-abortion, Catholic Insight took the homosexual agenda as the most virulent threat to society. Why? Because unlike abortion which does not leave any survivors, only victims, those practising same-sex relations grow in number and ruthlessness as their agenda is strengthened by newly coined “rights” in law and public acceptance. Supported by the enormous popularity of modern pornography, assisted by prostitution and the elimination of old restrictions on human behaviour mostly through judicial fiats, their own insatiable immorality demands public approval for more and more deviant behaviour.

During the last ten years, Catholic Insight has traced the expansion of same-sex relationships throughout the Western hemisphere with special attention to the activity of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the enshrinement of homosexual behaviour as a human right in Canada in 2005. Since then, we have tracked its expansion in Europe and the U.S., to the newest announcement from American President Barach Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on December 5, 2011, to link American foreign aid to the promotion of homosexuality-based “rights” abroad. Just as every American embassy earlier had become an outpost for the promotion of abortion, so they will now become sources for bribing and bullying the whole world but especially African, Asian and South American countries dependant on aid. The great Imperialist of yore has been replaced by the Ugly American of today, interfering in the internal affairs of countries everywhere and doling out hundreds of million of dollars to corrupt their people. Kenya, the Philippines, and South America have been targeted already. Nigeria is on the list.

The mission of Catholic schools has not changed over time. The main purpose of religion, as Archbishop Charles Chaput, then of Denver, now of Philadelphia, wrote two years ago.

“[T]o form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. … Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions …

“That’s the background. Now to the human side of a painful situation. The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education. But the Church cannot change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission …

“The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are bad, or that their children are less loved by God … But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can occur only between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because … they are the teaching of Jesus Christ…” (See CI July/August 2010, p. 21)

These words are clear and concise. They apply to Canada and especially to Ontario Catholic schools. Bishops in Quebec and Newfoundland allowed state officials to pull the wool over their eyes. This must not happen in Ontario. (See article “Same-sex relations rampant in Toronto Catholic schools” in this issue, p.28.) If OECTA accepts the same-sex relationship motion in March 2012, it should have the title “Catholic” removed and its Charter as a union for Catholic teachers revoked."  See here.


Reflect very carefully on these words: "Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions..."


The Archdiocese of Boston has said that it will tolerate parents who offer a serious counter-witness to the Catholic mission of the school in their actions.  Cardinal O'Malley believes that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents.  See here.

Which view is Catholic and which view represents compromise with the Culture of Death?

Related reading here.

Homosexuality must be normalized and Christianity demonized

Dianne Williamson: Annihilator of Common Sense


Five years ago this month, I explained in detail how the media would first plea for "tolerance" of aberrant sexuality and eventually would come to the point of legitimizing homosexuality and lesbianism and demonizing Christianity. See here. And increasingly such is taking place. Dianne Williamson, an anti-Catholic columnist for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette with a long history of attacking the Church and her teaching*, is now accusing Professor Michael Pakaluk of spewing "anti-homosexual blather disguised as intellectual morality" because of his recent column in The Pilot [ official newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese] addressing the recent controversy in Hingham, Massachusetts over the child of lesbian parents being denied admission to a Catholic school.

Williamson, annihilator of common sense that she is, writes, "Pakaluk's screed should come as no shock to anyone familiar with the intolerance of the Catholic Church, even as it's written on the heels of a well-publicized, 25 year study showing that the children of lesbian parents are less likely to have behavioral problems and 'rated higher in social, academic and total competence.'" See here.

Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality [unlike Ms. Williamson] 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).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has warned that the adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children" whose situation of dependence would place them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development" which this study has shown.


Dianne Williamson is blinded by her hatred for the Catholic Church. As a result, she is incapable of anything even remotely approaching objectivity when she writes on the Church. The irony here is that Ms. Williamson is guilty of the very thing she accuses Professor Pakaluk and the Catholic Church of: intolerance. Tolerance is for external conduct; it is not for the mind. The mind cannot tolerate error for even an instant. To do so would be to declare truth and error equally good. Which is why the Church so zealously protects and guards the truth even while showing love for those in error. The Church says with Saint Augustine: Kill the error, love the one who errs. She proposes while the world imposes.

But Ms. Williamson has demonstrated her intolerance toward the Church time and again.


Related reading: The health risks of homosexual sex here. And Homosexuality and mental health problems here.


* See here, here, here and here for example.

There's no way around it, Catholics United is wrong...

In a previous post I noted that, "Shortly after Father James Rafferty, pastor of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, denied admission to a student whose parents are lesbian, the dissent group Catholics United launched a petition accusing St. Paul's of engaging in discrimination."

In a similar case in Colorado earlier this year, Archbishop Charles Chaput was quoted as having said that, "Our schools are meant to be 'partners in faith' with parents. If parents don't respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church."

Which view is more consistent with the Magisterial teaching of the Church? The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, in a document entitled simply "The Catholic School," had this to say:


"Either implicit or explicit reference to a determined attitude to life (Weltanschauung) is unavoidable in education because it comes into every decision that is made. It is, therefore, essential, if for no other reason than for a unity in teaching, that each member of the school community, albeit with differing degrees of awareness, adopts a common vision, a common outlook on life, based on adherence to a scale of values in which he believes. This is what gives teachers and adults authority to educate. It must never be forgotten that the purpose of instruction at school is education, that is, the development of man from within, freeing him from that conditioning which would prevent him from becoming a, fully integrated human being. The school must begin from the principle that its educational programme is intentionally directed to the growth of the whole person." (The Catholic School, No. 29).

It is essential that each member of the school community (and this includes parents) adopts a common vision and a common outlook on life.

Which is precisely what Archbishop Chaput was saying.

Catholics United is wrong. There is no way around this.

The Big Picture on Catholic Education for Children of Homosexual Parents

Joe Sacerdo of Bryan Hehir Exposed has written a comprehensive overview of an unfortunate controversy which has erupted in the Archdiocese of Boston. One which has far-reaching implications for the Church It may be found here.

Some background on the controversy here.

Related reading here.

Small wonder that Catholics United has been critical of Father James Rafferty's decision...

Shortly after Father James Rafferty, pastor of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, denied admission to a student whose parents are lesbian, the dissent group Catholic United, which is highly partisan and supports President Obama, launched a petition accusing St. Paul's of engaging in discrimination. See here. Catholics United, at its website, describes itself as, "a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic social tradition."

But the fact that Catholics United is anything but non-partisan is obvious to anyone who takes the time to visit the organization's website. For Catholics United promotes the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an organization which was inspired by radical agitator Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, whom he called "the first radical."

According to American Life League's Michael Hichborn, "..no less than fifty organizations (one-fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) are, in some capacity, engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes." See here. And James Salt, Director of Organizing for Catholics United, has worked for Pax Christi USA, another prominent dissent group which is rooted in New Age spirtuality.


Related reading on CCHD here.

Homosexual adoption subjects children to violence. See here.

Cardinal Sean's rationale

In a previous post which may be found here, I noted how the Archdiocese of Boston has decided to help find a Catholic school for the ward of the lesbian parents who was denied admission on the basis of their illicit relationship. Cardinal Sean O'Malley, at his Blog, has justified this decision writing that, "Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that. We have never had categories of people who were excluded."

But His Eminence is mistaken, As my parents can testify, I was denied admission into Catholic schools because my father was career military. My parents were told that five years of residency was required before I could be enrolled. But because my father would receive new orders every three or four years, I was denied admission. Many other children of military families were similarly denied admission into Catholic schools for this reason. Perhaps we would have been treated differently if our parents had been homosexual or lesbian.

In a similar case which took place earlier this year in Denver, Colorado, Archbishop Charles Chaput explained that, "The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves,” he writes. “Our schools are meant to be ‘partners in faith’ with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church."

Apparently Cardinal O'Malley isn't concerned about "all parties involved" in this matter. And His Eminence has forgotten the teaching of the Congregation for Catholic Education: "The implementation of a real educational community, built on the foundation of shared projected values, represents a serious task that must be carried out by the Catholic school. In this setting, the presence both of students and of teachers from different cultural and religious backgrounds requires an increased commitment of discernment and accompaniment. The preparation of a shared project acts as a stimulus that should force the Catholic school to be a place of ecclesial experience. Its binding force and potential for relationships derive from a set of values and a communion of life that is rooted in our common belonging to Christ. Derived from the recognition of evangelical values are educational norms, motivational drives and also the final goals of the school. Certainly the degree of participation can differ in relation to one's personal history, but this requires that educators be willing to offer a permanent commitment to formation and self-formation regarding a choice of cultural and life values to be made present in the educational community." (Congregation for Catholic Education, Educating Together in Catholic Schools: A Shared Mission Between Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful, No. 5).

Does the Archdiocese of Boston respect those evangelical values which provide the basis for educational norms?

As reported here, Father James Rafferty, pastor of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, denied admission to a student whose parents are openly homosexual. LifeSiteNews is reporting that the Archdiocese of Boston, rather than backing up this courageous priest who cares for souls, will help find a Catholic school for the ward of the lesbian parents who was denied admission on the basis of their illicit relationship. See here.

This is most unfortunate. For, as Father William Breslin of Sacred Heart Church in Boulder, Colorado made clear during a similar case which took place earlier this year, "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that." (See here).

Father Breslin is right. The Church cannot condone what is an illicit relationship or even appear to do so. She teaches in fact 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." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 4).

What is it exactly about this teaching that the Archdiocese of Boston does not understand? By declaring that it will find a Catholic school for the child in question, the Archdiocese of Boston is providing a tacit acceptance of a homosexual relationship. Additionally, the Archdiocese of Boston has forgotten that, "The implementation of a real educational community, built on the foundation of shared projected values, represents a serious task that must be carried out by the Catholic school. In this setting, the presence both of students and of teachers from different cultural and religious backgrounds requires an increased commitment of discernment and accompaniment. The preparation of a shared project acts as a stimulus that should force the Catholic school to be a place of ecclesial experience. Its binding force and potential for relationships derive from a set of values and a communion of life that is rooted in our common belonging to Christ. Derived from the recognition of evangelical values are educational norms, motivational drives and also the final goals of the school. Certainly the degree of participation can differ in relation to one's personal history, but this requires that educators be willing to offer a permanent commitment to formation and self-formation regarding a choice of cultural and life values to be made present in the educational community." (Congregation for Catholic Education, Educating Together in Catholic Schools: A Shared Mission Between Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful, No. 5).

Let's all pray that the Boston Archdiocese will rethink its decision to find a Catholic school for the student in question. It sends the wrong message. And such an attitude fails to respect those evangelical values which provide the basis for educational norms.